Dani Dyer forced to pull out of Strictly with broken ankle

Dani Dyer-Bowen has had to pull out of Strictly Come Dancing after fracturing her ankle in a fall during rehearsals.

The 29-year-old Love Island winner, who was paired with professional dancer Nikita Kuzmin, said she was “heartbroken” to be unable to compete.

The hit BBC One reality series has started its 23rd series, with the launch show broadcast on Saturday.

In a statement, she said: “I had a fall on Friday in rehearsals and landed funny.

“I thought I had rolled my foot but it swelled up badly over the weekend and after an MRI scan yesterday, it turns out I have fractured my ankle.

“Apparently doing the quickstep on a fracture is not advisable, and the doctors have said I am not allowed to dance, so I’ve had to pull out of the show.

“To say I’m heartbroken is the biggest understatement. I am so going to miss dancing with Nikita but will of course be watching closely and cheering all the couples on.”

After the news was announced on the show’s Instagram account, head judge Shirley Ballas replied: “I’m so so sorry. But health is most important. Get well soon Angel.”

Professional dancer Amy Dowden said: “Sending you so much love and a speedy recovery.”

Ms Dowden added she was “absolutely gutted” for Ms Dyer-Bowen and her dance partner Mr Kuzmin.

The TV star’s father, the actor Danny Dyer, posted a broken heart emoji.

Sarah James, executive producer for BBC Studios, said: “Dani has brought so much passion, joy and enthusiasm to Strictly, and her partnership with Nikita was off to the most sensational start.

“Everyone on the show is incredibly sad that she’s no longer able to compete in this year’s series.

“We send her all our love and best wishes for a swift recovery, and we very much hope to welcome her back to the ballroom in the future.”

This season’s 15 dance pairings were announced during the launch show last Saturday. Ms Dyer-Bowen and Mr Kuzmin were the first pair to be announced.

At the time, Ms Dyer-Bowen said she was “honestly so happy” after it was revealed she would be dancing with Mr Kuzmin.

Mr Kuzmin said Ms Dyer-Brown was “so shy” and added: “I cannot wait to discover the tiger.”

The launch show opened with a skit featuring a video message from last year’s winner, comedian Chris McCausland, who was seen refusing to give the glitterball trophy back to presenters Tess Daly and Claudia Winkleman.

With help from judge Craig Revel Horwood, the hosts finally got their hands on the trophy before dropping it on the floor.

The opening part of the show also saw the professional dancers and judges team up for an elaborate dance number, before the celebrity contestants appeared on a silver staircase positioned on the ballroom floor.

Saturday’s show also saw former Emmerdale actor Lewis Cope paired with Katya Jones, who are set to perform the jive when the series gets properly underway after this weekend’s launch episode.

Also announced were ITV entertainment presenter Ross King and Jowita Przystal, who will dance a cha cha cha to California Gurls by Katy Perry.

Other early pairings announced on the show include former rugby union player Chris Robshaw, who is paired with Nadiya Bychkova, and drag artist La Voix, who will dance alongside Aljaz Skorjanec.

Man tried to stab himself as he was found guilty of plotting Trump assassination

The man found guilty of trying to assassinate Donald Trump at his Florida golf course last year attempted to stab himself in the neck with a pen after a verdict was read in federal court.

Ryan Routh’s daughter reportedly screamed out, “Dad, don’t hurt yourself,” as U.S. Marshals tried to restrain him inside the Fort Pierce courtroom on Tuesday.

Routh, 59, was found guilty on all counts after jurors deliberated for roughly two hours at the conclusion of a fast-paced, 12-day trial over his aborted plot to kill the president. He faces life in prison when he is sentenced on December 18.

Routh, who pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and chose not to have a lawyer throughout the proceedings, had planned the attack at the president’s Trump International Golf Club West Palm Beach nearly one year ago. He was armed with a semiautomatic rifle while then-candidate Trump was playing golf on September 15, 2024. The incident was just months after Trump was wounded in a shooting during a Pennsylvania rally.

Secret Service agents spotted him hiding in shrubbery — what prosecutors called a “sniper’s nest” — armed with an SKS-style rifle with a shaved-off serial number.

An agent then fired at Routh, who fled the scene without firing any shots of his own. He was stopped roughly 45 minutes later while driving north on Interstate 95.

He was found guilty of attempted assassination of a major presidential candidate, assaulting a federal officer, possessing a firearm and ammunition as a felon, and possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number.

“This is not a whodunnit,” federal prosecutors told jurors during the trial in Fort Pierce.

Prosecutors focused on Routh’s intent, arguing that he “wanted” to shoot Trump despite not firing any shots, and had “obsessively stalked and tracked his intended victim” with a “meticulously” planned assassination attempt.

Routh, serving as his own counsel, delivered a brief and disjointed closing statement to the jury in which he tried to argue that the government had not proved “any intent” to kill because he never fired his weapon nor pointed the gun at Trump.

“No one ever intended to kill anyone,” he said. “The rifle was never picked up from its resting place.”

Routh once supported Trump in 2016 but grew more critical of the president in the years that followed, according to prosecutors. “It seems you are getting worse and devolving. I will be glad when you gone,” Routh wrote on Twitter, now X, in 2020.

According to prosecutors, Routh was living out of a Nissan SUV while casing the golf course and closely following Trump’s schedule, awaiting his arrival at nearby Palm Beach International Airport.

He left a box at a friend’s house in North Carolina with a letter reading, “Dear World, This was an assassination attempt on Donald Trump but I failed you,” according to prosecutors.

Routh also had multiple license plates and searched Google for “directions to Miami airport” and “flights to Mexico,” prosecutors discovered. He also searched for “hospitals in the area” and instructions on “how to make a tourniquet,” prosecutors said.

The aborted attack arrived just two months after Trump was nearly fatally shot during a campaign rally last July, when a gunman fired several shots into a crowd at an outdoor event in Pennsylvania. One bullet grazed Trump’s ear and killed a spectator.

At multiple points during the trial, Routh was reprimanded by District Judge Aileen Cannon for disrupting the proceedings, asking irrelevant questions, or making statements that were beyond the scope of the case.

Cannon had also presided over and eventually dismissed a federal indictment against Trump for his withholding of classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago estate.

Routh asked Cannon in July for permission to represent himself after he stated that he was “a million miles apart” from court-appointed public defenders.

The judge reluctantly agreed to Routh’s request but called it a “bad idea,” keeping public defenders in the courthouse to represent him if he could not.

The 12-day trial concluded after federal prosecutors called 38 witnesses who placed Routh at the scene and identified him as the suspect who could have killed Trump had he not been caught.

Routh did not testify. He called only three witnesses and had finished presenting his case Monday.

Trump praised Cannon and Department of Justice leadership on his Truth Social account.

“The trial was meticulously handled, and I would like to thank the Judge and Jury for their time, professionalism, and patience,” he wrote.

“This was an evil man with an evil intention, and they caught him,” he added.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the verdict reflects the Justice Department’s “commitment to punishing those who engage in political violence.”

“This attempted assassination was not only an attack on our president, but an affront to our very nation itself,” she said in a statement.

‘I’m a father-of-two in my 40s and I’ve had to move back to my mother’s’

Adults caught in the middle of a perfect storm of soaring rent and house prices are finding themselves back living with parents years after they initially flew the nest.

The ‘boomerang generation’ – adults who moved out but returned home later – is expanding, and it is no longer just those in their early 20s who are back under their parents’ roofs. 

But for many, the cheaper (or in some cases free) rent comes with uncomfortable trade-offs, as more than half of adults back at home lament rising tensions and a lack of independence, and hope to eventually move back out. 

Despite earning £50,000 a year working in operations for Network Rail, Jon Painter, 40, had to move back home with his mother after an “expensive” divorce in 2020. 

Earning £12,000 more than the UK average salary, his income looks strong on paper. It is roughly double what someone on the living wage would take home. But Mr Painter is left with just £200 a month after bills.

He now lives in his 74-year-old mother’s two-bedroom flat in Swindon, Wiltshire, 50 miles away from his former family home in Hereford, which he had to move out of. 

After Mr Painter and his ex-partner divorced, he had to move out of the three-bedroom family home he bought with his former father-in-law two years prior. 

He has a hefty £2,500 monthly bill to pay for child and ex-spousal support, and until August, he also had to pay £1,250 in mortgage payments and shared bills, a £350 car payment, a £200 phone bill, and £500 in loan payments.  

He is left with around £50 a week, which he spends on food and petrol, but with such a modest sum available he is unable to save up for a house deposit or afford rental costs to move out of his mother’s house. 

“It was very hard moving back in with my mum, it wasn’t something I’d ever think I’d have to do again,” Mr Painter said. 

“I had to leave the family home I thought I’d be raising my children in.” 

A poll of 2,000 adults who live with their parents, which was commissioned by Skipton Group as part of its Home Affordability Index, found that nine in ten people hoped to get out of their parents’ house. 

But 82 per cent of those saving for a deposit said they still have a long way to go. 

Less than 10 per cent of those adults were able to afford a home, and in London, the East of England, and the Southwest, the affordability shrinks to less than 1.5 per cent.

The average house price is more than five times higher than the average salary for 90 per cent of earners in England, according to recent data from the Office for National Statistics. 

A third of those wanting to move out of their parents’ house admitted their income is too low or unpredictable to afford it. 

Mr Painter has been living with his mother, a retired supermarket worker, for five years now, and says that unless he wins the lottery he will be living with her for years to come. 

“On paper, you’d think I’d have lots of disposable income, but that’s totally not the case,” he said. 

“I provide child support to our two young girls – something I will never stop doing because they are the absolute priority.

“Life is really expensive right now – especially for those with children.

“Of course it’s not ideal, I’m in my 40s and living with my mum, and I’m sure she’d much rather have her own space,” Mr Painter admitted. “But it’s the only option I have, and I’m grateful that my mum will have me.” 

Half of those surveyed admitted to being frustrated with their living situation, and 36 per cent felt as if they had lost their independence. 

“I feel for those who don’t have a parent or close one, they can move in with – or in my case, back in with.”

His mother, Christine, said it can be awkward managing two different lifestyles in the same household. “I only wish I could help somehow with getting him his own place, but unfortunately, things haven’t panned out that way”. 

Research released by NatWest in May found that nearly a quarter of parents reported their children moving back home after moving out for the first time, with the average age of return being 26.

Kaiesha Page, who once lived alone in Cardiff, said her life has been put on hold since she returned home to support her family. 

Ms Page moved back in with her mother and grandparents in Rhondda Valley, South Wales, just before the pandemic to take care of her 82-year-old grandad, Malcom, who has a lung condition and heart failure.

She earns up to £1.5k a month but struggles to put enough aside to move out as her salary goes towards her mother’s bills and her grandparents’ care. Her 60-year-old mother, Susan, is a part-time cleaner and is currently awaiting an autism diagnosis. 

Since moving back home, Ms Page has had to put her career as a writer on hold to take flexible jobs which work around her family’s needs. She said she feels like her life has been stalled. 

She is close with her family, but says it has restricted her from being able to socialise and date. “I wouldn’t dream of inviting friends around – my nan and grandad are very house proud,” she said, admitting: “It’s a little bit lonely at times”. 

According to Skipton Group, 29 per cent of adults living at home found it difficult to maintain romantic and platonic relationships. While Ms Page hopes to live alone one day, she worries it wouldn’t be fair to her family. 

“I’ve stayed for various different reasons – affordability and I’m single,” she said, admitting she also feels that she is needed at home. 

She said it is difficult to be the one supporting her family. “I’ve never had access to support from parents and that has been difficult to save.” 

Stacey Dickens from Skipton’s Home Affordability Index, said: “Aspiring first-time buyers would be forgiven for thinking of all the benefits of staying in the family home for longer when it comes to saving up to move out.

“For many, the experience of living with their parents as an adult also comes with unexpected compromises,” she said. “From needing to explain what time they’ll be home at night, negotiating shopping and cooking arrangements, bathroom etiquette, even navigating how best to date and develop relationships. It can be awkward for everyone.”

Moving back into the family home is a lifeline for many people, Ms Dickens said. “Young adults aren’t failing to ‘make the most’ of the situation; they’re caught in a system where even the most disciplined saving, combined with generous parental support, still doesn’t open the door for them to home ownership.”

Epstein threatened Duchess of York in ‘Hannibal Lecter-style’ call

The Duchess of York sent a sympathetic email to Jeffrey Epstein because he threatened to “destroy her” in a “Hannibal Lecter-style” phone call.

A spokesperson for Sarah Ferguson said that the convicted paedophile was angry after she said in a 2011 interview that she had made a “terrible, terrible error of judgment” in accepting £15,000 from him to pay off her debts.

Epstein reportedly made a “chilling” phone call to Ms Ferguson in which he threatened to take legal action, according to The Telegraph.

It comes after the Duchess faced criticism over an email she sent to Epstein in 2011, where she called him a “steadfast, generous and supreme friend” – just weeks after she told reporters she would “never have anything to do with” the convicted sex offender again.

Ms Ferguson has since been dropped by seven charities, who have said it would be “inappropriate” for her to remain as their patron or ambassador following the revelation.

Her spokesperson told The Telegraph: “People don’t understand how terrible Epstein was. I can remember everything about that call.

“It was a chilling call and I’m surprised anybody was ever friends with him given the way he talked to me.

“He said he would destroy the York family and he was quite clear on that. He said he would destroy me. He wasn’t shouting. He had a Hannibal Lecter-type voice. It was very cold and calm and really menacing and nasty.”

The spokesperson said it was understandable why the Duchess had sent the placating email, according to the newspaper, because of his threat to ruin her life and her family’s; the duchess shares two daughters with the Duke of York, Princess Eugenie and Princess Beatrice. The spokesperson disputed this version of events when asked by The Independent.

Children’s hospice Julia’s House announced on Monday that it had cut ties with the duchess, followed by food allergy charity The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Prevent Breast Cancer, the Teenage Cancer Trust, the British Heart Foundation, and The Children’s Literacy Charity.

The National Foundation for Retired Service Animals (NFRSA) has also dropped Ms Ferguson, according to the BBC.

The duchess gave an interview to the Evening Standard on 7 March 2011 in which she expressed remorse for her connection with the disgraced financier.

“I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children and know that this was a gigantic error of judgment on my behalf. I am just so contrite I cannot say,” she told the newspaper. “Whenever I can, I will repay the money and have nothing ever to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again.”

Little over a month later, reports suggest the duchess sent an email from her private account to the convicted paedophile, where she apologised for her comments and told him she had felt “broken and lost” after being told not to associate with him.

The email is reported to have read: “I know you feel hellaciously let down by me. And I must humbly apologise to you and your heart for that. You have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family. I am apologising to you today for not replying to your email or reaching out to you.

“I was bedridden with fear. I was paralysed. I was advised, in no uncertain terms, to have nothing to do with you and to not speak or email you. And if I did – I would cause more problems to you, the duke and myself. I was broken and lost. So please understand. I didn’t want to hurt Andrew one more time. I was in overriding fear. I am sorry.”

Epstein was found dead in his cell at a federal jail in Manhattan in August 2019 while he awaited trial on sex-trafficking charges. The death was ruled a suicide.

Home Office loses court bid under one in, one out migrant scheme

The Home Office has lost its bid to speed up the deportation of an Eritrean migrant to France under the “one in, one out” scheme.

Three judges at the Court of Appeal dismissed the home secretary’s case on Tuesday, saying the High Court had “made no error of law or principle”.

A High Court judge had temporarily blocked the deportation of the Eritrean, who arrived in the UK on a small boat in mid-August, to Paris under the “one in, one out” scheme last week. The man was allowed 14 days to submit further evidence in a modern slavery claim, which had been rejected by the Home Office.

The Home Office argued on Tuesday that the move has caused “real damage to the public interest”, but the Court of Appeal found that the asylum seeker had a right to request a review of the negative decision.

The Eritrean had claimed to be a victim of trafficking but Home Office decision-makers had said his account was not credible.

In a tense hearing, Lord Justice Arnold, Lord Justice Lewis and Lady Justice Elisabeth Laing questioned why the Home Office was arguing that the 14 days was too long when the department had originally told the Eritrean he would have 30 days to request a review.

Kate Grange KC, for the Home Office, told the court that 48 hours, rather than 14 days, would have been sufficient to supply further evidence, leading Lord Justice Arnold to ask: “Are you seriously submitting that a medical report can be obtained and submitted within 48 hours?”

Lord Justice Lewis quizzed the Home Office, saying: “Why tell him he’s got 30 days?” and Lord Justice Arnold added: “It seems to be fairly black and white. You have the right to request a review of the decision”.

The three judges rose to consider their ruling without hearing submissions from lawyers representing the Eritrean, and reached their view within minutes.

Ms Grange KC told the court that there was “considerable urgency” to make the “one in, one out” scheme work. She said that the scheme, which sees small boat migrants returned to France in exchange for other asylum seekers, was needed to break the business model of people-smuggling gangs.

She said: “Winter is coming. Over the next few weeks temperatures will drop and journeys [across the Channel] will become more hazardous.”

“We submit that the public interest in preventing and deterring these journeys could not be more serious or acute,” she added.

She said that every time an asylum seeker asks for more time for their case to be assessed it affects “the extent to which this policy…acts as a deterrent”.

In written arguments presented to court, the Home Office said that the High Court’s decision “affects immediate operational actions concerning removal from the UK”, adding that there “is a high risk” that other asylum seekers under the scheme will bring similar claims.

They highlighted that another asylum seeker had asked for a 30-day deferral of his removal.

Three migrants have been removed under the UK-France treaty so far, with the home secretary hailing the flights as “an important first step to securing our borders”.

The Home Office argued that Mr Justice Sheldon’s decision last week “causes real damage to the public interest and undermines a central policy objective, viz deterrence of unsafe journeys and saving life”.

“Small boat crossings in the English Channel is a grave social and political concern at the present time,” they said.

Since the Eritrean case was heard at the High Court, the Home Office have changed official guidance on modern slavery claims made by migrants.

Asylum seekers due for removal under the “one in, one out” deal with France will now be blocked from challenging government decisions refusing them modern slavery support.

These migrants will not be able to ask for their negative decision’s to be reviewed. Instead, if they want to challenge the decision, their only recourse will be via legal action from another country, including France.

Nearly 20,000 people arrived in the UK in the first half of this year by crossing the English Channel in small boats – up 48 per cent on the first six months of 2024.

How subtle wit shaped the social codes of British culture

The British are a funny lot. In the most literal sense, obviously. The birthplace of Vic and Bob, Morecambe and Wise, Julia Davis and Sara Pascoe is, pound for pound, arguably the funniest nation on earth. But we’re also a funny lot in the other sense – a bit odd, a little unreadable. For outsiders, decoding a Brit can be baffling, because we so rarely say what we mean. We communicate in code, default to irony, and hide behind humour like it’s an invisibility cloak.

There’s a strong case to be made that the British sense of humour – self-deprecating, absurdist, forever puncturing pomposity – has become the defining national trait. More so, even, than driving on the left, putting milk in tea, or holding entire conversations about the weather. The thing that really makes us us is our collective compulsion to make each other laugh. Want a snapshot of Britain at its best? Look no further than this year’s Edinburgh Fringe, with sets from Ahir Shah, Josie Long, Bridget Christie, Nish Kumar, Toussaint Douglass, Leila Navabi and Ivo Graham. A brilliantly diverse line-up, united by one shared attribute: every single one of them is absolutely hilarious.

But why has humour become so central to Britain’s sense of identity? There’s no single answer, but a few theories spring to mind.

First: the class system. Britain’s social hierarchy has long been a source of tension – and tension, as any comic will tell you, is comedy’s favourite plaything. From Tony Hancock muttering darkly in East Cheam and Harold Steptoe’s eternally thwarted ambitions, to the iconic 1960s Frost Report sketch in which John Cleese looks down on Ronnie Barker, who in turn looks down on Ronnie Corbett, our social structures have been ripe for sending up.

But perhaps even more relevant is the fact that Britain is a country of frequently inclement weather. If you live on a beach under brilliant blue skies, you’re less likely to spend much of your time squirreled away in your bedroom writing sitcoms, or holed up in a pub entertaining your mates with well-worked one-liners. And life on this island is just inherently comic, isn’t it? Dreary days, of that sort that we know well, are just funny in a way that sparkling Spanish summer days simply aren’t.

In other cases, it’s harder to say which came first: the cultural quirk or the comedy. Victorian prudishness, for instance, undoubtedly spawned the gloriously euphemistic tradition of bawdy seaside postcards and the how’s-your-father sauciness of the Carry On films. But maybe it works both ways. Perhaps it’s our in-built sense of the ridiculous that made us prudish in the first place. For those of us not blessed with Love Island physiques, our unclothed bodies are – let’s be honest – fairly comic. Maybe we’re not appalled by nudity because we’re repressed, but because we can’t stop laughing.

What is clear is that nowhere else is humour so entangled with the rules of polite society. Take the uniquely British ‘polite insult’ – a national art form. Shakespeare had Orlando declare, with perfect froideur in As You Like It: “I desire we be better strangers.” Today, we’ve refined the technique further. “How interesting,” or “Good for you,” are rarely compliments. And this love of the not-quite-compliment is everywhere in British TV comedy, from Rowan Atkinson’s exquisitely passive-aggressive Blackadder to Basil Fawlty’s majestic withering disdain:

“I’m so sorry to have kept you waiting, your lordship… I do apologise, please forgive me. Now, was there something – is there something – anything I can do for you? Anything at all?”

That love of sarcasm and subtext seeps into every part of British life. We find it near impossible to admit to being good at anything. Self-praise feels grubby. Even compliments are hedged with qualifiers. And we say sorry constantly – even when we don’t mean it. Especially when we don’t mean it.

Of course, life would probably be simpler if we all agreed to be a bit more direct. No more layers of irony. No more cryptic banter or euphemism. Just say what you mean. But, to use a phrase soaked in British understatement: that’s not really our cup of tea, is it?

Now you’re in the know, don’t forget to set the juice loose with Maynards Bassetts – grab a bag today!

Epping hotel asylum seeker jailed for sexually assaulting girl

An asylum seeker hotel resident has been jailed for 12 months for sexually assaulting a woman and a 14-year-old girl, which sparked multiple demonstrations in Essex.

Ethiopian national Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu, who arrived in the UK on a small boat days before the incidents, was described as “manipulative” and with a “poor regard for women” after being found guilty of five offences.

The 38-year-old told two teenagers he wanted to “have a baby with each of them” and attempted to kiss them, before going on to put his hand on one of the girls’ thighs and stroke her hair, his trial was told.

The defendant, who was a “teacher of sports” in his home country, was also found to have sexually assaulted a woman by trying to kiss her, putting his hand on her leg and telling her she was pretty.

During his sentencing hearing, the court heard that Kebatu was aware of the unrest his offending had caused, but had sought to portray himself as a “scapegoat” and now wished to be deported.

The judge also said that while Kebatu had tried to take his own life while on remand in prison, he could not suspend the 12-month sentence as there was “no realistic prospect” of his being rehabilitated.

In a victim impact statement, the 14-year-old girl said she is now “checking over my shoulder” when she is out with friends, and that wearing a skirt now makes her feel “vulnerable and exposed”.

She added: “Seeing the bench [where the sexual assault took place] reminds me of everything that happened.

“I’m aware there have been protests because of what has happened – I’m lucky that I was not in the country when that happened.”

Meanwhile, his adult victim said she was left feeling both “angered and frustrated” by the incident.

“He did not even appear to know that what he’s done was wrong,” she said.

“The incident has left me feeling worried to leave my house. I think about this incident most nights before bed.”

The Bell Hotel resident’s behaviour in July led to protesters and counterprotesters taking to the streets in Epping and eventually outside hotels housing asylum seekers across the country.

Epping Forest District Council is taking legal action against Somani Hotels over the use of the Bell Hotel as accommodation for asylum seekers, and could still be granted an injunction when a full hearing takes place on 13 October.

Kebatu’s trial was told he was offered pizza by the 14-year-old victim shortly before he tried to kiss her on 7 July.

The court heard Kebatu had made inappropriate comments to the girl, such as “come back to Africa, you would be a good wife”, and “do you want to come to the Bell Hotel to have babies, then we could go to Kenya with each other?”.

The girl told police she “froze” as the defendant sexually assaulted her and had told Kebatu, “No, I’m 14,” when he spotted her again in Epping the following day.

The court heard his response to the teenager was: “No, no, it doesn’t matter, you could come back to the Bell Hotel with me.”

An adult member of the public was also sexually assaulted by Kebatu on 8 July during an incident in which he touched her leg and tried to kiss her when she offered to help him with his CV.

The woman, who cannot be named for legal reasons, said she felt “shocked” and “uncomfortable” at his behaviour.

The adult victim told the court she confronted Kebatu when she saw him speaking to a “young schoolgirl”.

She said the defendant ran away from the initial confrontation, but she caught up with him near the Bell Hotel while on a 999 call with police.

The woman told the trial: “It was a lot of begging, pleading and apologising, and a lot of ‘I’m sorry, I’m going to go, it was a mistake’ – along those lines.”

Footage of Kebatu’s arrest showed him appearing to become tearful after he was handcuffed by an officer, with the defendant eventually getting on his knees on the pavement next to a police car.

Molly Dyas, mitigating for Kebatu, said the defendant’s “firm wish is to be deported as soon as possible”.

She told Chelmsford Magistrates’ Court: “That was his view before the trial, and that remains his view today.”

She said he was an “asylum seeker who made a difficult and lengthy journey from east Africa, including the last part on a small boat”.

She said he had no previous convictions recorded, “including in the European countries he travelled through to reach the UK”.

District judge Christopher Williams found Kebatu guilty of two counts of sexual assault, one count of attempted sexual assault, one count of inciting a girl to engage in sexual activity and one count of harassment without violence.

Sentencing him, the judge said he agreed with the author of the pre-sentencing report that Kebatu was “manipulative” when interviewed, after he stated his lack of English and mental health as a reason for not remembering what had happened.

He said: “It’s evident to me that your shame and remorse isn’t because of the offences you’ve committed but because of the impact they’ve had.”

The judge said Kebatu told a probation officer he was “aware of the unrest that [the] offending had caused” and knew that “other law-abiding asylum seekers were impacted by the offending”.

Kebatu must sign the Sex Offenders’ Register for 10 years, and has been made subject to a five-year Sexual Harm Prevention Order.

He also ordered that Kebatu pay £650 prosecution costs and a £187 victim surcharge.

It is understood the Home Office will seek to deport Kebatu now he has been sentenced. A spokesperson said: “It is our longstanding policy not to comment on individual cases, but when foreign nationals commit serious crimes in our country, we will always do everything in our power to deport them.

“This government deported almost 5,200 foreign national offenders in its first year in office, a 14 per cent increase on the previous year, and we will continue to do everything we can to remove these vile criminals from our streets.”

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp said: “Justice has now been served and the government must now deport this criminal immediately. The reality is this vile crime should never have been allowed to happen.”

William and Kate visit schools in solidarity with Southport victims

The Prince and Princess of Wales have visited to two schools attended by the children who were murdered in the Southport attack last year.

The royal couple also met in private with the parents of victim Elsie Dot Stancombe, 7, who was a pupil at Farnborough Road Infant and Junior School.

Elsie was murdered at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in July 2024, along with two other young girls Alice da Silva Aguiar, 9, and Bebe King, 6.

Eight more children and two adults were also injured during the knife attack by then 18-year-old Axel Rudakubana.

Visiting Churchtown Primary School, which Alice and Bebe attended, the couple were shown around a new playground which was built in their memory after a fundraising campaign.

In a speech in front of the school’s 700 pupils, William said: “This playground is a symbol of how the community have come together to create such a positive space for the pupils of this school, a symbol of remembrance and resilience, a testament that love will always overcome tragedy.”

He said the teaching communities at the school and also at Elsie’s school, which they visited earlier in the day, had gone “above and beyond to help heal this incredible group of young people”.

He added: “To Alex and Sergio, Lauren and Ben, Jenni and David – you are parents united in grief. You have faced such horror, but from that you move forward with grace and fortitude, creating the most remarkable legacies for your girls. We will always be here to support you.”

After hearing some of the children speak about how the artwork reflected their emotions, Kate said: “It’s very unusual for young people to be able to express bad and hard and difficult emotions like you’ve done, and actually doing it through art is really clever, but really expressive.”

William and Kate also spent over an hour at Farnborough Road School and another 30 minutes with Elsie’s bereaved parents, Jenni, 36, and David Stancombe, 37.

They also spoke to the headteachers about how the school and pupils were coping since the attack.

The school’s headteachers thanked the royal couple for showing solidarity during a “tremendously stressful” year, after the attack had a devastating impact on the community.

Jennie Sephton, head of the infants’ school, said: “It’s made such a big difference.”

Upon arrival at the school, the royal couple were greeted by hundreds of children excitedly waving union flags. Both royals spoke to members of the student council, with Kate crouching down to speak to the infants while William spoke to the juniors.

The children were in for a surprise as they had only been told minutes before that the special guests were visiting their school.

Ellis Paynter, 10, said: “We were shocked! I was like, ‘We get to talk to the prince?’”

Jessica Hazelhurst, 10, said: “All of the teachers didn’t get to find out until break time. We all came into school thinking we were getting photos for school council, but then it was this.”

Today’s royal appearance marks William and Kate’s second visit to Southport, having previously visited in the wake of the attack and the riots afterwards.

They met and hugged the families of the three girls during a visit in October last year, and also thanked the emergency services who responded to the attack.

Last year’s unannounced trip to Merseyside was William and Kate’s first official outing together since the Princess of Wales’ chemotherapy treatment ended.