Israel went to war after the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 armed with an arsenal of weapons mostly paid for, supplied and then resupplied by the United States.

Its other allies gave Israel something just as potent in its own way: a deep credit of goodwill and solidarity, based on revulsion at the killings of 1,200 people, mostly Israeli civilians, and the sight of 251 people being dragged into captivity in Gaza as hostages.

Now it seems that Israel’s credit has gone, at least as far as France, the United Kingdom and Canada are concerned. They have issued their strongest condemnation yet of the way Israel is fighting the war in Gaza.

Israel, they say, must halt its new offensive, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says will destroy Hamas, rescue the remaining hostages and put all of Gaza under direct Israeli military control.

• Live coverage
• Israeli strikes kill at least 38 people in half-hour period, medics say
• UN calls five trucks of aid ‘drop in ocean’ of what’s needed

Their statement dismisses Netanyahu’s arguments and calls for a ceasefire. Together, the three governments say that they “strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza” adding: “The level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable.”

They call for the release of the remaining hostages and recall that after the “heinous attack” on 7 October they believed that the Israeli state “had a right to defend Israelis against terrorism. But this escalation is wholly disproportionate”.

Netanyahu’s decision to allow what he called “minimal” food into Gaza was they said “wholly inadequate”.

Netanyahu has hit back, saying the “leaders in London, Ottawa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more such atrocities”.

He insisted the war could end if Hamas returned hostages, laid down its arms, agreed for its leaders to go into exile and Gaza was demilitarised. “No nation can be expected to accept anything less and Israel certainly won’t,” he said.

Netanyahu – who is sought under an International criminal Court warrant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, which he has dismissed as “antisemitic” – had been under heavy international pressure to end the blockade of Gaza after a respected international survey warned of imminent famine.

At the London summit between the EU and the UK the President of the European Council, António Costa, called the humanitarian crisis in Gaza “a tragedy where international law is being systematically violated, and an entire population is being subjected to disproportionate military force”.

“There must be safe, swift and unimpeded access for humanitarian aid,” he said.

Netanyahu’s reluctant decision to allow in limited supplies was condemned by his ultra nationalist coalition partners.

The Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, convicted in 2007 for incitement to racism and supporting an extremist Jewish group that Israel classifies as a terrorist organisation, complained that Netanyahu’s decision would “fuel Hamas and give it oxygen while our hostages languish in tunnels”.

Only five trucks made it into Gaza on Monday, as Israeli troops advanced and air and artillery strikes killed more Palestinian civilians including many young children.

Opponents of Israel’s destruction of Gaza and the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians will say the governments of France, the UK and Canada are speaking out far too late.

Many of them have held months of demonstrations protesting about the death and destruction in Gaza – and more killing of Palestinian civilians and confiscation of land in the West Bank, the other side of the Palestinian territories, during military operations and raids by armed Jewish settlers.

But sometimes in the politics of war, a single incident carries symbolic power that clarifies and crystallises so sharply that it can force governments to action. This time it was the killing on 23 March by Israeli forces in Gaza of 15 paramedics and aid workers.

It came after Israel, on 18 March, had broken a ceasefire that had held for two months with a series of massive air strikes.

Five days into the renewed war an Israeli unit attacked the medical convoy, and covered the men they had killed and their bullet ridden vehicles with the sand. The Israeli account of what happened was shown to be untrue when a mobile phone was recovered from a body in the mass grave.

Its owner had filmed the incident before he was killed. Far from proving Israel’s claim that the emergency workers were a potential threat to the Israeli combat soldiers, the video from the grave showed that clearly marked and well-lit ambulances and emergency vehicles were attacked systematically until almost everyone inside them was killed.

Alarm has been growing fast since then, not just among Israel’s usual opponents. Its European allies, with President Macron of France leading the way, have been toughening their language. The statement calling for an end to Israel’s offensive is their harshest criticism of Israel so far.

A senior European diplomatic source involved in their discussions told me that the tough language reflected a “real sense of growing political anger at the humanitarian situation, of a line being crossed, and of this Israeli government appearing to act with impunity”.

More ominously for Israel, the statement says that “we will not stand by while the Netanyahu government pursues these egregious actions. If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete steps in response”.

They do not specify what those might be. Sanctions could be one possibility. A bigger step would be to recognise Palestine as an independent state.

France has been considering joining the 148 other states that have done so at a conference it is co-chairing with Saudi Arabia in New York in early June. The UK has also talked about Palestinian recognition with the French.

Israel, pushing back hard, has told them they would be presenting Hamas with a victory. But the tone of the statement made by the French, the Canadians and the British suggests that Israel is losing its ability to pressurise them.

Parts of the southern Indian city of Bengaluru, often called India’s Silicon Valley are under water after heavy rainfall.

The city is on high alert for more pre-monsoon showers on Tuesday due to cyclonic formations over the Andaman Sea, according to authorities.

Three people, including a 12-year-old boy were killed in rain-related incidents on Monday.

Bengaluru is home to major global technology companies, many of whom have asked their employees to work from home due to flooded roads.

Many parts of the city received 100 mm (4in) of rain on Monday, a record since 2011.

This is “rare” for Bengaluru, CS Patil, a director at the regional weather department told news agencies.

Apart from severe water-logging and traffic disrupting daily life, heavy rainfall has also caused property damage.

In one of the city’s major IT corridors, the compound wall of a software firm – i-Zed – collapsed on Monday morning, killing a 35-year-old female employee.

Videos also showed commuters wading through knee-deep water, with several cars parked on waterlogged streets. Water has also entered houses in some parts of the city.

Authorities say the city corporation has identified 210 flood-prone areas where they were working round the clock to “rectify” the situation.

“There is no need for the people of Bengaluru to be worried,” DK Shivakumar, deputy chief minister of Karnataka state told reporters on Monday.

But officials are facing criticism on social media with many complaining about the city’s crumbling infrastructure and deluged roads.

“No other city invokes a sense of fear and helplessness for commuting during rains as Bangalore does,” a user wrote on X.

Annu Itty, who has lived in the city for eight years told the BBC that the city’s infrastructure becomes especially fragile in the monsoons.

“Ironically, it’s the newly developed areas – those built to house the booming tech sector – that face the worst flooding,” she said.

Itty, who works in public policy, says a “lack of coherent urban planning that respects environmental limits”, as well as a lack of government accountability, has left Bengaluru residents to deal with the consequences.

Karnataka, of which Bengaluru is the capital is currently run by the Congress party. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which sits in the opposition in the state has accused the local government of failing to tackle rain-related issues in the city and the state, despite spending million of rupees on its infrastructure.

The BJP has demanded the immediate release of 10bn rupees ($117m, £87.5m) for relief operations.

The state government has, however, defended itself saying these were long-standing issues.

“The issues we face today are not new. They have been ignored for years, across governments and administrations,” Shivakumar said.

Floods have been a recurring phenomenon in Bengaluru in recent years. Experts partly blame rapid construction over the city’s lakes and wetlands and poor urban planning for the crisis.

Ananda Rao, president of the Association for Information Technology (AIT) – which represents over 450 software companies – told the BBC that such frequent flooding has caused “discomfort and inconvenience” for businesses.

“Bengaluru contributes significantly in taxes – both at an individual level and property tax. There is no return on this investment,” he said, calling on the state government to work on long-term solutions to improve the city’s infrastructure.

Vietnamese authorities have arrested a beauty queen and social media influencer for consumer fraud after she promoted a counterfeit fibre supplement.

Nguyen Thuc Thuy Tien had heavily marketed gummies said to be rich in fibre on her social media channels.

But a public backlash erupted after product tests revealed this was untrue.

A former winner of the Miss Grand International beauty competition, Ms Nguyen is a well-known personality in Vietnam and previously received accolades from the government.

Ms Nguyen had promoted Kera Supergreens Gummies along with social media influencers, Pham Quang Linh and Hang Du Muc.

Investigators said the product was the result of a joint venture between Ms Nguyen and a company set up by the two other influencers.

The influencers claimed that each of their gummies contained fibre equivalent to a plate of vegetables.

A member of the public sent the product for testing at a lab, which found that each gummy only contained 16mg of fibre, far from 200mg as claimed.

Authorities then launched an investigation, which found that sub-standard ingredients that were low in fibre were used in the manufacture of the gummies.

The product’s packaging also did not state the fibre content, nor did it state that the product contained a high level of sorbitol, which is used in laxatives.

The three influencers were fined in March, and apologised to the public.

The following month, Vietnamese authorities arrested Mr Pham and Hang Du Muc as well as officials from their company and the gummies’ manufacturer.

They were charged with producing counterfeit goods and defrauding customers.

On Monday, authorities announced the arrest of Ms Nguyen for allegedly deceiving customers.

More than 100,000 boxes of the gummies were reportedly sold before sales were halted due to the scandal.

After winning the Bangkok-based beauty pageant in 2021, Ms Nguyen became a celebrity sought after by many Vietnamese brands, and appeared on several reality TV shows.

She also received certificates of merit from the prime minister and Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party.

Australia’s conservative Liberal-National coalition – the nation’s main opposition political party – has split after a partnership lasting almost 80 years.

The move marks a seismic change in the country’s political landscape and comes just weeks after a federal election that saw Labor win a second term in a landslide victory.

Nationals leader David Littleproud on Tuesday said his party was not re-entering a coalition agreement, amid policy disagreements with the Liberal Party as it goes on a journey of “rediscovery” following the emphatic loss.

Littleproud added that the Coalition has been broken and repaired before, and he hoped that – with time – the parties could reconcile again.

The Liberal Party – which has the second largest number of seats in parliament – will remain the formal opposition party, though now in their own right. This means the Nationals will not hold any opposition roles.

“Whilst we have enormous respect for David Littleproud and his team, it is disappointing that the National Party has taken the decision to leave the Coalition,” newly elected Liberal leader Sussan Ley said, hours after the shock announcement.

Ley said the founding principle of the Coalition had long been “shared values”, but said the Nationals had refused to sign a deal without commitments to “specific policies”.

The split comes after days of post-election talks between the two parties about their future, with Littleproud’s party – which mainly represents regional communities and often leans more conservative than the Liberals – failing to reach an agreement with their long-time political ally.

A key issue that had strained their relationship was climate and energy, with some in the National Party still opposed to net-zero emissions goals, and wedded to a nuclear power proposal which proved controversial at the election.

Littleproud also pointed to regional infrastructure spending and policies to improve supermarket competition as points of conflict.

Describing it as “one of the hardest political decisions of his life”, Littleproud said he had a “respectful conversation” with Ley to inform her of the split on Tuesday morning.

“What this is about is taking a deep breath and saying to the Australian people, this is time apart [for] us to be better, [to] focus on them.

“I gave [Ley] the commitment that I’ll work with her every day to help to try to rebuild the relationship to the point we can re-enter a coalition before the next election.”

However, he said the National Party would contest the next election solo if unity could not be achieved.

The Liberal-National partnership, which in its current form dates back to the 1940s, has broken down and been re-established several times over the decades. The last time the Coalition split was almost four decades ago, in 1987.

All except one of the 15 electorates the Liberal-National coalition lost at the election were ceded by the Liberals, who saw big swings against them right around the nation.

Support for the Liberals nosedived in more moderate areas, particularly in cities, which analysts largely put down to then-leader Peter Dutton’s polarising persona and some Trump-like policies. Ley, his successor, has vowed to bring the party back to the centre-right.

The four-day conflict between arch-rivals India and Pakistan this month ended with a ceasefire and both claiming victory – but it now appears that China’s defence industry might also be an unlikely winner.

The latest flare-up began on 7 May when India launched attacks on what it called “terrorist infrastructure” inside Pakistan in response to the brutal killing of 26 people, mostly tourists by militants in Pahalgam on 22 April.

Many of them were killed in the scenic valley in Indian-administered Kashmir in front of their wives and family members. Delhi accused Islamabad of supporting militant groups involved in the carnage, a charge Pakistan denied.

After India’s response – which it called Operation Sindoor – to the militant attack, tit-for-tat military manoeuvres from both sides followed, involving drones, missiles and fighter jets.

India reportedly used its French and Russian-made jets, while Pakistan deployed its J-10 and J-17 aircraft, which Islamabad co-produces with Beijing. Both sides say their jets did not cross the border and they were firing missiles at each other from a distance.

Islamabad claims that its fighter aircraft shot down at least six Indian planes, including the newly-acquired French-made Rafale fighter jets. Delhi hasn’t responded to these claims.

“Losses are a part of combat,” Air Marshal AK Bharti of the Indian Air Force (IAF) said last week when a reporter asked him about these claims. Air Marshal Bharti declined to comment on the specific claim of Pakistan downing Indian jets.

“We have achieved the objectives that we selected, and all our pilots are back home,” he added.

India said it had killed at least “100 terrorists” while targeting the headquarters of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed militant outfits based in Pakistan.

A definitive account of what really happened in the aerial battle is yet to emerge. Some media outlets reported plane crashes in the state of Punjab and Indian-administered Kashmir around the same time but the Indian government has not responded to the reports.

A Reuters report quoting American officials said Pakistan possibly had used the Chinese-made J-10 aircraft to launch air-to-air missiles against Indian fighter jets. Pakistan claiming victory after hugely relying on Chinese weapons systems in an active combat situation is being seen by some experts as a boost for Beijing’s defence industry but some also disagree with the claim.

Some of the experts have called this a “DeepSeek moment” for the Chinese weapons industry, referring to January this year when the Chinese AI start-up shook US giants with its cost-effective technology.

“The aerial fight was a big advertisement for the Chinese weapons industry. Until now, China had no opportunity to test its platforms in a combat situation,” Zhou Bo, a retired senior colonel in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, told the BBC.

The Beijing-based analyst said the outcome of the air duel showed “China has some systems that are next to none”. Shares in the Chinese Avic Chengdu Aircraft company, that manufactures fighter jets like the J-10, surged by up to 40% last week after the reported performance of the fighter jet in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Other experts, however, feel it’s too early to declare the superiority of Chinese weapons systems.

Professor Walter Ladwig from the King’s College in London said it was yet to be determined whether the Chinese jets had actually outmanoeuvred the Indian Air Force (IAF) planes, particularly the Rafale.

“In a standard military doctrine, you would suppress the enemy’s air defences and get air superiority before you struck ground targets. Instead, it appears the IAF’s mission was clearly not to provoke any Pakistani military retaliation,” he said.

Mr Ladwig thought that the Indian pilots were given instructions to fly despite the fact that the entire Pakistani air defence was on high alert and their jets were already in the sky. The IAF hasn’t given details of the mission or about its air operations strategy.

Beijing also hasn’t made any comment on reports of the J-10 taking down Indian fighter jets, including the Rafale. But unconfirmed reports of the J-10 bringing down a Western weapon system has triggered jubilation and triumphalism on Chinese social media.

Carlotta Rinaudo, a China researcher at the International Team for the Study of Security in Verona, said Chinese social media was flooded with nationalistic messages even though it’s difficult to reach a conclusion with the available information.

“At the moment perception matters way more than reality. If we see it in that way, the main winner is really China,” she said.

For China, Pakistan is a strategic and economic ally. It is investing more than $50bn (£37bn) to build infrastructure in Pakistan as part of its China-Pakistan Economic corridor.

So, a weak Pakistan is not in China’s interest.

China made a critical difference in the latest India-Pakistan conflict, says Imtiaz Gul, a Pakistani security analyst. “It took the Indian planners by sheer surprise. They didn’t probably envision the depth of co-operation in the modern warfare between Pakistan and China,” he said.

Experts say the performance of the Chinese jets in a real combat situation was keenly analysed in Western capitals as this will have cascading impact on global arms trade. The US is the world’s largest arms exporter, while China is the fourth.

China sells weapons mostly to developing countries like Myanmar and Pakistan. Previously the Chinese weapon systems were criticised for their poor quality and technical problems.

Reports said the Burmese military grounded several of its JF-17 fighter jets – jointly manufactured by China and Pakistan in 2022 – due to technical malfunctions.

The Nigerian military reported several technical problems with the Chinese made F-7 fighter jets.

Another point to be noted is that this was not the first time that India lost an aircraft to Pakistan.

In 2019, during a brief air battle between the two sides following similar Indian air strikes on suspected terrorist targets in Pakistan, a Russian-made MiG-21 jet was shot down inside Pakistani territory and the pilot was captured. He was released a few days later.

India, however, said that the pilot had ejected after successfully shooting down Pakistani fighter jets, including a US-made F-16. Pakistan has denied the claim.

Despite reports of the downing of Indian jets last week, experts like Mr Ladwig argue that India was able to hit an “impressive breadth of targets” inside Pakistan early in the morning of 10 May and this fact has gone largely unnoticed by the international media.

The Indian military said in a co-ordinated attack, it launched missiles on 11 Pakistani air bases across the country, including the strategic Nur Khan air base outside Rawalpindi, not far from the Pakistani military headquarters. It’s a sensitive target that took Islamabad by surprise.

One of the furthest targets was in Bholari, 140km (86 miles) from the southern city of Karachi.

Mr Ladwig says this time the IAF operated with standard procedures – first attacking Pakistani air defence and radar systems and then focusing on ground targets.

The Indian jets used an array of missiles, loitering munitions and drones despite the Pakistanis operating the Chinese-provided HQ 9 air defence system.

“It seems the attacks were relatively precise and targeted. The craters were in the middle of runways, exactly the ideal spot. If it were a longer conflict, how long would it take the Pakistani Air Force to get these facilities up and running again, I can’t say,” Mr Ladwig pointed out.

Nevertheless, he said, by refusing to get into the details of the mission briefing, India’s military “lost control of the narrative thread”.

In response to the Indian strikes, Pakistan said it launched missile and air strikes on several Indian forward air bases, but Delhi said the attacks caused no damage to equipment and personnel.

Realising that the situation was getting out of control, the US and its allies intervened and put pressure on both countries to stop the fighting.

But for India, experts say, the whole episode is a wake-up call.

Beijing may not comment on the details of the recent India-Pakistan conflict, but it’s keen to show that its weapon systems are fast catching up with the West.

Delhi is aware that the jets China has supplied to Pakistan are some of the earlier models. Beijing has already inducted the more advanced J-20 stealth fighter jets, that can evade radars.

India and China have a long-standing border dispute along the Himalayas and fought a brief border war in 1962 that resulted in a defeat for India. A brief border clash took place in Ladakh in June 2020.

Experts say India is acutely aware that it needs to accelerate investments in its homegrown defence manufacturing industry and speed up international buying.

For now, China’s defence industry seems to be enjoying the limelight following the claims of success of one of its aircraft in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Some have called it an “eyesaur”. Many more have described it as “fabulous”.

But one word Boom Boom, a seven-metre tall stainless steel dinosaur sculpture in New Zealand, could never be associated with is “boring”.

Just days after the sauropod statue was installed in Taupō Sculpture Park, in the scenic centre of New Zealand’s North Island, Boom Boom has already prompted heated debate among locals.

The artist – and the team that commissioned it – say that’s exactly the point.

The mirror-finish sculpture was commissioned by the Taupō Sculpture Trust and created by Slovenian-born artist Gregor Kregar.

Kregar said that he wasn’t “particularly surprised” by the furore that quickly surrounded his work.

“Sculpture sometimes stops people from their everyday interactions with the world,” he told the BBC from his home in Auckland. “It’s really hard to hate a sculpture of a dinosaur.”

Still, public opinion on Boom Boom is split.

“Fantastic! Getting people talking about art. Broadening the conversation,” said one commenter on a social media post announcing Boom Boom’s arrival.

But another wrote: “Public investment of $100,000 from the local ratepayers, many of who would have rather seen the money spent elsewhere in the community.”

Funding for Boom Boom was finalised in 2018, before recent hikes in Taupō District Council’s rate which is similar to a council tax.

After several years of negotiations, the work was completed and installed in the park last week.

Others still criticised the work as having no connection with Taupō, named New Zealand’s most beautiful town in the 2023 Keep New Zealand Beautiful Awards.

But Kregar said the rock that the dinosaur stands on is inspired by the volcanic history of the area.

Lake Taupō, from which the town takes its name, is a large caldera, a volcano that has collapsed in on itself. It last erupted around 1,800 years ago.

Sauropods, the inspiration for Boom Boom, are one of a few species of dinosaurs that paleontologists say lived in New Zealand.

They became extinct 66 million years ago, along with most other non-avian dinosaurs.

Kregar says the spirited debate around the sculpture means Boom Boom could eventually win round “the haters”.

“You put the sculpture out there, there is reaction, people start falling in love with it, and then it becomes something that they start embracing, part of the local identity,” he said.

Kim Gillies, secretary of the Taupō Sculpture Trust, told the BBC that the decision to commission Boom Boom was not taken “lightly”, but that it was chosen because “it would help put Taupō on the map”.

Gillies added that when it comes to the art, “safe is a bit boring, right?”

No bones about it.

Last year, Donald Trump promised he would end the Ukraine War in “24 hours”.

Last week, he said that it would not be resolved until he and Russian President Vladimir Putin could “get together” and hash it out in person.

On Monday, the ground shifted again.

After a two-hour phone call with Putin, he said that the conditions of a peace deal could only be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine – and maybe with the help of the Pope.

Still, the US president has not lost his sense of optimism about the prospect for peace, posting on social media that the combatants would “immediately start” negotiations for a ceasefire and an end to the war.

That sentiment was somewhat at odds with the Russian view. Putin only said that his country is ready to work with Ukraine to craft a “memorandum on a possible future peace agreement”.

Talks about memorandums and a “possible future” of peace hardly seems the kind of solid ground on which lasting deals can be quickly built.

• Russia and Ukraine to ‘immediately’ start ceasefire talks, says Trump
• Trump says he will call Putin to discuss stopping Ukraine ‘bloodbath’
• Rosenberg: Trump-Putin call seen as victory in Russia

Putin again emphasised that any resolution would have to address the “root causes” of the war – which Russia has claimed in the past to be Ukraine’s desire for closer ties to Europe.

On Truth Social after the call, Trump said that Russia and Ukraine will “immediately start negotiations” toward a ceasefire, adding that “the conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties”.

But there is a possibility that Trump’s latest take on the war in Ukraine could be a sign that the US will ultimately abandon the negotiating table.

Later on Monday, Trump said he would not step away from brokering talks between the two countries, but acknowledged that he had a “red line in his head”.

“Big egos involved, but I think something’s going to happen,” he said. “And if it doesn’t, I’ll just back away and they’ll have to keep going.”

Such a move, however, comes with its own set of questions – and risks.

If the US washes its hands of the war, as Vice-President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have also threatened, does it mean the US would also end any military and intelligence support for Ukraine?

And if that is the case, then it may be a development that Russia, with its greater resources compared to a Ukraine cut off from American backing, would welcome.

That prospect is enough to have Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky concerned.

“It’s crucial for all of us that the United States does not distance itself from the talks and the pursuit of peace,” he said on Monday after the Trump-Putin call.

• Trump’s frantic peace brokering hints at what he really wants

Trump has expressed frustration with both Putin and Zelensky as efforts to resolve the three-year-old conflict drag on.

He accused the Ukrainian leader of “gambling with World War Three” in an explosive meeting in February in the Oval Office and, in April, said he was “very angry” and “pissed off” at Putin after talks continued to stall.

Putting aside Monday’s rhetoric, it appears that Ukraine and Russia are set to continue some kind of talks – and talking in any form is progress after nearly three years of war. Still to be determined is whether the Russian team will be more than the low-level delegation that travelled to Istanbul to meet with the Ukrainians last Friday.

Trump is holding out the promise of reduced sanctions on Russia – and new trade deals and economic investment – as the enticement that will move Putin toward a peace agreement. He mentioned that again in his post-call comments. Not discussed, on the other hand, were any negative consequences, such as new sanctions on Russian banking and energy exports.

The US president last month warned that he would not tolerate Putin “tapping me along” and said that Russia should not target civilian areas. But yesterday, Russia launched its largest drone strike of the war on Ukrainian cities, and Monday’s call between the two world leaders makes clear that any ceasefire or peace deal still seems well over the horizon.

A UK-based people smuggler who helped organise the movement of more than 3,000 migrants as part of a £12 million illegal boat crossing operation has been jailed for 25 years.

Egyptian-born Ahmed Ebid, 42, of south west London, was involved in smuggling nearly 3,800 people on fishing boat crossings from North Africa to Italy between October 2022 and June 2023 and some of them made their way to Britain, the National Crime Agency (NCA) said.

It is believed Ebid is the first person convicted of organising boat crossings across the Mediterranean from the UK.

Ebid arrived in the UK on a small boat in 2022 after spending five years in jail in Italy for attempted drug smuggling. He applied for asylum in the UK, though he never received a decision by the British government about his claim.

At his sentencing hearing at Southwark Crown Court on Tuesday, the judge said Ebid ruthlessly exploited desperate individuals and his “primary motivation was to make money out of human trafficking”.

“The treatment of migrants was horrifying,” Judge Adam Hiddleston said.

“This was a commercial enterprise, pure and simple. The risk of loss of life was considerable. These were fishing boats, not ferries”.

Ebid “exercised a managerial role at a very high level”, the court heard, bribing officials and ordering threats of violence towards the migrants.

It is likely that Ebid will be deported once he has served his sentence.

He was arrested in 2023 after Italian security services looked into satellite phones being used by migrants on Mediterranean crossings from Libya to Europe, in particular Italy.

Some handsets were being used to call a British mobile number. The NCA linked that mobile phone to Ebid and then bugged his home to record evidence.

The agency found he was involved in a number of smuggling operations, transporting thousands of men, women and children, often in dangerously overcrowded fishing vessels.

Ebid even told an associate to kill and throw any migrants caught with their phones into the sea, in a bid to avoid law enforcement, the NCA said.

A British ultra-endurance athlete says he has broken the world record for running across the width of Australia, after a gruelling 35-day journey.

William Goodge, 31, started the 3,800km (2,361-mile) run from Cottesloe Beach in Perth on 15 April, and finished on Monday afternoon at Australia’s iconic Bondi Beach, his father by his side.

Goodge’s team says he ran the equivalent of two-and-a-half marathons – about 100km – every day.

Originally from Bedfordshire in England, Goodge started running marathons after his mother, Amanda, died from cancer in 2018, with this journey raising money for cancer charities in the UK, US and Australia.

The record is yet to be verified by Guinness World Records, which certified Chris Turnbull’s record-breaking dash across the continent over 39 days in 2023. The year before, Australian electrician Nedd Brockmann ran the same route in 47 days, raising millions for charity.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast about 24 hours after he had crossed the finish line, Goodge said “it’s the toughest thing I’ve ever done”.

Along the way Goodge ran through a dust storm, lost several toenails, and suffered from injuries, including rotting feet and bone pain, which sometimes caused him to hallucinate.

“It was full-on from start to finish,” he told the BBC, adding the first nine days were particularly hard.

The Nullabor Plain – a vast area of desert that crosses from Western Australia to South Australia – was also “unforgiving”, he said.

Surprisingly though, Goodge said he was “feeling very comfortable” now that the run was over.

Moments after crossing the finish line, Goodge placed a bunch of flowers on Bondi’s famous shoreline in memory of his late mother.

“She was the most special person in my life,” he told the Guardian Australia, adding, “she would be proud of everything I’ve done – she’d also be concerned”.

Goodge said thinking about how his mother battled cancer was crucial during his journey, and helped him overlook his own suffering.

“In the moments where it’s tough, I’ll think back to those times, I think about the woman she was, and how she handled herself, and how she supported me,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald.

“I feel like she’s there with me a lot of the time.”

During the race, he says he saw almost all of Australia’s famous animals – though most were dead on the road – and much of its unique countryside.

Some in the running community however have questioned the accuracy of data tracking his speed and heart rate over the course of the run.

“Goodge stands by his record keeping and asserts that he is taking every single step,” his agent told the Canadian Running magazine last week.

Goodge also claims to hold the record for the fastest British man to run across the US, crossing from Los Angeles to New York in 55 days.

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

The Trump administration has agreed to pay a $5m (£3.7m) settlement to the family of Ashli Babbitt, a US Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a Capitol police officer while breaching the US Congress on 6 January 2021.

Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger told CBS, the BBC’s US partner, he is “extremely disappointed” with the decision. The officer involved in her shooting has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

The settlement resolves a $30m wrongful death suit filed by Babbitt’s family and the conservative activist group Judicial Watch.

Thousands of Trump supporters descended on the US Capitol on 6 January in an attempt to halt the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

Babbitt was part of a group that smashed windows in an effort to enter the chamber of the House of Representatives while it was still in session, forcing lawmakers to delay certification and flee for safety.

Video of the incident shows her being shot in the shoulder after attempting to climb through a door. She later died in hospital.

The wrongful death lawsuit filed by Babbitt’s family claimed that the decision to open fire by Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd was negligent, and that Babbitt’s hands were in the air when she was shot.

Family members say that Babbitt was motivated to come to the Capitol by Trump’s claims of election fraud. No evidence has ever surfaced of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

Mr Byrd previously defended the move to fire his gun, saying the group of lawmakers and security “were essentially trapped” and had “no way to retreat”.

In August 2021, a Capitol Police review found that Mr Byrd’s decision saved lives and was consistent with police training and procedures. A justice department review also found no evidence of any police wrongdoing.

“This is extremely disappointing and I completely disagree with the Department of Justice’s decision,” Chief Manger said in a statement to staff after learning of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.

“This settlement sends a chilling message to law enforcement officers across our nation – especially those who have a protective mission like ours,” he added.

In January, on his first day back in the White House, President Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon for more than 1,500 Capitol riot defendants, including hundreds accused of assaulting police. He also fired the federal prosecutors who handled those cases.

Trump in March told conservative news outlet Newsmax that he’s “a big fan of Ashli Babbitt” and that she was “innocently standing there” when she was shot.

“And a man did something unthinkable to her when he shot her, and I think it’s a disgrace,” he said, promising to “look into” the lawsuit brought by her family.

Seven Mexican youths have been shot dead at a festivity organised by the Catholic Church in the central state of Guanajuato.

Gunmen opened fire on a group of people who had stayed behind in the central square of the village of San Bartolo de Berrios after an event organised by the local parish.

Eyewitnesses said the assailants had driven straight to the village square in the early hours of Monday and fired dozens of shots seemingly at random.

The authorities have not yet said what the motive behind the shooting may have been but messages scrawled on signs left at several nearby locations appear to indicate it was carried out by the Santa Rosa de Lima cartel.

While attacks on nightclubs, bars and cockfighting venues are not unusual in Mexican states hit by cartel violence, an attack on an event organised by the Catholic Church is rare.

The Episcopal Conference of Mexico, which represents the country’s bishops, condemned the fatal shooting saying it “cannot remain indifferent in the face of the spiral of violence that is wounding so many communities”.

The local archbishop, Jaime Calderón, also released a statement blaming the attack on a fight for territory between rival cartels.

Guanajuato, where San Bartolo de Berrios is located, had the highest number of murders of any state in Mexico in 2024 with a total of 2,597 homicides.

Both the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG) and the Santa Rosa de Lima cartel are active in the state and have been locked in a deadly battle for control over territory.

While the two groups engage in extortion and drug trafficking, they have also increasingly tapped pipelines which run through the state carrying petrol from refineries to major distribution points.

The practice of stealing and selling fuel on the black market – known as – is a major source of revenue for the criminal gangs in the region.

In their fight for territorial control, the gangs often try to spread fear amid the local population in order to ensure their silence and compliance.

Bloody shootings such as the one in San Bartolo de Berrios and the subsequent display of threatening messages are a particularly brutal way gangs use to show they have expanded into a particular town.

Residents of San Bartolo de Berrios said they had heard around 100 shots ring out in the early hours of Monday within the space of a few minutes.

They said the scene in the central square resembled “a bloodbath” with the bodies of the seven youths, two of them aged under 18, strewn across the pavement.

No arrests have so far been made in connection with the attack.

At least 38 Palestinians were killed in a series of Israeli air strikes across the Gaza Strip during a half-hour period overnight, according to Palestinian medics.

Israeli warplanes struck several locations, including a school in eastern Gaza City, and an abandoned fuel station sheltering displaced families in central Gaza’s Nuseirat refugee camp, according to the Hamas-run civil defence agency.

It added that rescue teams were facing major difficulties reaching the wounded due to a lack of equipment and the intensity of the bombardment.

The attack comes after Israel issued a sweeping evacuation order for civilians in Gaza in preparation for what it said was an “unprecedented attack”.

• Live coverage

Ten people were killed when an Israeli air strike hit classrooms at the Musa bin Nusayr School, where hundreds of displaced people were sheltering, according to local activists in Gaza City.

In central Gaza, 15 people were reported killed in a strike targeting tents at an abandoned fuel station in Nuseirat.

Meanwhile, local journalists said 13 Palestinians were killed in an air strike on the Abu Samra family’s three-story home in central Deir al-Balah.

Separately, Israeli jets launched 10 air strikes on the Shujaiya neighbourhood in eastern Gaza City.

Local reports described the blasts as causing tremors similar to an earthquake. The strikes are believed to have targeted Hamas’s network of underground tunnels.

The attack comes as the leaders of the UK, France and Canada issued a joint statement threatening action if Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu persisted with his goal to “take control” of all of Gaza.

Netanyahu described the statement as a “huge prize” for Hamas.

Earlier, Israel said it would allow a “basic amount” of food into Gaza, ending an 11-week blockade of the territory.

But United Nations aid chief Tom Fletcher said the amount of aid was a “drop in the ocean of what is urgently needed”.

The war was triggered by the Hamas-led attacks on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, which saw about 1,200 people killed and 251 taken hostage.

Some 58 hostages remain in Gaza, up to 23 of whom are believed to be alive.

At least 53,486 Palestinians have been killed during Israel’s military campaign in Gaza, according the Hamas-run health ministry.

The UK, France and Canada have warned Israel they will take “concrete actions” if it continues an “egregious” expansion of military operations in Gaza.

Sir Keir Starmer joined the French and Canadian leaders to call on the Israeli government to “stop its military operations” and “immediately allow humanitarian aid to enter Gaza”.

No food, fuel or medicine had been allowed into Gaza since 2 March, a situation the UN previously described as taking a “disastrous toll” on the Palestinian population.

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded by saying the three leaders had offered a “huge prize” for Hamas in the Gaza war.

On Sunday, Netanyahu said his country would allow a “basic amount of food” to enter the territory after an 11-week long blockade but it planned to take “control of all of Gaza”.

The three Western leaders criticised this as “wholly inadequate” as the “denial of essential humanitarian assistance to the civilian population is unacceptable and risks breaching International Humanitarian Law”.

They added the level of suffering in Gaza was “intolerable”.

They also condemned “the abhorrent language used recently by members of the Israeli Government, threatening that, in their despair at the destruction of Gaza, civilians will start to relocate”.

“Permanent forced displacement is a breach of international humanitarian law,” they added.

UN humanitarian relief chief Tom Fletcher, a former British diplomat, said the number of aid trucks which had been cleared to enter was a “drop in the ocean of what is urgently needed”.

“We have always supported Israel’s right to defend Israelis against terrorism. But this escalation is wholly disproportionate,” the leaders’ statement added, referring to Israel’s renewed offensive.

Sir Keir, Emmanuel Macron and Mark Carney also called for Hamas to immediately release the remaining hostages taken in the “heinous attack” on southern Israel on 7 October 2023.

The Gaza war was triggered by the Hamas-led attack which saw around 1,200 people killed and 251 taken hostage.

Some 58 hostages remain in Gaza, up to 23 of whom are believed to be alive.

Gaza’s health ministry, which is run by Hamas, says more than 53,000 Palestinians have been killed during Israel’s military campaign.

The statement from the UK, France and Canada reiterated support for a ceasefire as well as the implementation of a “two-state solution”, which proposes an independent Palestinian state which would exist alongside Israel.

Netanyahu hit back at the suggestion: “By asking Israel to end a defensive war for our survival before Hamas terrorists on our border are destroyed and by demanding a Palestinian state, the leaders in London, Ottawa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more such atrocities.”

He also called on “all European leaders” to follow US President Donald “Trump’s vision” for ending the conflict.

Inside a laboratory nestled above the mist of the forests of South Dakota, scientists are searching for the answer to one of science’s biggest questions: why does our Universe exist?

They are in a race for the answer with a separate team of Japanese scientists – who are several years ahead.

The current theory of how the Universe came into being can’t explain the existence of the planets, stars and galaxies we see around us. Both teams are building detectors that study a sub-atomic particle called a neutrino in the hope of finding answers.

The US-led international collaboration is hoping the answer lies deep underground, in the aptly named Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (Dune).

The scientists will travel 1,500 metres below the surface into three vast underground caverns. Such is the scale that construction crews and their bulldozers seem like small plastic toys by comparison.

The science director of this facility, Dr Jaret Heise describes the giant caves as “cathedrals to science”.

Dr Heise has been involved the construction of these caverns at the Sanford Underground Research Facility (Surf) for nearly ten years. They seal Dune off from the noise and radiation from the world above. Now, Dune is now ready for the next stage.

“We are poised to build the detector that will change our understanding of the Universe with instruments that will be deployed by a collaboration of more than 1,400 scientists from 35 countries who are eager to answer the question of why we exist,” he says.

When the Universe was created two kinds of particles were created: matter – from which stars, planets and everything around us are made – and, in equal amounts, antimatter, matter’s exact opposite.

Theoretically the two should have cancelled each other out, leaving nothing but a big burst of energy. And yet, here we – as matter – are.

Scientists believe that the answer to understanding why matter won – and we exist – lies in studying a particle called the neutrino and its antimatter opposite, the anti-neutrino.

They will be firing beams of both kinds of particles from deep underground in Illinois to the detectors at South Dakota, 800 miles away.

This is because as they travel, neutrinos and anti-neutrinos change ever so slightly.

The scientists want to find out whether those changes are different for the neutrinos and anti-neutrinos. If they are, it could lead them to the answer of why matter and anti-matter don’t cancel each other out.

Dune is an international collaboration, involving 1,400 scientists from thirty countries. Among them is Dr Kate Shaw from Sussex University, who told me that the discoveries in store will be “transformative” to our understanding of the Universe and humanity’s view of itself.

“It is really exciting that we are here now with the technology, with the engineering, with the computer software skills to really be able to attack these big questions,” she said.

Half a world away, Japanese scientists are using shining golden globes to search for the same answers. Gleaming in all its splendour it is like a temple to science, mirroring the cathedral in South Dakota 6,000 miles (9,650 km) away. The scientists are building Hyper-K – which will be a bigger and better version of their existing neutrino detector, Super-K.

The Japanese-led team will be ready to turn on their neutrino beam in less than three years, several years earlier than the American project. Just like Dune, Hyper-K is an international collaboration. Dr Mark Scott of Imperial College, London believes his team is in pole position to make one of the biggest ever discoveries about the origin of the Universe.

“We switch on earlier and we have a larger detector, so we should have more sensitivity sooner than Dune,” he says.

Having both experiments running together means that scientists will learn more than they would with just one, but, he says, “I would like to get there first!”

But Dr Linda Cremonesi, of Queen Mary University of London, who works for the Dune project, says that getting there first may not give the Japanese-led team the full picture of what is really going on.

“There is an element of a race, but Hyper K does not have yet all of the ingredients that they need to understand if neutrinos and anti-neutrinos behave differently.”

The race may be on, but the first results are only expected in a few years’ time. The question of just what happened at the beginning of time to bring us into existence remains a mystery – for now.

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

The four-day conflict between arch-rivals India and Pakistan this month ended with a ceasefire and both claiming victory – but it now appears that China’s defence industry might also be an unlikely winner.

The latest flare-up began on 7 May when India launched attacks on what it called “terrorist infrastructure” inside Pakistan in response to the brutal killing of 26 people, mostly tourists by militants in Pahalgam on 22 April.

Many of them were killed in the scenic valley in Indian-administered Kashmir in front of their wives and family members. Delhi accused Islamabad of supporting militant groups involved in the carnage, a charge Pakistan denied.

After India’s response – which it called Operation Sindoor – to the militant attack, tit-for-tat military manoeuvres from both sides followed, involving drones, missiles and fighter jets.

India reportedly used its French and Russian-made jets, while Pakistan deployed its J-10 and J-17 aircraft, which Islamabad co-produces with Beijing. Both sides say their jets did not cross the border and they were firing missiles at each other from a distance.

Islamabad claims that its fighter aircraft shot down at least six Indian planes, including the newly-acquired French-made Rafale fighter jets. Delhi hasn’t responded to these claims.

“Losses are a part of combat,” Air Marshal AK Bharti of the Indian Air Force (IAF) said last week when a reporter asked him about these claims. Air Marshal Bharti declined to comment on the specific claim of Pakistan downing Indian jets.

“We have achieved the objectives that we selected, and all our pilots are back home,” he added.

India said it had killed at least “100 terrorists” while targeting the headquarters of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed militant outfits based in Pakistan.

A definitive account of what really happened in the aerial battle is yet to emerge. Some media outlets reported plane crashes in the state of Punjab and Indian-administered Kashmir around the same time but the Indian government has not responded to the reports.

A Reuters report quoting American officials said Pakistan possibly had used the Chinese-made J-10 aircraft to launch air-to-air missiles against Indian fighter jets. Pakistan claiming victory after hugely relying on Chinese weapons systems in an active combat situation is being seen by some experts as a boost for Beijing’s defence industry but some also disagree with the claim.

Some of the experts have called this a “DeepSeek moment” for the Chinese weapons industry, referring to January this year when the Chinese AI start-up shook US giants with its cost-effective technology.

“The aerial fight was a big advertisement for the Chinese weapons industry. Until now, China had no opportunity to test its platforms in a combat situation,” Zhou Bo, a retired senior colonel in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, told the BBC.

The Beijing-based analyst said the outcome of the air duel showed “China has some systems that are next to none”. Shares in the Chinese Avic Chengdu Aircraft company, that manufactures fighter jets like the J-10, surged by up to 40% last week after the reported performance of the fighter jet in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Other experts, however, feel it’s too early to declare the superiority of Chinese weapons systems.

Professor Walter Ladwig from the King’s College in London said it was yet to be determined whether the Chinese jets had actually outmanoeuvred the Indian Air Force (IAF) planes, particularly the Rafale.

“In a standard military doctrine, you would suppress the enemy’s air defences and get air superiority before you struck ground targets. Instead, it appears the IAF’s mission was clearly not to provoke any Pakistani military retaliation,” he said.

Mr Ladwig thought that the Indian pilots were given instructions to fly despite the fact that the entire Pakistani air defence was on high alert and their jets were already in the sky. The IAF hasn’t given details of the mission or about its air operations strategy.

Beijing also hasn’t made any comment on reports of the J-10 taking down Indian fighter jets, including the Rafale. But unconfirmed reports of the J-10 bringing down a Western weapon system has triggered jubilation and triumphalism on Chinese social media.

Carlotta Rinaudo, a China researcher at the International Team for the Study of Security in Verona, said Chinese social media was flooded with nationalistic messages even though it’s difficult to reach a conclusion with the available information.

“At the moment perception matters way more than reality. If we see it in that way, the main winner is really China,” she said.

For China, Pakistan is a strategic and economic ally. It is investing more than $50bn (£37bn) to build infrastructure in Pakistan as part of its China-Pakistan Economic corridor.

So, a weak Pakistan is not in China’s interest.

China made a critical difference in the latest India-Pakistan conflict, says Imtiaz Gul, a Pakistani security analyst. “It took the Indian planners by sheer surprise. They didn’t probably envision the depth of co-operation in the modern warfare between Pakistan and China,” he said.

Experts say the performance of the Chinese jets in a real combat situation was keenly analysed in Western capitals as this will have cascading impact on global arms trade. The US is the world’s largest arms exporter, while China is the fourth.

China sells weapons mostly to developing countries like Myanmar and Pakistan. Previously the Chinese weapon systems were criticised for their poor quality and technical problems.

Reports said the Burmese military grounded several of its JF-17 fighter jets – jointly manufactured by China and Pakistan in 2022 – due to technical malfunctions.

The Nigerian military reported several technical problems with the Chinese made F-7 fighter jets.

Another point to be noted is that this was not the first time that India lost an aircraft to Pakistan.

In 2019, during a brief air battle between the two sides following similar Indian air strikes on suspected terrorist targets in Pakistan, a Russian-made MiG-21 jet was shot down inside Pakistani territory and the pilot was captured. He was released a few days later.

India, however, said that the pilot had ejected after successfully shooting down Pakistani fighter jets, including a US-made F-16. Pakistan has denied the claim.

Despite reports of the downing of Indian jets last week, experts like Mr Ladwig argue that India was able to hit an “impressive breadth of targets” inside Pakistan early in the morning of 10 May and this fact has gone largely unnoticed by the international media.

The Indian military said in a co-ordinated attack, it launched missiles on 11 Pakistani air bases across the country, including the strategic Nur Khan air base outside Rawalpindi, not far from the Pakistani military headquarters. It’s a sensitive target that took Islamabad by surprise.

One of the furthest targets was in Bholari, 140km (86 miles) from the southern city of Karachi.

Mr Ladwig says this time the IAF operated with standard procedures – first attacking Pakistani air defence and radar systems and then focusing on ground targets.

The Indian jets used an array of missiles, loitering munitions and drones despite the Pakistanis operating the Chinese-provided HQ 9 air defence system.

“It seems the attacks were relatively precise and targeted. The craters were in the middle of runways, exactly the ideal spot. If it were a longer conflict, how long would it take the Pakistani Air Force to get these facilities up and running again, I can’t say,” Mr Ladwig pointed out.

Nevertheless, he said, by refusing to get into the details of the mission briefing, India’s military “lost control of the narrative thread”.

In response to the Indian strikes, Pakistan said it launched missile and air strikes on several Indian forward air bases, but Delhi said the attacks caused no damage to equipment and personnel.

Realising that the situation was getting out of control, the US and its allies intervened and put pressure on both countries to stop the fighting.

But for India, experts say, the whole episode is a wake-up call.

Beijing may not comment on the details of the recent India-Pakistan conflict, but it’s keen to show that its weapon systems are fast catching up with the West.

Delhi is aware that the jets China has supplied to Pakistan are some of the earlier models. Beijing has already inducted the more advanced J-20 stealth fighter jets, that can evade radars.

India and China have a long-standing border dispute along the Himalayas and fought a brief border war in 1962 that resulted in a defeat for India. A brief border clash took place in Ladakh in June 2020.

Experts say India is acutely aware that it needs to accelerate investments in its homegrown defence manufacturing industry and speed up international buying.

For now, China’s defence industry seems to be enjoying the limelight following the claims of success of one of its aircraft in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Listen to this article

“Whenever I was struggling, if it was going to be a really bad day, I could then start to chat to one of these bots, and it was like [having] a cheerleader, someone who’s going to give you some good vibes for the day.

“I’ve got this encouraging external voice going – ‘right – what are we going to do [today]?’ Like an imaginary friend, essentially.”

For months, Kelly spent up to three hours a day speaking to online “chatbots” created using artificial intelligence (AI), exchanging hundreds of messages.

At the time, Kelly was on a waiting list for traditional NHS talking therapy to discuss issues with anxiety, low self-esteem and a relationship breakdown.

She says interacting with chatbots on character.ai got her through a really dark period, as they gave her coping strategies and were available for 24 hours a day.

“I’m not from an openly emotional family – if you had a problem, you just got on with it.

“The fact that this is not a real person is so much easier to handle.”

People around the world have shared their private thoughts and experiences with AI chatbots, even though they are widely acknowledged as inferior to seeking professional advice. Character.ai itself tells its users: “This is an AI chatbot and not a real person. Treat everything it says as fiction. What is said should not be relied upon as fact or advice.”

But in extreme examples chatbots have been accused of giving harmful advice.

Character.ai is currently the subject of legal action from a mother whose 14-year-old son took his own life after reportedly becoming obsessed with one of its AI characters. According to transcripts of their chats in court filings he discussed ending his life with the chatbot. In a final conversation he told the chatbot he was “coming home” – and it allegedly encouraged him to do so “as soon as possible”.

Character.ai has denied the suit’s allegations.

And in 2023, the National Eating Disorder Association replaced its live helpline with a chatbot, but later had to suspend it over claims the bot was recommending calorie restriction.

In April 2024 alone, nearly 426,000 mental health referrals were made in England – a rise of 40% in five years. An estimated one million people are also waiting to access mental health services, and private therapy can be prohibitively expensive (costs vary greatly, but the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy reports on average people spend £40 to £50 an hour).

At the same time, AI has revolutionised healthcare in many ways, including helping to screen, diagnose and triage patients. There is a huge spectrum of chatbots, and about 30 local NHS services now use one called Wysa.

Experts express concerns about chatbots around potential biases and limitations, lack of safeguarding and the security of users’ information. But some believe that if specialist human help is not easily available, chatbots can be a help. So with NHS mental health waitlists at record highs, are chatbots a possible solution?

Character.ai and other bots such as Chat GPT are based on “large language models” of artificial intelligence. These are trained on vast amounts of data – whether that’s websites, articles, books or blog posts – to predict the next word in a sequence. From here, they predict and generate human-like text and interactions.

The way mental health chatbots are created varies, but they can be trained in practices such as cognitive behavioural therapy, which helps users to explore how to reframe their thoughts and actions. They can also adapt to the end user’s preferences and feedback.

Hamed Haddadi, professor of human-centred systems at Imperial College London, likens these chatbots to an “inexperienced therapist”, and points out that humans with decades of experience will be able to engage and “read” their patient based on many things, while bots are forced to go on text alone.

“They [therapists] look at various other clues from your clothes and your behaviour and your actions and the way you look and your body language and all of that. And it’s very difficult to embed these things in chatbots.”

Another potential problem, says Prof Haddadi, is that chatbots can be trained to keep you engaged, and to be supportive, “so even if you say harmful content, it will probably cooperate with you”. This is sometimes referred to as a ‘Yes Man’ issue, in that they are often very agreeable.

And as with other forms of AI, biases can be inherent in the model because they reflect the prejudices of the data they are trained on.

Prof Haddadi points out counsellors and psychologists don’t tend to keep transcripts from their patient interactions, so chatbots don’t have many “real-life” sessions to train from. Therefore, he says they are not likely to have enough training data, and what they do access may have biases built into it which are highly situational.

“Based on where you get your training data from, your situation will completely change.

“Even in the restricted geographic area of London, a psychiatrist who is used to dealing with patients in Chelsea might really struggle to open a new office in Peckham dealing with those issues, because he or she just doesn’t have enough training data with those users,” he says.

Philosopher Dr Paula Boddington, who has written a textbook on AI Ethics, agrees that in-built biases are a problem.

“A big issue would be any biases or underlying assumptions built into the therapy model.”

“Biases include general models of what constitutes mental health and good functioning in daily life, such as independence, autonomy, relationships with others,” she says.

Lack of cultural context is another issue – Dr Boddington cites an example of how she was living in Australia when Princess Diana died, and people did not understand why she was upset.

“These kinds of things really make me wonder about the human connection that is so often needed in counselling,” she says.

“Sometimes just being there with someone is all that is needed, but that is of course only achieved by someone who is also an embodied, living, breathing human being.”

Kelly ultimately started to find responses the chatbot gave unsatisfying.

“Sometimes you get a bit frustrated. If they don’t know how to deal with something, they’ll just sort of say the same sentence, and you realise there’s not really anywhere to go with it.” At times “it was like hitting a brick wall”.

“It would be relationship things that I’d probably previously gone into, but I guess I hadn’t used the right phrasing […] and it just didn’t want to get in depth.”

A Character.AI spokesperson said “for any Characters created by users with the words ‘psychologist’, ‘therapist,’ ‘doctor,’ or other similar terms in their names, we have language making it clear that users should not rely on these Characters for any type of professional advice”.

For some users chatbots have been invaluable when they have been at their lowest.

Nicholas has autism, anxiety, OCD, and says he has always experienced depression. He found face-to-face support dried up once he reached adulthood: “When you turn 18, it’s as if support pretty much stops, so I haven’t seen an actual human therapist in years.”

He tried to take his own life last autumn, and since then he says he has been on a NHS waitlist.

“My partner and I have been up to the doctor’s surgery a few times, to try to get it [talking therapy] quicker. The GP has put in a referral [to see a human counsellor] but I haven’t even had a letter off the mental health service where I live.”

While Nicholas is chasing in-person support, he has found using Wysa has some benefits.

“As someone with autism, I’m not particularly great with interaction in person. [I find] speaking to a computer is much better.”

The app allows patients to self-refer for mental health support, and offers tools and coping strategies such as a chat function, breathing exercises and guided meditation while they wait to be seen by a human therapist, and can also be used as a standalone self-help tool.

Wysa stresses that its service is designed for people experiencing low mood, stress or anxiety rather than abuse and severe mental health conditions. It has in-built crisis and escalation pathways whereby users are signposted to helplines or can send for help directly if they show signs of self-harm or suicidal ideation.

For people with suicidal thoughts, human counsellors on the free Samaritans helpline are available 24/7.

Nicholas also experiences sleep deprivation, so finds it helpful if support is available at times when friends and family are asleep.

“There was one time in the night when I was feeling really down. I messaged the app and said ‘I don’t know if I want to be here anymore.’ It came back saying ‘Nick, you are valued. People love you’.

“It was so empathetic, it gave a response that you’d think was from a human that you’ve known for years […] And it did make me feel valued.”

His experiences chime with a recent study by Dartmouth College researchers looking at the impact of chatbots on people diagnosed with anxiety, depression or an eating disorder, versus a control group with the same conditions.

After four weeks, bot users showed significant reductions in their symptoms – including a 51% reduction in depressive symptoms – and reported a level of trust and collaboration akin to a human therapist.

Despite this, the study’s senior author commented there is no replacement for in-person care.

Aside from the debate around the value of their advice, there are also wider concerns about security and privacy, and whether the technology could be monetised.

“There’s that little niggle of doubt that says, ‘oh, what if someone takes the things that you’re saying in therapy and then tries to blackmail you with them?’,” says Kelly.

Psychologist Ian MacRae specialises in emerging technologies, and warns “some people are placing a lot of trust in these [bots] without it being necessarily earned”.

“Personally, I would never put any of my personal information, especially health, psychological information, into one of these large language models that’s just hoovering up an absolute tonne of data, and you’re not entirely sure how it’s being used, what you’re consenting to.”

“It’s not to say in the future, there couldn’t be tools like this that are private, well tested […] but I just don’t think we’re in the place yet where we have any of that evidence to show that a general purpose chatbot can be a good therapist,” Mr MacRae says.

Wysa’s managing director, John Tench, says Wysa does not collect any personally identifiable information, and users are not required to register or share personal data to use Wysa.

“Conversation data may occasionally be reviewed in anonymised form to help improve the quality of Wysa’s AI responses, but no information that could identify a user is collected or stored. In addition, Wysa has data processing agreements in place with external AI providers to ensure that no user conversations are used to train third-party large language models.”

Kelly feels chatbots cannot currently fully replace a human therapist. “It’s a wild roulette out there in AI world, you don’t really know what you’re getting.”

“AI support can be a helpful first step, but it’s not a substitute for professional care,” agrees Mr Tench.

And the public are largely unconvinced. A YouGov survey found just 12% of the public think AI chatbots would make a good therapist.

But with the right safeguards, some feel chatbots could be a useful stopgap in an overloaded mental health system.

John, who has an anxiety disorder, says he has been on the waitlist for a human therapist for nine months. He has been using Wysa two or three times a week.

“There is not a lot of help out there at the moment, so you clutch at straws.”

“[It] is a stop gap to these huge waiting lists… to get people a tool while they are waiting to talk to a healthcare professional.”

Sixteen-year-old Nimra stood outside, rooted to the spot, as the Indian missiles that had woken her a moment ago rained down on the mosque a few metres from her house in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. She watched one tear the minaret off the top of the building. But she failed to realise she, too, had been struck – in the chest.

When the family reached the relative safety of her aunt’s house nearby, someone turned on a phone torch. “My aunt gasped. There was blood on my frock. It was pink and white but now soaked in red. I hadn’t seen it before.” Again they ran. “I was running but my hand was pressed on my chest the whole time. I didn’t want to take it off. I thought if I let go, everything inside me would come out.” A piece of shrapnel was lodged near her heart, she later discovered.

A few hours later, in Poonch, Indian-administered Kashmir, a different family was dodging shelling which Pakistan had launched in response to India’s missile strikes.

“When the firing began, everyone ran for their lives – children clinging to their parents in fear,” said MN Sudhan, 72. “Some families managed to leave for Jammu in their vehicles. We also decided to escape. But barely 10 minutes into our journey, a shell landed near our vehicle. The shrapnel tore through the car. My grandson died on the spot.”

“Our future was shattered at that [very] moment,” Mr Sudhan said of 13-year-old Vihaan’s death. “Now we’re left with nothing but grief. I have witnessed two wars between India and Pakistan, but never in my life have I seen shelling as intense as this.”

Nimra and Vihaan were among many of the villagers caught up in the deadliest attacks for several years in a decades-long conflict between two of the world’s nuclear powers – India and Pakistan. Both sides administer the Himalayan region in part but claim it in full. Both governments deny targeting civilians, but BBC journalists in the region have spoken to families caught up in the violence.

The strike that injured Nimra was part of India’s armed response after a militant attack killed 26 people – mostly Indian tourists – last month at a beauty spot in India-administered Kashmir. Police there claimed militants included at least two Pakistan nationals. Pakistan has asked India for evidence of this, and has called for an independent inquiry into who was behind the attack.

What followed was four days of tit-for-tat shelling and drone attacks, intensifying each day and culminating in missile strikes on military bases, which threatened to tip over into full-blown conflict. Then, suddenly, a ceasefire brokered by the US and other international players on 10 May brought the two nuclear powers back from the brink.

Families on both sides of the Line of Control (LoC) – the de facto border in Kashmir – told us they had had loved ones killed and property destroyed. At least 16 people are reported to have been killed on the Indian side, while Pakistan claims 40 civilian deaths, though it remains unclear how many were directly caused by the shelling. We also heard from Indian and Pakistani government insiders about the mood in their respective administrations as the conflict escalated.

In Delhi’s corridors of power, the atmosphere was initially jubilant, an Indian government source told the BBC. Its missile attacks on targets in Pakistan-administered Kashmir and in Pakistan itself – including the Bilal Mosque in Muzaff arabad, which India claims is a militant camp, though Pakistan denies this – were deemed a success.

“The strikes… were not limited to Pakistani-administered Kashmir or along the Line of Control,” an Indian government source told the BBC. “We went deep – even into the Pakistani side of Punjab, which has always been Pakistan’s red line.”

But the Pakistani military had been prepared, a source from the Pakistan Air Force told the BBC. Days earlier, the Pakistani government said it was expecting an attack.

“We knew something was coming, and we were absolutely ready,” one officer said, speaking on condition of anonymity. He said Indian fighter jets approached Pakistani territory and the air force was under instructions to shoot down any that crossed into its airspace or dropped a payload.

Pakistan claims to have shot down five Indian jets that night, something India has remained silent on.

“We were well prepared, and honestly, we were also lucky,” the source said – his account repeated by two other sources.

But Mr Sudhan, Vihaan’s grandfather, said there had been no warning to stay indoors or evacuate. “Why didn’t they inform us? We, the people, are caught in the middle.”

It is likely that no evacuation orders had been issued because the Indian government needed to keep the military strikes confidential, though the local administration had, following the April militant attack, directed locals to clean out community bunkers as a precautionary measure.

A day after the initial missile strikes, Thursday, both sides launched drone attacks, though they each accused the other of making the first move.

India began to evacuate thousands of villagers along the Indian side of the LoC. Just after 21:00 that evening, the Khan family in India-administered Kashmir decided they must flee their home in Uri, 270km (168 miles) to the north of Poonch. Most of their neighbours had already left.

But after travelling for just 10 minutes, their vehicle was struck by shrapnel from a shell, fatally injuring 47-year-old Nargis. Her sister-in-law Hafeeza was seriously injured. They headed to the nearest hospital, only to find the gates locked.

“I somehow climbed the hospital wall and called out for help, telling them we had injured people with us. Only then did the staff come out and open the gate. As soon as they did, I collapsed. The doctors were terrified by the ongoing shelling and had closed everything out of fear,” Hafeeza said.

Hafeeza’s sister-in-law Nargis is survived by six children. The youngest daughter Sanam, 20, said the first hospital they went to was not equipped to help, and as they headed to another, her mother died of her injuries.

“A piece of shrapnel had torn through her face. My clothes were soaked in her blood… We kept talking to her, urging her to stay with us. But she passed away on the way.”

Since a ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan in 2021 there had been relative peace in the region, locals told the BBC. For the first time in years, they had been able to live normal lives, they said, and now this sense of security was destroyed.

Sanam, who lost her mother, said: “I appeal to both governments – if you’re heading into war, at least secure your civilians. Prepare… Those who sit in comfort and demand war – they should be sent to the borders. Let them witness what it really means. Let them lose someone before their eyes.”

Sajjad Shafi, the representative for Uri in the regional government, said he had acted as promptly as possible.

“The moment I got the news that India has attacked, I got in touch with people and started moving them out.”

After two days of attacks and counter attacks, the Indian government source said there was now a “clear sense in… power corridors that things were escalating but we were ready.

“We were ready because India had spent the last 10 years acquiring and building strategic military assets – missiles, warheads and defence systems.”

On the international stage, there had been consternation that the tensions would not be de-escalated by the US, despite its diplomatic overtures during India and Pakistan’s previous Kashmir clashes.

US Vice President JD Vance said a potential war would be “none of our business”.

This statement came as no surprise, the Indian government source told the BBC. At that stage, “it was clear the US didn’t want to get involved”.

By the following day, Friday, shelling had become more intense.

Muhammed Shafi was at home with his wife in Shahkot village in the Neelum Valley, Pakistan-administered Kashmir, on the LoC.

The 30-year-old was standing in the doorway, just a few steps away from where his son was playing; his wife standing in their courtyard.

“I remember looking up and seeing a mortar shell coming from a distance. In the blink of an eye, it struck her. She didn’t even have time to scream. One second she was there, and the next, she was gone. Her face… her head… there was nothing left. Just a cloud of smoke and dust. My ears went numb. Everything went silent. I didn’t even realise I was screaming.

“That night, her body lay there, right in our home. The entire village was hiding in bunkers. The shelling continued all night, and I stayed beside her, weeping. I held her hand for as long as I could.”

One of those in a bunker was his niece, 18-year-old Umaima. She and her family were holed up in the shelter for four days, on and off, in brutal conditions.

“There were six or seven of us packed into it,” she said. “The other bunker was already full. There’s no place to lie down in there – some people stood, others sat. There was no drinking water, no food,” with people shouting, crying and reciting prayers in the pitch black.

Also in a bunker, in the Leepa Valley, Pakistan-Administered Kashmir – one of the most militarised and vulnerable valleys in the region – was Shams Ur Rehman and family. It is Shams’s own bunker, but that night he shared it with 36 other people, he said.

Leepa is surrounded on three sides by the LoC and Indian-administered territory, so Shams was used to living with cross-border tensions. But he was not prepared for the complete destruction of his house.

He left the bunker at three in the morning to survey the scene.

“Everything was gone. Wooden beams and debris from the house were scattered everywhere. The blast was so powerful, the shockwave pushed in the main wall. The metal sheets on the roof were shredded. The entire structure shifted – by at least two inches.

“A house is a person’s life’s work. You’re always trying to improve it – but in the end, it’s all gone in seconds.”

Four hours later, back in the Neelum Valley, Umaima and her family also emerged on Saturday 10 May to a transformed landscape.

“We came out of the bunker at seven in the morning. That’s when we saw – nothing was left.”

As Umaima surveyed the ruins of her village, India and Pakistan’s forces that day were trading ever more destructive blows – firing missiles at each other’s military installations, which both sides accused the other of instigating.

India had targeted three Pakistani air bases, including one in Rawalpindi – the garrison city that houses the Pakistan Army’s General Headquarters.

“This was a red line crossed,” said one Pakistani officer. “The prime minister gave the go-ahead to the army chief. We already had a plan, and our forces were desperately ready to execute it… For anyone in uniform, it was one of those unforgettable days.”

Pakistan hit back at Indian military installations. On the diplomatic front, this was seen as a moment to highlight the issue of Kashmir on the international stage, an official in the Pakistan foreign office told the BBC.

“It was non-stop. Endless meetings, coordination, and back-to-back calls to and from other countries for both foreign minister and then the prime minister. We welcomed mediation offers from the US, the Saudis, the Iranians, or anyone who could help de-escalate.”

On the Indian side, the Pahalgam attack on 22 April had already prompted External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar to speak to at least 17 world leaders or diplomats, including UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. In most of these conversations, he has tweeted, the emphasis had been on the “cross-border terrorist attack” and focused on building a case to hold the perpetrators accountable for the attack.

Then, on Saturday afternoon local time, in the aftermath of the latest missile exchanges, came a diplomatic breakthrough out of nowhere. US President Donald Trump took to social media to reveal that a ceasefire had been agreed.

“After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a FULL AND IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE.

“Congratulations to both Countries on using Common Sense and Great Intelligence,” he wrote on social media platform Truth Social.

India has since downplayed Washington’s role in the ceasefire and it has rejected that trade was used as a lever to achieve this.

Behind the scenes, US mediators, diplomatic backchannels and regional players, including the US, the UK and Saudi Arabia, had proved critical in negotiating the climbdown, experts say.

“We hit Pakistani strategic bases deep inside their territory and that must have worried the US,” the Indian government source believes.

In Pahalgam, the site of the militant gun attack that sparked the crisis, the search is still on for the perpetrators.

Vinay Narwal, a 26-year-old Indian Navy officer, was on his honeymoon in Pahalgam when he was killed. He had got married just a week before the attack.

A photo of Vinay’s wife Himanshi, sitting near her husband’s body following the attack, has been widely shared on social media.

His grandfather Hawa Singh Narwal wants “exemplary punishment” for the killers.

“This terrorism should end. Today, I lost my grandson. Tomorrow, someone else will lose their loved one,” he said.

A witness to the attack’s aftermath, Rayees Ahmad Bhat, who used to lead pony treks to the beauty spot where the shootings took place, said his industry was now in ruins.

“The attackers may have killed tourists that day, but we – the people of Pahalgam – are dying every day since. They’ve stained the name of this peaceful town… Pahalgam is terrorised, and its people broken.”

The attack was a huge shock for a government which had begun to actively promote tourism in stunningly picturesque Kashmir, famed for its lush valleys, lakes and snow-capped mountains.

The source in the Indian administration said this might have lulled Delhi into a false sense of security.

“Perhaps we got carried away by the response to tourism in Kashmir. We thought we were over a hump but we were not.”

The four-day conflict has once again shown how fragile peace can be between the two nations.

Just as India showed flickers of progress toward its long-held dream of becoming the world’s factory, Washington and Beijing announced a trade “reset” that could derail Delhi’s ambitions to replace China as the global manufacturing hub.

Last week, Trump’s tariffs on China dropped overnight – from 145% to 30%, vs 27% for India – as the two sides thrashed out an agreement in Switzerland.

As a result, there’s a chance manufacturing investment that was moving from China to India could either “stall” or “head back”, feels Ajay Srivastava of the Delhi-based think tank, Global Trade Research Institute (GTRI).

“India’s low-cost assembly lines may survive, but value-added growth is in danger.”

The change in sentiment stands in sharp relief to the exuberance in Delhi last month when Apple indicated that it was shifting most of its production of iPhones headed to the US from China to India.

That may well still happen, even though US President Donald Trump revealed that he had told Apple CEO Tim Cook not to build in India because it was “one of the highest tariff nations in the world”.

“India is well positioned to be an alternative to China as a supplier of goods to the US in the immediate term,” Shilan Shah, an economist with Capital Economics, wrote in an investor note before the deal was announced. He pointed out that 40% of India’s exports to the US were “similar to those exported by China”.

There were early signs that Indian exporters were already stepping in to fill the gap left by Chinese producers. New export orders surged to a 14-year high, according to a recent survey of Indian manufacturers.

Nomura, a Japanese broking house, also pointed to growing “anecdotal evidence” of India emerging as a winner from “trade diversion and supply-chain shift in low and mid-tech manufacturing” particularly in sectors like electronics, textiles and toys.

Some analysts do believe that despite the so-called trade “reset” between Beijing and Washington, a larger strategic decoupling between China and the US will continue to benefit India in the long run.

For one, there’s greater willingness by Narendra Modi’s government to open its doors to foreign companies after years of protectionist policies, which could provide tailwind.

India and the US are also negotiating a trade deal that could put Asia’s third-largest economy in a sweet spot to benefit from the so-called “China exodus” – as global firms shift operations to diversify supply chains.

India has just signed a trade pact with the UK, sharply cutting duties in protected sectors like whiskey and automobiles. It offers a glimpse of the concessions Delhi might offer Trump in the ongoing India-US trade talks.

But all of this optimism needs to be tempered for more reasons than one.

Apart from the fact that China is now back in the running, companies are also “not entirely writing off other Asian competitors, with countries like Vietnam still on their radars”, economists Sonal Verma and Aurodeep Nandi from Nomura said in a note earlier this month.

“Hence, for India to capitalise on this opportunity, it needs to complement any tariff arbitrage with serious ease-of-doing-business reforms.”

A tough business climate has long frustrated foreign investors and stalled India’s manufacturing growth, with its share of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) stuck at around 15% for two decades.

The Modi government’s efforts, such as the Production Linked Incentive (PLI) scheme, have delivered only limited success in boosting this figure.

The government’s think tank, Niti Aayog, has acknowledged India’s “limited success” in attracting investment shifting from China. It noted that factors like cheaper labour, simpler tax laws, lower tariffs, and proactive Free Trade Agreements helped countries like Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, and Malaysia expand exports – while India lagged behind.

Another major concern, says Nomura, is India’s ongoing reliance on China for raw materials and components used in electronics like iPhones, limiting Delhi’s ability to fully capitalise on supply chain shifts.

“India’s earnings from making iPhones will only rise if more of the phone is made locally,” Mr Srivastava told the BBC.

According to him, right now Apple earns over $450 per iPhone sold in the US while India keeps less than $25 – even though the full $1,000 is counted as an Indian export.

“Just assembling more iPhones in India won’t help much unless Apple and its suppliers also start making components and doing high-value work here. Without that, India’s share stays small, and the export numbers go up only on paper -possibly triggering more scrutiny from the US without real economic gain for India,” Mr Srivastava said.

The jobs created by such assembly lines aren’t very high quality either, says GTRI.

Quite unlike companies like Nokia which set up a factory in the southern city of Chennai in 2007 where suppliers moved in together, “today’s smartphone makers mostly import parts and push for lower tariffs instead of building supply chains in India”, explained Mr Srivastava. He noted that, in certain instances, the investment made could be lower than the subsidies received under India’s PLI scheme.

Finally there are concerns that Chinese exporters could try to use India to reroute products to the US.

India doesn’t seem averse to this idea despite the pitfalls. The country’s top economic adviser said last year that the country should attract more Chinese businesses to set-up export oriented factories and boost its manufacturing industry – a tacit admission that its own industrial policy hadn’t delivered.

But experts caution, this could further curtail India’s ability to build local know-how and grow its own industrial base.

All of this shows that beyond the headline-grabbing announcements by the likes of Apple, India is still a long way from realising its factory ambitions.

“Slash production costs, fix logistics, and build regulatory certainty,” Mr Srivastava urged policymakers in a social media post.

“Let’s be clear. This US-China reset is damage control, not a long-term solution. India must play the long game, or risk getting side-lined.”

Australia’s conservative Liberal-National coalition – the nation’s main opposition political party – has split after a partnership lasting almost 80 years.

The move marks a seismic change in the country’s political landscape and comes just weeks after a federal election that saw Labor win a second term in a landslide victory.

Nationals leader David Littleproud on Tuesday said his party was not re-entering a coalition agreement, amid policy disagreements with the Liberal Party as it goes on a journey of “rediscovery” following the emphatic loss.

Littleproud added that the Coalition has been broken and repaired before, and he hoped that – with time – the parties could reconcile again.

The Liberal Party – which has the second largest number of seats in parliament – will remain the formal opposition party, though now in their own right. This means the Nationals will not hold any opposition roles.

“Whilst we have enormous respect for David Littleproud and his team, it is disappointing that the National Party has taken the decision to leave the Coalition,” newly elected Liberal leader Sussan Ley said, hours after the shock announcement.

Ley said the founding principle of the Coalition had long been “shared values”, but said the Nationals had refused to sign a deal without commitments to “specific policies”.

The split comes after days of post-election talks between the two parties about their future, with Littleproud’s party – which mainly represents regional communities and often leans more conservative than the Liberals – failing to reach an agreement with their long-time political ally.

A key issue that had strained their relationship was climate and energy, with some in the National Party still opposed to net-zero emissions goals, and wedded to a nuclear power proposal which proved controversial at the election.

Littleproud also pointed to regional infrastructure spending and policies to improve supermarket competition as points of conflict.

Describing it as “one of the hardest political decisions of his life”, Littleproud said he had a “respectful conversation” with Ley to inform her of the split on Tuesday morning.

“What this is about is taking a deep breath and saying to the Australian people, this is time apart [for] us to be better, [to] focus on them.

“I gave [Ley] the commitment that I’ll work with her every day to help to try to rebuild the relationship to the point we can re-enter a coalition before the next election.”

However, he said the National Party would contest the next election solo if unity could not be achieved.

The Liberal-National partnership, which in its current form dates back to the 1940s, has broken down and been re-established several times over the decades. The last time the Coalition split was almost four decades ago, in 1987.

All except one of the 15 electorates the Liberal-National coalition lost at the election were ceded by the Liberals, who saw big swings against them right around the nation.

Support for the Liberals nosedived in more moderate areas, particularly in cities, which analysts largely put down to then-leader Peter Dutton’s polarising persona and some Trump-like policies. Ley, his successor, has vowed to bring the party back to the centre-right.

The world could see hugely damaging sea-level rise of several meters or more over the coming centuries even if the ambitious target of limiting global warming to 1.5C is met, scientists have warned.

Nearly 200 countries have pledged to try to keep the planet’s warming to 1.5C, but the researchers warn that this should not be considered “safe” for coastal populations.

They drew their conclusion after reviewing the most recent studies of how the ice sheets are changing – and how they have changed in the past.

But the scientists stress that every fraction of a degree of warming that can be avoided would still greatly limit the risks.

The world’s current trajectory puts the planet on course for nearly 3C of warming by the end of the century, compared with the late 1800s, before humans began burning large amounts of planet-heating fossil fuels. That’s based on current government policies to reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels and other polluting activities.

But even keeping to 1.5C would still lead to continued melting of Greenland and Antarctica, as temperature changes can take centuries to have their full impact on such large masses of ice, the researchers say.

“Our key message is that limiting warming to 1.5C would be a major achievement – it should absolutely be our target – but in no sense will it slow or stop sea-level rise and melting ice sheets,” said lead author Prof Chris Stokes, a glaciologist at Durham University.

The 2015 Paris climate agreement saw the world’s nations agree to keep global temperature rises “well below” 2C – and ideally 1.5C.

That has often been oversimplified to mean 1.5C is “safe”, something glaciologists have cautioned against for years.

The authors of the new paper, published in the journal Communications Earth and Environment, draw together three main strands of evidence to underline this case.

First, records of the Earth’s distant past suggest significant melting – with sea levels several metres higher than present – during previous similarly warm periods, such as 125,000 years ago.

And the last time there was as much planet-warming carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as today – about 3 million years ago – sea levels were about 10-20m higher.

Second, current observations already show an increasing rate of melting, albeit with variation from year to year.

“Pretty dramatic things [are] happening in both west Antarctica and Greenland,” said co-author Prof Jonathan Bamber, director of the Bristol Glaciology Centre.

East Antarctica appears, for now at least, more stable.

“We’re starting to see some of those worst case scenarios play out almost in front of us,” added Prof Stokes.

Finally, scientists use computer models to simulate how ice sheets may respond to future climate. The picture they paint isn’t good.

“Very, very few of the models actually show sea-level rise slowing down [if warming stabilises at 1.5C], and they certainly don’t show sea-level rise stopping,” said Prof Stokes.

The major concern is that melting could accelerate further beyond “tipping points” due to warming caused by humans – though it’s not clear exactly how these mechanisms work, and where these thresholds sit.

“The strength of this study is that they use multiple lines of evidence to show that our climate is in a similar state to when several metres of ice was melted in the past,” said Prof Andy Shepherd, a glaciologist at Northumbria University, who was not involved in the new publication.

“This would have devastating impacts on coastal communities,” he added.

An estimated 230 million people live within one metre of current high tide lines.

Defining a “safe” limit of warming is inherently challenging, because some populations are more vulnerable than others.

But if sea-level rise reaches a centimetre a year or more by the end of the century – mainly because of ice melt and warming oceans – that could stretch even rich countries’ abilities to cope, the researchers say.

“If you get to that level, then it becomes extremely challenging for any kind of adaptation strategies, and you’re going to see massive land migration on scales that we’ve never witnessed [in modern civilisation],” argued Prof Bamber.

However, this bleak picture is not a reason to stop trying, they say.

“The more rapid the warming, you’ll see more ice being lost [and] a higher rate of sea-level rise much more quickly,” said Prof Stokes.

“Every fraction of a degree really matters for ice sheets.”

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.

Parts of the southern Indian city of Bengaluru, often called India’s Silicon Valley are under water after heavy rainfall.

The city is on high alert for more pre-monsoon showers on Tuesday due to cyclonic formations over the Andaman Sea, according to authorities.

Three people, including a 12-year-old boy were killed in rain-related incidents on Monday.

Bengaluru is home to major global technology companies, many of whom have asked their employees to work from home due to flooded roads.

Many parts of the city received 100 mm (4in) of rain on Monday, a record since 2011.

This is “rare” for Bengaluru, CS Patil, a director at the regional weather department told news agencies.

Apart from severe water-logging and traffic disrupting daily life, heavy rainfall has also caused property damage.

In one of the city’s major IT corridors, the compound wall of a software firm – i-Zed – collapsed on Monday morning, killing a 35-year-old female employee.

Videos also showed commuters wading through knee-deep water, with several cars parked on waterlogged streets. Water has also entered houses in some parts of the city.

Authorities say the city corporation has identified 210 flood-prone areas where they were working round the clock to “rectify” the situation.

“There is no need for the people of Bengaluru to be worried,” DK Shivakumar, deputy chief minister of Karnataka state told reporters on Monday.

But officials are facing criticism on social media with many complaining about the city’s crumbling infrastructure and deluged roads.

“No other city invokes a sense of fear and helplessness for commuting during rains as Bangalore does,” a user wrote on X.

Annu Itty, who has lived in the city for eight years told the BBC that the city’s infrastructure becomes especially fragile in the monsoons.

“Ironically, it’s the newly developed areas – those built to house the booming tech sector – that face the worst flooding,” she said.

Itty, who works in public policy, says a “lack of coherent urban planning that respects environmental limits”, as well as a lack of government accountability, has left Bengaluru residents to deal with the consequences.

Karnataka, of which Bengaluru is the capital is currently run by the Congress party. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which sits in the opposition in the state has accused the local government of failing to tackle rain-related issues in the city and the state, despite spending million of rupees on its infrastructure.

The BJP has demanded the immediate release of 10bn rupees ($117m, £87.5m) for relief operations.

The state government has, however, defended itself saying these were long-standing issues.

“The issues we face today are not new. They have been ignored for years, across governments and administrations,” Shivakumar said.

Floods have been a recurring phenomenon in Bengaluru in recent years. Experts partly blame rapid construction over the city’s lakes and wetlands and poor urban planning for the crisis.

Ananda Rao, president of the Association for Information Technology (AIT) – which represents over 450 software companies – told the BBC that such frequent flooding has caused “discomfort and inconvenience” for businesses.

“Bengaluru contributes significantly in taxes – both at an individual level and property tax. There is no return on this investment,” he said, calling on the state government to work on long-term solutions to improve the city’s infrastructure.

Residents are being plagued by huge swarms of up to a million bees in their street that have stung “on numerous occasions” and left them fearful of opening a window.

The householders in Corfe Avenue, in the Warndon Villages area of Worcester, said their lives were being made a “misery” by the bees. They said tradespeople were also staying away over fears of being stung.

The problem has been traced to a property with several apartments rented to tenants. City councillor Sarah Murray claimed there were 21 hives in the back garden, but a BBC reporter who visited the property was not able to verify how many were there.

The owner of the property has so far not responded to a request for comment.

Murray claimed the beehives in the residential area were unmanaged and estimated they could contain up to one million bees.

She said: “This has gone well beyond a private matter. We have families, pets and workers being stung; residents unable to open their windows and basic home maintenance being disrupted.”

She also raised concerns over the environmental impact because honeybees in excessive numbers could outcompete bumblebees, solitary bees and butterflies.

Pensioner Daphne Wood said she liked to keep her back door open when cooking, but bees came into the kitchen.

She said she was not a sun worshipper but would like to sit in her garden and was unable to now.

“As soon as you go out there, there are bees,” she said, adding she had been left exhausted after working in her tool shed and then not being able to sit outside afterwards.

Another woman, who gave her name as Julie, said she had kept videos and a photo diary of the swarms “for the last couple of years”, adding: “More and more swarms have been happening, so last year I actually took five videos of swarms in my back garden.

“I’ve been stung on numerous occasions, just being in my back garden, collecting washing and gardening.”

“We have no issues with pollinators, but it seems to have got excessive,” Julie said.

One of her neighbours paid more than £1,000 to have bees removed from her chimney and a cap placed on it, she said.

Meanwhile, tradespeople have been unable to carry out work, with one contractor being stung three times.

Julie said: “Both window cleaners were stung and then they just left and said, ‘We’ll have to come back another day; we can’t stay here; there are too many bees’.”

Worcester City Council said in a statement: “Worcestershire regulatory services are investigating the complaints on behalf of the council.

“It is not appropriate to comment further at this time.”

The US Supreme Court has said it will allow the Trump administration to terminate deportation protections for some 350,000 Venezuelans in the US.

The ruling lifts a hold that was placed by a California judge that kept Temporary Protected Status (TPS) in place for Venezuelans whose status would have expired last month.

Temporary Protected Status allows people to live and work in the US legally if their home countries are deemed unsafe due to things like countries experiencing wars, natural disasters or other “extraordinary and temporary” conditions.

The ruling marks a win for US President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly tried to use the Supreme Court to enact immigration policy decisions.

Venezuelans living in the US were first granted TPS in 2021.

The secretary of Homeland Security at the time, Alejandro N Mayorkas, said the Biden administration had taken the decision “due to extraordinary and temporary conditions in Venezuela that prevent nationals from returning safely”.

He said the South American country was suffering “a complex humanitarian crisis marked by widespread hunger and malnutrition, a growing influence and presence of non-state armed groups, repression, and a crumbling infrastructure”.

According to the UN’s refugee agency, almost eight million Venezuelans have left their homeland since the crisis began in 2014. Most of them are living in Latin American and Caribbean countries but hundreds of thousands moved to the United States.

The Trump administration wanted to end protections and work permits for migrants with TPS in April 2025, more than a year before they were originally supposed to end in October 2026.

Lawyers representing the US government argued the California federal court, the US District Court for the Northern District of California, had undermined “the Executive Branch’s inherent powers as to immigration and foreign affairs,” when it stopped the administration from ending protections and work permits in April.

Ahilan Arulanantham, who represents TPS holders in the case, told the BBC he believed this to be “the largest single action stripping any group of non-citizens of immigration status in modern US history”.

“That the Supreme Court authorized this action in a two-paragraph order with no reasoning is truly shocking,” Mr Arulanantham said. “The humanitarian and economic impact of the Court’s decision will be felt immediately, and will reverberate for generations.”

Because it was an emergency appeal, justices on the Supreme Court did not provide a reasoning for the ruling.

The court’s order only noted one judge’s dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

In August, the Trump administration is also expected to revoke TPS protections for tens of thousands of Haitians.

The ruling on Monday by the Supreme Court marks the latest in a series of decisions on immigration policies from the high court that the Trump administration has left them to rule on.

• What is the 1798 law that Trump used to deport migrants?

Last week, the administration asked the Supreme Court to end humanitarian parole for hundreds of thousands of Cuban, Haitian, Nicaraguan and Venezuela immigrants.

Along with some of their successes, the Trump administration was dealt a blow on Friday when the high court blocked Trump from using the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport immigrants in north Texas.

Trump had wanted to use the centuries-old law to swiftly deport thousands from the US, but Supreme Court judges questioned if the president’s action was legal.

The far-right anti-Islam activist Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, also known as Tommy Robinson, is due to be released from prison four months early.

His 18-month sentence for contempt of court was reduced after a hearing at the High Court on Tuesday.

Yaxley-Lennon was jailed last October because he ignored an order not to repeat false allegations about a Syrian refugee who successfully sued him for libel.

His lawyers told the court he had since shown a “commitment” to comply with the order. Mr Justice Johnson granted the application to have the sentence reduced because Robinson had shown a “change in attitude” since he was sentenced.

The judge noted there was an “absence of contrition or remorse” from Yaxley-Lennon, but added: “He has given an assurance that he will comply with the injunction in the future, that he has no intention of breaching it again, and that he is aware of the consequences of what would happen if he breached the injunction again.”

An 11-year-old boy who taught himself to play the piano in five months by watching YouTube videos has been invited to a prestigious music school.

Harvey, from Stoke Ferry, near Downham Market, Norfolk, only started playing at the end of last year, but has already reached the advanced grade eight standard, according to his teacher.

Videos of him playing have been posted online by his mother Jen and have gained thousands of views.

The Royal Academy of Music has invited him in for an induction day, to spend time with professionals to explore what he can do with his talent.

Harvey said he started to play the piano because he found learning the music “satisfying”.

He has performed at the care home where his mother works and on public pianos at railway stations.

“It is really nice when you get applause from people. It makes you feel like your performance has been accepted,” he said.

Jen said he had not inherited his ability from her, joking that while she could play “Chopsticks”, she would not describe herself as musical.

“He’s taught himself off YouTube,” she said.

“[He has] just decided ‘Yes, that’s what I want to play’ and since then, he’s on there for hours a day”.

Jen said she was very proud of Harvey and keen to explore what his musical talent might mean for his future.

Previously he had been very interested in computers and design but she said his pivot to playing music was a surprise.

Harvey has just started lessons at formal lessons at The Norfolk Academy of Music.

His teacher Bekki Smith said Harvey was already playing at the top Grade Eight level.

Ms Smith said: “My first reaction was ‘Wow, we’ve got something special here’ and yes, playing to that standard after only a few months is rather amazing.

“He has brilliant dexterity for his age and his capability is amazing.”

Ms Smith said she would be working with Harvey on filling in some of the gaps in his knowledge that came from learning online.

She said practice was key to progress like his.

“Harvey does at least two hours of practice a day and is very keen to learn which makes a huge difference from a lot of pupils that ‘don’t have the time’ or can only play for 10 minutes a day.

“Sadly, a lot of pupils will find hours for social media but not for practice.”

Last year, Donald Trump promised he would end the Ukraine War in “24 hours”.

Last week, he said that it would not be resolved until he and Russian President Vladimir Putin could “get together” and hash it out in person.

On Monday, the ground shifted again.

After a two-hour phone call with Putin, he said that the conditions of a peace deal could only be negotiated between Russia and Ukraine – and maybe with the help of the Pope.

Still, the US president has not lost his sense of optimism about the prospect for peace, posting on social media that the combatants would “immediately start” negotiations for a ceasefire and an end to the war.

That sentiment was somewhat at odds with the Russian view. Putin only said that his country is ready to work with Ukraine to craft a “memorandum on a possible future peace agreement”.

Talks about memorandums and a “possible future” of peace hardly seems the kind of solid ground on which lasting deals can be quickly built.

• Russia and Ukraine to ‘immediately’ start ceasefire talks, says Trump
• Trump says he will call Putin to discuss stopping Ukraine ‘bloodbath’
• Rosenberg: Trump-Putin call seen as victory in Russia

Putin again emphasised that any resolution would have to address the “root causes” of the war – which Russia has claimed in the past to be Ukraine’s desire for closer ties to Europe.

On Truth Social after the call, Trump said that Russia and Ukraine will “immediately start negotiations” toward a ceasefire, adding that “the conditions for that will be negotiated between the two parties”.

But there is a possibility that Trump’s latest take on the war in Ukraine could be a sign that the US will ultimately abandon the negotiating table.

Later on Monday, Trump said he would not step away from brokering talks between the two countries, but acknowledged that he had a “red line in his head”.

“Big egos involved, but I think something’s going to happen,” he said. “And if it doesn’t, I’ll just back away and they’ll have to keep going.”

Such a move, however, comes with its own set of questions – and risks.

If the US washes its hands of the war, as Vice-President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have also threatened, does it mean the US would also end any military and intelligence support for Ukraine?

And if that is the case, then it may be a development that Russia, with its greater resources compared to a Ukraine cut off from American backing, would welcome.

That prospect is enough to have Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky concerned.

“It’s crucial for all of us that the United States does not distance itself from the talks and the pursuit of peace,” he said on Monday after the Trump-Putin call.

• Trump’s frantic peace brokering hints at what he really wants

Trump has expressed frustration with both Putin and Zelensky as efforts to resolve the three-year-old conflict drag on.

He accused the Ukrainian leader of “gambling with World War Three” in an explosive meeting in February in the Oval Office and, in April, said he was “very angry” and “pissed off” at Putin after talks continued to stall.

Putting aside Monday’s rhetoric, it appears that Ukraine and Russia are set to continue some kind of talks – and talking in any form is progress after nearly three years of war. Still to be determined is whether the Russian team will be more than the low-level delegation that travelled to Istanbul to meet with the Ukrainians last Friday.

Trump is holding out the promise of reduced sanctions on Russia – and new trade deals and economic investment – as the enticement that will move Putin toward a peace agreement. He mentioned that again in his post-call comments. Not discussed, on the other hand, were any negative consequences, such as new sanctions on Russian banking and energy exports.

The US president last month warned that he would not tolerate Putin “tapping me along” and said that Russia should not target civilian areas. But yesterday, Russia launched its largest drone strike of the war on Ukrainian cities, and Monday’s call between the two world leaders makes clear that any ceasefire or peace deal still seems well over the horizon.

The four-day conflict between arch-rivals India and Pakistan this month ended with a ceasefire and both claiming victory – but it now appears that China’s defence industry might also be an unlikely winner.

The latest flare-up began on 7 May when India launched attacks on what it called “terrorist infrastructure” inside Pakistan in response to the brutal killing of 26 people, mostly tourists by militants in Pahalgam on 22 April.

Many of them were killed in the scenic valley in Indian-administered Kashmir in front of their wives and family members. Delhi accused Islamabad of supporting militant groups involved in the carnage, a charge Pakistan denied.

After India’s response – which it called Operation Sindoor – to the militant attack, tit-for-tat military manoeuvres from both sides followed, involving drones, missiles and fighter jets.

India reportedly used its French and Russian-made jets, while Pakistan deployed its J-10 and J-17 aircraft, which Islamabad co-produces with Beijing. Both sides say their jets did not cross the border and they were firing missiles at each other from a distance.

Islamabad claims that its fighter aircraft shot down at least six Indian planes, including the newly-acquired French-made Rafale fighter jets. Delhi hasn’t responded to these claims.

“Losses are a part of combat,” Air Marshal AK Bharti of the Indian Air Force (IAF) said last week when a reporter asked him about these claims. Air Marshal Bharti declined to comment on the specific claim of Pakistan downing Indian jets.

“We have achieved the objectives that we selected, and all our pilots are back home,” he added.

India said it had killed at least “100 terrorists” while targeting the headquarters of the banned Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed militant outfits based in Pakistan.

A definitive account of what really happened in the aerial battle is yet to emerge. Some media outlets reported plane crashes in the state of Punjab and Indian-administered Kashmir around the same time but the Indian government has not responded to the reports.

A Reuters report quoting American officials said Pakistan possibly had used the Chinese-made J-10 aircraft to launch air-to-air missiles against Indian fighter jets. Pakistan claiming victory after hugely relying on Chinese weapons systems in an active combat situation is being seen by some experts as a boost for Beijing’s defence industry but some also disagree with the claim.

Some of the experts have called this a “DeepSeek moment” for the Chinese weapons industry, referring to January this year when the Chinese AI start-up shook US giants with its cost-effective technology.

“The aerial fight was a big advertisement for the Chinese weapons industry. Until now, China had no opportunity to test its platforms in a combat situation,” Zhou Bo, a retired senior colonel in the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, told the BBC.

The Beijing-based analyst said the outcome of the air duel showed “China has some systems that are next to none”. Shares in the Chinese Avic Chengdu Aircraft company, that manufactures fighter jets like the J-10, surged by up to 40% last week after the reported performance of the fighter jet in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Other experts, however, feel it’s too early to declare the superiority of Chinese weapons systems.

Professor Walter Ladwig from the King’s College in London said it was yet to be determined whether the Chinese jets had actually outmanoeuvred the Indian Air Force (IAF) planes, particularly the Rafale.

“In a standard military doctrine, you would suppress the enemy’s air defences and get air superiority before you struck ground targets. Instead, it appears the IAF’s mission was clearly not to provoke any Pakistani military retaliation,” he said.

Mr Ladwig thought that the Indian pilots were given instructions to fly despite the fact that the entire Pakistani air defence was on high alert and their jets were already in the sky. The IAF hasn’t given details of the mission or about its air operations strategy.

Beijing also hasn’t made any comment on reports of the J-10 taking down Indian fighter jets, including the Rafale. But unconfirmed reports of the J-10 bringing down a Western weapon system has triggered jubilation and triumphalism on Chinese social media.

Carlotta Rinaudo, a China researcher at the International Team for the Study of Security in Verona, said Chinese social media was flooded with nationalistic messages even though it’s difficult to reach a conclusion with the available information.

“At the moment perception matters way more than reality. If we see it in that way, the main winner is really China,” she said.

For China, Pakistan is a strategic and economic ally. It is investing more than $50bn (£37bn) to build infrastructure in Pakistan as part of its China-Pakistan Economic corridor.

So, a weak Pakistan is not in China’s interest.

China made a critical difference in the latest India-Pakistan conflict, says Imtiaz Gul, a Pakistani security analyst. “It took the Indian planners by sheer surprise. They didn’t probably envision the depth of co-operation in the modern warfare between Pakistan and China,” he said.

Experts say the performance of the Chinese jets in a real combat situation was keenly analysed in Western capitals as this will have cascading impact on global arms trade. The US is the world’s largest arms exporter, while China is the fourth.

China sells weapons mostly to developing countries like Myanmar and Pakistan. Previously the Chinese weapon systems were criticised for their poor quality and technical problems.

Reports said the Burmese military grounded several of its JF-17 fighter jets – jointly manufactured by China and Pakistan in 2022 – due to technical malfunctions.

The Nigerian military reported several technical problems with the Chinese made F-7 fighter jets.

Another point to be noted is that this was not the first time that India lost an aircraft to Pakistan.

In 2019, during a brief air battle between the two sides following similar Indian air strikes on suspected terrorist targets in Pakistan, a Russian-made MiG-21 jet was shot down inside Pakistani territory and the pilot was captured. He was released a few days later.

India, however, said that the pilot had ejected after successfully shooting down Pakistani fighter jets, including a US-made F-16. Pakistan has denied the claim.

Despite reports of the downing of Indian jets last week, experts like Mr Ladwig argue that India was able to hit an “impressive breadth of targets” inside Pakistan early in the morning of 10 May and this fact has gone largely unnoticed by the international media.

The Indian military said in a co-ordinated attack, it launched missiles on 11 Pakistani air bases across the country, including the strategic Nur Khan air base outside Rawalpindi, not far from the Pakistani military headquarters. It’s a sensitive target that took Islamabad by surprise.

One of the furthest targets was in Bholari, 140km (86 miles) from the southern city of Karachi.

Mr Ladwig says this time the IAF operated with standard procedures – first attacking Pakistani air defence and radar systems and then focusing on ground targets.

The Indian jets used an array of missiles, loitering munitions and drones despite the Pakistanis operating the Chinese-provided HQ 9 air defence system.

“It seems the attacks were relatively precise and targeted. The craters were in the middle of runways, exactly the ideal spot. If it were a longer conflict, how long would it take the Pakistani Air Force to get these facilities up and running again, I can’t say,” Mr Ladwig pointed out.

Nevertheless, he said, by refusing to get into the details of the mission briefing, India’s military “lost control of the narrative thread”.

In response to the Indian strikes, Pakistan said it launched missile and air strikes on several Indian forward air bases, but Delhi said the attacks caused no damage to equipment and personnel.

Realising that the situation was getting out of control, the US and its allies intervened and put pressure on both countries to stop the fighting.

But for India, experts say, the whole episode is a wake-up call.

Beijing may not comment on the details of the recent India-Pakistan conflict, but it’s keen to show that its weapon systems are fast catching up with the West.

Delhi is aware that the jets China has supplied to Pakistan are some of the earlier models. Beijing has already inducted the more advanced J-20 stealth fighter jets, that can evade radars.

India and China have a long-standing border dispute along the Himalayas and fought a brief border war in 1962 that resulted in a defeat for India. A brief border clash took place in Ladakh in June 2020.

Experts say India is acutely aware that it needs to accelerate investments in its homegrown defence manufacturing industry and speed up international buying.

For now, China’s defence industry seems to be enjoying the limelight following the claims of success of one of its aircraft in the India-Pakistan conflict.

Sesame Street and Netflix have struck a deal that will see the popular TV show appear on the streaming platform, after US President Donald Trump pulled funding for the free-to-air channel Public Broadcasting Service (PBS).

Netflix said the iconic programme is a “beloved cornerstone of children’s media, enchanting young minds and nurturing a love of learning”.

Netflix will offer its 300 million subscribers a new season of the show and 90 hours of previous episodes, and it will still also be available on PBS.

Sesame Street was also facing an uncertain future after entertainment giant Warner Bros Discovery, which owns the HBO platform, did not renew its deal with the half a century old programme.

Earlier this month, Trump issued an executive order to block federal funding for PBS and the National Public Radio (NPR) network, alleging they engaged in “biased and partisan news coverage”.

The government body Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which backed the two broadcasters, has since announced the termination of a federal initiative which funded shows for children, including Sesame Street.

Under the deal, PBS will get access to Sesame Street episodes on the same day they are released on Netflix.

In the late 1960s, Sesame Street co-founders Lloyd Morrisett and Joan Ganz Cooney approached Harvard University’s Graduate School of Education with a novel way of teaching American children.

A team led by a developmental psychologist worked with the Sesame founders to analyse childhood psychology and produce entertaining lessons.

They worked with Muppets creator Jim Henson to create characters like Big Bird, with a set made to look like an urban street.

Since its first airing on 10 November 1969, millions of children have grown up with the show’s theme tune “Can you tell me how to get, how get to Sesame Street?”

Over the decades, the programme and its characters have gained a life beyond the small screen.

Popular character Elmo stepped into the public policy spotlight in 2002, when he was invited to discuss music education at Congress.

During a child obesity epidemic in the US in 2006, Sesame Street aired Health Habits segments designed to teach kids about diet and exercise.

The Cookie Monster declared cookies a “sometimes food” and taught children about a balanced diet.

Former First Lady Michelle Obama also visited Sesame’s studios to film a segment on healthy eating.

Netflix has been increasing its focus on children’s content, which accounts for 15% of viewing on its service.

It also announced on Tuesday that new episodes of Peppa Pig and a mobile game with puzzles and colouring activities would be coming to the platform.

The animated show is centred on the adventures of a four-year-old piglet called Peppa who lives with her family in a fictional British town.

Some have called it an “eyesaur”. Many more have described it as “fabulous”.

But one word Boom Boom, a seven-metre tall stainless steel dinosaur sculpture in New Zealand, could never be associated with is “boring”.

Just days after the sauropod statue was installed in Taupō Sculpture Park, in the scenic centre of New Zealand’s North Island, Boom Boom has already prompted heated debate among locals.

The artist – and the team that commissioned it – say that’s exactly the point.

The mirror-finish sculpture was commissioned by the Taupō Sculpture Trust and created by Slovenian-born artist Gregor Kregar.

Kregar said that he wasn’t “particularly surprised” by the furore that quickly surrounded his work.

“Sculpture sometimes stops people from their everyday interactions with the world,” he told the BBC from his home in Auckland. “It’s really hard to hate a sculpture of a dinosaur.”

Still, public opinion on Boom Boom is split.

“Fantastic! Getting people talking about art. Broadening the conversation,” said one commenter on a social media post announcing Boom Boom’s arrival.

But another wrote: “Public investment of $100,000 from the local ratepayers, many of who would have rather seen the money spent elsewhere in the community.”

Funding for Boom Boom was finalised in 2018, before recent hikes in Taupō District Council’s rate which is similar to a council tax.

After several years of negotiations, the work was completed and installed in the park last week.

Others still criticised the work as having no connection with Taupō, named New Zealand’s most beautiful town in the 2023 Keep New Zealand Beautiful Awards.

But Kregar said the rock that the dinosaur stands on is inspired by the volcanic history of the area.

Lake Taupō, from which the town takes its name, is a large caldera, a volcano that has collapsed in on itself. It last erupted around 1,800 years ago.

Sauropods, the inspiration for Boom Boom, are one of a few species of dinosaurs that paleontologists say lived in New Zealand.

They became extinct 66 million years ago, along with most other non-avian dinosaurs.

Kregar says the spirited debate around the sculpture means Boom Boom could eventually win round “the haters”.

“You put the sculpture out there, there is reaction, people start falling in love with it, and then it becomes something that they start embracing, part of the local identity,” he said.

Kim Gillies, secretary of the Taupō Sculpture Trust, told the BBC that the decision to commission Boom Boom was not taken “lightly”, but that it was chosen because “it would help put Taupō on the map”.

Gillies added that when it comes to the art, “safe is a bit boring, right?”

No bones about it.

Vietnamese authorities have arrested a beauty queen and social media influencer for consumer fraud after she promoted a counterfeit fibre supplement.

Nguyen Thuc Thuy Tien had heavily marketed gummies said to be rich in fibre on her social media channels.

But a public backlash erupted after product tests revealed this was untrue.

A former winner of the Miss Grand International beauty competition, Ms Nguyen is a well-known personality in Vietnam and previously received accolades from the government.

Ms Nguyen had promoted Kera Supergreens Gummies along with social media influencers, Pham Quang Linh and Hang Du Muc.

Investigators said the product was the result of a joint venture between Ms Nguyen and a company set up by the two other influencers.

The influencers claimed that each of their gummies contained fibre equivalent to a plate of vegetables.

A member of the public sent the product for testing at a lab, which found that each gummy only contained 16mg of fibre, far from 200mg as claimed.

Authorities then launched an investigation, which found that sub-standard ingredients that were low in fibre were used in the manufacture of the gummies.

The product’s packaging also did not state the fibre content, nor did it state that the product contained a high level of sorbitol, which is used in laxatives.

The three influencers were fined in March, and apologised to the public.

The following month, Vietnamese authorities arrested Mr Pham and Hang Du Muc as well as officials from their company and the gummies’ manufacturer.

They were charged with producing counterfeit goods and defrauding customers.

On Monday, authorities announced the arrest of Ms Nguyen for allegedly deceiving customers.

More than 100,000 boxes of the gummies were reportedly sold before sales were halted due to the scandal.

After winning the Bangkok-based beauty pageant in 2021, Ms Nguyen became a celebrity sought after by many Vietnamese brands, and appeared on several reality TV shows.

She also received certificates of merit from the prime minister and Vietnam’s ruling Communist Party.

Israel went to war after the Hamas attacks of 7 October 2023 armed with an arsenal of weapons mostly paid for, supplied and then resupplied by the United States.

Its other allies gave Israel something just as potent in its own way: a deep credit of goodwill and solidarity, based on revulsion at the killings of 1,200 people, mostly Israeli civilians, and the sight of 251 people being dragged into captivity in Gaza as hostages.

Now it seems that Israel’s credit has gone, at least as far as France, the United Kingdom and Canada are concerned. They have issued their strongest condemnation yet of the way Israel is fighting the war in Gaza.

Israel, they say, must halt its new offensive, which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says will destroy Hamas, rescue the remaining hostages and put all of Gaza under direct Israeli military control.

• Live coverage
• Israeli strikes kill at least 38 people in half-hour period, medics say
• UN calls five trucks of aid ‘drop in ocean’ of what’s needed

Their statement dismisses Netanyahu’s arguments and calls for a ceasefire. Together, the three governments say that they “strongly oppose the expansion of Israel’s military operations in Gaza” adding: “The level of human suffering in Gaza is intolerable.”

They call for the release of the remaining hostages and recall that after the “heinous attack” on 7 October they believed that the Israeli state “had a right to defend Israelis against terrorism. But this escalation is wholly disproportionate”.

Netanyahu’s decision to allow what he called “minimal” food into Gaza was they said “wholly inadequate”.

Netanyahu has hit back, saying the “leaders in London, Ottawa and Paris are offering a huge prize for the genocidal attack on Israel on October 7 while inviting more such atrocities”.

He insisted the war could end if Hamas returned hostages, laid down its arms, agreed for its leaders to go into exile and Gaza was demilitarised. “No nation can be expected to accept anything less and Israel certainly won’t,” he said.

Netanyahu – who is sought under an International criminal Court warrant for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity, which he has dismissed as “antisemitic” – had been under heavy international pressure to end the blockade of Gaza after a respected international survey warned of imminent famine.

At the London summit between the EU and the UK the President of the European Council, António Costa, called the humanitarian crisis in Gaza “a tragedy where international law is being systematically violated, and an entire population is being subjected to disproportionate military force”.

“There must be safe, swift and unimpeded access for humanitarian aid,” he said.

Netanyahu’s reluctant decision to allow in limited supplies was condemned by his ultra nationalist coalition partners.

The Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir, convicted in 2007 for incitement to racism and supporting an extremist Jewish group that Israel classifies as a terrorist organisation, complained that Netanyahu’s decision would “fuel Hamas and give it oxygen while our hostages languish in tunnels”.

Only five trucks made it into Gaza on Monday, as Israeli troops advanced and air and artillery strikes killed more Palestinian civilians including many young children.

Opponents of Israel’s destruction of Gaza and the killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians will say the governments of France, the UK and Canada are speaking out far too late.

Many of them have held months of demonstrations protesting about the death and destruction in Gaza – and more killing of Palestinian civilians and confiscation of land in the West Bank, the other side of the Palestinian territories, during military operations and raids by armed Jewish settlers.

But sometimes in the politics of war, a single incident carries symbolic power that clarifies and crystallises so sharply that it can force governments to action. This time it was the killing on 23 March by Israeli forces in Gaza of 15 paramedics and aid workers.

It came after Israel, on 18 March, had broken a ceasefire that had held for two months with a series of massive air strikes.

Five days into the renewed war an Israeli unit attacked the medical convoy, and covered the men they had killed and their bullet ridden vehicles with the sand. The Israeli account of what happened was shown to be untrue when a mobile phone was recovered from a body in the mass grave.

Its owner had filmed the incident before he was killed. Far from proving Israel’s claim that the emergency workers were a potential threat to the Israeli combat soldiers, the video from the grave showed that clearly marked and well-lit ambulances and emergency vehicles were attacked systematically until almost everyone inside them was killed.

Alarm has been growing fast since then, not just among Israel’s usual opponents. Its European allies, with President Macron of France leading the way, have been toughening their language. The statement calling for an end to Israel’s offensive is their harshest criticism of Israel so far.

A senior European diplomatic source involved in their discussions told me that the tough language reflected a “real sense of growing political anger at the humanitarian situation, of a line being crossed, and of this Israeli government appearing to act with impunity”.

More ominously for Israel, the statement says that “we will not stand by while the Netanyahu government pursues these egregious actions. If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete steps in response”.

They do not specify what those might be. Sanctions could be one possibility. A bigger step would be to recognise Palestine as an independent state.

France has been considering joining the 148 other states that have done so at a conference it is co-chairing with Saudi Arabia in New York in early June. The UK has also talked about Palestinian recognition with the French.

Israel, pushing back hard, has told them they would be presenting Hamas with a victory. But the tone of the statement made by the French, the Canadians and the British suggests that Israel is losing its ability to pressurise them.

Australia’s conservative Liberal-National coalition – the nation’s main opposition political party – has split after a partnership lasting almost 80 years.

The move marks a seismic change in the country’s political landscape and comes just weeks after a federal election that saw Labor win a second term in a landslide victory.

Nationals leader David Littleproud on Tuesday said his party was not re-entering a coalition agreement, amid policy disagreements with the Liberal Party as it goes on a journey of “rediscovery” following the emphatic loss.

Littleproud added that the Coalition has been broken and repaired before, and he hoped that – with time – the parties could reconcile again.

The Liberal Party – which has the second largest number of seats in parliament – will remain the formal opposition party, though now in their own right. This means the Nationals will not hold any opposition roles.

“Whilst we have enormous respect for David Littleproud and his team, it is disappointing that the National Party has taken the decision to leave the Coalition,” newly elected Liberal leader Sussan Ley said, hours after the shock announcement.

Ley said the founding principle of the Coalition had long been “shared values”, but said the Nationals had refused to sign a deal without commitments to “specific policies”.

The split comes after days of post-election talks between the two parties about their future, with Littleproud’s party – which mainly represents regional communities and often leans more conservative than the Liberals – failing to reach an agreement with their long-time political ally.

A key issue that had strained their relationship was climate and energy, with some in the National Party still opposed to net-zero emissions goals, and wedded to a nuclear power proposal which proved controversial at the election.

Littleproud also pointed to regional infrastructure spending and policies to improve supermarket competition as points of conflict.

Describing it as “one of the hardest political decisions of his life”, Littleproud said he had a “respectful conversation” with Ley to inform her of the split on Tuesday morning.

“What this is about is taking a deep breath and saying to the Australian people, this is time apart [for] us to be better, [to] focus on them.

“I gave [Ley] the commitment that I’ll work with her every day to help to try to rebuild the relationship to the point we can re-enter a coalition before the next election.”

However, he said the National Party would contest the next election solo if unity could not be achieved.

The Liberal-National partnership, which in its current form dates back to the 1940s, has broken down and been re-established several times over the decades. The last time the Coalition split was almost four decades ago, in 1987.

All except one of the 15 electorates the Liberal-National coalition lost at the election were ceded by the Liberals, who saw big swings against them right around the nation.

Support for the Liberals nosedived in more moderate areas, particularly in cities, which analysts largely put down to then-leader Peter Dutton’s polarising persona and some Trump-like policies. Ley, his successor, has vowed to bring the party back to the centre-right.

Parts of the southern Indian city of Bengaluru, often called India’s Silicon Valley are under water after heavy rainfall.

The city is on high alert for more pre-monsoon showers on Tuesday due to cyclonic formations over the Andaman Sea, according to authorities.

Three people, including a 12-year-old boy were killed in rain-related incidents on Monday.

Bengaluru is home to major global technology companies, many of whom have asked their employees to work from home due to flooded roads.

Many parts of the city received 100 mm (4in) of rain on Monday, a record since 2011.

This is “rare” for Bengaluru, CS Patil, a director at the regional weather department told news agencies.

Apart from severe water-logging and traffic disrupting daily life, heavy rainfall has also caused property damage.

In one of the city’s major IT corridors, the compound wall of a software firm – i-Zed – collapsed on Monday morning, killing a 35-year-old female employee.

Videos also showed commuters wading through knee-deep water, with several cars parked on waterlogged streets. Water has also entered houses in some parts of the city.

Authorities say the city corporation has identified 210 flood-prone areas where they were working round the clock to “rectify” the situation.

“There is no need for the people of Bengaluru to be worried,” DK Shivakumar, deputy chief minister of Karnataka state told reporters on Monday.

But officials are facing criticism on social media with many complaining about the city’s crumbling infrastructure and deluged roads.

“No other city invokes a sense of fear and helplessness for commuting during rains as Bangalore does,” a user wrote on X.

Annu Itty, who has lived in the city for eight years told the BBC that the city’s infrastructure becomes especially fragile in the monsoons.

“Ironically, it’s the newly developed areas – those built to house the booming tech sector – that face the worst flooding,” she said.

Itty, who works in public policy, says a “lack of coherent urban planning that respects environmental limits”, as well as a lack of government accountability, has left Bengaluru residents to deal with the consequences.

Karnataka, of which Bengaluru is the capital is currently run by the Congress party. The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), which sits in the opposition in the state has accused the local government of failing to tackle rain-related issues in the city and the state, despite spending million of rupees on its infrastructure.

The BJP has demanded the immediate release of 10bn rupees ($117m, £87.5m) for relief operations.

The state government has, however, defended itself saying these were long-standing issues.

“The issues we face today are not new. They have been ignored for years, across governments and administrations,” Shivakumar said.

Floods have been a recurring phenomenon in Bengaluru in recent years. Experts partly blame rapid construction over the city’s lakes and wetlands and poor urban planning for the crisis.

Ananda Rao, president of the Association for Information Technology (AIT) – which represents over 450 software companies – told the BBC that such frequent flooding has caused “discomfort and inconvenience” for businesses.

“Bengaluru contributes significantly in taxes – both at an individual level and property tax. There is no return on this investment,” he said, calling on the state government to work on long-term solutions to improve the city’s infrastructure.

A British ultra-endurance athlete says he has broken the world record for running across the width of Australia, after a gruelling 35-day journey.

William Goodge, 31, started the 3,800km (2,361-mile) run from Cottesloe Beach in Perth on 15 April, and finished on Monday afternoon at Australia’s iconic Bondi Beach, his father by his side.

Goodge’s team says he ran the equivalent of two-and-a-half marathons – about 100km – every day.

Originally from Bedfordshire in England, Goodge started running marathons after his mother, Amanda, died from cancer in 2018, with this journey raising money for cancer charities in the UK, US and Australia.

The record is yet to be verified by Guinness World Records, which certified Chris Turnbull’s record-breaking dash across the continent over 39 days in 2023. The year before, Australian electrician Nedd Brockmann ran the same route in 47 days, raising millions for charity.

Speaking to BBC Breakfast about 24 hours after he had crossed the finish line, Goodge said “it’s the toughest thing I’ve ever done”.

Along the way Goodge ran through a dust storm, lost several toenails, and suffered from injuries, including rotting feet and bone pain, which sometimes caused him to hallucinate.

“It was full-on from start to finish,” he told the BBC, adding the first nine days were particularly hard.

The Nullabor Plain – a vast area of desert that crosses from Western Australia to South Australia – was also “unforgiving”, he said.

Surprisingly though, Goodge said he was “feeling very comfortable” now that the run was over.

Moments after crossing the finish line, Goodge placed a bunch of flowers on Bondi’s famous shoreline in memory of his late mother.

“She was the most special person in my life,” he told the Guardian Australia, adding, “she would be proud of everything I’ve done – she’d also be concerned”.

Goodge said thinking about how his mother battled cancer was crucial during his journey, and helped him overlook his own suffering.

“In the moments where it’s tough, I’ll think back to those times, I think about the woman she was, and how she handled herself, and how she supported me,” he told the Sydney Morning Herald.

“I feel like she’s there with me a lot of the time.”

During the race, he says he saw almost all of Australia’s famous animals – though most were dead on the road – and much of its unique countryside.

Some in the running community however have questioned the accuracy of data tracking his speed and heart rate over the course of the run.

“Goodge stands by his record keeping and asserts that he is taking every single step,” his agent told the Canadian Running magazine last week.

Goodge also claims to hold the record for the fastest British man to run across the US, crossing from Los Angeles to New York in 55 days.

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

The Trump administration has agreed to pay a $5m (£3.7m) settlement to the family of Ashli Babbitt, a US Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a Capitol police officer while breaching the US Congress on 6 January 2021.

Capitol Police Chief Tom Manger told CBS, the BBC’s US partner, he is “extremely disappointed” with the decision. The officer involved in her shooting has been cleared of any wrongdoing.

The settlement resolves a $30m wrongful death suit filed by Babbitt’s family and the conservative activist group Judicial Watch.

Thousands of Trump supporters descended on the US Capitol on 6 January in an attempt to halt the certification of Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election.

Babbitt was part of a group that smashed windows in an effort to enter the chamber of the House of Representatives while it was still in session, forcing lawmakers to delay certification and flee for safety.

Video of the incident shows her being shot in the shoulder after attempting to climb through a door. She later died in hospital.

The wrongful death lawsuit filed by Babbitt’s family claimed that the decision to open fire by Capitol Police officer Michael Byrd was negligent, and that Babbitt’s hands were in the air when she was shot.

Family members say that Babbitt was motivated to come to the Capitol by Trump’s claims of election fraud. No evidence has ever surfaced of widespread fraud in the 2020 election.

Mr Byrd previously defended the move to fire his gun, saying the group of lawmakers and security “were essentially trapped” and had “no way to retreat”.

In August 2021, a Capitol Police review found that Mr Byrd’s decision saved lives and was consistent with police training and procedures. A justice department review also found no evidence of any police wrongdoing.

“This is extremely disappointing and I completely disagree with the Department of Justice’s decision,” Chief Manger said in a statement to staff after learning of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.

“This settlement sends a chilling message to law enforcement officers across our nation – especially those who have a protective mission like ours,” he added.

In January, on his first day back in the White House, President Donald Trump issued a blanket pardon for more than 1,500 Capitol riot defendants, including hundreds accused of assaulting police. He also fired the federal prosecutors who handled those cases.

Trump in March told conservative news outlet Newsmax that he’s “a big fan of Ashli Babbitt” and that she was “innocently standing there” when she was shot.

“And a man did something unthinkable to her when he shot her, and I think it’s a disgrace,” he said, promising to “look into” the lawsuit brought by her family.