The Israel Defense Forces confirmed shortly after 2am local time that they had launched ground operations in Lebanon, the first major incursion into the country since 2006.

It followed days of devastating air strikes focusing on the Shia-dominated south of Lebanon, as well as Beirut, which killed Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah’s leader, and a slew of his key lieutenants.

As Tuesday began, it emerged that Israeli special forces had conducted a number of cross-border raids over the weekend, preparing the way for a “limited, localised and targeted ground offensive”.

By breakfast time, the IDF said it was involved in “intense fighting” with Hezbollah. The language was a reminder that air strikes or not, the Shia group is immeasurably better trained and prepared than Hamas, Israel’s enemy in Gaza.

In what could be considered an echo of the campaign in Gaza, the IDF warned Lebanese civilians not to drive south of the Litani River, which runs parallel with the border.

As their troops advanced, Israeli jets and artillery pounded the area.

From the far south of the region, the Yemen-based Houthi rebels began to target Tel Aviv and Eilat with drones.

Meanwhile, Hezbollah tried to strike back by firing Fadi-4 missiles at the Glilot Base headquarters of the Mossad intelligence agency, north of Tel Aviv. They missed but succeeded in injuring two people, including a bus driver who was hit in the head with shrapnel.

Four further reserve brigades were mobilised for Israel’s northern operation, the army announced.

By early afternoon, footage emerged showing Israeli commandos entering Hezbollah’s feared network of tunnels at some point in the past year, reinforcing the analysis that Operation Northern Arrows had been under intense preparation for many months.

No sooner had Israeli society begun to process the news, than the warnings began of a potential retaliation from its arch-foe Iran.

Washington warned that Tehran was preparing to “imminently” launch a ballistic missile attack on Israel. A White House official warned of “severe consequences” if it did.

Iran launched a barrage of rockets and drones in April, but in a manner judged to have made it easy for Israel and its allies to shoot most of them down, thus stopping short of a full-on war.

Potentially, this was different. Was the regional conflagration that has been warned of for so much of the last year about to ignite?

Citing “great challenges” ahead, Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, spoke directly to the nation, asking his people “to strictly obey the directives of the Home Front Command. It saves lives”. Secondly, he asked them “to stand together”.

In the north, the IDF carried on much as before, adding a “precise strike” in Beirut to its barrage in the hills.

But by then all eyes were on Iran. Joe Biden said the US was prepared to help Israel defend itself.

Air raid sirens began to sound throughout Israel. For the benefit of any Israeli civilians thinking twice about heading to a shelter, Rear-Adm Daniel Hagari, the IDF spokesman, warned the population that the country’s formidable Iron Dome and other air defences were “not hermetic”.

By 8pm Israel time, Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps announced it had fired ballistic missiles. Explosions were heard in Jerusalem. Footage began to be uploaded showing tens of missiles at a time streaking across the sky.

It soon became plain that the barrage was massive, reportedly involving nearly 200 missiles. 

Footage shot from a rooftop in Tel Aviv showed a rocket or its fragments hitting the north of the city.

Footage also emerged of civilians in Gaza, who have been under bombardment for the best part of a year, celebrating as missiles flew overhead.

In the West Bank, a Palestinian man was killed by missile shrapnel near Jericho, according to local media.

At the same time, grisly footage emerged of a gruesome terror attack in Tel Aviv, with six killed as two gunmen opened fire on civilians at a railway station.

In Washington, Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, said the missile attack was “defeated and ineffective”.

“This was first and foremost the result of the professionalism of the IDF, but in no small part because of the skilled work of the US military and meticulous joint planning in anticipation of the attack.”

Israel, as has become customary, vowed revenge, but on its terms. “This attack will have consequences. We have plans, and we operate at the place and time we decide,” said Adm Hagari.

The US vowed that there will be “severe consequences” for Iran after it launched a ballistic missile attack on Israel in a “significant escalation” of the conflict in the Middle East.

Around 200 missiles rained down on Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, according to a senior Israeli official, who said: “Iran has declared war directly on the State of Israel.”

Footage showed missiles and explosions lighting up the night sky, arriving thicker and faster than in a previous Iranian strike on Israel in April.

Jake Sullivan, the White House national security adviser, said: “We have made clear that there will be consequences, severe consequences, for this attack, and we will work with Israel to make that the case.”

It left the Middle East on Tuesday facing the prospect of a direct war between Israel and Iran, something both countries have been at pains to avoid despite simmering tensions for years. Calls for Israel to target Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons programme were also growing among hardliners, while Western leaders urged all sides to pull back from the brink .

Late on Tuesday night, some hours after the Iranian attack, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said Tehran would “pay”.

“They will understand,” he said. “We will stand by the rule we established: whoever attacks us – we will attack him.”

The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) warned after that it would launch a “crushing” response if Israel retaliated. Iran’s armed forces also suggested it would attack any country that supported Israel striking back.

“In the event of direct intervention by countries supporting the regime [Israel]… their centres and interests in the region will also face a powerful attack by the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” the state news agency reported.

Joe Biden, the US  president, said the attack on Israel appeared to be “ineffective” and “defeated”. Kamala Harris, his vice-president and the Democratic nominee, promised “unwavering” support to Israel.

“I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself against Iran and Iran-backed terrorist militias,” Ms Harris said.

Sir Keir Starmer spoke to Mr Netanyahu as well as the King of Jordan to condemn the Iranian attacks and call for de-escalation across the region.

John Healey, the Defence Secretary, said on Tuesday British forces had “played their part in attempts to avoid further escalation in the Middle East.” 

Iran said the attack used hypersonic missiles for the first time and was in revenge for the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Iranian-backed Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah.

A gas platform was reportedly hit in Ashkelon as air raid sirens went off across Israel. Most of the missiles appeared to have been intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome defence system and the Israeli Defense Forces said no casualties had been reported.

In the Jaffa area of Tel Aviv, eight people were killed in a terrorist shooting that was launched simultaneously with the missile strike.

Rear-Adml Daniel Hagari, a spokesman for the IDF, said: “We will defend the citizens of the State of Israel. This attack will have consequences. We have plans, and we will operate at the place and time we decide.”

The IRGC said the missile attack came after a “period of restraint” following an “attack on the sovereignty” of Iran, a reference to the killing of Ismail Haniyeh, the Hamas leader, in Tehran in July. “If the Zionist regime responds to Iran’s operations, it will face crushing attacks,” an IRGC spokesman said.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, said in a statement: “With God’s help, the blows of the uprising front will become stronger and more painful on the worn and rotting body of the Zionist regime.”

Khamenei remains in a secure location, a senior Iranian official said, where he has been since the assassination of Nasrallah last week.

Masoud Pezeshkian, the Iranian president, said: “Netanyahu should understand that Iran is not warlike, but it will stand firmly against any threat.

“This is only a glimpse of our capabilities. Do not engage in conflict with Iran.”

But the White House made clear that Iran must pay a price for its latest act of aggression.

Mr Sullivan said: “Based on what we know at this point, this attack appears to have been defeated and ineffective. We are proud of the actions that we’ve taken alongside Israel to protect and defend Israel.

“Obviously, this is a significant escalation by Iran, a significant event, and it is equally significant that we were able to step up with Israel.”

He said Washington would discuss “next steps” with Israel.

The missile attack came just hours after Israel launched a ground invasion of southern Lebanon aimed at pushing back Hezbollah from the border and creating a buffer zone between the two countries.

As the world waits to see how Israel will respond to the missile attack, there was pressure from Israeli hawks to take out Iran’s nuclear enrichment sites, including the Natanz uranium enrichment facility 200 miles from Tehran where Iran is close to producing bomb-grade uranium.

Jared Moskowitz, the Democratic congressman seen as a moderate, said: “Iran has made a mistake, it has put its nuclear facilities on the board as fair game.” 

Mr Netanyahu said in a speech to the UN earlier this week that the “long arm of Israel” could reach anywhere in the Middle East.

After the April attack, Israel launched a somewhat muted response, striking Isfahan, a city surrounded by nuclear facilities.

According to The Wall Street Journal, Israel warned Iran before the attack it would respond to any strike on its territory with hits on Tehran’s nuclear or oil facilities.

Mr Biden directed the US armed forces to help Israel shoot down some of the missiles in the attack on Tuesday, the White House said.

Lloyd J Austin, the US defence secretary, told Yoav Gallant, the Israeli defence secretary, that America stood ready to defend Israel from further Iranian threats.

A Pentagon official said Mr Austin “made it clear that the United States is well postured to defend US personnel, allies and partners in the face of threats from Iran and Iran-backed terrorist organisations”.

Footage showed Iranian missiles falling in the vicinity of Nevatim air base, which is home to Israel’s fleet of F-35 fighter jets. Dozens of flashes of orange light could be seen hitting the ground in videos widely circulated on social media in the wake of the attack. 

The Iron Dome system is set up only to intercept incoming targets that are headed towards populated areas. If the system determines that a missile is going to land in an open location, the munition is allowed to hit the ground in order to conserve expensive interceptor rockets.

Mr Sullivan said he was not aware of “any damage to aircraft or strategic military assets in Israel”.

US naval destroyers deployed in the eastern Mediterranean Sea joined Israeli attempts to head off the attack.

USS Bulkeley and the USS Cole both fired to intercept Iranian missiles, said General Pat Ryder, the Pentagon’s spokesman. The vessels were in the area as part of a bolstered presence aimed at monitoring tensions in the Middle East.

Donald Trump said Mr Biden and Ms Harris were leading the world “to the brink of World War III” because of their weak leadership.

He said the world “is on fire and spiralling out of control” and that “we have no leadership, no one running the country”.

A meeting of the emergency Cobra committee was held in Whitehall, after David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, spoke to Ali Bagheri, his Iranian counterpart, to urge restraint.

The Foreign Office is not commenting on potential British involvement in helping Israel defend itself against Iranian missiles.

Earlier on Tuesday, Britons in Lebanon were warned that the UK could not guarantee getting them out quickly if the “febrile and fragile” situation deteriorated.

It is still hoped that a UK-chartered flight will leave Beirut on Wednesday to take British citizens out of the country. Britain is also seeking to buy dozens of seats on commercial airlines to help people leave.

Mr Lammy urged British nationals in Lebanon to leave, warning that the airport in Beirut could be closed if fighting continued.

Speaking to broadcasters at the Foreign Office, Mr Lammy said: “I have warned and cautioned now for months that we have seen, in previous crises between Israel and Lebanon, the airport close, and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to get people out in speedy fashion.

“And of course, this is now turning into a very, very concerning situation on the ground.”

Six people were killed and nine wounded in a terror attack in a Tel Aviv suburb on Tuesday evening.

Two terrorists, who were identified as Muhammad Chalaf Sahar Rajab and Hassan Muhammad Hassan Tamimi from Hebron in the West Bank, went on a “killing spree”, according to police, opening fire at people waiting for the light rail in Jaffa.

They were both shot dead by security personnel and citizens using personal firearms.

“It seems the terrorist’s weapon malfunctioned during the shooting,” said Hanan Peretz, a security guard who responded to the incident.

Mr Peretz also praised the actions of his colleagues. “They identified the gunman, took cover without hesitation, and fired at him.”

Five of the wounded remained in serious condition, including a child.

Footage filmed from a balcony on a nearby building showed bodies lying on the ground at the station while gunshots could be heard in the background.

Dozens of police and counter-terrorist forces arrived at the scene to secure the area and look for other terrorists.

Medical volunteer Rom Ella said a passerby “told us that there were also injured people on nearby streets, and additional medics were there and continued to other scenes”.

“Some of the injured people we treated were unconscious,” Mr Ella said, adding that the medics operated on four streets.

Surveillance footage showed the two armed terrorists roaming the area in what appeared to be during the attack.

“I saw a terrorist shoot a girl who was on the floor and another girl, then I saw the terrorist shoot a man on a bicycle who fell to the floor, but I don’t think he was hurt. At that moment, a civilian arrived with a gun and shot the terrorist,” an eyewitness told Haaretz Daily.

“We were on the light rail when we suddenly heard gunfire from outside,” another witness told the Jerusalem Post. 

“At first, we thought it was fireworks, but then we realized it was something much worse. There were many gunshots. We dropped to the floor, and people were crying. I saw someone bleeding on the ground.”

Police initially believed the shooting attack was criminal as the area’s crime rate is high. But after hearing shouts of “Allah Akbar”, they arrived at the scene, according to the Jerusalem Post.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s national security minister, and police commissioner Kobi Shabtai arrived at the scene along with Haim Sargrof, Tel Aviv’s district commander. 

“This is a difficult incident,” Sargrof said. “At around 7pm, we received a report that two terrorists had boarded the light rail and opened fire.

“They injured four people, then exited the train and continued shooting at civilians on the street.

“A light rail security guard, two officers from the municipal Sela Unit, and police officers shot at the terrorists and neutralized both of them.

“We know their origin and are conducting further checks with the Shin Bet. They are not Israeli citizens,” he stated.

Police officers and an Israel Defence Forces counterterrorism unit later conducted searches in the area, which included a raid on a mosque that the attackers reportedly emerged from before the rampage. Several people were detained on suspicion of involvement in the attack, according to Israeli media.

Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s finance minister, said he would demand that the terrorists’ family members be deported “to Gaza tonight” at Tuesday’s cabinet meeting and that their homes be demolished. “Without the High Court of Justice and without B’Tselem,” he added.

The attack happened shortly before Iran fired some 180 ballistic missiles at Israel, setting off sirens across the whole country, including the area where the terror attack took place.

The shooting was the first Palestinian terrorist incident in Tel Aviv since August 18, when Hamas claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing that injured one 33-year-old bystander and killed the perpetrator.

Hamas warned at the time that suicide attacks would “return to the forefront” if Israel continued what it called “massacres” of Palestinians.

It was an extraordinary day, even by Israeli standards.

I woke to a call at 2.08am to say the Israel Defense Forces had launched a ground offensive in southern Lebanon.

Not since 2006 had the IDF officially set foot in its northern neighbour. Now tanks and troops were heading north to finish what Benjamin Nentanyhu started with his audacious pager attack two weeks ago: the annihilation of Hezbollah in Lebanon.

His strategy of aggressive escalation, embracing the exploding internet of things and much more, seemed to have been working.

The run of events had left Israeli Jews buoyant, with many thinking positively about their own and their country’s future for the first time since Oct 7.

Bibi was taking a “who-dares-wins approach” in the face of US and other liberal resistance, and he was carrying people with him, riding high again in the polls.

The ground invasion, it was assumed, would mark more of the same. Israel was on a roll and seemed unlikely to lose it.

The atmosphere was completely different from August, my last visit, when everyone was waiting for an Iranian missile strike that never arrived.

I headed northward with an Iranian-Jewish driver called Uri in his fast Mercedes.

The IDF was holding a briefing about previously secret operations it had been conducting in Lebanon and was promising to reveal “significant findings” at its Northern Headquarters in Kirat Sarah, just 10km from the border.

The conversation swayed from shawarma to Liverpool FC, of which Uri is a huge fan, when the Home Front Command app started flashing red on my phone.

There was an incoming missile headed our way from the north and there was about 90 seconds to impact.

The motorway was busy with cars and trucks, but we were moving fast. Pulling in on the hard shoulder and laying flat on the asphalt face down, as is advised, seemed risky in its own way. So we continued.

We were lucky, very lucky.

Three or four rockets had been fired by Hezbollah at central Israel from Lebanon, with one slamming into Route 6, which we were on.

It had passed over us hitting the highway near the town of Kafr Qassem and leaving a sizeable crater in the road

Shrapnel had ripped through a bus with 10 passengers onboard, wounding the 54-year-old driver in the head. He was hospitalised in what the Israelis describe as a “moderate condition”, which is seldom good.

Others on the bus were treated for acute stress. Another motorist, 31, was hospitalised with “light wounds”.

Hezbollah took credit for the strike, saying it had aimed its medium-range “Fadi 4” missiles at the Glilot military base near Herzliya, which houses the Mossad spy agency’s headquarters and the IDF’s signals intelligence unit 8200.

It was Mossad that everyone believes was responsible for killing and maiming more than 1,000 Hezbollah commanders with the exploding pagers and walkie talkies.

Uri’s dad called to check we were OK. More rocket alerts were flashing up across the north.

The briefing in Kirat Sarah was interesting and went smoothly enough but there was something a little off.

Soldiers on the base had been ducking for the shelters over and over again at the weekend and large parts of the forest on the hills around the base was blackened and burnt.

Here they were telling us about an operation that had been running for the last 10 months, when just a few clicks away they were said to be fighting an active land war.

We set off back to Tel Aviv when at 5.30pm a call came through from Jerusalem.

“You need to get back to Tel Aviv – fast. The US says Iran is poised to fire ballistic missiles at Israel tonight. The good news is they will take an hour to get here once launched.

Uri’s view on the Iranian missiles was simple. “I hope one hits,” he said. “Then we can finish it. Finish it for good”.

We must have pulled in at the hotel entrance just five minutes before two Palestinian men from Hebron started shooting people at point blank range with an automatic rifle.

At the time of writing, at least six people were confirmed dead and nine wounded.

As I was flicking through messages on my phone showing bodies strewn on the street outside, the hotel manager called to say the hotel itself was locking down.

Were it not for Uri’s driving, and knowledge of the local roads, we would have been in the middle of it.

They say things come in three, so perhaps the ballistic missile barrage that was launched from Iran about an hour later should not have come as a shock – but somehow it did.

We were funnelled into the re-inforced basement kitchen of the hotel as showers of rockets bore down on Israeli cities.

The sky above lit up as large trails streaked across the black before coming to an abrupt end thanks to the Iron Dome interceptors.

Our own view was blocked but watching the missiles on a near-live feed arching over Jerusalem and heading our way a sadness set in.

Better perhaps than the real fear of an active shooter nearby, and a long way from infectious elation that briefly grabbed Israel after the killing of Nasrallah.

It’s a reminder that Israel’s enemies do not need to do much to cause enormous social, psychological, human and economic damage.

A rocket a month will keep those 63,000 citizens of the north away from their homes along the Lebanon border, for example.

It’s a reminder, too, that a strategy for military dominance is not the same as a strategy for peace – something that remains desperately needed.

On Monday night, Prince Harry bounded into the WellChild Awards in London with a smile and set about making a fuss of the children who had gathered to meet him.

Picking up soft toys that had been thrown on the floor, calling the young winners “little legends” and crouching down among animal balloons, he seemed at home among the staff and beneficiaries of the charity he has supported as patron for 16 years.

He looked “very jolly”, one observer said, and a line of his speech in which he told parents of seriously ill children, “You’ve got this. And we’ve got you” earned the shouted response “we’ve got you too” from one member of the audience.

Unusually, though, the event was the seventh solo engagement the Duke of Sussex had undertaken in seven days.

The Duchess and their children did not travel to London, or to New York where the Prince gave five high profile speeches last week and appeared on Jimmy Fallon’s The Tonight Show. 

Nor was the Duchess accompanying Harry when he arrived in Lesotho on Tuesday for what became his eighth solo appearance in as many days.

Particularly given the couple’s previous joint trips to Nigeria and Colombia in recent months, the Duke’s solo appearances have raised, perhaps inevitably, the question: Where’s Meghan?

For a couple who have described themselves as “salt and pepper” because they “always move together”, and bought their Montecito house because two “connected” palm trees were reminiscent of their relationship, their professional separation is new.

While the Duchess focuses on her commercial venture, American Riviera Orchard, which is expected to launch next year alongside a Netflix series on gardening and cooking, the Duke, it seems, is going it alone.

The question of the Duchess’s whereabouts is easy to answer in technical terms: she is at home, with her two young children, while her husband travels. She is also working on plans for American Riviera Orchard, including a range of jams which have been distributed to influential friends.

Prince Harry has made it abundantly clear that his wife and children will not travel back to Britain for now. In an ITV interview earlier this year, in which he talked about the media and security, he said plainly: “It’s one of the reasons why I won’t bring my wife back to this country.” (Harry himself has been four times so far this year, known to have seen his father just once immediately following his diagnosis with cancer).

But the couple have, since they left the Royal family, tended to work together. Their new Parents’ Network, a support group for those whose children have suffered harm online, is a joint venture; their Netflix and Spotify deals were signed together; Meghan has joined the “Invictus family” arising from the Games founded by the Duke; they have cheered one another on at awards shows and famously work from a shared office at home.

They have previously had an outing to New York together – the trip which inspired the description of “quasi-royal tour” which has followed them ever since – followed by a trip to Nigeria in May 2024 and another to Colombia in August. 

In the last week, by contrast, Harry has appeared alone at New York events for the Diana Award, landmining clearance charity Halo Trust, African Parks, eco-tourism firm Travalyst and for a speech on young people’s digital wellness.

The schedule has prompted speculation among royal observers that he is hankering for his royal life. With the exception of a televised haunted house skit with Jimmy Kimmel, the US comedian, and a private hour spent in a tattoo parlour, the programme could have been plucked from any week of his former role as a working royal.

Today (Tuesday October 1), he flew straight from his solo London outing to southern Africa for events with Sentebale, the charity he founded in 2006 to help children affected by HIV in Lesotho and Botswana.  

“There has been a separation [of their work] for a while,” notes PR strategist Mark Borkowski, who has followed coverage of the Sussexes closely. “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to think there’s something going on. She has been doing the jam thing, the Martha Stewart play. He seems to be going back to basics.”

The “star power” they were expected to have together when they first left Britain, he says, “didn’t work” as hoped.

“They had to change the narrative. They need a venture that deflects from the failures. The charity aspect impresses upon everybody that he [Harry] does have value beyond the controversial stuff. It has the effect of separating them from the bad press and the failed content ideas.

“The punters still have time for Harry.”

Reports that Prince Harry is seeking a form of return to Britain have been emphatically denied by sources close to the Sussexes, who have pointed out how happy he is now with “amazing” new friends and projects on the horizon. He has “no interest” in returning to royal duties, they say.

Nevertheless, royal commentators have observed something of a return to royal-style duties after a long period of controversy.

Ingrid Seward, editor in chief of Majesty magazine and author of  royal biographies including the recent My Mother & I, says: “Prince Harry has finally realised – or been advised – that dissing his own family did him no favours.

“The golden ticket is for him to remind us why we loved him: For his Diana-like ability with children, the disabled and the disadvantaged.

“He might have finally appreciated he is far more powerful on his own without the distraction of Meghan as Diana was without Charles.”

Phil Dampier, a royal correspondent of nearly 40 years and author of Royally Suited: Harry and Meghan in their own words, describes the Prince’s recent reputation as “starting to lose ground”, “looking like a bolt-on accessory” to the Duchess “rather than the Prince that he is”.

“It’s fairly obvious that on these trips to Nigeria and Colombia, Meghan was the dominant partner and Harry looked and possibly felt a bit like a spare part,” he said.

“This looks like a definite attempt by him to strike out on his own and carve out a niche for himself that isn’t Invictus. I think we’re going to see him do more of this, him travelling and doing things on his own, restoring some kind of prestige.”

The opinion of critics is often at odds with those who meet Prince Harry and Meghan.

For WellChild chief executive Matt James, his patron creates a “magical experience for our winners”. For Tessy Ojo, Diana Award chief executive, “he is a passionate advocate for mental health”.

For Prince Seeiso, co-founder of Sentebale: “It fills me, the team, and our wider community with joy to welcome Prince Harry, or Mohale, as we affectionately refer to him by his Sesotho royal name which means ‘warrior’.”

For their office staff and former staff, recently quoted at length on record in a US tabloid magazine, they are the “best bosses I have ever had”.

And despite the recent working apart, Meghan, Archie and Lili have been ever-present in the background.

At the Diana Awards, Harry called the Duchess and their children via FaceTime ahead of his on-stage appearance to show them where he was. At the WellChild Awards, he was given three coloured crystal hearts by a little girl, and told her he would squeeze them when he is away to remind him of his “lovely wife”.

It is all a far cry from the 2015 television interview in which the Duke, who at the time was single, said: “It would be great to have someone else next to me to share the pressure.”

Joint life in the royal spotlight in Britain did not, as the world knows, work out. But with the Duchess in support behind the scenes, perhaps those old royal-style duties seem less of a strain.

In 2020, the Duke of Sussex made his last speech before boarding a plane out of Britain. It was at an event for Sentebale.

He told the audience: “What I want to make clear is we’re not walking away, and we certainly aren’t walking away from you.

“I will continue to be the same man who holds his country dear and dedicates his life to supporting the causes, charities and military communities that are so important to me.”

Since then, there has been an Oprah interview, six Netflix episodes, a memoir, countless interviews, a security row, multiple court cases, and a family estrangement.

As he arrived in Lesotho on Tuesday to promote Sentebale, there was a chance to revisit that promise.

Robert Jenrick will channel Sir Tony Blair in his conference speech by vowing to build a “new Conservative Party”, should he become Tory leader.

The phrase has been deliberately picked to echo the New Labour drive led by Sir Tony and Gordon Brown, which took the party out of the wilderness of opposition into power in 1997.

Mr Jenrick will also use his speech on Wednesday to name five policy changes he would focus on if he were to win.

These are to “reject mass migration”, focus on “cheap, reliable energy”, “get Britain building again”, a “small state that works” and a “more united country”.

The former housing and immigration minister comes into the final day of Tory conference as the leadership front-runner, with more votes from MPs than the other candidates.

He will give a no-notes speech, as Lord Cameron did to clinch the leadership in 2005, and has been rehearsing it as late as 2am in recent days, according to allies.

Mr Jenrick will say: “The truth is this. If we’re to tackle the immense challenges we face, if we’re to restore the public’s trust, we must build something new.

“A new Conservative Party. That is what I call for today. Nothing less than a new Conservative Party built on the rock of our oldest values and best traditions. If I become our leader, this is what – together – we will build.”

The nod to the New Labour project reflects a wider admiration among Tory MPs for the efficiency with which Sir Tony turned an election-losing party into one that held power for 13 years.

Tougher on immigration

Mr Jenrick’s front-runner status has been secured with a strategy that has seen him put the need to win back Reform voters with a tougher immigration position front and centre.

The Tory MP for Newark has pledged to pull the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) to help tackle illegal migration, and to have an annual cap on legal net migration of below 100,000.

Tory MPs are knocking the field down from four to two this month, but Mr Jenrick’s team are confident he has the numbers to make the cut-off. His campaign has won plaudits from Tory strategists watching from the sidelines for its early success.

But backers of some of his opponents – Kemi Badenoch, James Cleverly and Tom Tugendhat – believe his ECHR position could divide Tory MPs for years to come, given opposition from moderates. 

Mr Jenrick’s ECHR stance triggered a row at the conference when he said British special forces were “killing rather than capturing terrorists because our lawyers tell us that if they are caught the European court will set them free”.

Other rivals issued criticism. Mr Tugendhat, a former security minister, said the comments risked “making life much more dangerous for our soldiers”. Mr Cleverly said: “Our military do not murder people.”

Mr Jenrick refused to back down, saying: “The point I was making was absolutely correct.” His team believes his position is popular with the Tory membership.

There are also concerns about whether his move from being a moderate Tory who voted to remain in the EU in 2016, to a more Right-wing position, could be targeted by political opponents.

Decision to resign

Mr Jenrick, who has the most detailed policy proposals of any candidate, will make reference to his resignation from Rishi Sunak’s Cabinet last year in his speech in Birmingham.

He will say: “I loathe empty rhetoric. Big talk and little action that’s part of the reason we are where we are. You know I will take a stand. That’s what I did last year.

“It’s frankly the reason I won my constituency of Newark, against every poll and pundit, the only seat we held in the whole of Nottinghamshire, because my constituents – to whom I owe so much – knew I took a stand. For them. For the country. For the change we need.”

The resignation in question came in December 2023, when Mr Jenrick quit as immigration minister, citing frustration that Mr Sunak would not harden-up a law delivering his plan to deport migrants who arrived on small boat crossings to Rwanda.

On Tuesday, Mr Jenrick ruled out a merger with Reform, saying: “I see Reform as a symptom, not a cause. It exists in its current state because my party failed to deliver on some of the big issues like immigration.

“So the answer is not to merge with Reform or ape Reform, although I don’t denigrate it because I’m not going to denigrate the millions of people who vote for it. What I want to do is have very serious and clear answers to those big issues.”

He also suggested he would welcome Boris Johnson, Penny Mordaunt and Andy Street back into the fold, calling for the “Conservative family” to get back together.

The BBC has admitted that it failed to sufficiently challenge an Iranian guest who accused Israel of being an “ethno-supremacist” state that is committing a “holocaust” in Gaza.

Mohammad Marandi, a professor at the University of Tehran, appeared on Radio 4’s flagship show on Tuesday to comment on how Iran would respond to Israel’s “limited” ground invasion inside Lebanon.

In what Jewish organisations called a “disgraceful” move, Mishal Husain, the BBC presenter, permitted Mr Marandi to speak at length, unchallenged, as he called Israel a “genocidal regime” that believed its citizens were the “chosen people”.

A BBC spokesman said: “The Today programme covered the latest developments in Lebanon and the Middle East and interviewed a range of people including IDF spokesperson Lt Col Peter Lerner, US Diplomat Dennis Ross and Iranian academic Mohammad Marandi to get a broad perspective on the complex politics of the region.

“Mohammed Marandi was interviewed to gain an understanding of the view from Iran, and what their response is likely to be.

“This was a live interview and he was challenged during the course of the interview, and the Israeli position was reflected.

“However, we accept we should have continued to challenge his language throughout the interview.”

The BBC is facing a wave of criticism for allowing what commentators have called “offensive” anti-Semitic tropes to be broadcast on its airwaves largely interrupted.

Husain only appeared to interrupt him once to ask what he meant by Iran will do “whatever it takes” to stop Israel. Mr Marandi skirted around the question, saying: “I’m not part of the Iranian government.”

The Iranian-American academic, who is the son of the former Iranian health minister, has previously been called a “propagandist” and “mouthpiece” for the Iranian regime by HonestReporting, an organisation that works to combat prejudices in the media.

The BBC, which “must remain duly impartial” according to its own guidelines, allowed Mr Marandi to continue uninterrupted as he claimed that the “UK supports this Holocaust in Gaza, just as it supports the slaughter of the Lebanese”.

“We have no doubt that [the UK] will be with the Israelis until the very last Palestinian,” he said, adding that the only way forward was “resistance” by Iran’s proxy forces.

The professor then labelled Israel an “expansionist regime” that “believes in ethno-supremacism”, without rebuttal from Husain.

“It believes that they are a chosen people. They have exceptional rights, and therefore they have exceptional rights to the whole region. It’s not just Palestine today. It goes beyond the borders of Palestine,” he added.

The presenter waited for Mr Marandi to finish, thanked him and moved on to a new segment of the show.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews said they were “deeply concerned” with the national broadcaster for allowing his claims to be aired “without clear pushback”.

“We will be raising this directly with the BBC at the highest levels,” it added in a statement.

‘Profoundly and appallingly offensive’

Claudia Mendoza, the CEO of the Jewish Leadership Council, told The Telegraph: “Comments such as these are unacceptable and anti-Semitic, drawing upon ancient conspiracy theories about Jewish power and control.

“It is disgraceful for the BBC to air such comments, even more so given that they went unchallenged in a prime-time slot.”

Hadar Sela, the co-editor of the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis (Camera), which lobbies for a fair representation of Israel in the media, said that for six years the BBC has solicited commentary from an “apologist for the Iranian regime”.

“No less unsurprising is the fact that BBC presenter Mishal Husain made no effort whatsoever to challenge Marandi’s racist rant and redundant claims of ‘genocide’,” Ms Sela told The Telegraph.

“This is not the BBC providing various viewpoints: this is the BBC knowingly providing a platform for lies and hate speech.”

Simon Schama, a historian and BBC presenter, called the Today’s Programme “profoundly and appallingly offensive” for allowing Mr Marandi to air his “anti-Semitic abuse about ‘chosen people’, ‘holocaust’ in Lebanon etc without challenge”.

A student nurse died of sepsis after being left waiting in A&E for almost 12 hours at the hospital where she worked, an inquest has heard.

Zoe Bell, 28, had finished a weekend of long shifts before she turned up at Stoke Mandeville Hospital in Buckinghamshire complaining of breathing difficulties.

Bell, from High Wycombe, had been taking on extra shifts at hospitals across the county to help pay for the last stage of her studies, Beaconsfield Coroners Court was told.

She began to suffer with a sore throat and struggled to get words out after finishing her last 12-hour shift on Dec 18 2022.

Phillip Ayres, her boyfriend, told the inquest: “It was not uncommon for her to be run down after a weekend of long shifts.”

She continued to deteriorate and was rushed to the hospital on Dec 23 2022.

Mr Ayres described how they had arrived shortly after 10pm and said she began suffering severe chest pain about an hour and a half later.

Nurses checked Bell while she was at the hospital but said her oxygen levels were normal and tried to test for tonsillitis. “It was made to seem as though there was nothing to worry about,” Mr Ayres told the court.

The inquest heard how A&E had been particularly busy at the time as a result of a high volume of flu cases, Covid and children with Strep-B.

By 4.30am, Bell and Mr Ayres were still in the waiting area but she developed “agonising” chest, back and shoulder pain.

“Zoe coughed up a small amount of blood in a sick bowl,” Mr Ayres said. “A nurse took all the same tests again. The nurse was convinced the blood was caused by Zoe’s constant coughing.”

He added: “Because Zoe was a nurse and she understood the staff were overwhelmed, I felt I had to be polite. It was like being caught between a rock and a hard place. I did not want to upset Zoe.”

‘No hope coming’

At around 4 or 5am, Mr Ayres said he “kicked up a bit of a fuss” and ensured Bell was seen by a doctor who suspected she had laryngitis, the inquest heard.

The couple were sent back to the waiting area, where “Zoe was panicked about having coughed up blood” and started hyperventilating, Mr Ayres said.

“By this point Zoe had enough,” he said. “She had got to a point where she wanted to go home. She was exhausted. She felt like there was no help coming.”

At 10am on Christmas Eve, Bell was taken into a part of A&E where patients are checked for the ward.

She became distressed, confused and disorientated and an emergency alarm was pulled. 

But Mr Ayres said: “There was a sense of relief, she was finally being seen and treated. She was so relieved to be finally getting help, she was so thankful and grateful.”

She continued to deteriorate and Nick Bell, her father, arrived at hospital just in time to see her being rushed into ICU at 12.30pm, the hearing was told. She died the same evening from heart failure.

A post-mortem examination concluded she had died of staphylococcal septicaemia (sepsis), bronchopneumonia, an acute lung injury as a result of influenza and a viral infection.

Mr Ayres told Crispin Butler, the Buckinghamshire coroner, that Bell always understood the struggles and strains of the NHS and dreamed of improving it so everyone could get the care they needed.

“It seems that the very thing she worked so hard towards was the very thing that let her down,” he said. “Her death is a loss to the NHS for her kindness and compassion and sheer determination.”

The inquest continues.

A Christian teacher has been fired for refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns.

Peter Vlaming lost his job at West Point High School, in West Point, Virginia, after insisting that referring to a biologically female student by male pronouns went against his religious beliefs.

Now, the school board has agreed to pay out $575,000 (£433,000) in damages and legal fees after the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled last year that the school had violated Mr Vlaming’s freedom of expression rights.

Following the ruling, Mr Vlaming said that he hoped his victory “helps protect every other teachers’ and professors’ fundamental First Amendment rights”.

“I was wrongfully fired from my teaching job because my religious beliefs put me on a collision course with school administrators who mandated that teachers ascribe to only one perspective on gender identity—their preferred view,” Mr Vlaming said.

“I loved teaching French and gracefully tried to accommodate every student in my class, but I couldn’t say something that directly violated my conscience.”

Mr Vlaming had taught French at West Point High for six years when, towards the end of the 2017-18 school year, he learned that one of his students, who was biologically a female, was intending to transition to male, the supreme court was told.

In the autumn term, Mr Vlaming alleged he became aware that the child wanted to be referred to by masculine pronouns: a request that went against his Christian beliefs. His faith taught Mr Vlaming that “sex is fixed in each person and cannot be changed”.

According to the complaint, “Mr Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie”.

Out of respect for his student’s preferences, the French teacher used the child’s new preferred name but avoided using the third-person pronoun.

In October 2018, Mr Vlaming met with the student to explain his practice of not using pronouns in class and thought the meeting went well. However, in a phone call with the child’s parents later that day, he was allegedly told he “should leave his principles and beliefs out of this”.

In the following days, Mr Vlaming met with assistant principal Suzanne Aunspach to discuss his treatment of the child and was told “that he should be aware of the law”, he alleged.

Right of address

He was referred to documents prepared by the National Center for Transgender Equality asserting that transgender students have the legal “right to be addressed by the names and pronouns that they use”.

The court heard he was also told that “personal religious beliefs end at the school door” and that he “should use male pronouns or his job could be at risk”, he alleged.

After a further incident which Mr Vlaming claimed was accidental, he was suspended and issued with a final warning.

When Mr Vlaming refused to comply with a written directive ordering him to use masculine pronouns to refer to the student, the school board sacked him, the court heard.

Mr Vlaming later sued the school on the grounds that his First Amendment rights had been impinged upon, but a circuit court ruled against him.

However, the state’s supreme court ruled in December that it would reinstate the lawsuit against the school because it said Mr Vlaming’s rights had been violated.

Now, as well as the payout, the school has changed its policies to conform to the new Virginia education policies that respect fundamental free speech and parental rights.

In its ruling, the court said: “No government can lawfully coerce its citizens into pledging verbal allegiance to ideological views that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Tyson Langhofer, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said: “Peter wasn’t fired for something he said; he was fired for something he couldn’t say.

“As a teacher, Peter was passionate about the subject he taught, was well-liked by his students, and did his best to accommodate their needs and requests. But he couldn’t in good conscience speak messages that he doesn’t believe to be true, and no school board or government official can punish someone for that reason.”

Nadine Dorries has said she would be “ecstatic” if any Tory leadership candidate except Kemi Badenoch took charge of the party.

The former culture secretary claimed the idea of Mrs Badenoch succeeding Rishi Sunak as leader of the opposition was “deeply concerning”.

At her only appearance of this year’s Tory conference, Ms Dorries accused the shadow housing secretary – who resigned from Boris Johnson’s government in July 2022 – of plotting against Mr Johnson.

Praising James Cleverly, Robert Jenrick and Tom Tugendhat, Ms Dorries told a drinks reception for think tank More in Common: “All three of them put the party first before their own self-interest. All three of them are men of integrity, all three of them have proven they are grown-ups.

“All three of them tried to hold [the] government together. They didn’t undermine either prime minister. And for me, loyalty to the government you’re elected to is the most important thing.

“There are three candidates I will be ecstatically happy if any one of those candidates becomes the leader of the Conservative Party in the future, because they are not confrontational.”

Asked by The Telegraph about the prospect of Mrs Badenoch succeeding Mr Sunak, Ms Dorries said: “I’d be deeply concerned. I’d be concerned for the reasons that I just highlighted.

“I think you need to be non-confrontational. If you’re someone who plotted to remove a sitting prime minister, you should be automatically be disqualified.

“I think, frankly, the people who’ve had their hands on the levers of power need to be eradicated from the party.”

Mrs Badenoch resigned from Mr Johnson’s frontbench along with four of her fellow levelling up ministers over his handling of the Chris Pincher scandal two summers ago.

She strongly denied claims she was seeking to oust Mr Sunak earlier this year, saying those working against the then prime minister were “not my friends”. 

Ms Dorries was one of Mr Johnson’s most loyal supporters and quit the Commons last year over the privileges committee inquiry into the partygate scandal that also drove him to quit.

Commenting on the former prime minister, she said: “Boris Johnson is living a good life at the moment but the party runs through his DNA.

“I think he would like to help the party, one of his massive frustrations during the general election was that he was unable to do so.”

Since leaving Westminster, Ms Dorries has written two books detailing tales of gossip and intrigue in SW1 and the second, titled Downfall, will be published next month.

A Christian teacher has been fired for refusing to use a transgender student’s preferred pronouns.

Peter Vlaming lost his job at West Point High School, in West Point, Virginia, after insisting that referring to a biologically female student by male pronouns went against his religious beliefs.

Now, the school board has agreed to pay out $575,000 (£433,000) in damages and legal fees after the Supreme Court of Virginia ruled last year that the school had violated Mr Vlaming’s freedom of expression rights.

Following the ruling, Mr Vlaming said that he hoped his victory “helps protect every other teachers’ and professors’ fundamental First Amendment rights”.

“I was wrongfully fired from my teaching job because my religious beliefs put me on a collision course with school administrators who mandated that teachers ascribe to only one perspective on gender identity—their preferred view,” Mr Vlaming said.

“I loved teaching French and gracefully tried to accommodate every student in my class, but I couldn’t say something that directly violated my conscience.”

Mr Vlaming had taught French at West Point High for six years when, towards the end of the 2017-18 school year, he learned that one of his students, who was biologically a female, was intending to transition to male, the supreme court was told.

In the autumn term, Mr Vlaming alleged he became aware that the child wanted to be referred to by masculine pronouns: a request that went against his Christian beliefs. His faith taught Mr Vlaming that “sex is fixed in each person and cannot be changed”.

According to the complaint, “Mr Vlaming’s conscience and religious practice prohibits him from intentionally lying, and he sincerely believes that referring to a female as a male by using an objectively male pronoun is telling a lie”.

Out of respect for his student’s preferences, the French teacher used the child’s new preferred name but avoided using the third-person pronoun.

In October 2018, Mr Vlaming met with the student to explain his practice of not using pronouns in class and thought the meeting went well. However, in a phone call with the child’s parents later that day, he was allegedly told he “should leave his principles and beliefs out of this”.

In the following days, Mr Vlaming met with assistant principal Suzanne Aunspach to discuss his treatment of the child and was told “that he should be aware of the law”, he alleged.

Right of address

He was referred to documents prepared by the National Center for Transgender Equality asserting that transgender students have the legal “right to be addressed by the names and pronouns that they use”.

The court heard he was also told that “personal religious beliefs end at the school door” and that he “should use male pronouns or his job could be at risk”, he alleged.

After a further incident which Mr Vlaming claimed was accidental, he was suspended and issued with a final warning.

When Mr Vlaming refused to comply with a written directive ordering him to use masculine pronouns to refer to the student, the school board sacked him, the court heard.

Mr Vlaming later sued the school on the grounds that his First Amendment rights had been impinged upon, but a circuit court ruled against him.

However, the state’s supreme court ruled in December that it would reinstate the lawsuit against the school because it said Mr Vlaming’s rights had been violated.

Now, as well as the payout, the school has changed its policies to conform to the new Virginia education policies that respect fundamental free speech and parental rights.

In its ruling, the court said: “No government can lawfully coerce its citizens into pledging verbal allegiance to ideological views that violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.”

Tyson Langhofer, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, said: “Peter wasn’t fired for something he said; he was fired for something he couldn’t say.

“As a teacher, Peter was passionate about the subject he taught, was well-liked by his students, and did his best to accommodate their needs and requests. But he couldn’t in good conscience speak messages that he doesn’t believe to be true, and no school board or government official can punish someone for that reason.”

More than 220 alleged victims of Mohamed Fayed have come forward, according to barristers representing the Justice for Harrods Survivors.

The group, consisting of barristers Dean Armstrong KC, Bruce Drummond, Maria Mulla, and Gloria Allred, said the number of women “feeling safe to come forward” was “increasing on a daily basis”.

Fayed, the former Harrods and Fulham football club owner who died last year aged 94, is accused of multiple sexual assaults after a BBC investigation was published last month.

The claims include five accusations of rape and multiple allegations of sexual abuse.

A spokesman for Justice for Harrods Survivors said on Tuesday that it “retains 71 clients and is processing a further 220 inquiries”.

Justice for Harrods Survivors said on Tuesday it “welcomes” the news the department store had “confirmed that it would not be enforcing any rights it allegedly had over the survivors of abuse who had signed NDAs in respect of any previous settlements that had been made”.

In a statement, it added: “In this light, we hope that we are correct to assume that Harrods will, similarly, not be raising limitation as a defence, or any similar legal impediments to the bringing of claims by Survivors which might otherwise be time-barred.

“Our confidence is based upon the fact that Harrods has made its own settlement process public, as well as the very significant reality that the vast number of women now feeling safe to come forward (with Harrods directly inviting them to come forward) is increasing on a daily basis.”

In a statement given to The Telegraph, Harrods said: “There are no NDAs attached to settlements made under the current ownership and Harrods would not seek to enforce any NDAs that relate to alleged historical sexual abuse by Fayed that were entered into during the period of his, Fayed’s, ownership.”

On Thursday, the Metropolitan Police confirmed it was investigating a number of new allegations made against Fayed, in addition to prior reports.

The force said it would carry out “full reviews of all existing allegations” of incidents said to have taken place between 1979 and 2013 to ensure there are “no new lines of inquiry based on new information which has emerged”.

The Met said it was contacting lawyers representing alleged victims to “ensure they have the opportunity to speak with us and report any offences”.

A GP who dubbed the surgery manager’s family the “Clarkashians” and called her an “old knacker” has been ordered to pay compensation.

Dr George Williams, who works at Gardden Road Surgery in Wrexham, is said to have become “obsessed” with her manager, sending disparaging messages behind her back and viewing her as a “source of entertainment”.

Catherine Clark, 62, will receive compensation from the “rude and mocking” Dr Williams after winning an age harassment and victimisation claim.

In one WhatsApp message, Dr Williams, who is a woman, said she was “trying to dislodge the old knacker”, comparing Mrs Clark to an old horse that needed to be put out to pasture, an employment tribunal heard.

In another, Dr Williams prefaced a message about Mrs Clark’s daughter and partner as a “Clarkashian Update”.

The tribunal heard the comparison between Mrs Clark’s family in Wales and the reality television stars the Kardashians should be taken in a “derogatory, mocking sense”.

Mrs Clark resigned after her complaints were ignored and successfully sued for discrimination, harassment, victimisation and unfair dismissal.

Judge Rachel Harfield found Dr Williams had displayed “unsympathetic and discriminatory” views towards Mrs Clark, who was also a patient at the surgery.

Dr Williams had worked there since 2016 and was made partner in the autumn of 2020.

The tribunal heard staff at the surgery regularly made remarks about Mrs Clark’s drinking and her need for medication from the GPs to deal with anxiety and depression.

In August 2020, Mrs Clark made a complaint after it emerged a colleague had been accessing her medical records to see her prescriptions.

Dr Williams’ former partner, with whom she had broken up with acrimoniously, told the tribunal that she had been making disparaging remarks about Mrs Clark for several years, referred to the family as the “Clarkashians” and accessed her medical records.

The panel heard Mrs Clark was an “obsession” of Dr Williams, a “source of gossip amongst the staff” and had been described as “inept” by the surgery’s accountant.

The doctor’s former partner reached out to Mrs Clark in December 2021 to inform her about what Dr Williams had been saying behind her back.

Mrs Clark complained to the practice’s senior partner about the messages, describing herself as “devastated” and “torn in half”.

The practice manager went off sick and submitted a grievance which was only partially upheld by the surgery before she resigned in December.

She took the surgery to the tribunal where her claims of unfair constructive dismissal and breach of contract were upheld.

‘Humiliating environment’

Her claims of disability and age harassment and unfavourable treatment due to disability relating to Dr Williams’ comments and her sharing of the accountant’s views with a colleague were upheld.

The practice was also found to have victimised her by failing to take action against Dr Williams and for the way it handled the outcome of her grievance.

Judge Harfield said Dr Williams created a “degrading, or humiliating environment” for Mrs Clark.

She said: “[Dr Williams] knew about [Mrs Clark’s] history of mental ill health. Yet she showed no empathy or sympathy at the time.

“Instead [Dr Williams and others] fixated on [Mrs Clark and her family] and those associated with them.

“They were looked down upon, and [she] was labelled as a drug seeker, and living a “Clarkashian” lifestyle, as being incompetent and too old for her job. The claimant and her family and others associated with them became a source of entertainment and gossip.”

Mrs Clark’s compensation will be decided at a later date.

Teachers are buying soap and toiletries for primary school pupils because of an increase in “hygiene poverty”, according to school staff.

A survey of 500 school staff in the UK suggests that nearly three in 10 (28 per cent) have seen children repeatedly miss school because of hygiene poverty.

The majority of teachers said they had seen children arriving at school in dirty clothes, with unwashed hair and unbrushed teeth over the past year.

Four in five (80 per cent) school staff believe that there has been an increase in “hygiene poverty” issues in their school in the last year – and a third of these said the rise has been “significant”, according to a poll.

More than three in five (62 per cent) have seen pupils with dirty uniforms or PE kits, and 60 per cent have noted unwashed hair and unclean teeth, according to the poll carried out by Censuswide in September.

Low self-esteem

The survey of school staff, carried out for charity The Hygiene Bank and smol, a cleaning brand, suggests that pupils affected by hygiene poverty have experienced low self-esteem, bullying and isolation.

Nearly two in three (63 per cent) school staff said they expect the level of hygiene poverty will increase in their school in the upcoming year.

School staff reported that they have personally washed pupils’ uniforms and bought soap, toiletries and laundry detergent for families in need.

On average, school staff spent around £27 out of their own pocket in the past year on hygiene support for pupils, the poll found.

Smol, in collaboration with The Hygiene Bank, has launched a Clean Up Child Hygiene Poverty campaign, which is calling on the government to address the issue in its upcoming child poverty strategy.

The campaign, which has been supported by the NASUWT teaching union, is calling on members of the public to write to their local MP to bring child hygiene poverty to the attention of the taskforce.

The Hygiene Bank and smol have estimated that school staff in the UK spent around £40 million of their own money supporting pupils with hygiene poverty issues in the past year.

‘A silent crisis’

Ruth Brock, the chief executive at The Hygiene Bank, said: “It’s heartbreaking that in 2024 children across the UK are missing out on their education because their families cannot afford what they need to stay clean.

“Hygiene poverty is a silent crisis that impacts not only children’s health and wellbeing, but also their ability to participate fully in school, potentially limiting their life chances. Teachers need to be able to teach; they should not be left to fill the gap, financially and emotionally, by providing these essentials.

“The government’s child poverty taskforce must urgently address this issue ensuring that no child’s future is limited by the shame and isolation caused by hygiene poverty.”

Patrick Roach, the general secretary of the NASUWT, said: “No child should suffer the shame and embarrassment of coming to school in dirty and unwashed clothes because their family either can’t afford to wash them, or doesn’t have enough money for spare items of school uniform, which are becoming increasingly expensive for many.

“It is undeniable that teachers are having to pick up the pieces of rising levels of child poverty, caused by the worst cost-of-living crisis in half a century.”

Hilary Strong, the Suds in Schools initiative lead at smol, said: “As one member of school staff noted in our research, ‘every child has the right to be clean and feel clean’.

“The right to clean clothes has never been more important, and smol’s research shows that not only does children’s hygiene have a huge impact on their wellbeing and learning, but on those in charge of safeguarding them, too.

“Staff, charities and organisations have led on fundamental support for children and their families, but now we need more support at a governmental level, so that we can fight child hygiene poverty together.”

A Government spokesman said: “We are taking action to deliver our mission to break down barriers to opportunity and remove the stain of child poverty from our country.

“That includes legislating to bring down school uniform costs by capping the number of branded items, and as many as 750 schools will begin delivering breakfast clubs as early as next April.

“We have also launched a child poverty taskforce co-chaired by the Education Secretary and Work and Pensions Secretary to listen to front-line staff and struggling families, delivering an ambitious strategy to increase household income, bring down essential costs, and tackle the challenges felt by those living in poverty.”

Sean “Diddy” Combs is facing a further 120 sexual misconduct complaints including from an alleged victim who claims they were nine-years-old when they were abused by the hip-hop producer.

Tony Buzbee, a Houston attorney, said he expected lawsuits to be filed within the next month. Mr Buzbee described the victims as 60 males and 60 females, and said that 25 were minors at the time of the alleged misconduct.

Mr Buzbee alleged at a press conference: “The youngest victim at the time of the occurrence was nine-years-old”. A 14-year-old and 15-year-old are also among the accusers, he added. 

Combs, 54, the hip hop mogul, has been in custody at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn since pleading not guilty on Sep 17 to federal charges that he used his “power and prestige” to induce female victims into drugged-up, elaborately produced sexual performances with male sex workers in parties he called “Freak Offs.”

Following the news conference in Texas, Erica Wolff, an attorney for Combs, said the performer “cannot address every meritless allegation in what has become a reckless media circus”.

“That said, Mr Combs emphatically and categorically denies as false and defamatory any claim that he sexually abused anyone, including minors,” Ms Wolff said in a statement. 

“He looks forward to proving his innocence and vindicating himself in court if and when claims are filed and served, where the truth will be established based on evidence, not speculation.” 

Mr Buzbee has also represented women who accused NFL quarterback Deshaun Watson of sexual assault.

A lorry driver survived after his vehicle plummeted more than 60 feet from a bridge on the M6 in Cheshire.

The vehicle fell from the Thelwall Viaduct between junctions 20 and 21, landing on the embankment below.

The driver of the lorry survived the crash without life-threatening injuries.

Cheshire Police were called to reports of an incident on the M6 shortly after 6.50pm on Monday.

Fire crews used rescue equipment to lower themselves to the driver.

Cheshire Fire and Rescue Service used water to cool the lorry and bunding to contain a leak of around 1,000 litres of fuel from the vehicle.

Three lanes are expected to remain closed on the northbound carriageway well into the morning due to the damage caused to the barrier, the force said. One lane will remain open with a reduced speed limit.

Police have advised motorists to avoid the area and find alternative routes during this time.

National Highways said “specialist recovery crews” had now arrived at the scene to undertake the “complex” repair operation.

JD Vance accused the Democrats of spending billions of taxpayer dollars on Chinese solar panels during the vice-presidential television debate.

The Republican said that if Kamala Harris “really believed climate change is serious” she would have pushed for more green energy to be produced in the United States.

“When we talk about clean energy… I think that’s a slogan that often the Democrats will use here,” Mr Vance said during the clash on CBS with Democrat candidate Tim Walz.

“The real issue is that if you’re spending hundreds of millions or even billions of American taxpayer money on solar panels that are made in China, you’re, number one, going to be making the economy dirtier.

“We should be making more of those solar panels here in the United States of America.”

Mr Vance was making reference to China’s grip on the production of solar panels, including on US soil, despite Joe Biden’s $370 billion in funding to combat climate change — the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) — some of which goes towards green energy.

A recent report by the Institute for Energy Research revealed that by next year, Beijing would own enough solar panel plants in the US to control half of the country’s production capacity.

It said Chinese-backed firms were taking advantage of Beijing’s heavily subsidised supply chains for raw polysilicon — a key component — as well as unfinished solar modules to gain an advantage in the US market.

China controls 97 per cent of the world’s polysilicon, the key building block for solar panels.

The Communist state controls 80 per cent of all manufacturing stages of solar panels.

Chinese-backed firms are also able to claim subsidies from Mr Biden’s IRA with Ms Harris having made the casting vote to drive the policy through.

These businesses mostly assemble the finished product in the US, importing the solar cells needed from Asia.

Washington has blamed Beijing’s dominance on “unfair trade practices”, and Mr Biden announced tariffs on Chinese solar cells in May because they “threaten to significantly harm American workers, businesses and communities”.

The US president was reimposing tariffs that were first implemented by Donald Trump in 2017.

In recent years, Mr Biden had been attempting to bolster American production of solar panels through tax breaks.

Domestic businesses have announced 30 manufacturing investments in the past year.

But they are still being undercut by Chinese exports that are much cheaper than products produced in the US.

Israel is under mounting pressure to attack Iran’s nuclear programme in response to the Islamic republic’s massive missile attack.

Former prime minister Naftali Bennett called on his country to “act now” against Tehran’s atomic initiatives in what he described as “the biggest opportunity in the past 50 years” to change the face of the Middle East. 

“We must act now to destroy its nuclear project, destroy their major energy facilities and critically hit this terrorist regime,” Mr Bennett wrote on social media. 

“The tentacles of that octopus are severely wounded — now’s the time to aim for the head,” he added.

Israel’s former prime minister was speaking after Iran launched around 180 ballistic missiles at his country in a long-range barrage. 

The US said it would work with Israel to ensure there will be “consequences, severe consequences” for Tehran. 

Israeli officials have used diplomatic backchannels to warn Iran that it would hit back against any attack by striking its nuclear or oil facilities, with no concern for potential casualties, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing unnamed officials. 

Security experts and former officials said the prospect that any Israeli retaliation could include strikes against Iran’s nuclear programme had increased. 

Iranian officials have repeatedly claimed that Israel’s war on Hamas in Gaza, and subsequent operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon, act as incentives for Tehran to develop an atomic bomb. 

Yaakov Amidror, a retired general and former national security adviser to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the NY Times an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities “should be considered.

William Cohen, a former US defence secretary, said Israel will “conceivably” target the Islamic republic’s nuclear programme. 

Experts described Israel as being freer to launch a much more significant retaliatory strike than it did in response to a Iranian missile and drone bombardment in April. 

At the time, Israeli forces mounted a largely symbolic attack against air-defence installations in Iran. 

Danny Citrinowicz, a retired Israeli intelligence officer, suggested his country had held back because of the prospect of Iran using Hezbollah to retaliate. 

But last week Israel used air strikes to kill the Lebanon-based terrorist group’s leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in a move which US officials said left it militarily weakened. 

“Israel has much more free rein in the Iranian context than in April, as there’s essentially no more threat that Hezbollah would join,” Mr Citrinowicz said.

Mr Cohen, who served under Bill Clinton’s administration, told CNN: “I think the Israelis feel that they have got the upper hand, and Iran and its proxies are on their heels, and now is the time to really take it to the source of their problems – and that’s Iran. 

“I expect they would level a very serious attack in Iran, against a number of facilities, possibly their oil industry, but conceivably their nuclear facilities. 

“This has been a prime objective of the Israelis at some point in time to prevent Iran from ever getting a nuclear weapon. Iran seems to be getting closer to that possibility, and I think the Israelis are going to at least think seriously about whether now is the time to launch a military attack against the Iranians.” 

Israel came close to attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2011 when there was intelligence to suggest the Islamic republic was nearing the development of an atomic bomb.

However, any plans for a pre-emptive strike at the time were called off, with Iran ultimately allowed to continue on its path to a bomb. 

Tehran has said it would respond to any Israeli retaliation with further attacks, much larger in scale than the strike on Monday. 

Its Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps are “fully prepared, both in terms of defence and offensive, to repeat this attack multiple times over”, Major General Mohammad Bagheri, Iran’s top general, said in a broadcast on state television. 

A clear win for the man with the harder job

If viewers of Tuesday night’s vice presidential debate were expecting fireworks, they were sorely disappointed.

Unlike in the debate clashes earlier in this campaign, there were no car crash moments, undignified spats or vicious name-calling.

In fact, both JD Vance and Tim Walz approached the debate with remarkable restraint, referring to each other politely and graciously acknowledging when they had found a point of agreement.

“I didn’t know that your 17-year-old witnessed a shooting,” said Mr Vance, turning to his opponent during an exchange on gun crime. “I’m sorry about that. Christ have mercy.”

“I appreciate that,” Mr Walz replied. Later, he told Mr Vance: “I’ve enjoyed this debate.”

The only moment of real heat, when the moderators muted both men’s microphones, came during a debate over migrants in Springfield, Ohio.

When the same topic came up in the presidential debate last month, Trump provoked days of headlines with his claim that migrants were “eating cats and dogs”.

This time, there was an arcane disagreement about the specific legal status of Haitian migrants, and the forms they use to obtain Temporary Protected Status.

As the candidates squabbled, the host Margaret Brennan interjected: “Gentlemen, the audience can’t hear you because your mics are cut.”

Mr Vance, who has made a name for himself with bizarre pronouncements about “childless cat ladies” and his awkward manner on the campaign trail, managed to come across as warm and human. He was not, in the words of Mr Walz in an earlier rally, “weird”.

His answers on policy issues were detailed, and he spoke repeatedly about children and families in a way that was designed to appeal to the female voters who are driving Ms Harris’s poll lead.

It was Mr Walz, the man picked by Ms Harris for his folksy Midwestern charm, who came unstuck in front of the cameras.

Stuttering over his words, getting agitated and failing to pick up on some of the most obvious attack lines to use against Mr Vance, he looked out of his depth on the stage.

At one point, he mistakenly said he had become “friends with school shooters”, while apparently referring to their parents.

Perhaps the worst moment of his night came when he was challenged about his claim that he was in China at the time of the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989.

Acknowledging he can be a “knucklehead”, he admitted that he “misspoke” and that he actually travelled to Hong Kong months later.  “I will get caught up in the rhetoric,” he said.

His pre-scripted attack lines on “Project 2025” and the claim that Trump and Mr Vance would impose a nationwide pregnancy register came unstuck when his opponent gave a surprisingly moderate answer on abortion.

“We’ve got to do a better job at winning back people’s trust,” Mr Vance replied. “Donald Trump and I are committed to pursuing pro family policies.”

There is an obvious reason for the friendliness of the exchange on the debate stage.

Both candidates, in truth, were debating each other’s bosses. As Mr Vance put it at the start of the event: “A lot of Americans don’t know who either one of us are”.

On some issues, including border control, climate change, and the economy, there were interesting points of difference between the two men.

But the harshest criticism was instead reserved for Trump and Ms Harris, who were not in the room.

“A nearly 80-year-old Donald Trump talking about crowd sizes is not what we need in this moment,” said Mr Walz, in response to a question about the crisis in the Middle East.

Mr Vance hit back: “When did Iran and Hamas and their proxies attack Israel? It was during the administration of Kamala Harris.”

Tuesday’s debate is unlikely to have a major impact on the polls ahead of next month’s election.

In a presidential race, the only two people who truly matter are the two candidates for the top job, who will not face each other again before polling day.

In a debate where the prize was for each man to charm the audience on behalf of his boss, Mr Vance had a much harder job. Nonetheless, he was the clear winner.

This dud performance could make all the difference

Why was JD Vance, a hardcore MAGA convert with apparently limited electoral ability, selected as VP over Marco Rubio or Tim Scott? Tonight showed us why. Putting his Yale-honed debate skills to the test, the senator from Ohio launched a series of forensically devastating attacks on the Biden administration, and called into question the judgement of the VP’s pick for VP.

Vance’s obvious advantages were made clear in the first few minutes of the debate, with a clear response to the unfolding tensions in the Middle East after Iran’s massive rocket barrage of Israel, he presented a powerful rhetorical defense of a vital ally while craftily reminding voters that no new wars were started under Donald Trump’s premiership. It’s hard to believe this was the same man who notoriously struggles to engage one-on-one with voters, and there were no sign of his occasional awkward vocal tics and stilted delivery. This was pure Ivy-league gloss.

There would be no repeat of Kamala Harris’ bait-and-switch strategy that worked so well in drawing out her Republican rival in the presidential debate. Indeed, Walz struggled to keep up with the young senator, ignoring his direct provocations in favour of railing against Donald Trump — the man he would clearly have preferred to take on.

Walz’s failure to hold Vance to account on his unpopular positions on contentious issues like abortion left the CBS moderators to fill in the gaps. Well-prepared, Vance was able to fight back without falling into the trap of appearing petulant. He called out the selective fact-checking of the CBS moderator, before launching his own version against his opponent.

Immigration was always going to produce a powerful soundbite for the MAGA faithful, but JD Vance’s masterful linkage of the crisis at the border to the fentanyl crisis will resonate particularly with working-class swing state voters. Thumbing his nose at the loaded terminology of the CBS moderator, Vance argued that “the real family-separation policy in this country is Kamala’s open border”. Walz’s “dehumanisation” rejoinder felt like a Clinton-era moralistic finger-wagging exercise. From his panicked expression, he knew that too.

And what about Hong Kong? Walz’s face contorted into a Bidenesque confused grimace. Hadn’t he once claimed to have been in Hong Kong  during the brutal crackdown at Tiananmen Square, despite actually residing in Nebraska? Walz awkwardly tried to dodge the question, before conceding that he “misspoke”.

Looking like a distracted student called upon by a teacher to answer a tricky math question, Walz’s performance hardly improved in the second half of the debate. In one particularly brutal episode, Vance systemically rattled off the material policy wins of the Trump administration like lowered inflation and higher take-home pay. Vance empathised with the “tough job” of “whackamole” Walz would have to play to avoid giving the former president credit. Gulping, his eyes started to widen.

If presidential debates don’t matter, VP debates are so unimportant as to hardly warrant a second thought. Normally. But this is no normal election cycle. A bizarre debate performance exposed Biden’s mental infirmity, setting in motion a brutally quick defenestration of a sitting president and queen-making of his lowly regarded deputy.

The Harris campaign has since sought to sustain itself purely on good vibes and high energy, a strategy that has failed to move the all-important independent voters in a nail-biter of an election. Make no mistake, Walz’s folksy gee-shucks routine was a purposeful attempt to bring those voters on board. But like his boss, Walz has proved that a compelling media narrative does not make a leader. In a nail-biter election, this dud performance could make all the difference. The real mistaken VP pick revealed himself on Tuesday night — and he wasn’t the man from Ohio.

Kamala Harris, the US vice-president, has described the ultra-conservative instruction manual known as Project 2025 as an “assault on democracy”.

Trump has eschewed the 922-page document, which called for the appointment of vetted Trump loyalists as civil servants, enabling them to enact sweeping tax cuts and other proposals.

• What is Project 2025? 
• What is included in Project 2025?
• Does Trump support Project 2025?
• Who is behind Project 2025?

What is Project 2025?

Produced by a conservative think tank, the document sets out a potential blueprint for a Trump administration, should he win the election in November.

Democrats are hoping that it contains enough ammunition to take down Trump. 

What is included in the document?

The Heritage Foundation, the think tank behind the project, says that it paves the way for an “effective conservative administration” and can be used to prize the country from the hands of the “radical Left”.

In several key areas, the document echoes positions that Trump has set out in the past and outlines how he could implement them as president.

It proposes mass deportations of more than 11 million illegal immigrants; Trump has pledged to carry out “the largest domestic deportation operation in American history”.

It proposes giving the executive power to sack thousands of civil servants in favour of political appointees – a move Trump ordered but did not have time to usher in before leaving office.

And it proposes bringing the justice department and FBI under the president’s control. Trump has called for both to be “defunded” following his criminal indictments, and said he would weaponise them against political rivals.

Ms Harris told a rally on Tuesday that Project 2025 will cut social security, remove the price cap on insulin and abolish the department of education.

But most worryingly, Ms Harris told supporters: “If implemented this plan will be the latest attack in Donald Trump’s full-on assault on reproductive freedom.”

Abortion access would be further restricted and limits on birth control introduced, she added.

Does Trump support Project 2025?

Trump has reportedly eschewed the document, with reports saying the project was killed off following the intervention of a senior Trump campaign official, Chris LaCivita.

“President Trump’s campaign has been very clear for over a year that Project 2025 had nothing to do with the campaign, did not speak for the campaign, and should not be associated with the campaign or the president in any way,” the Trump campaign said in a statement.

“Reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and should serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence with President Trump and his campaign – it will not end well for you.”

In a bid to appear more moderate on issues such as abortion access, Trump had already sought to distance himself from the project in recent months, even though many of the groups and individuals that support it are closely linked to him.

Those behind Project 2025 have floated in and out of Trump orbit over the last eight years.

In some areas the sprawling policy document goes well beyond Trump’s publicly stated views.

As Ms Harris said, it endorses limiting access to the abortion pill mifepristone.

The official Republican platform, released this week, omitted a national abortion ban as an ambition for the first time in 40 years.

Project 2025 also calls for limits to be placed on Medicare claims, to “disincentivise permanent dependence” on the health insurance programme among over-65s.

Trump was forced to furiously backpedal earlier this year when he appeared to be considering cuts to Medicare. The newly released Republican platform vowed to maintain current levels of spending – softening another longstanding position.

Who is behind Project 2025?

Kevin Roberts, the foundation’s president, had said he believed the document would help transform US politics.

“We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless – if the Left allows it to be,” he said.

In total, 31 authors and editors of Project 2025 were Trump administration officials, according to the Biden campaign.

The director is Paul Dans, who served in the Office of Personnel Management during Trump’s term in the White House. The document was co-edited by Steven Groves, who spent three years in the administration, while Spencer Chretien, the former special assistant to the president, is the project’s associate director.

One chapter was written by Russ Vought, Trump’s director of the office of management and budget. Earlier this year, Trump named Mr Vought as policy director to craft the Republican party platform ahead of its national convention.

Ed Martin, the platform’s deputy policy director, leads a conservative pressure group listed on the Project 2025 advisory board.

Stephen Miller, a longtime Trump adviser, is the president of America First Legal, which also advises the project, and appears on a video promoting its “presidential transition academy”.

Ben Carson, Trump’s former housing secretary; Peter Navarro, the former White House trade adviser; and Mark Meadows, Trump’s final chief of staff, are all involved in the project.