France ‘may not intervene to reverse small boats in the Channel’

France may reverse its pledge to forcefully turn back small boats in the Channel, according to reports, in a blow to Sir Keir Starmer’s plan to stem the number of migrants arriving in the UK.

France is backing away from the commitment amid political turmoil in the French government, according to sources who have spoken to the BBC.

Then-home secretary Yvette Cooper said in April that she had “persuade France to change its rules”, with the French agreeing to intervene once migrants are in the water to stop the crossings.

Previously French police had not taken active steps against migrants once they were in the water due to the danger to life. Ms Cooper promised in April that the changes would come in “over the next few months”, and French police officers were filmed by media in July wading into shallow waters and using knives to slash an inflatable small boat.

Now sources have told the BBC that the plan to intercept the dinghies has halted. One figure linked to French maritime security said it was “just a political stunt”.

The maritime prefecture for the Channel also said that the new plan was “still being studied”.

The plan was agreed when Yvette Cooper was home secretary and Bruno Retailleau was the French interior minister. Both are no longer in post, with Ms Cooper moved to the Foreign Office and Mr Retailleau, of the conservative Republicans Party, leaving government when Sébastien Lecornu was made French prime minister.

A spokesperson at French charity Utopia 56, which supports refugees waiting to making the perilous crossing to the UK, told The Independent that they had not seen police introducing new tactics.

But they added: “However the police presence is still really important and there is often use of violence. They don’t hesitate to sometimes walk in the water to cut the boat – something they have been doing since 2022. There is also the complete abandonment of people in distress afterwards”.

French police have used pushback tactics in their overseas territories for several years, with people reportedly dying or disappearing at sea after collisions between migrant boats and police.

French border police boats have been videoed pursuing migrant dinghies off the Indian Ocean island of Mayotte.

The news comes after a migrant who was sent back to France under the one-in one-out scheme returned to the UK after crossing the Channel on a small boat.

The government has pledged to send the man back, with children’s minister Josh MacAlister saying people would be sent back “again and again” if they return.

He told Times Radio on Thursday: “The message is really clear from the government, if you come here illegally and you cross, as we scale up this French returns agreement, you will be deported.

“You will go back to France. The money you’ve spent will be wasted. And if you do it again and again, you will be returned again and again.”

A Home Office spokesperson said: “We will do whatever it takes to secure our borders and stop migrants entering the country of small boats.

“France is a critical partner in tackling illegal migration and we continue to work closely together as they review their Maritime Doctrine, which will allow officers to intervene in shallow waters. We want to see the earliest possible deployment of these new tactics.

“And thanks to our landmark deal with the French, people crossing in small boats can now be detained and removed.”

King and Queen arrive at Vatican ahead of historic meeting with Pope Leo

The King and Queen have arrived at the Vatican City to meet Pope Leo XIV for the first time since he was elected to office, as the pair begin their two-day state visit.

The Vatican’s famous Swiss Guard, who have been providing protection for the head of the Catholic Church for centuries, were seen waiting outside the Pope’s official residence on Thursday morning, before the royal couple arrived in the San Damaso Courtyard.

Charles and Camilla, who arrived in Rome on Wednesday evening, will be greeted by Pope Leo in his official residence, the Apostolic Palace, ahead of a historic day of events.

The state visit to the Holy See, the government of the Roman Catholic Church in the Vatican, is understood to be deeply significant for the King personally and will celebrate the Papal Jubilee held every 25 years.

During an ecumenical service in the famous Sistine Chapel, the King, Supreme Governor of the Church of England, will become the first British monarch to pray at a public service with the Pope, head of the Catholic Church, since the Reformation.

The King and Queen will later attend a service at the Basilica of St Paul’s Outside the Walls, where a special seat has been created for Charles, which will remain at the place of worship for use by his successors.

Charles will also be recognised for the British monarchy’s historic association with the basilica, the seat of a Benedictine Abbey, and will be made “Royal Confrater” of the abbey as, in centuries past, monarchs provided for the upkeep of the tomb of St Paul at the basilica.

The state visit will end with the King attending a reception at the Pontifical Beda College, a seminary training priests from across the Commonwealth, and the Queen will meet six Catholic sisters from the International Union of Superiors General.

The King and Queen were due to make the state visit to the Holy See in April, but the health problems of Pope Francis meant the trip was postponed. The couple did privately meet the pontiff, who died later that month, with Pope Leo getting elected to office in May.

The King has also met two of Pope Leo’s predecessors – Pope Benedict XVI and Pope John Paul II.

How would the UK really respond if it came under nuclear attack?

In the new Kathryn Bigelow film, A House of Dynamite, a US president has 18 minutes to decide whether a missile heading towards the United States is a nuclear threat, and what he should authorise as retaliation. But the scenario can no longer be dismissed as unlikely. With near-nightly Russian ballistic missile attacks on Ukraine, as well as missiles being fired from Iran and Yemen against Israel, attacks are no longer unthinkable – they are the new normal.

A whole range of doctrine and behaviour which was developed during the Cold War, and subsequently forgotten after 1990, has had to be rediscovered by governments all over Europe – but especially in those nuclear-armed capitals of London and Paris. If you are the Netherlands and a nuclear missile is heading your way, there is little you can do, and nothing in retaliation – a British prime minister or a French president has a momentous decision to make, just like the fictional US president in the film.

When thinking about what the events depicted in A House of Dynamite might mean for the UK, one thing is different – the PM at the time will not have 18 minutes or so, but a fraction of that. A (nuclear-armed) ballistic missile fired from the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad would reach London in about six minutes – maybe 10 minutes-plus if fired from Russia proper. Time will not be on any PM’s side. The clock is ticking for a decision…

If a ballistic missile were to be fired against the UK, the first warnings would come from either US space-based missile launch satellites, the Space-Based Infrared System (SBIRS), or more likely from the US Ballistic Missile Early Warning System radar network at RAF Fylingdales in Yorkshire. The RAF Fylingdales radars operate 24/7, and can cover out to western Russia.

Within seconds, notice would be passed to the RAF HQ at High Wycombe, as well as the MoD, and then onward to No 10. As long as any such missile launch came from obvious territory (Kaliningrad), then provenance could be proved – but intent and warhead would still be unknown. But the tracking radars would be able to state rapidly that a ballistic missile’s course would, or would not, hit a target in Britain.

Radars such as those at RAF Fylingdales can undertake quite accurate identification of a missile, and will likely be in a position to say whether the missile’s signature is that of a weapon normally used for nuclear delivery.

But there are some new uncertainties: if an Oreshnik ballistic missile were to be launched from what looked like Russia, can it be guaranteed that the payload is “only” conventional, or do you have to assume that its lethal package is nuclear? In reverse, if a Russian radar detected a Trident missile launch, it would know that this was a nuclear weapon and would react accordingly.

It might surprise people, but when the USA, Russia, China and France fire their nuclear missiles for test purposes, they always notify their counterparts that they are doing so – no one wants any misunderstandings!

Part of this prior notification involves publishing Notices to Airmen (Notams) “advising” pilots/aircraft to stay away from certain areas where the test missiles will splash down. But North Korea often does not, hence understandable concerns in Japan and South Korea when Pyongyang fires missiles – is a missile launch a test, or “the real thing”?

Could the UK intercept any missile heading its way? Unless a Royal Navy Type 45 destroyer happened to be in the perfect position to attempt an intercept, all the UK military could do would be to watch the incoming missile. Unlike in A House of Dynamite, the UK has no 24/7 defence network to tackle such a threat.

In statements about missile threats to the UK, a variety of defence ministers have said, blithely, that such a threat would be tackled collectively by Nato. But in talks with Nato members with ground-based systems that could intercept ballistic missiles, I have been told that countries such as Poland, Germany, and the Netherlands have not concluded cast iron agreements that they would intercept ballistic missiles for the UK – and the software in such anti-missile systems tends to highlight that if such a weapon will not hit home soil, there would be no engagement. This is how Israel’s David’s Sling system works – if a Houthi missile won’t hit Israel, but will land in the Mediterranean, no weapon is launched against the incoming target.

A House of Dynamite scenario today goes against the sort of government style that has been the norm for the past decades. 9/11 aside, there have been no crises that have required immediate decision-making – time has always been available for PMs and presidents to talk, debate, ask for advice, mull things over before making a decision, maybe even use hotlines to talk to opponents.

It is easy to see any national leader when faced with the hypothetical raised in A House of Dynamite questioning whether it is realistic to have to make a decision in 15 minutes, but that is what would be available. In the USA, the president will be whisked away in Marine One (helicopter) to Andrews AFB, to get on board Air Force One (Boeing 747), thereby getting airborne and out of immediate danger. The same is not true for a UK prime minister; he/she will at best be taken down to the bunker under the MoD Main Building.

The problem for a Keir Starmer, or whoever might be PM in the event of such a crisis, is that the chances of such an event are now far more likely than they have been even during the Cold War. Look at events in the Baltic in late September and early October, when unidentified drones were seen over and around airports and military airbases – drones this time, missiles next time?

Assumed, probably correctly, to have been Russian or Russian-contracted, this type of “sub-threshold warfare” where things are difficult to prove, and are easy to deny, brings appalling levels of uncertainty. It might sound strange that firing a ballistic missile could be “sub-threshold”, but the certainties of the Cold War have gone.

By contrast, in the Cold War, if a US radar spotted a missile coming from a certain direction, then you knew that it was coming from the Soviet Union, or a Russian ballistic missile submarine – this is not the case today. Could a “shadow fleet” ship fire missiles or a swarm of drones against UK targets from somewhere offshore? The chances of this have gone from infinitesimally small to high – and it would be extremely difficult to prove who had fired them. So against whom would you retaliate?

And can you guarantee that a Shaheed-type attack drone “only” carries a high explosive warhead? Might it have a chemical or biological warhead (both meaning that it is a weapon of mass destruction, in the same class as an atomic/nuclear weapon)? Doctrine used to say that mass use of chemical weapons would be treated as if a nuclear weapon had been used, and retaliation would come in the form of nuclear weapons. What is the doctrine today?

In 1983, there was an incident that mirrors very closely the scenario in A House of Dynamite. A Soviet air defence officer monitoring the radars and satellites looking for American missile launches saw what looked like five ballistic missiles heading towards the Soviet Union. At the time, tensions were high, following the Soviet shooting down of a Korean airliner. A decision about whether this was an actual US missile launch against Moscow had to be made in minutes – and there was not a missile defence system as advanced as the one that the USA has today at Fort Greely, Alaska. Luckily, the Colonel decided that the “missiles” on radar were actually a false alarm – and this turned out to be the case. But had he decided otherwise…

However, for the UK, with no dedicated missile defence system, the only active option open to a PM is to retaliate, firing Trident nuclear missiles from one of the submarines that are deployed at sea 24/7 for deterrence. It is possible to communicate with submerged ballistic missile submarines using very low frequency radio systems – but depending on the depth at which the submarine is sailing, it is not guaranteed or rapid. But if a PM decides that the missile threat is a nuclear one, and is satisfied that it is one fired by, say, Russia, messages can be sent to whichever Vanguard-class SSBN is on the deterrence patrol to launch whatever retaliation.

But if communications are not established, then the on-station RN commander will resort to the “letter of last resort” that will be in a safe on board his boat. Written by the PM of the day, this will give that commander instructions about what actions to take if there is no link back to the UK chain of command. It might say that a certain nuclear launch should be enacted immediately against a specified target list – but no one knows what each PM has written in those four letters (one for each submarine). The process requires daily monitoring of various communications networks (it did include listening to Radio 4’s Today programme every morning, and if that was not available, there was a predisposition to believe that there had been an attack on the UK!), and only if a long list of checks was met would the commander authorise nuclear release.

Or a PM might decide that he/she will not retaliate, that the evidence of who has fired and with what intent did not meet the level that would require UK retaliation. In A House of Dynamite, we don’t get to know what is decided, but one option, when it is decided that Chicago is the target, is for the city to take the hit. In his techno-thriller from 1978, The Third World War, General Sir John Hackett played out a scenario where, in a war between the Soviet Union and Nato, Moscow launches a nuclear strike on Birmingham, killing many tens of thousands. In the story, the UK retaliates against Minsk in a like-for-like strike. There can be few PMs who would relish having to make such a decision as nuclear retaliation – but doctrine of deterrence is based upon an enemy having enough suspicion that the UK (or the USA, or France…) will retaliate.

There have been 35 years where the threats that were commonplace in the 1950s to the 1980s simply ceased to exist. But especially since 2022, what was once unthinkable can no longer be said to be such – ballistic missile attacks are a fact, and attacks against Nato countries from a range of weapons cannot just be disregarded any more.

Which means that especially for Europe’s nuclear-armed powers, France and the UK, the leaders have to re-learn what was the stock-in trade of their Cold War predecessors as regards attacks on their countries, and options for retaliation. Even before an actual attack on our countries, the clock is already ticking…

Brigitte Bardot shuts down ‘fake news’ reports of her death

Reclusive French film star Brigitte Bardot has been forced to dispel incorrect rumours that she had died.

The 91-year-old actor, known for her roles in Jean-Luc Godard’s Le Mépris and Louis Malle’s Viva Maria!, has seemingly told her followers on social media that she is “doing well” despite the reports.

A post on her X (Twitter) account said: “I don’t know which imbecile launched this fake news tonight about my [death] but know that I am well and that I have no intention of taking my leave.”

Bardot’s statement comes after French media reported last week that the film star had been receiving hospital treatment for three weeks in Toulon, near her home in Saint-Tropez.

According to the newspaper Var-matin, Bardot underwent surgery in relation to a “serious illness”, but the exact nature of the illness was not confirmed.

In the wake of these reports, a social media celebrity news account called “Aqababe”, run by 27-year-old influencer Aniss Zitouni, apparently posted that Bardot had passed away.

“An icon has passed away, leaving behind an unforgettable legacy and an eternal imprint on the hearts of the French,” the account claimed in a now-deleted post, according to Mail Online.

The Independent has contacted Bardot’s representatives for additional comment.

Bardot was previously treated for respiratory problems in 2023 after struggling to breathe due to the heat.

At the time, her husband Bernard d’Ormale told Var-matin that Bardot had experienced “a moment of respiratory distraction” that could be expected in someone of her age.

“Like all people of a certain age, she can no longer bear the heat,” he explained at the time. “It happens at 88 years old. She must not [over-exert herself].”

Born in Paris, Bardot began her career as an actor in 1952 and gained international recognition four years later for her role in And God Created Woman.

She also performed in musicals, and recorded songs including “La Madrague” and “Je t’aime… moi non plus” before retiring from the spotlight in 1973.

Bardot is famously outspoken on the subject of animal rights, once threatening to leave France unless the country prevented the euthanasia of two sick circus elephants – a fight that was successful.

She also sparked controversy in 2018 when she criticised the #MeToo movement, which had exposed a number of high-profile Hollywood individuals accused of sexual harassment. Speaking to Paris Match, Bardot claimed that the “vast majority” of women coming forward were being “hypocritical and ridiculous”.

The film star has been married four times. Her fourth husband is the businessman and political adviser d’Ormale, whom she wed in 1992.

We need to debunk the myth that instant chemistry equals lasting love

Nobody Wants This”, Netflix’s wildly popular romcom series starring Adam Brody and Kristen Bell as a hot rabbi and a sexy shiksa trying to make it work as a couple against all odds, is back. And thank goodness! As the days shorten and temperatures plummet, this tale of two deliciously charismatic protagonists and their offbeat array of family and friends is like a little ray of sunshine through autumn’s oncoming gloom. I inhaled it in a day.

Season one concluded with Noah (Brody) chasing after Joanne (Bell) and declaring that their love was more important than his potential promotion to head rabbi (a job he’d been working towards his entire career, but hey ho). Yeehaw! Love wins! Season two picks up with the couple now in a gloriously fulfilling relationship, but the cracks quickly begin to show, particularly when it comes to light that their reunion was based on a fairly key misunderstanding: Noah believed they had “tabled” Joanne’s potential conversion to Judaism; Joanne believed it was “off the table”. Similar sounding but, as it turns out, very different interpretations of the same conversation.

It’s just one of the many interactions and plot points throughout the series that got me thinking about chemistry versus compatibility. Although Nobody Wants This, like so many romcoms before it, is selling the dream of romance fuelled by instant attraction and passionate sparks, isn’t it really proof that building a serious relationship on these shakiest of foundations is a recipe for, well, disaster?

Yes, that kind of zinging connection is a heady, intoxicating cocktail. The feeling that someone immediately just gets you, that they somehow know your innermost parts from a mere glance across a crowded room, is one of the most powerful forces in the universe. But it’s a lie. They don’t know your innermost parts. And you don’t know theirs. It’s like paddling across sparkling, sun-tipped waves and thinking you really “know” the ocean – without giving a thought to the kraken that may lie beneath.

All-consuming chemistry is dangerous precisely because it is so potent. It blinds us to someone’s deeper character: their core beliefs, goals, flaws, ideology and worldview. I’ve been there plenty of times myself – swept along on a tsunami of pheromones that made me see things that simply weren’t there.

I remember telling a friend that the new man I was seeing was refreshingly “laidback”. “He’s just a happy-go-lucky kind of guy!” I enthused, before discovering that he was, in truth, cripplingly anxious and insecure. My hypothesis, based on the sketchiest evidence – that because we laughed easily and were childlike and silly together, he was free-spirited and contented by nature – turned out to be utterly bogus. The shock felt even more pronounced when, six months in, I found out that a different paramour thought stealing from the supermarket self-checkout was totally fine because “food is too expensive”. Chemistry and knowing someone are two completely different things.

Noah and Joanne are perhaps the perfect example. They fall in love over witty one-liners and dextrous verbal sparring matches that would naturally lead the casual observer to believe their relationship was written in the stars. But delve a little further beneath the surface, and there are some glaring incompatibilities. Not just their religious and cultural differences – though these are tricky enough to circumvent. There are frequently other crucial chasms on display between their respective morals and values.

After witnessing a car speeding dangerously fast around a car park, Joanne’s sister Morgan (magnificently portrayed by Justine Lupe) later sees it and keys it along one side, spurred on by Joanne’s encouragement to “do your thing, girl”. Sweet, law-abiding Noah is shocked by this vigilante approach to “street justice”. “I feel like you’re judging me – and don’t say that you’re not,” Joanne says afterwards. “I am judging you,” he responds.

It might feel like a small thing; a funny incident that shows up their hilariously “quirky” differences. But stuff like this is hugely indicative of the kind of person you are – your deeply held ethics, your attitude to rules, and how you engage with the social contract that codifies our behaviour. In another scene, Joanne considers cutting a baby’s hair at its naming ceremony as revenge on the mother for a perceived slight committed some 25 years prior. Noah, again, cannot get his head around this response, diametrically opposed as it is to his own conduct. He is governed by a set of principles that remain totally at odds with those of his partner.

Science backs up the notion that chemistry can act as a set of blinkers, preventing us from seeing major underlying issues at the beginning of a relationship. Falling for someone has a massive impact on our brain, flooding it with the reward chemical dopamine – thus triggering a feeling similar to the effect of cocaine or alcohol – but also the stress hormone cortisol. Meanwhile, feelgood serotonin is depleted. This is what induces the “intrusive, maddeningly preoccupying thoughts, hopes [and] terrors” of early infatuation, according to Richard Schwartz, a Harvard Medical School professor and couples therapist who has studied the effects of love on the brain.

Something else happens on top of this “can’t get enough” chemical party: the neural pathway responsible for negative emotions, such as fear and social judgement, is temporarily deactivated. It means that the bit of our brain responsible for making critical assessments of other people, including those with whom we’re becoming romantically involved, shuts down. “That’s the neural basis for the ancient wisdom ‘love is blind’,” says Schwartz. But once that initial madness wears off – as is inevitable over time – what are you left with? Potentially someone whose entire outlook on life is different from your own, whose building blocks are fundamentally made of different stuff.

It’s all too easy to see why the fallacy of chemistry beating compatibility is so attractive. After all, who wouldn’t want to scrap the preamble, skip the prelude, and initiate the cheat code to fast-forward their way to true and lasting love? In a world where instant gratification is the only kind we’re used to having, who can be bothered to be patient and take their time, gradually peeling back the infinite layers that make up a person until you really know them down to their bones?

But there is no shortcut when it comes to a long-term partnership. As much as, ironically, everybody probably wants the kind of love story portrayed in Nobody Wants This, I’m finally starting to see the appeal of the slow burn over the whirlwind romance.

‘Nobody Wants This’ is streaming on Netflix

Epic adventures: Trips that follow history’s most intrepid explorers

They say travel broadens the mind – and throughout history that has been the case for some of the world’s pre-eminent scientists, geographers and explorers, whose globetrotting adventures have led to medical breakthroughs, new scientific theories, spectacular art and, above all, a greater understanding of the world we live in.

In celebration of that adventurous spirit, specialist tour operator Travelsphere – who for over 60 years has created extraordinary itineraries to incredible destinations around the world – has partnered with the Royal Geographical Society to encourage people to follow in the footsteps of these pioneering explorers.

With a shared commitment to purposeful and inspiring travel, the Royal Geographical Society have selected a collection of Travelsphere itineraries that have significance to the society and its near 200-year history. Each one explores areas, regions or countries represented within their archives, immersing travellers in a country’s cultural heritage and enabling their own unforgettable journey – while working with, and in support of, the communities and environments visited.

Travelsphere’s escorted tours have everything you need for an enriching adventure. Besides return flights, overseas transfers, handpicked accommodation and many meals, there’s also a range of authentic experiences and excursions included and an expert Holiday Director on hand to guide you through your trip. You’ll get insights into local cultures and see sites you won’t find in a guidebook – with plenty of free time to explore on your own, too. On each tour you’ll share the experience with a group of like-minded travellers.

From the wonders of South America to the historical romance of the Silk Road, iconic India to incredible Indonesia, here’s five examples of the epic adventures awaiting you….

The Silk Road – a network of ancient trade routes connecting East Asia, Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe – is primed for monumental voyages. In the mid 19th century, explorers Thomas and Lucy Atkinson travelled 40,000 miles, mostly on horseback, through the region. Ella Christie, a pioneering Scottish explorer and one of the first female fellows of the Royal Geographical Society, journeyed by train and carriage along the Silk Road, publishing a book, Through Khiva to Golden Samarkand, about her travels. Keeping the spirit of these intrepid voyagers alive, Travelsphere’s Silk Road Adventure: The Five Stans spends 21 days visiting fascinating and off-the beaten track destinations in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan. Weaving through ancient Silk Road cities, breathtaking mountain landscapes and remote desert wonders, highlights include visits to UNESCO World Heritage sites in Samarkand and Bukhara, eagle hunting demonstrations in the mountains of Kyrgyzstan and the magnificent Charyn Canyon. You’ll also dine with Dungan families, learn how to make regional dishes and visit a traditional tea house on a trip that’s as immersive as it is exciting.

Indonesia offers an irresistible blend of fascinating cultural heritage, dramatic natural wonders and idyllic islands. Naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace, co-discoverer of the theory of natural selection, collected 126,500 natural history specimens from the islands of Indonesia, East Malaysia, New Guinea and Brunei – a sign of just how much there is to discover in this corner of the world. Travelsphere’s 16-day Spirit of Indonesia adventure engulfs you in the history and landscapes of the country. You’ll follow in the footsteps of prolific globetrotter, photographer and Royal Geographical Society fellow Edith Beatrice Gibbes, who spent several months on the island of Java. Like her, you’ll want your camera ready at sites like Borobudur – the largest Buddhist temple in the world, and the volcanic crater of Mount Bromo, where you’ll witness the sunrise slowly illuminating the landscape. You’ll also explore the bustling cities of Jakarta and Bandung, delve into the fascinating cultural heritage of Yogyakarta, learn traditional batik methods, search for Komodo dragons in Komodo National Park and relax on the island paradise of Bali.

Peru has long attracted explorers intrigued by its history, architecture and landscapes. Modern day voyagers follow the likes of Victor Coverley-Price, an artist who joined a Royal Geographical Society expedition in 1932, documenting Peruvian landscapes in a series of watercolour paintings. Or Clements Markham who, on a trip to Cuzco in the mid 19th century, discovered the benefits of the cinchona plant to treat malaria – and co-led a later mission to transplant and cultivate it in India. On Travelsphere’s Wonders of Peru tour, expert guides will help you uncover the history of capital city Lima and Cuzco, with its captivating fusion of Inca heritage and Spanish colonial architecture. Other highlights include a stay deep in the Amazon rainforest, with a twilight walk through the jungle and wildlife spotting at Lake Sandoval. You’ll also experience the natural wonders of Lake Titicaca and the Uros and Tequile islands. And no trip to Peru is complete without a visit to the “lost city” of Machu Picchu. Rediscovered in the early 20th century, the 15th century Inca settlement high up in the Andes is every bit as magical as you’d imagine.

In 1893, Fanny Bullock Workman – explorer, travel writer, mountaineer and campaigner for women’s rights – embarked on a two year, 14,000 mile cycling tour of India, Burma, Java and Ceylon with her husband. The couple later published an account of their adventure, ‘Through Town and Jungle’, detailing the architectural marvels they discovered during their trip. At 15 days, the Wonders of India and the Tiger Trail tour is a more manageable itinerary – but still packed with plenty to explore. A journey of contrasts, you’ll enjoy the vibrant streets of Mumbai, get up close with incredible wildlife in the Indian wilderness and discover historic temples, including the Ram Raja in Orchha and the impressive western temple complex at Khajuraho. The trip takes in three national parks, including Bandhavgarh Tiger Reserve, where you’ll observe tigers in their natural habitat. You’ll hear from a naturalist about how India’s national parks inspired Rudyard Kipling’s The Jungle Book and visit a local village to hear about conservation efforts. This unforgettable Indian adventure is rounded off with a sunrise visit to the iconic Taj Mahal to witness one of the world’s most magnificent sites at its most glorious.

If you share the adventurous spirit that led countless explorers, artists and scientists to embark on epic expeditions through South America, then Travelsphere’s Latin Wonders of the World is for you. A packed 18-day itinerary takes you across four countries and countless iconic sites. In Peru you’ll tour the ‘City of Kings’ Lima, as well as the one time capital of the Inca Empire, Cuzco – plus visit the breathtaking “lost city” of Machu Picchu. Take in the snow-capped Andes before heading into Bolivia, where you’ll rub shoulders with locals at bustling markets in La Paz and visit the spectacular Moon Valley, a lunar landscape of canyons and spires. From there, it’s onto Argentina’s irresistible capital, Buenos Aires where you might choose to visit a gauche ranch or take in a tango show, before heading to the awe-inspiring Iguaçu Falls, one of the world’s largest natural wonders, which you’ll witness from both the Argentinian and Brazilian sides. Last but not least, you’ll head to Rio de Janeiro, a city bursting with energy and excitement, for a stay right on the famous Copacabana Beach.

For more information or to book visit travelsphere.co.uk

Storm Benjamin: Flood alerts and travel chaos as 70mph winds batter UK

Storm Benjamin has unleashed flooding across parts England and sparked travel disruption as heavy rain and powerful winds hit the UK.

More than 30 flood alerts are in place across England, stretching along the coastal areas from Hornsea to the Norfolk coast, Kent, Surrey and Sussex, Sandgate to Dungeness and to Farlight, the Hastings area, Climping seafront, south and north Cornwall as well as Somerset coast.

Storm-related travel delays have been reported by ferry company DFDS, who said: “All services are currently operating with delays due to strong winds in the Channel.”

They advised passengers to check-in as normal and will transfer passengers onto “the first available sailing on arrival”.

Storm Benjamin is expected to develop in the late morning and into the afternoon across the southeast of England, with gales over 70mph possible, the Met Office said.

The forecaster warned that large waves and debris thrashing onto sea fronts, coastal roads, and properties in the blustery conditions could lead to injuries and a “danger to life”.

“There is a small chance of gusts of 40 to 45mph across parts of Kent and Sussex arriving in the early hours of the morning and up to 55mph in coastal areas here too. Conditions are likely to improve here however, at least for a time, during Thursday morning.” the Met Office said.

“As Storm Benjamin then moves across the southeast of England, stronger northeast to northwest winds are likely to develop. Gusts of 50 to 60mph are probable quite widely, with 65 to 70mph possible near coasts.

“There is a smaller chance, should Storm Benjamin be at the stronger end of expectations, that wind gusts in excess of 70mph could develop for a time very locally, this most likely late morning and into the afternoon.”

Two yellow warnings for rain cover all of southern and eastern England, parts of southern Wales, the Midlands, and stretching up towards the north west.

They will end at 6pm for all areas other than Lincolnshire, East Anglia and Yorkshire & Humber where an alert will stay in place until 9pm. Some areas could see as much as 50mm of rain on Thursday morning, especially in the South West.

A yellow warning for wind in the south east, covering much of East Anglia, Lincolnshire, and parts of eastern Yorkshire, will last until midnight, while an additional warning for wind covers parts of south-west England and western Wales from 6am to 3pm.

The Surfers Against Sewage live map reported dozens of sewage discharges across the affected areas.

Chief meteorologist Rebekah Hicks said: “It is worth noting that there is a greater than usual uncertainty surrounding the track and intensity of this low-pressure system.

“The public should stay up to date with the latest forecasts and warnings as the situation evolves, with adjustments to the forecasts likely at short notice.”

Shabana Mahmood says Home Office ‘not fit for purpose’ after secret report

Home secretary Shabana Mahmood has said the Home Office is “not yet fit for purpose” after a secret damning report on the government department emerged.

Ms Mahmood promised to radically overhaul her department’s staff, structures and culture, saying the findings, reported by The Times, were “all too familiar”.

The report identified a catalogue of failings across the Home Office, claiming it was beset by a “culture of defeatism” on immigration and “a sense that high failure rates are an unavoidable fact of life in the system”.

The “hand-offs between immigration enforcement and other parts of the immigration system are poor, as are the hand-offs with the police and criminal justice system”, the dossier said.

Written by former Home Office special adviser Nick Timothy, who is now a Tory MP, the report was kept secret by the department for more than two years before it was obtained by The Times following a legal challenge.

Too much time was wasted on identity politics and social issues, Mr Timothy wrote – such as “listening circles” in working hours in which civil servants discussed their feelings about social and political issues, including policies they were responsible for implementing.

The report says the Home Office’s failings exacerbated the small boats crisis and left ministers unable to implement their own policies.

The Times says the document reported how the immigration system consisted of “several confused and conflicting systems working to contradictory ends” and that as a result “the enforcement of immigration laws is poor and has grown considerably worse in recent years”.

One of Mr Timothy’s findings reportedly read: “There is a culture of defeatism among officers and a sense that high failure rates are an unavoidable fact of life in the system.”

Mr Timothy reviewed the Home Office’s effectiveness in 2023.

Ms Mahmood said the findings showed the department had not learnt lessons since her predecessor Lord John Reid branded it “not fit for purpose” almost 20 years ago.

In a statement, she said: “This report, written under the last government, is damning. To those who have encountered the Home Office in recent years, the revelations are all too familiar.

“The Home Office is not yet fit for purpose, and has been set up for failure. As this report shows, the last Conservative government knew this, but failed to do anything about it.

“Things are now changing. I will work with the new permanent secretary to transform the Home Office so that it delivers for this country.”

The Independent has approached the Home Office for comment. In a statement to The Times, it highlighted that the report was conducted under a previous government.

It continued: “The home secretary and permanent secretary are making significant changes to the Home Office to deliver for the UK public to secure our borders, make our streets safer and protect our national security.”