Inside Wiegman’s gameplan to save England from Euro 2025 embarrassment

When the England players got back into the dressing room after Saturday’s defeat to France, they were very quiet, until Sarina Wiegman felt she had to do more than say the right words. She had to deliver the right message. “We win on Wednesday,” she said.

England, of course, must win on Wednesday, as they will already be out of Euro 2025 if they suffer defeat and a draw leaves their fate out of their hands. Yet, as simple as that message was, and as simplistic as the idea might sound, the words have worked.

England feel in a much better “headspace” ahead of what is essentially a knockout match against the Netherlands in Zurich. The direct football that they played in the final minutes of the France game has offered a sense of clarity. It’s brought a focus, where there was previously uncertainty.

Insiders state that Wiegman’s squad were much more nervous before the France match than they had let on. As defending champions, they felt a new pressure, with that compounded by how it wasn’t really the same team. They weren’t certain of how they were going to play, and training sessions in the build-up hadn’t been smooth.

Then, the worst happened. England weren’t just beaten by France, but often looked a shambles. The tactics, with Lauren James at the top of midfield, didn’t work.

At full time, England came into the dressing room extremely agitated, which was why Wiegman’s message was effective. A line was drawn, and the challenge was made clear. It’s win or bust, and the first ever women’s European champions to go out in the group stage.

Wiegman, of course, hasn’t been playing up any of that. “We don’t talk about consequences,” the England manager said. “We talk about our game plan.”

Training has been more focused, but not due to any sense of panic. Alessia Russo spoke of how they are more “chilled”.

Beside her, Wiegman was in conspicuously good form at the pre-match press conference in Zurich’s Stadion Letzigrund, laughing a lot. You wouldn’t have thought this was a manager facing up to unprecedented first-round humiliation.

That’s just as well, because this match has so many strands and stakes beyond the finality of the circumstances. Wiegman even joked about whether she should speak Dutch, which is of course one of the main narratives.

If the England manager is obviously far too accomplished a coach to even ask about whether her nationality will come into it – “it won’t”, she said – that isn’t the case for everyone else.

The Dutch are really up for this, their motivation made all the more intense by how intertwined the two football countries are and the noise being made around the entire campaign. “For many players, it’s a very special game,” Dutch star Vivianne Miedema said.

It aggravates some in their camp that Wiegman left for what could be perceived as a “bigger job”. You’d wonder what current Dutch coach, Andries Jonker, thinks of that. He’d no doubt tell you if asked, given that he has already turned the Netherlands Euros into his own personal theatre by rounding on critics.

Wiegman’s deadpan description was that he is “more emotional” than her. The usual term would be “irascible”. Only adding further edge to this is that Jonker was an influential figure in Wiegman’s development as a coach, but his contract is not being renewed after Euro 2025, and he is set to be replaced by one of the England manager’s own proteges. That is Wiegman’s current assistant, Arjan Veurink.

Some close to the England camp even believe a bigger discussion is warranted about how the Football Association (FA) could be criticised for providing a pathway for Dutch coaches rather than their own, especially given the paucity of prospective candidates for the job.

That discussion might have taken place had England won on Saturday. Instead, the possibility of their elimination has only complemented other connections and storylines. Miedema was naturally asked about taking on her partner, Beth Mead. They’ve faced each other before but not like this.

“We both know what we’re going through,” Miedema said. “I will do everything possible to win the game.”

Miedema pointed to how she is one of numerous Dutch players with many friends in the England team, having joined Manchester City from Arsenal, with the added twist that she then saw them win the Champions League.

Jonker, typically, put it bluntly. “You don’t want to hurt your friends… but this is a fact. In football, you have to play against each other and you want to win.”

It’s maybe just as well the stakes are so clear. The players would otherwise have a lot swirling around their heads.

And that’s before you even get to the idea that they are again playing for the healthy future of the women’s game itself. For all the progress of the last three years – mostly driven by this English squad – viewing figures are down and the game is facing new financial difficulties.

Even Euro 2022 was a slow burn that steadily grew with the public. It’s been similar here, especially with the sheer amount of sport on at the moment, from Wimbledon to the Lions. By contrast, the Euro 2025 knockout stages will almost have a window to themselves, making it all the more imperative to get there.

Georgia Stanway did mention “remembering that we’re playing for the little girl that wanted to be here” but that inspirational thought is just about all they need in their heads right now from that kind of thinking. Wiegman knows they don’t even need the stakes of the game in their heads.

“The outcome of course has consequences but that was the same in the finals of the Euros and World Cup. So we talk about how we do what we want to do.”

Russo revealed that the squad have had conversations about “playing without fear”. That makes clarity of play all the more important, which is why the final minutes of the 2-1 defeat to France may be influential.

England went back to a direct style, and they suddenly began to play with speed, and intent. It was the one time they looked like themselves. That perhaps explains Stanway’s comment about “wanting to be ‘proper England’… back to what we’re good at”.

Except, the Dutch are very different to France. If Wiegman does not go with exactly the same formation, there is an argument that the approach from that game is better suited to this match.

England need to be on the ball more, but not get panicked when the Netherlands have it. Opposition players who have faced Jonker’s side have noticed how they get frustrated when facing a low-mid block.

Wiegman also conspicuously mentioned, “how we can exploit spaces the Netherlands leave behind”. She has long had a game plan for this match, for obvious reasons. “We have bounced back before,” Russo said. “I think everyone’s ready.” England, however, need more than words.

Trump pledges more weapons for Ukraine and says he is ‘not happy’ with Putin

The US will have to send more weapons to Ukraine because it is getting “hit very hard now”, Donald Trump has vowed in a major U-turn on military assistance, adding he was “not happy” with Vladimir Putin.

“We have to,” Mr Trump said. “They have to be able to defend themselves. They’re getting hit very hard now. We’re going to send some more weapons – defensive weapons primarily,” he added.

It comes just days after the Pentagon halted shipments to review whether current stockpiles were sufficient for American defence needs.

Meanwhile, Russian former transport minister Roman Starovoit has been found dead hours after he was fired unexpectedly by Vladimir Putin as Russia’s transport sector faces challenges.

“Today, the body of the former minister of transport of the Russian Federation, Roman Starovoit, was found with a gunshot wound in his personal car,” Russia‘s investigative committee said in a statement.

The committee implied that Starovoit took his own life. Putin’s decree gave no reason for the dismissal of Starovoit after barely a year in the job. Starovoit was appointed transport minister in May 2024 after spending almost five years as governor of the Kursk region bordering Ukraine.

‘I will not go quietly’: Gregg Wallace slams BBC after being sacked over Masterchef claims

Gregg Wallace has launched a tirade against the BBC after being fired following a MasterChef misconduct investigation, in which he was “found guilty of inappropriate language.”

It comes as 50 more people have approached the BBC with new claims about the TV presenter, including allegations he groped one MasterChef worker. Wallace denies the claims.

The presenter, 60, released a lengthy statement on Instagram on Tuesday claiming he has been axed by the broadcaster, where he has worked for the past 21 years, after a six-month investigation into his on-set behaviour.

A BBC spokesperson told The Independent: “Banijay UK instructed the law firm Lewis Silkin to run an investigation into allegations against Gregg Wallace. We are not going to comment until the investigation is complete and the findings are published.”

However, Wallace said he has decided to share the findings prematurely after allegedly being “exonerated of all the serious allegations which made headlines last year”.

Wallace nevertheless “apologised without reservation” for the language he was found “primarily guilty of”, stating: “I recognise that some of my humour and language, at times, was inappropriate.”

Later in his post, Wallace said he had recently been diagnosed with autism.

The presenter ranted about the BBC’s decision to fire him, saying he “does not take it lightly” after “21 years of loyal service”.

“I cannot sit in silence while my reputation is further damaged to protect others,” he wrote.

“I have now been cleared by the Silkins report of the most serious and sensational accusations made against me.

“The most damaging claims (including allegations from public figures which have not been upheld) were found to be baseless after a full and forensic six-month investigation.”

The Independent understands that the BBC cannot fire Wallace as it does not employ him.

Wallace further accused the BBC of “peddling baseless and sensationalised gossip masquerading as properly corroborated stories”.

“I was hired by the BBC and MasterChef as the cheeky greengrocer. A real person with warmth, character, rough edges and all. For over two decades, that authenticity was part of the brand.

“Now, in a sanitised world, that same personality is seen as a problem.”

“My neurodiversity, now formally diagnosed as autism, was suspected and discussed by colleagues across countless seasons of MasterChef.”

He concluded his lengthy statement by vowing to “not go quietly”.

“I will not be cancelled for convenience. I was tried by media and hung out to dry well before the facts were established. The full story of this incredible injustice must be told and it is very much a matter of public interest.”

Wallace stepped away from hosting the BBC cooking competition after a host of historical complaints came to light last year, which led to an external investigation by the show’s production company Banijay UK.

Wallace, 60, has hosted the BBC cooking show alongside John Torode since 2005 and has also fronted other programmes including Inside the Factory, Big Weekends Away and Supermarket Secrets.

In late 2024, it was reported that the BBC had been made aware of complaints as far back as 2017, while it was claimed that a letter had been sent to the broadcaster in 2022 stating that women had been made to feel “uncomfortable” in the 60-year-old’s presence.

The MasterChef presenter has faced a string of allegations, including of making “inappropriate sexual jokes”, asking for the phone numbers of female members of production staff, and undressing in front of and standing “too close” to women working on his shows.

Kirstie Allsopp alleged Wallace once made a comment to her about his sex life, which left her “so embarrassed” she thought she “might cry”.

The Sunday Times reported that BBC executive Kate Phillips raised concerns that Wallace’s behaviour was “unacceptable and cannot continue” after broadcaster and former Celebrity MasterChef contestant Aasmah Mir complained about inappropriate comments during filming.

The newspaper claimed Wallace received another warning the following year after a complaint was raised about his behaviour on the quiz show Impossible Celebrities.

The Sunday Telegraph reported producer Georgia Harding, who worked on MasterChef between 2014 and 2015 and later Eat Well For Less, claimed she raised concerns about “inappropriate” behaviour from him while working on the show.

She alleged the presenter undressed in front of colleagues and “made inappropriate sexual jokes” in front of the crew and people appearing on the shows.

The former greengrocer was also accused of making lewd comments and asking for the personal phone numbers of female production staff in a letter that Dawn Elrick, a producer and director, claimed to have sent to the BBC in 2022.

Elrick told the Observer, the letter had been submitted with the support of industry union Bectu, and added she also submitted the allegations to the corporation via Navex Global, an external whistleblowing service.

Allegations were also raised by staff members about Wallace’s behaviour on Channel 5’s Gregg Wallace’s Big Weekends to BBC News.

He also faces allegations of inappropriate sexual comments from 13 people across a range of shows over a 17-year period, as reported by BBC News.

Poor MoD decisions led to abandonment of Afghan soldiers, judge finds

Defective decision-making resulted in hundreds of Afghan special forces who served with the British being wrongly rejected for sanctuary and abandoned to the Taliban, High Court judges have found.

Afghan commandos who served alongside the UK special forces (UKSF) in Afghanistan were left behind after the Taliban takeover in 2021, and received a blanket rejection from the Ministry of Defence (MoD) in respect of their applications to resettle in the UK. The Afghans are known as the Triples because of the names of their units, Commando Force 333 and Afghan Territorial Force 444.

Thousands of applications are being reviewed after the government acknowledged failures in how these were processed. Now the High Court has found that there were numerous defects in the way the cases were handled.

High Court judges have also ordered that the defence secretary John Healey publish a “transparent and accurate statement” about the scope of the MoD review of cases.

The review was announced after a joint investigation by The Independent, Sky News and Lighthouse Reports revealed that Triples commandos had been denied help and left to face torture and death.

In a judgment published on Tuesday, Lord Justice Dingemans and Ms Justice Farbey found that MoD caseworkers had failed to properly interpret the criteria required for UK resettlement – leading to the wrongful rejection of the Afghans’ applications.

Caseworkers, along with the liaison officer from the UK special forces who was assisting them, “were not given access to relevant records relating to payments” and so didn’t know that these Afghan fighters had received direct pay from the British.

MoD officials were also “overly reliant” on UKSF personnel for input and “placed too much weight on personal knowledge and judgement”, Lord Justice Dingemans found.

One UKSF liaison officer, who was tasked with investigating applicants’ links to the special forces, would refuse applications if the relevant UKSF unit failed to respond to his enquiries, the judgment found.

A push to “sprint” through applications in the summer of 2023 also led to “a lack of real consideration of the applications”, with many Afghan commandos receiving rejections during this time.

Around 5,000 Afghan citizens served with UK-partnered Triples units, which were set up and trained by the British, the judgment said.

The two judges have also ordered the MoD to correct the public record after the then minister for the armed forces James Heappey gave inaccurate information to parliament about the scope of the government’s review.

Announcing the MoD’s review of cases in February 2024, Mr Heappey told MPs it would cover “all eligibility decisions made for applications with credible claims of links to the Afghan specialist units”.

The government told the court that this was in fact incorrect, and that the review only covers applications that were forwarded on to a UKSF liaison officer for input.

Lord Justice Dingemans said that the government’s evidence showed that “more than a credible claim of links to the Afghan specialist units was needed to be in the scope of the review”. He added: “There had to have been a reference to the UK Special Forces or a reference from certain other government bodies and parties.”

He concluded that “given the critical importance of the review to those who have made applications” and the evidence that showed that “the Taliban have tortured and killed members of the Triples”, “it would be unlawful … not to publish accurate information about the scope of the review”.

The judge has ordered that a “transparent and accurate statement about the scope of the Triples review” be published.

The High Court has also ruled that a redacted version of the government’s caseworker guidance be published so that Afghan applicants can understand what will qualify them for resettlement.

Around 600 Afghan allies, whose applications were among the initial 2,000 re-examined, have been granted approval to come to the UK.

On top of the 2,000 applications, up to 2,500 extra cases have been identified for review after the MoD realised the significance of rediscovered payroll data.

Daniel Carey, a partner at DPG, the law firm acting on behalf of the former Triples, said: “Our client had to fight very hard to obtain basic natural justice in this case: for his soldiers to be told whether they were included in the government review, the decisions in their cases, and the rules that were being applied.

“We are pleased that he has succeeded. Serious concerns had already been raised about the denial of Arap protection to thousands of Triples who served closely with UK special forces. It was vital that the review process itself was not hidden behind a veil of secrecy.”

Public inquiry into Southport murders will ‘identify changes needed’

A public inquiry into the murders of three girls at a Southport dance class will identify changes that urgently need to be made to protect the most vulnerable from other “horrors”, the chairman has said.

Chairman Sir Adrian Fulford opened the inquiry into what he described as “one of the most egregious crimes in our country’s history” at Liverpool Town Hall on Tuesday.

Sir Adrian, a former vice-president of the Court of Appeal, said “ordinary language fails to reflect the enormity” of the knife attack on the Taylor Swift-themed dance class on July 29 last year, when Axel Rudakubana murdered Alice da Silva Aguiar, nine, Bebe King, six, and Elsie Dot Stancombe, seven.

The 18-year-old, who was given a life sentence in January with a minimum term of 52 years, also attempted to murder eight other children, who cannot be named for legal reasons, as well as instructor Leanne Lucas and businessman John Hayes.

In his opening statement, Sir Adrian said: “As a society we are not helpless when confronted with individuals who are known to be contemplating acts of such depravity and although no solution will be foolproof, we can identify all of the robust steps which should be taken to protect ourselves, and particularly the most vulnerable, from horrors of this kind.

“And this must be undertaken at speed, to provide answers for the victims and their families and to identify all of the changes that urgently need to be made.”Some of the families of those injured in the attack were seated in the hearing room behind a curtain, shielded from public view, for the statement, which took about an hour for the chairman to deliver.

After naming Rudakubana once in his opening remarks, Sir Adrian said his full name would not be used again throughout the inquiry “for the benefit of the victims and their families, for whom this is an issue of significant and wholly understandable sensitivity”.

He said: “There are no words adequately to describe what occurred and I am not going to try (and then fail) to find them.

“Instead, I simply observe that his crimes impose the heaviest of burdens on our society to investigate speedily but comprehensively how it was possible for AR to have caused such devastation; to analyse the decisions that were or were not taken by multiple individuals and organisations given his deteriorating and deeply troubling behaviour; to identify without fear or favour all of the relevant failings; and to make comprehensive, sensible and achievable recommendations to ensure we have the best chance of intervening with and preventing others who may be drawn to treating their fellow human beings in such a cruel and inhuman way.”

Sir Adrian said the inquiry would be split into two phases and the first would analyse Rudakubana’s history and his dealings with relevant agencies, along with any missed opportunities to prevent what happened.

This would include the criminal justice system, his education, his engagement with social and health care services and his relationship with his family.

A second phase, taking place next year, would consider the wider phenomenon of children and young people who are being drawn into extreme violence and what should be done to reverse the “troubling trend”, the chairman said.

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper announced the public inquiry in January to help understand what went wrong and prevent any repetition of similar incidents.

Sir Adrian said he had no doubt the inquiry’s two phases were a “truly critical undertaking” to “understand what went wrong” and ensure there was no repetition.

A minute’s silence was held during the chairman’s opening statement in memory of those who died and to “acknowledge the ordeal of the survivors, along with the families of the girls who were present”.

Sir Adrian said the inquiry was expected to act as a “real engine for change”.

He added: “I am determined it will not turn into an exercise of papering over the cracks.”

The chairman listed some of the “undisputed but troubling facts” which he anticipated would be heard, including two incidents where Rudakubana was found with a knife, once at a school which he had been excluded from, and three referrals to the Government’s counter-terror programme Prevent.

Sir Adrian also referenced material Rudakubana accessed online, including Military Studies in the Jihad Against the Tyrants: The Al-Qaeda Training Manual.

He said the killer had obtained a 20cm chef’s knife for the attack and other items found in his home included two types of machete, a sledgehammer and substances used to make ricin.

Sir Adrian said: “These factors, if correct and when taken together, tend to suggest that far from being an unforeseeable catastrophic event, the perpetrator posed a very serious and significant risk of violent harm, with a particular and known predilection for knife crime.

“Furthermore, his ability, unhindered, to access gravely violent material on the internet, to order knives online at a young age, and then to leave home unsupervised to commit the present attack, speaks to a wholesale and general failure to intervene effectively, or indeed at all, to address the risks that he posed.”

The inquiry was adjourned until Wednesday, when impact evidence from four families whose children were injured in the attack will be heard.

How Macmillan Cancer Support built a movement that reaches everyone

I’m a personal trainer – this is the truth about weight-loss jabs

As a personal trainer, it’s frightening to see weight-loss injections on our social media pages, in the headlines and in hush-hush conversations at gyms across the country. More 1.5 million people in the UK now use them, according to the latest estimates. For some, weight-loss injections can offer a lifeline, but for many, they are just so confusing. After 22 years of helping people lose weight and take back control of their health, without medication, I feel it’s time I added my voice to the discussion.

I certainly don’t hide away from the fact that my weight has always been something I’m hugely conscious of and something that I have struggled with over the years. The childhood trauma brought on by bullying for being “the fat kid” still haunts me and that inspired me to do what I do to this day.

When I was 15, I started to become more self-conscious about my size. I knew something needed to change, so I took small steps to eat better and move more. Rugby, in particular, became my outlet and it not only helped me physically but also taught me the power of perseverance.

There’s no greater feeling than proving others wrong through hard work and dedication. That’s been my life motto, and it’s shaped everything I do. Losing weight was a personal victory for me, but the real reward came when I could use my own journey to help others find their strength and confidence too.

Don’t get me wrong, it’s still a battle. But it’s a battle worth fighting, especially with my family’s history of strokes and heart disease. It’s something I carry with me every day, driving me to make healthier choices for myself and inspiring others to do the same.

So when talk of a jab that essentially helps you lose weight began, I could hear the chunky young lad inside of me whispering “this could have stopped years of bullying”.

But while these jabs might look like a miracle on the outside, I’ve seen too much to believe that’s the whole story. I’m not naive enough to say it’s impossible, but I can confidently say that none of my current team have ever considered using a weight-loss jab. The relationships we’ve built in this studio are rooted in trust. My clients know they can be open with me, and more importantly, they know that when they walk through our doors, we’re focused on sustainable lifestyle changes, diet, movement, and mindset, not shortcuts.

I’m not sure every personal trainer will agree with me when I say that I’m not 100 per cent against them. If someone is severely obese and facing serious health risks, and this helps them avoid surgery, I can see where the potential value in a (closely monitored) jab lies.

I train many incredible nurses who work within the NHS. Over the last five years, these nurses have told me the increase in obesity-led health issues has risen exponentially. The strain on the NHS is incredibly real. So if the potential to cut obesity leads to a reduction in waiting lists (and not just for obesity-led issues), then again, of course, there is a value for these drugs.

As a personal trainer, I understand that many people think we’re all about aesthetics with our clients, but that’s not true. I’ve seen obesity wreck people physically, emotionally, and mentally. It’s not just “extra weight” – it’s the raft of potentially life-changing and threatening issues that can follow.

There are numerous health risks linked to obesity. From increased risks of heart disease, diabetes and cancer, to infertility and pregnancy complications, not to mention the impact being overweight can have on your mental health, with links to depression, anxiety and social isolation.

I’ve witnessed first-hand the incredible impact that losing weight can have on someone’s energy levels and confidence. It’s nothing short of life-changing. When someone starts shedding the weight, they often experience a newfound sense of vitality, both physically and mentally. Their energy levels soar, allowing them to be more active, more present, and more engaged in everyday life.

They start to feel more comfortable in their own skin, and that confidence radiates outward, positively affecting every aspect of their life from their relationships and career to their overall outlook on the world. It’s truly transformative, and I’ve seen it time and time again.

So, if someone offers a jab that promises a guaranteed fix, I can totally understand how tempting it would be. A young, naive and green version of myself would have thought wow! But as with everything in life, nothing is ever that simple or straightforward.

In June, I asked 31 members at my studio to share their progress. These are real people, men and women, young and old, with busy lives and real struggles. Collectively, they’ve lost over 1,200lbs. No drugs. No injections. Just education, support, consistency, and graft.

They didn’t just lose inches either. By putting in the work, they became stronger, fitter and ultimately understood the real benefit of a consistent and sustainable lifestyle change. They started showing up differently in every part of their lives. Their energy levels and productivity at work rose, their moods lifted and more importantly, many issues with health improved dramatically. High blood pressure lowered, pre-diabetes was reversed and all without a “miracle jab”.

The idea that you can lose weight without exercising could lead more people to think they don’t need to move anymore. And it’s this shift in mindset that concerns me, especially when we see photos of people who’ve used these jabs and notice things like a gaunt or hollow face. Sure, rapid weight loss can cause these effects, but it’s hard to say for sure whether it’s from the jab or just the pace of the weight loss itself.

In any weight-loss journey, whether through diet, exercise, or medication, some muscle loss is pretty common. But these jabs work by mimicking a hormone that controls appetite, which helps you eat less and lose weight. The downside is that this rapid weight loss doesn’t just target fat; it can also take away lean muscle mass.

Muscle is critical for strength, mobility, and metabolism. Losing too much muscle can make it harder to maintain your weight loss long term and even lead to conditions like sarcopenia, where muscle mass and function decrease, affecting your quality of life. To minimise muscle loss, it’s important to focus on getting enough protein and incorporating strength training into your routine. Protein helps your muscles recover and grow, while strength training helps preserve the muscle mass you’ve got. It’s also important to eat. You can’t just stop – essential nutrients will be missing from your diet. That’s not healthy.

Whether someone uses medication or not doesn’t change my job. I’m here to guide. To support. That part is important. To help them build habits that actually last long term. That is the battle. But these jabs won’t educate you in the fundamentals of nutrition. The real basics. Nor will it help you deal with why you eat when you’re not hungry or make you stronger or more body confident.

That for me is a very dangerous message. Especially for the younger generation. If they grow up thinking health comes in a syringe, what happens when that wears off or you can’t afford the jab anymore? In recent studies on weight-loss injections, it has been found that a staggering 60 per cent of the weight lost is regained within the first three months. This concerning statistic highlights a critical point: injections alone aren’t a sustainable solution for long-term weight management.

The reason for this is straightforward but crucial many individuals using the injections fail to understand that weight loss is a multifaceted process that requires a combination of factors to be effective over time. If people use these drugs as a quick fix without understanding the basic changes that have to be made, are we going to simply accept that people will be on these drugs for a lifetime?

These drugs are not without side effects either. From nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea and in some cases, gallbladder issues, to kidney problems and pancreatic inflammation. That could be a hefty trade-off, especially if the results aren’t lasting.

My main issue is that many users tend to rely solely on the jab for results, without integrating consistent physical activity and making lasting changes to their eating habits. While the injections can help reduce hunger or regulate metabolism, they don’t address the root cause of poor dietary choices or sedentary lifestyles.

Use of these injections doesn’t automatically correct the underlying patterns that contributed to weight gain in the first place. Without engaging in regular exercise, which is essential for building muscle and maintaining long-term fat loss, the body is more likely to return to its previous weight once the treatment is halted. Falling back into old eating habits, consuming high-calorie, low-nutrient foods, or overeating will quickly negate any positive effect of these injections, causing the weight to creep back on.

The injections might act as a catalyst, but lasting weight loss requires a complete, holistic approach that focuses on building healthier habits and making lasting changes to the way we live, eat and move. I often tell my clients, if nothing changes, nothing will change. So if nothing else has changed with your mindset around food and movement, the chances are the weight will come back. Fast.

The best we can hope for is that these weight-loss injections will help people feel more confident about getting into the gym or trying out new sports. For many, shedding some pounds can make a huge difference in how they feel about themselves and their abilities. They might feel more physically capable or just more comfortable in their own skin, which makes things like exercising or being active in public feel a lot more achievable. If someone understands it’s not just about the number on the scales, it’s about feeling empowered to try things they might have once thought were out of reach, then we should applaud the first step toward a more active, healthier lifestyle.

That’s why I believe these medications should be used only when truly necessary and always alongside education, lifestyle change, and real support. And should never be used as a replacement for the work that actually transforms people’s lives.

As a society, we can’t just keep looking for quick fixes. We need to focus on building a culture that supports healthy habits. That means doctors using lifestyle prescriptions more, encouraging more movement, and schools and community programmes teaching people about nutrition and how to cook cheap and healthy meals. The government also has a role to play too, by resisting “big food” influence and reducing access to unhealthy, sugary, processed foods and tackling “food deserts” in many poorer areas. It’s all about creating a positive environment that makes it easier for all people to live healthier, active lives.

I’ve been fortunate enough to see many lifestyle changes that are kept and held on to. There is nothing more satisfying than that.

Prominent Thatcher minister Norman Tebbit dies, aged 94

Norman Tebbit, the Eurosceptic, anti-immigration former cabinet minister known as one of Margaret Thatcher’s most loyal supporters, has died, aged 94.

The Conservative grandee, who served as employment secretary and Conservative Party chairman in the 1980s, played a key role in Tory politics for a generation and would remain one of the biggest influences on the right wing until his latter years.

As employment secretary, he took on the trade unions and told Britain’s 3 million unemployed to “get on your bike” to find a job. As Tory chairman from 1985 to 1987, he helped Mrs Thatcher secure her third general election victory.

A loyalist to Thatcher from 1975 when he was part of the team of right-wing Tory MPs who masterminded her surprise leadership victory, Lord Tebbit would earn the nickname the “Chingford Skinhead” for being one of the hardest Thatcherites in her cabinet.

The Tory grandee was one of the few to relish his Spitting Image puppet, claiming that it helped model his public persona as “Thatcher’s enforcer”.

He suffered grave injuries in the IRA’s bombing of the Grand Hotel in Brighton in 1984, which left his wife, Margaret, paralysed from the neck down.

But the harder side of him was evident in 1990 when he coined the infamous “cricket test” on whether immigrants supported England at the sport as a guide to whether they were really British.

He always maintained that Tory MPs had betrayed Mrs Thatcher when she was ousted in 1990 and carried an enmity with Lord Michael Heseltine, whose leadership challenge would force her out, for the rest of his life. The two would later play roles on opposite sides in the Brexit debate.

Tributes poured in following the news of his death, with Tory leader Kemi Badenoch saying he “was an icon in British politics and his death will cause sadness across the political spectrum”.

Former Tory cabinet minister Sir Simon Clarke described Lord Tebbit as a “political giant” who was “combative with his opponents, fiercely loyal to his friends, somebody who would never accept Britain in decline”.

Lord Tebbit stepped down as an MP in 1992, replaced by former Tory leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith, and was then given a seat in the House of Lords.

He died peacefully in his home in Bury St Edmunds at 11.15pm on Monday, after having retired from politics three years ago.

He was latterly remembered as one of the most prominent supporters of leaving the EU and advocated for Brexit in the run-up to the 2016 referendum and beyond.

Leading the tributes, Ms Badenoch described Lord Tebbit as an “icon” of the party.

She said: “Our Conservative family mourns the loss of Lord Tebbit today and I send my sincerest condolences to his loved ones. Norman Tebbit was an icon in British politics and his death will cause sadness across the political spectrum.

“He was one of the leading exponents of the philosophy we now know as Thatcherism and his unstinting service in the pursuit of improving our country should be held up as an inspiration to all Conservatives. As a minister in Mrs Thatcher’s administration, he was one of the main agents of the transformation of our country, notably in taming the trade unions.”

But she noted that it was his “stoicism and courage in the face of terrorism” following the IRA bomb in 1984 “which inspired us”.

Sir Keir Starmer also issued a statement, with his official spokesperson saying his “thoughts are with Norman Tebbit’s children and family at this difficult time” and describing him as a “major figure in politics during the 1980s”.

“Many will remember the great strength he showed in the face of the atrocious IRA bombing at the Grand Hotel in Brighton, and the courage that he and his wife showed in its aftermath. He will be missed by many”, the spokesperson added.

Paying tribute to the former Tory cabinet minister, who campaigned against integration with Europe, Eurosceptic think tank the Bruges Group said: “Today we mourn the loss of a political titan without whom the Thatcher revolution may have looked very different.

“A passionate Eurosceptic, Lord Tebbit also served as president of the Bruges Group, leading our years-long campaign against EU integration.”

His former chief of staff Lord Michael Dobbs, author of the political thriller novel House of Cards, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Politics misses people of that sort of character who believe so deeply in what they are pursuing.”

Ex-minister Sir Conor Burns, who worked for Margaret Thatcher, said: “I was fortunate to count him as a friend. Norman was a true Thatcherite revolutionary. Lady T always acknowledged his importance to her success. He was always candid, direct and shrewd. Sometimes his honesty made others uncomfortable which he relished! Norman said what many thought but didn’t have the courage to say. His was a genuine journey of social mobility based on talent – made in harder times when the rise of a white working-class man of talent was admired.”

Shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith added: “Sad to learn of the death of Lord Tebbit, a great Conservative whose values Britain could use a great deal more of today.”

Long after retirement, Lord Tebbit remained a supporter of right-wing causes, including becoming honorary president of the Bow Group think tank. He would be a regular speaker at meetings of the European Research Group (ERG) of Tory Brexiteer parliamentarians.

Former cabinet minister Nadhim Zahawi said: “Norman Tebbit was a giant of Conservative politics and Conservative ideals. A man who looked after his beloved wife beautifully after the horrific terror attack by the IRA. A man who nurtured and befriended young Conservatives like me. He was great company on a weekend in the country.”