Why Prince William and Kate were missing from Easter Sunday service

The King and Queen attended the traditional Easter Sunday service at Windsor Castle alongside other members of the royal family – though the Prince and Princess of Wales were notably absent.

Charles and Camilla smiled at members of the public who waited for their arrival at St George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle.

The King and Queen were joined by the Princess Royal, the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh, the Duke of York and other members of the royal family.

Camilla was presented with flowers before she and Charles walked over to members of the public and briefly greeted some of them.

However, William and Kate decided not to join the royals for the traditional easter Sunday service as they are spending the weekend with their children in Norfolk.

Prince William told the King of his intention to miss the service, to “enjoy some extended time as a family over Easter”, a source told The Mirror.

“They are choosing to spend time together as a family before the children go back to school”, the source added.

The couple missed the annual service last year after Kate was diagnosed with cancer. She is now in remission and slowly returning to public duties.

William and Kate have a country home, Anmer Hall, on the Sandringham estate.

In a video last year revealing the princess had completed her chemotherapy, the family were shown enjoying the Norfolk countryside, walking through woods and playing on the beach.

Kate has previously said she has a “spiritual” connection with nature which gives her peace in a busy world, and how the natural world was her family’s “sanctuary” over the past year.

Attending the service on Sunday was the Duke and Duchess of Edinburgh and their son James – the Earl of Wessex, Princess Eugenie and her husband Jack Brooksbank and Princess Beatrice and her husband Edoardo Mapelli Mozzi.

They were applauded by members of the crowd as they left.

Andrew, the Duke of York also attended, with the Princess Royal, his ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York and Anne’s husband Vice Admiral Sir Tim Laurence.

A member of the gathered crowd shouted “Happy Easter, sir” to Andrew as he left St George’s Chapel after the service.

He glanced at them before walking off with his ex-wife Sarah, Duchess of York, who smiled and waved at well-wishers.

Scientists say they have discovered a new colour – but there’s a catch

Scientists say they have discovered a new colour only ever seen by five people in the world – called ‘olo’.

The colour, said to be a saturated shade of blue-green, cannot be seen by the naked eye without the help of stimulation by laser, which scientists claim can open people to see beyond the normal gamut of colour perception.

Researchers developed the Oz Vision System technique, named in homage to the green-tinted glasses that people in the Emerald City wear in the ‘Wizard of Oz’, to reveal the new colour in a study, published in the journal Science Advances.

It found when Oz laser signals are intentionally “jittered” by just a few microns (one millionth of a metre) subjects perceive the stimulating laser’s natural colour.

When these same Oz microdoses are delivered accurately, subjects can be made to perceive different colours of the rainbow, unprecedented colours beyond the natural human gamut, and imagery like “brilliant red lines” or “rotating dots on an olo background”.

“We predicted from the beginning that it would look like an unprecedented colour signal but we didn’t know what the brain would do with it,” said Ren Ng, an electrical engineer at the University of California, Berkeley.

“It was jaw-dropping. It’s incredibly saturated.”

Prof Ng, who was one of five people to take part in the experiment, told BBC Radio 4‘s Today programme that olo was “more saturated than any colour that you can see in the real world”.

“Let’s say you go around your whole life and you see only pink, baby pink, a pastel pink,” he said.

“And then one day you go to the office and someone’s wearing a shirt, and it’s the most intense baby pink you’ve ever seen, and they say it’s a new colour and we call it red.”

During the study, the Oz laser only stimulated M cones in the retinas, “which in principle would send a colour signal to the brain that never occurs in natural vision”.

To verify the colour observed during the experiment, each participant adjusted a controllable colour dial until it matched olo.

The colour was given the name ‘olo’ for a reason, as it denotes the binary 010, indicating that among the L, M, and S cones, only the M cones are switched on.

The paper read: “We name this new color ‘olo’. Subjects report that olo in our prototype system appears blue-green of unprecedented saturation, when viewed relative to a neutral grey background.

“Subjects find that they must desaturate olo by adding white light before they can achieve a colour match with the closest monochromatic light, which lies on the boundary of the gamut, unequivocal proof that olo lies beyond the gamut.”

But the findings have been disputed by other experts.

“It is not a new colour,” said John Barbur, a vision scientist at City St George’s, University of London who said the research had “limited value”.

“It’s a more saturated green that can only be produced in a subject with normal red-green chromatic mechanism when the only input comes from M cones.”

Oz could theoretically be used for everyday colour displays, like those in your television or phone screen — but that application seems very unlikely, said co-first author James Fong, a doctoral student in computer science at the University of California, Berkeley.

“Our current method depends on highly specialised lasers and optics that are definitely not coming to smartphones or TVs any time soon,” he said.

So until then, only a handful of selected people will be allowed to truly see olo.

Surprise! Gender reveal party pink flare mistaken for marine emergency

A gender reveal celebration took an unexpected turn after emergency services arrived over concerns for the safety of a boat crew.

Tynemouth Volunteer Life Brigade was called out to the party near the mouth of the River Tyne late on Saturday after reports of a vessel “going round in circles” and what appeared to be a red smoke flare from the boat.

The coastguard dispatched the brigade to investigate after fearing the boat was in distress.

However, upon arriving at Royal Quays Marina, emergency services discovered the situation was far less serious than first feared.

A spokesperson for the brigade said: “The team found that the ‘red’ flare was in fact ‘pink’, and the crew had been helping a couple reveal the gender of their baby.”

The boat’s skipper apologised for any alarm caused by the flare.

“Ultimately, we’re grateful everyone was safe and well,” the brigade spokesperson added. “We send our best wishes to the parents-to-be.”

The brigade also reminded the public that using flares in coastal areas can easily trigger emergency responses.

“Deploying flares in a coastal environment will always raise concerns that an emergency is taking place,” the spokesperson said.

“We’d recommend avoiding using flares near the coast in any other circumstances, but if you intend to, please contact Humber Coastguard in advance.”

The incident was recorded as a false alarm with good intent — and the brigade described it as one of its more unusual callouts.

There were six members of the team were involved in the response.

The Who U-turn decision to axe Zak Starkey after he ‘apologised’

The Who have reinstated drummer Zak Starkey after he was unceremoniously sacked because of complaints by frontman Roger Daltrey.

Last month, the band played a series of headline shows at the Royal Albert Hall, when Daltrey complained about Starkey’s performance in front of the audience. A statement was then released to confirm that the band had decided to part ways with the musician.

Starkey, who is the son of The Beatles drummer Ringo Starr and his first wife, Maureen Starkey, has been the band’s full-time drummer since he joined their Quadrophenia tour in 1996. His nearly three-decade-long career with the group came to an abrupt end with the announcement.

Starkey said he was “surprised and saddened” by the news and that the band had felt “like family”. Daltrey’s drummer, Scott Devours, who performs with him during his solo gigs was rumoured to replace Starkey.

However, in a swift turn of events, the band have now backtracked on that decision.

In a statement issued on Saturday (19 April) and written by guitarist Pete Townshend for the band’s social media page, The Who said that the public fallout had been due to “communication issues”.

“He’s not being asked to step down from The Who,” Townshend wrote. “There have been some communication issues, personal and private on all sides, that needed to be dealt with, and these have been aired happily.”

The group did, however, appear to double down on their complaints over Starkey’s skills, revealing they have asked him to improve his drumming.

“Roger and I would like Zak to tighten up his latest evolved drumming style to accommodate our non-orchestral line up and he has readily agreed,” he said.

Townshend said he will “take responsibility for some of the confusion” as the group’s performances were “tricky” for him due to recovering from a knee replacement.

“Maybe we didn’t put enough time into sound checks, giving us problems on stage,” he said. “The sound in the centre of the stage is always the most difficult to work with. Roger did nothing wrong but fiddle with his in-ear monitors.

“Zak made a few mistakes and he has apologised. Albeit with a rubber duck drummer.”

The statement continued: “We are a family, this blew up very quickly and got too much oxygen. It’s over. We move forward now with optimism and fire in our bellies.

“As for Roger, fans can enjoy his forthcoming solo shows with his fabulous drummer, Scott Devours, who it was rumoured might replace Zak in The Who and has always been supportive of the band.

“I owe Scott an apology for not crushing that rumour before it spread. He has been hurt by this. I promise to buy him a very long drink and give him a hug.”

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?

Nigel Farage’s party has been talking to Liz Truss – a big mistake

Nigel Farage’s allies have held talks with Liz Truss on how to take on “the blob”, according to The Times. This is surprising, given that Farage usually shows a good instinct for politics.

He has sensed an opportunity for Reform. Having picked up the support of a large number of former Conservative voters who felt betrayed by the last government, especially over immigration, he was well placed to recruit former Labour voters, who have been unimpressed by the new government’s delivery of “change”.

Hence the astute outflanking of the government on the traditional left, calling for the renationalisation of British Steel before Keir Starmer was forced into it last weekend. Hence, too, Farage’s refusal to criticise Unite, the union on strike in Birmingham, knowing that many working-class former Labour voters might have some sympathy with the low-paid bin workers.

Nor was it a coincidence that the place where Farage refused to say anything hostile about trade unions was at a rally in Newton Aycliffe, in Tony Blair’s old constituency of Sedgefield. Those working-class voters in the North East who put New Labour in power, then turned to Boris Johnson in 2019, some of whom reluctantly returned to Labour last year, are now in Farage’s sights.

That sight line is reciprocated. Something else that was interesting about that Newton Aycliffe rally was that it was attended by someone “close to and trusted by” the prime minister, according to Patrick Maguire, chronicler of Starmer’s government.

Labour sees Reform as its main opponent between now and the next election, given that the voters have decided that the Tories need to serve a long sentence in the sin bin before they can be taken seriously again. Where Farage sees an opportunity, Starmer and Morgan McSweeney, his chief of staff, see a threat.

That is why Labour has been hitting Reform hard with the charge that Farage wants to demolish the NHS. And it is why Reform has hit back with a promise that “the NHS will always be free at the point of delivery under a Reform government”.

Labour is justified in pointing out that, as recently as in the TV debates in last year’s election campaign, Farage was advocating a French-style social insurance system of healthcare – but Farage is entitled to change his mind, and Reform is entitled to try to shut down the issue, knowing how unpopular any move away from the founding principles of the NHS would be with lower-income voters.

Farage has been trying to shut down other unhelpful associations with his personal brand. He doesn’t boast about his closeness to Donald Trump as much as he used to, and he avoids going on about how Nato “provoked” Vladimir Putin into going to war in Ukraine.

He knows that being seen as pro-Trump and pro-Putin is unhelpful to him, so why on earth does he think that being pro-Truss is a good idea? I assume that the news of the contact between Reform and Truss did not come from Farage’s side. But even so, Farage should not have allowed anyone associated with him to have anything to do with her.

The Times quoted a “source” as saying: “It’s not just a case of thinking about policy, it’s about working through delivery in the face of institutional resistance.” This is comical. How did Truss as prime minister “deliver” in the face of institutional resistance? Her government collapsed because the markets thought unfunded tax cuts were unsustainable. The only good thing she did was to give up about as promptly as she could.

The Times reported that she had “given advice on how to engineer a major overhaul of the state” and commented that this was “a sign of how seriously Farage takes the prospect of power”.

If Farage takes power seriously, he should know that the only useful lesson he could learn from her is: do not do what she did.

If she applies to join Reform, she should be turned away. He already has enough negatives to play down, and does not need another one. It is true that he faces a great opportunity, with Labour and the Conservatives both unpopular at the same time, but the voters he is trying to win over think of Truss as the one who pursued policies that made no sense, crashing the economy and putting up mortgage rates, and who was outlasted by a lettuce.

The high costs of an inhumane policy

Given some of the clearly stated priorities of the government, which include keeping the public finances on a sound footing, reluctantly making cuts to the welfare benefits and foreign aid budgets to bolster defence in the light of international security threats, and bringing the UK into compliance with United Nations rulings (the agreement to hand back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius), it seems perverse that it has failed to address an area of state spending that would tick all three of these boxes at once.

Add in the fact that, since last autumn, it has been implementing an emergency early release scheme to free up space in the country’s prisons, and it is even less comprehensible why ministers have not moved to end the continuing scandal of prisoners left languishing on what are called imprisonment for public protection (IPP) jail terms, which set no date for their release. Not only has the government not moved to any formal consideration of their plight – these prisoners are explicitly excluded from the early release scheme – but it has given scant sign of any serious interest in doing so.

Like its predecessors, this government has resisted calls to provide for the re-sentencing of the prisoners concerned, despite censure from the UN special rapporteur on torture. Nor has it earmarked any funds for the so-called IPP action plan, which is intended to help prepare these prisoners for release.

Yet the status of these prisoners is one that should not be tolerated in any law-governed state. Several thousand people are being held under legislation passed in 2005, when the then Labour government was responding to public concern about crime levels. The law permitting such sentences was repealed by the coalition government seven years later, but without retrospective effect. The result is that some 2,600 people remain incarcerated under a law that was judged unjust and inhumane and no longer applies.

We now have a situation where some prisoners are released after serving less than half their time, in order to reduce prison overcrowding, while others serving sentences for far lesser crimes still have no prospect of release. Among them are individuals whose only convictions are for thefts of mobile phones and laptops. That is not to say that such crimes, especially if committed repeatedly or with violence, should not be punished, including by jail time. But it defies justice that the time actually served by as many as 700 of these prisoners is now 10 years longer than the minimum term, and that some have served double the standard tariff for the particular offence.

The grounds given are that public safety is paramount and that the prisoners concerned have failed tests to show that they would be safe on release. But, as campaigners and families also argue, at least some of the reasons why they are considered unsafe may reflect the time they have spent in prison and the uncertainty that inevitably attends a sentence with no defined end.

The human costs here are incalculable. The cost to the Exchequer, on the other hand – and that means to all UK taxpayers – is all too calculable. As we reveal today, the total cost last year in respect of the 2,600 IPP inmates reached £145m. This comes on top of a bill estimated at £1.6bn for keeping IPP prisoners in the first 10 financial years after the law was repealed. This is a shocking sum in itself, given the current appeals to save money. But it is doubly so, since it was spent applying a type of sentence that was abolished as unjust and inhumane.

It cannot be beyond the wit of ministers to grasp that several of the government’s priorities militate for changing this, and fast. Humanitarian, judicial and financial considerations all point in the same direction, with the bonus that several thousand prison places can potentially be freed up as well.

Yes, some extra funds may have to be directed to preparing long-confined and damaged prisoners for release and providing the support they may subsequently need. But this would be far less in the longer term than underwriting many more years in prison. Of all recent prime ministers, Sir Keir Starmer, with his past professional life as a human rights lawyer, must understand better than most that this is the right thing to do, for the sake of justice above all, but also for the sake of the public purse.