England tear woeful Wales apart to show how far they have fallen

England’s winning run rolls on to 12 consecutive matches in some style, but even the most ardent among the Twickenham faithful may have found this a somewhat uncomfortable watch. This was a contest in name only, as one-sided a game as any Six Nations fixture in recent memory, and more than a little dispiriting, too. Welsh visits to this grand old ground are usually forged on the ferocity of rivalry and genuine enmity – there was none of that here, helpless prey gobbled up by a side increasingly proving themselves as voracious predators towards the top of the Test food chain.

If this had been showing on the Discovery channel rather than ITV, viewers might have looked away. In last year’s edition in Cardiff, England had produced one of their most complete showings to take a beleaguered, battered Wales to pieces, but they did not have to find that sort of fluency or form here. The visitors were ill-disciplined, ill-matched and ill-prepared, and got what they deserved. Two years ago, even on their way to a wooden spoon, Wales had come to Twickenham and put up an almighty fight, scrapping for everything on a wretched day and almost emerging still standing. Though there was something of a second-half rally, this was leagues below that level. How the not-so-mighty have fallen.

Amid it all, credit to England, ruthless in the first half particularly. Their margin of victory did not swell to quite that which they achieved in 2025 but that felt a final flourish on a coming-of-age campaign, rather than the first step towards the grander goals they harbour in this championship. Sterner opposition are to come – not least a hurting Scotland in the Calcutta Cup at Murrayfield next Saturday – and a sag in the second half will have to be avoided, but Steve Borthwick could be pleased with a job comprehensively done, led by Henry Arundell’s hat-trick.

One would have thought that Steve Tandy’s instruction to his relatively callow team might have been to work their way steadily into the contest and not give England easy access in the first 10 minutes. If that was the message, it was not one heeded in an opening passage pockmarked by Welsh errors. First Louis Rees-Zammit was charged down by Sam Underhill, with a subsequent offside penalty allowing George Ford to slot the opening three points, before successive obstruction infringements by Dafydd Jenkins (at an attacking maul) and Archie Griffin, on an English kick chaser, allowed the hosts to flip the field from their own five-metre. Arundell was soon scooting into the left corner onto Ford’s flat pass.

By the 17th minute, Wales had already conceded a sufficient tally of penalties for Nicky Smith to be sent to the sin bin for persistent offences; fellow front-rower, and captain, Dewi Lake followed him moments later for hauling down a maul. A Ford cross-kick followed; Arundell again the target and scorer. A few minutes later, the wing vacated his space on the left edge, denying himself a 24-minute hat-trick, with Ben Earl providing the finishing touches instead.

Nine minutes later, though, Fraser Dingwall latched on to an errant Ben Thomas toss and handed on to Arundell to complete his hat-trick. Everything that could go wrong had for Wales – when Lake tried to take a quick tap five metres from the English line and failed to make contact, it rather summed it up.

One felt for the hooker and his men amongst it all. Lake may be Gloucester-bound at the end of the season but he was one of four Ospreys in the matchday 23 here still digesting the news of the side’s apparent impending demise. Others within the squad, both young and old, may wonder what the knock-on effects may be in a domestic structure already in turmoil. Tandy’s wide eyes betrayed the thoughts of a man realising what he had let himself in for – his Six Nations debut as a head coach had not gone as planned. At least in the November defeat to New Zealand, there was the scoring of four tries in which he could take solace.

“We’ve let ourselves down,” Lake said. “We’ve let people down. We spoke all week about what we were going to do, what we were going to produce, and we didn’t do it. We are massively disappointed in what we put on the field today.”

England, it should be said, possessed a composure that contrasted starkly. Granted plenty of penalties to punt, and taking other opportunities, Ford controlled affairs with trademark calm, while Tommy Freeman provided real punch from 13, even if his distributing game remains a work in progress. Ollie Chessum and Alex Coles ran both attacking and defensive lineouts well in the absence of regular caller Maro Itoje.

The regular captain, left on the bench after a late arrival into camp following the funeral of his mother, arrived to a huge roar on the 50-minute mark but immediately departed again, sent to the sin bin as England’s discipline slipped. Josh Adams gathered and grounded a Dan Edwards cross-kick to get Wales, welcomely if belatedly, on the board.

A tough afternoon for Thomas continued when he became the third Welshman shown yellow, and he soon had company as Taine Plumtree’s desperate tackle on Henry Pollock was deemed high. A try-saver, but penalty-try conceder. Pollock’s introduction had seen Earl reassigned into the midfield and England attacked with gambol and glee in the final minutes. Although profligacy and penalties, with Tom Curry binned for a tackle off the ball, cost them a couple more scores, Freeman crossed in the final minutes to make it seven tries. Wales, though, had long since been finished off.

Protect inclusive spaces from gender-critical legal battles, Starmer told

Sir Keir Starmer has been urged to protect inclusive spaces from gender-critical lawfare after a campaign group attempted to bring legal action to exclude trans women from Kenwood Ladies’ Pond in Hampstead Heath.

A coalition of more than 140 LGBT+ and feminist organisations has warned that “trans people in Britain are facing an existential threat, while businesses, employers and service providers are being dragged through the courts for defending their inclusive practices”.

In a letter coordinated by the Trans+ Solidarity Alliance and sent to hundreds of MPs, seen by The Independent, parliamentarians have been urged to press the prime minister and the minister for women and equalities to take action to protect trans-inclusive spaces from the risk of expensive legal action after last year’s Supreme Court judgment.

It comes after charity Sex Matters took legal action against the City of London Corporation, which operates the men’s, women’s and mixed bathing ponds in north London.

The gender-critical organisation argued that the policy of allowing trans people to use the facilities for the gender with which they identify amounts to sex discrimination.

However, last month, a judge ruled that the case could not proceed, saying the “appropriate forum” for the claim is the county court, rather than the High Court.

The judge’s decision comes after the Supreme Court ruling last year, which said that a person’s legal sex under the Equality Act is the one they were biologically assigned at birth.

But Sex Matters has said it was disappointed with the verdict and that it is considering its legal options – meaning the Kenwood Ladies’ Pond could face further action. could face further action.

Last year, Girlguiding described its move to bar trans girls as “a decision we would have preferred not to make”, while the Women’s Institute said that ending decades of inclusion was done with the “utmost regret and sadness”.

The letter, signed by 146 organisations, says: “Fighting for inclusion is hard: 86 per cent of respondents to the City of London’s recent Hampstead Heath swimming ponds consultation want to remain trans-inclusive, and yet the Corporation continues to face the prospect of expensive litigation.

“They don’t want this. But law-fare against inclusive organisations will continue, whatever the courts decide, with public money and business budgets spent defending against it – unless you act.”

It adds: “Anything else risks forcing businesses, charities and public services to police everyone’s gender – with reports suggesting that the EHRC recommends this be done based on looks, putting all women at risk of misogynist abuse. This would be dangerous and unworkable.”

The letter urges MPs to ask Sir Keir Starmer and Bridget Phillipson to “work to ensure our equalities law and guidance protects the norm of trans-inclusion” and to “commit to ensuring that all UK legislation protects the human rights of trans and gender non-conforming people”.

Jessica Fortune, co-chair of Amnesty Feminists, who signed the letter, warned that “feminism that doesn’t include trans people isn’t feminism”.

“It’s just reinforcing the gender hierarchy we’ve always fought against”, she told The Independent. “Being silent is not neutral. When gender policing intensifies against trans people, all women are harmed.”

Ms Fortune warned that anti-trans “lawfare” is a “dangerous distraction from the real threats facing women’s safety”, saying: “We must direct our anger at the right target – the groups trying to divide us and the government failing to act.”

Meanwhile, Heather Paterson, from LGBT+ Consortium, another one of the letter’s signatories, said: “Trans inclusion is the norm across the country. Our members work every day to create safer, more inclusive spaces across the UK, and we have seen before where exclusion leads.

“We will not be silent while trans lives, inclusive organisations, and the values that bind our communities together are put at risk.”

The latest intervention comes amid further delays in introducing new guidance on transgender people’s use of single-sex spaces following the Supreme Court ruling.

A code of practice, updated in the wake of last April’s decision that the term “woman” in equality legislation referred to biological sex, was shared with the government more than four months ago at the start of September.

A leaked draft of the guidance was reported in November as suggesting transgender people could be banned from single-sex spaces based on the way they look – which trans rights campaigners dubbed a “licence to discriminate based on looks, plain and simple”.

Labour MP Nadia Whittome told The Independent that “policing people’s gender is fundamentally harmful for all women, whether they are trans or not”.

Throwing her weight behind the letter, she added: “I sincerely hope that my fellow MPs will listen to them.

“We must pressure the government to uphold the rights of our trans constituents and prevent businesses and organisations from being bullied into excluding trans people via legal threats.”

Helen Joyce, director of advocacy at sex-based rights charity Sex Matters, said: “As the Supreme Court confirmed last year, equality law can only protect women from sex discrimination if sex is understood in law to mean sex, not paperwork or self-ID. Any organisation with policies that do not comply with this understanding is acting unlawfully and harming women.”

A government spokesperson said: “We expect all duty bearers to follow the Supreme Court ruling and seek legal advice where necessary.

“The EHRC has submitted a draft Code of Practice for Services, Public Functions and Associations to Ministers, and we are working at pace to review it properly. This will provide further guidance to duty bearers on how to apply the Equality Act.”

Experts warn against rise in dangerous weight-loss ‘jab hacks’

Experts have warned those on weight-loss injections against trying “jab hacks” like taking tiny doses or buying the medication from illegitimate sources.

Almost half of the 1.6 million people on weight-loss medication in the UK say they have either dabbled with dangerous techniques such as “microdosing” (32 per cent) or turned to unlicensed drugs and sellers (28 per cent) as the price of the medication rises, according to a survey by LloydsPharmacy Online Doctor.

One woman named Amy, whose name has been changed to protect her identity, explained she takes small doses of Wegovy to make the pen last longer and save money, meaning she uses each needle twice.

The 55-year-old, from West Sussex, told The Independent: “I pay £150 for a 1 milligram pen, which if you’re on the full dose lasts four weeks, and if you halve it, it lasts eight weeks. I have been eking it out so that a full pen can last me eight to 10, maybe even 12 weeks.”

She has been buying Wegovy from her beauty therapist since March 2025. But weight-loss medication can’t be bought over the counter and must be prescribed by a qualified healthcare professional, such as a GP or pharmacist, following a consultation.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has warned against sourcing weight-loss medicines from unregulated suppliers, with the maker of Wegovy calling this a “direct danger to health”.

Dr Kieran Seyan, chief medical officer at LloydsPharmacy Online Doctor, told The Independent: “I am increasingly worried by reports that some individuals may be accessing prescription-only weight-loss medication through unregulated sources like beauty therapists or salons.

“Medication from a source that is not appropriately regulated increases the risk of incorrect dosing, expired or improperly stored medication, and in some cases, counterfeit products.”

Amy said she trusts her beauty therapist and believes she would struggle to access weight-loss drugs on the NHS.

“From the age of 10 I was taken by my mother to Weight Watchers, and eventually, 15 years ago, I had gastric bypass surgery privately that didn’t work,” she said.

“I started Wegovy in March through my beauty therapist who does aesthetics and Botox. She goes to a doctor to get it prescribed, and then I collect it from her.”

Amy explained she did have a phone consultation and had to have a BMI over 30 to access the weight-loss drug, which she was, but she admitted the process should be “stricter”.

Weight-loss injections, such as Mounjaro and Wegovy, also known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, work by mimicking the natural hormone which regulates blood sugar, appetite and digestion.

They are a prescribed drug and to access them on the NHS a patient needs to have a BMI of 40 or more, but private providers offer them to those with a BMI over 30.

Amy started on a low dose of 0.5mg and gradually increased to 1mg. After losing two-and-a-half stone and reaching a BMI of 25, she was told to reduce her dosage to half the amount with the intent to stop.

“I haven’t actually stopped, I kept going and I’m almost scared to come off it. I feel that I probably might be on it for good,” she added. “I’ve got to have a pen in the fridge all the time and I just think it’s something that I’ll be on for the foreseeable future.”

The hack, known as “microdosing”, involves taking smaller doses than the weight-loss jab is designed for.

Dr Seyan warned that using smaller doses to make the medication last “isn’t an exact science” and hasn’t been tested. He explained there is a risk of administering “unequal doses”, which can make the jab less effective.

The dose is decided by a pharmacist or doctor depending on the individual, and “chopping and changing” the dose doesn’t give the body a chance to adapt and can cause nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, tummy pain and constipation, he explained.

He also warned that the pen itself is only supposed to last four weeks, so using it past this point could mean the medication itself has expired, making it less effective.

Because Amy uses a Wegovy injection that comes with only four needles, and sometimes uses the needle twice to reach eight or more doses, she is at risk of infection.

Leyla Hanbeck, chief executive of the Independent Pharmacies Association, warned: “Patients should always use a clean and sterile needle for each injection.

“There is a significant risk for bacterial contamination as a used needle is no longer sterile and can infect the body with bacteria.

“There is also a risk of an inaccurate dose being administered if residue remained in the old needle, which will prevent the full dose of medication from being delivered. In addition, old needles can break and be damaged and can cause damage to the skin.”

An MHRA spokesperson said: “Wegovy (semaglutide) is a prescription-only medication, meaning it should only be obtained from a registered pharmacy against a prescription issued by a healthcare professional.

“Sourcing weight-loss medicines from unregulated suppliers significantly increases the risk of getting a product which is either falsified or not approved for use. Products bought in this way will not meet the MHRA’s strict  safety and quality standards and could expose patients to incorrect dosages or dangerous ingredients.”

Novo Nordisk, the maker of Wegovy, also warns against obtaining the medication from unregulated suppliers, adding it does not condone practices such as “microdosing” and medication should be taken at the recommended doses.

A spokesperson said: “At Novo Nordisk, patient safety is our top priority. Obtaining GLP-1 medicines without a prescription through non-legitimate routes poses a direct danger to health. The contents of the medicines obtained from sources other than a registered healthcare professional can be entirely different from the genuine medicine and should not be used.

“We urge patients to only obtain appropriate medicine on prescription through legitimate sources and after consultation with a healthcare professional. If a patient suspects they have administered a counterfeit product, they should seek medical advice straight away.”

Trump refuses to apologise for post depicting Obamas as apes

President Donald Trump has refused to apologize for a video shared on his Truth Social account— which was later deleted — that included a racist image depicting former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama as apes.

During a press gaggle Friday night on Air Force One, reporters asked Trump about the post. He insisted that he was the “least racist president you’ve had in a long time,” and placed the responsibility for the post on his staff.

“I looked at it. I saw it, and I just looked at the first part. It was about voter fraud,” Trump said. “I guess during the end of it, there was some kind of picture that people don’t like, I wouldn’t like it either, but I didn’t see it. I just looked at the first part, and it was really about voter fraud in the machines, how crooked it is, how disgusting it is.”

He said that after someone on his staff watched the entire video, it was taken down. The post appeared on the president’s Truth Social account for around 12 hours Friday. When a reporter asked him about calls from other Republicans to apologize for the video, Trump refused to take responsibility.

“No, I didn’t make a mistake. I mean, if I look at a lot of thousands of things, I looked at the beginning of it. It was fine,” Trump said.

South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, a Republican, said he was “praying it was fake.”

“It’s the most racist thing I’ve seen out of this White House. The President should remove it,” Scott, who is Black, said in a post on X before the video was deleted.

Senator Roger Wicker, a Republican from Mississippi, said in an X post that Trump “should take it down and apologize.”

Doug Heye, a Republican strategist, told The New York Times that the condemnation from Republicans was unusual. He said the White House “realized what a colossal screw-up this was, and they realized that because elected Republicans were directly pushing back on them for one of the rare times we’ve ever seen.”

Trump was asked if he worried that sharing the racist video — even inadvertently — was going to hurt the gains he made with minority voters in 2024. He said no and insisted he’s done more for minority voters than any other president.

“We did criminal justice reform. I did the historically Black colleges and universities. I got them funded. Nobody has been — and that’s why I got a tremendous the highest vote with male Black voters,” he said. “And I am, by the way, the least racist president you’ve had in a long time.”

Another reporter noted to Trump that he admitted to not watching the racist video in full before he sent it off to his staff to share it on Truth Social.

“You frequently criticize Joe Biden for not knowing what is going on in his name, this racist video that was posted on your social media,” the reporter said before Trump cut him off.

“I know Biden a whole hell of a lot better than you do,” Trump snapped. “You don’t know what’s going on. I know what’s going on. Joe Biden didn’t have a clue. But we know everything, and when you look at what’s happening with our economy and think of it, we’re way years ahead of schedule.”

The Obamas typically ignore Trump’s attacks.

But during a Democratic National Convention speech in 2024, Michelle Obama made a rare acknowledgement of Trump’s comments.

“For years, Donald Trump did everything in his power to try to make people fear us,” she said. “See, his limited and narrow view of the world made him feel threatened by the existence of two hard-working, highly educated, successful people who happened to be Black.”

Trump was asked directly if he condemns the racist parts of the video, to which the president replied: “Of course I do.”

When asked if he had any message for the Americans who were offended by the video, Trump said “I really have no message,” before insisting that the U.S. is the “hottest country anywhere in the world” right now.

Ending the AIDS crisis is within reach – but the UK must lead the way

For more than three decades, the United Kingdom has stood at the forefront of the global fight against HIV and AIDS. At a time when the world faced one of the deadliest public health crises in history, UK development policy, funding, and diplomacy became a backbone of the international response.

Ending AIDS globally by 2030 is in now in reach. But that cannot be put in jeopardy. Modelling from the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) and their “Fast-Track” approach highlighted that scaling up prevention and treatment could avert 28 million infections and 21 million deaths by 2030. The benefits would extend beyond health systems – into economies, families, and entire generations.

Over the last year, development funding has been cut so drastically, particularly from the US, that it has become necessary to regularly remind ourselves that the current situation is not normal, and that for decades, the UK was a leading contributor to a well-coordinated and cooperative response to one of the world’s deadliest diseases.

In the 2000s, the UK co-founded both the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria and Unitaid – two fundamental organisations in the global HIV response. Health programmes supported by the Global Fund have saved 70 million lives, while Unitaid has worked to ensure health innovations are affordable and accessible to the communities who need them most. In 2024, this resulted in lenacapavir, an HIV prevention tool, becoming available, following regulatory approvals, at a cost of $40 (£29) a year in 120 low- and middle-income countries.

By also supporting the broader HIV ecosystem that includes other critical institutions like UNAIDS and the Robert Carr Fund, the UK has demonstrated what can be achieved through global partnerships powered by communities, science, solidarity and sustained investment.

But recent cuts to development funding are jeopardising these historical efforts.

The UK’s decision to cut Official Development Assistance to 0.3 per cent of Gross National Income (GNI) means the UK’s ability to fund even impactful and effective institutions is massively constrained. While the UK prioritised the Global Fund as a development “best buy” and made a significant pledge at the replenishment summit co-hosted by the UK last year – it still involved a 15 per cent reduction from the last pledge, to £850 million.

At a time when the US has cut critical funding for HIV programmes, analysis suggesting permanent discontinuation could result in an additional 4.2 million AIDS-related deaths between 2025 and 2029, the UK’s decision risks undermining decades of investment in the HIV response and broader health security and development. It is fundamental for both the future of the HIV response, and of global health more widely, that the UK shows leadership towards a return to increased investment for global health programming.

As the UK looks to a modern approach to development based on genuine partnerships in a year where it will likely host a conference of development cooperation, the HIV architecture offers decades of experience, showing what global partnership based on the principles of collaboration, inclusivity, and equity can achieve.

We are currently awaiting the announcement of the UK’s funding to Unitaid, UNAIDS and Robert Carr Fund. Alongside the Global Fund, these organisations form the backbone of the global HIV response – supporting them is critical if we are to end AIDS as a public health threat.

And it’s not only funding. Political commitments are vital to demonstrate the UK’s prioritisation of ending AIDS and support of global health cooperation that has achieved incredible success in reducing AIDS-related deaths globally, supported communities worldwide, enhanced UK health security and delivered strong value for money.

The Covid-19 pandemic was a stark reminder that “none of us are safe until we are all safe”, encapsulating our mutual responsibility to take collective action on global health. This alone is enough of a reason for the UK to show leadership. Yet, for many people living with HIV, Covid-19 was also a poignant reminder of the hard-won resilience that comes from surviving and living with the impact of the AIDS pandemic.

Ending AIDS is a political choice. No ifs or buts. And we, in the UK must not forget our legacy. But most importantly, we cannot become complacent and risk the reversal of decades of progress. Rather, we should learn from these difficult lessons and properly fund the global HIV response to ensure we can end AIDS as a public health threat by 2030.

Dr Beccy Cooper is chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health and Security and the Labour MP for Worthing West

This article has been produced as part of The Independent’s Rethinking Global Aid project

Nordic flavours: Discover culture and cuisine on an enriching cruise

Norway’s food is more than just something to eat; it tells the story of a coastline shaped by freezing seas and centuries of being resourceful. It’s rooted in preservation, seasonality and local pride, and is a cuisine best understood not by crossing the country, but by tracing its edges, sailing from port to port.

With more than 130 years of experience along Norway’s rugged coast, Nordic cruise operator Hurtigruten knows these waters better than anyone, as well as the culture, community and cuisine you’ll find en route. On board, food is not an added extra, but an integral part of the journey itself, and as the ship sails north, so do the menus, reflecting the regions, communities and producers met along the way.

On a Hurtigruten voyage, ingredients are sourced directly from the coastline, picked up as ships travel between ports, with around 70 local farms, fisheries, bakeries, and producers in its network, and a focus on small-scale, homegrown suppliers.

Menus are chock-full of melt-in-your-mouth cod from Vesterålen, award-winning goat’s cheese from family-run Aalan Farm in Lofoten, and craft beer brewed in Bergen. Dining rooms are designed with floor-to-ceiling windows, so as fjords glide past outside, you’re eating dishes made from the very waters and landscapes you’re sailing through.

Each Hurtigruten ship has a main restaurant, a bistro-style eatery and a fine dining option, all guided by the line’s food philosophy, Norway’s Coastal Kitchen, with super seasonal menus grounded in local traditions.

On The Coastal Express, Torget is the heart of onboard dining, with mornings beginning with freshly baked bread, saxlmon and porridge, and evenings with three-course dinners with just-caught fish, Norwegian meats and plant-based dishes, best finished with traditional desserts and local berries.

For something more casual, Brygga reflects the bustle of Norway’s working wharves, serving hearty favourites such as soups, salads and the much-loved Norwegian shrimp sandwich, piled high with prawns, eggs, dill mayonnaise and lemon.

The ship’s à la carte restaurant, Kysten, offers a more refined take on Norwegian cuisine, with fresh seafood, wild herbs and carefully sourced meats, paired with thoughtfully selected wines, including Hurtigruten’s own sparkling wine, Havets Bobler.

Aged deep beneath the Norwegian Sea rather than in a cellar, Havets Bobler matures more than 30 metres below the surface, gently rocked by ocean currents in cold, dark waters. The result is a wine with fine bubbles, a subtle mineral finish, and a process rooted in the Norwegian sea.

On premium Signature Voyages such as the North Cape Line and The Svalbard Line, dining becomes an even deeper exploration of Norway’s culinary scene. These all-inclusive journeys feature three unique restaurants, each reflecting Norway’s past, present and future.

In the main restaurant, Flora, menus are inspired by Norway’s edible landscape, packed with herbs, berries, mushrooms and vegetables, and shaped by the seasons and the ports visited each day. Breakfast and lunch are served buffet-style, while evenings bring a changing à la carte menu, meaning no two dinners are ever the same.

Brasserie Árran celebrates tradition with hearty Norwegian classics such as Sámi reindeer stew, smoked reindeer with lingonberry, and pickled herring on rye. At the top end, fine-dining restaurant Røst draws inspiration from the ancient fish banks of the Lofoten Islands with tasting menus that might feature stockfish, salmon or reindeer, alongside more unexpected ingredients such as seaweed, kelp, sea urchin and Arctic pearls.

Across all venues, traditional preservation methods are at the forefront, with drying, fermenting and salting taking centre stage, honoured by chefs, sommeliers and mixologists who reinterpret age-old techniques especially for Hurtigruten voyages.

For the ultimate foodie adventure, Hurtigruten’s Culinary Voyage sails from Bergen to Tromsø over seven delicious days, mixing life on board with experiences on land, plus a chance to meet the people bringing Norway’s food scene to life. One day you might be tucking into a seaweed-themed 20-course dinner at a gourmet farm, the next enjoying tastings at the world’s northernmost distillery and brewery.

Hurtigruten’s connection to the coast goes beyond sourcing, with a sustainable approach that minimises waste. Leftover food from ships sailing The Coastal Express is composted in Stamsund in the Lofoten Islands, using a specially designed reactor. Within 24 hours, it becomes fertiliser for the nearby Myklevik farm, where herbs and vegetables are grown, some of which even return to the ships.

This quiet farm-to-fleet-to-farm cycle reflects Hurtigruten’s commitment to reducing food waste through reducing, reusing and recycling, helping care for both the coastline and the communities it serves.

Food is only part of the adventure on a Hurtigruten voyage, and alongside dining, the onboard Expedition Team brings Norwegian culture to life through lectures, talks, and foodie experiences that explore the country’s past, traditions, and way of life.

On land, excursions might include sampling local beers at Macks Ølbryggeri in Tromsø, heading out with fishermen in Kirkenes to haul up king crab from icy waters, or visiting a family-run dairy farm in Lofoten. In Lofoten, the Stockfish Museum explains how cod has been dried in the Arctic air for centuries, and in Bergen, the Hanseatic Museum shows how closely food and trade were woven into life along the historic wharf.

But head even further north, and you can meet indigenous Sámi families to learn about their long-standing tradition of reindeer herding, gaining a deeper insight into the incredible Sámi way of life.

A voyage of discovery

With a Hurtigruten cruise you can experience Norway in its most authentic way, gliding slowly along the coast, and immersing yourself in each fascinating destination – travelling the way it’s always been done. For more travel information and inspiration and to plan your trip, visit Hurtigruten. Save up to 30 per cent on a Hurtigruten cruise for departures until March 2027, when you book by 28th February.

Reform blames printers as it faces probe into by-election leaflet

A letter from “a local pensioner” distributed for Reform UK in the Gorton and Denton by-election appearing to break election law has been referred to the Electoral Commission and police.

The letter from “concerned neighbour” Patricia Clegg explains why she is no longer voting for Labour and has switched her vote to Nigel Farage’s party.

But opponents have pointed out that the leaflet potentially breaks electoral law because it does not have an imprint of the party to show they are distributing it.

Greater Manchester Police have now confirmed that a complaint has been sent to them and ”will be investigated”.

The Electoral Commission said the omission was a police matter, noting that failing “to include an imprint in candidate election material is an offence”.

Former Conservative agent Andrew Kennedy posted: “In 40 years as a Conservative Party agent I have run campaigns for 2,100 candidates, including 50 MPs.  In that time I have published probably 10,000 different leaflets. Not once have I allowed a leaflet to be delivered without a lawful imprint.”

The intervention is important as Reform’s candidate Matthew Goodwin tries to win a seat Labour held with more than 50 per cent of the vote in the general election with some polls putting Labour now in third place behind the Greens as well.

Turn Left Media put out a statement that it had reported Reform to the Electoral Commission.

Mrs Clegg, a Reform UK member, told The Guardian: “I was asked to support Reform; would I be willing to do a letter and put my name to it? And I said, ‘Yeah’, and I left the rest to them.”

But Reform have obtained a statement from the printer they commissioned to produce the leaflet taking responsibility.

A Hardings Print Solutions Limited spokesman said: “Reform UK did not request or authorise the removal of the imprint. The omission arose from Hardings Printers’ production process.

“The party supplied artwork which correctly included the legally required imprint, and a compliant proof was produced and approved.”

A Reform spokesman said: “The campaign commissioned a letter from a local constituent which was supplied to our print contractor with the full and correct legal imprint, fully compliant with election law.

“Print ready proofs were provided by the supplier and approved by the campaign. Those proofs clearly included the legal imprint in the correct form.”

But Labour’s campaign political lead Andrew Western MP said: “Campaigns are responsible for what they put through people’s doors. Blaming a printer doesn’t remove that responsibility or excuse the failure to meet basic legal requirements.

“Reform should concentrate on getting the basics right.”

The letter stated that Mrs Clegg “voted Labour because Keir Starmer told us things would change for the better. They haven’t.”

She added that tax rises “have cost pensioners like me an extra £160 that we cannot afford”.

Keir Starmer showed poor judgement, but talk of change is premature

There is no doubt that Sir Keir Starmer made an appalling mistake in appointing Peter Mandelson as ambassador to Washington. The prime minister already knew that Lord Mandelson had been close to Jeffrey Epstein, even after the American financier was found guilty of procuring a child for prostitution.

He did not know how deeply implicated Lord Mandelson was in the abuse of women and girls, but for the leader of a government claiming to take violence against women and girls more seriously than its predecessor, the appointment was a bad misjudgement.

Equally, Sir Keir made a great deal of his being a government of integrity, putting the sleaze of the Conservative years behind it. That claim did not survive his acceptance of free gifts, which became a public scandal in the early days of his administration. But now it has been shredded comprehensively.

Again, Sir Keir did not know that Lord Mandelson was leaking government secrets as first secretary in Gordon Brown’s government, but his “due diligence” investigation of Lord Mandelson’s business interests does not seem to have been as thorough as it should have been. No doubt we shall find out more when the documents and messages relating to his appointment are published.

The problem for the prime minister is that this misjudgement comes on top of a series of unfortunate events that have conspired to award him the title of “the most unpopular prime minister ever” – even though Patrick English of YouGov has pointed out that, on his firm’s data, Sir Keir still has some distance to go to outdo Liz Truss.

Before the latest eruption of the Mandelson scandal, the unpopularity of the Labour government had already produced a great deal of interest in Sir Keir’s leadership prospects. The twists and turns of the story of Andy Burnham’s attempt to become the candidate in the Gorton and Denton by-election added to the ferment in Westminster over the possibility that the prime minister might be challenged as leader of the Labour Party.

Some of Sir Keir’s diminishing band of supporters might blame the media for fanning the flames of pointless speculation, but that will not wash. The prime minister has made too many avoidable mistakes to expect the leadership question to fade away.

It may be that Labour MPs and indeed cabinet ministers are not helping, by giving journalists, including those at The Independent, their views on and off the record about the leadership issue. Even Gordon Brown, his predecessor, implied on Saturday that he had to prove himself “in the next few months”. But a Trappist silence from the entire labour movement would not change the reality that Sir Keir is in serious trouble.

On the other hand, much of the speculation has raced ahead of itself. For all his self-inflicted problems, Sir Keir won a handsome election victory less than two years ago, inheriting a difficult fiscal position from the Conservatives, and is entitled to ask for more time to prove that he can learn from his mistakes.

One thing that we should have learned from the recent Conservative era is that rapid turnover in prime ministers does not solve the country’s problems. Furthermore, it is not obvious that any of the candidates jockeying for the succession would do a better job than the incumbent.

We cannot change prime minister every time one makes a mistake, or even a series of mistakes, and we should not tear up the fabric of government until we are very sure that there is someone else available with the leadership qualities and policy programme needed to stitch it together again and do a better job for the people.