Israel’s defence minister says Gaza City will be destroyed if Hamas does not agree to disarm and release all hostages.

Israel Katz’s comments came after the Israeli cabinet approved plans for a massive assault on Gaza City, despite widespread international and domestic opposition.

On Monday, Hamas agreed to a proposal by Qatari and Egyptian mediators for a 60-day ceasefire, which according to Qatar would see the release of half of the remaining hostages in Gaza.

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has apparently rejected this, saying he had instructed negotiations to begin for the release of all remaining hostages and an end to the war in Gaza on terms “acceptable to Israel”.

Israel believes that only 20 of the 50 hostages are still alive after 22 months of war.

Israeli media has cited an Israeli official as saying negotiators will be dispatched for renewed talks once a location has been determined.

In a video statement during a visit to the Gaza division’s headquarters in Israel on Thursday night, Netanyahu said he had “instructed to immediately begin negotiations for the release of all our hostages”.

“I have come to approve the IDF’s [Israel Defense Forces] plans to take control of Gaza City and defeat Hamas,” he said.

“These two matters – defeating Hamas and releasing all our hostages – go hand in hand,” Netanyahu added, without providing details about what the next stage of talks would entail.

Reinforcing Netanyahu’s message, Defence Minister Katz posted on social media on Friday: “Soon, the gates of hell will open upon the heads of Hamas’s murderers and rapists in Gaza – until they agree to Israel’s conditions for ending the war, primarily the release of all hostages and their disarmament.

“If they do not agree, Gaza, the capital of Hamas, will become Rafah and Beit Hanoun,” he added.

Both cities have been reduced to ruins following Israeli military operations.

The IDF has warned medical officials and international organisations to prepare for the planned evacuation of Gaza City’s entire population of one million residents to shelters in the south before troops move in.

Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry said it rejected “any step that would undermine what remains of the health system”.

The UN has said intensifying attacks and “relentless bombardment” in Gaza City are causing a “high numbers of civilian casualties and large-scale destruction”. It and aid groups have vowed to staxy to help those who cannot or choose not to move.

There are fears that the new military campaign in Gaza City will deepen the humanitarian crisis. The UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification said last month that the “worst-case scenario of famine” was “playing out in Gaza.”

Netanyahu announced Israel’s intention to take control of the entire Gaza Strip after indirect talks with Hamas on a ceasefire and hostage release deal broke down last month.

The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 62,192 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory’s health ministry. The ministry’s figures are quoted by the UN and others as the most reliable source of statistics available on casualties.

India’s Supreme Court has modified its previous order asking authorities in Delhi and its suburbs to move all stray dogs into shelters amid widespread protests by animal welfare groups.

The three-judge bench said that strays should be released after being vaccinated and sterilised but added that dogs with rabies or aggressive behaviour should be immunised and kept in shelters.

The court also banned feeding of stray dogs in public spaces and ordered dedicated areas to be set up for the purpose.

On 11 August, a two-judge bench had expressed concern over the rising “menace of dog bites leading to rabies” in Delhi and its suburbs.

Delhi’s stray dog population is estimated at one million, with suburban Noida, Ghaziabad and Gurugram also seeing a rise, municipal sources say.

India has millions of stray dogs and the country accounts for 36% of the total rabies-related deaths in the world, according to the World Health Organization.

To deal with the dog menace, on 11 August the Supreme Court ordered authorities in the capital and its suburbs to round up all stray dogs and put them in shelters.

It ordered authorities to build shelters to house these dogs in eight weeks’ time.

The order went against existing rules that state that stray dogs should be released to their original site after being sterilised at shelters, sparking strong protests and legal challenges from several animal welfare groups.

They called for more humane solutions like vaccination and neutering and warned that putting all strays in shelters would lead to problems like overcrowding and culling.

Following the backlash, the Supreme Court set up a three-judge bench to hear the challenge.

In Friday’s ruling, the court stayed the earlier order to round up all strays, stating that non-aggressive, non-infected dogs could be released to their capture site after being vaccinated and neutered.

The court also said that animal lovers could apply to municipal corporations to adopt strays but that these dogs were not to be returned to the street.

The court added that action would be taken against people found to be feeding stray dogs in public areas and warned animal welfare groups against interfering with its orders.

The Supreme Court has also said that it would formulate a national policy around stray dogs after hearing similar cases pending in different states.

The top diplomat of the European Union (EU) has warned against pushing Ukraine to give up territories to Russia as part of a future peace deal.

Speaking in her first UK interview since EU leaders joined Donald Trump’s White House peace talks with Ukraine, Kaja Kallas told the BBC’s Today programme that letting Russia keep Ukrainian territories was a “trap that Putin wants us to walk into”.

The Donbas region in eastern Ukraine has long been contested by Russia, with military aggression forcing 1.5 million Ukrainians to flee over the past decade.

Ukraine has consistently rejected conceding Donbas to the Kremlin in exchange for peace, though Trump stressed the need for “swapping of territories”.

Kallas – who has been placed on the Kremlin’s “wanted list” – also spoke at length about “credible and robust” security guarantees for Ukraine.

She admitted that there were not many “concrete steps” for a deterring force at this stage in negotiations.

“The strongest security guarantee is a strong Ukraine army,” she said, outlining the importance of establishing guarantees that were “not just on paper”.

She said it was up to member states of the “coalition of the willing” to determine exactly what they could contribute, and that it was not yet clear in what capacity those forces would operate.

Leaders from key EU countries, including France, Germany, Italy and Finland, joined Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for talks at the White House last week, days after Trump hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin in a military base in Alaska.

On the Alaska summit, Kallas said that Putin got “everything he wanted” and that would impact his interest in negotiating a peace deal.

“He got such a welcoming and he wanted sanctions not to be put in place, which he also achieved.

“Putin is just laughing, not stopping the killing but increasing the killing,” Kallas said. “We are forgetting that Russia has not made one single concession.”

She added that the EU had put together the 19th package of sanctions to pressure the Russian leader into further discussions.

Meanwhile, Trump on Thursday set a two-week time frame for evaluating peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

“I would say within two weeks we’re going to know one way or the other,” he said in a telephone interview with Todd Starnes, a host for right-wing media outlet Newsmax.

“After that, we’ll have to maybe take a different tack,” Trump said.

But Zelensky cast doubt on Putin showing willingness for a meeting with him.

In comments released to reporters on Thursday, reported by the Agence France-Presse news agency, Zelensky accused Russia of avoiding the “necessity” of holding a meeting between the two countries’ leaders.

“Current signals from Russia are, to be honest, indecent. They’re trying to avoid the necessity to meet. They don’t want to end this war.”

He also put pressure on Western allies, saying Ukraine would like to “have an understanding of the security guarantees architecture within seven to 10 days”.

“We need to understand which country will be ready to do what at each specific moment,” he added.

Zelensky has criticised the significant air attack by Russia early on Thursday, saying it was behaving as if there were no global efforts to stop the war.

Eleven different locations in Ukraine were hit, killing at least one and injuring more than a dozen in the western city of Lviv close to the Polish border.

A number of European leaders earlier echoed EU and Ukrainian views about Putin’s unwillingness to engage with a peace deal.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb said Putin was “rarely to be trusted”, and that he was sceptical about Putin eventually agreeing to a bilateral meeting with Zelensky.

French President Emmanuel Macron called the Russian leader “a predator, and an ogre at our doorstep” and expressed “the greatest doubt” that he would be willing to work towards peace.

Both leaders were in attendance at White House peace talks on Monday.

Zelensky has said he is willing to meet Putin “in any format”, but told reporters on Thursday that there was still no sign from Moscow that they “truly intend to engage in substantive negotiations”.

Chinese ambassador to India Xu Feihong has said that Beijing “firmly opposes” Washington’s steep tariffs on Delhi and called for greater co-operation between India and China.

Xu likened the US to a “bully”, saying that it had long benefitted from free trade but was now using tariffs as a “bargaining chip” to demand “exorbitant prices” from other nations.

“US has imposed tariffs of up to 50% on India and even threatened for more. China firmly opposes it. Silence only emboldens the bully,” Xu said on Thursday.

Earlier this month, Trump imposed a 25% penalty on India in addition to 25% tariffs for buying oil and weapons from Russia. The new rate will come into effect on 27 August.

Delhi’s increased imports of cheap Russian crude since the Ukraine war has caused a strain in its ties with the US and impacted negotiations on a trade deal.

India has defended its purchases of Russian oil, arguing that as a major energy importer, it must buy the cheapest available crude to protect millions of poor Indians from rising costs. It has also pointed out that the Biden administration had told India to buy Russian oil to stabilise world energy markets.

In the backdrop of Delhi’s shaky trade relations with Washington, there appears to be a rapid thawing of ties between India and China.

Relations between the neighbours plunged after the 2020 clashes in Galwan in Ladakh. Since then Beijing and Delhi have been gradually working towards normalising ties.

Earlier this week, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a two-day trip to Delhi during which he said that India and China should view each other as “partners” rather than “adversaries or threats”.

On Thursday, Xu made statements along similar lines while speaking at an event in the Indian capital.

He called the two countries “double engines” of economic growth in Asia and added that unity between India and China benefits the world at large.

He also invited more Indian enterprises to invest in China and added that Beijing hoped that India would provide a “fair, just and non-discriminatory business environment” for the Chinese enterprises in India to benefit the people of both countries.

“At present, tariff wars and trade wars are disrupting the global economic and trade system, power politics and the law of the jungle are prevalent and international rules and order have suffered severe impacts,” he said, alluding to Washington’s tariff measures against India and other countries.

“China will firmly stand with India to uphold the multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) at its core,” he added.

He also said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s upcoming visit to China to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit would give “new impetus to China-India relations”.

Glinting in the autumn sun on a parade ground in Beijing, the People’s Liberation Army missiles moved slowly past the crowd on a fleet of giant camouflaged lorries.

Needle-sharp in profile, measuring 11 metres long and weighing 15 tonnes, each bore the letters and numerals: “DF-17”.

China had just unveiled to the world its arsenal of Dongfeng hypersonic missiles.

That was on 1 October 2019 at a National Day parade. The US was already aware that these weapons were in development, but since then China has raced ahead with upgrading them.

Thanks to their speed and manoeuvrability – travelling at more than five times the speed of sound – they are a formidable weapon, so much so that they could change the way wars are fought.

Which is why the global contest over developing them is heating up.

“This is just one component of the wider picture of the emerging geopolitical contest that we’re seeing between state actors,” says William Freer, a national security fellow at the Council on Geostrategy think tank.

“[It’s one] we haven’t had since the Cold War.”

The Beijing ceremony raised speculation about a possible growing threat posed by China’s advancements in hypersonic technology. Today it leads the field in hypersonic missiles, followed by Russia.

The US, meanwhile, is playing catch-up, while the UK has none.

Mr Freer of the Council on Geostrategy think tank, which received some of its funding from defence industry companies, the Ministry of Defence and others, argues that the reason China and Russia are ahead is relatively simple.

“They decided to invest a lot of money in these programmes quite a few years ago.”

Meanwhile, for much of the first two decades of this century, many Western nations focused on fighting both jihadist-inspired terrorism at home, and counter-insurgency wars overseas.

Back then, the prospect of having to fight a peer-on-peer conflict against a modern, sophisticated adversary seemed a distant one.

“The net result is that we failed to notice the massive rise of China as a military power,” admitted Sir Alex Younger, soon after retiring as chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service in 2020.

Other nations are also racing ahead: Israel has a hypersonic missile, the Arrow 3, designed to be an interceptor.

Iran has claimed to have hypersonic weapons, and said it launched a hypersonic missile at Israel during their brief but violent 12-day war in June.

(The weapon did indeed travel at extremely high speed but it was not thought to be manoeuvrable enough in flight to class as a true hypersonic).

North Korea, meanwhile, has been working on its own versions since 2021 and claims to have a viable, working weapon (pictured).

The US and UK are now investing in hypersonic missile technology, as are other nations, including France and Japan.

The US appears to be strengthening its deterrence, and has debuted its “Dark Eagle” hypersonic weapon.

According to the US Department of Defense, the Dark Eagle “brings to mind the power and determination of our country and its Army as it represents the spirit and lethality of the Army and Navy’s hypersonic weapon endeavours”.

But China and Russia are currently far ahead – and according to some experts, this is a potential concern.

Hypersonic means something that travels at speeds of Mach 5 or faster. (That’s five times the speed of sound or 3,858 mph.) This puts them in a different league to something that is just supersonic, meaning travelling at above the speed of sound (767 mph).

And their speed is partially the reason that hypersonic missiles are considered such a threat.

The fastest to date is Russian – the Avangard – claimed to be able to reach speeds of Mach 27 (roughly 20,700mph) – although the figure of around Mach 12 (9,200mph) is more often cited, which equates to two-miles-a-second.

In terms of purely destructive power, however, hypersonic missiles are not hugely different from supersonic or subsonic cruise missiles, according to Mr Freer.

“It’s the difficulty in detecting, tracking and intercepting them that really sets them apart.”

There are basically two kinds of hypersonic missile: boost-glide missiles rely on a rocket (like those DF-17 ones in China) to propel them towards and sometimes just above the Earth’s atmosphere, from where they then come hurtling down at these incredible speeds.

Unlike the more common ballistic missiles, which travel in a fairly predictable arc – a parabolic curve – hypersonic glide vehicles can move in an erratic way, manoeuvred in final flight towards their target.

Then there are hypersonic cruise missiles, which hug terrain, trying to stay below radar to avoid detection.

They are similarly launched and accelerated using a rocket booster, then once they reach hypersonic velocity, they then activate a system known as a “scramjet engine” that takes in air as it flies, propelling it to its target.

These are “dual-use weapons”, meaning their warhead can be either nuclear or conventional high explosive. But there is more to these weapons than speed alone.

For a missile to be classed as truly “hypersonic” in military terms, it needs to be manoeuvrable in flight. In other words, the army that fired it needs it to be able to change course in sudden and unpredictable ways, even as it is hurtling towards its target at extreme speeds.

This can make it extremely hard to intercept. Most terrestrial-based radars cannot be relied upon to detect hypersonic missiles until late in the weapon’s flight.

“By flying under the radar horizon they can evade early detection and may only appear on sensors in their terminal flight phase, limiting interception opportunities,” says Patrycja Bazylczyk, research associate at the Missile Defence Project at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, which has received some of its funding from US government entities, as well as defence industry companies and others.

The answer to this, she believes, is bolstering the West’s space-based sensors, which would overcome the limitations of radars on the ground.

In a real-time war scenario, there is also a terrifying question facing the nation being targeted: is this a nuclear attack or a conventional one?

“Hypersonics haven’t so much changed the nature of warfare as altered the timeframes within which you can operate,” says Tom Sharpe, a former Royal Navy Commander and anti-air warfare specialist.

“The basics of needing to track your enemy, fire at them, then manoeuvre the missile late on to allow for a moving target (the great advantage of ships) are no different from previous missiles, be that ballistic, supersonic or subsonic.

“Similarly the defender’s requirement to track and either jam or destroy an incoming hypersonic missile are the same as before, you just have less time”.

There are signs that this technology is worrying Washington. A report published in February this year by the US Congressional Research Service warns: “US defence officials have stated that both terrestrial and current space-based sensor architectures are insufficient to detect and track hypersonic weapons.”

Yet some experts believe that some of the hype around hypersonics is overdone.

Dr Sidharth Kaushal, from the Royal United Services Institute defence think tank, is among those who think that they are not necessarily a gamechanger.

“The speed and manoeuvrability makes them attractive against high value targets and their kinetic energy on impact also makes them a useful means of engaging hardened and buried targets, which might have been difficult to destroy with most conventionally armed munitions previously.”

But though they travel at five times the speed of sound or more, there are measures to defend against them – some of which are “effective,” argues Mr Sharpe.

The first is making tracking and detection more difficult. “Ships can go to great lengths to protect their position,” he adds.

“The grainy satellite picture available from commercial satellites only needs to be a few minutes out of date for it to be of no use for targeting.

“Getting satellite targeting solutions current and accurate enough to use for targeting is both difficult and expensive.”

But he points out that artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies will likely change this over time.

The fact remains that Russia and China have stolen a march when it comes to developing these weapons. “I think the Chinese hypersonic programmes… are impressive and concerning,” says Mr Freer.

But he adds: “When it comes to the Russians, we should probably be a lot more cautious about what they claim.”

In November 2024, Russia launched an experimental intermediate-range ballistic missile at an industrial site in Dnipro, Ukraine, using it as a live testing ground.

The missile, which Ukraine said travelled at hypersonic speeds of Mach 11 (or 8,439mph), was given the name ‘Oreshnik’, Russian for hazel tree.

President Vladimir Putin said that the weapon travelled at a speed of Mach 10.

Its warhead is reported to have deliberately fragmented during its final descent into several, independently targeted inert projectiles, a methodology dating back to the Cold War.

Someone who heard it land told me that it was not particularly loud but there were several impacts: six warheads dropped at separate targets but as they were inert, the damage was not significantly greater than that caused by Russia’s nightly bombardment of Ukraine’s cities.

For Europe, the latent threat to Nato countries comes primarily from Russia’s missiles, some of which are stationed on the Baltic coast in Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad. What if Putin were to order a strike on Kyiv with an Oreshnik, this time armed with a full payload of high explosive?

The Russian leader claimed this weapon was going into mass production and that they had the capacity, he said, to turn targets “to dust”.

Russia also has other missiles that travel at hypersonic speeds.

Putin made much of his air force’s Kinzhal (Dagger) missiles, claiming they travelled so fast it was impossible to intercept. Since then, he has fired plenty of them at Ukraine — but it turns out that the Kinzhal may not be truly hypersonic, and many have been intercepted.

Of concern to the West is Russia’s super-fast and highly manoeuvrable Avangard. At a ceremony for its unveiling in 2018 – along with five other so-called ‘superweapons’ – Putin declared it was unstoppable.

Dr Sidharth Kaushal suggests its primary role may actually be “overcoming US missile defences”.

“Russia’s state armament programmes also suggest its production capacity for a system like Avangard is limited,” he argues.

Elsewhere, as the contest for strategic supremacy in the Western Pacific heats up between the US and China, the proliferation of China’s ballistic missile arsenal poses a serious potential threat to the US naval presence in the South China Sea and beyond.

China has the world’s most powerful arsenal of hypersonics. In late 2024, China unveiled its latest hypersonic glide vehicle, the GDF-600. With a 1,200kg payload, it can carry sub-munitions and reach speeds of Mach 7 (5,370mph).

The UK is behind in this race, especially as it’s one of the five nuclear-armed permanent members of the UN Security Council. But belatedly, it is making an effort to catch up, or at least to join the race.

In April, the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory announced that UK scientists had reached “a landmark moment” after the successful completion of a major testing programme.

The UK’s propulsion test was the result of a three-way collaboration between the UK government, industry and the US government. Over a period of six weeks a total of 233 “successful static test runs” were carried out at the NASA Langley Research Centre in Virginia, USA.

John Healey, the UK’s Defence Secretary, called it “a milestone moment.”

But it will still be years before this weapon is ready.

As well as creating hypersonic missiles, the West should focus on creating strong defence against them, argues Mr Freer.

“When it comes to missile warfare, it’s all about two sides of the same coin. You’ve got to be able to do damage limitation while also having the ability to go after the enemy’s launch platforms.

“If you’ve got both hands available, and you can both defend yourself to an extent and also counter attack… then an adversary is a lot less likely to attempt to initiate conflict.”

However, Tom Sharpe is still cautions about the extent to which we should be concerned at the moment.

“The key point with hypersonics,” he says, “is that both sides of this equation are as difficult as each other – and neither are perfected… yet”.

A Bangkok court has acquitted controversial billionaire and former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was accused of insulting the monarchy.

The charge related to an interview he gave to a South Korean newspaper ten years ago. He would have faced up to 15 years in jail if convicted.

Thailand’s lese majeste law forbids insulting its monarchy. But critics say it is often used to target activists and political opponents.

The verdict came as Thaksin’s daughter, suspended PM Paetongtarn , faces a Constitutional Court decision on whether or not she should be removed from office. These cases pose a threat to the Shinawatra clan, which has been a dominant force in Thai politics for decades.

Friday’s verdict has brought some relief to the family and their supporters.

Winyat Charmontree, a lawyer acting for Thaksin, told reporters that after the verdict was read out in court, his client had smiled and thanked his lawyers. He had also said he was now able to work for the country’s benefit.

The charge against Thaksin was originally filed under the then-military government in 2016, when he was in exile, and re-activated last year after his return to Thailand.

At first glance the case against him seemed weak.

In the South Korean newspaper interview, the former prime minister said he believed the 2014 military coup which deposed the elected government of his sister Yingluck – just as he had been deposed by a previous coup in 2006 – had been instigated by “some people in the palace” and members of the privy council, the 19-member body which advises the Thai king.

Technically the privy council is not covered by the lese majeste law, which states that it is an offence to defame only the king, queen, heir to the throne or anyone acting as regent.

However, in recent years the law has been invoked to criminalise any action or statement which might reflect negatively on the monarchy as an institution.

In the past people have been prosecuted for making unfavourable comments about the late King Bhumibol’s dog and about a Thai king from the 16th Century.

More recently, a young woman was sentenced to five years in prison for placing a banner criticising the budget to help those affected by Covid close to a portrait of King Vajiralongkorn.

The interpretation of the law has become so broad that human rights groups view it as a political tool, which can be used to intimidate and silence those who challenge the status quo.

Many believed this was what was happening to Thaksin.

However, the judges chose to interpret the wording of the law literally, and said that as the defendant had not named names, he should be acquitted.

This verdict comes exactly two years after the former prime minister’s dramatic return from 15 years of exile.

At the time it was assumed there had been a grand bargain struck between Thaksin and his long-time conservative adversaries, so that his party Pheu Thai, which in the 2023 election had been relegated to second place from its usual number one spot, could form a coalition government and keep the young reformists who had actually won the election out of power.

The terms of that bargain have never been made public –Thaksin has always insisted there was no deal – but it is likely they included an agreement that he would keep a low profile and stay out of politics.

But a low profile is something completely alien to the flamboyant, wealthy and ambitious tycoon.

He is still believed to be the largest funder of Pheu Thai and makes all of the main decisions for the party.

When his first choice of prime minister, businessman Srettha Thavisin, was disqualified by the persistently interventionist Constitutional Court a year ago, Thaksin’s inexperienced daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra took the helm, becoming Thailand’s youngest ever prime minister.

A self-described “daddy’s girl”, she said she would happily take his advice. As she took office Mr Thaksin announced his “Vision for Thailand”, including a controversial proposal to legalise casinos; much of that subsequently became official policy.

The parliamentary opposition has accused the Shinawatra family of running a “dual leadership”. Thaksin’s business ties to the Cambodian strongman Hun Sen also raised concerns over how firmly his government would defend Thailand over the border dispute between the two countries.

This came to a head in the private phone conversation leaked by Hun Sen in which Paetongtarn was heard referring to him as “uncle”, and criticising her own army commander on the border, for which she has now been suspended by the Constitutional Court, which will decide whether she is dismissed in a week’s time.

Losing another prime minister after just a year, at a time of great global uncertainty, might be judged as too risky. It is not clear who would replace Paetongtarn.

Thaksin faces another court case next month, over his transfer to a hospital to serve a previous jail sentence. The price for him being allowed to stay out of jail may be that his party has to call an early election, at a time when its poor performance in government could result in it losing many of its seats in parliament.

On a blistering morning earlier this week, an unusually large crowd had gathered at Imjingang Station – the last stop on Seoul’s metropolitan subway line that inches the closest to North Korea.

There were dozens of activists and police officers, their attention fixed on one man: Ahn Hak-sop, a 95-year-old former North Korean prisoner of war who was making his way home, to the other side of the border that divides the Korean peninsula.

It was what Mr Ahn called his final journey – he wanted to return to the North to be buried there, after spending most of his life in South Korea, much of it against his will.

He never made it across: he was turned away, as was expected because the South Korean government had said they did not have enough time to make the necessary arrangements.

But Mr Ahn came as close as he could.

Weakened by pulmonary oedema (a build up of fluid on the lungs), he could not manage the 30 minute walk from the station to the Unification Bridge – or Tongil Dae-gyo – one of the few passageways connecting South Korea to the North.

So he stepped out of the car roughly 200 metres from the bridge and walked the final stretch on foot, flanked by two supporters who steadied him.

He returned holding a North Korean flag, a sight rarely seen and deeply jarring in the South, and addressed the reporters and 20 or so volunteers who had turned up in support.

“I just want my body to rest in a truly independent land,” he said. “A land free from imperialism.”

Ahn Hak-sop was 23 when he was captured by the South Koreans.

Three years earlier, he had been in high school when then-North Korean ruler Kim Il-sung attacked the South. Kim, who wanted to reunify the two Koreas, rallied his countrymen by claiming that the South had initiated the 1950 attack.

Ahn was among those who believed this. He joined the North Korean People’s Army in 1952 as a liaison officer, and was then assigned a unit that was sent to the South.

He was captured in April 1953, three months before the armistice, and sentenced to life in prison the same year. He was released more than 42 years later because of a special pardon on the Korean independence day.

Like many other North Korean prisoners, Mr Ahn too was labelled a “redhead”, a reference to his communist sympathies, and he struggled to find a proper job.

It wasn’t easy, he told the BBC in an earlier interview in July. The government didn’t help much at first, he said, agents followed him for years. He married, and even fostered a child, but he never felt he truly belonged.

Throughout, he made his home in a small village in Gimpo, the closest a civilian can live to the border with the North.

Yet in 2000, he turned down the chance to be sent back to the North along with dozens of other prisoners who also wanted to return.

He had been optimistic then that ties between the two sides would improve, that their people would be able to travel back and forth freely.

But he chose to stay because he feared leaving would be a win for the Americans.

“At the time, they were pushing for US military governance [in the South],” he said.

“If I returned to the North, it would’ve felt like I was just handing over my own bedroom to the Americans – vacating it for them. My conscience as a human being just couldn’t allow that.”

It’s not clear what he was referring to other than growing ties between Seoul and Washington, which include a strong military alliance that guarantees South Korea protection from any attack from the North.

That relationship deeply bothers Mr Ahn, who has never stopped believing the Kim family’s propaganda – that the only thing stopping the reunification of the Korean peninsula was an “imperialist America” and a South Korean government that was beholden to them.

Born in 1930 in Ganghwa County, Gyeonggi Province, during Japan’s colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula, Mr Ahn was the youngest of three brothers. He also had two younger sisters.

Patriotism took root early. His grandfather refused to let him attend school because he “didn’t want to make me Japanese”, he recalled. So he started school later than usual, after his grandfather died.

When Japan surrendered in 1945, bringing an end to World War Two and its colonisation of Korea, Mr Ahn and his younger brother, who had deserted the Japanese military, were hiding at their aunt’s house at the foot of Mount Mani on Ganghwa Island.

“That wasn’t liberation – it was just a transfer of colonial rule,” he said.

“A leaflet [we saw] said that Korea wasn’t being liberated, but that US military rule would be implemented instead. It even said that if anyone violated US military law, they would be strictly punished under military law.”

As the Soviet Union and the US tussled over the Korean peninsula, they agreed to to divide it. The Soviets took control of the North and the US, the South, where they set up a military administration until 1948.

When Kim attacked in 1950, a South Korean government was in place – but Mr Ahn, like so many North Koreans, believes the South provoked the conflict and that its alliance with Washington prevented reunification.

Once he was captured, Mr Ahn had several chances to avoid prison – he was asked to sign documents renouncing the North and its communist ideology, which was called “conversion”. But he refused.

“Because I refused to sign a written oath of conversion, I had to endure endless humiliation, torture, and violence – days filled with shame and pain. There’s no way to fully describe that suffering in words,” he told the crowd that had gathered near the border on Wednesday.

The South Korean government never responded to this particular charge directly, although a special commission acknowledged violence at the prison in 2004. Mr Ahn’s direct allegations were investigated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Korea, an independent body investigating past human rights abuses, in 2009, which found that there had been a deliberate effort to force his conversion, which included acts of torture.

It has long been accepted in South Korea that such prisoners often encountered violence behind bars.

“Whenever I regained consciousness, the first thing I checked was my hands – to see if there was any red ink on them,” Mr Ahn recalled in his July interview.

That usually signalled that someone had forced a fingerprint onto a written oath of ideological conversion.

“If there wasn’t, I’d think, ‘No matter what they did, I won’. And I felt satisfied.”

The North has changed remarkably since Mr Ahn left. Kim Il-sung’s grandson now runs the country – a reclusive nuclear-armed dictatorship that is richer than it was in 1950, but remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Mr Ahn was not in the North for the devastating famine in the 1990s that killed hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of others fled, making deadly journeys to escape their lives there.

Mr Ahn, however, dismissed the suggestion of any humanitarian concerns in the North, blaming the media for being biased and only reporting on the dark side of the country. He argues that North Korea is prospering and defends Kim’s decision to send troops to aid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The South has also changed in Mr Ahn’s time here – once a poor military dictatorship, it is now a wealthy, powerful democracy. Its relationship with the North has had its ups and downs, wavering between open hostility and hopeful engagement.

But Mr Ahn’s beliefs have not wavered. He has dedicated the last 30 years of his life to protesting a country that he believes is still colonising South Korea – the US.

“They say humans, unlike animals, have two kinds of life. One is basic biological life – the kind where we talk, eat, defecate, sleep, and so on. The second is political life, also called social life. If you strip a human being of their political life, they’re no different from a robot,” Mr Ahn told the BBC in July.

“I lived under Japanese colonial rule all those years. But I don’t want to be buried under [American] colonial rule, even in death.”

An appeals court has thrown out a $500m (£372m) penalty that President Donald Trump was ordered to pay in a New York civil fraud trial last year.

Judge Arthur Engoron had ordered Trump to pay the fee for massively inflating the value of the Trump Organization’s properties in order to secure favourable loans.

In the lengthy ruling released on Thursday, judges on the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division stated that while Trump was liable for the fraud, the fine of nearly half a billion dollars was excessive and probably violated constitutional protections against severe punishment.

In the case Judge Engoron had ordered Trump to pay $355m, but with interest, that grew to more than $500m.

“While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the state,” wrote Judge Peter Moulton.

In a post on his social media site, Truth Social, Trump claimed the decision was a “total victory”.

“I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,” he said. “It was a Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense, the likes of which no one has ever seen before.”

The New York Attorney General’s Office, which brought the case against Trump, also framed the decision as a win, as it upheld Trump’s fraud liability and the judges did not throw out other penalties that were not financial. The office plans to appeal against the decision on the fine to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

In a statement, the attorney general’s office said the judges “affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud”.

“It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,” it also said.

In the case against Trump, his two adult sons, and the Trump Organization, Judge Engoron also banned Trump from serving as a company director or taking out loans from banks in the state for three years.

Thursday’s decision kept in place this and other nonmonetary penalties that Judge Engoron imposed.

The 323-page ruling, which included three lengthy opinions, revealed disagreement among the five judges on the panel.

They were primarily divided over the merits of the original lawsuit brought by Letitia James, who had accused Trump and his sons of “persistent and repeated fraud”.

While several judges said she was “within her lawful power in bringing this action”, one believed the case should have been dismissed and two said that there should be a new trial of a more limited scope.

Those two, though, joined the decision to throw out the fine “for the sole purpose of ensuring finality”, wrote Judge Moulton.

American voters had “obviously rendered a verdict” on Trump’s political career, Judge Moulton also wrote, and “this bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business”.

The ruling came almost a year after the panel heard oral arguments on the appeal, during which several judges appeared skeptical of the civil fraud case.

Trump’s son, Eric Trump, who was involved in the case, celebrated the decision in a post on social media.

“After 5 years of hell, justice prevailed!” he wrote.

The ruling amounted to a “judicial version of kicking the can down the road”, said Will Thomas, an assistant professor of business law at the University of Michigan.

“By its own admission, the Appellate Courts is punting the real legal decision up to the New York Court of Appeals, noting that its unusual decision was made ‘for the sole purpose of ensuring finality,'” he said.

“It’s hard to take any conclusions from this … except that we’ll have to continue to wait that much longer to find out the ultimate outcome in James v Trump.”

In September 2023, Judge Engoron ruled Trump was liable for business fraud, finding he had misrepresented his wealth by hundreds of millions of dollars. Another trial was held in 2024 to determine the penalty.

In one instance, the judge found Mr Trump’s financial statements had wrongly claimed that his Trump Tower penthouse was almost three times its actual size.

Trump had said that the case brought by James, a Democrat, was politically motivated.

Thursday’s unusually lengthy ruling also reflected the historic predicament of how to handle a massive fraud case involving a sitting president, said Mark Zauderer, a longtime appellate attorney in New York.

“Would you have a 300-page opinion if this were Joe Smith the businessman, and not Donald Trump?” Mr Zauderer asked.

Erik Menendez’s bid for freedom has suffered a setback, after officials in the US state of California denied him parole over the killing of his parents more than three decades ago.

The younger of the two notorious Menendez brothers, who were both convicted in the 1989 shotgun murders of their wealthy mother and father in Beverly Hills, made his first plea on Thursday.

His brother, Lyle, is scheduled to face his own parole suitability hearing on Friday. Both brothers were made eligible for paroled release after they were resentenced by a judge in May.

Erik Menendez can try for parole again at another hearing in three years, the board ruled.

Parole board commissioner Robert Barton, who listened to testimony for more than 10 hours with a panel before denying Erik’s parole, said he believed Erik was not yet ready for release.

“I believe in redemption, or I wouldn’t be doing this job,” he told Erik at the end of the marathon hearing. “But based on the legal standards, we find that you continue to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.”

The board took issue, specifically, with his violations in prison and past criminal activity before killing his parents.

“Contrary to your supporters’ beliefs, you have not been a model prisoner and frankly, we find that a little disturbing,” Barton said, bluntly telling him he now had “two options” for his future.

“One is to have a pity party,” Barton told Erik. “Or you can take to heart what we discussed.”

His bid for freedom isn’t over. The parole denial is likely to shift focus to Gov Gavin Newsom, who is separately mulling a clemency request from the brothers.

Clemency could come in the form of a reduced sentence or even a pardon, but it would not overturn the brother’s convictions. Weighing in on such a high-profile and controversial case could be politically risky for Newsom, who is thought to be a potential candidate for the Democratic nominee for president.

Apart from parole and clemency, the brothers have also asked for a new trial due to additional evidence being discovered in the case.

A judge is mulling the request, but it is opposed by the Los Angeles district attorney’s office.

During the hearing, a prosecutor from the district attorney’s office argued against Erik’s release, saying positive changes in his behaviour were only motivated by a chance at release. They argued he was “still an unreasonable risk to society” and that “he has no insight into his crimes”.

Erik appeared virtually for the hearing from the San Diego prison where he has been housed, wearing a blue prison jumpsuit and eyeglasses. Members of his family, his attorneys and a prosecutor from the Los Angeles district attorney’s office also appeared on a video call with the parole board panel.

During the nearly all-day hearing, the panel asked him about the killings, his relationship with his parents and his attempts to cover up guilt in the murders. He grew emotional at times, describing the moments he opened fire on his parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, with a shotgun as they watched TV in their Beverly Hills mansion.

The brothers shot the pair more than a dozen times, Erik even reloading the gun and continuing to fire on his mother. He and his brother have long claimed self-defence and said they were being abused sexually.

“I just want my family to understand that I am so unimaginably sorry for what I have put them through from Aug. 20, 1989 until this day, and this hearing,” Erik said during the hearing before he knew his fate.

“If I ever get the chance at freedom, I want the healing to be about them,” he said. “Don’t think it’s the healing of me – it’s the healing of the family. This is a family tragedy.”

• Pop culture re-invented the Menendez brothers – now their fate may rest with one man
• Judge cuts Menendez brothers’ sentences giving them chance of freedom

The board questioned him about his time in prison and legal issues before the killings, including being involved in two burglaries. He said his time in prison helped him develop a “moral guardrail”.

The panel also examined factors such as his health and whether he would be a danger to society if released from prison. A risk assessment done for him found him to be a “moderate” risk if released.

They reviewed the schooling and positive programs he had been involved with in prison, along with transgressions he had while in lockup, including prison fights and being found multiple times with contraband. While behind bars, he’d got in trouble for having a cell phone, art supplies and tobacco – which he’d hidden inside a religious book.

The decision to keep Erik in prison is separate from that of Lyle, who is set to appear before a different parole board panel on Friday morning.

In explaining their decision on Thursday, the board made clear that Erik’s behaviour in prison and his previous burglaries were big factors in his denial. They also cited the brutal nature of the killings, calling it “devoid of human compassion”.

While much of the Menendez brothers’ case involves both brothers, their conduct behind bars and before the 1989 killings is different and could evoke a different decision from the state’s parole board.

During Thursday’s hearing, a coalition of relatives, who have long advocated for the brothers’ release, and supporters also testified on Erik’s behalf, saying he had changed during his lengthy sentence.

Teresita Menendez-Baralt, Jose Menendez’s sister, broke down in tears as she spoke before the panel, telling them she’s forgiven Erik for killing her brother and the years of trauma he caused their family.

She said that she is dying from stage four cancer.

“The truth is I do not know how much time I have left. If Erik is granted parole, it would be a blessing,” she told them. “I hope I live long enough to welcome him into my home, to sit at the same table, to wrap my arms around him – that would bring me immeasurable peace and joy.”

• Three possible paths to freedom: What’s next for the Menendez brothers?
• Family of Menendez brothers call for their release in killing of parents

The brothers’ high-profile murder trials were among those that defined the last century.

During their trials, the brothers claimed the killings were done in self-defence and said they’d suffered years of emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of their parents.

Prosecutors, though, argued they were greedy, entitled monsters who meticulously planned the killings then lied to authorities investigating the case while going on a $700,000 (£526,0000) spending spree – with purchases including a new Porsche, Jeep and Rolex watches – with their parents’ estate.

They weren’t arrested until police got word of their admissions to a psychologist.

Three decades later, the case was re-examined in the public thanks to a mix of new evidence, attention on TikTok, Netflix’s drama series Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story and celebrities weighing in.

But movement in the courts didn’t happen until the Los Angeles’ former top prosecutor re-examined the case and asked for a judge to re-sentence them, citing California’s evolving approach to juvenile offenders and abuse survivors.

A change in state law allows offenders who were under the age of 26 at the time of their crime to be sentenced as minors rather than adults. Lyle was 21 and Erik was 18 when they killed their parents.

Despite the new LA District Attorney Nathan Hochman fighting against the resentencing effort, a judge in May changed their sentences to 50 years to life with the possibility of parole – which represented a reduction.

Hochman accused Erik of continuing to “display narcissistic and antisocial traits” and his office fiercely argued in court against both Erik and Lyle’s release.

Award-winning rapper Lil Nas X has been arrested after an altercation with police in Los Angeles, authorities have confirmed.

Police were called to Ventura Boulevard at 05:30 (12:30 GMT) on Thursday after reports of a man walking down the street in his underwear, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) said.

After officers arrived at the scene, LAPD allege the Old Town Road singer “charged” at them and was placed under arrest on suspicion of battery.

He was then taken to hospital for treatment for a possible overdose, police spokesman Charles Miller said. The BBC has reached out to his representatives for comment.

Unverified video of the star on Thursday morning was published by TMZ, which featured the singer dancing in the street in just his underwear and cowboy boots, and inviting people passing by to “come to the party”.

The rapper is expected to release his much-anticipated second studio album Dreamboy later this year, teasing his new music on Instagram ahead of the drop.

Born Montero Lamar Hill, Lil Nas X became the first openly gay man to receive a Country Music Association award, after he won with Old Town Road in 2019.

The song also won two Grammys and broke the record for the longest-running number one song on the Billboard Hot 100, after 17 weeks at the top of the charts.

The singer has courted controversy throughout his career, with conservatives in the US calling the music video for his hit single Montero (Call Me By Your Name) “depraved” and “evil“.

The singer responded with a fake apology video on YouTube, which cut into Montero’s infamous lap-dancing scene, and wrote on Twitter that he wanted his haters’ tears to “fill my Grammy cup”.

At least 18 people have been killed and dozens wounded in two separate attacks in Colombia, deepening the country’s most serious security crisis in decades.

Six people died and more than 60 were injured after a car bomb exploded on a busy street in the western city of Cali in Colombia, according to authorities.

Earlier on Thursday, a separate drone attack against a police helicopter killed at least 12 people in a rural area outside the northwestern city of Medellin.

The attacks, attributed to different dissident factions of the now defunct Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Farc) group, pose fresh challenges to Colombia’s fragile peace processes ahead of elections next year.

Alejandro Eder, the mayor of Cali, ordered martial law for the country’s third most populous city. He also announced a temporary ban on large trucks entering the city and called on the public to report information about the incident for a $10,000 reward.

In the wake of both attacks, the president and the military leadership announced they would lead a security council meeting to “define additional protection measures” for citizens.

“The state will not yield to terrorism. These crimes will be pursued and punished with the full force of the law,” the Ministry of Defence said on social media.

According to eyewitnesses, the car bomb in Cali targeted the Marco Fidel Suarez Military Aviation School, killing civilians in the street and damaging many houses.

“There was a thunderous sound of something exploding near the air base,” an eyewitness told AFP news agency.

Defence Minister Pedro Sánchez called the blast a “terrorist attack” and blamed “the narco cartel alias Mordisco” – referring to Farc guerrilla leader Ivan Mordisco.

“This cowardly attack against civilians is a desperate reaction to the loss of control over drug trafficking in Valle del Cauca, Cauca, and Nariño, where the Public Force has neutralized much of this threat,” he said on social media.

Addressing the separate attack on a police helicopter, President Gustavo Petro said the aircraft was on a mission to eradicate coca leaf crops – a main ingredient in cocaine.

The helicopter crashed to the ground after being hit by a drone, killing the 12 officers on board.

Images circulating on social media showed thick plumes of black smoke billowing in a forested area of Amalfi in the country’s north.

Sánchez said the attack was perpetrated by the EMC guerrilla group, the largest offshoot of Farc.

Colombia has experienced a rise in violence in recent months involving clashes between security forces and dissident rebels, paramilitaries or drug gangs.

Drone attacks have also become increasingly common in recent years: in 2024, 115 such attacks were recorded in the country, most of them carried out by illegal armed groups.

Last week, three soldiers were killed in a drone attack in the country’s south-west, where explosive devices were dropped on members of the navy and army who were manning a checkpoint.

A US federal judge has ordered the closure of President Donald Trump’s controversial migrant detention centre in Florida dubbed “Alligator Alcatraz”.

The order stated the facility was causing severe environmental damage to the Florida Everglades – a Unesco World Heritage Site – and gave the Trump administration 60 days to wind down its operations.

In addition, the 82-page ruling said no more detainees could be brought to the centre and it prohibited any new construction work or expansion at the site.

The state of Florida, which is partnering with the Trump administration in the building of the site, has already filed an appeal.

The decision is a major legal blow to Trump’s plans for the centre, which has attracted widespread criticism for its harsh conditions and potential harm to the local ecosystem.

In Thursday’s ruling, district court judge Kathleen Williams, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, said the facility was causing irreparable harm to the Florida Everglades and its endangered species.

She also ordered the shut down of “all generators, gas, sewage, and other waste receptors”, which would greatly affect the centre’s ability to operate.

Judge Williams cited a 1960s plan to build a tourist airport in the Everglades that was rejected due to fears of the environmental harms it could cause.

“Since that time, every Florida governor, every Florida senator, and countless local and national political figures, including presidents, have publicly pledged their unequivocal support for the restoration, conservation, and protection of the Everglades,” she wrote.

“This order does nothing more than uphold the basic requirements of legislation designed to fulfil those promises.”

The ruling is a preliminary injunction that temporarily restricts operations at the facility while a lawsuit brought by environmental groups against it is heard.

Environmental groups that mounted the legal challenge welcomed the ruling.

“This is a landmark victory for the Everglades and countless Americans who believe this imperilled wilderness should be protected, not exploited,” said Eve Samples, executive director of Friends of the Everglades.

“It sends a clear message that environmental laws must be respected by leaders at the highest levels of our government – and there are consequences for ignoring them”.

Thursday’s decision comes after Judge Williams had already issued a temporary restraining order earlier this month which ordered the pause of construction at the site.

“Alligator Alcatraz” was billed as a centrepiece of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.

Built in the middle of a Miami swamp, its name comes from the wildlife of alligators, crocodiles and pythons in the surrounding wetlands – which Trump said would keep detainees from escaping.

The facility was designed to hold 3,000 detainees and touted as a model for future detention centres that would support the Trump administration’s deportation agenda.

During a visit to the facility in July, Trump praised its potential for holding the “most menacing migrants, some of the most vicious people on the planet”.

But since starting operation, the site has been the subject of multiple lawsuits and complaints by environmental campaigners and local residents.

Experts previously warned the damage to area wetlands and endangered species could undo the Florida’s massive effort to restore the Everglades, which has cost the state billions of dollars.

“We decided pretty much straight away that he was going to be our ring bearer,” Brad says. “He had to be involved in some way.”

He is talking about Newton, Ellie and Brad’s pet dog. When the couple recently got married, having the sheepadoodle at the ceremony was never debated.

In fact, he had several roles on their special day – meeting and greeting all of the guests and being present in all of the family portraits.

“He brought so much joy being there. It felt so nice to go over to him and give him a cuddle,” Brad told the BBC’s Morning Live.

“He was just amazing,” Ellie added.

They aren’t the only couple who have chosen to include their pooch in their big day, with dogs increasingly seen as a member of the family.

Nearly nine in 10 people described their dog as their best friend in a recent survey by charity Dog’s Trust, while 89% said that their dog provides emotional support.

Emma and Ade Cartlich are the owners of dog chaperone service Precious Pets Weddings. The firms helps couples plan beforehand how dogs will be incorporated into their wedding and then looks after the pets on the day.

Situated in Staffordshire, the couple say they have now expanded their services to Wales and London due to demand.

Emma says they first do a consultation call with couples to find out all about their dog, before an in-person meeting to understand the dog’s temperament.

“You have to find out all the temperaments, the couple’s ideas, how well this would match and then put your plan together.”

Then when the big day arrives, the couple get the dog over to the venue, walk him or her, and practise the role assigned to them.

“We then spruce the doggy up with a mini groom, doggy perfume, tuxedo, flower colours. And then normally most dogs will be at the meet and greet as the guests are arriving.”

Jane and Darryl Marsh run a similar chaperone service called Paws2Party, in Solihull. They say the demand for bookings means they are now considering franchising the business so they can expand.

They have worked on ceremonies where dogs have been used as “flower girls” and bridesmaids, as well as ring bearers.

“Every wedding is different, we’re guided by the dog and their behaviour,” says Jane. “The dog usually steals the show, everybody ends up taking pictures of the dog and not the bride and groom.”

Bethan and Charlie, who recently married, had their own dog Fergus at the wedding, but also allowed family members to bring their dogs too.

“Having Fergus at the wedding was the only thing we were absolutely certain about from the get-go,” Bethan says.

On the day Fergus did a “first look” with Bethan, being the first person, or in this case pet, to see the bride in her dress.

“By the time I arrived at the church, he was waiting for me. It was really nice to pull up and see him there.”

Fergus wasn’t just a guest, he also had a special role as ring bearer.

“It was lovely being able to have Fergus as part of the day, but having him as part of the actual wedding ceremony was really special.”

Bethan says she has seen dogs at weddings featured on social media, with thousands sharing photos.

“I’m absolutely obsessed with Fergus, and so is Charlie, so I don’t think anybody would have expected him not to feature on our wedding day.

“Anybody who has a dog knows they are literally like having a child.”

For some, like Angharad, having a dog at a wedding is a necessity. Her guide dog Tudor was there to walk her down the aisle.

Angharad was matched with Tudor in 2018 by sight loss charity Guide dogs, and he has been a fundamental part of her life ever since.

“There were four guests with guide dogs at our wedding. Tudor got really excited because his favourite people were in the room.”

Angharad says if you want to involve your dog in your wedding, then researching venues thoroughly is essential.

“Finding a venue that was at the scale we wanted it to be at and was wheelchair friendly, accessible for stairs and dogs was actually very difficult.”

• Make sure that the wedding venue is dog friendly
• Check your photographer is okay with dogs if you want to feature them in photos
• Consider your dog’s temperament. There are different roles a dog can play but it is important to understand how they may behave to prevent any issues
• Selecting the right outfit for a dog is key. Harnesses can work well as they prevent the dog from jumping up at guests
• Do some research on the type of flowers you would like, as some can be poisonous to dogs
• Let your guests know in advance that dogs will be present. Some people may be allergic to or scared of dogs

India’s drive to blend more biofuels with petrol has helped the country cut millions of tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions and save precious dollar reserves.

But it has also sparked worries among vehicle owners and food policy experts about its potential impact on fuel efficiency and food security.

Last month, India achieved its objective of blending 20% ethanol with petrol, known as E20, five years ahead of its target.

The government views this as a game changer in reducing carbon emissions and trimming oil imports. Since 2014, ethanol blending has helped India cut 69.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions and saved 1.36 trillion rupees ($15.5 bn; £11.5 bn) in foreign exchange.

A study by Delhi-based think tank Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW) shows that carbon dioxide emissions from road transport in India will nearly double by 2050.

“The demand for fuel is only going to increase and shifting to ethanol-blended petrol is absolutely necessary to cut down emissions,” Sandeep Theng from the Indian Federation of Green Energy, an organisation that promotes green energy, told the BBC.

But many vehicles in India are not E20-compliant, making their owners sceptical about the benefits of the policy.

Hormazd Sorabjee, editor of Autocar India magazine, said that ethanol has a “lower energy density than petrol and is more corrosive”. This results in lower mileage and exposes certain vehicle parts to a greater risk of wear and tear.

Mr Sorabjee added that some manufacturers like Honda have been using E20 compliant material since 2009, but many older vehicles on Indian roads are not E20 compatible.

While there is no official data on the impact of of E20 fuel on engines, consumers routinely share anecdotes about their vehicle’s deteriorating mileage on social media.

Many standard insurance policies in India also don’t provide cover for damage due to the use of non-compliant fuel, a top executive at online insurance platform Policybazaar, who wanted to stay anonymous, told the BBC.

“Consumers need to take add-on policies but even those claims can be denied or downgraded based on fine print of the policy,” he added.

The federal petroleum ministry has described these concerns as “largely unfounded”.

In a post on X, the ministry said that engine tuning and E20-compatible materials could minimise the drop in mileage. It also advised replacing certain parts in older vehicles, saying the process was inexpensive and “easily done during regular servicing of the vehicle”.

Mr Sorabjee told the BBC that while mileage concerns are real, they are “not always as bad as made out to be”.

The bigger concern, he said, was the potential damage to vehicle materials due to the corrosive properties of E20.

Some vehicle manufacturers are offering ways to mitigate this.

Maruti Suzuki, India’s biggest four-wheeler maker, is reportedly likely to introduce an E20 material kit that could cost up to 6,000 rupees ($69; £51). The kit will reportedly replace components like fuel lines, seals and gaskets. Bajaj, a leading Indian two-wheeler maker, has advised using a fuel cleaner that could cost around 100 rupees ($1.15; £0.85) for a full tank of petrol.

But not all vehicle-owners are convinced. Amit Pandhi, who has owned a Maruti Suzuki car in Delhi since 2017, is unhappy that petrol pumps don’t offer the choice to opt for a blend other than E20.

“Why should I be forced to buy petrol that offers less mileage and then spend more to make the materials compliant?” he asked.

In 2021, a document on India’s transition to E20 published by Niti Aayog, a government think tank, had highlighted some of these concerns. It recommended tax benefits for buying E20 compliant vehicles, along with a lower retail price for the fuel.

The government has defended its decision to not pass the recommendations, saying that at the time of the report’s release, ethanol was cheaper than petrol.

“Over time, procurement price of ethanol has increased and now the weighted average price of ethanol is higher than cost of refined petrol,” the petroleum ministry said earlier this month.

It’s not just consumers – the government’s blended fuel push has also raised concern among climate researchers and food policy experts.

Ethanol is produced from crops like sugarcane and maize, and expanding its use means diverting farm produce into manufacturing more fuel.

In 2025, India would need 10 billion litres of ethanol to meet its E20 requirements, according to government estimates. The demand will balloon to 20 billion litres by 2050, according to Bengaluru-based think tank Center for Study of Science, Technology and Policy (CSTEP).

Right now, sugarcane is used to produce about 40% of India’s ethanol.

This puts India in a bind. It has to choose between continuing its reliance on sugarcane – which has a higher yield for ethanol but is water-intensive – or using food crops like maize and rice to produce the fuel.

But the shift comes with its own challenges.

In 2024, for the first time in decades, India became a net importer of maize, using large amounts of the crop to make ethanol.

Ramya Natarajan, a research scientist at CSTEP, said the diversion of produce had a significant impact on the poultry sector, which now has to spend more to buy corn for feedstock.

Moreover, this year, the Food Corporation of India (FCI) approved an unprecedented allocation of 5.2 million tonnes of rice for ethanol production. The rice in FCI stocks is earmarked to be given to India’s poor at a subsidised rate.

The policy could lead to an “agriculture disaster in a couple of years”, said Devinder Sharma, a farming sector expert.

“In a country like India, where 250 million people go hungry, we cannot use food to feed the cars,” Mr Sharma said.

To meet the demand for ethanol through corn and sugarcane in a 50-50 ratio – as outlined by Niti Aayog – India would have to bring in an additional eight million hectares of land under maize cultivation by 2030, unless there is a drastic increase in yield, according to CSTEP.

But even that could lead to problems.

“If farmers replace rice or wheat cultivation with maize, that would be sustainable because we have enough surplus of these crops. But we need other crops like oilseeds and pulses too,” Ms Natarajan said.

Ms Natarajan added that continuing with the E10 blend – petrol mixed with 10% ethanol – would have been a more ideal choice.

India, however, is planning to go even beyond E20.

“The country will now gradually scale towards E25, E27, and E30 in a phased, calibrated manner,” Petroleum Minister Hardeep Puri said recently.

Giraffes are one of the world’s most distinct and well-loved creatures, always thought to be one species.

But now scientists at the International Union for Conservation of Nature say we can welcome three more species of the world’s tallest mammal.

It’s not the first time researchers have suggested there are four species of these giants strolling on our planet, but the latest assessment puts an official stamp on it.

How did scientists work it out? And what does it mean for the future of the animal?

Scientists compared the skull size and head shape of different giraffes and concluded there was enough genetic diversity for four groups to be considered as different species.

The researchers looked at natural features across Africa such as deserts, rivers and valleys that could have separated animals in the past, meaning they evolved separately from each other.

Say hello to the Southern giraffe, one of the newly-recognised species.

This giraffe lives in South Africa, Angola, southern Botswana, Namibia, southern Zimbabwe, Zambia, and southwestern Mozambique.

Two rivers (the Kunene and Zambezi) and rainforests in the Congo Basin probably separated the animals from overlapping with other giraffes.

The second new species is the Reticulated giraffe.

This giraffe lives in the open savannas and wooded grasslands of Kenya, Somalia, and Ethiopia.

Scientists think the Tana river, Ethiopia’s mountains and towns separated this animal from other giraffes in the north of the region.

It is also a migrating animal, which means it may have passed by other giraffes when it could have cross-bred.

The third species we can officially recognise is the Northern giraffe.

This animal lives in western Ethiopia, central and western Kenya, eastern South Sudan and Uganda.

Scientists say the Nile River and Lake Victoria, as well as its migration pattern, separated this giraffe from others.

The fourth and final species is the beautiful Masai giraffe, with its distinctive leaf-pattern hide.

It lives in Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, separated from the Northern giraffe by Lake Victoria and the Nile River.

Although its pattern makes it seem like it could be a marker of being a separate species, the scientists say that the hides vary even within one population of giraffes and as the animals age.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) says that identifying genetic difference is “vital” for conservation and managing giraffe populations.

“The more precisely we understand giraffe taxonomy, the better equipped we are to assess their status and implement effective conservation strategies,” said co-author of the report Michael Brown of the IUCN.

As a single species, the giraffe was classed as vulnerable to extinction, although some of the sub-species were increasing in numbers.

The IUCN will now re-assess the vulnerability of the four new species and their sub-species and says it hopes to better protect the majestic animals with the new information.

The guns along the forested Thai-Cambodian border have been silent for three weeks now.

But a fierce war of words is still being waged by both countries, as they seek to win international sympathy and shore up public support at home. And a commonly-held view in Thailand is that they are losing.

“The perception is that Cambodia has appeared more agile, more assertive and more media savvy,” said Clare Patchimanon, speaking on the Thai Public Broadcasting Service podcast Media Pulse. “Thailand has always been one step behind.”

The century-old border dispute dramatically escalated with a Cambodian rocket barrage into Thailand on the morning of 24 July, followed by Thai air strikes.

Since then an army of Cambodian social media warriors, backed by state-controlled English language media channels, have unleashed a flood of allegations and inflammatory reports, many of which turned out to be false.

They reported that a Thai F16 fighter jet had been shot down, posting images of a plane on fire falling from the sky – it turned out to be from Ukraine. Another unfounded allegation, that Thailand had dropped poison gas, was accompanied by an image of a water bomber dropping pink fire retardant. This was really from a wildfire in California.

Thailand responded with official statements of its own, but often these were just dry presentations of statistics, and they came from multiple sources – the military, local government, health ministry, foreign ministry – which did not always appear to be coordinating with each other.

Bangkok failed to get across its argument that Cambodia, whose rockets marked the first use of artillery and had killed several Thai civilians, was responsible for the escalation.

It is no secret that the elected Thai government, centred on the Pheu Thai party of controversial billionaire Thaksin Shinawatra, has an uneasy relationship with the Thai military.

That was made much worse in June when Hun Sen, the former Cambodian leader and an old friend of Thaksin’s, decided to leak a private phone conversation he had with Thaksin’s daughter, Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra. She had appealed to him to help resolve their differences over the border, and complained that the Thai army general commanding forces there was opposing her.

The leak caused a political uproar in Thailand, prompting the constitutional court to suspend her, and badly weakening the government just as the border crisis escalated.

Hun Sen has no such difficulties. Technically he has handed power to his son, Hun Manet, but after running the country for nearly 40 years it is clear he still holds the reins.

The army, the ruling party and the media are firmly under his control. His motives for burning his friendship with the Shinawatras are unclear, but it seems he was preparing for a larger conflict over the border.

From the start Hun Sen posted constantly, in Khmer and English, on his Facebook page, taunting the Thai government, along with photos that showed him in army uniform or poring over military maps.

By contrast the most visible figure on the Thai side has been the mercurial 2nd Army commander Lt. Gen Boonsin Padklang. He is the same officer Paetongtarn had complained about, and his bellicose nationalism has won him plenty of fans in Thailand but has also undermined the government’s authority.

“Hun Sen is very smart,” says Sebastian Strangio, author of Hun Sen’s Cambodia, a definitive account of the way his leadership has shaped the country.

“He has used this asymmetrical tactic of widening the divisions that already exist in Thailand. And the fact that Cambodia is so good at playing the victim has given it another powerful weapon against Thailand in the international arena.”

Thai officials admit they are struggling to counter the tactics used by the Cambodian side.

“This is totally different from how information wars have been waged before,” Russ Jalichandra, vice-minister for foreign affairs, told the BBC.

“What we are saying must be credible and able to be proved. That’s the only weapon we can use to fight in this war. And we have to stick to that even though it seems sometimes we are not fast enough.”

Thailand has always insisted its border dispute with Cambodia should be resolved bilaterally, without outside intervention, using a Joint Boundary Commission the two countries established 25 years ago.

But Cambodia wants to internationalise the dispute. It was the first to refer the escalating conflict to the UN Security Council last month. It has also asked the International Court of Justice to rule on where the border should lie. This has presented Thailand with a dilemma.

The official reason Thailand gives for rejecting ICJ involvement is that like many other countries it does not recognise ICJ jurisdiction. But just as important is a Thai collective memory of loss and humiliation at the ICJ which cuts to the heart of the border dispute.

Both Thailand and Cambodia have enshrined national stories of unjust territorial losses.

In Cambodia’s case it is the story of a once powerful empire reduced to poverty by war and revolution, and at the mercy of the territorial ambitions of its larger neighbours.

Thailand’s is a more recent story of being forced to sacrifice territories in the early 20th Century to stave off French or British colonial rule. When Thailand agreed to a new border with French-occupied Cambodia, it allowed French cartographers to draw the map.

But when Cambodia became an independent state in 1953, Thai forces occupied a spectacular Khmer temple called Preah Vihear, or Khao Phra Viharn in Thai, perched on a cliff top which was supposed to mark the border.

The Thais argued that the French cartographers had erred in moving the border away from the watershed, the agreed dividing line, putting the temple in Cambodia.

Cambodia took the dispute to the ICJ, and won.

The court ruled that, whatever the map’s flaws, Thailand had failed to challenge them in the preceding half century.

The then-Thai military ruler was shocked by the outcome, and wanted to attack Cambodia, but was persuaded by his diplomats to grudgingly accept the verdict.

Thailand’s sensitivity over its 1962 loss now makes it politically impossible for it to accept an ICJ role in resolving the remaining border disputes.

That has allowed Hun Sen to portray Thailand as defying international law.

Thailand is now countering the Cambodian narrative with a more effective one of its own: the use of landmines.

Both countries are signatories to the Ottawa Convention banning the use of anti-personnel mines, and Cambodia has a traumatic legacy of being one of the most mined countries in the world, for which it has received a lot of overseas funding.

So Thailand’s accusation that Cambodian soldiers have been laying new anti-personnel mines along the border, causing multiple injuries to Thai soldiers, is an awkward one for the government in Phnom Penh.

Initially Cambodia dismissed the allegation, saying these were old mines left from the civil war in the 1980s. The Thai government then took a group of diplomats and journalists to the border to show us what they have found.

Laid out on a table in the jungle, just a few hundred metres from the border, was a collection of munitions that Thai demining teams say they recovered from areas formerly occupied by Cambodian troops.

We were confined to a small clearing, marked off by red and white tape. Anywhere beyond that, they said, was unsafe. On the drive in along a muddy track we saw Thai soldiers in camouflaged bunkers hidden in the trees.

Among the munitions were dozens of thick, green plastic discs about the diameter of a saucer. These were Russian-made PMN-2 mines which contain a large quantity of explosives – enough to cause severe limb damage – and are difficult to deactivate. Some appeared to be brand new, and had not been laid.

The initial images of these prompted Cambodia to dismiss the Thai claims as unfounded because the arming pins had not been removed.

However, we were shown other mines which had been armed and buried, but clearly recently – not in the 1980s.

Thailand is calling for action against Cambodia by other signatories to the Ottawa Convention, and is asking countries which support demining programmes in Cambodia to stop funding them.

It argues that Cambodia’s refusal to admit laying mines or to agree on a plan to remove them demonstrates a lack of good faith in resolving the border dispute.

Cambodia has fired back by accusing Thailand of using cluster munitions and white phosphorus shells, which are not banned but can also pose a threat to non-combatants; the Thai military has acknowledged using them but only, it says, against military targets.

Cambodia has also published pictures of what it says is damage to the Preah Vihear temple, a World Heritage Site, by Thai shelling, something that the Thai military has denied.

The incessant volleys of accusations from both countries make any progress on their border dispute unlikely.

Hun Sen and his son have benefited politically from being able to depict themselves as defenders of Cambodian soil, but the conflict has made the political challenges faced by the Thai government even worse.

It has stirred intense animosity between Thai and Cambodian nationalists. Hundreds of thousands of Cambodian migrant workers have left Thailand, which will hit an already struggling Cambodian economy.

“Both sides are describing the border as a sacred dividing line between their countries”, says Mr Strangio. “The symbolism is hugely important. This cuts to very deep questions of national identity, and it’s something that neither side can afford to take a step back from at the moment.”

Ambitious plans for a bilateral summit between Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky and Russia’s Vladimir Putin appear to be stalling, only days after Donald Trump expressed confidence that such a meeting could take place within weeks.

Locations from Geneva and Vienna to Budapest or Istanbul have all been mooted as possible venues. Putin and Zelensky have not been in the same room since 2019, three years before Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The US president said he had “begun arrangements” for the summit, indicating he believed Putin had agreed to it over the phone on Monday.

This may have been an optimistic reading of the conversation.

Almost at once, the Kremlin shared its own, more vague version of the exchange. Trump and Putin had discussed “the possibility of raising the level of representatives” – said aide Yuri Ushakov – and that could simply mean that ministers, instead of envoys, may take part in the talks.

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz said that a meeting could happen “within the next two weeks”. But, he cautioned, “we don’t know whether the Russian president will have the courage to attend such a summit” and he pushed for Putin to be “persuaded”.

Trump mentioned a “rough” situation for Russia, should Putin not co-operate in the peace process, but declined to be more specific.

Now, as the diplomatic whirlwind dies down, the likelihood of a meeting between Putin and Zelensky seems to be further diminishing.

On the surface, Moscow appears to be open to taking part in bilateral talks between the two presidents. In reality, though, the preconditions it is attaching to a meeting will almost certainly prove unacceptable to the Ukrainian side.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said this week that Putin was ready to meet Zelensky provided that all “issues” that required consideration “at the highest level” were worked out. This vague yet uncompromising language has been used by the Kremlin in the past to resist Ukrainian proposals for a bilateral meeting.

Last week Trump envoy Steve Witkoff said that Russia had accepted security guarantees for Ukraine, calling it “a very significant step”.

But it now appears that the guarantees in question would be modelled on those first floated by Moscow and rejected by Kyiv in 2022, which would see Russia join a group of countries wielding a power of veto over military intervention in defence of Ukraine.

That proposal would also see a ban on Western troops being stationed in Ukraine, effectively leaving it defenceless in the event of a fresh Russian invasion. Lavrov said on Thursday that any other security framework would be “an absolutely futile undertaking”.

Zelensky, meanwhile, has said any meeting with Putin would need to come after Kyiv’s allies agreed on security guarantees – which would undoubtedly involve the support of Western forces and exclude Russia, making it the kind that Moscow would never accept.

As things stand, neither Russia nor Ukraine seem ready to budge from their long-held positions – and each is accusing the other of undermining efforts to reach a peace deal.

The possibility of a Putin-Zelensky summit may for the moment seem remote, but that has not stopped speculation about where it might take place.

In the aftermath of the diplomatic frenzy that followed the talks at the White House, Budapest was mentioned as a location for a potential meeting and the Americans were said to be in favour of it.

“They can come to Hungary at any time,” said Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Sizjjarto. “Give us an hour’s notice beforehand, and we are ready to guarantee fair, decent, safe, and equal conditions for everyone in Hungary.”

But not everybody sees the Hungarian capital as sufficiently neutral ground. Prime Minister Viktor Orban is one of the few European leaders who has maintained ties with Putin. He has also blocked funding for Ukraine and has pledged to veto Ukrainian membership to the EU.

“Let’s be honest, Budapest did not support us,” Zelensky said on Thursday. “I’m not saying that Orban’s policy was against Ukraine, but it was against supporting Ukraine,” he told reporters, adding that holding talks in Budapest would be “challenging”.

On Wednesday Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk posted on X that he was opposed to Budapest hosting talks. The city was the location of a 1994 summit that resulted in Kyiv surrendering its share of the Soviet nuclear arsenal in return for Russian security assurances. Those were later rendered meaningless by Moscow’s illegal 2014 annexation of Crimea and its 2022 full-scale invasion.

“Maybe I’m superstitious, but this time I would try to find another place,” quipped Tusk.

France’s Emmanuel Macron raised the possibility of the summit being held in Switzerland – a militarily neutral European country with a long history of hosting high-stakes talks. Zelensky also mooted Vienna, the seat of several international organisations.

In 2023 the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued a warrant for Putin alleging war crimes in Ukraine but Switzerland and Austria – both ICC signatories – have said they would grant immunity to the Russian president if he came for peace talks.

Turkey too has been floated as an option.

There is a precedent, as Istanbul has already hosted three rounds of direct delegation-level talks between Ukraine and Russia since April, although they failed to result in any meaningful progress towards a ceasefire beyond an agreement on exchanging prisoners of war.

The Vatican and Saudi Arabia were also mentioned by Ukraine as possible locations. The Vatican has long put itself forward as a suitable venue, while Saudi Arabia has previously brokered prisoner exchanges between Kyiv and Moscow.

Away from high-level diplomacy, the war shows no sign of abating.

On Thursday Ukraine said its armed forces had struck an oil refinery in Russia’s Rostov region, which borders Ukraine’s eastern regions of the Donbas.

Russia, meanwhile, launched its biggest wave of strikes on Ukraine for weeks, killing one person and wounding many more.

“There is still no signal from Moscow that they are truly going to engage in meaningful negotiations and end this war,” Zelensky said on social media. “Pressure is needed.”

This week saw President Donald Trump rule out sending US troops to Ukraine as part of a security deal, a council winning a legal challenge over asylum hotels and a shower gel advert being banned.

But how much attention did you pay to what else happened in the world over the past seven days?

Quiz collated by Grace Dean and George Sandeman.

Fancy testing your memory? Try last week’s quiz, or have a go at something from the archives.

Billionaire Elon Musk and his social media firm X have reached a tentative settlement with former employees who had sued for $500m (£373m) in severance pay.

The parties reported the deal in a court filing on Wednesday, jointly requesting the US appeals court in San Francisco to postpone an upcoming hearing to allow time to settle the paperwork.

Some workers sued the company over their terminations and severance packages, after some 6,000 staff – more than half its workforce – were sacked as part of a cost-cutting measure after Musk took over the company in 2022.

The BBC has contacted X – formerly called Twitter – and the lawyers representing the employees for comment.

“The parties have reached a settlement agreement in principle and began negotiating the terms of a long form settlement agreement,” according to court documents filed by both sides, seen by the BBC.

Details of the agreement are not yet public and will require the courts’ approval.

The lawsuit, led by former Twitter employee Courtney McMillian, says about 6,000 people were wrongly denied benefits under the company’s severance plan.

They argued that the firm had failed to provide payments as high as six months’ worth of salaries, among other terms.

But Twitter only gave sacked workers at most one month of severance pay, while some did not receive anything, according to the lawsuit.

Musk axed thousands of Twitter staff globally, downsizing the platform’s trust and safety, human rights and media teams.

The Twitter layoffs was among the earliest in a series of retrenchments among tech firms to cut costs. Rank-and-file workers were often first to be laid off.

Many companies had gone on a hiring spree during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic when the use of digital tools grew.

Companies like Facebook, Google and Microsoft laid off tens of thousands of workers in the years that followed.

Musk, who was appointed for several months to helm President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency, made similar moves when he axed thousands of federal workers earlier this year.

The department was tasked with reducing US government spending and cutting jobs.

The Philippines’ beloved fast-food chain Jollibee said fraudsters rigged the results of its online raffle, following complaints from customers and a brief government investigation.

Jollibee said “fraudulent third parties” placed multiple entries “despite existing safeguards” for a chance to win food items and concert tickets.

The company said it complied with the government investigation and that the situation had been corrected.

Many social media users were in disbelief when the winners’ names were posted on Jollibee’s Facebook page last week. They said names like Hobby Dynamics, Noble Beer and Alfreda Corkery could have been made up using AI.

Jollibee said it “immediately implemented corrective measures” and disqualified the “invalid major prize winners”. It also suspended succeeding draws and said a re-draw would be held.

“We want to assure everyone that we have fully addressed the issues raised and strictly complied with the investigation initiated by the Department of Trade and Industry,” Jollibee said in a statement late on Wednesday.

The names on the winners’ list baffled social media users as they are uncommon in the country. Filipino first and last names are a mix of English and Spanish inherited from its former colonisers the US and Spain.

The names also include Belle Thompson, Arielle Wintheiser and Gilda Block.

“LIKE SERIOUSLLLLLY?!?!” one Facebook user commented. “Your AI must be too lazy to come up with these kinds of names”.

“They probably thought people didn’t have time to read,” another wrote.

Some drew comparisons to a corruption controversy involving Vice-President Sara Duterte, whose office allegedly paid government funds to individuals with fictitious-sounding names.

The Department of Trade and Industry said on Wednesday that it would “continue to oversee the resumption of the Jollibee Burger Blowout Promo”, ensuring “fairness and transparency in all promotional undertakings”.

Jollibee started as an ice cream shop in the 1970s before opening its first burger restaurant in downtown Manila in the early 1980s. It has expanded its business rapidly in the last five years, acquiring US cafe chain The Coffee Bean and Tea Leaf and Michelin-starred Hong Kong dimsum chain Tim Ho Wan.

Its founder, Tony Tan Caktiong, is the son of poor immigrants from southern China. The chain’s mascot, a perpetually smiling bee with a red jacket, is a nod to Filipinos’ hardworking nature.

Generations of Filipinos see the brand as a part of their national identity, with its signature fried chicken, burgers and spaghetti becoming a staple for family gatherings.

In 2014, a shortage of its Chickenjoy fried chicken led to the #ChickenSad trend on social media.

Jollibee has 1,600 stores in 17 countries, including the UK, the US, Spain and Singapore.

German prosecutors say a Ukrainian man has been arrested in Italy on suspicion of blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipelines under the Baltic Sea, several months after the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

The man, identified only as Serhii K, was arrested in the province of Rimini and was part of a group who planted explosives under the Nord Stream 1 and Nord Stream 2 pipelines from Russia to Germany, federal prosecutors say.

The blasts severed a key source of natural gas for Europe when leaders were facing an energy crisis triggered by Russia’s war.

No-one admitted carrying out the attack, and Ukraine has denied involvement.

The Ukrainian, who was detained by Italy’s carabinieri military police stationed in the northern coastal resort of Misano Adriatico, is suspected of being one of the masterminds of the operation.

Prosecutors said he was part of a team that had chartered a yacht and sailed from the German port of Rostock to an area of the Baltic near the Danish island of Bornholm.

Although Nord Stream 2 never went into operation, Nord Stream 1’s two pipelines had provided a steady supply 1,200km (745 miles) under the Baltic from the Russian coast to north-eastern Germany.

Shortly before Russia’s invasion, Germany had cancelled its process to approve Nord Stream 2, which was 100% owned by Russian gas giant Gazprom. Months later, Russia shut down Nord Stream 1, blaming problems with equipment.

Then, on 26 September 2022, several explosions were recorded that ruptured three of the four pipelines.

Mystery surrounded the identity of the saboteurs, with Russia coming under Western suspicion and Moscow blaming the US and UK.

Last year German reports suggested a team of Ukrainian divers had hired a yacht and sailed out into the Baltic to attack the pipelines.

German prosecutors issued a warrant for the arrest of a diver named Volodymyr Z last August.

They said on Thursday that the suspect held in Rimini would be brought before an investigating judge after he was extradited from Italy.

The prosecutors said the man was “strongly suspected of jointly causing an explosion and of sabotage undermining the constitution”.

There is no evidence so far linking Ukraine, Russia or any other state to the attacks.

A Bangkok court has acquitted controversial billionaire and former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was accused of insulting the monarchy.

The charge related to an interview he gave to a South Korean newspaper ten years ago. He would have faced up to 15 years in jail if convicted.

Thailand’s lese majeste law forbids insulting its monarchy. But critics say it is often used to target activists and political opponents.

The verdict came as Thaksin’s daughter, suspended PM Paetongtarn , faces a Constitutional Court decision on whether or not she should be removed from office. These cases pose a threat to the Shinawatra clan, which has been a dominant force in Thai politics for decades.

Friday’s verdict has brought some relief to the family and their supporters.

Winyat Charmontree, a lawyer acting for Thaksin, told reporters that after the verdict was read out in court, his client had smiled and thanked his lawyers. He had also said he was now able to work for the country’s benefit.

The charge against Thaksin was originally filed under the then-military government in 2016, when he was in exile, and re-activated last year after his return to Thailand.

At first glance the case against him seemed weak.

In the South Korean newspaper interview, the former prime minister said he believed the 2014 military coup which deposed the elected government of his sister Yingluck – just as he had been deposed by a previous coup in 2006 – had been instigated by “some people in the palace” and members of the privy council, the 19-member body which advises the Thai king.

Technically the privy council is not covered by the lese majeste law, which states that it is an offence to defame only the king, queen, heir to the throne or anyone acting as regent.

However, in recent years the law has been invoked to criminalise any action or statement which might reflect negatively on the monarchy as an institution.

In the past people have been prosecuted for making unfavourable comments about the late King Bhumibol’s dog and about a Thai king from the 16th Century.

More recently, a young woman was sentenced to five years in prison for placing a banner criticising the budget to help those affected by Covid close to a portrait of King Vajiralongkorn.

The interpretation of the law has become so broad that human rights groups view it as a political tool, which can be used to intimidate and silence those who challenge the status quo.

Many believed this was what was happening to Thaksin.

However, the judges chose to interpret the wording of the law literally, and said that as the defendant had not named names, he should be acquitted.

This verdict comes exactly two years after the former prime minister’s dramatic return from 15 years of exile.

At the time it was assumed there had been a grand bargain struck between Thaksin and his long-time conservative adversaries, so that his party Pheu Thai, which in the 2023 election had been relegated to second place from its usual number one spot, could form a coalition government and keep the young reformists who had actually won the election out of power.

The terms of that bargain have never been made public –Thaksin has always insisted there was no deal – but it is likely they included an agreement that he would keep a low profile and stay out of politics.

But a low profile is something completely alien to the flamboyant, wealthy and ambitious tycoon.

He is still believed to be the largest funder of Pheu Thai and makes all of the main decisions for the party.

When his first choice of prime minister, businessman Srettha Thavisin, was disqualified by the persistently interventionist Constitutional Court a year ago, Thaksin’s inexperienced daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra took the helm, becoming Thailand’s youngest ever prime minister.

A self-described “daddy’s girl”, she said she would happily take his advice. As she took office Mr Thaksin announced his “Vision for Thailand”, including a controversial proposal to legalise casinos; much of that subsequently became official policy.

The parliamentary opposition has accused the Shinawatra family of running a “dual leadership”. Thaksin’s business ties to the Cambodian strongman Hun Sen also raised concerns over how firmly his government would defend Thailand over the border dispute between the two countries.

This came to a head in the private phone conversation leaked by Hun Sen in which Paetongtarn was heard referring to him as “uncle”, and criticising her own army commander on the border, for which she has now been suspended by the Constitutional Court, which will decide whether she is dismissed in a week’s time.

Losing another prime minister after just a year, at a time of great global uncertainty, might be judged as too risky. It is not clear who would replace Paetongtarn.

Thaksin faces another court case next month, over his transfer to a hospital to serve a previous jail sentence. The price for him being allowed to stay out of jail may be that his party has to call an early election, at a time when its poor performance in government could result in it losing many of its seats in parliament.

McDonald’s Japan has postponed a child’s menu toy promotion after complaints that a recent Pokémon giveaway led to piles of food being dumped, with the cards then being sold on for profit.

The fast-food giant said on Thursday that its collaboration with the popular pirate-themed manga title “One Piece” would now not run.

Earlier this month, the McDonald’s giveaway of limited-edition Pokémon cards with its “Happy Set” meals led to long queues and bulk-buying.

Pictures shared online showed bags of food dumped on the street and complaints that the cards were being sold online for profit. The giveaway was planned to last for three days, but many outlets ran out of cards on the first.

In a statement on its website, McDonald’s Japan said that it had “postponed” the One Piece promotion, which was due to start on 29 August, as part of a “review of Happy Set-related initiatives”.

Customers would now receive toys that accompanied previous Happy Set meals instead, the company said.

Japan’s Consumer Affairs Agency has told McDonald’s it must improve its sales strategy and take steps to improve food wastage.

One Piece is a long-running series of comics and an animated programme, in which a pirate boy battles rivals while searching for treasure known as “One Piece”. The comics were launched in 1997, with the animated series coming two years later.

Several related games and toys are hugely popular in Japan.

McDonald’s has had similar problems with other campaigns in the past, including a collaboration with the “Chiikawa” manga series that was also targeted by online resales.

After the Pokémon debacle, McDonald’s Japan issued a public apology and pledged to take steps to prevent similar issues in the future.

Pokémon cards are extremely popular among children but also attract adult fans and collectors, with billions printed and some selling for tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

One of the cards from the recent promotion, featuring the popular character Pikachu, is currently listed on one online auction site for over £25,000 ($33,000).

Last week, McDonald’s told local media it was reviewing its giveaways after the Pokémon campaign led to “large-scale purchases for the purpose of reselling, which resulted in store congestion or food being left behind and discarded”.

It said it was discontinuing the promotion and would be imposing a cap on the numbers of Happy Set meals that could be bought by customers.

Japanese police have said that an elderly man who they had believed was killed by a bear had in fact been stabbed to death by his son.

Fujiyuki Shindo, 51, was arrested in the northern Akita prefecture on Tuesday for allegedly murdering his 93-year-old father Fujiyoshi, local media reports.

Police sent out a bear attack warning mail after the victim’s wife found him collapsed and bleeding on the floor. But it was withdrawn after investigators concluded the wounds were more consistent with knife injuries.

Bear sightings are increasingly common in northern Japan, where ageing populations and shrinking farmlands have meant the animals are expanding their habitat closer to human populations.

Mr Shindo, who lived with his parents, had initially told police that he did not notice anything unusual at home during the time of the attack, agency Kyodo News reported.

Investigators seized several knives from the family’s home and were trying to identify the murder weapon, Jiji Press reported.

They have not given out a motive for the murder.

Bears were initially blamed for Fujiyoshi Shindo’s death because Japan has seen a rising number of bear attacks in recent years. In the 12 months to March 2024, a record 219 people were attacked by bears – and six of them died, Japan’s Environment Ministry said.

In July, a newspaper deliveryman was killed by a brown bear in a residential area.

The rise in bear encounters have also prompted authorities to relax hunting laws to make it easier for people to shoot bears.

Thousands of bears have recently been trapped and killed by hunters.

The top diplomat of the European Union (EU) has warned against pushing Ukraine to give up territories to Russia as part of a future peace deal.

Speaking in her first UK interview since EU leaders joined Donald Trump’s White House peace talks with Ukraine, Kaja Kallas told the BBC’s Today programme that letting Russia keep Ukrainian territories was a “trap that Putin wants us to walk into”.

The Donbas region in eastern Ukraine has long been contested by Russia, with military aggression forcing 1.5 million Ukrainians to flee over the past decade.

Ukraine has consistently rejected conceding Donbas to the Kremlin in exchange for peace, though Trump stressed the need for “swapping of territories”.

Kallas – who has been placed on the Kremlin’s “wanted list” – also spoke at length about “credible and robust” security guarantees for Ukraine.

She admitted that there were not many “concrete steps” for a deterring force at this stage in negotiations.

“The strongest security guarantee is a strong Ukraine army,” she said, outlining the importance of establishing guarantees that were “not just on paper”.

She said it was up to member states of the “coalition of the willing” to determine exactly what they could contribute, and that it was not yet clear in what capacity those forces would operate.

Leaders from key EU countries, including France, Germany, Italy and Finland, joined Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for talks at the White House last week, days after Trump hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin in a military base in Alaska.

On the Alaska summit, Kallas said that Putin got “everything he wanted” and that would impact his interest in negotiating a peace deal.

“He got such a welcoming and he wanted sanctions not to be put in place, which he also achieved.

“Putin is just laughing, not stopping the killing but increasing the killing,” Kallas said. “We are forgetting that Russia has not made one single concession.”

She added that the EU had put together the 19th package of sanctions to pressure the Russian leader into further discussions.

Meanwhile, Trump on Thursday set a two-week time frame for evaluating peace talks between Russia and Ukraine.

“I would say within two weeks we’re going to know one way or the other,” he said in a telephone interview with Todd Starnes, a host for right-wing media outlet Newsmax.

“After that, we’ll have to maybe take a different tack,” Trump said.

But Zelensky cast doubt on Putin showing willingness for a meeting with him.

In comments released to reporters on Thursday, reported by the Agence France-Presse news agency, Zelensky accused Russia of avoiding the “necessity” of holding a meeting between the two countries’ leaders.

“Current signals from Russia are, to be honest, indecent. They’re trying to avoid the necessity to meet. They don’t want to end this war.”

He also put pressure on Western allies, saying Ukraine would like to “have an understanding of the security guarantees architecture within seven to 10 days”.

“We need to understand which country will be ready to do what at each specific moment,” he added.

Zelensky has criticised the significant air attack by Russia early on Thursday, saying it was behaving as if there were no global efforts to stop the war.

Eleven different locations in Ukraine were hit, killing at least one and injuring more than a dozen in the western city of Lviv close to the Polish border.

A number of European leaders earlier echoed EU and Ukrainian views about Putin’s unwillingness to engage with a peace deal.

Finnish President Alexander Stubb said Putin was “rarely to be trusted”, and that he was sceptical about Putin eventually agreeing to a bilateral meeting with Zelensky.

French President Emmanuel Macron called the Russian leader “a predator, and an ogre at our doorstep” and expressed “the greatest doubt” that he would be willing to work towards peace.

Both leaders were in attendance at White House peace talks on Monday.

Zelensky has said he is willing to meet Putin “in any format”, but told reporters on Thursday that there was still no sign from Moscow that they “truly intend to engage in substantive negotiations”.

Glinting in the autumn sun on a parade ground in Beijing, the People’s Liberation Army missiles moved slowly past the crowd on a fleet of giant camouflaged lorries.

Needle-sharp in profile, measuring 11 metres long and weighing 15 tonnes, each bore the letters and numerals: “DF-17”.

China had just unveiled to the world its arsenal of Dongfeng hypersonic missiles.

That was on 1 October 2019 at a National Day parade. The US was already aware that these weapons were in development, but since then China has raced ahead with upgrading them.

Thanks to their speed and manoeuvrability – travelling at more than five times the speed of sound – they are a formidable weapon, so much so that they could change the way wars are fought.

Which is why the global contest over developing them is heating up.

“This is just one component of the wider picture of the emerging geopolitical contest that we’re seeing between state actors,” says William Freer, a national security fellow at the Council on Geostrategy think tank.

“[It’s one] we haven’t had since the Cold War.”

The Beijing ceremony raised speculation about a possible growing threat posed by China’s advancements in hypersonic technology. Today it leads the field in hypersonic missiles, followed by Russia.

The US, meanwhile, is playing catch-up, while the UK has none.

Mr Freer of the Council on Geostrategy think tank, which received some of its funding from defence industry companies, the Ministry of Defence and others, argues that the reason China and Russia are ahead is relatively simple.

“They decided to invest a lot of money in these programmes quite a few years ago.”

Meanwhile, for much of the first two decades of this century, many Western nations focused on fighting both jihadist-inspired terrorism at home, and counter-insurgency wars overseas.

Back then, the prospect of having to fight a peer-on-peer conflict against a modern, sophisticated adversary seemed a distant one.

“The net result is that we failed to notice the massive rise of China as a military power,” admitted Sir Alex Younger, soon after retiring as chief of Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service in 2020.

Other nations are also racing ahead: Israel has a hypersonic missile, the Arrow 3, designed to be an interceptor.

Iran has claimed to have hypersonic weapons, and said it launched a hypersonic missile at Israel during their brief but violent 12-day war in June.

(The weapon did indeed travel at extremely high speed but it was not thought to be manoeuvrable enough in flight to class as a true hypersonic).

North Korea, meanwhile, has been working on its own versions since 2021 and claims to have a viable, working weapon (pictured).

The US and UK are now investing in hypersonic missile technology, as are other nations, including France and Japan.

The US appears to be strengthening its deterrence, and has debuted its “Dark Eagle” hypersonic weapon.

According to the US Department of Defense, the Dark Eagle “brings to mind the power and determination of our country and its Army as it represents the spirit and lethality of the Army and Navy’s hypersonic weapon endeavours”.

But China and Russia are currently far ahead – and according to some experts, this is a potential concern.

Hypersonic means something that travels at speeds of Mach 5 or faster. (That’s five times the speed of sound or 3,858 mph.) This puts them in a different league to something that is just supersonic, meaning travelling at above the speed of sound (767 mph).

And their speed is partially the reason that hypersonic missiles are considered such a threat.

The fastest to date is Russian – the Avangard – claimed to be able to reach speeds of Mach 27 (roughly 20,700mph) – although the figure of around Mach 12 (9,200mph) is more often cited, which equates to two-miles-a-second.

In terms of purely destructive power, however, hypersonic missiles are not hugely different from supersonic or subsonic cruise missiles, according to Mr Freer.

“It’s the difficulty in detecting, tracking and intercepting them that really sets them apart.”

There are basically two kinds of hypersonic missile: boost-glide missiles rely on a rocket (like those DF-17 ones in China) to propel them towards and sometimes just above the Earth’s atmosphere, from where they then come hurtling down at these incredible speeds.

Unlike the more common ballistic missiles, which travel in a fairly predictable arc – a parabolic curve – hypersonic glide vehicles can move in an erratic way, manoeuvred in final flight towards their target.

Then there are hypersonic cruise missiles, which hug terrain, trying to stay below radar to avoid detection.

They are similarly launched and accelerated using a rocket booster, then once they reach hypersonic velocity, they then activate a system known as a “scramjet engine” that takes in air as it flies, propelling it to its target.

These are “dual-use weapons”, meaning their warhead can be either nuclear or conventional high explosive. But there is more to these weapons than speed alone.

For a missile to be classed as truly “hypersonic” in military terms, it needs to be manoeuvrable in flight. In other words, the army that fired it needs it to be able to change course in sudden and unpredictable ways, even as it is hurtling towards its target at extreme speeds.

This can make it extremely hard to intercept. Most terrestrial-based radars cannot be relied upon to detect hypersonic missiles until late in the weapon’s flight.

“By flying under the radar horizon they can evade early detection and may only appear on sensors in their terminal flight phase, limiting interception opportunities,” says Patrycja Bazylczyk, research associate at the Missile Defence Project at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC, which has received some of its funding from US government entities, as well as defence industry companies and others.

The answer to this, she believes, is bolstering the West’s space-based sensors, which would overcome the limitations of radars on the ground.

In a real-time war scenario, there is also a terrifying question facing the nation being targeted: is this a nuclear attack or a conventional one?

“Hypersonics haven’t so much changed the nature of warfare as altered the timeframes within which you can operate,” says Tom Sharpe, a former Royal Navy Commander and anti-air warfare specialist.

“The basics of needing to track your enemy, fire at them, then manoeuvre the missile late on to allow for a moving target (the great advantage of ships) are no different from previous missiles, be that ballistic, supersonic or subsonic.

“Similarly the defender’s requirement to track and either jam or destroy an incoming hypersonic missile are the same as before, you just have less time”.

There are signs that this technology is worrying Washington. A report published in February this year by the US Congressional Research Service warns: “US defence officials have stated that both terrestrial and current space-based sensor architectures are insufficient to detect and track hypersonic weapons.”

Yet some experts believe that some of the hype around hypersonics is overdone.

Dr Sidharth Kaushal, from the Royal United Services Institute defence think tank, is among those who think that they are not necessarily a gamechanger.

“The speed and manoeuvrability makes them attractive against high value targets and their kinetic energy on impact also makes them a useful means of engaging hardened and buried targets, which might have been difficult to destroy with most conventionally armed munitions previously.”

But though they travel at five times the speed of sound or more, there are measures to defend against them – some of which are “effective,” argues Mr Sharpe.

The first is making tracking and detection more difficult. “Ships can go to great lengths to protect their position,” he adds.

“The grainy satellite picture available from commercial satellites only needs to be a few minutes out of date for it to be of no use for targeting.

“Getting satellite targeting solutions current and accurate enough to use for targeting is both difficult and expensive.”

But he points out that artificial intelligence and other emerging technologies will likely change this over time.

The fact remains that Russia and China have stolen a march when it comes to developing these weapons. “I think the Chinese hypersonic programmes… are impressive and concerning,” says Mr Freer.

But he adds: “When it comes to the Russians, we should probably be a lot more cautious about what they claim.”

In November 2024, Russia launched an experimental intermediate-range ballistic missile at an industrial site in Dnipro, Ukraine, using it as a live testing ground.

The missile, which Ukraine said travelled at hypersonic speeds of Mach 11 (or 8,439mph), was given the name ‘Oreshnik’, Russian for hazel tree.

President Vladimir Putin said that the weapon travelled at a speed of Mach 10.

Its warhead is reported to have deliberately fragmented during its final descent into several, independently targeted inert projectiles, a methodology dating back to the Cold War.

Someone who heard it land told me that it was not particularly loud but there were several impacts: six warheads dropped at separate targets but as they were inert, the damage was not significantly greater than that caused by Russia’s nightly bombardment of Ukraine’s cities.

For Europe, the latent threat to Nato countries comes primarily from Russia’s missiles, some of which are stationed on the Baltic coast in Russia’s exclave of Kaliningrad. What if Putin were to order a strike on Kyiv with an Oreshnik, this time armed with a full payload of high explosive?

The Russian leader claimed this weapon was going into mass production and that they had the capacity, he said, to turn targets “to dust”.

Russia also has other missiles that travel at hypersonic speeds.

Putin made much of his air force’s Kinzhal (Dagger) missiles, claiming they travelled so fast it was impossible to intercept. Since then, he has fired plenty of them at Ukraine — but it turns out that the Kinzhal may not be truly hypersonic, and many have been intercepted.

Of concern to the West is Russia’s super-fast and highly manoeuvrable Avangard. At a ceremony for its unveiling in 2018 – along with five other so-called ‘superweapons’ – Putin declared it was unstoppable.

Dr Sidharth Kaushal suggests its primary role may actually be “overcoming US missile defences”.

“Russia’s state armament programmes also suggest its production capacity for a system like Avangard is limited,” he argues.

Elsewhere, as the contest for strategic supremacy in the Western Pacific heats up between the US and China, the proliferation of China’s ballistic missile arsenal poses a serious potential threat to the US naval presence in the South China Sea and beyond.

China has the world’s most powerful arsenal of hypersonics. In late 2024, China unveiled its latest hypersonic glide vehicle, the GDF-600. With a 1,200kg payload, it can carry sub-munitions and reach speeds of Mach 7 (5,370mph).

The UK is behind in this race, especially as it’s one of the five nuclear-armed permanent members of the UN Security Council. But belatedly, it is making an effort to catch up, or at least to join the race.

In April, the Ministry of Defence and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory announced that UK scientists had reached “a landmark moment” after the successful completion of a major testing programme.

The UK’s propulsion test was the result of a three-way collaboration between the UK government, industry and the US government. Over a period of six weeks a total of 233 “successful static test runs” were carried out at the NASA Langley Research Centre in Virginia, USA.

John Healey, the UK’s Defence Secretary, called it “a milestone moment.”

But it will still be years before this weapon is ready.

As well as creating hypersonic missiles, the West should focus on creating strong defence against them, argues Mr Freer.

“When it comes to missile warfare, it’s all about two sides of the same coin. You’ve got to be able to do damage limitation while also having the ability to go after the enemy’s launch platforms.

“If you’ve got both hands available, and you can both defend yourself to an extent and also counter attack… then an adversary is a lot less likely to attempt to initiate conflict.”

However, Tom Sharpe is still cautions about the extent to which we should be concerned at the moment.

“The key point with hypersonics,” he says, “is that both sides of this equation are as difficult as each other – and neither are perfected… yet”.

Israel’s defence minister says Gaza City will be destroyed if Hamas does not agree to disarm and release all hostages.

Israel Katz’s comments came after the Israeli cabinet approved plans for a massive assault on Gaza City, despite widespread international and domestic opposition.

On Monday, Hamas agreed to a proposal by Qatari and Egyptian mediators for a 60-day ceasefire, which according to Qatar would see the release of half of the remaining hostages in Gaza.

But Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has apparently rejected this, saying he had instructed negotiations to begin for the release of all remaining hostages and an end to the war in Gaza on terms “acceptable to Israel”.

Israel believes that only 20 of the 50 hostages are still alive after 22 months of war.

Israeli media has cited an Israeli official as saying negotiators will be dispatched for renewed talks once a location has been determined.

In a video statement during a visit to the Gaza division’s headquarters in Israel on Thursday night, Netanyahu said he had “instructed to immediately begin negotiations for the release of all our hostages”.

“I have come to approve the IDF’s [Israel Defense Forces] plans to take control of Gaza City and defeat Hamas,” he said.

“These two matters – defeating Hamas and releasing all our hostages – go hand in hand,” Netanyahu added, without providing details about what the next stage of talks would entail.

Reinforcing Netanyahu’s message, Defence Minister Katz posted on social media on Friday: “Soon, the gates of hell will open upon the heads of Hamas’s murderers and rapists in Gaza – until they agree to Israel’s conditions for ending the war, primarily the release of all hostages and their disarmament.

“If they do not agree, Gaza, the capital of Hamas, will become Rafah and Beit Hanoun,” he added.

Both cities have been reduced to ruins following Israeli military operations.

The IDF has warned medical officials and international organisations to prepare for the planned evacuation of Gaza City’s entire population of one million residents to shelters in the south before troops move in.

Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry said it rejected “any step that would undermine what remains of the health system”.

The UN has said intensifying attacks and “relentless bombardment” in Gaza City are causing a “high numbers of civilian casualties and large-scale destruction”. It and aid groups have vowed to staxy to help those who cannot or choose not to move.

There are fears that the new military campaign in Gaza City will deepen the humanitarian crisis. The UN-backed Integrated Food Security Phase Classification said last month that the “worst-case scenario of famine” was “playing out in Gaza.”

Netanyahu announced Israel’s intention to take control of the entire Gaza Strip after indirect talks with Hamas on a ceasefire and hostage release deal broke down last month.

The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 62,192 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory’s health ministry. The ministry’s figures are quoted by the UN and others as the most reliable source of statistics available on casualties.

Award-winning rapper Lil Nas X has been arrested after an altercation with police in Los Angeles, authorities have confirmed.

Police were called to Ventura Boulevard at 05:30 (12:30 GMT) on Thursday after reports of a man walking down the street in his underwear, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) said.

After officers arrived at the scene, LAPD allege the Old Town Road singer “charged” at them and was placed under arrest on suspicion of battery.

He was then taken to hospital for treatment for a possible overdose, police spokesman Charles Miller said. The BBC has reached out to his representatives for comment.

Unverified video of the star on Thursday morning was published by TMZ, which featured the singer dancing in the street in just his underwear and cowboy boots, and inviting people passing by to “come to the party”.

The rapper is expected to release his much-anticipated second studio album Dreamboy later this year, teasing his new music on Instagram ahead of the drop.

Born Montero Lamar Hill, Lil Nas X became the first openly gay man to receive a Country Music Association award, after he won with Old Town Road in 2019.

The song also won two Grammys and broke the record for the longest-running number one song on the Billboard Hot 100, after 17 weeks at the top of the charts.

The singer has courted controversy throughout his career, with conservatives in the US calling the music video for his hit single Montero (Call Me By Your Name) “depraved” and “evil“.

The singer responded with a fake apology video on YouTube, which cut into Montero’s infamous lap-dancing scene, and wrote on Twitter that he wanted his haters’ tears to “fill my Grammy cup”.

An inquest has found a 32-year-old woman, who died while skydiving the day after her relationship ended, took her own life.

Marketing manager Jade Damarell died after crashing on to farmland near Fleming Field in Shotton Colliery, County Durham on 27 April.

The inquest in Crook heard she was a “very experienced skydiver” but had made no attempt to deploy either her main or reserve parachutes.

Assistant coroner Dr Leslie Hamilton concluded that on the “balance of probabilities” she intended to take her own life and recorded a verdict of suicide.

Resuming the inquest, Dr Hamilton said the sport was one of Ms Damarell’s passions and she had completed more than 500 jumps.

The inquest heard weather conditions on the day of her death were good.

A helmet camera, which she had previously used while carrying out jumps, was not used on the day of her death and all her equipment was in working order.

Dr Hamilton summarised a statement from her former partner which said that they “had ended their relationship the night before”.

He said that they had met through a shared love of skydiving.

The day before she died, she had completed six jumps safely, the hearing heard.

Ms Damarell, who lived in Caerphilly, in Wales, died as a result of “blunt trauma”, a previous post-mortem examination at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Newcastle found.

Toxicological tests were negative for drink or drugs.

Her parents Liz and Andrew Samuel observed the hearing remotely.

After the inquest, her family said: “Our beloved daughter Jade was a brilliant, beautiful, brave and truly extraordinary person.

“A bright, adventurous, free spirit, she lived with immense energy, passion and love and touched countless lives with her warmth and kindness.”

Chinese ambassador to India Xu Feihong has said that Beijing “firmly opposes” Washington’s steep tariffs on Delhi and called for greater co-operation between India and China.

Xu likened the US to a “bully”, saying that it had long benefitted from free trade but was now using tariffs as a “bargaining chip” to demand “exorbitant prices” from other nations.

“US has imposed tariffs of up to 50% on India and even threatened for more. China firmly opposes it. Silence only emboldens the bully,” Xu said on Thursday.

Earlier this month, Trump imposed a 25% penalty on India in addition to 25% tariffs for buying oil and weapons from Russia. The new rate will come into effect on 27 August.

Delhi’s increased imports of cheap Russian crude since the Ukraine war has caused a strain in its ties with the US and impacted negotiations on a trade deal.

India has defended its purchases of Russian oil, arguing that as a major energy importer, it must buy the cheapest available crude to protect millions of poor Indians from rising costs. It has also pointed out that the Biden administration had told India to buy Russian oil to stabilise world energy markets.

In the backdrop of Delhi’s shaky trade relations with Washington, there appears to be a rapid thawing of ties between India and China.

Relations between the neighbours plunged after the 2020 clashes in Galwan in Ladakh. Since then Beijing and Delhi have been gradually working towards normalising ties.

Earlier this week, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi made a two-day trip to Delhi during which he said that India and China should view each other as “partners” rather than “adversaries or threats”.

On Thursday, Xu made statements along similar lines while speaking at an event in the Indian capital.

He called the two countries “double engines” of economic growth in Asia and added that unity between India and China benefits the world at large.

He also invited more Indian enterprises to invest in China and added that Beijing hoped that India would provide a “fair, just and non-discriminatory business environment” for the Chinese enterprises in India to benefit the people of both countries.

“At present, tariff wars and trade wars are disrupting the global economic and trade system, power politics and the law of the jungle are prevalent and international rules and order have suffered severe impacts,” he said, alluding to Washington’s tariff measures against India and other countries.

“China will firmly stand with India to uphold the multilateral trading system with the World Trade Organisation (WTO) at its core,” he added.

He also said that Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s upcoming visit to China to attend the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation summit would give “new impetus to China-India relations”.

Erik Menendez’s bid for freedom has suffered a setback, after officials in the US state of California denied him parole over the killing of his parents more than three decades ago.

The younger of the two notorious Menendez brothers, who were both convicted in the 1989 shotgun murders of their wealthy mother and father in Beverly Hills, made his first plea on Thursday.

His brother, Lyle, is scheduled to face his own parole suitability hearing on Friday. Both brothers were made eligible for paroled release after they were resentenced by a judge in May.

Erik Menendez can try for parole again at another hearing in three years, the board ruled.

Parole board commissioner Robert Barton, who listened to testimony for more than 10 hours with a panel before denying Erik’s parole, said he believed Erik was not yet ready for release.

“I believe in redemption, or I wouldn’t be doing this job,” he told Erik at the end of the marathon hearing. “But based on the legal standards, we find that you continue to pose an unreasonable risk to public safety.”

The board took issue, specifically, with his violations in prison and past criminal activity before killing his parents.

“Contrary to your supporters’ beliefs, you have not been a model prisoner and frankly, we find that a little disturbing,” Barton said, bluntly telling him he now had “two options” for his future.

“One is to have a pity party,” Barton told Erik. “Or you can take to heart what we discussed.”

His bid for freedom isn’t over. The parole denial is likely to shift focus to Gov Gavin Newsom, who is separately mulling a clemency request from the brothers.

Clemency could come in the form of a reduced sentence or even a pardon, but it would not overturn the brother’s convictions. Weighing in on such a high-profile and controversial case could be politically risky for Newsom, who is thought to be a potential candidate for the Democratic nominee for president.

Apart from parole and clemency, the brothers have also asked for a new trial due to additional evidence being discovered in the case.

A judge is mulling the request, but it is opposed by the Los Angeles district attorney’s office.

During the hearing, a prosecutor from the district attorney’s office argued against Erik’s release, saying positive changes in his behaviour were only motivated by a chance at release. They argued he was “still an unreasonable risk to society” and that “he has no insight into his crimes”.

Erik appeared virtually for the hearing from the San Diego prison where he has been housed, wearing a blue prison jumpsuit and eyeglasses. Members of his family, his attorneys and a prosecutor from the Los Angeles district attorney’s office also appeared on a video call with the parole board panel.

During the nearly all-day hearing, the panel asked him about the killings, his relationship with his parents and his attempts to cover up guilt in the murders. He grew emotional at times, describing the moments he opened fire on his parents, Jose and Kitty Menendez, with a shotgun as they watched TV in their Beverly Hills mansion.

The brothers shot the pair more than a dozen times, Erik even reloading the gun and continuing to fire on his mother. He and his brother have long claimed self-defence and said they were being abused sexually.

“I just want my family to understand that I am so unimaginably sorry for what I have put them through from Aug. 20, 1989 until this day, and this hearing,” Erik said during the hearing before he knew his fate.

“If I ever get the chance at freedom, I want the healing to be about them,” he said. “Don’t think it’s the healing of me – it’s the healing of the family. This is a family tragedy.”

• Pop culture re-invented the Menendez brothers – now their fate may rest with one man
• Judge cuts Menendez brothers’ sentences giving them chance of freedom

The board questioned him about his time in prison and legal issues before the killings, including being involved in two burglaries. He said his time in prison helped him develop a “moral guardrail”.

The panel also examined factors such as his health and whether he would be a danger to society if released from prison. A risk assessment done for him found him to be a “moderate” risk if released.

They reviewed the schooling and positive programs he had been involved with in prison, along with transgressions he had while in lockup, including prison fights and being found multiple times with contraband. While behind bars, he’d got in trouble for having a cell phone, art supplies and tobacco – which he’d hidden inside a religious book.

The decision to keep Erik in prison is separate from that of Lyle, who is set to appear before a different parole board panel on Friday morning.

In explaining their decision on Thursday, the board made clear that Erik’s behaviour in prison and his previous burglaries were big factors in his denial. They also cited the brutal nature of the killings, calling it “devoid of human compassion”.

While much of the Menendez brothers’ case involves both brothers, their conduct behind bars and before the 1989 killings is different and could evoke a different decision from the state’s parole board.

During Thursday’s hearing, a coalition of relatives, who have long advocated for the brothers’ release, and supporters also testified on Erik’s behalf, saying he had changed during his lengthy sentence.

Teresita Menendez-Baralt, Jose Menendez’s sister, broke down in tears as she spoke before the panel, telling them she’s forgiven Erik for killing her brother and the years of trauma he caused their family.

She said that she is dying from stage four cancer.

“The truth is I do not know how much time I have left. If Erik is granted parole, it would be a blessing,” she told them. “I hope I live long enough to welcome him into my home, to sit at the same table, to wrap my arms around him – that would bring me immeasurable peace and joy.”

• Three possible paths to freedom: What’s next for the Menendez brothers?
• Family of Menendez brothers call for their release in killing of parents

The brothers’ high-profile murder trials were among those that defined the last century.

During their trials, the brothers claimed the killings were done in self-defence and said they’d suffered years of emotional and sexual abuse at the hands of their parents.

Prosecutors, though, argued they were greedy, entitled monsters who meticulously planned the killings then lied to authorities investigating the case while going on a $700,000 (£526,0000) spending spree – with purchases including a new Porsche, Jeep and Rolex watches – with their parents’ estate.

They weren’t arrested until police got word of their admissions to a psychologist.

Three decades later, the case was re-examined in the public thanks to a mix of new evidence, attention on TikTok, Netflix’s drama series Monsters: The Lyle and Erik Menendez Story and celebrities weighing in.

But movement in the courts didn’t happen until the Los Angeles’ former top prosecutor re-examined the case and asked for a judge to re-sentence them, citing California’s evolving approach to juvenile offenders and abuse survivors.

A change in state law allows offenders who were under the age of 26 at the time of their crime to be sentenced as minors rather than adults. Lyle was 21 and Erik was 18 when they killed their parents.

Despite the new LA District Attorney Nathan Hochman fighting against the resentencing effort, a judge in May changed their sentences to 50 years to life with the possibility of parole – which represented a reduction.

Hochman accused Erik of continuing to “display narcissistic and antisocial traits” and his office fiercely argued in court against both Erik and Lyle’s release.

An appeals court has thrown out a $500m (£372m) penalty that President Donald Trump was ordered to pay in a New York civil fraud trial last year.

Judge Arthur Engoron had ordered Trump to pay the fee for massively inflating the value of the Trump Organization’s properties in order to secure favourable loans.

In the lengthy ruling released on Thursday, judges on the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division stated that while Trump was liable for the fraud, the fine of nearly half a billion dollars was excessive and probably violated constitutional protections against severe punishment.

In the case Judge Engoron had ordered Trump to pay $355m, but with interest, that grew to more than $500m.

“While harm certainly occurred, it was not the cataclysmic harm that can justify a nearly half billion-dollar award to the state,” wrote Judge Peter Moulton.

In a post on his social media site, Truth Social, Trump claimed the decision was a “total victory”.

“I greatly respect the fact that the Court had the Courage to throw out this unlawful and disgraceful Decision that was hurting Business all throughout New York State,” he said. “It was a Political Witch Hunt, in a business sense, the likes of which no one has ever seen before.”

The New York Attorney General’s Office, which brought the case against Trump, also framed the decision as a win, as it upheld Trump’s fraud liability and the judges did not throw out other penalties that were not financial. The office plans to appeal against the decision on the fine to the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.

In a statement, the attorney general’s office said the judges “affirmed the well-supported finding of the trial court: Donald Trump, his company, and two of his children are liable for fraud”.

“It should not be lost to history: yet another court has ruled that the president violated the law, and that our case has merit,” it also said.

In the case against Trump, his two adult sons, and the Trump Organization, Judge Engoron also banned Trump from serving as a company director or taking out loans from banks in the state for three years.

Thursday’s decision kept in place this and other nonmonetary penalties that Judge Engoron imposed.

The 323-page ruling, which included three lengthy opinions, revealed disagreement among the five judges on the panel.

They were primarily divided over the merits of the original lawsuit brought by Letitia James, who had accused Trump and his sons of “persistent and repeated fraud”.

While several judges said she was “within her lawful power in bringing this action”, one believed the case should have been dismissed and two said that there should be a new trial of a more limited scope.

Those two, though, joined the decision to throw out the fine “for the sole purpose of ensuring finality”, wrote Judge Moulton.

American voters had “obviously rendered a verdict” on Trump’s political career, Judge Moulton also wrote, and “this bench today unanimously derails the effort to destroy his business”.

The ruling came almost a year after the panel heard oral arguments on the appeal, during which several judges appeared skeptical of the civil fraud case.

Trump’s son, Eric Trump, who was involved in the case, celebrated the decision in a post on social media.

“After 5 years of hell, justice prevailed!” he wrote.

The ruling amounted to a “judicial version of kicking the can down the road”, said Will Thomas, an assistant professor of business law at the University of Michigan.

“By its own admission, the Appellate Courts is punting the real legal decision up to the New York Court of Appeals, noting that its unusual decision was made ‘for the sole purpose of ensuring finality,'” he said.

“It’s hard to take any conclusions from this … except that we’ll have to continue to wait that much longer to find out the ultimate outcome in James v Trump.”

In September 2023, Judge Engoron ruled Trump was liable for business fraud, finding he had misrepresented his wealth by hundreds of millions of dollars. Another trial was held in 2024 to determine the penalty.

In one instance, the judge found Mr Trump’s financial statements had wrongly claimed that his Trump Tower penthouse was almost three times its actual size.

Trump had said that the case brought by James, a Democrat, was politically motivated.

Thursday’s unusually lengthy ruling also reflected the historic predicament of how to handle a massive fraud case involving a sitting president, said Mark Zauderer, a longtime appellate attorney in New York.

“Would you have a 300-page opinion if this were Joe Smith the businessman, and not Donald Trump?” Mr Zauderer asked.

A Bangkok court has acquitted controversial billionaire and former Thai prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was accused of insulting the monarchy.

The charge related to an interview he gave to a South Korean newspaper ten years ago. He would have faced up to 15 years in jail if convicted.

Thailand’s lese majeste law forbids insulting its monarchy. But critics say it is often used to target activists and political opponents.

The verdict came as Thaksin’s daughter, suspended PM Paetongtarn , faces a Constitutional Court decision on whether or not she should be removed from office. These cases pose a threat to the Shinawatra clan, which has been a dominant force in Thai politics for decades.

Friday’s verdict has brought some relief to the family and their supporters.

Winyat Charmontree, a lawyer acting for Thaksin, told reporters that after the verdict was read out in court, his client had smiled and thanked his lawyers. He had also said he was now able to work for the country’s benefit.

The charge against Thaksin was originally filed under the then-military government in 2016, when he was in exile, and re-activated last year after his return to Thailand.

At first glance the case against him seemed weak.

In the South Korean newspaper interview, the former prime minister said he believed the 2014 military coup which deposed the elected government of his sister Yingluck – just as he had been deposed by a previous coup in 2006 – had been instigated by “some people in the palace” and members of the privy council, the 19-member body which advises the Thai king.

Technically the privy council is not covered by the lese majeste law, which states that it is an offence to defame only the king, queen, heir to the throne or anyone acting as regent.

However, in recent years the law has been invoked to criminalise any action or statement which might reflect negatively on the monarchy as an institution.

In the past people have been prosecuted for making unfavourable comments about the late King Bhumibol’s dog and about a Thai king from the 16th Century.

More recently, a young woman was sentenced to five years in prison for placing a banner criticising the budget to help those affected by Covid close to a portrait of King Vajiralongkorn.

The interpretation of the law has become so broad that human rights groups view it as a political tool, which can be used to intimidate and silence those who challenge the status quo.

Many believed this was what was happening to Thaksin.

However, the judges chose to interpret the wording of the law literally, and said that as the defendant had not named names, he should be acquitted.

This verdict comes exactly two years after the former prime minister’s dramatic return from 15 years of exile.

At the time it was assumed there had been a grand bargain struck between Thaksin and his long-time conservative adversaries, so that his party Pheu Thai, which in the 2023 election had been relegated to second place from its usual number one spot, could form a coalition government and keep the young reformists who had actually won the election out of power.

The terms of that bargain have never been made public –Thaksin has always insisted there was no deal – but it is likely they included an agreement that he would keep a low profile and stay out of politics.

But a low profile is something completely alien to the flamboyant, wealthy and ambitious tycoon.

He is still believed to be the largest funder of Pheu Thai and makes all of the main decisions for the party.

When his first choice of prime minister, businessman Srettha Thavisin, was disqualified by the persistently interventionist Constitutional Court a year ago, Thaksin’s inexperienced daughter Paetongtarn Shinawatra took the helm, becoming Thailand’s youngest ever prime minister.

A self-described “daddy’s girl”, she said she would happily take his advice. As she took office Mr Thaksin announced his “Vision for Thailand”, including a controversial proposal to legalise casinos; much of that subsequently became official policy.

The parliamentary opposition has accused the Shinawatra family of running a “dual leadership”. Thaksin’s business ties to the Cambodian strongman Hun Sen also raised concerns over how firmly his government would defend Thailand over the border dispute between the two countries.

This came to a head in the private phone conversation leaked by Hun Sen in which Paetongtarn was heard referring to him as “uncle”, and criticising her own army commander on the border, for which she has now been suspended by the Constitutional Court, which will decide whether she is dismissed in a week’s time.

Losing another prime minister after just a year, at a time of great global uncertainty, might be judged as too risky. It is not clear who would replace Paetongtarn.

Thaksin faces another court case next month, over his transfer to a hospital to serve a previous jail sentence. The price for him being allowed to stay out of jail may be that his party has to call an early election, at a time when its poor performance in government could result in it losing many of its seats in parliament.

On a blistering morning earlier this week, an unusually large crowd had gathered at Imjingang Station – the last stop on Seoul’s metropolitan subway line that inches the closest to North Korea.

There were dozens of activists and police officers, their attention fixed on one man: Ahn Hak-sop, a 95-year-old former North Korean prisoner of war who was making his way home, to the other side of the border that divides the Korean peninsula.

It was what Mr Ahn called his final journey – he wanted to return to the North to be buried there, after spending most of his life in South Korea, much of it against his will.

He never made it across: he was turned away, as was expected because the South Korean government had said they did not have enough time to make the necessary arrangements.

But Mr Ahn came as close as he could.

Weakened by pulmonary oedema (a build up of fluid on the lungs), he could not manage the 30 minute walk from the station to the Unification Bridge – or Tongil Dae-gyo – one of the few passageways connecting South Korea to the North.

So he stepped out of the car roughly 200 metres from the bridge and walked the final stretch on foot, flanked by two supporters who steadied him.

He returned holding a North Korean flag, a sight rarely seen and deeply jarring in the South, and addressed the reporters and 20 or so volunteers who had turned up in support.

“I just want my body to rest in a truly independent land,” he said. “A land free from imperialism.”

Ahn Hak-sop was 23 when he was captured by the South Koreans.

Three years earlier, he had been in high school when then-North Korean ruler Kim Il-sung attacked the South. Kim, who wanted to reunify the two Koreas, rallied his countrymen by claiming that the South had initiated the 1950 attack.

Ahn was among those who believed this. He joined the North Korean People’s Army in 1952 as a liaison officer, and was then assigned a unit that was sent to the South.

He was captured in April 1953, three months before the armistice, and sentenced to life in prison the same year. He was released more than 42 years later because of a special pardon on the Korean independence day.

Like many other North Korean prisoners, Mr Ahn too was labelled a “redhead”, a reference to his communist sympathies, and he struggled to find a proper job.

It wasn’t easy, he told the BBC in an earlier interview in July. The government didn’t help much at first, he said, agents followed him for years. He married, and even fostered a child, but he never felt he truly belonged.

Throughout, he made his home in a small village in Gimpo, the closest a civilian can live to the border with the North.

Yet in 2000, he turned down the chance to be sent back to the North along with dozens of other prisoners who also wanted to return.

He had been optimistic then that ties between the two sides would improve, that their people would be able to travel back and forth freely.

But he chose to stay because he feared leaving would be a win for the Americans.

“At the time, they were pushing for US military governance [in the South],” he said.

“If I returned to the North, it would’ve felt like I was just handing over my own bedroom to the Americans – vacating it for them. My conscience as a human being just couldn’t allow that.”

It’s not clear what he was referring to other than growing ties between Seoul and Washington, which include a strong military alliance that guarantees South Korea protection from any attack from the North.

That relationship deeply bothers Mr Ahn, who has never stopped believing the Kim family’s propaganda – that the only thing stopping the reunification of the Korean peninsula was an “imperialist America” and a South Korean government that was beholden to them.

Born in 1930 in Ganghwa County, Gyeonggi Province, during Japan’s colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula, Mr Ahn was the youngest of three brothers. He also had two younger sisters.

Patriotism took root early. His grandfather refused to let him attend school because he “didn’t want to make me Japanese”, he recalled. So he started school later than usual, after his grandfather died.

When Japan surrendered in 1945, bringing an end to World War Two and its colonisation of Korea, Mr Ahn and his younger brother, who had deserted the Japanese military, were hiding at their aunt’s house at the foot of Mount Mani on Ganghwa Island.

“That wasn’t liberation – it was just a transfer of colonial rule,” he said.

“A leaflet [we saw] said that Korea wasn’t being liberated, but that US military rule would be implemented instead. It even said that if anyone violated US military law, they would be strictly punished under military law.”

As the Soviet Union and the US tussled over the Korean peninsula, they agreed to to divide it. The Soviets took control of the North and the US, the South, where they set up a military administration until 1948.

When Kim attacked in 1950, a South Korean government was in place – but Mr Ahn, like so many North Koreans, believes the South provoked the conflict and that its alliance with Washington prevented reunification.

Once he was captured, Mr Ahn had several chances to avoid prison – he was asked to sign documents renouncing the North and its communist ideology, which was called “conversion”. But he refused.

“Because I refused to sign a written oath of conversion, I had to endure endless humiliation, torture, and violence – days filled with shame and pain. There’s no way to fully describe that suffering in words,” he told the crowd that had gathered near the border on Wednesday.

The South Korean government never responded to this particular charge directly, although a special commission acknowledged violence at the prison in 2004. Mr Ahn’s direct allegations were investigated by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of South Korea, an independent body investigating past human rights abuses, in 2009, which found that there had been a deliberate effort to force his conversion, which included acts of torture.

It has long been accepted in South Korea that such prisoners often encountered violence behind bars.

“Whenever I regained consciousness, the first thing I checked was my hands – to see if there was any red ink on them,” Mr Ahn recalled in his July interview.

That usually signalled that someone had forced a fingerprint onto a written oath of ideological conversion.

“If there wasn’t, I’d think, ‘No matter what they did, I won’. And I felt satisfied.”

The North has changed remarkably since Mr Ahn left. Kim Il-sung’s grandson now runs the country – a reclusive nuclear-armed dictatorship that is richer than it was in 1950, but remains one of the poorest countries in the world. Mr Ahn was not in the North for the devastating famine in the 1990s that killed hundreds of thousands. Tens of thousands of others fled, making deadly journeys to escape their lives there.

Mr Ahn, however, dismissed the suggestion of any humanitarian concerns in the North, blaming the media for being biased and only reporting on the dark side of the country. He argues that North Korea is prospering and defends Kim’s decision to send troops to aid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The South has also changed in Mr Ahn’s time here – once a poor military dictatorship, it is now a wealthy, powerful democracy. Its relationship with the North has had its ups and downs, wavering between open hostility and hopeful engagement.

But Mr Ahn’s beliefs have not wavered. He has dedicated the last 30 years of his life to protesting a country that he believes is still colonising South Korea – the US.

“They say humans, unlike animals, have two kinds of life. One is basic biological life – the kind where we talk, eat, defecate, sleep, and so on. The second is political life, also called social life. If you strip a human being of their political life, they’re no different from a robot,” Mr Ahn told the BBC in July.

“I lived under Japanese colonial rule all those years. But I don’t want to be buried under [American] colonial rule, even in death.”