The Duke of Sussex has told the BBC he “would love a reconciliation” with the Royal Family, in an emotional interview in which he said he was “devastated” at losing a legal challenge over his security in the UK.

Prince Harry said the King “won’t speak to me because of this security stuff”, but that he did not want to fight anymore and did “not know how much longer my father has”.

The prince spoke to BBC News in California after losing an appeal over the levels of security he and his family are entitled to while in the UK.

Buckingham Palace said: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”

After Friday’s court ruling, the prince said: “I can’t see a world in which I would bring my wife and children back to the UK at this point.”

“There have been so many disagreements between myself and some of my family,” he added, but had now “forgiven” them.

“I would love reconciliation with my family. There’s no point continuing to fight any more, life is precious,” said Prince Harry, who said the dispute over his security had “always been the sticking point”.

The prince had wanted to overturn changes to his security that were introduced in 2020 as he stepped down as a working royal and moved to the United States.

Saying that he felt “let down”, he described his court defeat as a “good old fashioned establishment stitch up” and blamed the Royal Household for influencing the decision to reduce his security.

Asked whether he had asked the King to intervene in the dispute over security, Prince Harry said: “I never asked him to intervene – I asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their jobs.”

The prince said his treatment during the process of deciding his security had “uncovered my worst fears”.

He said of the decision: “I’m devastated – not so much as devastated with the loss that I am about the people behind the decision, feeling as though this is okay. Is it a win for them?”

He continued: “I’m sure there are some people out there, probably most likely the people that wish me harm, [who] consider this a huge win.”

Prince Harry said the decision to remove his automatic security entitlement impacts him “every single day”, and has left him in a position where he can only safely return to the UK if invited by the Royal Family – as he would get sufficient security in those circumstances.

The prince said changes to his security status in 2020 had impacted not just him, but his wife and, later, his children too.

He went on to say: “Everybody knew that they were putting us at risk in 2020 and they hoped that me knowing that risk would force us to come back.

“But then when you realise that didn’t work, do you not want to keep us safe?

“Whether you’re the government, the Royal Household, whether you’re my dad, my family – despite all of our differences, do you not want to just ensure our safety?”

Asked whether he missed the UK, he added: “I love my country, I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done… and I think that it’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.”

Prince Harry said he would not be seeking a further legal challenge, saying Friday’s ruling had “proven that there was no way to win this through the courts”.

“I wish someone had told me that beforehand,” he said, adding that the ruling had been a “surprise”.

He continued: “This, at the heart of it, is a family dispute, and it makes me really, really sad that we’re sitting here today, five years later, where a decision that was made most likely, in fact I know, to keep us under the roof.”

Prince Harry spoke to the BBC shortly after losing his latest legal challenge against the UK government over the level of security he and his family are entitled to when visiting.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the prince’s case, which hinged on how an official committee made the decision to remove his eligibility for automatic, full-scale protection in line with what other senior royals receive.

On Friday, the court ruled that Prince Harry had made “powerful” arguments about the level of threat he and his family face, but said his “sense of grievance” did not “translate into a legal argument”.

His legal complaint centred around a committee called the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which authorises security for senior royals on behalf of the Home Office, and was chaired at the time by Sir Richard Mottram.

Under the committee’s regulations, Prince Harry argued, his case should have been put before Ravec’s Risk Management Board (RMB), which would have assessed the threats to his and family’s security – but that did not happen.

On Friday, senior judges said the committee had diverged from policy when making its 2020 decision over the prince’s security, but concluded it had been “sensible” to do so because of the complexity of his circumstances.

Prince Harry said his “jaw hit the floor” when he found out a representative of the Royal Household sat on the Ravec committee, and claimed Friday’s ruling had proved its decision-making process was more influenced by the Royal Household than by legal constraints.

He claimed there had been “interference” by the Royal Household in the 2020 decision, which he said resulted in his status as the most at-risk royal being downgraded to the least at risk “overnight”.

“So one does question how that is even possible and also the motive behind that at the time,” he added.

Prince Harry called on UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to intervene in his security case, and to overhaul how the Ravec committee operates.

In a statement released later on Friday, the prince said he would write to Cooper to “ask her to urgently examine the matter and review the Ravec process”.

Sign up here to get the latest royal stories and analysis every week with our Royal Watch newsletter. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

On Friday morning, a spokesperson for China’s ministry of commerce announced that Beijing was assessing the possibility of tariff negotiations with the United States.

It was news the rest of the world had been waiting to hear as astonishingly high tariffs – up to 245% on some Chinese exports to the US – throttle trade between the world’s two biggest economies, raising the spectre of a recession.

“US officials have repeatedly expressed their willingness to negotiate with China on tariffs,” the spokesperson told reporters.

“China’s position is consistent. If we fight, we will fight to the end; if we talk, the door is open… If the US wants to talk, it should show its sincerity and be prepared to correct its wrong practices and cancel unilateral tariffs.”

The statement comes a day after a Weibo account linked to Chinese state media said the US had been seeking to initiate discussions, and a week after Trump claimed discussions were already underway – a suggestion Beijing denied.

“China has no need to talk to the United States,” Yuyuantantian, a Weibo account affiliated with China Central Television (CCTV), said in Thursday’s post. “From the perspective of negotiations, the United States must be the more anxious party at present.”

Such comments follow a cycle of assertions and denials from both the US and China, as each side refuses to publicly initiate discussions.

The question is not whether those discussions will take place, but rather when, under what circumstances and at whose behest.

Experts characterise the tussle as a game of chicken between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping, as both men attempt to save face while covertly pursuing a mutually beneficial outcome – namely, a de-escalation of the trade war.

“I expect some of this back-and-forth, because neither Washington nor Beijing wants to look like they are the side that’s giving in,” says Ja Ian Chong, assistant professor of political science at the National University of Singapore.

“[But] a de-escalation would be to the overall benefit of both sides, so there is some overarching incentive to do so.”

Wen-Ti Sung, an academic member of the Australian Centre on China in the World, puts it another way: “It’s like two race cars going at each other: whoever swerves first will be seen as the weaker of the two parties. And at this juncture, neither party wants to look soft.”

The leader who admits he was the first to initiate tariff talks would be seen as the one compromising his position in negotiations.

“Whoever seems desperate loses bargaining leverage,” Mr Sung says. “Both sides want to portray the other side as the more desperate one.”

This peculiar stalemate – where both parties seek the same outcome, but neither wants to be the first to suggest it – has resulted in a tactic of “constructive ambiguity”: the deliberate use of language so vague that each party could arguably claim to be in the right.

It is this tactic that Mr Sung points to as an explanation for Yuyuantantian’s Weibo post.

“This is Beijing trying to explore the possibility of using word games to create an off-ramp for both sides, so that they can gradually climb their way down from this escalation spiral,” he says.

One way to escape this game of chicken is when a third party mediates, offering both sides an off-ramp. The other option, Mr Sung explains, is a “much looser understanding of what ‘the other side has reached out’ means”.

That way, the side that does indeed come to the table first is still able to characterise it as a response rather than the first move.

In Trump and Xi’s case, it would also mean that tariff negotiations could begin with both leaders claiming to have achieved some kind of victory in the trade war.

The optics here are important. As Mr Chong points out, de-escalation is one thing – but another top priority for Trump and Xi is to “deliver a win for their domestic audiences”.

“Trump obviously wants to show that he has made Beijing capitulate. And on the People’s Republic of China side, Xi probably wants to show his own people and the world that he’s been able to make Trump become more reasonable and moderate and accommodating,” Mr Chong says.

On the domestic front, both leaders are facing tariff-induced headwinds. Trump this week struggled to quell fears of a recession as fresh data indicated the US economy contracted in its first quarter for the first time since 2022.

Meanwhile, Xi – who before the tariffs was already battling persistently low consumption, a property crisis and unemployment – must reassure China’s population that he can weather the trade war and protect an economy which has struggled to rebound post-pandemic.

“Both [Trump and Xi] recognise that at this point of the trade war, it’s not going to be a winner-takes-all outcome for either side anymore,” Mr Sung says.

“Trump recognises he’s not going to get anywhere near 100% of what he wants, so he’s trying to find a concession point where China can let him have just enough winning, especially for domestic purposes.”

While China is not unwilling, he adds, “they are very much stuck on what’s the right price point”.

For Xi, Mr Sung described the situation as a “two-level game”.

“The China side needs to manage US-China bilateral negotiations, while domestically Beijing needs to save enough face so that the Chinese leadership can hold on to this narrative of ‘the East is rising and the West is declining’,” he says.

“A kowtowing of the East towards the West is not a rising East.”

At the time of writing, the US has not denied China’s claims that it has been attempting to initiate talks. But the fact that both sides have now made that assertion indicates there is “some sort of contact”, according to Mr Chong.

“The two sides are talking,” he says. “And that is a sign that there is some possibility that some accommodation could be reached.”

But the start of negotiations does not mean that the US-China relationship – which was rocky even before Trump kicked off a trade war – is close to being steadied.

Mr Chong isn’t holding his breath. For one, he believes the “posturing” suggests the two sides have not reached the point “where they are both trying to seek a way out”.

“[Each party] may hope that there are concessions from the other side, so they’re going to have this standoff until they see which side blinks first.”

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Activists who were planning to sail a ship to Gaza say it was struck by drones in international waters off the coast of Malta – appearing to accuse Israel of being behind the attack.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition said its ship The Conscience was targeted at 00:23 local time on Friday and issued an SOS signal right after the attack.

The BBC was sent a recording of the distress call from the flotilla ship, recorded by a crew member on a nearby oil tanker. The captain of the flotilla ship can clearly be heard reporting drone strikes and a fire onboard.

The Maltese government said everyone aboard the ship was “confirmed safe” and that a fire onboard the ship was “brought under control overnight”.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition said it had planned to sail to Gaza with people including climate activist Greta Thunberg on board and “challenge Israel’s illegal siege and blockade”.

The NGO called for Israeli ambassadors to be summoned to answer for “violation of international law, including the ongoing blockade and the bombing of our civilian vessel”.

The Israeli military said it was looking into reports of the attack.

Organisers told the BBC that the group had been “operating in total secrecy with a complete media blackout” to prevent “sabotage” as they prepared to sail towards Gaza – where about two million Palestinians have been under a complete blockade by the Israeli military for two months.

Volunteer Surya McEwen said he and others had lost contact with the ship after the incident, which he said caused a fire on board and damaged the hull. They had since been told there were no major injuries.

“It’s a full-on situation for them but they’re recovering,” he told the BBC, adding that the incident had been an “unprovoked attack on a civilian vessel in international waters, trying to do a humanitarian mission”.

Climate activist Greta Thunberg was among those who had planned to board the ship once it departed for Gaza on Friday.

Speaking to journalists in Valetta, she said: “I was part of the group who was supposed to board that boat today to continue the voyage towards Gaza, which is one of many attempts to open up a humanitarian corridor and to do our part to keep trying to break Israel’s illegal siege on Gaza.”

Thunberg added that as far as she’s aware, the ship is still at the location of the attack because moving it would let too much water in.

“What is certain is that we human rights activists will continue to do everything in our power to do our part, to demand a free Palestine and demand the opening of a humanitarian corridor,” she said.

The Maltese government said that 12 crew and four activists were on board the boat, while the NGO said 30 activists had been on board.

The Freedom Flotilla Coalition uploaded a video showing a fire on the ship. It said the attack appeared to have targeted the generator, which left the ship without power and at risk of sinking.

The Maltese government said a tugboat was sent to the scene to extinguish the fire, which they say was under control by 01:28 local time.

“By 2:13, all crew were confirmed safe but refused to board the tug,” the statement said, adding the ship remains outside territorial waters.

Cyprus responded to the SOS signal by dispatching a vessel, the activists said, but that it did not “provide the critical electrical support needed”.

Marine tracking software shows that the Conscience left Tunisia on Tuesday evening and is currently around 12-14 nautical miles off Malta.

The coalition is campaigning to end Israel’s blockade of Gaza, which is also facing mounting international condemnation. Last month the UK, French and German foreign ministers described the Israeli decision to block aid as “intolerable”.

• Gaza kitchens warn food will run out in days after two months of Israeli blockade

Two months ago, Israel shut all crossings to Gaza – preventing all goods, including food, fuel and medicines from entering – and later resumed its military offensive, ending a two-month ceasefire with Hamas.

Some humanitarian organisations such as the World Food Programme say they have already run out of food while community kitchens say their stocks are dwindling fast. On Friday the Red Cross said the humanitarian response in Gaza was on the verge of “total collapse”.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 52,418 people have been killed in Gaza during the ensuing war, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Listen to Katy read this article

In Western Sydney, an audience of Stetson-wearing Australians are sitting in their fold-up camping chairs, swigging beers and eating a spiralled fried potato on a skewer known as a ‘chip on a stick’.

People here are enjoying bull rides, barrel racing and bucking broncos. It feels like a slice of Americana in New South Wales perhaps – but that would miss the point that here, rodeo has become very much an outback Australian tradition in its own right.

In recent months, politics here in Australia could be compared to watching a rodeo. Between conflict in Europe, the Middle East and more recently US President Donald Trump and his threat of global trade wars, every day has brought with it a sharp jolt that changes the dynamics of the campaign trail. Politicians, like these cowboys, have been thrown off course despite their best efforts.

“Tariffs are great,” exclaims rodeo fan Guy Algozzino, who’s dressed in a cowboy hat, a waistcoat and a Western-style bolo tie with an engraved image of a cowboy riding a bull. “We should have had tariff protection many years ago – it looks bad now [but] America’s fantastic … Trump’s the best thing America ever had.”

Other spectators are more nuanced.

“It’s going nuts,” admits Jared Harris, when asked about world politics. “I’m just sitting back and watching. It’s a bit like a show. It’s quite interesting to watch, it’s entertaining. It probably affects me more than I realise, but I just choose to ignore it.”

Australia didn’t worry too much about President Trump’s second coming when he won power back in November. The country had already witnessed a Trump presidency – and weathered it. Australia felt far removed from the shores of America.

But Trump’s second term is panning out very differently. Tariffs – imposed on ally and adversary alike – have travelled the whole world.

Trump doesn’t care about making enemies. But Australia does. People here pride themselves on ‘mateship’ – a value that embodies friendship and loyalty – and that extends to politics too.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said as much when Trump initially announced tariffs without exemptions. This was not “the act of a friend,” said Albanese, while he also committed to not responding in kind.

All of this comes as the country heads to a federal election on 3 May. Candidates would rather focus on domestic issues they can control: cost-of-living, housing and healthcare. Instead, they are forced to grapple with a question that goes right to the heart of Australia’s role in the world: how to deal with a US president as unpredictable as Trump?

In the final few days of campaigning before up to 18 million Australians go to the polls, the Labor Party’s Albanese, who entered power three years ago after promising to invest in social services and tackle climate change, went on a speedy tour of six states. That effort appears to be paying off, with the latest YouGov poll putting Labor on 54 per cent of the two-party vote, versus 47 per cent for the opposition Coalition (an alliance of the Liberals and Nationals). This is a modest turnaround from the beginning of the year, when Labor was consistently lagging the Coalition in polls.

“It’s not the campaign either party thought they would be having,” says Amy Remeikis, chief political analyst at the Australia Institute think tank. “The looming figure of Trump is overshadowing the domestic campaign but also forcing Australia’s leaders to do something they haven’t had to do in a long time – examine Australia’s links to the US.”

The US-Australia relationship has perhaps been taken for granted in these parts. Australia likes the fact the US has long been a dominant military force in the Pacific. Australia relies on its funding and benefits from being part of alliances like Aukus – the far-reaching defence pact between Australia, the UK and the US, designed to counter China – and the Anglo-intelligence alliance Five Eyes.

The rise of China has made Australia even more conscious about having the US on its side. Beijing has expanded its military presence in the Pacific, launching various military exercises in recent years – including one live-fire drill in February that saw Chinese naval vessels just 340 nautical miles from the New South Wales coast. Australia recently announced efforts to expand its navy and now hosts four US military bases – decisions fuelled in part by the rise of China.

It’s all placed extra value on Canberra’s alliance with Washington DC – one that Trump may be throwing into doubt.

Back in February, Trump held a meeting with the UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. He was asked whether they would be discussing Aukus.

“What does that mean?” Trump asked the reporter. After being given an explanation of Aukus, he continued. “We’ll be discussing that … we’ve had a very good relationship with Australia.”

Australia collectively held its breath, then let it out in a big sigh of relief.

A blip maybe – but an indication perhaps of how little Trump thinks about Australia right now. However, Australia, like much of the world, is thinking about the US.

“We don’t have anywhere else to turn,” says David Andrews, senior policy advisor at the National Security College, which is part of the Australian National University in Canberra. “We are physically isolated from everyone. As long as we’ve had European settlement here, we’ve always been concerned about the distance [and] isolation, which is why we’ve always maintained such a strong relationship with first Britain and then the US as the dominant maritime power.”

While only 5% of Australia’s exports go to the US (China is by far Australia’s biggest trading partner), the US still dominates the conversation here.

“This isn’t a time to end alliances,” says Justin Bassi, director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a think tank. “That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.”

And, perhaps counter to the majority view here, Bassi thinks that Australia should support Trump’s moves.

“We should continue to make it clear that any measures the US takes against Australia are unjustified but we should welcome and support American measures to counter Beijing’s malign actions – or for that matter Russia,” he says. “Not to keep Trump happy but because it is in Australia’s interests to constrain the adversary that is undermining our strategic interests.”

A poll published by the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper last month found that 60% of Australians felt Trump’s victory was bad for Australia. That was up from last November when it was just 40%.

And a Lowy Institute poll published two weeks later showed almost two in three Australians held ‘not very much’ or no trust ‘at all’ in the US to act responsibly.

Big questions on transnational alliances are not part of normal campaigning. But when Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton faced each other in their first televised debate, the first question asked by the audience was one on Trump.

Dutton has long stressed that he would be the politician best suited to dealing with the US President. He often cites his experience as a cabinet minister during tariff negotiations in Trump’s first term. But that strategy doesn’t always serve him well.

“He went into the election telling people he and Trump were similar enough that they would get on better, that he was the sort of personality Trump liked,” says Remeikis. “He’s not repeating that now because people don’t want someone to get on with Trump – they want someone who will stand up to him.”

Dutton has had to do some back-pedalling on comments he made earlier in the year. Back in February, after Trump said he had plans to eject Palestinians from Gaza, Dutton called the US president “a deal-maker … a big thinker.”

And he has come in for some criticism amid accusations of copying the US president. He’s talked about cutting public sector jobs, for example. And his Liberal party appointed Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as shadow minister for government efficiency, not too dissimilar to the Doge. But when Senator Price recently started talking about wanting to ‘Make Australia Great Again’ on the campaign trail, Dutton avoided questions over the comments.

Albanese of course has to tread a careful line too. In a world that’s being turned upside down, he’s trying to reassure people he’s a safe pair of hands; that those alliances remain.

That may turn out to be in his favour.

Indeed, some analysts say that Trump’s conduct may be helping Albanese, with voters rushing to support the incumbent during a time of perceived crisis. Just a few months ago, Labor’s re-election was thought unlikely as it consistently polled behind the Coalition. But the final YouGov polling model of the election, published a few days ago, predicted that Labor will win 84 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives – an increased majority.

For Professor Gordon Flake, CEO at Perth USAsia Centre, a think tank, it paints a stark parallel with this week’s election result in Canada – in which the Liberal Party won re-election by riding a backlash of anti-Trump sentiment.

“What we have seen in Canada has been a dramatic shift back towards the incumbent government and that is a rallying around the flag based on attacks on that country,” he says.

“The attacks on Australia haven’t been as severe so it’s not the same degree, but at the same time you’re also seeing a rallying around the current Labor government. Six months ago you thought their re-election would be unlikely; today on the cusp of the election here in Australia, it seems more likely than not – and one of the important factors in that has been developments in Washington DC. “

But whoever wins, they will have a big job on their hands to navigate Australia’s future with its allies.

“We have to make do with the hand we’ve been dealt,” says Andrews. “I expect that we are going to have to be much more ruthlessly self-interested and that’s not comfortable because our foreign policy has generally been based around cooperation, collaboration and multilateralism – so that shared sense of threat that middle powers have of working together to maximise their output.”

Back at the rodeo, the sun’s gone down, the cheerleaders are out and the audience gets ready to watch bucking broncos – the riders shortly afterwards holding on to their steer for as long as possible before being violently thrown to the ground.

Flying above the arena are the flags of Canada and the US, alongside Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. There may not be much of a team spirit among allies right now – but voters here will be keen to see how their next leader rides out the storm.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

In his first news conference since the federal election, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney laid out his priorities, including how he will approach upcoming talks with US President Donald Trump.

His election campaign focused on standing up to Trump’s tariff plans and threats to make Canada the 51st US state, which Carney has said will “never ever” happen.

The Liberals won 168 seats out of 343 in Canada’s House of Commons in Monday’s election, enough to form a minority government but falling short of the 172 necessary for a majority.

Carney’s new cabinet will be sworn in the week of 12 May.

Here is three things we learned from Carney’s comments:

Off the top, Carney announced an upcoming visit from King Charles III and Queen Camilla, who will visit Canada later this month.

“This is a historic honour that matches the weight of our times,” he told reporters gathered in Ottawa.

Carney says he had invited the King to formally open Canada’s 45th Parliament on 27 May.

That request is certainly strategic.

Carney said the King’s visit “clearly underscores the sovereignty of our country” – a nod to Trump’s 51st state remarks.

Trump also has a well-known admiration for the Royal family. In February, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer used his trip to the White House to present Trump with a letter from King Charles offering to host a second state visit.

The King is Canada’s head of state and is represented in Canada by Governor General Mary Simon.

After an election, the new parliamentary session is usually opened by the governor general, who reads the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the prime minister. The speech, read in Canada’s Senate, sets out the government’s agenda.

While it is not unprecedented for the Throne speech to be read by the head of state, the last time this happened was in October 1977 when Queen Elizabeth II read the speech for the second time. The first was in 1957.

Carney will visit the White House on Tuesday, barely a week after the federal election.

His first official visit to the White House as prime minister comes amid frayed ties between the close allies in the wake of Trump’s threatened and imposed tariffs, as well as the president’s repeated comments about making Canada the 51st US state.

Carney said there are two sets of issues to discuss: the immediate tariffs and the broader relationship.

• Trump disliked Trudeau – why Carney may fare better
• Faisal Islam: Carney wants to lead a G7 fightback on Trump tariffs

“My government will fight to get the best deal for Canada,” Carney said, making it clear there would be no rush to secure an agreement.

He added that the high-level dialogue indicates seriousness of the conversation between the leaders.

He said he expects “difficult but constructive” discussions with the president.

He also said he would strengthen relationship with “reliable” trading partners, pointing to recent conversations he has had with world leaders in Europe and Asia.

Canada’s election highlighted divisions within Canada, along regional, demographic and political lines.

On Friday, Carney said Canada must be united in this “once in a lifetime crisis”.

“It’s time to come together put on our Team Canada sweaters and win big,” he said.

He offered olive branches both to Canadians who did not vote for his Liberal Party and to his political rivals.

• Why young voters flocked to Canada’s Conservatives

While Canadians voted for a robust response to Trump, they also sent “a clear message that their cost of living must come down and their communities need to be safe”, Carney said.

“As prime minister I’ve heard these messages loud and clear and I will act on them with focus and determination.”

He said he is committed to working with others, including those across the aisle.

Under leader Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative campaign focused heavily on cost of living issues and crime.

The Conservatives came in second, forming Official Opposition but Poilievre lost his own Ottawa-area seat.

Carney said he is open to calling a special election that would allow Poilievre to seek another seat if that is the path the Conservatives wanted to take.

“No games,” he said.

On Friday, an MP-elect in Alberta announced he would resign his safe Conservative seat to allow Poilievre to run.

Shabir Ahmad Dar, a resident of Indian-administered Kashmir, has been selling pashmina shawls for more than 20 years.

The intricately embroidered featherweight scarves are a favourite with his customers in Mussoorie, a hill town in the northern state of Uttarakhand, where he works.

For his buyers, the shawls are a sign of luxury. For Dar, they are a metaphor for home; its traditional patterns layered with history and a mark of his Kashmiri identity.

But lately, the same identity feels like a curse.

On Sunday, Dar, along with another salesman, was publicly harassed and assaulted by members of a Hindu right-wing group, who were reportedly incensed by the killing of 26 people at a popular tourist spot in Kashmir last week. India has blamed Pakistan for the attack – a charge Islamabad denies.

A video of the assault shows the men thrashing and hurling abuses at Dar and his friend as they ransack their stall, located on a busy boulevard.

“They blamed us for the attack, told us to leave town and never show our faces again,” said Dar.

He says his goods, worth thousands of dollars, are still lying there. “But we are too scared to go back.”

As outrage over the assault spread, police on Wednesday arrested the three men but released them a few hours later after charging a fine and asking them to “apologise” to Dar and his colleague.

But Dar had already left by then, along with dozens of other Kashmiri shawl sellers, who, after living in Mussoorie for decades, say they no longer feel safe there.

Many survivors of the Pahalgam attack – the deadliest targeting civilians in recent years – said the militants specifically targeted Hindu men, sparking an outpouring of anger and grief in India, with politicians across party lines demanding strict action.

Since then, there have been more than a dozen reports of Kashmiri vendors and students in Indian cities facing harassment, vilification and threats from right-wing groups – but also from their own classmates, customers and neighbours. Videos showing students being chased out of campus and beaten up on the streets have been cascading online.

On Thursday, one of the survivors, whose naval officer husband was killed in the militant attack, appealed to people to not go after Muslims and Kashmiris. “We want peace and only peace,” she said.

But safety concerns have forced many Kashmiris like Dar to return home.

Ummat Shabir, a nursing student at a university in Punjab state, said some women in her neighbourhood accused her of being a “terrorist who should be thrown out” last week.

“The same day, my classmate was forced out of a taxi by her driver after he found out she was a Kashmiri,” she said. “It took us three days to travel back to Kashmir but we had no option. We had to go.”

Ms Shabir is back in her hometown but for many others, even home does not feel safe anymore.

As the search for the perpetrators of last week’s attack continues, security forces in Kashmir have detained thousands of people, shut off more than 50 tourist destinations, sent in additional army and paramilitary troops, and blown up several homes belonging to families of suspected militants who they accuse of having “terrorist affiliations”.

The crackdown has sparked fear and unease among civilians, many of whom have called the actions a form of “collective punishment” against them.

Without mentioning the demolitions, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah said the guilty must be punished without mercy, “but don’t let innocent people become collateral damage”. Former chief minister Mehbooba Mufti also criticised the demolitions, cautioning the government to distinguish between “terrorists and civilians”.

“Whenever tensions escalate, we are the first ones to bear the brunt of it. But we are still treated as suspects and expected to put our lives on hold,” another student, who wanted to remain anonymous, told the BBC.

Yet the backlash feels a lot worse this time, says Shafi Subhan, a shawl seller from the region’s Kupwara district, who also worked in Mussoorie.

In his 20 years of doing business there, Subhan said he had never faced any public threat – not even after the 2019 terror attack in Pulwama district, which killed 40 paramilitary police troopers.

To him, Mussoorie felt like home, a place where he found peace – despite being hundreds of kilometres away. He said he shared an emotional bond with his customers, who came from all parts of the country

“People were always kind to us, they wore our garments with so much joy,” Subhan recalled. “But on that day when our colleagues were attacked, no one came to help. The public just stood and watched. It hurt them physically – but emotionally, a lot more.”

Back home in Kashmir, peace has long been fragile. Both India and Pakistan claim the territory in full but administer separate parts, and an armed insurgency has simmered in the Indian-administered region for more than three decades, claiming thousands of lives.

Caught in between, are civilians who say they feel stuck in an endless limbo that feels especially suffocating, whenever ties between India and Pakistan come under strain.

Many allege that in the past, military confrontations between the nations have been followed by waves of harassment and violence against Kashmiris, along with a significant security and communication clampdown in the region.

In recent years, violence has declined, and officials point to improved infrastructure, tourism, and investment as signs of greater stability, particularly since 2019, when the region’s special constitutional status was revoked under Article 370.

But arrests and security operations continue, and critics argue that calm has come at the cost of civil liberties and political freedoms.

“The needle of suspicion is always on locals, even as militancy has declined in the last one-and-a-half decades,” says Anuradha Bhasin, the managing editor of the Kashmir Times newspapers. “They always have to prove their innocence.”

As the news of the killings spread last week, Kashmiris poured onto the streets, holding candlelight vigils and protest marches. A complete shutdown was observed a day after the attack and newspapers printed black front pages. Omar Abdullah publicly apologised, saying he had “failed his guests”.

Ms Bhasin says Kashmiri backlash against such attacks is not new; there has been similar condemnation in the past as well, although at a smaller scale. “No one there condones civilian killings – they know the pain of losing loved ones too well.”

But she adds that it’s unfair to place the burden of proving innocence on Kashmiris, when they have themselves become targets of hate and violence. “This would just instil more fear and further alienate people, many of whom already feel isolated from the rest of the country.”

Mirza Waheed, a Kashmiri novelist, believes Kashmiris are “particularly vulnerable as they are seen through a different lens”, being part of India’s Muslim population.

“The saddest part is many of them will suffer the indignity and humiliation, lay low for some time, and wait for this to tide over because they have a life to live.”

No one knows this better Mohammad Shafi Dar, a daily wage worker in Kashmir’s Shopian, whose house was blown up by security forces last week.

Five days on, he is still picking the up the pieces.

“We lost everything,” said Dar, who is now living under the open sky with his wife, three daughters and son. “We don’t even have utensils to cook food.”

He says his family has no idea where their other 20-year-old son is, whether he joined militancy, or is even dead or alive. His parents say the college student left home last October and never returned. They haven’t spoken since.

“Yet, we have been punished for his alleged crimes. Why?”

Cyber criminals have told BBC News their hack against Co-op is far more serious than the company previously admitted.

Hackers contacted the BBC with proof they had infiltrated IT networks and stolen huge amounts of customer and employee data.

After being approached on Friday, a Co-op spokesperson said the hackers “accessed data relating to a significant number of our current and past members”.

Co-op had previously said that it had taken “proactive measures” to fend off hackers and that it was only having a “small impact” on its operations.

It also assured the public that there was “no evidence that customer data was compromised”.

The cyber criminals claim to have the private information of 20 million people who signed up to Co-op’s membership scheme, but the firm would not confirm that number.

The criminals, who are using the name DragonForce, say they are also responsible for the ongoing attack on M&S and an attempted hack of Harrods.

The anonymous hackers showed the BBC screenshots of the first extortion message they sent to Co-op’s head of cyber security in an internal Microsoft Teams chat on 25 April.

“Hello, we exfiltrated the data from your company,” the chat says.

“We have customer database, and Co-op member card data.”

• Co-op staff told to keep cameras on in meetings

They also showed screenshots of a call with the head of security which took place around a week ago.

The hackers say they messaged other members of the executive committee too as part of their scheme to blackmail the firm.

Co-op has more than 2,500 supermarkets as well as 800 funeral homes and an insurance business.

It employs around 70,000 staff nationwide.

The cyber attack was announced by the company on Wednesday.

On Thursday, it was revealed Co-op staff were being urged to keep their cameras on during Teams meetings, ordered not to record or transcribe calls, and to verify that all participants were genuine Co-op staff.

The security measure now appears to be a direct result of the hackers having access to internal Teams chats and calls.

DragonForce shared databases with the BBC that includes usernames and passwords of all employees.

They also sent a sample of 10,000 customers data including Co-op membership card numbers, names, home addresses, emails and phone numbers.

The BBC has destroyed the data it received, and is not publishing or sharing these documents.

The Co-op membership database is thought to be highly valuable to the company.

Since the BBC contacted Co-op about the hackers’ evidence, the firm has disclosed the full extent of the breach to its staff and the stock market.

“This data includes Co-op Group members’ personal data such as names and contact details, and did not include members’ passwords, bank or credit card details, transactions or information relating to any members’ or customers’ products or services with the Co-op Group,” a spokesperson said.

DragonForce want the BBC to report the hack – they are apparently trying to extort the company for money.

But the criminals wouldn’t say what they plan to do with the data if they don’t get paid.

They refused to talk about M&S or Harrods and when asked about how they feel about causing so much distress and damage to business and customers, they refused to answer.

DragonForce is a ransomware group known for scrambling victims’ data and demanding a ransom is paid to get the key to unscramble it. They are also known to have stolen data as part of their extortion tactics.

DragonForce operates an affiliate cyber crime service so anyone can use their malicious software and website to carry out attacks and extortions.

It’s not known who is ultimately using the DragonForce service to attack the retailers, but some security experts say the tactics seen are similar to that of a loosely coordinated group of hackers who have been called Scattered Spider or Octo Tempest.

The gang operates on Telegram and Discord channels and is English-speaking and young – in some cases only teenagers.

Conversations with the Co-op hackers were carried out in text form – but it is clear the hacker, who called himself a spokesperson, was a fluent English speaker.

They say two of the hackers want to be known as “Raymond Reddington” and “Dembe Zuma” after characters from US crime thriller Blacklist which involves a wanted criminal helping police take down other criminals on a ‘blacklist’.

The hackers say “we’re putting UK retailers on the Blacklist”.

Co-op says it is working with the NCSC and the NCA and said in a statement it is very sorry this situation has arisen.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world’s top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.

Germany’s Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party has been designated as right-wing extremist by the country’s federal office for the protection of the constitution.

“The ethnicity- and ancestry-based understanding of the people prevailing within the party is incompatible with the free democratic order,” the domestic intelligence agency said in a statement.

The AfD came second in federal elections in February, winning a record 152 seats in the 630-seat parliament with 20.8% of the vote.

The parliament, or Bundestag, will hold a vote next week to confirm conservative leader Friedrich Merz as chancellor, heading a coalition with the centre-left Social Democrats.

AfD joint leaders Alice Weidel and Tino Chrupalla said the decision was “clearly politically motivated” and a “severe blow to German democracy”. They argued their party was being “discredited and criminalised” shortly before the change of government.

The far-right AfD had already been placed under observation for suspected extremism in Germany, and the intelligence agency had also classed it as right-wing extremist in three states in the east, where its popularity is highest.

The agency, or Verfassungschutz, said specifically that the AfD did not consider citizens of a “migration background from predominantly Muslim countries” as equal members of the German people.

AfD deputy chairman Stephan Brandner said the decision was “complete nonsense, has absolutely nothing to do with law and order”.

However, acting Interior Minister Nancy Faeser said the agency had made a clear and unambiguous decision with “no political influence whatsoever”, after a comprehensive review and a report of 1,100 pages.

Bundestag Vice-President Andrea Lindholz said that as a designated right-wing extremist group the AfD should not be treated as other parties, especially in parliament.

Because of their large number of seats, AfD members could be eligible to chair parliamentary committees, but Lindholz said that idea was now “almost unthinkable”.

After their election success, AfD leaders said the so-called firewall that had prevented other parties from working with them should end.

“Anyone who erects firewalls will get grilled behind them,” said Tino Chrupalla.

Having doubled its share of the vote in under four years, Chrupalla’s party is still second in the opinion polls behind Merz’s conservatives, despite several scandals, including one high-profile member being convicted of using banned Nazi slogans.

Earlier this year Alice Weidel embraced the term “remigration”, widely seen as meaning the mass deportation of people with a migrant background, although she rejected that definition.

The AfD also attracted the support of leading figures in the Trump administration. Nine days before the election, US Vice-President JD Vance met Weidel in Munich and said there was no place for “firewalls”, alleging that free speech was in retreat in Europe.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk gave Weidel a long audience in a livestreamed chat on X and called on Germans to vote for the AfD. He then repeatedly posted his support for Weidel’s party in the run-up to the vote.

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the decision taken by the German intelligence agency meant it had been given “new powers to surveil the opposition. That’s not democracy – it’s tyranny in disguise”.

As part of its role in ensuring Germany’s “free democratic basic order”, the domestic intelligence agency is responsible for both counter-intelligence and investigating terror threats.

Although its change in designation of the AfD is expected to be challenged in the courts, it would likely lower the threshold for the agency using informants and surveillance in monitoring the party.

Some German politicians have said the party’s new designation should lead to a ban.

Under Germany’s Basic Law – a constitution adopted in 1949 four years after the fall of Hitler’s Nazi regime – parties that “deliberately undermine the functioning of Germany’s free democratic basic order” can be banned if they act in a “militant and aggressive way”.

Domestic intelligence cannot push for a ban on the party – that can only go through the two houses of parliament, government or the constitutional court – but its latest decision could encourage others to start the process.

Outgoing Chancellor Olaf Scholz warned against rushing into a decision, but Heidi Reichinnek of the Left Party said no-one could accept that “a proven right-wing extremist party is fighting and destroying our democracy from within”.

Since the war, the constitutional court has banned only two parties, both in the 1950s.

The Christian Democrat state premier of Schleswig-Holstein in northern Germany called on the incoming government to initiate proceedings to ban the AfD. Daniel Günther told Spiegel magazine that the party presented a risk to “social harmony”.

But Michael Kretschmer, the Christian Democrat premier in the eastern state of Saxony, was quoted as saying the “enemies of democracy are not fought solely by the state – defence of democracy begins in the heart of society”.

In a further post on X, Musk argued on Friday that banning “the centrist AfD”, which he also labelled Germany’s most popular party, “would be an extreme attack on democracy”.

The deputy leader of the Social Democrat SPD, Serpil Midyatli, said it was now in black and white what everybody already knew. “It’s clear for me that the ban has to come,” she said, according to German press agency dpa.

Regardless of the AfD’s election success, she said the founding fathers of Germany’s post-war constitution had sought to ensure the country would not be plunged back into the abyss.

Coastal areas of Chile and Argentina were evacuated after Chilean authorities issued a tsunami warning following a 7.4 magnitude earthquake off the country’s southern coast.

Thousands of people made their way to higher ground after the earthquake struck in the Drake Passage between Cape Horn, on the southern tip of South America, and Antarctica on Friday at 09:58 local time (12:58 GMT).

The US Geological Survey said its epicentre was 219km (136 miles) from Ushuaia, Argentina – the world’s most southerly city.

The tsunami warning was issued for Chile’s remote Magallanes region and the Chilean Antarctic Territory, with precautionary measures also taken in Argentina’s Tierro del Fuego region.

The earthquake struck at a shallow depth of 10km (6 miles), the US Geological Survey said. There were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.

Residents in affected areas were advised to act calmly and follow the instructions of the authorities.

In a post on X, Chilean President Gabriel Boric said: “We call for evacuation of the coastline throughout the Magallanes region.”

More than 1,700 people moved to higher ground in the sparsely-populated area, including 1,000 from the town of Puerto Williams and 500 from Puerto Natales, , according to Chile’s disaster agency (Senapred).

Some 32 people also followed evacuation procedures in Chile’s Antarctic research bases, Senapred added. The agency has issued its highest level of alert for disasters, meaning all resources can be mobilised to respond.

Footage posted on social media showed people calmly heading for higher ground in the remote town of Puerto Williams, with sirens blaring in the background.

Chile’s police force also posted a video showing an officer pushing a person in a wheelchair up a hill in the town, home to around 2,800 people.

In Argentina, the earthquake was felt primarily in Ushuaia, with other towns affected “to a lesser extent”, the office for the governor of the region said.

An official from the region’s civil protection agency told local media that around 2,000 people had been evacuated away from the Argentine coastline.

Chile is often affected by earthquakes, with three tectonic plates converging within its territory.

A collision between a tour bus and a truck near Yellowstone National Park killed seven people and injured eight others on Thursday.

Police were alerted to the crash at 19:15 local time (02:15 GMT), when a Chevy pickup truck and a van carrying 14 tourists collided on a highway in eastern Idaho, state police said.

Both vehicles caught fire. The driver of the truck and six of the passengers in the van died.

Police are still investigating the cause. The highway where the crash took place leads into the park, which is now entering its peak tourist season.

A photo from a passerby shows smoke billowing and flames near the crumpled hood of the truck.

The witness who took the photo, local resident Roger Merrill, told the BBC’s US partner CBS News he was on his way home when he saw the scene unfolding.

Both vehicles were on fire, he said, and bystanders were trying to care for the survivors on the side of the highway.

“It is a very dangerous highway because it leads to the main entrance of Yellowstone National Park,” he said. “It’s extremely busy.”

The highway was closed for seven hours while emergency teams treated victims and cleared the crash site, about 16 miles from Yellowstone’s entrance.

Police said the local coroner’s office will release the names of the dead after family members have been notified.

Yellowstone, the US’s oldest national park, covers nearly 3,500 sq miles in three states, including Idaho, Wyoming and Montana.

It draws an average of four million tourists every year, with the majority of visitors coming between May and September, according to the National Park Service.

The mother of a South African girl, who disappeared aged six more than a year ago, has been convicted of kidnapping and trafficking her daughter.

Kelly Smith, her boyfriend Jacquen Appollis and their friend Steveno van Rhyn were arrested after Smith’s daughter, Joshlin, went missing from outside her home in Saldanha Bay, near Cape Town, in February last year.

Appollis and Van Rhyn were also found guilty on Friday of kidnapping and trafficking Joshlin. All three had previously pleaded not guilty to to these charges.

Joshlin’s disappearance sent shockwaves across South Africa and despite a highly publicised search for her, she is yet to be found.

During the trial, held in March, prosecutors accused Smith of having “sold, delivered or exchanged” Joshlin and then lied about her disappearance.

Smith wiped tears from her eyes when the guilty verdict was read, while Van Rhyn inexplicably broke into a smile.

Applause rippled through the packed courtroom and some onlookers began to cry.

Smith’s mother was in attendance and after the hearing finished, she said she was “angry” with her daughter and did not want to see her.

“She must tell me where my grandchild is,” Amanda Daniels-Smith told reporters.

Smith, Van Rhyn and Appollis could face life in prison – a date for sentencing is yet to be set.

In a statement following the judgment, the police said they would continue in their search for Joshlin.

The trial was held in Saldanha’s Multipurpose Centre to “ensure the community has access” to proceedings, Judge Nathan Erasmus, who presided over the case, said previously.

Ahead of the verdict, nearby roads had been closed, while police officers were deployed in and around the centre.

The trial captivated South Africa, with witnesses and prosecutors making a number of shocking allegations.

The most explosive came from Lourentia Lombaard, a friend and neighbour of Smith who turned state witness.

Ms Lombaard alleged that Smith told her she had done “something silly” and sold Joshlin to a traditional healer, known in South Africa as a “sangoma”.

The “person who [allegedly took] Joshlin wanted her for her eyes and skin”, Ms Lombaard told the court.

A local pastor testified that in 2023, he had heard Smith – a mother of three – talk of selling her children for 20,000 rand ($1,100; £850) each, though she had said she was willing to accept a lower figure of $275.

Joshlin’s teacher then alleged in court that Smith had told her during the search that her daughter was already “on a ship, inside a container, and they were on the way to West Africa”.

Smith’s lawyer, Rinesh Sivnarain, cast doubt on these allegations. He cited inconsistencies – recognised by the prosecution – in Ms Lombaard’s remarks and suggested she was an “opportunist”.

Smith, Appollis and Van Rhyn chose not to call any witnesses in their defence and did not take the stand during the trial.

Sangomas are legally recognised in South Africa under the Traditional Health Practitioners Act of 2007, alongside herbalists, traditional birth attendants and traditional surgeons.

Some charlatans are involved in unscrupulous traditional so-called cures, and have been known to sell good luck charms that involve body parts.

The allegation that Smith had discussed selling her daughter and had issues with drugs has prompted conversations about the vulnerability of children, particularly in South Africa’s poor communities.

In Joshlin’s community of Middelpos, parents have been telling local media that more than a year after the young girl’s disappearance, they are still concerned for their own children’s safety.

• Joshlin Smith’s disappearance spreads fear in South Africa’s Saldhana Bay
• Missing South African girl was wanted for her ‘eyes and skin’

Jill Sobule, a groundbreaking US songwriter whose hit I Kissed a Girl is widely considered the first song with openly-gay themes to crack the Billboard Top 20, has died in a house fire in Minneapolis, Minnesota, her publicist has said.

Sobule, whose satirical anthem Supermodel featured in the 1995 coming-of-age film Clueless, was 66.

She had been due to perform on Friday in her home city of Denver, Colorado to showcase songs from her autobiographical stage musical. A free gathering will now take place in her honour.

Tributes have been pouring in on social media, including from English musician Lloyd Cole, who said: “I’m really too numb to post much of anything. We loved her. She loved us.”

Born in 1959, Sobule’s career spanned three decades, her music dealing with topics including the death penalty, anorexia and LGBTQ+ rights.

Her most famous work came on her eponymous 1995 album, which included Supermodel and I Kissed a Girl.

The latter drew renewed attention in 2008 when Katy Perry released a different single of her own with the same title.

Sobule later became a pioneer of using crowdfunding to release albums, and wrote music for theatre and television shows, including the theme for the Nickelodeon show Unfabulous.

John Porter, Sobule’s manager, said she was a “force of nature and human rights advocate whose music is woven into our culture”.

He continued: “I was having so much fun working with her. I lost a client & a friend today. I hope her music, memory, & legacy continue to live on and inspire others.”

Eric Alper, a Canadian music correspondent, posted on X that she “paved the way with heart, humour, and honesty”, adding that the openly gay artist “changed the soundtrack – and the conversation”.

“Jill Sobule was so special. Heartbreaking news,” American actress Carrie Coon posted.

Police in the suburb of Woodbury are investigating the cause of the fire at the house where Sobule was found, the Star Tribune reported.

After weeks of campaigning, Australia’s 2025 federal election is here – and its looking to be a tight race between the incumbent Anthony Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton.

If you’re planning on staying up late to watch the results roll in tonight, here’s a quick look at what you need to know.

The two main candidates for the prime minister’s seat are the current premier Anthony Albanese and his opposition rival Peter Dutton.

Albanese, who heads the Labor party, enjoyed a period of broad popularity after coming to power but in recent years has come under pressure over his handling of divisive topics like housing, Indigenous affairs and both antisemitism and Islamophobia.

Dutton, who is head of the Liberal-National coalition, is known as a staunch conservative and has experience holding important ministerial portfolios, like defence and home affairs. However, he has been a controversial figure at times, particularly on social issues.

There are also the left-leaning Greens, Australia’s third largest political party, as well as a wave of “Teal candidates” – independent candidates who have been running on a strong climate platform.

Wherever you are in Australia, polls close at 18:00 – but the country’s three different time zones means there isn’t one standard time where all polls shut.

The eastern states of Australia – New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland which follow Australian Eastern Standard Time – will be among the first places to close at 18:00 AET, or 08:00 GMT.

Next will come South Australia, as well as the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, followed by the state of Western Australia.

The last polling booths- in the far flung Australian territory of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands – will close by 20:00 AET, or 10:00 GMT.

Unlike most countries including the US and UK, exit polls aren’t big in Australia, mostly because early voting – which opens two weeks before the election – is common, and because polling stations across the country close at different times.

But counting in each state begins straight after polls close. Results are updated in real time on the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) website – in what is known as an unofficial preliminary count, with Australians typically getting an unofficial result the same night.

The AEC also provides what’s known as an “indicative count”, which media commentators, election experts and sometimes even the parties and candidates themselves then base their calls on.

This sees counting officers conduct what is called a two-candidate-preferred count between the two leading candidates in each electoral district. This gives citizens a quick indication of who could form the government.

Australian pollsters also have a good track record of picking political winners, with a 96% success rate between 2007 and 2016, according to a report by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC). The exception was in 2019, when polls showed Labor to be ahead – but the election was won by then Coalition prime minister Scott Morrison.

It is usually days or weeks before an official result is released by the AEC as they have to go through a rigorous counting process, tallying approximately 18 million ballot papers by hand, including postal and overseas ballot papers.

But citizens usually look to media outlets and election experts – like Australia’s national broadcaster ABC – to call the unofficial results on election night.

In the last election in 2022, the ABC announced the results at 9:30pm – just three and a half hours after polls closed on the east coast.

And as the night goes on, parties also come out to declare their win – or loss – so it might play out in the form of a victory speech, or in one conceding defeat.

There is no one specific time when the results are called, but 2022 gives a sense of how quickly we might be able see a winner. However if it proves to be a tight race, this process could take quite a while longer.

In the case of a hung parliament, it might take days or weeks before a result is called. In 2010, which is the last time Australia had a hung parliament, it took 17 days of post-election negotiations for a government to be formed – with both the Labor Party and the Coalition vying to win the support of six crossbenchers. In the end, Labor was able to form a minority government.

So depending on the scenario that plays out, Australians might have to hang on to their edge of their seats for a while longer before an official result emerges.

Buying or renting a home has become unaffordable for the average Australian, driven by a perfect storm of astronomical house prices, relentless rental increases and a lack of social housing.

With less than a month until the federal election, housing remains among the top issues for voters, and the country’s two major parties – the Labor Party and the Liberal-National Coalition – have both pledged to tackle the crisis in a range of ways.

Australians are already struggling under cost-of-living pressures and bracing for the effects of Donald Trump’s global tariff war. And it remains to be seen whether either party will sway voters with their promise of restoring the Australian dream.

Simply put, Australia has not been building enough homes to meet the demands of its rapidly growing population, creating a scarcity that makes any available home more expensive to buy or rent.

Compounding the issue are Australia’s restrictive planning laws, which prevent homes being built where most people want to live, such as in major cities.

Red tape means that popular metropolitan areas like Melbourne and Sydney are far less dense than comparably sized cities around the world.

The steady decline of public housing and ballooning waitlists have made matters worse, tipping people into homelessness or overcrowded living conditions.

Climate change has also made many areas increasingly unliveable, with natural disasters such as bushfires and severe storms destroying large swathes of properties.

Meanwhile, decades of government policies have commercialised property ownership. So the ideal of owning a home, once seen as a right in Australia, has turned into an investment opportunity.

In short: it depends where you live.

Sydney is currently the second least affordable city in the world to buy a property, according to a 2023 Demographia International Housing Affordability survey.

The latest data from property analytics company CoreLogic shows the average Sydney home costs almost A$1.2m (£570,294, $742,026).

Across the nation’s capital cities, the combined average house price sits at just over A$900,000.

House prices in Australia overall have also jumped 39.1% in the last five years – and wages have failed to keep up.

It now takes the average prospective homeowner around 10 years to save the 20% deposit usually required to buy an average home, according to a 2024 State of the Housing System report.

The rental market has provided little relief, with rents increasing by 36.1% nationally since the onset of Covid – an equivalent rise of A$171 per week.

Sydney topped the charts with a median weekly rent of A$773, according to CoreLogic’s latest rental review. Perth came in second with average rents at A$695 per week, followed by Canberra at A$667 per week.

Immigration and foreign property purchases are often cited as causes for Australia’s housing crisis. But experts say that they are not significant contributors statistically.

Many people who move to Australia are temporary migrants, such as international students who live in dedicated student accommodation rather than entering the housing market, according to Michael Fotheringham, head of the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute.

“The impact [of migrants] on the housing market is not as profound as some commentators have suggested,” Mr Fotheringham tells the BBC.

The federal government also recently sought to crack down on foreign homebuyers, by tripling fees.

However that is “a very small issue” with not much meaningful impact on housing strain, says Brendan Coates, from the Grattan Institute public policy think tank.

The latest data released by the Australian Taxation Office supports this, with homes purchased by foreign buyers in 2022-23 representing less than one percent of all sales.

“It’s already very difficult for foreigners to purchase homes under existing foreign investment rules. They are subject to a wide range of taxes, particularly in some states,” Mr Coates explains.

Labor and the Coalition have both promised to invest in building more homes – with Labor offering 1.2 million by 2029, and the Coalition vowing to unlock 500,000.

In their respective campaign launches, both parties promote housing initiatives aimed at first homebuyers.

Labor has pledged to expand an existing shared-equity scheme to allow all first homebuyers to purchase homes with a 5% deposit, an ease on the 20% deposit typically needed.

Albanese also promised 100,000 of the new homes his government creates will only be available to first homebuyers, in addition to building more social housing and introducing subsidies to help low-to-moderate-income earners.

The Coalition, if elected, will allow first-time buyers to use up to $50,000 from their superannuation retirement savings to fund a house purchase. They will make mortgage payments partially tax free for up to five years for all first homebuyers with newly built properties.

Central to the Coalition’s housing affordability policy is cutting migration, reducing the number of international students and implementing a two-year ban on foreign investment in existing properties.

Additionally, they have promised a A$5bn boost to infrastructure to support local councils by paying for water, power and sewerage at housing development sites.

The Greens’ policies, meanwhile, have focused on alleviating pressures on renters by calling for national rent freezes and caps.

They have also said that in the event of a minority government, they will be pushing to reform tax incentives for investors.

In short, experts say that while both Labor and the Coalition’s policies are steps in the right direction, neither are sufficient to solve the housing problem.

“A combination of both parties’ platforms would be better than what we’re seeing from either side individually,” Mr Coates tells the BBC.

A 2025 State of the Land report by the Urban Development Institute of Australia says the federal government will fail to meet its target of 1.2 million new homes by 2029 – falling short by almost 400,000.

The Coalition’s focus on reducing immigration, meanwhile, will only make housing marginally cheaper while making Australia poorer in the long-term, according to Mr Coates.

The cuts to migration will mean fewer skilled migrants, he explains, and the loss of revenue from those migrants will result in higher taxes for Australians.

Decades of underinvestment in social housing also means demand in that area is massively outstripping supply – which at 4% of housing stock is significantly lower than many other countries, according to Mr Fotheringham.

There’s also concern about grants for first homebuyers, which drive prices up further.

While commending the fact that these issues are finally being treated seriously, Mr Fotheringham believes it will take years to drag Australia out of a housing crisis that has been building for decades.

“We’ve been sleepwalking into this as a nation for quite some time,” he says. “[Now] the nation is paying attention, the political class is paying attention.”

From an office perched on the scalloped edge of the continent, Victoria Bradley jokes that she has the most beautiful doctor’s practice in Australia.

Outside her window, farmland rolls into rocky coastline, hemming a glasslike bay striped with turquoise and populated by showboating dolphins.

Home to about 3,000 people, a few shops, two roundabouts and a tiny hospital, Streaky Bay is an idyllic beach town.

For Dr Bradley, though, it is anything but. The area’s sole, permanent doctor, she spent years essentially on call 24/7.

Running the hospital and the general practitioner (GP) clinic, life was a never-ending game of catch up. She’d do rounds at the wards before, after and in between regular appointments. Even on good days, lunch breaks were often a pipe dream. On bad days, a hospital emergency would blow up her already punishing schedule.

Burnt out, two years ago she quit – and the thread holding together the remnants of the town’s healthcare system snapped.

Streaky Bay is at the forefront of a national crisis: inadequate government funding is exacerbating a shortage of critical healthcare workers like Dr Bradley; wait times are ballooning; doctors are beginning to write their own rules on fees, and costs to patients are skyrocketing.

A once-revered universal healthcare system is crumbling at every level, sometimes barely getting by on the sheer willpower of doctors and local communities.

As a result, more and more Australians, regardless of where they live, are delaying or going without the care they need.

Health has become a defining issue for voters ahead of the nation’s election on 3 May, with both of Australia’s major parties promising billions of dollars in additional funding.

But experts say the solutions being offered up are band-aid fixes, while what is needed are sweeping changes to the way the system is funded – reform for which there has so far been a lack of political will.

Australians tell the BBC the country is at a crossroads, and needs to decide if universal healthcare is worth saving.

Healthcare was the last thing on Renee Elliott’s mind when she moved to Streaky Bay – until the 40-year-old found a cancerous lump in her breast in 2019, and another one four years later.

Seeing a local GP was the least of her problems. With the expertise and treatment she needed only available in Adelaide, about 500km away, Mrs Elliott has spent hundreds of hours and tens of thousands of dollars accessing life-saving care, all while raising three boys and running a business.

Though she has since clawed back a chunk of the cost through government schemes, it made an already harrowing time that much more draining: financially, emotionally and physically.

“You’re trying to get better… but having to juggle all that as well. It was very tricky.”

When Australia’s modern health system was born four decades ago – underpinned by a public insurance scheme called Medicare – it was supposed to guarantee affordable and accessible high-quality care to people like Mrs Elliott as “a basic right”.

Health funding here is complex and shared between states and federal governments. But the scheme essentially meant Australians could present their bright green Medicare member card at a doctor’s office or hospital, and Canberra would be sent a bill. It paid through rebates funded by taxes.

Patients would either receive “bulk billed” – completely free – care, mostly through the emerging public system, or heavily subsidised treatment through a private healthcare sector offering more benefits and choice to those who wanted them.

Medicare became a national treasure almost instantly. It was hoped this set up would combine the best parts of the UK’s National Health Service and the best of the United States’ system.

Fast forward 40 years and many in the industry say we’re on track to end up with the worst of both.

There is no denying that healthcare in Australia is still miles ahead of much of the world, particularly when it comes to emergency care.

But the core of the crisis and key to this election is GP services, or primary care, largely offered by private clinics. There has historically been little need for public ones, with most GPs choosing to accept Medicare rebates as full payment.

That is increasingly uncommon though, with doctors saying those allowances haven’t kept up with the true cost of delivering care. At the same time, staff shortages, which persist despite efforts to recruit from overseas, create a scarcity that only drives up prices further.

According to government data, about 30% of patients must now pay a “gap fee” for a regular doctor’s appointment – on average A$40 (£19.25; $25.55) out of pocket.

But experts suspect the true figure is higher: it’s skewed by seniors and children, who tend to visit doctors more often and still enjoy mostly bulk-billed appointments. Plus there’s a growing cohort of patients not captured by statistics, who simply don’t go to the doctor because of escalating fees.

Brisbane electrician Callum Bailey is one of them.

“Mum or my partner will pester and pester and pester… [but] I’m such a big ‘I’ll just suffer in silence’ person because it’s very expensive.”

And every dollar counts right now, the 25-year-old says: “At my age, I probably should be in my prime looking for housing… [but] even grocery shopping is nuts.

“[I] just can’t keep up.”

This is a tale James Gillespie kept hearing.

So his startup Cleanbill began asking the question: if the average Australian adult walked into a GP clinic, could they get a free, standard appointment?

This year, they called almost all of the nation’s estimated 7,000 GP clinics – only a fifth of them would bulk bill a new adult patient. In the entire state of Tasmania, for example, they couldn’t find a single one.

The results resonate with many Australians, he says: “It really brought it home to them that, ‘Okay, it’s not just us. This is happening nationwide’.”

And that’s just primary care.

Public specialists are so rare and so overwhelmed – with wait times often far beyond safe levels – that most patients are funnelled toward exorbitantly expensive private care. The same goes for a lot of non-emergency hospital treatments or dental work.

There are currently no caps on how much private specialists, dentists or hospitals can charge and neither private health insurance nor slim Medicare rebates reliably offer substantial relief.

The BBC spoke to people across the country who say the increasing cost of healthcare had left them relying on charities for food, avoiding dental care for almost a decade, or emptying their retirement savings to fund treatment.

Others are borrowing from their parents, taking out pay-day loans to buy medication, remortgaging their houses, or selling their possessions.

Kimberley Grima regularly lies awake at night, calculating which of her three children – who, like her, all have chronic illnesses – can see their specialists. Her own overdue health checks and tests are barely an afterthought.

“They’re decisions that you really don’t want to have to make,” the Aboriginal woman from New South Wales tells the BBC.

“But when push comes to shove and you haven’t got the money… you’ve got no other option. It’s heart-breaking.”

Another woman tells the BBC that had she been able to afford timely appointments, her multiple sclerosis, a degenerative neurological disease, would have been identified, and slowed, quicker.

“I was so disabled by the time I got a diagnosis,” she says.

The people missing out tend to be the ones who need it the most, experts say.

“We have much more care in healthier, wealthier parts of Australia than in poorer, sicker parts of Australia,” Peter Breadon, from the Grattan Institute think tank says.

All of this creates a vicious cycle which feeds even more pressure back into an overwhelmed system, while entrenching disadvantage and fuelling distrust.

Every single one of those issues is more acute in the regions.

Streaky Bay has long farewelled the concept of affordable healthcare, fighting instead to preserve access to any at all.

It’s why Dr Bradley lasted only three months after quitting before “guilt” drove her back to the practice.

“There’s a connection that goes beyond just being the GP… You are part of the community.

“I felt that I’d let [them] down. Which was why I couldn’t just let go.”

She came back to a far more sustainable three-day week in the GP clinic, with Streaky Bay forced to wage a bidding war with other desperate regions for pricey, fly-in-fly-out doctors to fill in the gaps.

It’s yet another line on the tab for a town which has already invested so much of its own money into propping up a healthcare system supposed to be funded by state and private investment.

“We don’t want a gold service, but what we want is an equitable service,” says Penny Williams, who helps run the community body which owns the GP practice.

When the clinic was on the verge of closure, the town desperately rallied to buy it. When it was struggling again, the local council diverted funding from other areas to top up its coffers. And even still most standard patients – unless they are seniors or children – fork out about A$50 per appointment.

It means locals are paying for their care three times over, Ms Williams says: through their Medicare taxes, council rates, and then out-of-pocket gap fees.

“No-one would say this is the Australia that we want, surely,” Elizabeth Deveny, from the Consumers Health Forum of Australia, tells the BBC.

Like many wealthy countries, the nation is struggling to cope with a growing population which is, on average, getting older and sicker.

There’s a small but increasing cohort which says it is time to let go of the notion of universal healthcare, as we’ve known it.

Many doctors, a handful of economists, and some conservative politicians have sought to redefine Medicare as a “safety net” for the nation’s most vulnerable rather than as a scheme for all.

Health economist Yuting Zhang argues free healthcare and universal healthcare are different things.

The taxes the government collects for Medicare are already nowhere near enough to support the system, she says, and the country either needs to have some tough conversations about how it will find additional funds, or accept reasonable fees for those who can afford them.

“There’s always a trade-off… You have limited resources, you have to think about how to use them effectively and efficiently.”

The original promise of Medicare has been “undermined by decades of neglect”, the Australian Medical Association’s Danielle McMullen says, and most Australians now accept they need to contribute to their own care.

She says freezes to Medicare rebates – which were overseen by both parties between 2013 and 2017 and meant the payments didn’t even keep up with inflation – were the last straw. Since then, many doctors have been dipping into their own pockets to help those in need.

Both the Labor Party and the Liberal-National coalition accept there is a crisis, but blame each other for it.

Opposition leader Peter Dutton says his government will invest A$9bn in health, including funds for extra subsidised mental health appointments and for regional universities training key workers.

“Health has become another victim of Labor’s cost of living crisis… we know it has literally never been harder or more expensive to see a GP than it is right now,” health spokesperson Anne Ruston told the BBC in a statement.

On the other side, Albanese – whipping out his Medicare card almost daily – has sought to remind voters that Labor created the beloved system, while pointing out the Coalition’s previously mixed support of the universal scheme and the spending cuts Dutton proposed as Health Minister a decade ago.

“At this election, this little card here, your Medicare card, is what is at stake,” Albanese has said.

His government has started fixing things already, he argues, and has pledged an extra A$8.5bn for training more GPs, building additional public clinics, and subsidising more medicines.

But the headline of their rescue packages is an increase to Medicare rebates and bigger bonuses for doctors who bulk bill.

Proposed by Labor, then matched by the Coalition, the changes will make it possible for 9 out of 10 Australians to see a GP for free, the parties claim.

One Tasmanian doctor tells the BBC it is just a “good election sound bite”. He and many other clinicians say the extra money is still not enough, particularly for the longer consults more and more patients are seeking for complex issues.

Labor has little patience for those criticisms, citing research which they claim shows their proposal will leave the bulk of doctors better off and accusing them of wanting investment “without strings attached”.

But many of the patients the BBC spoke to are sceptical either parties’ proposals will make a huge difference.

There’s far more they need to be doing, they say, rattling off a wish list: more work on training and retaining rural doctors; effective regulation of private fees and more investment in public specialist clinics; universal bulk billing of children for all medical and dental expenses; more funding for allied health and prevention.

Experts like Mr Breadon say, above all else, the way Medicare pays clinicians needs to be overhauled to keep healthcare access genuinely universal.

That is, the government needs to stop paying doctors a set amount per appointment, and give them a budget based on how large and sick the populations they serve are – that is something several recent reviews have said.

And the longer governments wait to invest in these reforms, the more they’re going to cost.

“The stars may be aligning now… It is time for these changes, and delaying them would be really dangerous,” Mr Breadon says.

In Streaky Bay though, locals like Ms Williams wonder if it’s too late. Things are already dangerous here.

“Maybe that’s the cynic in me,” she says, shaking her head.

“The definition of universal is everyone gets the same, but we know that’s not true already.”

In the Hunter Valley, long, brown trains chug through lush pastures, carrying stacks of black rock – the lifeblood of the region, though not for much longer.

This has long been Australia’s coal country. But the area, a three-hour drive from Sydney, is now begrudgingly on the frontline of the country’s transition to clean energy.

“This town was built around a coal mine,” says Hugh Collins from Muswellbrook, “so it’ll be a big shift. I don’t know what will happen.”

Nowhere captures this dilemma quite like the soon-to-be demolished smokestacks of Liddell power station, which tower over the rolling hillside nearby. Liddell, one of Australia’s oldest coal plants, was closed two years ago. Across the highway is sister-power station Bayswater, scheduled for retirement by 2033.

Liddell’s owners want to redevelop both stations into a renewable energy hub – in line with the Labor government’s plans for a grid powered almost completely by solar and wind energy.

The opposition Liberal-National coalition, though, has proposed converting Liddell into one of seven nuclear power plants across the country.

Currently banned, nuclear is the controversial centrepiece of the Coalition’s clean energy plan.

Nuclear has historically been deeply unpopular among Australians scared of having radioactive plants in their metaphorical backyards. But with the Coalition plugging it as a cheap and reliable option to complement renewables, interest is growing.

Ahead of the election on 3 May, each party has insisted that their visions are the best way to both fulfil Australia’s commitment to net zero emissions by 2050 and tame rising power bills.

But there are fears this renewed debate over Australia’s energy future takes the country back to the past.

Brutal arguments over climate change had plagued Australian politics for years – but the incoming Labor government last election declared that that era was over.

Now experts worry the so-called “climate wars” are back, and this could potentially delay the urgent emissions reduction that the globe has been begging the country to take for years.

“I don’t think peace will be declared no matter what happens with the election,” says Tony Wood from the Grattan Institute think tank.

It is hard to overstate just how central coal has been to the Hunter region.

In 1799, Newcastle, the area’s biggest city, farewelled Australia’s first commodity export – a shipment of coal. Today it is home to the world’s largest coal port, with A$38.6bn-worth ($26.8bn; £18.9bn) passing through in 2023.

The livelihoods of about 52,000 people here rely on coal mines, power stations or supporting industries.

Made up of a handful of parliamentary seats, the region has traditionally been a Labor stronghold. But in recent years electorates like Hunter and Paterson have been faltering, and the Coalition is banking on its vision of a nuclear-powered future to win over these largely blue-collar constituents.

It says it can have the first nuclear plant up and running by 2037 and that nuclear plants will provide a similar number and range of jobs as the coal-fired power stations they’re going to supersede.

“I think in the Hunter, and elsewhere to be honest, people realise that if there is not a replacement industry for coal, then these jobs go,” opposition leader Peter Dutton said on the campaign trail.

While nuclear power has been part of the energy mix in many countries around the globe for decades, this is uncharted territory for Australia.

The country’s only nuclear reactor, at Lucas Heights in Sydney, is used for medical research.

Nuclear has been banned at a federal level since the late 1990s. If the Coalition wins the election, it could convince parliament to overturn that, but persuading states to scrap their own bans on nuclear may not be so simple.

Leaders in four of the five states where nuclear plants are proposed have ruled out doing so.

Critics also say the Coalition’s claims on timeframe and its $300bn price tag are unrealistic given the need to train workers, develop regulations and build the infrastructure. 

Some have accused it of simply trying to prolong the use of fossil fuels – the ageing coal plants will have to run for longer to plug the energy gap.

From Mr Collins’ perspective, that wouldn’t be so bad. “Being in the coal industry, I would like coal to go as long as possible,” he says.

But he understands the need to “embrace” cleaner sources of energy. Though a variety of sources “all have their place”, he is particularly interested in nuclear.

“There [may have been] a lot of scary notions around nuclear power… but technology has come a long way,” he says, referring to deadly disasters like Chernobyl in 1986 and Fukushima in 2011.

But others in Muswellbrook are adamant the need for employment in the region does not outweigh the “risks” of nuclear.

“Liddell’s closure meant a few jobs were lost but I don’t think that really affected the community… I think [nuclear] is dangerous,” says 25-year-old Chloe.

Another cafe owner simply says “it’s not going to happen”.

“We don’t have the technology to build it. We can’t afford it,” he says. “We’re always going to have to burn coal, I believe.”

The topic clearly evokes strong feelings. Many people here are more than happy to share their opinions with the BBC, but are hesitant to be named or photographed. “Our community group is ruthless,” one woman explains.

But elsewhere in the Hunter region, it is Labor’s renewables plan that is stirring heated conversation.

Renewables currently supply 46% of Australia’s electricity and Labor wants to raise the proportion to 82% by 2030. As weather is unpredictable, this plan must be backed up by batteries and gas, it argues.

“Australia needs to be ambitious. We must be optimistic… We can be a renewable energy superpower for the world,” Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said last month, adding that this vision will create jobs in “every part of the country”.

Ben Abbott is one of those unconvinced by these plans.

“We are not experts in energy. But where we will put our hat into the ring is when it concerns where we live. We know what’s at stake,” said Mr Abbott, who is president of No Offshore Turbines Port Stephens.

The government has earmarked a 1,854 sq km (716 sq miles) area between Newcastle and Port Stephens – a popular spot for whale watching and game fishing – as Australia’s second offshore wind zone.

Mr Abbott’s group is concerned that the construction and operation of wind turbines will disturb marine life – though scientists say more research is needed – and adversely affect tourism.

He also accused Labor of running a “scare campaign” against nuclear.

Some in the party have savaged the opposition’s nuclear pitch by flooding social media with, among other things, memes featuring beloved cartoon koala Blinky Bill with three eyes.

“I’d like to learn more about it from an impartial point of view, not as a political issue,” Mr Abbott says.

On the other hand, some have also accused the Coalition of capitalising on fear around wind farms. Billboards along the highway to Port Stephens profess that only their local candidate will “stop Labor’s offshore wind farms”.

There is also concern that local anti-renewables movements are being driven or backed by people who outright reject climate change, as a tactic to delay the country’s turn away from fossil fuels. According to Guardian Australia, that includes the Saltbush Club, a group of the country’s most prominent and powerful climate change deniers.

Mr Abbott says the Port Stephens campaign is not one of these. “None of us are against renewables,” he says, noting that he agrees with the commitment to net zero.

The conversations taking place in the Hunter region are playing out on a national level too.

Polls indicate the country is still split on the best path forward, with support for nuclear hovering around 40%, with the rest fluctuating between undecided or opposed.

For every argument from each side of the debate, there’s a point to counter it on the other.

Both parties have been flouting the jobs created for communities hosting their energy infrastructure, but have been using cost-of-living relief to appeal to the nation more broadly.

However the price tag on each of these plans depends on who you ask.

Labor has for years said a grid dominated by renewables would cost A$122bn, and has dangled energy bill rebates and discounts on solar home batteries as part of its pitch.

But the Coalition says they believe it will cost at least five times more, and that their plan is half the price. They too have promised lower power bills with nuclear.

Australia’s national science agency, though, says they estimate electricity generated from nuclear reactors will cost twice as much as renewable energy, even after accounting for their longer lifespans.

Environmental economics professor Frank Jotzo argues that the Coalition’s promises can only be put to test a long time in the future. “Given that Australia runs on three-year terms of government, they will not be under pressure to deliver,” he says.

Grattan Institute’s Mr Wood believes the Coalition is wielding nuclear energy as a political weapon, noting that Australia has for at least the last decade seen bipartisan support for renewables.

“They needed a point of difference. And nuclear met the objective,” he says.

Both note the Coalition has already signalled it could abandon Australia’s 2030 emissions reduction target if it wins government – while Labor says it is on track to meet it.

“A Coalition government, majority or minority, would have very big challenges introducing the nuclear proposal. I suspect we would see an escalation in the climate war,” Mr Wood said.

But nuclear advocates are frustrated nuclear power isn’t even an option here.

While Australia has abundant solar and wind resources, these are intermittent, says nuclear engineer Jasmin Diab. Nuclear is more reliable and facilities last twice as long – so she argues an “ideal energy mix” would be heavy on renewables with a “backbone built on nuclear”.

“Labor’s position prevents Australia from making use of what’s going to be an important source of energy in the future,” said nuclear law expert Helen Cook. She points to countries across the world already benefiting from nuclear energy, such as the US and Canada, and several others at least studying it, including Indonesia.

But Justin Page, from the Hunter Jobs Alliance, argues the Hunter doesn’t have time to opt for the Coalition’s “fundamentally flawed” plan.

The region is well on the way in its transition to renewables, he says, with proposed wind projects, for example, expected to create some 3,000 jobs.

“To go nuclear will mean starting off the ground… Such a transition will take too long and be too costly,” he says. “It will be ridiculous to change courses now.”

Many Hunter residents say they just want certainty.

“The best plan will be for the two parties to get together and come up with a credible, realistic and deliverable plan… rather than using such a serious issue for electioneering,” one Newcastle resident tells us.

In January a migrant boat was rescued off the north African coast after 14 harrowing days lost at sea. Some 50 people died on the voyage, many of whom were lied to by people smugglers promising safe and legal routes to Europe. BBC Verify has tracked one of the traffickers responsible – documenting his activities across three continents.

Punjabi rap music plays over a video showing three men at a beachside restaurant in Mauritania’s capital Nouakchott. One after the other, they smile at the camera before casually turning to talk and laugh together.

The three are clearly friends. Two of them, Sufian Ali and Atif Shahzad, are cousins from rural Pakistan.

But it’s the third man in particular who dominates the conversation. He’s Fadi Gujjar, a people smuggler.

The video – posted to Gujjar’s TikTok account – is one of more than 450 clips analysed by BBC Verify that reveal clues about his activities and his close relationship to the other men.

Within a month of this video being posted online, Ali and Shahzad were dead – beaten to death on the boat journey sold to them by Gujjar, who promised a safe route into Europe.

Meanwhile, Gujjar found himself on the run, wanted by Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) for his role in the tragedy.

When BBC Verify contacted him on a phone number obtained from survivors, Gujjar said repeatedly in a series of voice notes his name had been “misused” by survivors in connection with the disaster and that he was leaving it all in the hands of Allah.

Fadi Gujjar is from Jaurah in Pakistan’s Punjab region. In his 30s, his real name is Khawar Hassan – though he also goes by Bishi Gujjar.

Pakistani smugglers the BBC has previously reported on have tended to boastfully advertise illegal routes to Europe online.

But Gujjar is careful. His online presence is limited to highly edited videos of his travels and almost all clients BBC Verify identified are local to Jaurah. Advertisements for his services seem to spread by word of mouth.

His current location on Facebook is set to Istanbul, Turkey – an oasis for smugglers looking to make a quick buck. Videos posted to TikTok place him in the city since July 2022, showing the smuggler outside the iconic Hagia Sophia and a Pakistani supermarket.

One other location stands out: Mauritania on West Africa’s Atlantic coast – the nerve-centre of his operation and the place from which the migrant boat started its perilous journey.

Since 2023, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) says Mauritania has become a hub for people smuggling – spurred on by a crackdown on other routes.

The route is deadly. IOM data shows that 170 people – including 14 children – have died or gone missing on it this year.

Many Pakistanis seeking economic opportunities in Europe are willing to take the risk. Life there is glorified online by migrants already living on the continent. Smugglers like Gujjar, whose lucrative business is fuelled by people’s aspirations, take advantage of this.

These migrants are taking a gamble, using their families’ savings or selling up to make the journey. The survivors we spoke to, on average, say they paid Gujjar $13,000 (£10,000).

There are no direct flights from Pakistan to Mauritania, so some of the migrants transited through Ethiopia or the Middle East. From there, almost all of them went on to Senegal, before crossing into Mauritania, either by road or a short boat journey along the Senegal River.

Gujjar’s travel history – obtained by BBC Verify through a source – showed the smuggler followed a similar route, entering Dakar airport in Senegal on two occasions in 2024.

Multiple videos also place him in the Mauritanian capital Nouakchott from October 2024 – though the date of upload could differ to when they were filmed.

Further clips, posted to TikTok by Ali and Shahzad place Gujjar in Mauritania as early as August 2024. The trio are seen on the rooftops of Nouakchott’s sand-coloured buildings and in restaurants around the city – a luxury other migrants couldn’t afford.

Videos from their accounts reveal the men were close, hailing from the same village. Their uncle, Ahsan Shahzad Chaudhry, confirmed to BBC Verify that his nephew Sufian Ali was friends with Gujjar.

One survivor named Uzair Bhat said Gujjar falsely promised him safe and legal routes to Europe. He sent BBC Verify proof of funds transferred to a bank account under Gujjar’s real name, Khawar Hassan.

But when Uzair arrived in Mauritania, the smuggler backtracked.

“He said going by air will not work from here. I’ll send you by a big ship,” Uzair recalled. “Please cooperate, your visa [to Europe] won’t come through.”

Eventually Uzair relented.

• Listen: From a smuggler’s TikTok to tragedy

As well as Ali, Shahzad and Uzair, BBC Verify identified two other migrants who bought journeys from Gujjar.

Once they arrived in Nouakchott they say they were placed in “safe houses” – a term used for buildings tucked away in obscure alleys where migrants are held illegally by smugglers.

One person who used a different agent said he also stayed in safe houses run by Gujjar.

BBC Verify confirmed the location of one to an area near the port of Nouakchott, which survivors say Gujjar occasionally visited.

Survivors BBC Verify spoke to say they set off from Nouakchott in a small fishing boat in the early hours on 2 January. Most of those onboard bought passage from smugglers in their hometowns in Pakistan.

But the three day trip turned into a deadly two-week journey adrift at sea.

Uzair said that from the day they left port the migrants “were constantly scooping water out of the boat”. Another man, Bilalwal Iqbal, recalled that passengers soon began “drinking sea water and after drinking it, people became delirious”.

According to the survivors, the crew onboard – West Africans employed by the smugglers – starved the Pakistani migrants of food and water, and beat them daily.

“I tried to take one of their bottles of water so they hit me on the head with a rope and the impact just made me fall back,” Iqbal told BBC Verify. “Then they pummelled my thumbs with a hammer. I still have those wounds.”

Sufian Ali and Atif Shahzad died after being beaten to death by the crew, their uncle said. He was informed of the circumstances surrounding their deaths by survivors.

Others died of starvation, dehydration and hypothermia.

Those still alive, including the crew, had given up until they saw a much larger fishing vessel come into view. Uzair Bhat jumped into the ocean and swam towards it for help.

The coastguard instructed the vessel to take the migrant boat to Dakhla port – 60 miles away. According to the IOM, 15 dead bodies were found onboard while 35 people remain missing at sea and presumed dead.

Pakistani authorities have named Gujjar as one of ten smugglers involved in the tragedy. Some have been arrested, but not Gujjar.

BBC Verify geolocated his most recent TikTok posts to Baku, Azerbaijan – though we cannot say for certain if he is still there.

Since news of the rescue broke, his mother and one of his brothers have been detained in Pakistan, accused of collecting money on Gujjar’s behalf from people buying routes to Europe.

BBC Verify has also seen six police reports filed in Punjab by the families of those on the boat journey. They allege Gujjar collected $75,000 (£56,000) for his role in the January disaster. Three people paid in full, while the remaining three had only paid deposits, the police reports said.

We believe Gujjar was still facilitating journeys to Europe after the boat disaster in January.

Contacted by an undercover BBC reporter in March using a phone number obtained from survivors, Gujjar said he “knew someone” who would help arrange a journey, but did not directly offer to get involved himself.

What do you want BBC Verify to investigate?

The TikTok video begins with Singapore’s health minister Ong Ye Kung smiling at the camera while sitting on a park bench.

“So no-one told you life was gonna be this way,” the instantly recognisable theme song to the sitcom Friends plays, as he’s suddenly joined by the other four members of his team running in the upcoming general election.

Cut to a snappy montage of them fist-bumping each other and mingling with residents at community events, as the song’s chorus delivers their political message: “I’ll be there for you”.

It’s one of the many social media videos posted by Singapore’s long-ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) as the country gears up for the general election on Saturday.

One of the longest-serving political parties in the world, the PAP has governed Singapore since 1959 and is widely associated with stability.

But even as it continues to win elections with comfortable majorities, the PAP has also faced declining popularity over the last two decades.

In recent years the party has embarked on a mission to revamp its straitlaced, no-nonsense image, particularly to attract younger voters who have typically been more sympathetic to the opposition.

This campaign season, PAP ministers better known for stilted pre-written speeches have also been filming skits with social media influencers and sitting down for long conversations on podcasts. The party has even launched a special edition of the viral Labubu doll dressed in their white uniform.

Leading the PAP in his first election since he took office as prime minister, Lawrence Wong boasts a significant online portfolio.

On his social media accounts he has been showing off his guitar skills and discussing the national budget at a cat cafe. His recent visit to Vietnam was recapped on TikTok over a techno rave soundtrack.

Other ministers in his cabinet have also ramped up their efforts: in an online video series with a local actor, culture minister Edwin Tong played barista and served coffees; meanwhile health minister Ong spent a day as an trainee at a local radio station.

Numerous Singaporean influencers have put out content featuring PAP faces, in what appears to be a concerted party effort to connect with a younger audience. Last June, local influencers and celebrities attended a PAP event that publicised their alignment with the party.

Valerie Tan Su Min, a content creator who makes satirical videos about politics but does not work with political parties, told the BBC that efforts such as collaborations with influencers could seal the deal for some young voters.

“If they had not done their own research or realised the gravity of their vote, it’s very possible that they might see one or two videos and be like, ‘OK that’s who I vote for,'” she said.

There’s little doubt that the PAP, which has long held an overwhelming parliamentary majority, will continue to govern after this election.

It has enjoyed strong support from Singaporeans, particularly from older generations that have personally seen the country flourish under PAP rule.

But while elections have been free from fraud and irregularities, critics also say the party maintains an unfair advantage through gerrymandering and a tightly controlled media.

Still, in the last three elections, the party has experienced two of its worst-ever showings at the polls – a little over 60% of the popular vote.

With an ageing support base, the key to the PAP’s future victories is young people.

“Candidates from different political parties have taken to social media like never before,” says Carol Soon, associate professor in communications and new media at the National University of Singapore, adding that the medium is “increasingly assuming a ‘broadcasting’ nature”.

Opposition parties have also jumped on the bandwagon, taking part in TikTok video trends and launching online talkshows.

Some have turned awkward moments of their campaigns into social media gold. One of the most popular memes this election, “look left look right“, stems from a song by an opposition candidate lamenting his dismal job prospects. After it went viral, he released a follow-up song about the lack of affordable housing.

Social media has always been particularly important to opposition parties in Singapore, where the PAP government exerts significant control over mainstream media. It’s also a medium that has become especially popular after a quarantine election in 2020 limited in-person campaigning.

But the opposition’s efforts have been dwarfed by the PAP’s, thanks to its deep pockets.

“Resources still matter when it comes to digital campaigning,” says Netina Tan, associate professor of political science at McMaster University, who noted that the “resource-rich” PAP can afford to “amp up their digital campaign…and put out fancy Insta videos”.

Rae Fung, a 28-year-old speaking coach, said she was paying extra attention to local podcasts featuring politicians as guests.

“It’s very hard to lie about your expertise on a podcast. Because it goes really deep and usually it’s not too edited,” she said. “It helps me understand their thought process and who they are as a person.”

“Most of the candidates I’ve seen, they’re doing enough on social media to reach us,” she said. But “how they show up and who they are as a person is a lot more important than their social media game.”

For young Singaporeans like Ms Fung, their votes will ultimately go to the party that makes the most convincing pitch to solve their problems.

The rising cost of living in Singapore – which consistently ranks as one of the most expensive places in the world to live in – has been one of the biggest concerns for young people. Many still worry that owning a home will becoming increasingly unaffordable in the future.

There has also been growing uncertainty about job prospects and the economy. Singapore’s authorities and economists have warned of the fallout and a possible technical recession from the US-China trade war and US President Donald Trump’s global tariffs.

The PAP government has tried to address these worries. Besides providing subsidised housing for first-time buyers, it has increased the supply of public flats and issued subsidies and cash vouchers to help with childcare and daily expenses. Opposition parties argue they can do more.

At a recent PAP election rally, one 37-year-old attendee who declined to be named said that while he was “not very confident” that the PAP would be able to lead the country out of the global economic uncertainty, his “confidence level is even lower” for the opposition.

Meanwhile at an opposition rally, 28-year-old Ariel, who only gave her first name, told the BBC that many of her peers have not been able to get jobs after graduation. She did not think the government had addressed their worries.

Voting in more of opposition candidates would be the way “for Singaporeans to voice out our pain and concerns”, she insisted.

In Singapore media campaigns may be important for drumming up political participation during elections, said Dr Soon, but social media engagement does not translate directly into support at the ballot box.

“At the end of the day,” she said, it’s about “whom people think would deliver” – be it providing more jobs, lowering costs of living, or being alternative voices in parliament.

Listen to Katy read this article

In Western Sydney, an audience of Stetson-wearing Australians are sitting in their fold-up camping chairs, swigging beers and eating a spiralled fried potato on a skewer known as a ‘chip on a stick’.

People here are enjoying bull rides, barrel racing and bucking broncos. It feels like a slice of Americana in New South Wales perhaps – but that would miss the point that here, rodeo has become very much an outback Australian tradition in its own right.

In recent months, politics here in Australia could be compared to watching a rodeo. Between conflict in Europe, the Middle East and more recently US President Donald Trump and his threat of global trade wars, every day has brought with it a sharp jolt that changes the dynamics of the campaign trail. Politicians, like these cowboys, have been thrown off course despite their best efforts.

“Tariffs are great,” exclaims rodeo fan Guy Algozzino, who’s dressed in a cowboy hat, a waistcoat and a Western-style bolo tie with an engraved image of a cowboy riding a bull. “We should have had tariff protection many years ago – it looks bad now [but] America’s fantastic … Trump’s the best thing America ever had.”

Other spectators are more nuanced.

“It’s going nuts,” admits Jared Harris, when asked about world politics. “I’m just sitting back and watching. It’s a bit like a show. It’s quite interesting to watch, it’s entertaining. It probably affects me more than I realise, but I just choose to ignore it.”

Australia didn’t worry too much about President Trump’s second coming when he won power back in November. The country had already witnessed a Trump presidency – and weathered it. Australia felt far removed from the shores of America.

But Trump’s second term is panning out very differently. Tariffs – imposed on ally and adversary alike – have travelled the whole world.

Trump doesn’t care about making enemies. But Australia does. People here pride themselves on ‘mateship’ – a value that embodies friendship and loyalty – and that extends to politics too.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said as much when Trump initially announced tariffs without exemptions. This was not “the act of a friend,” said Albanese, while he also committed to not responding in kind.

All of this comes as the country heads to a federal election on 3 May. Candidates would rather focus on domestic issues they can control: cost-of-living, housing and healthcare. Instead, they are forced to grapple with a question that goes right to the heart of Australia’s role in the world: how to deal with a US president as unpredictable as Trump?

In the final few days of campaigning before up to 18 million Australians go to the polls, the Labor Party’s Albanese, who entered power three years ago after promising to invest in social services and tackle climate change, went on a speedy tour of six states. That effort appears to be paying off, with the latest YouGov poll putting Labor on 54 per cent of the two-party vote, versus 47 per cent for the opposition Coalition (an alliance of the Liberals and Nationals). This is a modest turnaround from the beginning of the year, when Labor was consistently lagging the Coalition in polls.

“It’s not the campaign either party thought they would be having,” says Amy Remeikis, chief political analyst at the Australia Institute think tank. “The looming figure of Trump is overshadowing the domestic campaign but also forcing Australia’s leaders to do something they haven’t had to do in a long time – examine Australia’s links to the US.”

The US-Australia relationship has perhaps been taken for granted in these parts. Australia likes the fact the US has long been a dominant military force in the Pacific. Australia relies on its funding and benefits from being part of alliances like Aukus – the far-reaching defence pact between Australia, the UK and the US, designed to counter China – and the Anglo-intelligence alliance Five Eyes.

The rise of China has made Australia even more conscious about having the US on its side. Beijing has expanded its military presence in the Pacific, launching various military exercises in recent years – including one live-fire drill in February that saw Chinese naval vessels just 340 nautical miles from the New South Wales coast. Australia recently announced efforts to expand its navy and now hosts four US military bases – decisions fuelled in part by the rise of China.

It’s all placed extra value on Canberra’s alliance with Washington DC – one that Trump may be throwing into doubt.

Back in February, Trump held a meeting with the UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. He was asked whether they would be discussing Aukus.

“What does that mean?” Trump asked the reporter. After being given an explanation of Aukus, he continued. “We’ll be discussing that … we’ve had a very good relationship with Australia.”

Australia collectively held its breath, then let it out in a big sigh of relief.

A blip maybe – but an indication perhaps of how little Trump thinks about Australia right now. However, Australia, like much of the world, is thinking about the US.

“We don’t have anywhere else to turn,” says David Andrews, senior policy advisor at the National Security College, which is part of the Australian National University in Canberra. “We are physically isolated from everyone. As long as we’ve had European settlement here, we’ve always been concerned about the distance [and] isolation, which is why we’ve always maintained such a strong relationship with first Britain and then the US as the dominant maritime power.”

While only 5% of Australia’s exports go to the US (China is by far Australia’s biggest trading partner), the US still dominates the conversation here.

“This isn’t a time to end alliances,” says Justin Bassi, director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a think tank. “That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.”

And, perhaps counter to the majority view here, Bassi thinks that Australia should support Trump’s moves.

“We should continue to make it clear that any measures the US takes against Australia are unjustified but we should welcome and support American measures to counter Beijing’s malign actions – or for that matter Russia,” he says. “Not to keep Trump happy but because it is in Australia’s interests to constrain the adversary that is undermining our strategic interests.”

A poll published by the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper last month found that 60% of Australians felt Trump’s victory was bad for Australia. That was up from last November when it was just 40%.

And a Lowy Institute poll published two weeks later showed almost two in three Australians held ‘not very much’ or no trust ‘at all’ in the US to act responsibly.

Big questions on transnational alliances are not part of normal campaigning. But when Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton faced each other in their first televised debate, the first question asked by the audience was one on Trump.

Dutton has long stressed that he would be the politician best suited to dealing with the US President. He often cites his experience as a cabinet minister during tariff negotiations in Trump’s first term. But that strategy doesn’t always serve him well.

“He went into the election telling people he and Trump were similar enough that they would get on better, that he was the sort of personality Trump liked,” says Remeikis. “He’s not repeating that now because people don’t want someone to get on with Trump – they want someone who will stand up to him.”

Dutton has had to do some back-pedalling on comments he made earlier in the year. Back in February, after Trump said he had plans to eject Palestinians from Gaza, Dutton called the US president “a deal-maker … a big thinker.”

And he has come in for some criticism amid accusations of copying the US president. He’s talked about cutting public sector jobs, for example. And his Liberal party appointed Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as shadow minister for government efficiency, not too dissimilar to the Doge. But when Senator Price recently started talking about wanting to ‘Make Australia Great Again’ on the campaign trail, Dutton avoided questions over the comments.

Albanese of course has to tread a careful line too. In a world that’s being turned upside down, he’s trying to reassure people he’s a safe pair of hands; that those alliances remain.

That may turn out to be in his favour.

Indeed, some analysts say that Trump’s conduct may be helping Albanese, with voters rushing to support the incumbent during a time of perceived crisis. Just a few months ago, Labor’s re-election was thought unlikely as it consistently polled behind the Coalition. But the final YouGov polling model of the election, published a few days ago, predicted that Labor will win 84 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives – an increased majority.

For Professor Gordon Flake, CEO at Perth USAsia Centre, a think tank, it paints a stark parallel with this week’s election result in Canada – in which the Liberal Party won re-election by riding a backlash of anti-Trump sentiment.

“What we have seen in Canada has been a dramatic shift back towards the incumbent government and that is a rallying around the flag based on attacks on that country,” he says.

“The attacks on Australia haven’t been as severe so it’s not the same degree, but at the same time you’re also seeing a rallying around the current Labor government. Six months ago you thought their re-election would be unlikely; today on the cusp of the election here in Australia, it seems more likely than not – and one of the important factors in that has been developments in Washington DC. “

But whoever wins, they will have a big job on their hands to navigate Australia’s future with its allies.

“We have to make do with the hand we’ve been dealt,” says Andrews. “I expect that we are going to have to be much more ruthlessly self-interested and that’s not comfortable because our foreign policy has generally been based around cooperation, collaboration and multilateralism – so that shared sense of threat that middle powers have of working together to maximise their output.”

Back at the rodeo, the sun’s gone down, the cheerleaders are out and the audience gets ready to watch bucking broncos – the riders shortly afterwards holding on to their steer for as long as possible before being violently thrown to the ground.

Flying above the arena are the flags of Canada and the US, alongside Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. There may not be much of a team spirit among allies right now – but voters here will be keen to see how their next leader rides out the storm.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

The 2024 film Conclave – a box office hit and Oscar winner – tells the story of a papal election in which there are no obvious favourites. For many people, it was a glimpse into the rarefied world of the Vatican, and the highly secretive process of choosing a leader for the Roman Catholic Church.

On Wednesday 7 May, life follows fiction when 134 cardinals begin the process of electing a successor to Pope Francis. As viewers of the film will know, the papal conclave will take place entirely behind the closed doors of the Sistine Chapel, beneath its world-famous Michelangelo frescoes.

Nobody outside the confines of the Vatican will know the outcome until a plume of white smoke curls from its chimney, signifying that the Roman Catholic Church has a new leader.

But what does the film tell us about how the conclave could unfold, and why do people find the process so fascinating?

Adapted from the bestselling novel by Robert Harris, Conclave shows the cardinal-electors isolating themselves within the confines of the Vatican during the process of the election.

They are not allowed communication with anyone outside the conclave – although given the practicalities, they are not entirely cut off.

“They all need feeding, they’re not totally hermetically sealed off from the world,” says Stephen Bullivant, professor of theology and the sociology of religion at St Mary’s University, Twickenham.

This self-imposed isolation is a tradition which stretches back hundreds of years.

In part, it is aimed at preventing the electors from being influenced by external factors, although the idea of a process that happens behind closed doors may seem at odds with the modern world’s “focus on transparency, visibility and scrutiny”, according to Anna Rowlands, professor of Catholic social thought and practice at the University of Durham.

The film invokes an “incredible, introspective atmosphere” and sense of withdrawal from the world, she says. “I struggle to think of a more intense responsibility and feeling than being locked away in conclave.”

On the screen, claustrophobic and intense deliberations, strategic huddles and tactical moves abound. One cardinal undermines a frontrunner to improve their own chances. Others with unlikely prospects urge their supporters to change their vote.

This conflict of interests and competing ideologies provides much of the film’s drama. “It’s essentially about the political machinations that go on,” Nick Emerson, the film’s editor, told the BBC earlier this year.

While some cardinals will think the most important part is following divine guidance, others will have anxiety over making a quick decision, says Tina Beattie, professor emerita of Catholic studies at the University of Roehampton.

Given that Pope Francis’s health had been poor for a while, it is likely that, even before the conclave, “there will have been lots of politicking and jostling for position already behind the scenes”, she adds.

“There will be all those tussles going on and [the cardinals] won’t all be of one mind.”

Although in the film, some of the tensest scenes are focused on the act of voting, in reality, much of the drama may come in meetings in the days before conclave officially begins.

During this time, the participants will be “getting to know each other, working out what the priorities are and learning how to work together as a body so they can come up with a unified decision”, says Prof Rowlands, who is nearing the end of a two-year secondment to the Vatican.

In the film, an unknown cardinal – secretly appointed by the late pope – is catapulted into the fray.

In real life, this would not be possible. Although any baptised Roman Catholic male is theoretically eligible to be made pope, all cardinals voting in the conclave would need to have been appointed publicly by a previous pope.

Having said this, the imminent election may be one of the most unpredictable there has ever been. About 80% of the cardinals eligible to vote have been appointed in the past 12 years by Pope Francis. He consciously chose people from across the globe and with diverse political backgrounds.

Many of Francis’s appointees are from the developing world – “places and contexts which are not normally given a red hat”, says Prof Rowlands.

This adds a level of uncertainty as to their priorities and the ultimate decision.

The film presents the cardinals as fallible human beings jostling for power.

Director Edward Berger told the BBC last year that while the conclave was thought of as “an ancient spiritual ritual”, he wanted to bring the participants “into modernity”.

“We put them on this pedestal, and when you look closer, they’re going to have cell phones, they’re going to smoke, they have the same problems and vices and secrets as we do.”

Prof Rowlands says the film provides a peek behind a process, with all elements of human nature and human life in it: “Loss. grief, ambition, fear, temptation, courage.”

She adds: “It’s a very, very human thing, a conclave… It’s got a divine purpose to it, but it’s a very human thing.”

Get our flagship newsletter with all the headlines you need to start the day. Sign up here.

As the door of its crate opens, the lynx sniffs the air, checks the coast is clear and cautiously takes its first steps toward freedom in Germany’s Black Forest.

A lynx born in a zoo in Cornwall could become the first UK zoo-born cat to be successfully released into the wild.

Animals born and raised in zoos are rarely considered for release because they either don’t have the survival skills or have become too used to human interaction.

But a shortage of female lynxes in the European breeding programme led to the unusual request being made for the cat from Newquay Zoo.

It has been moved to Germany where it will spend the next few months being monitored in an enclosure to see if it’s up to the challenge.

This week the BBC watched on as, with the help of some judicious prodding with a broom, the Newquay lynx was loaded onto a truck headed for southwestern Germany.

Two days later we were in Germany as it was cajoled into a 1,200-sq-metre enclosure. John Meek from Newquay Zoo was also on hand to see the lynx gingerly stroll out into its new home.

“I’m a big boy but I had a few tears in my eyes,” he said. ” Nowadays, zoos are not here to keep animals in cages. They’re there for conservation. And this is it, conservation in action.”

Thousands of lynx already roam wild in European forests but efforts are being made to introduce new cats to increase their genetic diversity particularly in central Europe.

Though not officially classed as a “big cat” Eurasian lynx can weigh up to 30 kilos and hunt deer for food.

Once native to the UK they were driven to extinction hundreds of years ago and with British deer populations at record levels there have been calls for their re-introduction.

“Basically I’m Tinder for the zoo-born lynx,” says Dina Gebhardt from Bern Animal Park with a smile when I speak to her on Zoom.

It was her who sent out the SOS for the Newquay lynx.

The lynx-breeding coordinator for the European Endangered Species Programme (EEP), she matches females and males from across the continent as well as finding new homes for their offspring.

“Our nature is very fragmented, due to railways and streets and cities. And this means we created a lot of barriers for the lynx, which leads to inbreeding,” Dina says.

To combat that Dina finds captive young lynx that can be introduced into the wild to increase numbers and improve the genetic mix. Usually Dina’s lynxes have been raised from birth with the minimum of human contact, specifically with release in mind.

But last year, much to Dina’s frustration, there was a particularly high number of male lynxes born. And a successful rewilding programme needs females much more than males.

So Dina reached out to Newquay Zoo to ask them if their one year old female might be available.

“Of course we said yes straight away, that’s something that we’d love to do,” says John Meek, the curator of plants and animals at Newquay Zoo.

Over the next few months the lynx will be monitored to see if it has the necessary skills to survive in the wild. Catching and killing prey is not expected to be a problem.

“If you know your cats, you know that even a cat that has lived in a room its whole life, once it gets out is able to kill a bird or a mouse,” Eva Klebelsberg who runs the lynx reintroduction programme for Baden-Württemberg told us.

We’re standing over the carcass of a Roe Deer in the Black Forest just outside Karlsruhe. There is a small population of lynxes already living in the forest and this is one of their kills.

There are puncture marks on its throat – a sure sign.

“Our ecosystems in Europe are missing large predators,” Eva says, explaining that the lynx helps control populations of deer as well as ensuring that they keep moving and don’t strip forested areas.

The key question in relation to the Newquay lynx is likely to be its relationship with humans. Having spent its entire life looking through bars at visitors and being fed by keepers it will need to show that it is not going to seek out more human interaction.

“Central Europe is very crowded and we don’t have many places where there is enough space for larger animals.” says Dr Marco Roller from Karlsruhe zoo, who manages the enclosure.

“We don’t want human animal conflicts. So for us it’s important we don’t have aggressive animals or curious animals which may walk through cities or close to human settlements.”

The final decision on the Newquay lynx’s fate will be taken later in the summer after several months of close monitoring.

Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to keep up with the latest climate and environment stories with the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.

Businesses are bracing for possible impact after neighbours India and Bangladesh recently imposed tit-for-tat trade restrictions after months of verbal sparring.

Last month, Bangladesh restricted land imports of cotton yarn from India to shield local industries from cheaper imports.

Dhaka’s move came days after India abruptly stopped the transhipment facility it had offered Bangladesh to export its cargoes to third countries via its ports and airports, citing “congestion”.

Relations between the countries have soured since former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina was ousted in August after massive protests. She is currently in exile in India and an interim administration headed by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Muhammad Yunus is in charge.

Since then Dhaka has demanded Hasina be extradited to face charges of crimes against humanity, money laundering and corruption. Hasina denies the accusations against her, and Delhi has not officially reacted to the demand.

India has also frequently criticised reports of attacks on the minority Hindu community in Bangladesh. It recently said the alleged killing of a Hindu community leader “reflects a pattern of systematic persecution under the interim government”.

Bangladesh, a Muslim-majority nation, denies targeting minorities, calling most incidents politically motivated or ordinary crimes. Hindus make up less than 10% of its 170 million population.

As the countries spar, firms are counting the cost.

Yarn, vital for Bangladesh’s clothing factories, can still enter by sea and air – but they are slower and costlier routes.

In 2024, India had exported $1.6bn (£1.2bn) worth of cotton yarn to Bangladesh, a third of it via land ports.

The now-halted transhipment facility let Bangladeshi exporters send clothes made for high-end brands by road to Indian cities, from where it would be flown to Europe and the US.

“It’s a blow [to Bangladesh’s fast-fashion export industry],” says Anis Ahmed, head of supply chain firm MGH Group, which ships for European fast-fashion brands. “The India route got cargo to Western countries in a week. By sea, it takes up to eight weeks.”

Bangladesh, the world’s second-largest garment exporter after China, shipped $38bn in clothing last year. Over $1bn of this moved via the India land-air route, which Ahmed says was thriving.

Limited air freight capacity and under-equipped airports hamper direct exports from Bangladesh.

Many see Delhi’s withdrawal of the transhipment facility as a response to remarks by Yunus during a recent China visit.

He had called Bangladesh the “only guardian of the ocean” for India’s landlocked north-east and suggested that the region could become an “extension of the Chinese economy.”

Leaders from India’s north-eastern states called the comments “offensive”.

Yunus’s remarks, spotlighting India’s strategic vulnerability in the region to China, raised alarms in Delhi.

India’s north-east is linked to the mainland by the 20km-wide Siliguri Corridor – dubbed the “chicken’s neck” – flanked by Nepal and Bangladesh and close to Tibet’s Chumbi Valley.

With a history of border tensions and having lost a war in 1962, Indian defence planners fear that China could target the corridor to cut off the north-eastern states from the rest of the country in any future conflict.

Bangladeshi analysts say Yunus’s remarks were misinterpreted and aimed at promoting regional connectivity.

During his China visit, Dhaka also welcomed Beijing’s interest in a $1bn Teesta River project in northern Bangladesh.

Indian analysts warn that Chinese involvement in the project, which is not far from the strategic Siliguri Corridor, could unsettle Delhi.

But there is concern on both sides over the frosty ties.

Resentment is growing in Bangladesh over tightened Indian visa rules, with approvals plunging since Hasina was driven from power. Previously, two million Bangladeshis visited India yearly for tourism, business, education and medical care. The number of visas issued daily has dropped by over 80% in the past few months according to local media.

Hasina’s stay in India and the extradition demand remains a big irritant.

“They should realise that there is no way that we can just hand Hasina to them. We know what will happen to her if she’s handed over. I think public opinion in India would not countenance that,” says Shyam Saran, a former Indian foreign secretary.

Amid rising tensions, India’s clothing manufacturers’ association has called for a ban on Bangladeshi garment imports via land. Bangladeshi analysts warn that more trade barriers would be counter-productive.

“I think there is a strong view nowadays in Bangladesh that we should also reassess the other transit and transhipment facilities given to India [for its north-eastern states] by the earlier [Hasina] government,” Debapriya Bhattacharya, a senior economist with the Centre for Policy Dialogue in Dhaka, tells the BBC.

India uses Bangladeshi ports, roads and waterways to transport goods to its landlocked north-east, cutting distance, time and costs. However, officials say transit volumes haven’t reached expected levels.

Delhi-Dhaka tensions are rising amid growing ties between Bangladesh and Pakistan.

Bangladesh, once East Pakistan, fought for independence in 1971 with Indian support. Hasina distanced herself from Pakistan during her 15-year rule.

Pakistan’s Foreign Secretary Amna Baloch visited Dhaka last month, the first such visit in 15 years. A planned visit by Pakistan Deputy PM Ishaq Dar was postponed due to tensions between Delhi and Islamabad over the deadly militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir last week.

“I don’t think there is any concern over Dhaka’s reachout to Pakistan. If there is any suggestion that there is an intent to work together and make things difficult for India, then that will obviously cause concern,” says Saran, the former Indian diplomat.

Sharp official reactions from both sides are also influencing public opinion in India and Bangladesh. There is a growing anti-India sentiment in Bangladesh, with Indian media accused of exaggerating the attacks on minorities and Islamist threats.

The people-to-people ties built over years seem to be on the retreat, and analysts point out that if both sides fail to stay calm, their actions could harm trade and economic relations.

The husband of a British-South African woman found dead at her house in France has said he cannot imagine “the terror and the fear she must have gone through”.

Karen Carter, 65, was found lying near her car with stab wounds by her friend, in the village of Trémolat in the Dordogne region on Tuesday evening, the state prosecutor said.

Mrs Carter’s husband, Alan, who is in South Africa, said she was “such a decent, lovely person”, and spoke of the family’s shock.

A 69-year-old local woman was arrested on Thursday as part of an investigation into the mother-of-four’s death. In an update on Friday, prosecutors said she had been released.

The friend who discovered Mrs Carter’s body was questioned by police and later released without charge, the state prosecutor, Sylvie Martins-Guedes, said.

“At this stage, no hypothesis is being favoured,” she added.

Mrs Carter had lived in Trémolat for more than a decade, where she ran two holiday rental homes.

“Particularly since Covid, my wife has spent more time there running the gîtes [holiday homes]. It’s been very busy, it’s been very successful,” Mr Carter said.

“She was very good at her job and marketing it and getting bookings throughout the year.”

Mr Carter said his cousin, who lives in Trémolat, called him after seeing a post about Mrs Carter’s death on a local community Facebook page.

“She phoned me… to say she’s sorry to tell me and that she thinks Karen has died. That was the first I heard about it,” he said.

“No one had got in touch with me at all to let me know what had happened. I found out through my cousin who happened to see it on a Facebook page.”

He said he received confirmation of Mrs Carter’s death after his assistant phoned local police.

“She managed to get through to the right person. I don’t know how she managed that, but she did.

“He confirmed it, but he didn’t give any details of what happened,” Mr Carter said, adding that he has relied on news reports for information.

Mr Carter said the village was in shock over her death. “It’s terrible. Such a small village where nothing like this ever happens.”

He described Mrs Carter as an outgoing, friendly person who “wouldn’t hurt a fly”, and said her death has been “traumatic” for his family.

“I’m an introvert, and she’s the exact opposite. She’s an extrovert, she loves people, she loves to have fun. People love her, she has a good heart,” he said.

“She’s the one who would bring home the lost dog, or cat, or whatever. She’s that sort of person. Everyone liked her. That’s why I married her. She’s just lovely.”

Grand Theft Auto 6 – one of the most eagerly awaited releases of all time – has been delayed until May 2026.

The sequel in developer Rockstar Games’ record-breaking video game series was due to be released on consoles later this year.

But it told fans it needed extra time to “deliver at the level of quality you expect and deserve”.

The previous game in the series, GTA 5, is the second-best selling video game of all time and remains extremely popular thanks to its online mode.

Little official information on GTA 6 has emerged since a trailer for the game was released in December 2023, quickly reaching over 100m views.

The 90-second clip revealed two main protagonists, and a glimpse of the game’s fictional, Florida-inspired setting Leonida.

In its statement, Rockstar said the “interest and excitement” in the game had been “truly humbling for our entire team”.

The company is known for its long development cycles and the 12-year gap since GTA 5’s release has sparked a wave of jokes and memes online.

It also has a track record of delaying major releases, such as 2018’s Red Dead Redemption 2 – the studio’s last big new game.

But Rockstar is also known for its perfectionist approach and Straus Zelnick, CEO of parent company Take Two Interactive, previously said each new game from the developer “needs to be something you’ve never seen before”.

News of the delay has landed hard with fans such as Dienne Kawende, 27.

“I’m absolutely furious right now,” he tells BBC Newsbeat.

“There’s fire flowing through my body right now.”

GTA 6 will only be available on PlayStation 5 and Xbox at launch, meaning owners of older consoles will need to upgrade to play it.

Sony and Microsoft recently announced price increases for both machines.

“This year, I literally got a job just to save up to get a Playstation 5,” says Dienne.

“It’s all ruined now.”

Although he praises Rockstar for making “amazing” and complex games, the 12-year wait is getting too much for him.

“I’m getting really impatient at this point,” he says.

“When GTA 5 came out, I was in school. I was a teenager. I might start having kids soon.

“I might not even have time to play GTA 6 when it comes out.”

GTA 6 is expected to break sales records when it is released, possibly surpassing its predecessor, the highest-grossing video game launch of all time.

The global video games industry has been hit by waves of studio closures and layoffs over the past two years.

It was hoped that a new Rockstar release might inspire more people to buy a new console, or drive interest in gaming more widely.

However, it does mean that other publishers who might have been holding off on announcing new games out of fear of clashing with GTA 6 might now look to release theirs before the end of this year.

Listen to Newsbeat live at 12:45 and 17:45 weekdays – or listen back here.

A hot meal is hard to come by in the Gaza Strip, but a lunch for needy families in the south is about to be delivered by donkey and cart.

Today’s dish is koshari – made with lentils, rice and a zesty tomato sauce – in a set of huge cooking pots in one of two community kitchens run by American Near East Refugee Aid (Anera), a US-based humanitarian organisation.

“People rely on our meals; they have no source of income to buy what’s left in the local markets and many foods are not available,” says Sami Matar, who leads the Anera team.

“In the past we used to cook rice with meat – with protein. Now, because of the closure, there’s no type of meat, no fresh vegetables.”

Two months after Israel cut off all supplies from entering Gaza, Mr Matar is warning that the few dozen remaining food kitchens are set to close in days.

“The coming days will be critical. We expect we have two weeks’ supply, maybe less.”

On 2 March, Israel shut all crossings to Gaza – preventing all goods, including food, fuel and medicines from entering – and resumed its military offensive two weeks later, ending a two-month ceasefire with Hamas. It said these steps were meant to put pressure on Hamas to release the hostages it still holds.

Recently, the UN’s World Food Programme and Unrwa, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, said they had used up all their stocks of food aid.

There is growing international pressure on Israel to lift its blockade, with warnings that mass starvation could be imminent and that intentionally starving civilians is a war crime.

“Aid, and the civilian lives it saves, should never be a bargaining chip,” the UN’s humanitarian chief, Tom Fletcher, warned on Thursday.

“Blocking aid starves civilians. It leaves them without basic medical support. It strips them of dignity and hope. It inflicts a cruel collective punishment. Blocking aid kills.”

Hundreds of thousands of Gazans depend on a few dozen remaining kitchens for sustenance. The one run by Anera in Khan Younis feeds some 6,000 people a day.

But if Israel does not lift its blockade, by far the longest it has ever imposed on Gaza, the kitchens – a last lifeline for so many – will soon have nothing to distribute. Food stockpiled during the ceasefire at the start of this year, has all but run out.

“We used to receive more than 100 trucks every week – trucks of food parcels and hygiene kits. Now we don’t have anything,” Mr Matar says as he shows a local BBC journalist around the vast, empty Anera warehouse.

“We struggle to provide food such as rice, lentils, pasta, cooking oil and salt, for our community kitchens. It’s very expensive to buy 1kg of wood and we need over 700kg a day for cooking.”

Israel has accused Hamas of stealing and storing humanitarian aid to give to its fighters or sell to raise money. The UN and other agencies deny aid has been diverted and say that they have strict monitoring mechanisms.

“We work hard to avoid any interference from any parties. We have an accurate and strong distribution process,” says Mr Matar, inspecting lists of aid recipients on his computer.

“We have a database of hundreds of thousands of people, including their names, ID numbers and addresses – the co-ordinates of the camps. This avoids duplication with the work of other non-governmental organisations and ensures transparency.”

This week, aid workers have said there were five cases of looting at warehouses and the main Unrwa complex in Gaza.

A UN official said it was a sign of people’s growing desperation and “systemic collapse”.

Back in the outdoor kitchen, Mr Matar tests the food from the steaming pots to check its quality. Parcels are wrapped up for distribution; each can serve up to four people.

All the workers receive food for their own hungry families.

The rest is soon transferred on the donkey cart through the bustling streets to al-Mawasi, a crowded tent camp for displaced people on the coast, where dozens of field monitors supervise the hand-out.

An elderly man walking with crutches looks relieved as he clutches two parcels of koshari to feed his family of seven. “Thank God, this will be enough,” he says.

“Don’t even ask me about the situation,” he goes on. “We’re only alive because death hasn’t taken us yet. I swear I was searching for a loaf of bread since the morning, and I found none.”

“The situation is tragic, and it keeps worsening,” comments a weary looking mother. “Life is humiliating here. We have men who are unable to work. There is no income, and all the products are so expensive. We’re unable to buy anything.”

“At this time, this is excellent,” she says of the warm meal she has just been given. “Because there is no cooking gas, no food. When we want to have a cup of tea, I collect leaves to start a fire.”

It has now been more than a year and a half since the war in Gaza began, triggered by the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel. That assault killed around 1,200 people and more than 250 people were taken hostage. Some 59 are still held captive, with up to 24 of those believed to be alive.

Israel’s military campaign has killed more than 52,400 people in Gaza, mostly women, children and the elderly, according to the Hamas-run health ministry. More than 90% of the 2.1 million population has been displaced – with many forced to flee multiple times.

The UN has warned that the current situation “is likely the worst it has been” due to the blockade, the renewed offensive and evacuation orders that have displaced some 500,000 people since 18 March.

There is growing international pressure on Israel to lift its blockade, with warnings that intentionally starving civilians is a potential war crime. The UN says that Israel has a clear obligation under international law as an occupying power to allow and facilitate aid for Gazans.

Last Friday, US President Donald Trump said he had told Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu that “we’ve got to be good to Gaza” and pushed him to allow more food and medicine into the strip.

There was no official response to that, but earlier in the week, the Israeli foreign ministry rejected criticism from the UK, France and Germany, which described the blockade as “intolerable” in a joint statement and insisting “this must end.”

The ministry said more than 25,000 lorries carrying almost 450,000 tonnes of goods had entered Gaza during the ceasefire. It added: “Israel is monitoring the situation on the ground, and there is no shortage of aid.”

Israeli officials have indicated they plan to overhaul the aid distribution system.

For now, supplies are piling up at Gaza’s border crossings waiting to be brought in, while inside the territory, aid workers carefully ration what is left of their stock.

In al-Mawasi camp, children gather playfully around Sami Matar and the Anera workers giving out the last of the day’s food parcels.

Many are painfully thin, with new warnings of acute malnutrition in Gaza – especially among the young.

“I don’t know what will happen if our supplies end,” says Mr Matar, weighed down by the responsibility of his work.

“The feeling of having to stop this vital help to people would be so stressful and depressing to me and my staff.”

“We have an urgent appeal,” he continues. “Look at us, see our desperation, understand that time is running out. Please we just need to open the crossings again.”

Hiring in the US remained solid last month, despite turmoil stemming from changes to trade policy.

Employers added 177,000 jobs in April, while the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.2%, the Labor Department said.

The gain was bigger than many analysts had expected in a month marked by chaos in financial markets and rising concerns about the economy tracked in surveys of businesses and households.

The resilience of the US jobs market over the last few years has surprised analysts, helping to sustain spending even as households faced rising prices and a sharp jump in interest rates.

The latest figures have raised some hopes that the country may be able to weather the uncertainty from tariff policy without suffering a painful economic downturn.

But analysts expressed caution, noting that the impact of the sweeping import taxes announced by Donald Trump would take more time to be fully felt.

Olu Sonola, head of US economic research at Fitch Ratings, said it was a good jobs report, despite revisions showing employers added fewer jobs in January and February than initially estimated.

“The key message coming from the totality of the data this week is that the US economy was fundamentally strong through the first week of April, however, the outlook remains very uncertain,” he said.

The Labor Department’s surveys were conducted less than two weeks after Trump announced his “Liberation Day” tariffs, which have raised the average rate of import taxes in the US to the highest level in more than a century.

Many firms have said they are moving cautiously for now, citing rapid changes in policy and hope that Trump’s promises of trade deals will bear fruit.

Hiring last month was led by healthcare, warehousing and transportation firms.

Employment declined in the federal government – where Trump has vowed to cut spending – but that was offset by gains in local government.

Payrolls also dropped at manufacturing and retail firms.

Average hourly pay rose 3.8% over the last 12 months, according to the report.

Seema Shah, chief global strategist at Principal Asset Management, said the figures suggested the US central bank does not face urgency to cut interest rates to support the economy.

“Why would the Fed start cutting rates right now when the unemployment rate is near record lows, the consumer is still fairly robust, and inflation is running above target?” she said.

“The economy will weaken in the coming months but, with this underlying momentum, the US has a decent chance of averting recession if it can step back from the tariff brink in time.”

Thai prosecutors have said they will not pursue charges against an American academic who was arrested last month under a strict law against defaming the monarchy.

Paul Chambers, a lecturer at Naresuan University, was arrested after the army filed a complaint against him.

On Thursday, prosecutors said they would request for charges against him to be dropped, though this has to be reviewed by the police. If they disagree, the decision will fall to the attorney-general.

Mr Chambers’ arrest marked a rare instance of a foreigner being charged under the lese-majeste law, which the government says is necessary to protect the monarchy but critics say is used to clamp down on free speech.

“The director-general had decided not to indict the suspect,” said the Office of the Attorney-General, adding that prosecutors would seek to dismiss the case in court and coordinate with police.

Mr Chambers first lived and worked in Thailand 30 years ago, and in recent years has been lecturing and researching at Naresuan University in northern Thailand. He is one of the world’s foremost experts on the Thai military.

The complaint against him centres on a notice for an academic webinar organised by a Singapore research institute about Thailand’s military and police reshuffles. Mr Chambers was one of the webinar’s speakers.

The army had accused Mr Chambers of “defamation, contempt or malice” towards the royal family, “importing false computer data” in a way “likely to damage national security or cause public panic”, and disseminating computer data “that may affect national security”, according to a letter from police that was received by the university’s social sciences faculty.

Mr Chambers stated that he did not write or publish the notice for the webinar. The army based its complaint on a Facebook post by a Thai royalist, who translated the webinar notice into Thai.

Thailand’s lese-majeste law has been in place since the creation of the country’s first criminal code in 1908, although the penalty was toughened in 1976.

Since late 2020, the legal aid group Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR) has seen more than 300 cases of lese-majeste involving more than 270 people, including 20 children under the age of 18, said Akarachai Chaimaneekarakate, the group’s advocacy lead.

Last year, a reformist political party was dissolved by court order after the court ruled the party’s campaign promise to change lese-majeste was unconstitutional.

The European Parliament called on Thailand last month to reform the law, which it said was “among the strictest in the world”, and grant amnesty to those prosecuted and imprisoned under it.

Police in Hong Kong have arrested the father and brother of US-based pro-democracy activist Anna Kwok for allegedly helping with her finances, according to media reports.

It is the first time the relatives of an “absconder” have been charged under the territory’s security law, Reuters news agency said.

The authorities accused Ms Kwok, 26, of breaching Hong Kong’s national security laws after participating in pro-democracy protests in 2019.

She fled the territory in 2020 and now serves as the Executive Director of the Hong Kong Democracy Council (HKDC), an organisation based in Washington DC.

Police said they had arrested two men aged 35 and 68 on suspicion of handling “funds or other financial assets” belonging to Kwok, Reuters said.

Local media later identified the two men as relatives of Ms Kwok, citing police sources.

According to a report by the South China Morning Post (SCMP), police launched an investigation into the pair after observing they had met Ms Kwok overseas.

The 68-year-old, identified by local media as Ms Kwok’s father Kwok Yin-sang, is accused of helping his daughter handle her insurance policy upon his return to Hong Kong.

According to a charge sheet seen by Reuters, Kwok Yin-sang had been trying to access Ms Kwok’s life and personal accident insurance policy which could be used to obtain funds on her behalf.

He has been denied bail by national security judge Victor So at the West Kowloon Magistrates’ Courts, Reuters reported.

The 35-year-old man, identified by local media as Ms Kwok’s brother, is accused of supporting their father’s attempts to retrieve the money, Reuters said.

He has reportedly been released on bail pending further investigation.

Under Hong Kong’s Safeguarding National Security Bill, it is illegal to “make available, directly or indirectly, any funds or other financial assets or economic resources to, or for the benefit of, a relevant absconder”.

In 2023, Hong Kong placed a bounty on the heads of several pro-democracy activists – including Ms Kwok – who had fled the territory.

The eight activists targeted were accused of colluding with foreign forces – a crime that can carry a sentence of life in prison.

At the time, Ms Kwok said the bounty was aimed at intimidating her and her fellow activists.

“That’s exactly the kind of thing the Hong Kong government and the Chinese Communist party would do – which is to intimidate people into not doing anything, silencing them,” she told BBC’s Newshour at the time.

The former British colony became a special administrative region of China in 1997, when Britain’s 99-year lease of the New Territories, north of Hong Kong island, expired.

Hong Kong still enjoys freedoms not seen in mainland China, but they are widely thought to be on the decline.

Russell Brand has been granted bail and left Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, after facing charges of rape, sexual assault and indecent assault.

The broadcaster, comedian and actor faces one allegation of rape, one allegation of indecent assault, one of oral rape and two further counts of sexual assault, relating to four separate women.

Photographers surrounded his car as he arrived, and he did not speak to the reporters gathered outside the court building.

Surrounded by cameras and microphones, it took him more than two minutes to walk the short distance to the court door, passing alongside blocks of photographers, who were flanked by police officers.

Brand confirmed his name and address in court, and that he is aged 49.

He is accused of sexually assaulting a woman by touching her breasts and indecently assaulting another by grabbing her arm and dragging her towards a male toilet.

Brand, who was asked to stand in court for the 12-minute hearing, did not enter a plea.

He was charged by post last month.

The case will be heard at the Old Bailey.

His next court appearance will be 30 May, and he confirmed during the hearing that he understood his bail conditions.

Brand, who was born in Essex, rose to fame as a stand-up comedian, performing at the Hackney Empire in 2000 and later the Edinburgh Fringe.

He later moved into broadcasting, hosting national television and radio programmes.

The turning point in his career came in the mid-2000s, when he hosted Big Brother’s Big Mouth, a companion show to the hugely popular reality series Big Brother.

It provided the springboard he was looking for and led to him becoming one of the most sought-after presenters in the UK.

Brand went on to host the NME, MTV and Brit awards ceremonies, had his own debate series by E4, and fronted the UK leg of charity concert Live Earth.

His career included hosting radio shows on the BBC, in particular for 6 Music and Radio 2, between 2006 and 2008.

Brand released a video in April in which he said he had never engaged in non-consensual activity and was grateful for the opportunity to defend the charges in court.

The case follows an investigation by the Sunday Times, the Times and Channel 4’s Dispatches in September 2023, which revealed multiple serious allegations against him.

The Duke of Sussex has told the BBC he “would love a reconciliation” with the Royal Family, in an emotional interview in which he said he was “devastated” at losing a legal challenge over his security in the UK.

Prince Harry said the King “won’t speak to me because of this security stuff”, but that he did not want to fight anymore and did “not know how much longer my father has”.

The prince spoke to BBC News in California after losing an appeal over the levels of security he and his family are entitled to while in the UK.

Buckingham Palace said: “All of these issues have been examined repeatedly and meticulously by the courts, with the same conclusion reached on each occasion.”

After Friday’s court ruling, the prince said: “I can’t see a world in which I would bring my wife and children back to the UK at this point.”

“There have been so many disagreements between myself and some of my family,” he added, but had now “forgiven” them.

“I would love reconciliation with my family. There’s no point continuing to fight any more, life is precious,” said Prince Harry, who said the dispute over his security had “always been the sticking point”.

The prince had wanted to overturn changes to his security that were introduced in 2020 as he stepped down as a working royal and moved to the United States.

Saying that he felt “let down”, he described his court defeat as a “good old fashioned establishment stitch up” and blamed the Royal Household for influencing the decision to reduce his security.

Asked whether he had asked the King to intervene in the dispute over security, Prince Harry said: “I never asked him to intervene – I asked him to step out of the way and let the experts do their jobs.”

The prince said his treatment during the process of deciding his security had “uncovered my worst fears”.

He said of the decision: “I’m devastated – not so much as devastated with the loss that I am about the people behind the decision, feeling as though this is okay. Is it a win for them?”

He continued: “I’m sure there are some people out there, probably most likely the people that wish me harm, [who] consider this a huge win.”

Prince Harry said the decision to remove his automatic security entitlement impacts him “every single day”, and has left him in a position where he can only safely return to the UK if invited by the Royal Family – as he would get sufficient security in those circumstances.

The prince said changes to his security status in 2020 had impacted not just him, but his wife and, later, his children too.

He went on to say: “Everybody knew that they were putting us at risk in 2020 and they hoped that me knowing that risk would force us to come back.

“But then when you realise that didn’t work, do you not want to keep us safe?

“Whether you’re the government, the Royal Household, whether you’re my dad, my family – despite all of our differences, do you not want to just ensure our safety?”

Asked whether he missed the UK, he added: “I love my country, I always have done, despite what some people in that country have done… and I think that it’s really quite sad that I won’t be able to show my children my homeland.”

Prince Harry said he would not be seeking a further legal challenge, saying Friday’s ruling had “proven that there was no way to win this through the courts”.

“I wish someone had told me that beforehand,” he said, adding that the ruling had been a “surprise”.

He continued: “This, at the heart of it, is a family dispute, and it makes me really, really sad that we’re sitting here today, five years later, where a decision that was made most likely, in fact I know, to keep us under the roof.”

Prince Harry spoke to the BBC shortly after losing his latest legal challenge against the UK government over the level of security he and his family are entitled to when visiting.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the prince’s case, which hinged on how an official committee made the decision to remove his eligibility for automatic, full-scale protection in line with what other senior royals receive.

On Friday, the court ruled that Prince Harry had made “powerful” arguments about the level of threat he and his family face, but said his “sense of grievance” did not “translate into a legal argument”.

His legal complaint centred around a committee called the Protection of Royalty and Public Figures (Ravec), which authorises security for senior royals on behalf of the Home Office, and was chaired at the time by Sir Richard Mottram.

Under the committee’s regulations, Prince Harry argued, his case should have been put before Ravec’s Risk Management Board (RMB), which would have assessed the threats to his and family’s security – but that did not happen.

On Friday, senior judges said the committee had diverged from policy when making its 2020 decision over the prince’s security, but concluded it had been “sensible” to do so because of the complexity of his circumstances.

Prince Harry said his “jaw hit the floor” when he found out a representative of the Royal Household sat on the Ravec committee, and claimed Friday’s ruling had proved its decision-making process was more influenced by the Royal Household than by legal constraints.

He claimed there had been “interference” by the Royal Household in the 2020 decision, which he said resulted in his status as the most at-risk royal being downgraded to the least at risk “overnight”.

“So one does question how that is even possible and also the motive behind that at the time,” he added.

Prince Harry called on UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer and Home Secretary Yvette Cooper to intervene in his security case, and to overhaul how the Ravec committee operates.

In a statement released later on Friday, the prince said he would write to Cooper to “ask her to urgently examine the matter and review the Ravec process”.

Sign up here to get the latest royal stories and analysis every week with our Royal Watch newsletter. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Coastal areas of Chile and Argentina were evacuated after Chilean authorities issued a tsunami warning following a 7.4 magnitude earthquake off the country’s southern coast.

Thousands of people made their way to higher ground after the earthquake struck in the Drake Passage between Cape Horn, on the southern tip of South America, and Antarctica on Friday at 09:58 local time (12:58 GMT).

The US Geological Survey said its epicentre was 219km (136 miles) from Ushuaia, Argentina – the world’s most southerly city.

The tsunami warning was issued for Chile’s remote Magallanes region and the Chilean Antarctic Territory, with precautionary measures also taken in Argentina’s Tierro del Fuego region.

The earthquake struck at a shallow depth of 10km (6 miles), the US Geological Survey said. There were no immediate reports of damage or injuries.

Residents in affected areas were advised to act calmly and follow the instructions of the authorities.

In a post on X, Chilean President Gabriel Boric said: “We call for evacuation of the coastline throughout the Magallanes region.”

More than 1,700 people moved to higher ground in the sparsely-populated area, including 1,000 from the town of Puerto Williams and 500 from Puerto Natales, , according to Chile’s disaster agency (Senapred).

Some 32 people also followed evacuation procedures in Chile’s Antarctic research bases, Senapred added. The agency has issued its highest level of alert for disasters, meaning all resources can be mobilised to respond.

Footage posted on social media showed people calmly heading for higher ground in the remote town of Puerto Williams, with sirens blaring in the background.

Chile’s police force also posted a video showing an officer pushing a person in a wheelchair up a hill in the town, home to around 2,800 people.

In Argentina, the earthquake was felt primarily in Ushuaia, with other towns affected “to a lesser extent”, the office for the governor of the region said.

An official from the region’s civil protection agency told local media that around 2,000 people had been evacuated away from the Argentine coastline.

Chile is often affected by earthquakes, with three tectonic plates converging within its territory.

In his first news conference since the federal election, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney laid out his priorities, including how he will approach upcoming talks with US President Donald Trump.

His election campaign focused on standing up to Trump’s tariff plans and threats to make Canada the 51st US state, which Carney has said will “never ever” happen.

The Liberals won 168 seats out of 343 in Canada’s House of Commons in Monday’s election, enough to form a minority government but falling short of the 172 necessary for a majority.

Carney’s new cabinet will be sworn in the week of 12 May.

Here is three things we learned from Carney’s comments:

Off the top, Carney announced an upcoming visit from King Charles III and Queen Camilla, who will visit Canada later this month.

“This is a historic honour that matches the weight of our times,” he told reporters gathered in Ottawa.

Carney says he had invited the King to formally open Canada’s 45th Parliament on 27 May.

That request is certainly strategic.

Carney said the King’s visit “clearly underscores the sovereignty of our country” – a nod to Trump’s 51st state remarks.

Trump also has a well-known admiration for the Royal family. In February, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer used his trip to the White House to present Trump with a letter from King Charles offering to host a second state visit.

The King is Canada’s head of state and is represented in Canada by Governor General Mary Simon.

After an election, the new parliamentary session is usually opened by the governor general, who reads the Speech from the Throne on behalf of the prime minister. The speech, read in Canada’s Senate, sets out the government’s agenda.

While it is not unprecedented for the Throne speech to be read by the head of state, the last time this happened was in October 1977 when Queen Elizabeth II read the speech for the second time. The first was in 1957.

Carney will visit the White House on Tuesday, barely a week after the federal election.

His first official visit to the White House as prime minister comes amid frayed ties between the close allies in the wake of Trump’s threatened and imposed tariffs, as well as the president’s repeated comments about making Canada the 51st US state.

Carney said there are two sets of issues to discuss: the immediate tariffs and the broader relationship.

• Trump disliked Trudeau – why Carney may fare better
• Faisal Islam: Carney wants to lead a G7 fightback on Trump tariffs

“My government will fight to get the best deal for Canada,” Carney said, making it clear there would be no rush to secure an agreement.

He added that the high-level dialogue indicates seriousness of the conversation between the leaders.

He said he expects “difficult but constructive” discussions with the president.

He also said he would strengthen relationship with “reliable” trading partners, pointing to recent conversations he has had with world leaders in Europe and Asia.

Canada’s election highlighted divisions within Canada, along regional, demographic and political lines.

On Friday, Carney said Canada must be united in this “once in a lifetime crisis”.

“It’s time to come together put on our Team Canada sweaters and win big,” he said.

He offered olive branches both to Canadians who did not vote for his Liberal Party and to his political rivals.

• Why young voters flocked to Canada’s Conservatives

While Canadians voted for a robust response to Trump, they also sent “a clear message that their cost of living must come down and their communities need to be safe”, Carney said.

“As prime minister I’ve heard these messages loud and clear and I will act on them with focus and determination.”

He said he is committed to working with others, including those across the aisle.

Under leader Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative campaign focused heavily on cost of living issues and crime.

The Conservatives came in second, forming Official Opposition but Poilievre lost his own Ottawa-area seat.

Carney said he is open to calling a special election that would allow Poilievre to seek another seat if that is the path the Conservatives wanted to take.

“No games,” he said.

On Friday, an MP-elect in Alberta announced he would resign his safe Conservative seat to allow Poilievre to run.

Listen to Katy read this article

In Western Sydney, an audience of Stetson-wearing Australians are sitting in their fold-up camping chairs, swigging beers and eating a spiralled fried potato on a skewer known as a ‘chip on a stick’.

People here are enjoying bull rides, barrel racing and bucking broncos. It feels like a slice of Americana in New South Wales perhaps – but that would miss the point that here, rodeo has become very much an outback Australian tradition in its own right.

In recent months, politics here in Australia could be compared to watching a rodeo. Between conflict in Europe, the Middle East and more recently US President Donald Trump and his threat of global trade wars, every day has brought with it a sharp jolt that changes the dynamics of the campaign trail. Politicians, like these cowboys, have been thrown off course despite their best efforts.

“Tariffs are great,” exclaims rodeo fan Guy Algozzino, who’s dressed in a cowboy hat, a waistcoat and a Western-style bolo tie with an engraved image of a cowboy riding a bull. “We should have had tariff protection many years ago – it looks bad now [but] America’s fantastic … Trump’s the best thing America ever had.”

Other spectators are more nuanced.

“It’s going nuts,” admits Jared Harris, when asked about world politics. “I’m just sitting back and watching. It’s a bit like a show. It’s quite interesting to watch, it’s entertaining. It probably affects me more than I realise, but I just choose to ignore it.”

Australia didn’t worry too much about President Trump’s second coming when he won power back in November. The country had already witnessed a Trump presidency – and weathered it. Australia felt far removed from the shores of America.

But Trump’s second term is panning out very differently. Tariffs – imposed on ally and adversary alike – have travelled the whole world.

Trump doesn’t care about making enemies. But Australia does. People here pride themselves on ‘mateship’ – a value that embodies friendship and loyalty – and that extends to politics too.

Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said as much when Trump initially announced tariffs without exemptions. This was not “the act of a friend,” said Albanese, while he also committed to not responding in kind.

All of this comes as the country heads to a federal election on 3 May. Candidates would rather focus on domestic issues they can control: cost-of-living, housing and healthcare. Instead, they are forced to grapple with a question that goes right to the heart of Australia’s role in the world: how to deal with a US president as unpredictable as Trump?

In the final few days of campaigning before up to 18 million Australians go to the polls, the Labor Party’s Albanese, who entered power three years ago after promising to invest in social services and tackle climate change, went on a speedy tour of six states. That effort appears to be paying off, with the latest YouGov poll putting Labor on 54 per cent of the two-party vote, versus 47 per cent for the opposition Coalition (an alliance of the Liberals and Nationals). This is a modest turnaround from the beginning of the year, when Labor was consistently lagging the Coalition in polls.

“It’s not the campaign either party thought they would be having,” says Amy Remeikis, chief political analyst at the Australia Institute think tank. “The looming figure of Trump is overshadowing the domestic campaign but also forcing Australia’s leaders to do something they haven’t had to do in a long time – examine Australia’s links to the US.”

The US-Australia relationship has perhaps been taken for granted in these parts. Australia likes the fact the US has long been a dominant military force in the Pacific. Australia relies on its funding and benefits from being part of alliances like Aukus – the far-reaching defence pact between Australia, the UK and the US, designed to counter China – and the Anglo-intelligence alliance Five Eyes.

The rise of China has made Australia even more conscious about having the US on its side. Beijing has expanded its military presence in the Pacific, launching various military exercises in recent years – including one live-fire drill in February that saw Chinese naval vessels just 340 nautical miles from the New South Wales coast. Australia recently announced efforts to expand its navy and now hosts four US military bases – decisions fuelled in part by the rise of China.

It’s all placed extra value on Canberra’s alliance with Washington DC – one that Trump may be throwing into doubt.

Back in February, Trump held a meeting with the UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. He was asked whether they would be discussing Aukus.

“What does that mean?” Trump asked the reporter. After being given an explanation of Aukus, he continued. “We’ll be discussing that … we’ve had a very good relationship with Australia.”

Australia collectively held its breath, then let it out in a big sigh of relief.

A blip maybe – but an indication perhaps of how little Trump thinks about Australia right now. However, Australia, like much of the world, is thinking about the US.

“We don’t have anywhere else to turn,” says David Andrews, senior policy advisor at the National Security College, which is part of the Australian National University in Canberra. “We are physically isolated from everyone. As long as we’ve had European settlement here, we’ve always been concerned about the distance [and] isolation, which is why we’ve always maintained such a strong relationship with first Britain and then the US as the dominant maritime power.”

While only 5% of Australia’s exports go to the US (China is by far Australia’s biggest trading partner), the US still dominates the conversation here.

“This isn’t a time to end alliances,” says Justin Bassi, director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, a think tank. “That would be cutting off our nose to spite our face.”

And, perhaps counter to the majority view here, Bassi thinks that Australia should support Trump’s moves.

“We should continue to make it clear that any measures the US takes against Australia are unjustified but we should welcome and support American measures to counter Beijing’s malign actions – or for that matter Russia,” he says. “Not to keep Trump happy but because it is in Australia’s interests to constrain the adversary that is undermining our strategic interests.”

A poll published by the Sydney Morning Herald newspaper last month found that 60% of Australians felt Trump’s victory was bad for Australia. That was up from last November when it was just 40%.

And a Lowy Institute poll published two weeks later showed almost two in three Australians held ‘not very much’ or no trust ‘at all’ in the US to act responsibly.

Big questions on transnational alliances are not part of normal campaigning. But when Albanese and opposition leader Peter Dutton faced each other in their first televised debate, the first question asked by the audience was one on Trump.

Dutton has long stressed that he would be the politician best suited to dealing with the US President. He often cites his experience as a cabinet minister during tariff negotiations in Trump’s first term. But that strategy doesn’t always serve him well.

“He went into the election telling people he and Trump were similar enough that they would get on better, that he was the sort of personality Trump liked,” says Remeikis. “He’s not repeating that now because people don’t want someone to get on with Trump – they want someone who will stand up to him.”

Dutton has had to do some back-pedalling on comments he made earlier in the year. Back in February, after Trump said he had plans to eject Palestinians from Gaza, Dutton called the US president “a deal-maker … a big thinker.”

And he has come in for some criticism amid accusations of copying the US president. He’s talked about cutting public sector jobs, for example. And his Liberal party appointed Jacinta Nampijinpa Price as shadow minister for government efficiency, not too dissimilar to the Doge. But when Senator Price recently started talking about wanting to ‘Make Australia Great Again’ on the campaign trail, Dutton avoided questions over the comments.

Albanese of course has to tread a careful line too. In a world that’s being turned upside down, he’s trying to reassure people he’s a safe pair of hands; that those alliances remain.

That may turn out to be in his favour.

Indeed, some analysts say that Trump’s conduct may be helping Albanese, with voters rushing to support the incumbent during a time of perceived crisis. Just a few months ago, Labor’s re-election was thought unlikely as it consistently polled behind the Coalition. But the final YouGov polling model of the election, published a few days ago, predicted that Labor will win 84 of the 150 seats in the House of Representatives – an increased majority.

For Professor Gordon Flake, CEO at Perth USAsia Centre, a think tank, it paints a stark parallel with this week’s election result in Canada – in which the Liberal Party won re-election by riding a backlash of anti-Trump sentiment.

“What we have seen in Canada has been a dramatic shift back towards the incumbent government and that is a rallying around the flag based on attacks on that country,” he says.

“The attacks on Australia haven’t been as severe so it’s not the same degree, but at the same time you’re also seeing a rallying around the current Labor government. Six months ago you thought their re-election would be unlikely; today on the cusp of the election here in Australia, it seems more likely than not – and one of the important factors in that has been developments in Washington DC. “

But whoever wins, they will have a big job on their hands to navigate Australia’s future with its allies.

“We have to make do with the hand we’ve been dealt,” says Andrews. “I expect that we are going to have to be much more ruthlessly self-interested and that’s not comfortable because our foreign policy has generally been based around cooperation, collaboration and multilateralism – so that shared sense of threat that middle powers have of working together to maximise their output.”

Back at the rodeo, the sun’s gone down, the cheerleaders are out and the audience gets ready to watch bucking broncos – the riders shortly afterwards holding on to their steer for as long as possible before being violently thrown to the ground.

Flying above the arena are the flags of Canada and the US, alongside Australia, New Zealand and Brazil. There may not be much of a team spirit among allies right now – but voters here will be keen to see how their next leader rides out the storm.

Follow the twists and turns of Trump’s second term with North America correspondent Anthony Zurcher’s weekly US Politics Unspun newsletter. Readers in the UK can sign up here. Those outside the UK can sign up here.

Cyber criminals have told BBC News their hack against Co-op is far more serious than the company previously admitted.

Hackers contacted the BBC with proof they had infiltrated IT networks and stolen huge amounts of customer and employee data.

After being approached on Friday, a Co-op spokesperson said the hackers “accessed data relating to a significant number of our current and past members”.

Co-op had previously said that it had taken “proactive measures” to fend off hackers and that it was only having a “small impact” on its operations.

It also assured the public that there was “no evidence that customer data was compromised”.

The cyber criminals claim to have the private information of 20 million people who signed up to Co-op’s membership scheme, but the firm would not confirm that number.

The criminals, who are using the name DragonForce, say they are also responsible for the ongoing attack on M&S and an attempted hack of Harrods.

The anonymous hackers showed the BBC screenshots of the first extortion message they sent to Co-op’s head of cyber security in an internal Microsoft Teams chat on 25 April.

“Hello, we exfiltrated the data from your company,” the chat says.

“We have customer database, and Co-op member card data.”

• Co-op staff told to keep cameras on in meetings

They also showed screenshots of a call with the head of security which took place around a week ago.

The hackers say they messaged other members of the executive committee too as part of their scheme to blackmail the firm.

Co-op has more than 2,500 supermarkets as well as 800 funeral homes and an insurance business.

It employs around 70,000 staff nationwide.

The cyber attack was announced by the company on Wednesday.

On Thursday, it was revealed Co-op staff were being urged to keep their cameras on during Teams meetings, ordered not to record or transcribe calls, and to verify that all participants were genuine Co-op staff.

The security measure now appears to be a direct result of the hackers having access to internal Teams chats and calls.

DragonForce shared databases with the BBC that includes usernames and passwords of all employees.

They also sent a sample of 10,000 customers data including Co-op membership card numbers, names, home addresses, emails and phone numbers.

The BBC has destroyed the data it received, and is not publishing or sharing these documents.

The Co-op membership database is thought to be highly valuable to the company.

Since the BBC contacted Co-op about the hackers’ evidence, the firm has disclosed the full extent of the breach to its staff and the stock market.

“This data includes Co-op Group members’ personal data such as names and contact details, and did not include members’ passwords, bank or credit card details, transactions or information relating to any members’ or customers’ products or services with the Co-op Group,” a spokesperson said.

DragonForce want the BBC to report the hack – they are apparently trying to extort the company for money.

But the criminals wouldn’t say what they plan to do with the data if they don’t get paid.

They refused to talk about M&S or Harrods and when asked about how they feel about causing so much distress and damage to business and customers, they refused to answer.

DragonForce is a ransomware group known for scrambling victims’ data and demanding a ransom is paid to get the key to unscramble it. They are also known to have stolen data as part of their extortion tactics.

DragonForce operates an affiliate cyber crime service so anyone can use their malicious software and website to carry out attacks and extortions.

It’s not known who is ultimately using the DragonForce service to attack the retailers, but some security experts say the tactics seen are similar to that of a loosely coordinated group of hackers who have been called Scattered Spider or Octo Tempest.

The gang operates on Telegram and Discord channels and is English-speaking and young – in some cases only teenagers.

Conversations with the Co-op hackers were carried out in text form – but it is clear the hacker, who called himself a spokesperson, was a fluent English speaker.

They say two of the hackers want to be known as “Raymond Reddington” and “Dembe Zuma” after characters from US crime thriller Blacklist which involves a wanted criminal helping police take down other criminals on a ‘blacklist’.

The hackers say “we’re putting UK retailers on the Blacklist”.

Co-op says it is working with the NCSC and the NCA and said in a statement it is very sorry this situation has arisen.

Sign up for our Tech Decoded newsletter to follow the world’s top tech stories and trends. Outside the UK? Sign up here.

US President Donald Trump says he plans to rename Veterans Day – known as Remembrance Day in the UK – as “Victory Day for World War I” to celebrate American contributions to the conflict.

The president also wants to name VE Day on 8 May as “Victory Day for World War II”, he said on his Truth Social social media platform.

The announcement was not accompanied by an executive order, and it is unclear whether he intends for 8 May to become a federal holiday – a power that rests with the US Congress.

The days mark the end of World War I in 1918 and Germany’s surrender to the allies in 1945, respectively.

In his late-night post, Trump said that “many of our allies and friends are celebrating May 8th as Victory Day, but we did more than any other country, by far, in producing a victorious result” in the Second World War.

“We won both wars, nobody was close to us in terms of strength, bravery or military brilliance, but we never celebrate anything,” he added. “That’s because we don’t have leaders anymore, that know how to do so! So we are going to start celebrating our victories again!”

VE Day celebrations being held in the UK, France, Canada and other parts of the world this year mark 80 years since World War Two formally ended in Europe with Germany’s unconditional surrender shortly after Berlin fell to Soviet forces.

Russia commemorates the occasion as the end of what it calls the “Great Patriotic War”. It is one of the most important holidays in the country and is marked by a massive parade.

About 27 million of its citizens died during the war, which in the Soviet Union’s case began when Germany invaded in July 1941.

According to statistics published online by the US National WWII Museum in New Orleans, about 418,500 Americans were killed in both the European and Pacific theatres of the conflict. Of the total, about 416,000 were military casualties.

The US has not historically recognised VE Day. The country was still at war with Japan on the Pacific front for several more months after conflict ended in Europe.

Veterans Day, known as Remembrance Day in the UK, was formerly known as Armistice Day in the US to mark the end of fighting in Europe on 11 November 1918.

After World War Two and the Korean War, it was renamed to honour all US military veterans. Memorial Day, which always falls on the last Monday in May, honours Americans who were killed in battle.

Trump did not specify how he believes the two “Victory” days should be celebrated, although he has previously floated the idea of conducting military parades in Washington to celebrate the US military.

This week, the Associated Press reported that the US Army has drawn up plans for a parade to celebrate the army’s 250th birthday on 14 June – the same day as Trump’s birthday.

The mother of a South African girl, who disappeared aged six more than a year ago, has been convicted of kidnapping and trafficking her daughter.

Kelly Smith, her boyfriend Jacquen Appollis and their friend Steveno van Rhyn were arrested after Smith’s daughter, Joshlin, went missing from outside her home in Saldanha Bay, near Cape Town, in February last year.

Appollis and Van Rhyn were also found guilty on Friday of kidnapping and trafficking Joshlin. All three had previously pleaded not guilty to to these charges.

Joshlin’s disappearance sent shockwaves across South Africa and despite a highly publicised search for her, she is yet to be found.

During the trial, held in March, prosecutors accused Smith of having “sold, delivered or exchanged” Joshlin and then lied about her disappearance.

Smith wiped tears from her eyes when the guilty verdict was read, while Van Rhyn inexplicably broke into a smile.

Applause rippled through the packed courtroom and some onlookers began to cry.

Smith’s mother was in attendance and after the hearing finished, she said she was “angry” with her daughter and did not want to see her.

“She must tell me where my grandchild is,” Amanda Daniels-Smith told reporters.

Smith, Van Rhyn and Appollis could face life in prison – a date for sentencing is yet to be set.

In a statement following the judgment, the police said they would continue in their search for Joshlin.

The trial was held in Saldanha’s Multipurpose Centre to “ensure the community has access” to proceedings, Judge Nathan Erasmus, who presided over the case, said previously.

Ahead of the verdict, nearby roads had been closed, while police officers were deployed in and around the centre.

The trial captivated South Africa, with witnesses and prosecutors making a number of shocking allegations.

The most explosive came from Lourentia Lombaard, a friend and neighbour of Smith who turned state witness.

Ms Lombaard alleged that Smith told her she had done “something silly” and sold Joshlin to a traditional healer, known in South Africa as a “sangoma”.

The “person who [allegedly took] Joshlin wanted her for her eyes and skin”, Ms Lombaard told the court.

A local pastor testified that in 2023, he had heard Smith – a mother of three – talk of selling her children for 20,000 rand ($1,100; £850) each, though she had said she was willing to accept a lower figure of $275.

Joshlin’s teacher then alleged in court that Smith had told her during the search that her daughter was already “on a ship, inside a container, and they were on the way to West Africa”.

Smith’s lawyer, Rinesh Sivnarain, cast doubt on these allegations. He cited inconsistencies – recognised by the prosecution – in Ms Lombaard’s remarks and suggested she was an “opportunist”.

Smith, Appollis and Van Rhyn chose not to call any witnesses in their defence and did not take the stand during the trial.

Sangomas are legally recognised in South Africa under the Traditional Health Practitioners Act of 2007, alongside herbalists, traditional birth attendants and traditional surgeons.

Some charlatans are involved in unscrupulous traditional so-called cures, and have been known to sell good luck charms that involve body parts.

The allegation that Smith had discussed selling her daughter and had issues with drugs has prompted conversations about the vulnerability of children, particularly in South Africa’s poor communities.

In Joshlin’s community of Middelpos, parents have been telling local media that more than a year after the young girl’s disappearance, they are still concerned for their own children’s safety.

• Joshlin Smith’s disappearance spreads fear in South Africa’s Saldhana Bay
• Missing South African girl was wanted for her ‘eyes and skin’

An Illinois landlord who fatally stabbed a six-year-old Palestinian-American boy and severely wounded his mother has been sentenced to 53 years in prison.

Joseph Czuba, 73, was convicted in February for murder and hate crimes for the death of Wadee Alfayoumi, and the wounding of his mother Hanan Shaheen in 2023 shortly after the start of the Israel-Gaza war.

The family had been tenants in Czuba’s home in Plainfield, roughly 64 km (40 miles) from Chicago. Prosecutors said he targeted them over their Muslim faith.

Czuba had pleaded not guilty, but jurors convicted him after deliberating for less than 90 minutes.

Wadee Alfayoumi’s great uncle, Mahmoud Yousef, told the court on Friday that no sentence was going to “justify” the boy’s death, according to NBC News.

“The day he was killed, his father had memories, had plans for his son,” he continued, saying Czuba “had no right to take them”.

Appearing in a red jail uniform, the thin and frail looking convict, declined to speak on his own behalf.

The trial included testimony from Alfayoumi’s mother, who described the encounter in harrowing detail, and from Czuba’s now ex-wife, who said he had grown agitated by the war.

• Last words of knifed US Muslim boy were ‘Mom, I’m fine’

• Illinois man convicted for hate crime murder of Palestinian boy

Hanan Shaheen testified during the trial that Czuba had told her “you, as a Muslim, must die”, according to Reuters.

On the day of the attack, he forced his way into the home of the Alfayoumi family, who had been renting rooms from him and attacked them with a knife, prosecutors said.

He stabbed the mother over a dozen times, prosecutors said, then turned towards the boy and stabbed him 26 times.

Evidence during trial included graphic crime scene photos and police saying they found Czuba outside the house after the attack with his body and hands covered in blood.

The deadly attack received national attention and renewed concerns of Islamophobia, anti-Muslim discrimination, and anti-Palestinian prejudice.

The young boy had celebrated his sixth birthday just a few weeks before he was killed.

“He loved his family, his friends. He loved soccer, he loved basketball,” the executive director of the Chicago office of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Ahmed Rehab, said at the time.

Jill Sobule, a groundbreaking US songwriter whose hit I Kissed a Girl is widely considered the first song with openly-gay themes to crack the Billboard Top 20, has died in a house fire in Minneapolis, Minnesota, her publicist has said.

Sobule, whose satirical anthem Supermodel featured in the 1995 coming-of-age film Clueless, was 66.

She had been due to perform on Friday in her home city of Denver, Colorado to showcase songs from her autobiographical stage musical. A free gathering will now take place in her honour.

Tributes have been pouring in on social media, including from English musician Lloyd Cole, who said: “I’m really too numb to post much of anything. We loved her. She loved us.”

Born in 1959, Sobule’s career spanned three decades, her music dealing with topics including the death penalty, anorexia and LGBTQ+ rights.

Her most famous work came on her eponymous 1995 album, which included Supermodel and I Kissed a Girl.

The latter drew renewed attention in 2008 when Katy Perry released a different single of her own with the same title.

Sobule later became a pioneer of using crowdfunding to release albums, and wrote music for theatre and television shows, including the theme for the Nickelodeon show Unfabulous.

John Porter, Sobule’s manager, said she was a “force of nature and human rights advocate whose music is woven into our culture”.

He continued: “I was having so much fun working with her. I lost a client & a friend today. I hope her music, memory, & legacy continue to live on and inspire others.”

Eric Alper, a Canadian music correspondent, posted on X that she “paved the way with heart, humour, and honesty”, adding that the openly gay artist “changed the soundtrack – and the conversation”.

“Jill Sobule was so special. Heartbreaking news,” American actress Carrie Coon posted.

Police in the suburb of Woodbury are investigating the cause of the fire at the house where Sobule was found, the Star Tribune reported.

A United Nations judge has been jailed for six years and four months for forcing a woman to work as a domestic slave.

Lydia Mugambe, 50, was studying for a PhD in law at the University of Oxford when police discovered she had a young Ugandan woman at her home carrying out unpaid work as a maid and nanny.

Mugambe, who is also a High Court judge in Uganda, was jailed at Oxford Crown Court on Friday after she was found guilty of modern day slavery offences in March.

In sentencing, Judge David Foxton told the defendant she “showed absolutely no remorse” for her actions and she had looked to “forcibly blame” the victim for what happened.

Mugambe fraudulently arranged a visa for the woman but it stipulated she would be paid to work as a private servant at the diplomatic residence of John Mugerwa, Uganda’s former deputy high commissioner based at the country’s embassy in London.

Prosecutors said Mr Mugerwa sponsored the victim’s visa knowing she would actually work in servitude for Mugambe.

In return, Mugambe would provide him assistance in relation to a separate court case in Uganda in which he was a defendant, the court was told.

The trial heard Mugambe paid for the victim’s flight and picked her up from the airport – but the young woman then became a slave at the judge’s home in Kidlington, Oxfordshire.

Mr Foxton described it as a “very sad case” as he outlined Mugambe’s legal accomplishments, including her work in the protection of human rights.

In a written statement, read to the court by prosecutor Caroline Haughey KC, the victim described living in “almost constant fear” due to Mugambe’s powerful standing in Uganda.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said she “can’t go back to Uganda” due to fear of what may happen to her and added that she may never see her mother again.

Ms Haughey said Mugambe exploited her victim by taking advantage of her lack of knowledge about employment rights and misleading her about why she came to the UK.

She said there was a “clear and significant imbalance of power within the relationship” between Mugambe and her victim.

The Crown Prosecution Service authorised police to charge Mr Mugerwa with conspiracy but he had diplomatic immunity, which the Ugandan Government did not waive.

Mugambe had denied forcing the young Ugandan woman to do household chores and said she “always” treated her with love, care and patience.

Ch Supt Ben Clark, of Thames Valley Police, said there was “no doubt” that Mugambe had known she was committing offences.

“Modern slavery is an under reported crime and I hope that the bravery of the victim in this case encourages other victims of modern slavery to come forward,” he said.

A University of Oxford spokesperson said the institution was “appalled” by its student’s crimes.

“The university is now commencing its own disciplinary process, which has the power to remove students convicted of serious criminal offences,” the spokesperson added.