Who are you calling ‘piggy’? Why it is women leading the charge to bring Trump down

I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything … Grab them by the p***y. You can do anything.” It’s been 20 years since Donald Trump was recorded talking openly about the way he treats women in 2005, on the set of Days of Our Lives. Fast forward to this week – in 2025 – and what has changed? Nothing. If anything, his war on women just keeps getting worse.

“Quiet piggy” is the latest insight into the mind of the US president and what he really thinks of women (as if we were in any doubt). His attack on a female reporter on board Air Force One, when she asked him a question about the Epstein files – accompanied by a patronising finger waggle – joins a litany of sexist threats, insults and diminishing comments which go back as far as his hairline.

The real problem now, though, isn’t what he says, but that it’s so achingly dull, predictable and routine. It’s not funny or clever – if you’re going to roast us, at least be biting and smart. This sexist shtick is getting tiring – isn’t it time for old men like Trump to give it up altogether?

“That is one dumb woman,” he said of ABC’s The View co-host Sunny Hostin in 2024. The same year, he raged about Whoopi Goldberg, saying: “She was so filthy, dirty, disgusting. She was so dirty. Every word was filthy, dirty. What a loser she is.” About Nancy Pelosi, also in 2024: “She’s a bad, sick woman. She’s as crazy as a bed bug.” At the same rally, Trump talked about being advised not to clap back at Michelle Obama: “She hit me the other day,” Trump said. “I was gonna say to my people, ‘Am I allowed to hit her now?’ They said, ‘Take it easy, sir, sir.’”

The list goes on and on: when quizzed last year about businesswoman Jessica Leeds, who alleged he assaulted her during a flight to New York in the late 1970s, Trump gave this answer: “Frankly,” he said, “I know you’re going to say it’s a terrible thing to say – but it couldn’t have happened, it didn’t happen, and she would not have been the chosen one. She would not have been the chosen one.” And, on Stormy Daniels in 2023 after their alleged affair: “I never liked horseface. That wouldn’t be the one.”

Trump has used words like “nasty woman” to describe his 2016 presidential opponent, Hillary Clinton and The New York Times suggested last year that he called Kamala Harris a “bitch” in two separate private conversations (though his campaign denied it). He also said of Carly Fiorina – his only female rival for the GOP presidential nomination in 2016: “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?” Just this week, he lashed out at his former ally, Marjorie Taylor Greene, after she criticised the handling of the Epstein fiasco, saying: “I don’t know what happened to Marjorie. She’s a nice woman, but I don’t know what happened. She’s lost her way, I think.”

And when he’s not being insulting, he’s lascivious: Trump referred to his own daughter Ivanka Trump’s looks in 2006, saying: “She does have a very nice figure … if [she] weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her”. The president has been accused by at least 26 women of rape and sexual assault since the 1970s – allegations all of which he denies – and was found liable by a jury for sexually abusing the writer E Jean Carroll in a department store in the 1990s, though he dismissed her last year with the comments: “I never met her. I have never touched her. I would have no interest in meeting her in any shape or form.”

Trump doesn’t hide who he is – in my opinion an overt misogynist, a woman-hater – and he doesn’t say sorry for it, either. He does it in plain sight. His track record speaks for itself – his Supreme Court selections are mainly anti-abortion, and therefore unarguably anti-women, he’s taken credit for overturning Roe v Wade and he’s also mates with people like white supremacist Nick Fuentes, who took to X/Twitter on election night to declare an unfettered war on abortion, saying: “Your body, my choice. Forever.” “Quiet piggy” is only the icing on a very thick, very layered, very out-of-date sexist cake.

Yawn. Haven’t women suffered enough without having to listen to such sexist nonsense? Yet Trump has so far always been frustratingly impervious at the ballot box to all this. His opponents during his first presidential campaign made efforts to discredit him over his relations with women and the language he used, but they made little progress, with some of his older female supporters arguing that this was just how men at a certain time, or a certain age, behave.

Women are tired of this nonsense, now. Maga, reportedly, is getting tired too – of Trump and his silly, schoolboy insults and “weak and rudderless” leadership. It makes me want to put my finger to my lips and shhh the US president (if not every single man in politics). But listen. After all the slurs, all the insults, all the ways he has got away with the things he has said – and, allegedly, done – to women, wouldn’t it be a great twist in the tale if it is, finally, the women who bring him down?

Rapist ex-Met Police officer found guilty of sexually abusing girl

Predatory ex-police officer David Carrick has been found guilty of molesting a 12-year-old girl and raping a former partner.

Carrick, 50, held his hand over the mouth of the girl to “prevent her screaming” as he indecently assaulted her in the late 1980s, a trial at the Old Bailey heard.

More than 20 years later, the former Met Police officer repeatedly raped a woman and subjected her to “degrading and humiliating” abuse during the course of a toxic relationship.

A serial sex offender, Carrick pleaded guilty in 2022 and 2023 to 71 sexual offences, including 48 rapes, against 12 women over 17 years. Following these convictions, the girl and the woman came forward to accuse Carrick of further offences.

On Thursday, he was convicted of a further two charges of rape, one of sexual assault and coercive and controlling behaviour towards the woman between 2014 and 2019.

Carrick, wearing a suit and tie, shook his head repeatedly in the dock as the verdicts were read out.

He appeared to sigh after he heard of being found guilty of raping a former partner.

The 12-year-old girl was in year 7 at school when Carrick started abusing her over an 18-month period in the late 1980s, it is alleged.

She described Carrick as “very controlling” and “nasty”. In a pre-recorded video interview played to the court, she said she “lived in fear” after the sexual assaults began.

She said the incidents left her in shock, adding: “I didn’t understand it. I was quite naive at 12.”

During the trial, jurors had heard how the girl told her mother what was going on and that Carrick had confessed in a letter which was recovered from his medical records and signed “Dave”.

In it, Carrick wrote that the girl was “not crazy” and that it was “true” but that he had stopped about four months ago.

He wrote: “I know how (the girl) must feel. That’s why I stopped and promised I would never go near her again and I have kept that promise and I always will.”

In a police interview, the now-grown up victim described the young Carrick as “very sly” and “manipulative”.

After she told her mother about the abuse, the matter was “brushed under the carpet like it was nothing”, she said.

Giving evidence in court, she told jurors: “When I heard he was a Metropolitan Police officer, the words I have always used were: ‘God help anyone with him with a warrant card’.”

The second victim met Carrick through a dating website and was aware from the start he was a police officer.

She said he was “charming, witty, sarcastic” and acted like “everyone’s best friend”.

But during their relationship, he became controlling and raped her on multiple occasions.

She told jurors that she had been left traumatised and that Carrick had “ruined” her life and tainted her views on sex and relationships.

When interviewed in Full Sutton prison in Yorkshire, Carrick claimed that sex with the woman was consensual and accused her of being motivated by the MeToo movement.

Despite his written confession, he dismissed the historic child abuse allegations, claiming the girl was a liar.

Prosecutor Tom Little KC told jurors Carrick must have felt “invincible” as a police officer for two decades until everything came “crashing around his ears” in 2022.

He said Carrick had set himself up as “Mr Nice Guy” but his silence in the dock was “deafening”.

Following the verdicts, senior Crown prosecutor Shilpa Shah said compelling evidence from both victims and a written confession made a “very strong case”.

The evidence showed Carrick was a child abuser from an early age and that his sexual offending “escalated” in adulthood over decades.

She said: “I would describe David Carrick as a manipulative, controlling and abusive man who created a facade for the rest of the world so that no-one would realise what he was doing behind closed doors.

“He was aggressive, abusive, violent, and yet he appeared to be charming and charismatic. He didn’t count on his victims coming forward and exposing him as they have and I’d like to thank them for doing so.”

She added: “This is one of the most horrific, harrowing cases that I’ve had to deal with. Having to listen to the accounts of the victims, of the degrading and humiliating abuse that they had to suffer, was really quite difficult to do.

“It has been very shocking and that’s why I’d like to thank the victims for coming forward and having the courage to describe what they had to go through so that we were able to secure the convictions that we have today.”

Detective Superintendent Iain Moor, of Hertfordshire Constabulary, said the future could have been very different if Carrick’s confession was handed to police in 1990.

On the guilty verdicts, he said: “I’m pleased that we’ve been able to get justice for the victims.

“This was all about them and ensuring that they had a voice and that they were able to tell their story and be believed. Hopefully it will help them with their recovery.”

Mr Moor said the Carrick case and the murder of Sarah Everard by another serving Met officer Wayne Couzens had been “hugely damaging” to the force.

“Hopefully, people are starting to feel more confident to come forward and report matters to the police. I think there’s still more work to do,” the senior officer said.

Mr Moor urged any other victims of Carrick’s abuse to come forward.

Nigel Farage showed racism and antisemitism at school, claim ex-pupils

People who were at school with Reform UK leader Nigel Farage claim he displayed offensive behaviour as a boy, including giving Nazi salutes and making racial slurs.

The Clacton MP, who could potentially be the UK’s next prime minister, as his party leads in opinion polls, emphatically denies allegations in The Guardian that he used racist or antisemitic insults as a teenager.

He suggested that the paper was attempting to smear Reform.

One former contemporary at Dulwich College in south London told The Guardian he felt humiliated by the antisemitic words of a 13-year-old Mr Farage, who allegedly also urged pupils of overseas heritage to “go home”.

Peter Ettedgui, now an award-winning director and producer, told the paper: “He would sidle up to me and growl: ‘Hitler was right,’ or ‘Gas them,’ sometimes adding a long hiss to simulate the sound of the gas showers.”

He added: “I wasn’t his only target. I’d hear him calling other students ‘p***’ or ‘w**’, and urging them to ‘go home’. I tried to ignore him, but it was humiliating. It was shaming.”

Mr Ettedgui said Mr Farage could suddenly become “charming”, adding: “I’d like to know why he’s never owned up or shown the slightest contrition.”

A second pupil from a minority ethnic background claimed that, when Mr Farage was 17, he asked where the pupil was from and pointed away, saying: “That’s the way back.”

Professor Dave Edmonds, 61, another Jewish ex-pupil, told The Guardian he had a strong memory of Mr Farage using “the w-word for what we now call people of Afro-Caribbean origin and the p-word for those of south Asian origin”.

He added: “I don’t remember being on the receiving end of antisemitic remarks, though of course he made outrageous comments about the war. I don’t think Jews were his main racial preoccupation. He was generally obsessed, as he is now, with the erosion of Britishness.”

But some pupils told The Guardian only that he was bumptious, rude, provocative and enjoyed being the centre of attention, insisting they did not remember him using racist language.

There is no evidence that Mr Farage has ever been a member of far-right organisations, nor is there a suggestion that he holds the views ascribed to him as a boy.

In legal letters to The Guardian, he questioned the public interest in reporting historic allegations.

A Reform UK spokesperson said: “These allegations are entirely without foundation. The Guardian has produced no contemporaneous record or corroborating evidence to support these disputed recollections from nearly 50 years ago.

“It is no coincidence that this newspaper seeks to discredit Reform UK, a party that has led in over 150 consecutive opinion polls and whose leader bookmakers now have as the favourite to be the next prime minister.

“We fully expect these cynical attempts to smear Reform and mislead the public to intensify further as we move closer to the next election.”

Judge blasts ‘self-absorbed’ son who lost £2.6m court fight with his mum

A financier who sued his mum for £2.6m, claiming he was wrongfully “disinherited”, has been left with a £1m court bill.

Andrew Grijns carved himself a successful career in the London finance world while being “allowed” to live in his rich American parents’ £3.85m Chelsea townhouse for more than 20 years.

But following the death of his father, Leendert Grijns, in 2019, he and his mum, Janice Grijns, 80, fell out badly, with Mr Grijns accusing her “of vilifying and bullying him and turning against him”, whilst she accused him of “wanting her dead so that he could have the property”.

She went on to tell him to “get out of my house as soon as possible” and “that he could not live there hating and maligning her”, sparking a court clash between the pair, with each claiming rights to the house and branding the other a “trespasser”.

Mr Grijns sued his mum and even launched a bid to get her committed to prison, claiming that he had been “promised” he would be handed two thirds of the value of the four-storey house in Bury Walk, Chelsea – around £2.6m – and arguing that he had lived there to his own detriment for decades rather than moving on and buying his own property.

He claimed he had “shaped his life around … promises made to him by his parents as to the future of the property” and done so “despite the fact that the decor and arrangements of the property were old-fashioned and not, it would seem, to his taste … and despite the fact, as he says, that he would have preferred to buy a place of his own,” a court heard.

But a judge at the High Court has now thrown out his claim to his mum’s millions, dismissing his argument that he was “disadvantaged” by living in his parents’ property for most of his adult life.

Master Timothy Bowles said: “The reality … is that Andrew has had the opportunity to live in a substantial property in a desirable part of London at very modest cost for the best part of a quarter of a century.

“Andrew … is a person who is entirely self-absorbed and whose paramount concern is entirely for himself.

“Andrew has, with some regularity, insulted and, to use the vernacular, ‘bad-mouthed’ his mother. He has accused her of vilifying and bullying him and of being evil, destructive and wicked. He has accused her … of senility and dementia.

“The true and stark position … was that Andrew chose to remain and make his life at the property, not because of any assurances made – there were none – but because it suited him.”

After dismissing his £2.6m claim, he went on to order Mr Grijns to leave the house, adding that he now faces a massive court bill for the row, likely to be more than £1m, with estimated costs on his mum’s side alone reaching around £750,000.

He will also have to pay his own legal costs, plus £85,000 a year to mark the time he stayed in the house after he was told to leave in August 2023, as well as account for rent he received for letting part of it out.

London’s High Court heard that Mr Grijns parents, realtor turned academic Janice and banker Leendert, bought the four-bedroomed, Georgian terraced house, with a separate basement granny flat, in 1994, with Mr Grijns moving in by 1999.

“Mr Grijns’ banking career led him to spend a considerable time in London, and that was the context, or a part of it, for the purchase of the property,” said the judge.

“The property was purchased in 1994, in part to provide a base for Mr Grijns when working in London and in part as a holiday home, from which they, perhaps specifically Janice, could enjoy London’s theatres, opera and restaurants, and from which Janice could explore and purchase antiques.”

Andrew and his parents had previously had a close and loving relationship, but after his dad died in 2019 and Mr Grijns went through a divorce, before becoming locked in a legal dispute with a former friend, things became strained between him and his mum, by then the sole owner of the Chelsea property.

He had previously requested that he receive a larger share of the London property than his three brothers due to problems he thought might arise with US tax officials if he inherited American assets on his mother’s death.

To that end, in 2015 she had written an email explaining her intention to leave him two-thirds of the value of the London house, with the remaining third to be split between his brothers, to which Mr Grijns replied, describing himself as “lucky and grateful”.

But in 2020, he and his mum fell out badly. Heated emails were exchanged in June 2020, with Mr Grijns making a “series of complaints against his mother, accusing her of vilifying and bullying him and turning against him”, said the judge.

“Janice emailed Andrew, accusing him of wanting her dead, so that he could have the property and telling him to ‘get out of my house as soon as possible’; that he could not live there hating and maligning her.”

The falling out worsened, with Mr Grijns later attempting to get his mum committed to prison over her attempts to regain possession of her house in August 2023. But the judge has now dismissed Mr Grijns’ claim.

Giving his ruling, he said: “Andrew’s primary claim had been that, by way of the application of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel, he was entitled to a substantial beneficial interest, two-thirds, in the property.”

His case is that from 2004, when he would have been in his late 20s, he has elected to shape his life around implicit, but not explicit, promises made to him by his parents as to the future of the property.”

He has, on that basis, he says, improved the property and, most materially, eschewed other opportunities to make his own life in his own home, such that his mother, having resiled from these alleged promises, he is now disadvantaged.

“He has done all this, as he sets out in his trial witness statement, despite the fact that the property was far too large for his needs, despite the fact that the decor and arrangements of the property were old-fashioned and not, it would seem, to his taste, despite the fact that the property was expensive to maintain and keep in repair and despite the fact, as he says, that he would have preferred to buy a place of his own.

“I have to say that I find this scenario wholly implausible and, candidly, utterly unrealistic. It particularly does not ring true in respect of someone like Andrew.

“Andrew, as the documentary trail clearly shows and as emerged, with great clarity, from his evidence at trial, is a person who is entirely self-absorbed and whose paramount concern is entirely for himself.

“Andrew, when cross-examined, did not find it in him to acknowledge the considerable advantages that he had been given by his parents in being allowed to make his home at the property over very many years.

“That is, I think, an indication of the extent of his self-absorption.

“The reality, though, is that Andrew has had the opportunity to live in a substantial property in a desirable part of London at very modest cost for the best part of a quarter of a century. That opportunity has also enabled Andrew, throughout most of the period under consideration in this case, to pursue his well-paid career in the finance industry.

“The true reason as to why Andrew remained at the property, made his life there and, to the extent that he did, carried out improvements to the property, has nothing to do with promises or assurances, but everything to do with his own wishes and convenience. Put shortly, it suited him to stay.

“It is easy to see why Andrew remained at the property and how he was enabled to live what, in vernacular terms, might be described as the ‘good life’.

“Andrew was prepared to ‘construct’ a case and assert assurances by his mother that were never made, in the hope, not realised, that a settlement would be achieved and the claim would not be fully investigated at a trial.

“It further seems to me that, over and above the pressure implicit in the pursuit of unfounded litigation against an elderly woman, Andrew chose to add to the pressures imposed upon his mother both by raising and pleading issues as to her capacity and then, late in the day, by issuing contempt proceedings against her.”

The judge dismissed Andrew’s claim, declared him to have been a “trespasser” in the house since 1 August 2023, and ordered that he pay his mum £85,000 per year from that date until he gets out, as well as accounting for rent he received letting part of the property since May 2023.

The spectacle of Trump dismissing a journalist’s murder in front of MBS should worry us all

Jamal Khashoggi was a Saudi journalist, Washington Post commentator, prominent analyst we all spoke to regularly and (I use this descriptor carefully) a cautious dissenter.

It is no exaggeration to say that his murder had – at the time – a profound impact on the geopolitical tectonic plates of the world.

On 2 October 2018, he went to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, and never came out again.

Even a Saudi official investigation concluded that he had been strangled, drugged, and his body dismembered and disposed of in an operation that was intended to bring him back to the kingdom by means of persuasion or if that failed, by force.

As the grisly details of bone saws emerged, the impact of his murder swept around the globe.

Particularly when, a few years later in February 2021, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence in the United States said that no rogue outfit had instigated this.

Instead, they accused Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman himself, the de facto ruler of the kingdom, of approving an operation “to capture or kill” him.

MBS, as he is known, and his government vehemently and repeatedly denied the allegations of his knowledge and involvement.

But it was too late. President Joe Biden said he wanted to make MBS and his administration a ‘pariah’ on the world stage.

On Tuesday came a very different reception from the Republican president.

On 18 November 2025, MBS is received in the White House as the guest of honour in his first visit there since Khashoggi’s murder.

Sitting by his side is US president Donald Trump, who is dressing down an ABC journalist who has dared to ask the Saudi ruler about the brutal murder of a fellow reporter that the CIA has directly linked to him.

“Fake news ABC – one of the worst in the business,” Trump says furiously, adding, “You do not have to embarrass our guest by asking a question like that.”

MBS was not only doing a “phenomenal job”, he adds, but he knew “nothing” about the killing.

Khashoggi, meanwhile, the US president concludes, was somebody “extremely controversial”.

“A lot of people did not like that gentleman [Khashoggi] that you are talking about. Whether you liked him or did not like him, things happen, but [MBS] knew nothing about it, and we can leave it at that.”

MBS, clearly uncomfortable, said it was “painful” and a “mistake” and claimed that Saudi Arabia  had “improved our system to be sure that nothing happened like that”.

For Trump, contradicting your own country’s intelligence assessment, exonerating the accused perpetrator who is also a guest head of state, and writing off a brutal murder merely as “things happen”, all while besmirching the victim’s reputation, is extraordinary.

Especially as Trump was chastising the journalist who, at a press conference, was asking a comparatively basic question.

This is deeply concerning for all of us.

What kind of message does Trump’s casual disregard for it send to autocratic rulers around the world? What kind of message does it give to press freedoms globally, to freedom in general? What kind of message does it send to the US, at a time when it is struggling with freedoms itself?

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) said in its latest report that after a century of gradual expansion of press rights in the United States, the country is experiencing its “first significant and prolonged decline in press freedom in modern history” adding that “Trump’s return to the presidency is greatly exacerbating the situation.”

It attributed this to early moves in his second term of office, including banning the Associated Press from the White House.

The Committee to Protect Journalists, another global media watchdog, rang the alarm bells in a report released in April, concluding that a flurry of executive actions has created a “chilling effect and have the potential to curtail media freedoms”.

CPJ even noted a significant increase in the number of newsrooms “seeking safety advice”.

And this is just through the lens of the media. Respected institutions like the global watchdog the Varieties of Democracy project based in Stockholm, and the think tank Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, have all sounded the alarm more generally.

In August, Carnegie released a paper comparing the democratic backsliding in the United States to countries like Hungary, India, Poland and Turkey. It highlighted the Trump team’s efforts to secure “an extreme form of presidential concentration of power within the executive branch”, which is dominant over other parts of the government.

This also signals the clear direction of US foreign policy. I do not think anyone is under any illusion that the United States’ work abroad has ever been anchored in truly being a selfless beacon of democracy and freedom.

But usually there is a veneer. And that was well and truly stripped away in Tuesday’s display of fury against the media, Trump’s contradiction of his own intelligence service conclusions, and casual dismissal, nay, acceptance of a murder of a journalist.

Martin Luther King Jr’s “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” has been quoted ad nauseam precisely because it is so prescient and true.

And that is the warning that comes to mind now.

“We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny,” he concluded in that letter from Birmingham jail. “Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.”

From cuisine and culture to history and nature, find the ideal cruise

If you want to see the world from a fresh perspective, then taking to the water is a great way to do it. Not only can travelling by ship  take you to far flung corners of the globe, it can also show you a different side of your favourite destinations and provide some unique experiences, from spotting rare wildlife and glancing remote landscapes to seeing iconic sights from a whole new viewpoint. From epic adventures exploring Antarctica or uninhabited archipelagos in the South Pacific, to itineraries taking the cultural capitals of Europe or sampling the cuisine of South East Asia, there’s a trip for everyone, whatever your passion or wherever you’d like to go.

Combining a cruise with carefully curated time on land gives you the best of both worlds. Audley cruise offerings are tailor made, with the land and water elements of your trip meticulously planned to create a bespoke itinerary that’s as relaxing or as adventure packed as you wish. Audley’s cruise experts will listen to what your dream trip looks like and help you pick the best route, ship and experiences to bring it to life. They work with a range of cruise partners, hand picking vessels for their facilities, service, onboard activities and the experiences they offer in port, so you’ll enjoy the journey just as much as the destination.

Each Audley trip is tailor-made to the traveller – but if you need some inspiration, here’s a taste of the adventures you can experience.

A cruise can offer immersive cultural experiences, from learning about a country’s centuries old traditions to touring cities with world-class galleries and museums. One of the benefits of a cruise is that you can explore multiple stops, giving you plenty of time to take in each destination and tailor the trip to your specific interests.

“For example, a 24 day cruise around Japan visits 10 different ports,” says Audley cruise specialist Caroline. “In the city of Sakaiminato, you can explore the artistry of Japan with a guided visit that takes in both the Adachi Museum of Art and the Yushien Garden. The museum provides a deep dive into Japan’s contemporary art before you head to a nearby island to explore the exuberant peony beds at Yushien. The garden is most spectacular in the spring, but carefully timed plantings mean you’ll always see many of the 250 types of peonies in gloriously full bloom.”

Or how about exploring the art cities of Italy in the largest five-masted, full-rigged sailing ship in the world – a romantic call-back to the golden age of sailing? You’ll enjoy personal tours of the Colosseum and Sistine Chapel in Rome, explore Florence’s Renaissance heritage and discover hidden haunts in Venice.

Audley can make sure your time at sea is just as enriching, with ships that include a variety of experiences and activities to choose from – from expert talks and lectures on subjects like art history, archaeology and local wildlife to art classes like watercolour painting to glassblowing.

With cruises covering all seven continents, and many featuring unique culinary experiences, there’s plenty of trips to tickle the tastebuds of foodies. Wine lovers will enjoy a river cruise of Portugal’s Douro region that takes in port houses in the vibrant city of Porto and stops at vineyards along the picturesque Douro Valley. You’ll enjoy a traditional home cooked meal at a quinta (country house), visit Mateus Palace and Gardens — home of the famous rosé wine – and finish the trip in Madrid, sampling the local tapas.

On a Bali to Bangkok trip you can check out the Indonesian street-food scene, trying delicacies such as Java’s rawon (a black beef soup) and Bangkok’s drunken noodles. In Singapore, watch locals haggle for seafood and spices in the markets and try a Singapore Sling in the very place they were invented: Raffles’ Long Bar.

Wherever you’re heading, the options are just as tasty on board the ship. “The larger and medium-sized cruises we’ve chosen to work with always offer a variety of dining options,” explains  Audley cruise specialist Franki. “With usually at least one buffet-style restaurant, and also usually at least a couple of specialty restaurants, such as trattorias or steakhouses. Audley hand-picks the best vessels with some also offering cooking demonstrations and wine tasting.

From experiencing the world’s wildest and most remote landscapes to spotting rare species, travelling by water offers one-of-a-kind adventures for nature lovers. “No other type of voyage gets you as close to unpeopled landscapes or feeds your curiosity about the world’s wildlife and habitats as expedition cruises,” says Audley cruise specialist Caroline, “Wherever you are, expedition leaders will help root you in your destination, pointing out intriguing features and what to look for.”

There’s also plenty of expert knowledge you can tap into onboard, as Audley cruise specialist Jon explains. “Many of our polar expedition cruises are accompanied by leading researchers who can enlighten you on the icy formations and distinctive wildlife you sail past. Some ships also feature onboard helicopters, offering you the chance to follow the flight paths of Arctic birds and get a rare glimpse of this pristine landscape from the air.”

In the Galapagos Islands, for example, Audley’s Luxury Ecuador and Galapagos tour includes a seven night expedition around the islands where you’ll come face to face with countless incredible species from iguanas, penguins and albatross to sea lions, sea turtles and sharks. The trip also includes a stay in a luxury lodge in the Ecuadorian cloudforest, surrounded by 400 types of wildlife.

A cruise is also the ideal way to discover the landscapes of Alaska. You’ll sail down through fjords, past glaciers and waterfalls – with the option to kayak to the places your cruise ship can’t reach. You might spot otters, seals, sea lions, porpoises, and even orca whales in the water or, on shore, moose, mountain goats and wolves. At the end of the cruise, there’s a stay in Great Bear Rainforest on Berry Island, a haven for bears, whales, marine mammals and birds.

With knowledgeable local experts on hand across the globe, Audley cruises allow you to delve into the history of a destination. A cruise of Croatia’s cities and coasts offers all the spectacular scenery you’d expect – but also give you the chance to walk Dubrovnik’s UNESCO-protected walled city with an expert guide, explore the medieval streets of Šibenik and visit a working 13th century monastery on the island of Visovak.

If you like your history to be ancient, try a luxury river cruise along the Nile, with an exclusive private tour of the pyramids of Giza, Saqqara and Dahshur, and visits to other significant sites including ancient tombs in the Luxor Valley of the Kings and the Temple of Horus, all with an expert local guide ensuring you get the most out of the experience.

With Audley, experiences on land are carefully planned to fit seamlessly with your cruise. “As your trip takes shape, I’ll take care of every aspect of your voyage.” says Audley cruise specialist Steph. “If I need to, I’ll call on the expertise of our most experienced destination-specific specialists to help you make the most of your time – wherever you’d like to go.”

Fellow Audley cruise specialist Jon adds: “Some trips span vast geographical routes, jumping between a myriad of countries that are often challenging to link in one trip. That involves a lot of moving parts, but your specialist will take care of all the logistics so you can focus on getting the most out of your time on land and water.”

With all the organising in hand, you’ll have plenty of time to soak everything in before you set sail again to continue your dream journey.

Audley offer bespoke land-and-sea cruises that you can tailor to your personal travel passions. To find out more and start planning your trip, visit Audley

Maga allies rage at Trump over Epstein ahead of bill signing

President Donald Trump is expected to sign the House of Representatives’ bill to force the Justice Department to release its files on the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein after it swiftly cleared the Senate Tuesday.

After the House voted 427-1 to approve the Epstein Transparency Act, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer requested unanimous consent to immediately pass it in the upper chamber, which was granted.

Survivors of Epstein’s abuses had sat in the House as lawmakers voted on the measure, some tearful. Earlier in the day, many had criticized Trump for refusing to publish the documents sooner.

The president promised Monday to sign the bill if it reached his desk. The ball is now in his court.

But Trump has even bigger problems than the prospect of further Epstein revelations emerging as his base threatens to tear itself apart over the scandal.

Podcaster Joe Rogan has warned that GOP members now “hate” Rep. Thomas Massie, whose discharge petition started the release process, Ben Shapiro has attacked Trump ally Steve Bannon for serving as a “confidant” to Epstein, and Alex Jones has urged the president to refrain from attacking Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene to avoid a “MAGA civil war.”

Labour MP hints he would give up seat for Andy Burnham to mount Starmer leadership challenge

Labour MP Clive Lewis has suggested he would be willing to give up his parliamentary seat to allow Andy Burnham to mount a leadership challenge against Sir Keir Starmer.

Mr Lewis suggested he would be willing to give up his Norwich South constituency for the Greater Manchester mayor to return to the Commons, months after Mr Burnham was touted as a possible successor to the prime minister.

Speculation that Mr Burnham, who quit the Commons in 2017, wanted to challenge the PM for the party leadership dominated Labour’s autumn conference after he dropped repeated hints he was eyeing a Westminster comeback.

Speaking to the BBC’s Politics Live on Wednesday, Mr Lewis said: “It’s a question I’ve asked myself, and I’d have to obviously consult with my wife as well and family, but do you know what? If I’m going to sit here and say country before party, party before personal ambition, then yes, I have to say yes, don’t I?”

Mr Lewis last week called for the Greater Manchester mayor’s return to Parliament as he said Sir Keir’s position was “not tenable” and that he should “put country before party” and quit as leader.

It comes after civil war erupted at the top of the Labour party last week, with suggestions of potential leadership candidates eyeing up challenges.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting was forced to deny that he was planning a coup to overthrow Sir Keir, and allies of former deputy leader Angela Rayner were also forced to deny a bid to topple the prime minister.

The bitter row prompted a defiant Sir Keir to vow that he would lead Labour into the next general election, as he criticised the speculation over his future as time-wasting.

And he went further at this week’s Cabinet meeting on Tuesday, as he warned his ministers against talking “about ourselves”.

Sir Keir told ministers that “distractions” in recent weeks meant the government’s focus had “shifted from where it mattered most”, and called for unity within the party.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that MPs on the left of the party are pushing on with preparations for a potential leadership race.

According to The Times, senior MPs in the Tribune Group are yet to unite around a single candidate, but it is believed that they would be able to get the backing of 80 MPs needed for any contest to take place.

It follows a survey from YouGov suggested that 23 per cent of Labour voters think he should quit the top job now, while a further 22 per cent think he should stand down before the next election, due to be held in 2029 at the latest. Only 34 per cent think he should still be leading Labour by then.