British activist freed from Egyptian prison after Sisi pardon

British-Egyptian activist Alaa Abd el-Fattah has been released from prison in Egypt after spending over a decade behind bars, following a presidential pardon issued by Abdel Fattah al-Sisi.

The 43-year-old writer and father had become one of Egypt’s most prominent political prisoners, having spent most of his adult life in jail on what human rights groups said were trumped up charges. While behind bars, he missed the birth of his son, Khaled, and also the death of his father Ahmed Seif al-Islam, who was also a prominent human rights lawyer.

His mother, Laila Soueif – also a British citizen – had campaigned tirelessly for his release and earlier this year nearly died on a hunger strike that lasted over 280 days, according to medics.

Alaa was finally released at 1am Tuesday local time, calling his family after he had been driven to Cairo from Wadi El-Natrun prison, located along the desert road to the north coast of the country.

His youngest sister, Sanaa Seif, who was waiting outside the prison for him all evening, later wrote on Facebook: “Alaa is home. He called me from our neighbour’s number while we were at the prison waiting. We’re on our way back to him.”

Later, his other sister Mona shared photos of him in an emotional embrace with their mother and sister at a family flat in Cairo, writing: “An exceptionally kind day. Alaa is free.”

News of his release came after it was confirmed that President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi had granted him a full pardon. President Sisi, Egypt’s former military chief, has ruled Egypt with an iron grip since coming to power following a military coup in the 2013.

Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper had said earlier that she “strongly” welcomed news he had been pardoned, adding: “I’m grateful to President Sisi for this decision. We look forward to Alaa being able to return to the UK and reunite with his family.”

Amir Magdi, Human Rights Watch’s senior Middle East and North Africa researcher welcomed Sisi’s “long overdue” release but said there were thousands of other political prisoner still behind bars.

“Though we celebrate his pardon, thousands of people like Alaa are still languishing in Egyptian jails simply for exercising their rights to freedom of speech,” he added.

“Hopefully his release will act as a watershed moment and provide an opportunity for Sisi’s government to end the wrongful detention of thousands of peaceful critics.”

Abd el-Fattah comes from one of Egypt’s most well-known families of activists, writers and intellectuals who have campaigned tirelessly for human rights, for decades.

His family have also spearheaded gruelling years of advocacy for his release, with his mother starting a lengthy hunger strikes, camping outside 10 Downing Street and eventually meeting Prime Minister Keir Starmer earlier this year to lobby on her son’s behalf.

Over the course of her 287 day hunger strike she was hospitalised at St Thomas’ Hospital in London and came close to death on two occasions, in late February and in June 2025.

A former blogger, Abd el-Fattah had originally become one of the most recognisable faces of the 2011 Arab Spring uprising that led to the ousting of long-time autocrat Hosni Mubarak. He had already been detained before the uprising and was repeatedly arrested in the turbulent years that followed.

However, it was his outspoken criticism of the crackdown on dissent after then-army chief Sisi violently seized power that led to his longest prison sentences. In 2014, he was sentenced to 15 years in prison for protesting without permission — later reduced to five years.

He was released in 2019 but remained under parole. Later that year, he was arrested again and accused of spreading false news after sharing a social media post about a prisoner’s death. He was sentenced to another five-year term.

After he finished his full term, his mother intensified her campaign in September 2024, However, prosecutors insisted he should remain in custody until January 2027 as they discounted the year he spent in pre-trial detention.

Despite numerous international campaigns calling for his release, particularly during the COP27 climate summit which was hosted by Egypt in 2022, the outlook was bleak.

Former British Ambassador to Egypt John Casson has called for Alaa’s release, and Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and Richard Ratcliffe have spoken out in support of Alaa’s family. There has been support for the campaign from numerous celebrities and a ruling from the United Nations’ Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) declaring Alaa’s imprisonment unlawful and calling for his release.

The only chink of hope on the horizon emerged in September when President Sisi ordered officials to examine the possibility of a pardon. It followed and earlier move this year when Abd el-Fattah’s name was removed from Egypt’s “terrorism” list, paving the way for his release.

Reeves urged to hit pensioners and landlords with 2p income tax rise

Rachel Reeves has been urged by a leading think tank to raise income tax while cutting national insurance in November’s Budget, a move that would hit landlords and pensioners hardest.

The Resolution Foundation says the chancellor could raise £6bn with a 2p cut in national insurance, matched by a 2p rise in income tax, which would create a “level playing field” and protect workers’ pay.

The call comes days after experts warned tax rises were “inevitable” in the wake of new figures which showed government borrowing had soared, the latest in a long list of blows for the chancellor.

Ms Reeves is facing increasing pressure to rescue the UK’s troubled finances in the Budget, amid warnings she must cut public spending or raise levies to plug an economic black hole left by Labour U-turns, higher borrowing and sluggish economic growth.

The think tank says the changes would help tackle “unfairness” in the tax system, as income tax is paid by more people, including pensioners and landlords.

But the change would provide only some of the £20bn of tax rises the think tank estimated would be needed by 2029-30, thanks to a combination of increased borrowing costs, lacklustre growth and new spending commitments.

Adam Corlett, principal economist at the Resolution Foundation, said cutting national insurance and increasing income tax “should form part of wider efforts to level the playing field on tax”.

Other proposals put forward by the think tank include increasing the tax on dividends, addressing a “worrying” growth in unpaid corporation tax from small businesses, applying a carbon charge to longhaul flights and shipping, and expanding taxation of sugar and salt.

It also proposed gradually reducing the threshold at which businesses pay VAT from £90,000 to £30,000, saying this would help “promote fair competition” and raise £2bn a year by 2029-30.

Mr Corlett added: “Policy U-turns, higher borrowing costs and lower productivity growth mean that the chancellor will need to act to avoid borrowing costs rising even further this autumn. Significant tax rises will be needed for the chancellor to send a clear signal that the UK’s public finances are under control.

“Any tax rises are likely to be painful but given the fallout from the recent employer national insurance rise, the chancellor should do all she can to avoid loading further pain onto workers’ pay packets.

“She can do this by switching our tax base away from employee national insurance and onto income tax, which is paid by a far broader group in society. This should form part of wider efforts to level the playing field on tax, such as ensuring that lawyers and landlords face the same tax rates as their clients and tenants.”

The government has repeatedly insisted that it will keep its manifesto promise not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT.

But the chancellor will face a difficult balancing act when she delivers her Budget on 26 November in trying to meet that pledge while also sticking to the rules she has set herself on borrowing.

While the Resolution Foundation estimated Ms Reeves would need to raise taxes by £20bn, others have suggested the figure could be as high as £51bn.

Jimmy Kimmel’s US talk show to return after suspension over Charlie Kirk comments

Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show will return to ABC Tuesday evening following a nearly week-long suspension over the host’s comments about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Kimmel made controversial implications about the identity of Tyler Robinson, the suspected gunman behind the conservative activist’s killing, during the September 14 episode, resulting in ABC suspending his show “indefinitely.”

Disney, the parent company of ABC, acknowledged the return of Jimmy Kimmel Live! in a Monday statement, saying: “Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country. It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive.

“We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday.”

It’s not yet clear if Nexstar Media Group, the largest owner of television stations across the country, will air Kimmel’s show upon its return.

The company put out a statement after Kimmel’s comments, which, along with pressure from Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr, prompted ABC to pull the late-night show entirely. “Nexstar strongly objects to recent comments made by Mr Kimmel concerning the killing of Charlie Kirk and will replace the show with other programming in its ABC-affiliated markets,” the statement said.

Sinclair Broadcast Group and its partners also stopped airing Kimmel’s show in 30 markets last week, citing “problematic comments regarding the murder of Charlie Kirk.”

Following Disney’s programming announcement Monday, Sinclair made clear it will continue not to air Kimmel’s show.

“Beginning Tuesday night, Sinclair will be preempting Jimmy Kimmel Live! across our ABC affiliate stations and replacing it with news programming. Discussions with ABC are ongoing as we evaluate the show’s potential return,” Sinclair wrote on X.

Kimmel has not yet addressed his suspension or subsequent return to airwaves.

His comments from the September 14 episode — four days after Kirk, 31, was shot and killed while speaking at a Turning Point USA event on the Utah Valley University campus — landed him in hot water.

“We had some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and with everything they can to score political points from it,” Kimmel said. He also used the subject to mock Donald Trump, who rejoiced at the news of Kimmel’s show getting pulled.

The host was set to address his comments during Wednesday’s episode, which was pulled by ABC just hours before showtime.

Kimmel’s suspension has sparked a massive debate over free speech, with celebrities, politicians, and several current and former late-night talk show hosts voicing their outrage.

Among them was former President Barack Obama, who responded with a chilling warning.

“After years of complaining about cancel culture, the current administration has taken it to a new and dangerous level by routinely threatening regulatory action against media companies unless they muzzle or fire reporters and commentators it doesn’t like,” he wrote on X.

“This is precisely the kind of government coercion that the First Amendment was designed to prevent — and media companies need to start standing up rather than capitulating to it.”

Speaking at The Atlantic Festival 2025 in New York, former late-night host David Letterman said: “We see where this is all going, correct? It’s managed media. And it’s no good. It’s silly. It’s ridiculous. And you can’t go around firing somebody because you’re fearful or trying to suck up to an authoritarian criminal administration in the Oval Office. That’s just not how this works.

“The institution of the president of the United States ought to be bigger than a guy doing a talk show,” he added, noting that Kimmel’s removal “was predicted by our president right after Stephen Colbert got walked off, so you’re telling me this isn’t premeditated at some level?”

Wanda Sykes, who was scheduled to appear on Wednesday’s episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live! before the taping was cancelled, shared a video on Instagram criticizing Trump.

“Let’s see. He didn’t end the Ukraine war or solve Gaza within his first week. But he did end freedom of speech within his first year. Hey, for those of you who pray, now’s the time to do it. Love you, Jimmy.”

As the days passed with no resolution from ABC or Kimmel, the backlash against the network continued to mount. Protests erupted outside of Kimmel’s Hollywood studio, with Disney actors turning to social media urging followers to cancel their Disney+ subscriptions and boycott the company entirely.

By Monday afternoon — hours before Kimmel’s return to air was announced — over 400 celebrities, including Jennifer Aniston and Meryl Streep — had signed an open letter denouncing ABC’s decision to take the late-night host off the air.

“We the people must never accept government threats to our freedom of speech. Efforts by leaders to pressure artists, journalists and companies with retaliation for their speech strike at the heart of what it means to live in a free country,” the letter began, per the ACLU website.

Jimmy Kimmel Live! is set to return Tuesday at 11:35 p.m. ET on ABC.

Is the dream of a vegan-only restaurant era over?

When Eleven Madison Park, once the most famous vegan fine-dining restaurant in the world, announced last month that it would reintroduce meat and fish, the symbolism was hard to miss. Daniel Humm, the chef behind the three-Michelin-starred New York dining room, had made headlines in 2021 by going fully plant-based – hailed at the time as radical, necessary and perhaps even inevitable.

Now, four years later, the experiment is over. “Over the last three years, we came to understand that while we gained some guests who celebrated this bold move, we had also unintentionally kept people out,” Humm admitted in a statement. From October, EMP will offer two tasting menus: one plant-based, the other featuring dishes such as honey-lavender-glazed duck.

So, was this the moment the vegan bubble burst? Or does it say more about how the conversation has shifted – away from absolutes and into something more nuanced?

What makes EMP’s reversal especially interesting for British diners is that Humm once tried the same here. In 2021, while running Davies and Brook at Claridge’s, he proposed turning the Mayfair restaurant fully plant-based. The hotel refused, saying it “respects and understands” his vision but that it was “not the path we wish to follow here … at the moment”. The partnership ended soon after.

That episode hinted at what we’re now seeing globally: prestige veganism colliding with commercial reality. Even Claridge’s sensed the market for all-vegan fine dining wasn’t strong enough in the UK.

And yet this is the country that gave us Veganuary, which still attracts millions worldwide. It’s also home to a thriving ecosystem of vegan and vegan-friendly restaurants, from long-standing neighbourhood spots to high-end innovators. Among them are Tendril, which bills itself as “mostly vegan”, and Plates in east London, which this year became the first fully vegan restaurant in the UK to win a Michelin star.

So what’s really going on?

Even with celebrity backing, vegan-only ventures have struggled. Neat Burger, the fast-food chain funded by Lewis Hamilton and Leonardo DiCaprio, announced that it would be closing all of its UK sites earlier this year. At its peak, it had more than a dozen outlets and ambitious global expansion plans. By 2022, it was posting losses of nearly £8m.

It’s sometimes assumed that a vegan menu should be cheaper to run. After all, vegetables and grains often cost less per kilo than meat or fish – Oxford University research even found that vegan diets can reduce household food costs by up to a third. But in restaurant kitchens, the equation is different. Processed meat substitutes remain pricier than animal equivalents, while cooking vegetables at a fine-dining level requires more labour.

This is where the backlash against ultra-processed foods (UPFs) matters. Plant-based burgers once fuelled the vegan boom, but they’ve since gained a reputation for being just as industrial as the meat they were meant to replace.

Studies suggest they can still be healthier – one 2022 trial found that swapping red meat for plant-based alternatives reduced LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular risk – but perception matters. Diners now want vegetables presented as themselves, not in disguise.

That helps explain why restaurants such as Tendril and Plates, which avoid substitutes entirely, are thriving while Neat Burger faltered.

Rishim Sachdeva, founder of Tendril, is candid about the limits. “There is that perception that people who follow a plant-based diet tend to drink less,” he says, “but I feel that’s becoming the norm these days anyway. People aren’t drinking as much.” At Tendril, drinks sales account for around a quarter of revenue – lower than average, but still workable. “That gives us enough room to manoeuvre with the teams, with the fun things, with wine pairings and nice cocktails, and gives us enough playground to really focus on our food.”

Alexandra Price, sommelier at Plates, doesn’t buy the idea that a vegan model is financially unsustainable. “Overall, we tend to have good monthly wine spend, bolstered by the fact that we offer pairings to go with the menu,” she explains. Guests can also choose non-alcoholic or 50/50 pairings – but, she notes, “wine sales are still the strongest”.

She attributes that partly to trust: “Most of our guests seem to eat an all-round diet and approach plant-based dining with a lot of interest … this willingness to try and be open towards the style also helps with wine sales as people put their trust in what we are putting in front of them.”

For a long time, veganism was driven by animal-welfare arguments, with environmentalism close behind. But many chefs now believe the motivation has shifted.

“The reasoning for me and the people that I know is that obviously it’s good for the environment, but it is definitely good for me,” Sachdeva says. “I feel much better eating it and I can really get on with it because it’s something I’m starting to believe in more and more.”

He calls this a “correction”: five years ago, the conversation was about animal cruelty; now it’s about human health. Nutrition scientists such as Tim Spector have helped popularise this shift, encouraging people to eat a diversity of plants – “30 a week” is his benchmark – not as a moral stance, but as a route to better digestion, stronger immunity and long-term health.

Making vegetables the star isn’t new. Indian thalis, Persian stews and Japanese temple food have long been largely plant-based. Even Raymond Blanc, hardly a trend-chaser, has championed vegetables. The difference now is framing: animal welfare once dominated, but gut health and longevity drive the appeal today.

David Taylor, chef director at Grace & Savour, agrees the picture is “more nuanced”. Many diners now “focus on how animals are raised and sourced … People are eating less meat while seeking better quality, choosing fish more carefully, and questioning how all food is produced.” He also warns that veganism isn’t automatically better for the planet: “Vegan products have their own issues too: heavy use of soya can drive deforestation, and almond milk production can cause serious drought.”

At the same time, meat is undergoing its own rebrand – not as an everyday staple, but as something rarer, more artisanal.

At Cycene, head chef Taz Sarhane says requests for vegan or dairy-free meals have “gone down to about once a month” compared with weekly a year ago. Instead, diners are seeking out offal and unusual cuts. “The recent craze for offal has taken off, with people showing growing interest in meat from smaller or less common animals, such as goats … diners are increasingly willing to try more unconventional cuts – from cow liver and spleen to cow udder.”

Sam White, executive chef at 45 Jermyn St, has seen the same. “One of the most popular dishes … is our liver with crispy onions and mashed potatoes. Even in the warm weather, people still want to eat it.”

For Isaac McHale, chef patron of The Clove Club, the explanation is cultural. “The idea to change your restaurant to vegan always seemed to be a hard thing, but maybe much easier in America where there is lower standards of husbandry and much more intensive farming. In the UK, we have some of the best meat in the world … we have so many rare breeds of farmed animals and I think we should celebrate that unique part of our country.”

The message from many chefs isn’t that veganism is dead, but that it’s become part of a broader, more flexible way of eating. Chantelle Nicholson, founder of Michelin green starred Apricity, puts it plainly: “We need to eat more plants, end of! However, in my opinion, we need meat and animals to have a balanced ecosystem. My hope is that consumers embrace more plants, and better meat, so they are more selective and it’s seen as something to savour and celebrate, not overdo.”

Sachdeva echoes that pragmatism: “Having meat seven days a week is not feasible for the world. It’s not feasible for your body. If you were to cut down to even once or twice a week, that will really help with the bigger picture … And if you do eat meat, then you should get it from the right farmers and the right butchers and then enjoy that, savour it more.”

And while EMP may have stepped back, Price believes the curiosity is still there. “As long as we put the effort into sourcing good ingredients and interesting wines, I think the interest will always be there for the curious.”

So, is veganism over? The answer depends on what you mean by veganism. If it means all-or-nothing restaurants with no animal products ever, perhaps that moment has passed. But if it means plant-led dining, eating less meat and the shift from ethics to health – then veganism hasn’t disappeared at all. It’s simply evolved.

As McHale notes, there are long-standing traditions of vegan cooking – “Japanese and Korean temple food, South Indian cookery, and it can be really delicious” – and they will always have their place. But in the mainstream, the movement has been absorbed into something more flexible, more sustainable and more aligned with how people actually want to eat.

The vegan-only experiment may have faltered. But the legacy it leaves behind is clear: a dining culture that is more plant-forward than ever, one where meat is occasional, valued and scrutinised – and where the conversation has moved from saving the planet to saving ourselves.

As the UK talks up its global vision, Trump abandons the UN

Every year the United Nations General Assembly gathers for high-level talks, and high-minded proclamations, full of sound and fury signifying – not very much.

As the British delegation arrived in New York, there was a desperate attempt to save the international talking shop from being drowned by the national self-interest of America at this year’s gathering at the UN’s headquarters.

On her arrival Yvette Cooper, the new UK foreign secretary, laid out the British principles for the future.

“At this moment of intense global instability and conflict, UK diplomacy and leadership has never been more important. Innocent civilians are suffering in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan,” she said.

Donald Trump doesn’t care. He’s signalled that he has no interest in Sudan. He supports Israel on Gaza, and seemingly Putin in Ukraine. When it comes to UN votes Trump has consistently sided with Israel and Russia against western allies.

“Countries worldwide are dealing with high levels of migration including displaced and trafficked people,” she went on.

Trump agrees – and is using the fear of immigrants as a lever to intimidate people on the streets of America.

“And climate change is not just a future threat to our survival, but a source of chaos and suffering across every continent today,” said the UK’s foreign secretary.

She’s absolutely right. But Trump has abandoned every aspect of the Paris climate agreement and is pursuing “drill-baby-drill” with unbound enthusiasm for the expansion of the use of all fossil fuels – worldwide.

He is leaving the world open to the startling reality that as the US abandons the UN, China (one of the five permanent members of the UN security council) can shape it on the cheap.

This year, the US has withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) and the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). And cut funding to most others. US funding has been slashed from $1.5 billion to $300 million a year.

The UN meanwhile is facing a $500 million shortfall in 2026, with at least 3,000 staff expected to lose their jobs.

China has continued to increase its financial contributions to the UN. As of 2025, China has pledged $500 million to the World Health Organization (WHO) over five years and is the second-largest contributor to the UN’s regular budget, contributing more than 15 per cent of its budget.

While the US is determined to unravel the fabric of multilateralism, China is equally focused on sowing itself into long-term global alliances and is facing no serious rival in doing so.

It has bound itself tight into the affairs and economies of the African continent as the biggest investor in infrastructure.

North Korea and Russia were given places of honour at recent Beijing parades marking the Second World War. A sign that while the US stands back from the world, China is happy to embrace all comers.

There are signs, however, the UK and Europe Union may be trying to build an alternative western bloc of influence along with Canada and Australia to offset the influence of China and the loss of American money, and leadership, in the UN.

The Nato alliance, which includes EU members along with Canada, has already been shaken by Trump’s lack of enthusiasm for the multinational body and because he has shown greater support for Nato’s biggest threat, Vladimir Putin, than his own allies.

Encouraged by the White House, they are now heading towards spending 3.5 rising to perhaps even 5 per cent of their GDP on defence.

That increase, ironically, reduces US influence in the alliance where European militaries are hastening their efforts to grow independent of the American military machine.

The same waning of US power in the UN is visible.

In the latest moves the UK, Australia, and Canada, have recognised the Palestinian State – over the vocal objections of the Trump administration which sees the move as a reward for Hamas’s campaigns against the existence of the Jewish State.

The UK has done so, the foreign office said, as part of its efforts to build an international consensus, which is being galvanized by Saudi Arabia and France, around efforts to revive the “two-state solution”.

The hope is to see Israel and the Palestinians led by the new state but not the proscribed Hamas group, return to talks that would lead to the end of Israel’s occupation on the West Bank and peace for Gaza.

Over the coming week the UN plenary sessions will be used, no doubt, by Trump to advance his claims to have earned several Nobel Peace Prizes for his (unsuccessful) attempts to bring peace to seven conflicts, by his count.

Sergei Lavrov, Russia’s foreign minister, will try to slap away efforts by Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky on Wednesday to call for UN support to condemn Russia and demand a ceasefire.

Trump’s administration is unlikely to make good on threats to increase sanctions against the Kremlin and may even duck outright support for Kyiv.

China will take an authoritative stand and cement itself as the keystone in the most multilateral institution of them all – while hiding its designs on Taiwan.

The French and Saudis along with the Arab League will work hard for Palestine and all – bar the US delegation – will anxiously talk of renewing their commitment to cooling the climate.

Britain, though, won’t get top billing or even get taken too seriously.

Because the prime minister of the United Kingdom is not bothering to to help preserve multilateralism. He hasn’t turned up.

What to expect from Heathrow’s ‘Redefine Your Beauty’ experiences

As someone who’s regularly jetting off to different corners of the globe for work, to me the airport has come to represent just a means to an end: Pret, security queue, working charging socket. After years of this, I’ve pretty much got my routine on lockdown, which usually involves some purely functional eating, a quick pint in Spoons, and a last-minute visit to Duty Free to buy a moisturiser because I forgot mine, again.

So, when I heard Heathrow was rolling out a new experiential beauty and wellness campaign across all four terminals, with pop-up beauty bars, luxury treatments and skincare tech that tells you things about your face you didn’t even know were possible, I was curious. Airports are not where I usually go to feel (or look) my best. But a quick massage and some free beauty advice before a flight? Oh, go on then.

I’m due to fly out of Terminal 5 soon, which means I’ll get to check out the Personal Shopper Lounge and see what the hype is about. There’s a full-on treatment menu, the kind you’d expect at a boutique spa, except here, it’s been designed for travellers on the move, like me, with treatments lasting between 10 and 20 minutes. How often can you say an airport is offering La Mer facials, Elemis LED masks, Molton Brown hand massages and Estée Lauder’s ‘Age Reversal Sculpt Ritual’ facial? From neck and shoulder massages to cryotherapy and ultrasonic peels, it’s the kind of thing you’d usually have to schedule weeks in advance, and here it is, just a stone’s throw from your departure gate. I might even consider swapping my pre-flight pint for something a little more restorative.

Outside the lounge, the terminals are set to be abuzz with pop-up beauty bars from brands like Charlotte Tilbury, MAC, Molton Brown and Penhaligon’s – offering live demos, free mini-treatments and genuinely helpful skincare advice. There’s even a skin analysis station (powered by tech that looks like it comes from the year 3000), and perfume engraving on the spot. Fancy.

I wasn’t planning to splurge £200 on more beauty products,​​ but it’s hard to resist when there’s a free luxury beauty bag up for grabs when you do, packed with products from Elizabeth Arden, Versace, Benefit, Amouage and Elemis, to name a few. The offer’s available in all the main World Duty Free stores, and if you’re a Heathrow Rewards member, you can earn double points on qualifying beauty buys (up to 1,000 points), which definitely makes me feel a little better about splashing the cash.

Even the food spots are jumping on board with the wellness vibes. I usually go for a failsafe Joe & The Juice Tunacado, but I’ve spotted a Clean Green smoothie at Jones the Grocer and a Firecracker Chicken Salad from Leon. I might even grab a poké bowl from YO! Sushi for the flight, although word on the street is the plane meal is steamed seabream with romesco.

I never thought I’d describe an airport experience as relaxing and rejuvenating, but this campaign is definitely out to challenge me. Between the luxurious treatments and nutritious food choices, Heathrow has created the first airport rendezvous that won’t leave you feeling like you need a holiday from your holiday.

If you find yourself passing through Heathrow between now and early October, don’t just bolt straight to your gate. Give yourself an extra 30 minutes, book yourself in for a quick massage or facial, and visit World Duty Free to grab that beauty bag full of goodies to make your holiday that little bit more special.

Find out more about Heathrow’s Redefine Your Beauty campaign, including treatment menus, participating brands and exclusive offers here

Why the Ballon d’Or got it wrong

So now we fully transition from the Lionel Messi–Cristiano Ronaldo era, to a modern equivalent of Florian Albert or Allan Simonsen.

That isn’t to be disrespectful to two genuine greats, or the 47th different Ballon d’Or winner in Ousmane Dembele. He, like them, at least has a good argument to claim the award.

It’s just that, also like them, it doesn’t feel one of those victories that is going to be overly celebrated from the vantage point of history. There’s an element of trying to force present performances to fit something grander, to amplify it into something that fits.

So, in the absence of a major men’s tournament as well as a player who was truly dominant at the elite level, Dembele was the next man along. The 28-year-old was Paris Saint-Germain’s joint-top scorer in the Champions League knock-out stages with four goals.

Two of those were genuinely big goals against Liverpool and Arsenal, but the other two were against Brest, where PSG only showcased how they spend most of their year: enjoying their vast economic advantage to pummel French opposition in games that are barely contests.

All of that starts to feel a little thin when you consider that none of Xavi Hernandez, Andres Iniesta, Thierry Henry, Paolo Maldini and – so far – Robert Lewandowski, Mohamed Salah and Erling Haaland have won it in this millennium alone.

Part of that is just the luck of a given year, and just who you happen to be up against.

Part of it is an ongoing tension over what the award actually is: whether it’s a Most Valuable Player, or there to genuinely crown the actual best footballer in the world; the most talented.

Of course, “most talented” is somewhat dependent on the actual application of that talent… which is why the award feels like it should be some subjective combination of the two.

This is what Messi and Ronaldo showcased for so long, which has probably warped perspectives to a certain degree. They were performing at this astonishing level and directly delivering the biggest trophies along the way.

Even if you take the now accepted wisdom that Messi was the greater player and perhaps the best of all time, Ronaldo still had such an obvious claim to every victory. Four of his five accompanied Champions Leagues.

Otherwise worthy winners such as Xavi, Iniesta, Lewandowski and Haaland were simply unlucky to be competing against them in the middle of very long prime periods.

On the other side, though, Dembele is perhaps lucky that was up against a player who is perhaps seen as performing just before his prime.

Lamine Yamal would have been a much more fitting winner of the trophy. He’s clearly already the best player in the world. He performs to a higher level than anyone in the world, even doing things that other players couldn’t have conceived. He’s also doing them in the biggest games.

It’s not Yamal’s fault that Barcelona failed to beat Inter in that sensational Champions League semi-final. He was one player who did the most to try and avoid that.

All of this similarly applied to Aitana Bonmati, who rightly won the women’s award ahead of Mariona Caldentey and Alessia Russo, one of five England players who finished in the top-10 but ultimately fell short.

Bonmati clearly the best player in the world. She performs to a higher level than anyone in the world, even doing things that other players couldn’t have conceived. She’s also doing them in the biggest games.

It’s not Aitana’s fault that Barcelona failed to beat Arsenal or Spain failed to beat England in either of her finals. She was most responsible in delivering her teams there.

But while Aitana was already a two-time winner – this third award affording her that gold-standard historic achievement – that often means that it’s more palatable to vote for a player who doesn’t win the biggest team prizes.

Did Yamal miss out because he is still so young, and there’s a sense of having to rise to it? He would have been the first teenager to win the award.

And yet even if you just reduce it to a basic binary choice between the two, Yamal performed to a higher level than Dembele and also did more. The only real difference was that Dembele’s team won the final. And there’s even an argument that Khvicha Kvaratskhelia was more influential to that.

If it was just down to the glare of the European Cup, it would be oddly fitting for a trophy that has evolved from an old-world gravitas and traditional prestige to something that is more about a glamour and gaudiness.

Even the trophy itself has become much more ostentatious over the years, something that you really notice if you look back at those old photos of Johan Cruyff or George Best lifting their humble little orb.

Duly, the lobbying is said to have been more aggressive than ever this year, and has got more pronounced as the seasons have gone on.

The Messi-Ronaldo era itself influenced this, so it’s another case of modern football eating itself.

None of this is to argue against the existence of an individual world in a team sport in anything like that.

Some players obviously are more decisive, and it’s right – and actually part of the fun of the sport – that that’s recognised.

It’s just that, like a few other years in the competition’s seven decades, it doesn’t necessarily feel like the 2025 Ballon D’Or fully did that.

Yamal did much more.

France joins UK and Canada in recognising Palestinian state

France has become the fifth country in two days to recognise officially the state of Palestine.

The move came during a United Nations conference chaired by France and Saudi Arabia aimed at generating new support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

French president Emmanuel Macron made the announcement in the UN General Assembly hall; he received loud applause from the more than 140 leaders in attendance. The Palestinian delegation, including its UN ambassador, Riyad Mansour, could be seen standing and applauding as the declaration was made.

Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, was also seen applauding on a live-camera view after the US government banned him – and dozens of other Palestinian officials – from attending the UN gathering in person. Mr Abbas later addressed the meeting.

“True to the historic commitment of my country to the Middle East, to peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, this is why I declare that today, France recognizes the state of Palestine,” Mr Macron said.

The meeting and expanded recognition of Palestinian statehood are expected to have little if any actual impact on the ground, where Israel is waging another major offensive in the Gaza Strip and expanding settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Portugal recognized the state of Palestine on Sunday, and the Palestinians expect a total of 10 countries to do so in the coming days. Around three-fourths of the 193-member United Nations recognizes Palestine, but major Western nations had until recently declined to, saying one could only come about through negotiations with Israel.

The creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel in the West Bank, Gaza and east Jerusalem — territories seized by Israel in the 1967 Mideast war — is widely seen internationally as the only way to resolve the conflict, which began more than a century before Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack ignited the war in Gaza nearly two years ago.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government opposed Palestinian statehood even before the war and now says such a move would reward Hamas, the militant group that still controls parts of Gaza. He has hinted Israel might take unilateral steps in response, including annexing parts of the West Bank, which would put a viable Palestinian state even further out of reach.

A UN official brushed off such threats, saying efforts to bring about a two-state solution should continue regardless of Israel’s actions. “I think we have to be determined in achieving the goal that we want to achieve, and we cannot be distracted by threats and intimidation,” said UN spokesman Stephane Dujarric.

Netanyahu is under pressure from his far-right coalition to move ahead with annexation, but the United Arab Emirates — the driving force behind the 2020 Abraham Accords, in which the UAE and three other Arab states forged ties with Israel — has called it a “red line,” without saying how it could affect the two countries’ now close ties.

Netanyahu said he would decide on Israel’s response to the Palestinian statehood push after meeting with President Donald Trump at the White House next week, their fourth meeting since Trump returned to office. The Israeli leader is set to address world leaders at the U.N. on Friday.

The Trump administration is also opposed to growing recognition of a Palestinian state and blames it for the derailment of ceasefire talks with Hamas. Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, walked away from the talks in July, and earlier this month an Israeli strike targeted Hamas negotiators in Qatar, a key mediator.

More to follow…