Volodymyr Zelenskyy said Russian artillery fire was continuing in Ukraine on Saturday despite the Kremlin’s proclamation of an Easter ceasefire.

“As of now, according to the commander-in-chief reports, Russian assault operations continue on several frontline sectors, and Russian artillery fire has not subsided,” the Ukrainian president posted on X. “Therefore, there is no trust in words coming from Moscow.”

He recalled that Russia had last month rejected a US-proposed full 30-day ceasefire and said that if Moscow agreed to “truly engage in a format of full and unconditional silence, Ukraine will act accordingly – mirroring Russia’s actions”.

“If a complete ceasefire truly takes hold, Ukraine proposes extending it beyond the Easter day of April 20,” Zelenskyy wrote.

Earlier, Vladimir Putin announced an “Easter Truce”, saying that Russian forces would stop combat operations from 6pm Moscow time on Saturday until midnight on Sunday.

In the surprise move, Russia’s president said he was ordering a temporary halt to the fighting out of “humanitarian considerations”. He said he expected Ukraine to follow suit and said this would be a test of whether the “regime” in Kyiv was interested in peace.

Putin made his remarks in a meeting with Russia’s commander-in-chief Valery Gerasimov, which was broadcast on state television. Ukrainians reacted sceptically, pointing out the announcement was made at the same time as an air raid alert sounded across the Kyiv region.

Russia has broken numerous ceasefire since its 2014 covert invasion of eastern Ukraine. Unlike Ukraine, it has refused to implement a 30-day pause in fighting proposed more than a month ago by the Trump administration.

Speaking on Saturday, Putin said Kyiv was guilty of violating a deal “100 times” to refrain from attacking Russian energy infrastructure. He commanded Gerasimov to prepare an “immediate response” if this were to happen again.

“Russia has already declared and violated such ceasefires before,” Anton Gerashchenko, a blogger and former Ukrainian interior ministry adviser, wrote on social media.

It came amid reports that the Trump administration is considering recognising Crimea as a Russian territory as part of its attempt to broker a peace deal between the two sides.

According to sources cited by Bloomberg, the US may be willing to give Putin a strategic victory and to accept Russian control over the peninsula. In 2014, Russian special forces seized Crimea, which Putin annexed after a sham referendum.

US diplomatic recognition would violate the UN charter and the post-1945 consensus that countries cannot seize territory by force. Most states, including the UK, have refused to recognise Russia’s illegal takeover.

The possible concession to Moscow from the White House is likely to provoke criticism from the US’s one-time European allies and a furious backlash in Ukraine. It comes as Donald Trump said on Friday the US may “move on” if no peace deal can be agreed.

“Now if for some reason one of the two parties makes it very difficult, we’re just going to say you’re foolish. You are fools, you horrible people,” Trump declared, adding: “And we’re going to just take a pass. But, hopefully, we won’t have to do that.”

Talks over a settlement are due to continue this week in London. Leaks suggest the US is pushing for a Kremlin-friendly agreement that would see Russia keep occupied areas in the south and east of Ukraine, as well as Crimea.

It is also considering lifting sanctions on Moscow and other “carrots”, the New York Post reported. By contrast, Trump has heaped pressure on Ukraine, in effect cutting off military assistance and demanding a share of the country’s lucrative mineral wealth.

Russia’s apparent tactic is to restate its maximalist demands while stepping up its offensive on the battlefield. In talks with Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, Putin has insisted on Zelenskyy’s removal, Ukraine’s demilitarisation and its “neutral” non-Nato status.

Ukraine appears willing to accept a freeze of the conflict along the existing 1,000km-long (620 miles) frontline. But Zelenskyy has categorically rejected Witkoff’s recent comment that Crimea and four other Ukrainian provinces should be given permanently to Russia.

“I do not see any mandate for him [Witkoff] to speak about Ukrainian territories. These lands belong to our people, to our nation and to the future generations of Ukrainians,” Zelenskyy said last week.

A peace deal will only work if the Russians stop fighting, US officials told Bloomberg. “Negotiations will be fruitless if the Kremlin does not agree to cease hostilities. Providing Ukraine with security guarantees is an integral part of any agreement,” one reportedly acknowledged.

The source said no final decision over Crimea had been made. Since the US ceasefire proposal and ahead of Saturday’s “Easter truce”, Putin has stepped up attacks on Ukrainian civilians and infrastructure.

Two people died on Friday when Russia fired three ballistic missiles into a residential district of Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second city. The attack followed a devastating strike on the city of Sumy on Palm Sunday, in which 35 people were killed, including two children.

Russia has run Crimea for more than 11 years, transforming it from a holiday resort into a major military centre. It was used as a springboard for Putin’s full-scale 2022 invasion. Armoured columns seized large parts of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia provinces, as well as the city of Mariupol.

Ukraine regularly targets Russian army and naval bases in Crimea. It has bombed the headquarters of Russia’s Black Sea fleet in the port of Sevastopol, using British Storm Shadow missiles. It has also targeted the bridge linking the peninsula to Russia with drones and a car bomb.

Separately, Russia and Ukraine both confirmed a swap of prisoners of war on Saturday, mediated by the UAE. Each released 246 prisoners, while a further 31 wounded Ukrainians were transferred in exchange for 15 injured Russian soldiers, the Russian defence ministry said.

The posters are going up all over Hungary. “Let’s not allow them to decide for us,” runs the slogan alongside three classic villains of Hungarian government propaganda.

They are: Ukraine’s wartime leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy; the European Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen; and Manfred Weber, the German politician who leads the centre-right European People’s party in the European parliament, which counts Hungary’s most potent opposition politician among its ranks.

That decision is Ukraine’s membership of the EU, a distant prospect not in the gift of any of the politicians now plastered across billboards in Hungary. Ballot papers, being sent out this week, ask a simple question: “Do you support Ukraine becoming a member of the EU?”

Despite the neutral question, Hungary’s government is not standing on the sidelines. After the launch of the campaign, the prime minister, Viktor Orbán, last week urged people to vote, claiming that Ukrainian membership would mean “we would have to spend all Hungary’s money on Ukraine”.

The government has also claimed – without offering evidence – that “cheap labour” from Ukraine would take jobs from Hungarians, while epidemics would spread because not enough Ukrainians get vaccinations.

The governing Fidesz party realised that “there is a sentiment against Hungary’s involvement in the war”, said László Andor, Hungary’s EU commissioner from 2010 to 2014. “But ever since, this has been used and abused to deny proper support to Ukraine.”

Hungary has repeatedly sought to block EU sanctions against Russia, eventually backing down. It has vetoed the release of €6bn funds to reimburse other EU countries providing military aid to Ukraine and flatly refused to sign two EU declarations in support of its invaded neighbour.

But now its attempts to stymie EU support for Ukraine could force a reckoning in its relations with the bloc at a moment when Orbán contends with his most serious political challenger in years.

EU member states are considering more seriously than ever how to use their ultimate sanction against Hungary: the removal of voting rights under the EU treaty’s article 7.

The idea remains at an early stage, but informed insiders think it will never happen because rescinding voting rights requires the unanimity of the remaining 26 members.

Under a previous government, Poland wielded the saviour veto; now Slovakia’s populist prime minister, Robert Fico, is seen as holding that card. The European parliament launched the article 7 procedure in 2018, but it has languished amid hesitancy among member states.

Now there are flickers of change. Andor said things had moved on since the Orbán government’s first “very consequential violations” against the independence of the judiciary emerged in 2010-11. “There are many more emotions [now]. Why? Because Orbán is obstructive on issues which the majority of the European Union countries consider of vital importance,” he said, referring to Ukraine.

Some think a reckoning will come if Hungary seeks to veto the extension of sanctions against Russia, a vast array of measures aimed at curtailing the war economy, including the freezing of €210bn of Russian central bank assets held in the bloc.

The profits are being used to fund Ukraine’s war effort, while the capital is seen as vital for its eventual reconstruction. But the measures need to be renewed unanimously by 31 July.

“I am pretty sure that if they felt they had the backing of the US, they would block,” said one senior EU official. “It would be huge: basically, it would put them not literally but virtually outside the union.”

Diplomats have taken comfort from the fact that Hungary has always backed down on threats to veto, possibly discouraged when Donald Trump also threatened Vladimir Putin with sanctions. “If the past is predictive for the future, we should be OK. But it would be foolish to assume that,” said one senior diplomat, who added that “work is going on” to find ways around a potential veto.

Dutch Green MEP Tineke Strik, who leads the European parliament’s work on Hungary and the rule of law, said: “Member states really are getting fed up with Orbán.” She counts 19 governments “that seem to be ready to take a step in the article 7 procedure”, which includes action that falls short of suspending voting rights. But they lack “a strategy on how to get the rest of the member states on board”, she added.

Last week, the Dutch MEP led a cross-party team of parliamentarians to investigate democratic standards in Hungary, concluding that developments were “going rapidly in the wrong direction”.

Pressure on independent voices is intensifying. In a speech last month, widely seen as marking a new low, Orbán described political opponents, journalists, judges and political activists as “bugs”, redolent of the dehumanising language used in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

A report by the MEPs is expected to elaborate on Hungary’s deep-rooted problems: government-dominated media and politicised courts, as well as increasing restrictions on the LGBTQ+ community after the approval of a constitutional change to codify the ban on Pride marches and other public gatherings.

“Everyone is fearing this stands for something bigger – the free right to assembly,” Strik said.

For analysts, the Pride ban has a different purpose: to wrongfoot opposition leader Péter Magyar, the insider turned critic whose Tisza party has extended its lead on Fidesz since the start of the year.

“In strategic terms, [the Pride ban] is a trap set for Péter Magyar,” said Daniel Hegedüs, regional director for central Europe at the German Marshall fund.

If Magyar condemns the Pride ban, Fidesz will criticise him as part of the “European gay lobby”, which could alienate him from conservative voters, said Hegedüs, using the government’s own language. “But if he stays silent, he risks alienating the more educated, more urban voters for whom it’s a question of values commitment.”

In a similar way, the government is also seeking to use the Ukraine referendum to discredit Magyar among voters who are wary of Hungary being drawn into the conflict. His Tisza party is described by government propaganda as “pro-Ukrainian”, working with Brussels to “undermine the living standards of Hungarians”.

Tisza, Hegedüs said, is such “an existential threat” to Fidesz that Orbán could resort to electoral fraud to secure victory in parliamentary elections next year.

While the last three Hungarian parliamentary elections have been rated unfair – due to media and state resources tilted to favour the government – they have always been free.

“We cannot exclude the first neither free, nor fair election in an EU member state [and] a situation where the US administration will immediately recognise the outcome,” Hegedüs said.

This raises a challenge for EU diplomats, who have long argued the best way to solve the “Orbán problem” – like the “Poland problem” before it – is to wait for change at the ballot box.

Strik thinks it is the wrong approach. The Dutch MEP wants the commission to speak out more, seek a European court suspension order on the ban of LGBTQ+ events, and redistribute Hungary’s forfeited EU funds to civil society and local government: the Hungarian government lost €1bn in EU funds in 2024 over rule-of-law noncompliance, while a further €19bn is blocked.

“He [Orbán] should be under huge pressure from the EU to change his course,” said Strik.

The posters are going up all over Hungary. “Let’s not allow them to decide for us,” runs the slogan alongside three classic villains of Hungarian government propaganda.

They are: Ukraine’s wartime leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy; the European Commission’s president, Ursula von der Leyen; and Manfred Weber, the German politician who leads the centre-right European People’s party in the European parliament, which counts Hungary’s most potent opposition politician among its ranks.

That decision is Ukraine’s membership of the EU, a distant prospect not in the gift of any of the politicians now plastered across billboards in Hungary. Ballot papers, being sent out this week, ask a simple question: “Do you support Ukraine becoming a member of the EU?”

Despite the neutral question, Hungary’s government is not standing on the sidelines. After the launch of the campaign, the prime minister, Viktor Orbán, last week urged people to vote, claiming that Ukrainian membership would mean “we would have to spend all Hungary’s money on Ukraine”.

The government has also claimed – without offering evidence – that “cheap labour” from Ukraine would take jobs from Hungarians, while epidemics would spread because not enough Ukrainians get vaccinations.

The governing Fidesz party realised that “there is a sentiment against Hungary’s involvement in the war”, said László Andor, Hungary’s EU commissioner from 2010 to 2014. “But ever since, this has been used and abused to deny proper support to Ukraine.”

Hungary has repeatedly sought to block EU sanctions against Russia, eventually backing down. It has vetoed the release of €6bn funds to reimburse other EU countries providing military aid to Ukraine and flatly refused to sign two EU declarations in support of its invaded neighbour.

But now its attempts to stymie EU support for Ukraine could force a reckoning in its relations with the bloc at a moment when Orbán contends with his most serious political challenger in years.

EU member states are considering more seriously than ever how to use their ultimate sanction against Hungary: the removal of voting rights under the EU treaty’s article 7.

The idea remains at an early stage, but informed insiders think it will never happen because rescinding voting rights requires the unanimity of the remaining 26 members.

Under a previous government, Poland wielded the saviour veto; now Slovakia’s populist prime minister, Robert Fico, is seen as holding that card. The European parliament launched the article 7 procedure in 2018, but it has languished amid hesitancy among member states.

Now there are flickers of change. Andor said things had moved on since the Orbán government’s first “very consequential violations” against the independence of the judiciary emerged in 2010-11. “There are many more emotions [now]. Why? Because Orbán is obstructive on issues which the majority of the European Union countries consider of vital importance,” he said, referring to Ukraine.

Some think a reckoning will come if Hungary seeks to veto the extension of sanctions against Russia, a vast array of measures aimed at curtailing the war economy, including the freezing of €210bn of Russian central bank assets held in the bloc.

The profits are being used to fund Ukraine’s war effort, while the capital is seen as vital for its eventual reconstruction. But the measures need to be renewed unanimously by 31 July.

“I am pretty sure that if they felt they had the backing of the US, they would block,” said one senior EU official. “It would be huge: basically, it would put them not literally but virtually outside the union.”

Diplomats have taken comfort from the fact that Hungary has always backed down on threats to veto, possibly discouraged when Donald Trump also threatened Vladimir Putin with sanctions. “If the past is predictive for the future, we should be OK. But it would be foolish to assume that,” said one senior diplomat, who added that “work is going on” to find ways around a potential veto.

Dutch Green MEP Tineke Strik, who leads the European parliament’s work on Hungary and the rule of law, said: “Member states really are getting fed up with Orbán.” She counts 19 governments “that seem to be ready to take a step in the article 7 procedure”, which includes action that falls short of suspending voting rights. But they lack “a strategy on how to get the rest of the member states on board”, she added.

Last week, the Dutch MEP led a cross-party team of parliamentarians to investigate democratic standards in Hungary, concluding that developments were “going rapidly in the wrong direction”.

Pressure on independent voices is intensifying. In a speech last month, widely seen as marking a new low, Orbán described political opponents, journalists, judges and political activists as “bugs”, redolent of the dehumanising language used in Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

A report by the MEPs is expected to elaborate on Hungary’s deep-rooted problems: government-dominated media and politicised courts, as well as increasing restrictions on the LGBTQ+ community after the approval of a constitutional change to codify the ban on Pride marches and other public gatherings.

“Everyone is fearing this stands for something bigger – the free right to assembly,” Strik said.

For analysts, the Pride ban has a different purpose: to wrongfoot opposition leader Péter Magyar, the insider turned critic whose Tisza party has extended its lead on Fidesz since the start of the year.

“In strategic terms, [the Pride ban] is a trap set for Péter Magyar,” said Daniel Hegedüs, regional director for central Europe at the German Marshall fund.

If Magyar condemns the Pride ban, Fidesz will criticise him as part of the “European gay lobby”, which could alienate him from conservative voters, said Hegedüs, using the government’s own language. “But if he stays silent, he risks alienating the more educated, more urban voters for whom it’s a question of values commitment.”

In a similar way, the government is also seeking to use the Ukraine referendum to discredit Magyar among voters who are wary of Hungary being drawn into the conflict. His Tisza party is described by government propaganda as “pro-Ukrainian”, working with Brussels to “undermine the living standards of Hungarians”.

Tisza, Hegedüs said, is such “an existential threat” to Fidesz that Orbán could resort to electoral fraud to secure victory in parliamentary elections next year.

While the last three Hungarian parliamentary elections have been rated unfair – due to media and state resources tilted to favour the government – they have always been free.

“We cannot exclude the first neither free, nor fair election in an EU member state [and] a situation where the US administration will immediately recognise the outcome,” Hegedüs said.

This raises a challenge for EU diplomats, who have long argued the best way to solve the “Orbán problem” – like the “Poland problem” before it – is to wait for change at the ballot box.

Strik thinks it is the wrong approach. The Dutch MEP wants the commission to speak out more, seek a European court suspension order on the ban of LGBTQ+ events, and redistribute Hungary’s forfeited EU funds to civil society and local government: the Hungarian government lost €1bn in EU funds in 2024 over rule-of-law noncompliance, while a further €19bn is blocked.

“He [Orbán] should be under huge pressure from the EU to change his course,” said Strik.

Gaza has been pushed to new depths of despair, civilians, medics and humanitarian workers say, by the unprecedented seven-week-long Israeli military blockade that has cut off all aid to the strip.

The siege has left the Palestinian territory facing conditions unmatched in severity since the beginning of the war as residents grapple with sweeping new evacuation orders, the renewed bombing of civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, and the exhaustion of food, fuel for generators and medical supplies.

Israel unilaterally abandoned a two-month ceasefire with Palestinian militant group Hamas on 2 March, cutting off vital supplies. Just over two weeks later, it resumed large-scale bombing and redeployed ground troops withdrawn during the truce.

Since then, political figures and security officials have repeatedly vowed that aid deliveries will not resume until Hamas releases the remaining hostages seized during the 7 October 2023 attacks that ignited the conflict. Israel’s government has framed the new siege as a security measure and has repeatedly denied using starvation as a weapon, which would constitute a war crime.

The blockade is now entering its eighth week, making it the longest continuous total siege the strip has faced to date in the 18-month war.

Firmly supported by the US, its most important ally under Donald Trump, Israel appears confident that it can maintain the siege with little international pushback.

It is also moving ahead with large-scale seizures of Palestinian land for security buffer zones, and plans to shift control of aid delivery to the army and private contractors, exacerbating fears in Gaza that Israel intends to maintain boots on the ground in the territory long-term and permanently displace its residents.

Many people the Observer spoke tosaid they are now more afraid of famine than airstrikes. “Many times, I have had to give up my share of food for my son because of the severe shortages. It is the hunger that will kill me – a slow death,” said Hikmat al-Masri, a 44-year-old university lecturer from Beit Lahia in north Gaza.

Food stockpiled during the two-month-ceasefire has run out, and desperate people across the territory are jostling at charity kitchens with empty pots and bowls. Goods at markets are now selling for 1,400% above ceasefire prices, according to the latest assessment from the World Health Organization.

An estimated 420,000 people are on the move again because of new Israeli evacuation orders, making it difficult to compile hard data on hunger and malnutrition, but Oxfam estimates that most children are now surviving on less than one meal a day.

About 95% of aid organisations have suspended or cut back services because of airstrikes and the blockade, and since February, Israel has tightened restrictions for international staff to enter Gaza. Basic medical supplies – even painkillers – are running out.

“Gaza City is packed with displaced people who have fled Israeli troops moving into the north, and they are living on the street or putting their tents inside damaged buildings that are going to collapse,” said Amande Bazerolle, the Gaza emergency coordinator for Médecins Sans Frontières, speaking from Deir al-Balah.

Bazerolle added: “There are not enough points of care for so many people. At our burns clinic in Gaza City, we are refusing patients by 10am and we have to tell them to come back the next day, as we are triaging to make our drug supplies last as long as possible.”

The siege has been accompanied by a fierce push by Israeli forces on northern Gaza as well as the entirety of Rafah, the strip’s southernmost city, cutting the territory off from Egypt.

According to the UN, approximately 70% of Gaza is now under Israeli evacuation orders or has been subsumed into expanding military buffer zones; the new Rafah security zone totals one-fifth of the entire territory.

The land seizures are pushing the 2.3 million population – and aid and medical efforts – into ever-smaller Israeli-designated “humanitarian zones”, although an Israeli airstrike last week on al-Mawasi, the biggest such zone on the coast of southern Gaza, killed 16 people.

As the space they can operate in shrinks, aid workers said they are worried that that the rules of engagement followed by the Israeli military have changed since the ceasefire collapsed, pointing to the recent bombings of Nasser hospital in Khan Younis and al-Ahli hospital in Gaza City.

Two people were killed in the Nasser attack, which hit a building where members of an international medical team were present. No casualties were reported in the al-Ahli strike, but the intensive care and surgery departments of the hospital were destroyed, medics said. In both cases, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it had targeted Hamas militants.

“People in Gaza like having international staff around because they assume it affords them more protection and the IDF is less likely to attack the building or the area,” said a senior aid official, who asked not to be named so as to speak freely.

“In the beginning of the war, if there was an airstrike two kilometres away from our location, we would evacuate… eventually, that became 300 metres, and now it’s 30 metres, if [the IDF] hits the building next door.

“There are either no warnings, or sometimes 20 minutes, which is not enough time to evacuate sick people. Our exposure to risk is getting higher… We know the Israelis are trying to force us to work under their terms.”

In a statement in response to the aid worker’s allegations, the IDF said: “Hamas has a documented practice of operating within densely populated areas. Strikes on military targets are subject to relevant provisions of international law, including taking feasible precautions.” It referred questions about aid to the political echelon.

Israel has long alleged that Hamas siphons off large amounts of the aid that has reached Gaza, allowing the group to maintain its control by either keeping the aid for itself or selling it at marked-up prices to desperate civilians.

Last week, Israeli media reported that efforts to sidestep international agencies and create an Israeli-controlled mechanism to distribute aid using private contractors are under way but still in the “early stages”, with no timeframe for implementation. In the interim, the humanitarian crisis will only worsen, aid agencies say.

International mediators are attempting to revive ceasefire talks, but there is little sign either side has moved closer on fundamental issues such as the disarmament of Hamas and the withdrawal of Israeli troops.

Masri, the lecturer from Beit Lahia, said: “When the blockade was imposed again and the war resumed, I felt terrified. I constantly think about my little son, and how I can provide him with basic necessities.

“No one can imagine the level of suffering… Death surrounds us from every direction.”

Associating with the Donald Trump administration’s multibillionaire adviser Elon Musk and misusing artificial intelligence are among the most surefire ways for companies to damage their brands, a new survey of more than 100 international public affairs leaders found.

Those findings stem from an appraisal conducted by the Global Risk Advisory Council, which was chaired by the head of the US Small Business Administration during Joe Biden’s presidency, Isabel Guzman.

In a statement, Brett Bruen of the Global Situation Room, the Washington DC-based public affairs firm that commissioned the survey, said the council’s “reputation risk index” contains an “unambiguous warning” for chief executive officers. “If you squander stakeholder and consumer goodwill on these issues, it won’t be coming back anytime soon,” said Bruen, before calling on companies to “slow down” and “make a distinction between transitory and tectonic transitions”.

Nearly 30% of a 117-member group hailing from 17 different countries and 58 industries – among them former heads of state and US officials – indicated that aligning oneself with Musk, or being targeted by him, generated the strongest likelihood possible of being thrust under heightened scrutiny.

The world’s richest person – whose holdings include the aerospace company SpaceX, the electrical vehicle manufacturer Tesla and the social media platform X – donated part of his wealth to Trump’s successful run for a second presidency in November. After Trump returned to the Oval Office in January, Musk has overseen brutal federal budget and staffing cuts overseen by the president’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge), giving him what Guzman has described as a “controversial omnipresence in the media landscape”.

That observation falls in line with some public opinion polling that has suggested strong disapproval of the work Musk has done for Trump. A Quinnipiac University survey released in March which showed 60% of voters look down on the way that the businessman and Doge “are dealing with workers employed by the federal government”. Stock in Tesla slumped amid the backlash. And there were subsequently reports that Musk would gradually shift away from his prominent place within the Trump administration.

“The impact of association with influential figures in today’s heavily divided environment cannot be understated, especially with a deeply polarizing leader like … Musk,” Guzman wrote in a summary of the index’s findings.

Yet an even greater threat to brands were earning stories that feature “creating deepfakes, misinformation, biased decision-making or unethical applications that cause harm or manipulate public perception”, the survey said. Attracting that kind of coverage was reportedly viewed “as the most likely to gain negative online news attention”, the survey added.

An unnamed council member reportedly said: “AI, if not understood or managed in companies, can have an incredible trickle-down effect that may not be reversible.” One of the group’s experts noted that organizations these days need to regard AI policies as equally standard to those that account for more mundane aspects of their operations.

Rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives aiming “to ensure fair treatment and full participation for all individuals” was labeled brands’ third top risk. The Trump administration has aggressively moved to eliminate such measures within the government, military and beyond, including at Harvard, where the White House recently axed more than $2bn in federal research funding after the university refused to end DEI programs, one of several demands from the president.

Anticompetitive practices and facing allegations of defamation round out the top five reputational risks flagged by the first edition of a survey planned for quarterly publication.

“This data is not just numbers; it indicates the complex communications challenges facing organizations constantly,” wrote Guzman, adding the committee’s members suspect that reputational threats are bound to only escalate in the short term.

Other members of the council that produced the survey include Iceland’s former foreign affairs minister Thórdís Kolbrún Reykfjord Gylfadóttir; Bank of Ireland public affairs head Paul O’Brien; DoorDash’s global head of public affairs Taylor Bennett; American Association of Exporters and Importers president Eugene Laney; and Maria Toler, the founder of SteelSky Ventures, a venture capital fund focused on women’s healthcare.

Protesters poured into the streets of cities and towns across the United States again on Saturday, in the second wave of protests this month, as organizers seek to turn discontent with Donald Trump’s presidency into a mass movement that will eventually translate into action at the ballot box.

By early afternoon, large protests were under way in Washington, New York and Chicago, with images of crowds cascading across social networks showing additional demonstrations in Rhode Island, Maryland, Wisconsin, Tennessee, South Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, California and Pennsylvania, among others. Americans abroad also signaled their opposition to the Trump agenda in Dublin, Ireland, and other cities.

More than 400 rallies were planned, most loosely organized by the group 50501, which stands for 50 protests in 50 states, one movement.

Opponents of Donald Trump’s administration mobilized from the east coast to the west, including at rallies in Portland, Maine, and Portland, Oregon, decrying what they see as threats to the nation’s democratic ideals.

The events ranged from a massive march through midtown Manhattan to a rally in front of the White House, and a demonstration at a Massachusetts commemoration marking the start of the American revolutionary war 250 years ago.

In Massachusetts, 80-year-old retired mason Thomas Bassford told CBS News that he believed US citizens were under attack from their own government, saying: “This is a very perilous time in America for liberty. Sometimes we have to fight for freedom.”

Protesters identified a variety of concerns, each unified under a common theme: opposition to the second Trump presidency.

“We are losing our country,” demonstrator Sara Harvey told the New York Times in Jacksonville, Florida. “I’m worried for my grandchildren,” she said. “I do it for them.”

It is the fourth protest event to be staged by the group since Trump was inaugurated on 20 January. Previous events included a “No Kings Day” on President’s Day, 17 February, a theme adopted before Trump referred to himself as a king in a social media post days later.

Organizers have called for 11 million people to participate in the latest rallies, representing 3.5% of the US population.

Such a figure would likely surpass the numbers who took part in the “Hands Off” rallies staged on 5 April, when 1,200 demonstrations were staged across the US to register opposition to Trump’s assault on government agencies and institutions, spearheaded by the president’s chief lieutenant, the tech billionaire Elon Musk, and his unofficial “department of government efficiency” (Doge) unit.

Indivisible, the progressive movement behind the “Hands Off” events, said it was seeking to send a message to opposition politicians and ordinary voters that vocal resistance to Trump’s policies was essential. It also said it was seeking to build momentum that would lead to further and larger protests.

Heather Dunn, a spokesperson for 50501, said the goal of Saturday’s protests was “to protect our democracy against the rise of authoritarianism under the Trump administration”.

She called the group a “pro-democracy, pro-constitution, anti-executive overreach, nonviolent grassroots movement” that was nonpartisan.

“We have registered Democrats, registered independents and registered Republicans all marching because they all believe in America, because they all believe in a fair government that puts people before profits,” she told the Washington Post.

Academics who have tracked the slide of democracy into authoritarianism say protests can be part of a wider of strategy to reverse the trend.

“Oppositions to authoritarian governments have to use multiple channels always,” said Steven Levitsky, a political scientist at Harvard University and co-author, with Daniel Ziblatt, of How Democracies Die. “They have to use the courts where those are available. They have to use the ballot box when that’s available, and they have to use the streets when necessary – that can shape media framing and media discourse, which is very, very important.”

In Washington DC on Saturday, a protest planned by the 50501 movement is scheduled to take place in Franklin Park, and a march will start near the George Washington monument and head towards the White House in support of Kilmar Ábrego García, a Salvadorian man with US protected status wrongly deported to El Salvador from Maryland.

Twenty-one humanoid robots joined thousands of runners at the Yizhuang half-marathon in Beijing on Saturday, the first time these machines have raced alongside humans over a 21km course.

The robots from Chinese manufacturers such as DroidVP and Noetix Robotics came in all shapes and sizes, some shorter than 1.2m, others as tall as 1.8m. One company boasted that its robot looked almost human, with feminine features and the ability to wink and smile. Some firms tested their robots for weeks before the race. Beijing officials have described the event as more akin to motor racing, given the need for engineering and navigation teams.

“The robots are running very well, very stable … I feel I’m witnessing the evolution of robots and AI,” said spectator He Sishu, who works in artificial intelligence.

The robots were accompanied by human trainers, some of whom had to physically support the machines during the race. A few of the robots wore running shoes, with one wearing boxing gloves and another had a red headband with the words “Bound to Win” in Chinese.

The winning robot was Tiangong Ultra, from the Beijing Innovation Centre of Human Robotics, with a time of 2hr 40min. The men’s winner of the race had a time of 1hr 2min. The centre is 43% owned by two state-owned enterprises, while tech giant Xiaomi’s robotics arm and leading Chinese humanoid robot firm UBTech have equal share in the rest.

Tang Jian, chief technology officer for the robotics centre, said Tiangong Ultra’s performance was aided by long legs and an algorithm allowing it to imitate how humans run a marathon. “I don’t want to boast but no other robotics firms in the West have matched Tiangong’s sporting achievements,” Tang said, adding that the robot’s batteries were switched three times during the race.

Some robots struggled from the beginning. One fell at the starting line and lay flat for a few minutes before getting up and taking off. Another crashed into a railing after running a few metres, causing its human operator to fall over.

Although humanoid robots have made appearances at marathons in China over the past year, this is the first time they have raced alongside humans. China is hoping that investment in frontier industries like robotics can help create new engines of economic growth. Some analysts, though, question whether having robots enter marathons is a reliable indicator of their industrial potential.

Twenty-one humanoid robots joined thousands of runners at the Yizhuang half-marathon in Beijing on Saturday, the first time these machines have raced alongside humans over a 21km course.

The robots from Chinese manufacturers such as DroidVP and Noetix Robotics came in all shapes and sizes, some shorter than 1.2m, others as tall as 1.8m. One company boasted that its robot looked almost human, with feminine features and the ability to wink and smile. Some firms tested their robots for weeks before the race. Beijing officials have described the event as more akin to motor racing, given the need for engineering and navigation teams.

“The robots are running very well, very stable … I feel I’m witnessing the evolution of robots and AI,” said spectator He Sishu, who works in artificial intelligence.

The robots were accompanied by human trainers, some of whom had to physically support the machines during the race. A few of the robots wore running shoes, with one wearing boxing gloves and another had a red headband with the words “Bound to Win” in Chinese.

The winning robot was Tiangong Ultra, from the Beijing Innovation Centre of Human Robotics, with a time of 2hr 40min. The men’s winner of the race had a time of 1hr 2min. The centre is 43% owned by two state-owned enterprises, while tech giant Xiaomi’s robotics arm and leading Chinese humanoid robot firm UBTech have equal share in the rest.

Tang Jian, chief technology officer for the robotics centre, said Tiangong Ultra’s performance was aided by long legs and an algorithm allowing it to imitate how humans run a marathon. “I don’t want to boast but no other robotics firms in the West have matched Tiangong’s sporting achievements,” Tang said, adding that the robot’s batteries were switched three times during the race.

Some robots struggled from the beginning. One fell at the starting line and lay flat for a few minutes before getting up and taking off. Another crashed into a railing after running a few metres, causing its human operator to fall over.

Although humanoid robots have made appearances at marathons in China over the past year, this is the first time they have raced alongside humans. China is hoping that investment in frontier industries like robotics can help create new engines of economic growth. Some analysts, though, question whether having robots enter marathons is a reliable indicator of their industrial potential.

The US vice-president, JD Vance, had “an exchange of opinions” with the Vatican’s secretary of state over current international conflicts and immigration when they met on Saturday, the Vatican has said.

The Vatican issued a statement after Vance, a Catholic convert, met Cardinal Pietro Parolin and the foreign minister, Archbishop Paul Gallagher. There was no indication he met Pope Francis, who has resumed some official duties during his recovery from pneumonia.

The Holy See has responded cautiously to the Trump administration, in keeping with its tradition of diplomatic neutrality.

It has expressed alarm over Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigration and cuts in international aid, and has called for peaceful resolutions to the wars in Ukraine and Gaza.

Those concerns were reflected in the Vatican statement, which said the talks were cordial and that the Vatican expressed satisfaction with the administration’s commitment to protecting freedom of religion and conscience.

“There was an exchange of opinions on the international situation, especially regarding countries affected by war, political tensions and difficult humanitarian situations, with particular attention to migrants, refugees, and prisoners,” the statement said.

“Finally, hope was expressed for serene collaboration between the state and the Catholic church in the United States, whose valuable service to the most vulnerable people was acknowledged.”

The reference to “serene collaboration” appeared to refer to Vance’s accusation that the US conference of Catholic bishops was resettling “illegal immigrants” in order to obtain federal funding. Top US cardinals have pushed back strongly against the claim.

Parolin told La Repubblica on the eve of Vance’s visit: “It is clear that the approach of the current US administration is very different from what we are used to and, especially in the west, from what we have relied on for many years,.”

As the US pushes to end the war in Ukraine, Parolin reaffirmed Kyiv’s right to its territorial integrity and insisted that any peace deal must not be “imposed” on Ukraine but “built patiently, day by day, with dialogue and mutual respect”.

Vance was spending Easter weekend in Rome with his family and attended Good Friday services in St Peter’s Basilica after meeting Italy’s prime minister, Giorgia Meloni. On Saturday, after the Vance family’s introduction to Parolin, they had a private tour of the Sistine Chapel.

It was not immediately clear where they would celebrate Easter. Pope Francis, for his part, according to official liturgical plans released on Saturday, indicated he hoped to attend Easter mass on Sunday, which usually draws thousands to St Peter’s Square.

The pope and Vance have tangled over immigration and the Trump administration’s plans to deport people en masse. Francis has made caring for those who migrate a hallmark of his papacy and his progressive views on social justice issues have often put him at odds with members of the more conservative US Catholic church.

The pope also changed church teaching to say that capital punishment was inadmissible in all cases. After a public appeal from Francis just weeks before Trump took office, Joe Biden commuted the sentences of 37 of the 40 people on federal death row. Trump is an outspoken proponent of expanding capital punishment.

Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, identifies with a small Catholic intellectual movement that is viewed by some critics as having reactionary or authoritarian leanings and often described as “post-liberal”.

Post-liberals share some longstanding Catholic conservative views, such as opposition to abortion and LGBTQ+ rights. They envision a counter-revolution in which they take over government bureaucracy and institutions such as universities from within, replacing entrenched “elites” with their own and acting upon their vision of the “common good”.

Just days before the pope was admitted to hospital in February, Francis criticised the Trump administration’s deportation plans, warning that they would deprive people of their inherent dignity. In a letter to US bishops, he also appeared to respond to Vance directly for having claimed that Catholic doctrine justified such policies.

Vance had defended the administration’s America-first crackdown by citing a concept from medieval Catholic theology known in Latin as ordo amoris. He said the concept delineated a hierarchy of care – to family first, followed by neighbour, community, fellow citizens and, last, those elsewhere.

In his 10 February letter, Francis appeared to correct Vance’s understanding of the concept.

“Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extends to other persons and groups,” he wrote. “The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the good Samaritan, that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.”

Vance has acknowledged Francis’ criticism but has said he will continue to defend his views. During an appearance on 28 February at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast in Washington, Vance did not address the issue specifically but called himself a “baby Catholic” and acknowledged there are “things about the faith that I don’t know”.

After last week’s supreme court decision, activists had been worried that trans people might become fearful of going out in public in case they were abused.

They weren’t afraid in London on Saturday. Thousands of trans and non-binary people thronged Parliament Square, alongside families and supporters waving baby blue, white and pink flags to demonstrate their anger at the judges’ ruling.

The numbers seemed to take the organisers and police by surprise. Protesters from a hastily assembled coalition of 24 groups gathered in a ring against the barriers surrounding the grass and began speeches. But after the roads became clogged with people, a woman wearing a “Nobody knows I’m a lesbian” top ran across with her dog and soon the square was full. “It’s one hell of a turnout and there is a really strong sense of unity and solidarity,” said Jamie Strudwick, one of the organisers. “I think it’s impossible to compare it – it’s like nothing I’ve ever seen before.”

Last Wednesday, the supreme court ruled that when the Equality Act 2010 referred to women, it referred only to biological sex and did not include transgender women who hold a gender recognition certificate (GRC).

The judgment was celebrated by groups including For Women Scotland, a gender-critical campaign group backed by JK Rowling, which says that women’s safety is threatened by allowing transgender women into single-sex spaces.

In his judgment, Lord Hodge said that trans people were still protected from discrimination and harassment under the Equality Act. But some trans people say they have felt confusion, fear and anger, with many believing they will find it harder to challenge unfair treatment and receive support from authorities that should be helping them.

After the ruling, the Equality and Human Rights Commission chair, Kishwer Falkner, said that it would create a new statutory code of practice by the summer, giving guidance to public bodies on how they should change their treatment of women and trans people. She said the NHS would need to change its rules on single-sex wards and her organisation would pursue the matter if it did not.

Other organisations have already acted. British Transport Police said same-sex searches in custody would be conducted “in accordance with the biological birth sex of the detainee”.

“In the last week, I’ve had to respond to four suicide attempts or threats from young people,” said Oscar Hoyle, who founded the Blossom LGBT community interest group in 2018. “The most significant one, I was on the phone for three hours to a transgender girl, 18 years old. It took three hours for police to come.” Blossom works with about 400 16 to 30-year-olds from across the LGBTQ community to support them into adulthood, and about two-thirds identify as trans or non-binary.

“Regardless of where you sit in this conversation, nobody should be in a position where they feel like life isn’t worth living just because they fall within a marginalised group,” Hoyle said.

Among the crowds outside parliament were Awsten Atkinson, a 23-year-old trans man and their partner, Daisy Watt, a 19-year-old trans woman. “My first reaction to the ruling was absolute horror,” Watt said. “I remember looking at the news and thinking, how on earth have we fallen this far? Not even 10 years ago we were making incredible progress but we just seemed to backslide so severely.”

Atkinson was “devastated and in disbelief”: “Why do people care so much about what we do with our lives when it doesn’t actually affect them? This is being framed as a feminist movement but the criteria they’re using to decide who is a woman brings the focus back to women as objects, as the sum of their body parts.”

The couple were appalled by the BTP decision. “There are a lot of British transport police under investigation for sexual harassment as it is and this opens up the opportunity for them to say ‘you’re getting searched by a male because I believe you’re trans’ and they’re protected by law to do that,” Atkinson said.

With protesters on the green, mostly under 30, waving flags and banners, Watt was “reassured that we have a community around us that is willing to stand up and speak truth to power”. Atkinson added: “As we were coming along, I started smiling and I said to them [Watt and her friends] ‘wow look at everybody’. What you can count on in this community is that people will rally round.”

Near Mahatma Gandhi’s statue, two trans women in their 20s said they were worried that the UK was becoming more like the US.

“When they instituted the bathroom bans there, you saw that it wasn’t just trans people, it was also cis people getting accused and being forced out,” one said.

The other said: “What I see is trans misogyny that women legally can’t be women, whereas men will always be men. I find it very scary.

“In public spaces I have a different vibe. It’s like we’re going back in time. It feels like we’re not protected by the law any more.”

Ann-Marie Still was there with her sister and niece. When she heard the news she was angry and disappointed in the system, she said. “I immediately reached out to trans friends, family, with a simple message: ‘you are loved, you are valid’.”

“Most people disregard the young,” said Dani, who was there representing her trans sister. “Parents, children, elderly people – they can’t live their lives as they actually want to.”

Police later launched an investigation after seven statues were daubed with graffiti, among them that of the suffragette Millicent Fawcett. Scotland Yard said its officers were in Parliament Square at the time, but did not witness the “criminal damage” take place. No arrests had been made, but officers were investigating, said Ch Supt Stuart Bell, leading the protest policing operation.

Polack said it would not change how she behaved. “I can go for an exercise and I go into the changing rooms and there’s nothing to hide because I look like every other woman that’s there.

“There are one or two people I come across there who know my past and they’re quite happy with it and the rest of them don’t know and can’t tell. Why should it change? There’s no reason for it to change.”One of the things that bothers Polack is whether the ruling makes her gender recognition certificate valid or not. “There will probably be an attempt to restrict access to changing rooms and what they call single-sex spaces and enforce some sort of ban, but how do you police that?”

Ed Miliband has torn into Nigel Farage and the Tories for peddling dangerous “nonsense and lies” by suggesting the UK’s net zero target is responsible for destroying Britain’s businesses, including its steel industry.

Cabinet ministers are determined to fight back against the way Reform UK and the Conservatives have unceremoniously lambasted the climate crisis agenda for what they believe are nakedly political reasons before important local elections next month.

Both Farage and the Tories have blamed the perilous situation at British Steel’s Scunthorpe plant on high energy costs, saying renewable energy prices have put the company on the brink.

Reform has also used the crisis to call for the UK to become self-sufficient in oil and gas by drilling more in the North Sea, despite the fact that stocks there are dwindling fast and most of what is produced is exported.

The total abandonment of the broad political consensus for net zero by parties on the right of UK politics – and by US president Donald Trump’s Republican administration in Washington – is causing serious alarm inside the UK government.

Britain’s prime minister, Keir Starmer, is expected to “double down” on his Labour government’s commitment to a green energy future, and making the UK a clean energy superpower, at an International Energy Agency conference this week in London that will also be attended by pro-fossil-fuel officials from the Trump administration.

In an article for the Observer, Miliband, the energy secretary, says the argument for the UK delivering clean power by 2030 is the same as it was when Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022: the need to free ourselves from dependency on foreign supplies, including from Russia, which can lead to uncontrolled price spikes for customers in Britain.

Referring to the soaring prices that shocked UK consumers in 2022 and that have continued to reverberate, he says: “Our exposure to fossil fuels meant that, as those markets went into meltdown and prices rocketed, family, business and public finances were devastated. The cost of living impacts caused back then still stalk families today.”

As a result, Miliband says breaking free of dependence on overseas supplies is also a matter of “national security”.

With an eye on the local and mayoral elections in England on 1 May in which Reform hopes to turn its recent national poll leads into council seats, Miliband says Farage’s party and the Tories “make up any old nonsense and lies to pursue their ideological agenda”.

Polling experts believe the attacks on net zero could backfire on Reform and the Tories because the policy is overwhelmingly supported by the public.

While Miliband has also been disparaged by the rightwing media over net zero, he is determined to fight back, not least because internal polling shows he and his policies remain popular within the Labour party.

Luke Tryl, UK director of polling organisation More in Common, said: “There’s no doubt Reform have channelled public discontent with the status quo and a desire for change into electoral momentum since last July.

“But their approach to climate change, along with stances on Ukraine and Farage’s relationship with Trump, risk becoming an achilles heel. Our research finds that in every UK constituency voters say they are more worried about climate change than not, and most see renewable energy as the path to energy security, jobs and cheaper energy.

“Even Reform voters themselves, despite being less enamoured by the idea of net zero, just aren’t that motivated by it, and certainly not compared to an issue like immigration.”

A Labour source said: “We will go after [Kemi] Badenoch and Farage on energy. They want to leave the UK exposed to markets controlled by [Vladimir] Putin – we are going to make the hard-nosed national security case for climate action.”

This week Farage will tour 10 counties in England promoting his anti-net zero policy and also touting his newfound support for the outright nationalisation of the British steel industry – normally an approach advocated by politicians on the left.

Miliband adds in his Observer column that if the anti-net zero agenda were followed, it would not only risk “climate breakdown” but also “forfeit the clean energy jobs of the future” in this country, and with them a great opportunity for economic renewal.

At a rally in Durham last week Farage said Reform would “reindustrialise Britain”, adding that this would require the country to start producing “enough of our own gas and oil and coal”. He said: “We should be self-sufficient in oil… We should be absolutely self-sufficient in gas.”

Climate groups have, however, criticised this rhetoric as “pure fantasy”, pointing to official projections that show a steep decline in North Sea production, regardless of government policy and intervention, owing to the ageing nature of the sea’s basin.

Far from being self-sufficient in gas, official forecasts show that the UK will be 94% reliant on gas imports by 2050 even if new fields were to be developed, only a fraction lower than if no new fields are developed (97% dependency).

Labour has been making its own case for energy independence, focusing on Great British Energy (GBE), which sources note is one of its most popular policies. The party will campaign heavily in the coming months on GBE’s policy of putting solar panels on the roofs of 200 schools and 200 hospitals.

Tessa Khan, executive director of climate action group Uplift, said: “Nigel Farage is peddling a dangerous fantasy by suggesting that the UK can secure its energy from North Sea oil and gas.

“As usual, he’s imitating Trump and his obsession with more drilling while ignoring that the UK’s remaining oil and gas reserves are dwindling fast after 60 years of extraction. That’s down to geology, not policies.”

Khan added: “By trying to slow the shift to renewable energy, which the UK has in abundance but which Reform is opposed to, Farage is endangering the creation of new jobs that provide a more secure, long-term future.

“The question for Reform is: what is its plan for the UK’s oil and gas workers, other than this dangerous fantasy?”

Most of what is left in the North Sea is oil, about 80% of which is exported. The sea is also a high-cost basin to drill and more production is only possible if oil and gas prices are so high that energy bills become unaffordable for most ordinary people, or with more generous tax breaks for developers.

A rise in misogyny and racism is flooding UK schools as pupils ape the behaviour of figures such as Donald Trump and Andrew Tate after exposure through social media and online gaming, teachers have warned.

A survey by the NASUWT union found most teachers identified social media as “the number one cause” of pupil misbehaviour, with female staff bearing the brunt. Teachers also raised concerns about parents who refuse to accept school rules or take responsibility for their children’s behaviour.

One teacher told the union: “A lot of the students are influenced by Tate and Trump, they spout racist, homophobic, transphobic and sexist comments in every conversation and don’t believe there will be consequences.”

The NASUWT’s general secretary, Patrick Roach, told the union’s annual conference on Friday: “Two in three teachers tell us that social media is now a critical factor contributing to bullying and poor pupil behaviour.

“Pupils who believe it is their inalienable right to access their mobile phones throughout the school day – and use them to interrupt lessons, bully others, act out, or to garner respect from their peers.”

One primary teacher said: “I have had boys refuse to speak to me, and speak to a male teaching assistant instead, because I am a woman and they follow Andrew Tate and think he is amazing with all his cars and women and how women should be treated. These were 10-year-olds.”

Others reported instances of boys “barking at female staff and blocking doorways … as a direct result of Andrew Tate videos”. Another teacher said: “Pupils watch violent and extreme pornographic material. Their attention spans have dropped. They read lots of fake news and sensationalised stories that make them feel empowered and that they know better than the teacher.”

Roach said the union had “positive discussions” with ministers about tackling the problem but warned that restricting access to mobile phones during the school day did not go far enough. “We now need a plan to tackle what has become a national emergency,” he said.

A Department for Education spokesperson said: “We know the rise of dangerous influencers is having a damaging impact on our children, which is why we are supporting the sector in their crucial role building young people’s resilience to extremism as part of our plan for change.

“That’s why we provide a range of resources to support teachers to navigate these challenging issues, and why our curriculum review will look at the skills children need to thrive in a fast-changing online world.

“This is on top of wider protections being brought in for children with the Online Safety Act, to ensure children have an age-appropriate experience online.”

The Liberal Democrats, however, said the union’s findings showed that more needed to be done. “Toxic algorithms are pushing many children into dark corners of the internet, where sinister attitudes that cause terrible harm in the real world, including in our schools, are free to develop,” the party’s education spokesperson, Munira Wilson, said.

Delegates to the NASUWT conference in Liverpool heard that parents had become increasingly hostile, and even violent, when called in to discuss their child’s behaviour.

Lindsay Hanger, a delegate from Norwich, said unacceptable behaviour was being tolerated in many schools in England because of a need to meet attendance targets “at any cost” and avoid suspensions or exclusions.

“I think the government needs to go further, with a strategy to ensure that all parents of school-aged children are expected to uphold behaviour strategies or risk their child being denied their place in the classroom,” Hanger said.

The conference passed a motion instructing the union to oppose “no exclusion” policies being legitimised across the education sector – a reference to campaigns seeking to end or curtail the use of exclusions.

Roach also told the conference that the union wanted “a real-terms pay award for teachers this autumn that is funded fully”, warning that anything less “will be met with the response from our members it deserves”.

Roach told Schools Week newspaper that the NASUWT would hold a formal strike ballot in England if the government ignored recommendations for above-inflation pay increases by the independent pay review body.

The conference also passed a motion ordering NASUWT leaders to rule out a merger with the National Education Union (NEU) or other unions. Some members are concerned that Matt Wrack, the former leader of the Fire Brigades Union and the leading candidate to replace Roach as general secretary, supports a merger with the more leftwing NEU.

Product promotion on TikTok is now powerful enough to influence the vast agricultural economies of the US and Iran – at least when it comes to the consumption of high-end confectionery.

A chocolate bar stuffed with a creamy green pistachio filling has become incredibly popular after a series of video clips shared on the social media site. The first bit of footage praising the taste of the expensive so-called “Dubai chocolate” was posted at the end of 2023 and has now been viewed more than 120m times, to say nothing of the many follow-up videos.

The result has been an international shortage of the vital ingredient, pistachio ­kernels, which are largely grown in either the US or Iran. In a year, prices have surged from $7.65 to $10.30 a pound, Giles Hacking, from nut trader CG Hacking, told the Financial Times.

The nut was already becoming scarce due to last year’s poor harvest in the US, the world’s leading exporter. Although that crop was smaller than usual, it was of higher quality and so was largely sold as whole nuts, still in their shells. This has created a further shortage of the basic kernels used in the chocolate bars.

Iranian producers, meanwhile, had exported 40% more nuts to the UAE in the six months to March than they had in the 12 months prior to that.

Dubai chocolate mania can be sourced to the creation of a bar that combined milk chocolate, the shredded pastry known as kataifi, and a pistachio cream filling. Made by the swish Emirati chocolatier Fix, which only sells in the UAE, it was prophetically given the punning name Can’t Get Knafeh of It, in reference to a traditional Arab dessert.

Other leading chocolate makers, such as Läderach and Lindt, quickly created their own pistachio ­chocolate products, but are now struggling to meet international demand. Charles Jandreau, the general manager for Prestat Group, which owns several luxury British chocolate brands, told the FT that the demand for the bars has surprised the industry. “It feels like it came out of nowhere,” he said. “Suddenly you see it in every corner shop.”

Some stores are reportedly rationing the number of bars sold at one time. Testament, then, either to the power of TikTok influencers, or the rather more established appeal of tasty chocolate.