US officials to meet European leaders in Paris in ceasefire push

Donald Trump’s secretary of state Marco Rubio and Moscow-friendly envoy Steve Witkoff are travelling to Paris for talks aimed at ending Russia’s war in Ukraine – as the US president’s Easter deadline for a truce rapidly approaches.

With Mr Trump having expressed frustration with both Kyiv and Moscow over the slow progress in peace talks, and lashing out at Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky with false claims that he “started” Vladimir Putin’s invasion, European officials are expected to plead Kyiv’s case in the talks on Thursday.

Ramping up pressure on Washington, which billed the talks as being solely with French officials, a previously unannounced delegation from Kyiv said it was also travelling to Paris on Thursday and would meet with officials from the US, Britain, France and Germany to discuss a ceasefire, peacekeeping force and other security measures.

Hours before the delegations arrived, Ukrainian officials said a child was among three people killed and 31 injured as Russia’s forces launched a devastating drone attack on the city of Dnipro.

The dead also include an elderly woman, while 16 people were taken to hospital for treatment including a nine-month-old baby, according to Ukrainian officials.

How Arsenal rose above Real Madrid’s dark arts to answer key question

As the game at the Bernabeu got into gear, and Real Madrid so struggled to open Arsenal in play, they tried to get at them in a different way. They tried to get into their heads, by getting right in their faces. It was a clear tactic, with Bukayo Saka especially targeted. David Alaba went in on him after four minutes. Jude Bellingham had words for Saka before his missed penalty. Dani Carvajal then tried to goad him after it.

Saka simply rose above it by lifting the ball over Thibaut Courtois for the key goal. That happened, however, because Arsenal stood their ground – and then stood up.

It was perhaps the greatest significance of this tie, beyond Arsenal’s comprehensive victory over two legs. Few would now question their fortitude. No one should be talking about them as a fragile team, or one lacking experience. They are going to be a hard and strong test for anyone.

They stepped up on the grandest stage of all. That is a direct consequence of how Mikel Arteta has gradually honed the psychology of this team.

“The feeling that we have is a reality,” Arteta said. This was why David Raya was talking of being “super convinced”. They weren’t just words. Arteta praised “the manner and the way we did it”.

“Not only by the way we played, but also with the circumstances, the amount of injuries that we had. So I think overall, I think it shows the character of this team, of this club.”

The performance was all the more impressive given a surprising admission that Arteta made, that he perhaps wouldn’t have said had they lost. The aura of the Bernabeu did get to them, even if Madrid couldn’t.

“It was my first time as a coach in that dugout and today I realised after three minutes that, in this stadium, anything is possible,” Arteta revealed. “They are the specialists of creating such chaos, such a belief, and it’s very difficult to understand really what’s going on in the game and have certainty about how we control it.”

It can feel very out of control when Vinicius Junior is suddenly cutting in from the left at pace. That’s when the aura becomes a reality, as Myles Lewis-Skelly touched upon.

“Honestly, when you see it on TV, it’s a lot different to when you come live. So, when I first walked out, it’s a lot, but you’ve just got to take in the moment and have fun.”

The words are conspicuous because they so perfectly echoed Arteta’s comments, and how you have to “enjoy” such moments.

That can admittedly be difficult when you are suddenly aware of exactly how one moment can set off a chain reaction, as has happened in this stadium in the past. Arteta expanded on how exactly they took “control”, if with some exclamation.

“We have certain tools to try to do that. But actually, to do it when it’s live, you realise how bloody difficult it is.

“But I think we’ve done it and we’ve done it in many moments in a really clever way. Because the game can drive you to a scenario that goes against them, they are not good at all. And we were very clear on how we had to get out of that and we managed to do it.”

Arteta and his staff had deeply researched what happens in the minutes after key moments in the Bernabeu, and tried to work through it rationally. It was why his chats with Pep Guardiola, having had another on the morning of the game, were so helpful. Arteta gave his players “an island” for any situation, something they could hold onto to keep the game in their grasp.

You still need to seize it. Declan Rice did that.

If Saka offered the moment, the midfielder offered the performance. This was career stuff, the type of night when a player goes to another level. Arteta spoke of how Rice had been “decisive in the tie” but this time “in a different way”. It was in every way.

If the story of the game was Arsenal standing up, Rice personified it. Except, that never meant actually standing still. He was immediately onto the next challenge, winning the ball, then driving it forward. He was everywhere.

“I think it was immense,” Arteta said. “His presence, the power that he showed, how composed he was. Without the ball, I think he led the team in many moments and turned the game in our favour.”

This was often literal. There were more than a few moments when Madrid suggested an attack, or that they were about to break through, and Rice forced it back in the other direction. It was so much more than stopping things. Carlo Ancelotti’s midfield couldn’t handle him.

Madrid chose the wrong team to pick a fight given Rice was there.

There was also the enjoyment that Arteta spoke of.

The manager even laughed about how he felt like giving Saka a “clip around the ear” about the missed penalty in the Spanish section of his press conference.

Madrid couldn’t get close to them. Arsenal were able to withstand them physically and, crucially, psychologically.

Scientists find strongest evidence yet of alien life on distant planet

Scientists have detected an encouraging potential sign of life on a planet in a different solar system in what they believe is the “strongest indicator” that life exists beyond Earth.

Researchers analyzing the planet K2-18b, which orbits a star 120 light-years from Earth, have found a molecule that on Earth is associated with living organisms in the planet’s atmosphere.

The potentially Earth-shattering study was published Wednesday in the Astrophysical Journal Letters.

“This is the strongest evidence yet there is possibly life out there. I can realistically say that we can confirm this signal within one to two years,” astronomer Nikku Madhusudhan, a professor at the University of Cambridge and the lead author of the new study, told the BBC.

The findings could even suggest that K2-18b is covered with an ocean, a potential home to living organisms.

Madhusudhan’s team observed large amounts of chemicals that, when found on Earth, are produced by marine phytoplankton and bacteria. The quantity of these molecules found in K2-18b’s atmosphere is thousands of times higher than what’s on Earth, he said.

“So, if the association with life is real, then this planet will be teeming with life,” he told the BBC. “If we confirm that there is life on K2-18b it should basically confirm that life is very common in the galaxy.”

“It is in no one’s interest to claim prematurely that we have detected life,” Madhusudhan told the New York Times.

Mans Holmberg, a co-author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the Space Telescope Science Institute, told The Washington Post that the observations suggest the planet could boast a hydrogen-rich atmosphere and an ocean deeper than any on Earth.

“Everything about this system is quite alien. We don’t have anything like it in the solar system,” he said.

Other experts in the field remarked on the potential magnitude of the discovery, but urged caution before drawing any sweeping conclusions.

“It’s not nothing,” Stephen Schmidt, a planetary scientist at Johns Hopkins University, told the Times. “It’s a hint. But we cannot conclude it’s habitable yet.”

“I think this is one of those situations where extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence,” Laura Kreidberg, an astronomer at the Max Planck Institute for Astronomy in Germany, told NPR. “I’m not sure we’re at the extraordinary evidence level yet.”

There’s an ongoing debate about the presence of the molecules on the planet as well as what they could mean, and if they are in fact there. For example, the chemicals could relate to a process unrelated to living organisms on K2-18b.

The research team agreed.

“Either we are looking at a new chemical process that we haven’t seen before … or we’re witnessing the first signs of biological activity outside of Earth,” Holmberg said.

Humanity capable of ‘great cruelty and great kindness’, says King

The King has spoken about the capabilities of humanity as he hailed love as an an important virtue across religions in a personal Easter message.

Charles said humanity is “capable of both great cruelty and great kindness” as he prepares to attend a Royal Maundy service in Durham Cathedral on Thursday.

“This paradox of human life runs through the Easter story and in the scenes that daily come before our eyes, at one moment, terrible images of human suffering and, in another, heroic acts in war-torn countries where humanitarians of every kind risk their own lives to protect the lives of others,” he said,

He added that he met “many such people” at a Buckingham Palace reception in February where he “felt a profound sense of admiration for their resilience, courage and compassion.”

In his message, the King also said Jesus’s actions were a “token of His love that knew no bounds or boundaries and is central to Christian belief”.

“The love he showed when he walked the Earth reflected the Jewish ethic of caring for the stranger and those in need, a deep human instinct echoed in Islam and other religious traditions, and in the hearts of all who seek the good of others,” he went on.

“The abiding message of Easter is that God so loved the world, the whole world, that He sent His son to live among us to show us how to love one another, and to lay down His own life for others in a love that proved stronger than death.

“There are three virtues that the world still needs, faith, hope and love. ‘And the greatest of these is love’.”

On Thursday, he and the Queen are due to attend the Royal Maundy service, which commemorates Jesus’s Last Supper when he washed the feet of his disciples as an act of humility the day before Good Friday.

The ceremony is a major fixture on the royal calendar and normally the monarch, but he missed last year’s service after he announced his cancer diagnosis in February.

Charles will present 76 women and 76 men, signifying his age, with two purses, one red and one white, filled with Maundy money.

This year, the red purse will contain a £5 coin commemorating the Queen Mother and a 50p coin featuring stories of the Second World War.

Drummer Zak Starkey speaks out after being sacked by The Who

Drummer Zak Starkey has said he is “surprised and saddened” that anyone would take issue with his Royal Albert Hall performance with The Who, after being sacked from the band he has played with for almost 30 years.

The British musician, who is the son of The Beatles drummer Ringo Starr and his first wife, Maureen Starkey, had been the band’s full-time drummer since he joined their Quadrophenia tour in 1996.

However, this week the band’s representatives shared a statement that a “collective decision” was made to part ways with Starkey after their Royal Albert Hall shows, during which frontman Roger Daltrey reportedly complained about his performance.

“I’m very proud of my near-30 years with The Who,” Starkey said in a statement shared to Rolling Stone on Wednesday evening (16 April). “Filling the shoes of my godfather, ‘uncle Keith [Moon] has been the biggest honour and I remain their biggest fan. They’ve been like family to me.”

Referencing the blood clots he suffered in his “right bass drum calf” in January, Starkey said his injury had completely healed and “does not affect my drumming or running”, seemingly shutting down speculation that the “serious medical emergency” could have affected his playing.

According to a Metro report, The Who’s frontman Roger Daltrey openly complained several times that Starkey was “overplaying” at the Royal Albert Hall gig on 30 March.

“To sing that song I do need to hear the key, and I can’t. All I’ve got is drums going boom, boom, boom. I can’t sing to that. I’m sorry guys,” he apparently told the audience at one point.

“After playing those songs with the band for so many decades, I’m surprised and saddened [that] anyone would have an issue with my performance that night, but what can you do?” Starkey said.

“I plan to take some much-needed time off with my family, and focus on the release of Domino Bones by Mantra of the Cosmos with Noel Gallagher in May and finishing my autobiography written solely by me. Twenty-nine years at any job is a good old run, and I wish them the best.”

Starkey’s representative had previously told The Independent that the split was a “typical rock’n’roll falling out, healing can take time! Zak is without doubt one of the UK’s greatest drummers and his tutor none other than the late Keith Moon!”

Starkey and Noel Gallagher collaborated on the Mantra of the Cosmos track “Domino Bones (Gets Dangerous)” in January. The drummer first met the Oasis rocker in 1995, and later joined the band in 2004, playing on the albums Don’t Believe the Truth and Dig Out Your Soul.

Meanwhile, Daltrey and The Who returned to perform at the Royal Albert Hall as part of the Teenage Cancer Trust charity shows in March.

Daltrey stepped down from his longtime role as curator last year, having launched the fundraising series back in 2000.

Why ‘Disagreeing Well’ Could Save Us All

You’re laughing with friends, perhaps enjoying a few drinks down the pub, when all of a sudden, one of those friends drops a clanger of a comment that hits you sideways. Maybe it’s political, maybe it’s personal, but whatever it is it’s a gut punch that lands in direct opposition to something you strongly believe in.

An awkward silence. Your jaw tightens. You scan their face for a trace of irony, but there’s none to be found. Now what?

In that moment, you have a choice. Do you launch into a rebuttal, flinging facts and stats like ninja stars, risking an evening of tension and raised voices? Or do you shut down, politely nod, change the subject, and leave the disagreement to fester quietly beneath the surface?

This moment, with all its visceral discomfort, is something we all recognise. The physical response to conflict is real: adrenaline surges, heart races, breath quickens. We’re wired for fight or flight, and difficult conversations trigger both instincts. Either we go to battle or we retreat.

And therein lies the problem: we’re losing the ability to do anything in between.

Nuance versus viral outrage

Social media supercharges this dynamic. Platforms supposedly designed to connect us can drive individuals further apart, with disagreement online becoming less about discussion and more about demolition. A 2021 study by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of people say social media has a mostly negative effect on how things are going in their country, with political division and misinformation topping the list of concerns. It’s a space where nuance is drowned out by viral outrage and where algorithmic echo chambers reinforce rather than challenge our views.

In this climate, it’s easy to point fingers; to blame “them” for being unreasonable, misinformed, or even dangerous. But the hard truth is, it’s not just them, it’s all of us. We’re all participants in this culture of binary thinking whether we realise it or not. And if we want things to change, we have to start by looking inward and recognising our own reflexes and assumptions, and then choosing to engage rather than to avoid.

The stakes are too high not to. We’re living through volatile, uncertain and complex times. From the cost-of-living crisis and global conflicts to the climate emergency and the rise of fake news, the challenges we face require cooperation, not competition. We need solutions, not slogans, and we sure won’t find those solutions by shouting past each other or retreating into ideological corners.

A fractured global landscape

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025 paints a sobering picture of our current trajectory. Societal polarisation ranks as the fourth most severe risk over the next two years, closely tied to inequality, which holds the seventh spot. These fractures are not just social, they’re systemic, threatening to destabilise political and economic institutions worldwide.

What’s more, nearly one in four experts surveyed identified armed conflict as the most pressing global risk for 2025, surpassing concerns like extreme weather and economic instability. This escalation underscores how deeply divisions, be they ideological, political, or social, can erode the foundations of global cooperation.

Time to lean in

So what’s the answer? It all starts with accepting the discomfort of disagreement, asking better questions and listening with the aim of understanding rather than winning. That doesn’t mean compromising our values or avoiding difficult truths. It means being curious about how others see the world, recognising the humanity behind every opinion, and searching for common ground, however small. It means moving forward together, even – maybe especially – when we don’t see eye to eye.

This isn’t a new idea, of course. More than 2,000 years ago, Socrates was already showing us how it’s done. He understood that disagreement “done well” was essential to the pursuit of truth. His method of asking questions, challenging assumptions and encouraging others to do the same, wasn’t about scoring points. It was about progress, growth and building something better through conversation. Although we’ll never know how long old Socrates might have lasted on X before begging Zeus to lightning bolt the lot of us…

The spirit of open, critical dialogue has long been associated with universities. They are, in many ways, the heirs to Socrates’ legacy; spaces where ideas are tested, where disagreement is part of the learning process, and where diverse perspectives are meant to coexist in meaningful tension.

In today’s climate, that ideal is being tested. Protests, polarisation, and real concerns about safety, speech, and belonging have created complex and often painful challenges on campuses around the world. But in spite of these difficulties, and in many ways, because of them, universities remain among the best places we have to model what it means to disagree well: to be rigorous but respectful, passionate but principled, open but discerning.

They remind us that the goal isn’t to be right all the time, but to get it right eventually. It’s a process, and it requires courage, humility, and a willingness to sit across from someone who sees the world differently and still choose to talk.

Moving forward together

And that’s what we need more of right now. Not more dead certainty, outrage, or noise, but more conversation. Messy, thoughtful, honest conversation, whether it’s in the pub with friends, across the seminar hall or being represented on our screens and streets.

Disagreeing well isn’t about who wins, it’s about how we move forward together. In an age defined by division, the ability to sit with difference, to challenge without contempt, and to talk without tearing down isn’t just a nice-to-have, it’s essential. “Why disagreeing well could save us all” isn’t hyperbole or just a catchy headline; it’s a quiet truth hiding in plain sight.

Civil debate – honest, open, and grounded in respect – might just be one of the most powerful tools we have. The question is: are we ready to use it?

Murder arrest as woman, 93, found dead in house

A murder probe has been launched after 93-year-old woman was found dead in a leafy suburb of Manchester.

Police found the pensioner’s body inside the semi-detached home in Gatley near Stockport at 9.38am on Wednesday.

A 39-year-old woman was arrested at the scene on suspicion of murder and remains in custody, Greater Manchester Police (GMP) said.

The force confirmed it had referred itself to the Independent Office for Police Conduct due to previous contact with the victim.

However, following an initial assessment by GMP’s Professional Standards Directorate, all officers remain fully operational.

Forensic officers were seen examining the semi-detached property which had one window broken.

Neighbours said that gas engineers had been called to the property before the victim was found dead.

Tom Morrison, Liberal Democrat MP for Cheadle, said: “I am deeply saddened to learn of the tragic incident in Gatley this morning, in which a 93-year-old woman has sadly lost her life. My thoughts are first and foremost with her family and loved ones at this incredibly difficult time.

“I have been in contact with Greater Manchester Police and will continue to support them in any way I can. I want to thank Greater Manchester Police officers for their swift and professional response.”

Detective Inspector Adam Hitchen, the senior investigating officer, said: “The priority for our investigation is understanding the full circumstances which led to this tragic incident and getting justice for the victim.

“Our thoughts are with the victim’s family, who are aware and are being supported by specialist officers.

“We recognise that this investigation may cause concern within the local community, but I want to assure the public that this is an isolated incident, with a swift arrest made, and no wider threat.”

Anyone with information is urged to contact police on 101 quoting log number 726 of April 16 2025, or contact Crimestoppers anonymously on 0800 555 111.

The US needs to understand truth and trade are not interchangeable

When negotiating a trade deal in normal circumstances, governments tend to concentrate on what might be termed, sometimes literally, “bread and butter issues”.

Tariffs, quotas, regulations… these are the matters that occupy the negotiators for months if not years – as the Brexit process rather painfully proves. In the case of the current trade talks between the UK and the US, these are not proceeding in the usual manner.

The putative components of an ambitious transatlantic agreement have been kicked around, on and off, for some years, albeit with limited success. Only now, with the second coming of Donald Trump, has Britain been asked to exchange truth for trade. Yet that is, in effect, what the Trump administration will require of Sir Keir Starmer if he is to achieve what has eluded all of his predecessors since the Brexit vote in 2016.

As The Independent exclusively reveals, for the first time in such trade talks, Britain will be asked to adopt a political, indeed “Trumpian”, view of the world quite at odds with its traditions and democratically approved laws.

President Trump’s America is a world of truth-twisting, hypocrisy and increasing authoritarianism, where Congress is sidelined and even the rulings of the Supreme Court are brazenly ignored by the administration. Independent checks and balances on the excesses of executive power are being slowly but surely eroded – the media, universities such as Harvard, even the Kennedy Center and the Smithsonian – all bullied and extorted. As former president Barack Obama says, the unprecedented decision to freeze more than $2bn in federal funds for research and teaching at Harvard University is “unlawful and ham-handed”. Joe Biden, breaking his own silence, talks of the “destruction” wrought by Mr Trump.

We have seen all too much of the kind of populist, hard-right ideology that the Trump administration now seems intent on exporting to the UK. It will take all of the wit and skill of the prime minister and his senior colleagues to resist the drive to undermine Britain’s culture of tolerance and its well-established multicultural society. That is more precious than any conceivable trade concessions. We must seriously question whether a deal that sacrifices truth is worth it.

However, the nightmare proposition is real enough for the government to have to take it seriously. The Independent’s reporting shows that sources close to the vice-president, JD Vance, have indicated that the British government will have to repeal hate speech laws in order to get a trade deal over the line. Mr Vance has been surprisingly upbeat in public about the prospects for some sort of economic accord with the UK, even as President Trump has unleashed his erratically conducted trade war on the world. But such an exceptional deal with the British would, say Mr Vance’s allies, come at a particular cost. As one puts it: “No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that.”

In practice, pushed to the maximum extent, that would mean the repeal of laws against hate speech, including abuse targeting LGBT+ groups or other minorities, as a condition of any accord. In principle, such a demand could also extend to the civil police orders prohibiting silent protest in the vicinity of an abortion clinic, relevant clauses in the new Online Safety Act, and changing the laws used to prosecute those involved in the civil disorder last summer, after the Southport murders. Elon Musk, still close to Mr Trump, has long complained in lurid terms about what he sees as draconian restrictions on freedom of speech in the UK, including on his social media platform, X.

Mr Vance’s views carry weight in the US-UK trade talks. During Sir Keir’s visit to the Oval Office in February, in front of the television cameras, Mr Vance declared that “there have been infringements on free speech that affect not just the British – what the British do in their own country is up to them – but also affect American technology companies and by extension, American citizens”. Sir Keir pushed back at that point, defusing the controversy, but Mr Vance isn’t dropping his objections.

Earlier this year, at the Munich Security Council, Mr Vance delighted in telling the assembled European allies that the greatest threat to their security wasn’t Russia or China but their own migration policies. Last summer, while he was running for office, Mr Vance said he was “beating up” on Britain and “joked” that “the first truly Islamist country to get a nuclear weapon” might be “actually the UK since Labour just took over”.

Such, then, is the scale of the hostility and the personal challenge awaiting the prime minister as he sets out to win a historic trade deal. He will set about it in his usual serious manner. As President Trump said in a backhanded compliment, when Sir Keir tried to stop him from imposing steel tariffs, “he was working hard, I’ll tell you that. He earned whatever the hell they pay him over there.” Sir Keir does indeed argue hard, is usually in command of his brief and is persuasive, and the whole of his team will have to emulate those qualities in the coming weeks.

The British should be open, in principle, to a deal that eases trade on cars, steel, agricultural products, digital services, biotechnology, AI and much else – and which declares mutual respect for the rule of law and freedom of expression. It could be consummated during the president’s planned state visit at the invitation of the King.

However, importing Trumpism would be neither desirable nor practical, and Sir Keir will need to say as much, in as velvety, oblique, delicate and diplomatic a fashion as possible. Fortunately for Britain, President Trump likes Sir Keir, which counts for much – and Mr Vance is not the president (yet).