Tuesday’s bloodshed in Pahalgam – where at least 26 tourists were killed in a hail of gunfire – marks the deadliest militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir since 2019.

The victims weren’t soldiers or officials, but civilians on holiday in one of India’s most picturesque valleys. That alone makes this strike both brutal and symbolic: a calculated assault not just on lives, but on a fragile sense of normalcy the Indian state has worked hard to project in the disputed region.

Given the fraught history of Kashmir – claimed in full by both India and Pakistan but ruled by each only in part – India’s response is likely to be shaped as much by precedent as by pressure, say experts.

For starters, Delhi has swiftly taken a series of retaliatory steps: closing the main border crossing, suspending a critical water-sharing treaty, and expelling diplomats.

More significantly, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has vowed a “strong response,” pledging action not just against the perpetrators but also the masterminds behind the “nefarious acts” on Indian soil.

The question, analysts say, is not whether there will be a military response – but when, and how calibrated it will be, and at what cost.

“We are likely to see a strong response – one that signals resolve to both domestic audiences and actors in Pakistan. Since 2016 and especially after 2019, the threshold for retaliation has been set at cross-border or air strikes,” military historian Srinath Raghavan told the BBC.

“It’ll be hard for the government to act below that now. Pakistan will likely respond, as it did before. The risk, as always, is miscalculation – on both sides.”

Mr Raghavan is alluding to two previous major retaliations by India in 2016 and 2019.

After the deadly Uri attack in September 2016, where 19 Indian soldiers were killed, India launched what it called “surgical strikes” across the de facto border – also known as the Line of Control (LoC) – targeting what it said were militant launch pads in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

And in 2019, after at least 40 paramilitary personnel were killed in Pulwama, India hit an alleged militant camp in Balakot with airstrikes – its first such strike deep inside Pakistan since 1971. Pakistan responded with air raids, leading to a dogfight and the brief capture of an Indian pilot. Both sides showed strength but avoided full-scale war.

Two years later, in 2021, they agreed to an LoC ceasefire, which has largely held – despite recurring militant attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Michael Kugelman, a foreign policy analyst, believes that the combination of high fatality levels and the targeting of Indian civilians in the latest attack “suggests a strong possibility of an Indian military response against Pakistan, if Delhi determines or merely assumes any level of Pakistani complicity”.

“The chief advantage of such a reaction for India would be political, as there will be strong public pressure for India to respond forcefully, ” he told the BBC.

“Another advantage, if a retaliation successfully takes out terrorist targets, would be restoring deterrence and degrading an anti-India threat. The disadvantage is that a retaliation would risk a serious crisis and even conflict.”

What are India’s options?

Covert action offers deniability but may not satisfy the political need to visibly restore deterrence, says Christopher Clary of the University at Albany in the US.

That leaves India with two possible paths, he notes.

First, the 2021 LoC ceasefire has been fraying, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi could greenlight a return to cross-border firing.

Second, airstrikes or even conventional cruise missile strikes, like in 2019, are also on the table – each carrying the risk of a retaliatory spiral, as seen in the air skirmishes that followed then.

“No path is without risks. The US is also distracted and may not be willing or be able to assist with crisis management,” Mr Clary, who studies the politics of South Asia, told the BBC.

One of the gravest risks in any India-Pakistan crisis is that both sides are nuclear-armed. That fact casts a long shadow over every decision, shaping not just military strategy but political calculations.

“Nuclear weapons are both a danger and a restraint – they force decision-makers on both sides to act with caution. Any response is likely to be presented as precise and targeted. Pakistan may retaliate in kind, then look for an off-ramp, says Mr Raghavan.

“We’ve seen this pattern in other conflicts too, like Israel-Iran – calibrated strikes, followed by efforts to de-escalate. But the risk is always that things won’t go according to script.”

Mr Kugelman says that one of the lessons of the Pulwama crisis is that “each country is comfortable using limited counter retaliation”.

“India will need to weigh the political and tactical advantages of retaliation with the risk of a serious crisis or conflict.”

Hussain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, believes escalation is possible this time, with India likely to consider limited “surgical strikes” like in 2016.

“The advantage of such strikes from India’s point of view is they are limited in scope, so Pakistan does not have to respond, and yet they demonstrate to the Indian public that India has acted,” Mr Haqqani, a senior fellow at Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy and Hudson Institute, told the BBC.

“But such strikes can also invite retaliation from Pakistan, which argues that it is being blamed in a knee jerk reaction, without any investigation or evidence.”

Whatever course India chooses – and however Pakistan responds – each step is fraught with risk. The threat of escalation looms, and with it, the fragile peace in Indian-administered Kashmir slips further out of reach.

At the same time, India must reckon with the security failures that allowed the attack to happen in the first place. “That such an attack occurred at the peak of tourist season,” Mr Raghavan noted, “points to a serious lapse – especially in a Union Territory where the federal government directly controls law and order.”

The party of South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa has reversed a controversial proposed value-added-tax (VAT) rise that had threatened the country’s coalition government.

The hike was proposed by the African National Congress (ANC) but was strongly opposed by the Democratic Alliance (DA), its main coalition partner in the unity government, which had even asked the courts to block it. Other opposition parties also opposed it.

The reversal of the proposed 0.5% tax hike comes just days before it was due to take effect.

The finance ministry said the decision came after consultations with political parties and parliament, but warned that it would cause a significant deficit in revenue.

It said other tax increases or public spending cuts could follow as a result of the 75bn rand ($4bn; £3bn) shortfall.

The reversal of the tax rise is likely to be welcome news for many South Africans, most of whom are already burdened by a stagnant economy and the rising cost of living.

Finance Minister Enoch Godongwana had been advocating the increase, arguing it would help cushion the most vulnerable from the effects of other tax measures.

But it faced resistance from various political parties – including senior figures within his own ANC party – who viewed it as short-sighted.

• South Africa in ‘uncharted waters’ as budget splits coalition government
• Is South Africa’s coalition government about to fall apart?

On Thursday the finance minister said “the decision not to increase VAT means that the measures to cushion lower income households against the potential negative impact of the rate increase now need to be withdrawn and other expenditure decisions revisited”.

The minister is now expected to introduce a revised version a spending bill within the next few weeks.

In February, Godongwana had to postpone his budget presentation after fierce resistance to the proposal to increase VAT.

The DA argued the move would worsen the cost-of-living crisis and increase economic inequality.

The row comes at a challenging time for the government.

Around a quarter of South Africans are unemployed and reliant on government support, and the treasury has warned of mounting pressure on public finances.

• South Africans still battling ‘economic apartheid’ 30 years on
• Ghosts of apartheid haunt South Africa as compensation anger brews
• Johannesburg revival: Bringing hope to one of world’s most dangerous cities
• Racially charged row between Musk and South Africa over Starlink

“Out! Out! Out!”

The voice in the Telegram video is insistent. Loud. Sometimes musical.

And the message unambiguous.

“All of Hamas, out!”

On the streets of Gaza, more and more Palestinians are expressing open defiance against the armed group that’s ruled the strip for almost 20 years.

Many hold Hamas responsible for plunging the tiny, impoverished territory into the worst crisis faced by Palestinians in more than 70 years.

“Deliver the message,” another crowd chants, as it surges through Gaza’s devastated streets: “Hamas is garbage.”

“The world is deceived by the situation in the Gaza Strip,” says Moumen al-Natour, a Gaza lawyer and former political prisoner who’s long been a vocal critic of Hamas.

Al-Natour spoke to us from the shattered remains of his city, the flimsy canvas side of the tent which now forms part of his house billowing behind him.

“The world thinks that Gaza is Hamas and Hamas is Gaza,” he said. “We didn’t choose Hamas and now Hamas is determined to rule Gaza and tie our fate to its own. Hamas must retreat. “

Speaking out is dangerous. Hamas has never tolerated dissent. Al-Natour seems undaunted, writing a furious column for the Washington Post at the end of March.

“To support Hamas is to be for Palestinian death,” he wrote, “not Palestinian freedom”.

Wasn’t it dangerous to speak out in this way, I asked him.

“We need to take a risk and speak out,” he replied without hesitation.

“I’m 30 years old. When Hamas took over, I was 11. What have I done with my life? My life has been wasted between war and escalating violence for nothing.”

Since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007 by violently ousting political rivals, a year after winning national elections, there have been three major wars with Israel and two smaller conflicts.

“Humanity demands that we raise our voices,” al-Natour said, “despite suppression by Hamas”.

Hamas may be busy fighting Israel, but it’s not afraid to punish its critics.

At the end of March, 22-year old Oday al-Rubai was abducted by armed gunmen from a refugee shelter in Gaza City.

Hours later, his body was found covered in horrific wounds.

The Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights said Oday had been tortured, calling his death “a grave violation of the right to life and an extrajudicial killing”.

Al-Rubai had participated in recent anti-Hamas protests. His family blamed Hamas for his death and demanded justice.

Days earlier, a frightened al-Rubai posted a dark, grainy video on social media in which he expressed his fear that Hamas militants were coming for him.

“Gaza has become a city of ghosts,” he said, glancing over his shoulder.

“I’m stranded in the street, not knowing where to go. I don’t know why they’re after me. They destroyed us and brought ruin to us.”

At his funeral, a small crowd demanded revenge and repeated demands for Hamas to get out of Gaza.

Last summer, Amin Abed almost suffered the same fate, following his decision to speak out against Hamas.

Masked militants beat him senseless, broke bones all over his body and damaged his kidneys. Abed survived but had to seek medical treatment abroad.

Now living in Dubai, he’s still involved in the protest movement, and believes that Hamas’ authority is diminished.

“Hamas’ power has begun to fade,” he told me.

“It targets activists and civilians, beats and kills them to scare people. But it’s not how it was before.”

Before the ceasefire collapsed last month, Hamas fighters seemed intent on highly visible displays of power.

But now, with Israel once again attacking relentlessly, the same gunmen have retreated underground and Gaza’s civilians have been plunged back into the misery of war.

Some of the more recent protests suggest that civilians, driven to the edge of madness by a year and a half of Israeli bombardment, are losing their fear of Hamas.

Beit Lahiya, at the northern end of the Gaza Strip, has seen some of the most vociferous opposition.

In a series of voice notes, an eyewitness – who asked not to be named – described several recent incidents in which local residents prevented Hamas fighters from carrying out military actions from inside their community.

On 13 April, he said, Hamas gunmen tried to force their way into the house of an elderly man, Jamal al-Maznan.

“They wanted to launch rockets and pipes [a derogatory term used for some of Hamas’ home-made projectiles] from inside his house,” the eyewitness told us.

“But he refused.”

The incident soon escalated, with relatives and neighbours all coming to al-Maznan’s defence. The gunmen opened fire, injuring several people, but eventually were driven out.

“They were not intimidated by the bullets,” the eyewitness said of the protesters.

“They advanced and told [the gunmen] to take their things and flee. We don’t want you in this place. We don’t want your weapons that have brought us destruction, devastation and death.”

Elsewhere in Gaza, protesters have told militants to stay away from hospitals and schools, to avoid situations in which civilians are caught up in Israeli air strikes.

But such defiance is still risky. In Gaza City, Hamas shot one such protester dead.

With little to lose and hopes of an end to the war dashed once more, some Gazans direct their fury equally at Israel and Hamas.

Asked which side he blamed most for Gaza’s catastrophe, Amin Abed said it was “a choice between cholera and the plague”.

The protest movement of recent weeks is not yet a rebellion, but after almost 20 years of rule Hamas’ iron grip on Gaza is slowly slipping.

K-pop group Just B’s member Bain has revealed to fans he is “proud to be part of the LGBT community” – a rare move in an industry known for its tight control over artists’ behaviour, where stars typically keep details of their personal lives private, particularly relationships.

The star, 23, is now among only a handful of K-pop artists who have come out publicly.

Bain made the announcement in front of fans while performing a solo at a concert in Los Angeles on Tuesday night.

The moment was met with loud cheers from the crowd, according to videos circulating on social media.

“To anyone out there who’s part of the LGBT community, or still figuring it out – this is for you guys,” Bain, whose real name is Song Byeong-hee, said in a video posted on his social media after the concert.

“You are seen, you are loved, and you were born this way,” he added, before launching into a performance of Born This Way by pop icon Lady Gaga, whom he referred to as “my queen”.

His bandmates welcomed the announcement. Just B member Siwoo said he cried while watching Bain’s performance. “I know how hard it was for him, and that made me want to cry more,” he said, according to Korean media outlet News1.

The band’s fans have shown their support as well. “We love you so much and are so proud of you for being yourself,” reads a top-liked comment under his Instagram post.

“You are so loved. So proud to be your fan. Be proud of who you are,” another fan wrote.

Formed in 2021, Just B is a six-member act that has released five EPs and multiple singles.

Coming out remains extremely rare in South Korea’s highly-pressurised entertainment industry. While homosexuality is not illegal in the country, it remains taboo, and same-sex marriage is not legally recognised.

A 2022 Human Rights Watch report described discrimination against LGBT people in South Korea as “pervasive”.

Bain is not the first K-pop star to come out. Just last month, Lara, an Indian-American member of the girl group Katseye, came out as queer on a K-pop fan community platform. In 2020, Jiae from the now-disbanded girl group Wassup announced on Instagram that she is bisexual.

An Australian politician has been convicted of supplying drugs after he initially dismissed a video showing him snorting a white substance as a “deepfake”.

Former South Australian Liberal party leader David Speirs was fined A$9,000 (£4311; $5,720) and ordered to complete 37.5 hours of community service by an Adelaide court on Thursday.

Speirs was arrested in September after footage of him snorting off a plate was published by News Corp. He initially denied wrongdoing and reportedly told the news outlet it was a “deepfake” and that he had never used cocaine.

However, he later admitted that was a lie and the ensuing scandal and charges led to his resignation from parliament.

Last month, Speirs pleaded guilty to supplying cocaine to two men in August.

Speirs’ defence said he used drugs “as a form of escapism” from the stress of his work, but the offences did not occur in a work capacity.

The case had sparked intense media scrutiny, with prosecutors arguing that it was in the public’s interest given Speirs’ senior position in politics.

His lawyer had previously asked the court not to record the conviction so his client could travel overseas, but the magistrate said the offences were “too serious”.

“The need for public denunciation for this type of offending and the need for general deterrence is too great to refrain from recording a conviction,” magistrate Brian Nitschke said on Thursday.

Nitschke acknowledged Speirs’ defence that the offences occurred during a time of stress but added it was “certainly no excuse”.

Speirs stepped into the role of South Australia’s Liberal leader in 2022 and had served 10 years as a member of parliament.

He did not speak to media after his sentencing.

Prosecutors have indicted former South Korean President Moon Jae-in on charges of bribery related to his former son-in-law’s job at an airline.

Prosecutors argue his former son-in-law, identified only by his surname Seo, had little experience in the aviation industry but was hired in exchange for the airline’s CEO leading a state-funded agency.

Moon led the country from 2017 to 2022 and is best remembered for his attempts to broker a peace deal with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

He joins a long list of South Korean presidents whose political careers have been marred by scandal, from jail to assassination to suicide.

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was removed from office this month for his shock martial law declaration, is also facing criminal charges.

Besides Moon, former lawmaker Lee Sang-jik has also been indicted, prosecutors say. He is being accused of bribery and breach of trust.

In 2022, Lee was sentenced to six years in prison for embezzling company funds.

The founder of budget carrier Eastar Jet, Lee was named the head of the Korea SMEs and Startups Agency in 2018 – the same year that Seo was appointed executive director of his airline’s subsidiary Thai Eastar Jet.

Between 2018 and 2020, Seo received around 217 million won ($150,000; £113,000) in salary and housing support – a sum that prosecutors say constitute bribes intended for Moon.

According to prosecutors, Seo was appointed “despite any relevant experience or qualifications in the airline industry”, said a Reuters report.

He “frequently left his post for extended periods… and did not perform his duties in a manner befitting the position”, it added.

The residence of Moon Da-hye, the former president’s daughter, was raided last September during investigations of the bribery allegations.

Moon’s indictment comes amid a series of prosecutions against officials in his administration. Earlier this month, Moon’s former national security advisor and defence minister were indicted for allegedly leaking intelligence to activists.

The country’s prosecution service is often accused of being politicised – and when the government changes hands, it’s common for rival politicians to be investigated.

The current government is led by acting president and prime minister Han Duck-soo the People Power Party’s.

Moon’s Democratic Party has condemned the prosection, calling it a “politically motivated move aimed at humiliating a former president”.

A trade war between the world’s two biggest economies is now in full swing.

Chinese exports to the US face up to 245% tariffs, and Beijing has hit back with a 125% levy on American imports. Consumers, businesses and markets are braced for more uncertainty as fears of a global recession have heightened.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s government has repeatedly said it is open to dialogue, but warned that, if necessary, it would “fight to the end”.

Here’s a look at what Beijing has in its arsenal to counter US President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

China is the world’s second-largest economy, which means it can absorb the impacts of the tariffs better than other smaller countries.

With more than a billion people, it also has a huge domestic market that could take some of the pressure off exporters who are reeling from tariffs.

Beijing is still fumbling with the keys because Chinese people are not spending enough. But with a range of incentives, from subsidies for household appliances to “silver trains” for travelling retirees, that could change.

And Trump’s tariffs have given the Chinese Communist Party an even stronger impetus to unlock the country’s consumer potential.

The leadership may “very well be willing to endure the pain to avoid capitulating to what they believe is US aggression”, Mary Lovely, a US-China trade expert at the Peterson Institute in Washington DC, told BBC Newshour earlier this month.

China also has a higher threshold for pain as an authoritarian regime, as it is far less worried about short-term public opinion. There is no election around the corner that will judge its leaders.

Still, unrest is a concern, especially because there is already discontent over an ongoing property crisis and job losses.

The economic uncertainty over tariffs is yet another blow for young people who have only ever known a rising China.

The Party has been appealing to nationalist sentiments to justify its retaliatory tariffs, with state media calling on people to “weather storms together”.

President Xi Jinping may be worried but, so far, Beijing has struck a defiant and confident tone. One official assured the country: “The sky will not fall.”

China has always been known as the world’s factory – but it has been pouring billions into becoming a far more advanced one.

Under Xi, it has been in a race with the US for tech dominance.

It has invested heavily in homegrown tech, from renewables to chips to AI.

Examples include the chatbot DeepSeek, which was celebrated as a formidable rival to ChatGPT, and BYD, which beat Tesla last year to become the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) maker. Apple has been losing its prized market share to local competitors such as Huawei and Vivo.

Recently Beijing announced plans to spend more than $1tn over the next decade to support innovation in AI.

US companies have tried to move their supply chains away from China, but they have struggled to find the same scale of infrastructure and skilled labour elsewhere.

Chinese manufacturers at every stage of the supply chain have given the country a decades-long advantage that will take time to replicate.

That unrivalled supply chain expertise and government support have made China a formidable foe in this trade war – in some ways, Beijing has been preparing for this since Trump’s previous term.

Ever since Trump tariffs hit Chinese solar panels back in 2018, Beijing sped up its plans for a future beyond a US-led world order.

It has pumped billions into a contentious trade and infrastructure programme, better known as the Belt and Road initiative, to shore up ties with the so-called Global South.

The expansion of trade with South East Asia, Latin America and Africa comes as China tries to wean itself off the US.

American farmers once supplied 40% of China’s soybean imports – that figure now hovers at 20%. After the last trade war, Beijing ramped up soy cultivation at home and bought record volumes of the crop from Brazil, which is now its largest soybean supplier.

“The tactic kills two birds with one stone. It deprives America’s farm belt of a once‑captive market and burnishes China’s food security credentials,” says Marina Yue Zhang, associate professor at the University of Technology Sydney’s Australia-China Relations Institute.

The US is no longer China’s biggest export market: that spot now belongs to South East Asia. In fact China was the largest trading partner for 60 countries in 2023 – nearly twice as many as the US. The world’s biggest exporter, it made a record surplus of $1tn at the end of 2024.

That doesn’t mean the US, the world’s biggest economy, is not a crucial trading partner for China. But it does mean it’s not going to be easy for Washington to back China into a corner.

Following reports that the White House will use bilateral trade negotiations to isolate China, Beijing has warned countries against “reaching a deal at the expense of China’s interests”.

That would be an impossible choice for much of the world

“We can’t choose, and we will never choose [between China and the US],” Malaysia’s trade minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz told the BBC last week.

Trump held firm as stocks plummeted following his sweeping tariffs announcement in early April, likening his staggering levies to “medicine”.

But he made a U-turn, pausing most of those tariffs for 90 days after a sharp sell-off in US government bonds. Also known as Treasuries, these have long been seen as a safe investment. But the trade war has shaken confidence in the assets.

Trump has since hinted at a de-escalation in trade tensions with China, saying that the tariffs on Chinese goods will “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero”.

So, experts point out, Beijing now knows that the bond market can rattle Trump.

China also holds $700bn in US government bonds. Japan, a staunch American ally, is the only non-US holder to own more than that.

Some argue that this gives Beijing leverage: Chinese media has regularly floated the idea of selling or withholding purchases of US bonds as a “weapon”.

But experts warn that China will not emerge unscathed from such a situation.

Rather, it will lead to huge losses for Beijing’s investments in the bond market and destabilise the Chinese yuan.

China will only be able to exert pressure with US government bonds “only up to a point”, Dr Zhang says. “China holds a bargaining chip, not a financial weapon.”

What China can weaponise, however, is its near monopoly in extracting and refining rare earths, a range of elements important to advanced tech manufacturing.

China has huge deposits of these, such as dysprosium, which is used in magnets in electric vehicles and wind turbines, and Yttrium, which provides heat-resistant coating for jet engines.

Beijing has already responded to Trump’s latest tariffs by restricting exports of seven rare earths, including some that are essential for making AI chips.

China accounts for about 61% of rare earths production and 92% of their refining, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

While Australia, Japan and Vietnam have begun mining for rare earths, it will take years before China can be cut out of the supply chain.

In 2024, China banned the export of another critical mineral, antimony, that is crucial to various manufacturing processes. Its price more than doubled amid a wave of panic buying and a search for alternative suppliers.

The fear is that the same can happen to the rare earths market, which would severely disrupt various industries from electric vehicles to defence.

“Everything you can switch on or off likely runs on rare earths,” Thomas Kruemmer, director of Ginger International Trade and Investment, told the BBC previously.

“The impact on the US defence industry will be substantial.”

The price of Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency has soared after the US president promised to host two special events for its top investors.

The website for the $Trump meme coin says its 220 biggest holders will be invited to a private gala dinner with the president on 22 May, describing it as the “most EXCLUSIVE INVITATION in the world.”

According to crypto trading platform Coinbase, $Trump jumped by more than 70% after the announcement. But it remains well below the record high of more than $74 (£42.40) reached shortly after its launch in January.

The digital currency is one of several crypto-related ventures launched by businesses linked to Trump, who has called himself the “crypto president”.

As well as the gala dinner, which will be held at the Trump National Golf Club in Washington DC, there will be “an ultra-exclusive private VIP reception with the President” for the top 25 coin holders, the coin’s website said.

Trump tokens in circulation are currently worth a total of around $2.5bn. They were first released just days before his inauguration on 20 January.

The move was criticised by several people in the crypto industry, with some calling it “a stunt”.

First lady Melania Trump also launched a cryptocurrency on the eve of the inauguration.

Meme coins are often used by speculators to make money or to allow fans to show support to a celebrity or moment in internet culture.

Shortly after returning to the White House this year, Trump signed an executive order to create a presidential working group tasked with proposing new crypto laws and regulations.

He has also signed an order to create a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve as well as a Digital Asset Stockpile, which will include other digital currencies.

Those funds will be stocked with coins forfeited to the federal government as part of criminal or civil proceedings.

This week, Trump’s media company announced plans to launch exchange traded-funds (ETFs).

The financial products to be launched by Trump Media & Technology Group, owner of the Truth Social platform, and its partners will include digital assets as well as stocks with a “Made in America focus”.

ETFs are investment funds that hold multiple assets. They can be bought and sold in a similar way to shares.

Nine Palestinians have been killed in an Israeli air strike on a police station in northern Gaza, health officials and first responders say.

Several other people were also wounded when missiles hit the market area of Jabalia town. Video footage showed crowds gathered around the remains of a flattened building.

The Israeli military said it struck a “command-and-control centre” for Hamas and its ally Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Jabalia that was being used to plan attacks.

At least 17 other people were reportedly killed elsewhere in Gaza on Thursday.

They included a family of six – a couple and their four children – whose home in the northern Sheikh Radwan neighbourhood of Gaza City was bombed, according to the Hamas-run Civil Defence agency.

A relative, Nidal al-Sarafiti, said the family had been asleep at the time of the strike.

The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) identified the man who was killed as Ali al-Sarafiti, who it said was a member of the armed group and a former prisoner who was jailed for 13 years in Israel after being convicted over an attempted suicide attack.

There was no immediate comment from the Israeli military.

Palestinian media also said three displaced people were killed when their family tent was hit near Nuseirat, in central Gaza, and that two children died in a strike on another tent in the southern Khan Younis area.

Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry says at least 1,978 people have been killed since Israel resumed its offensive against Hamas on 18 March following the collapse of a two-month ceasefire.

Israel says it is putting military pressure on Hamas to release the 59 hostages it is still holding, 24 of whom are believed to be alive.

It has also blocked all deliveries of humanitarian aid and other supplies to Gaza for seven weeks, which the UN says is “further depriving people of the means for survival and undermining every aspect of civilian life”.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

More than 51,300 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory’s health ministry.

A normally bustling border crossing between Tanzania and Malawi was absent of its regular activity on Thursday morning as a trade row in the region deepens.

From midnight, Tanzania banned the entry of all agricultural imports from Malawi and South Africa in response to what it sees as restrictions on some of its exports.

South Africa has for years prohibited the entry of bananas from Tanzania. Malawi, last month, blocked imports of flour, rice, ginger, bananas and maize from its northern neighbour.

“We are taking this step to protect our business interests… in business, we must all respect each other,” Tanzania’s Agriculture Minister Hussein Bashe said on Wednesday confirming the import ban.

Diplomatic efforts to resolve the trade issues have so far failed but Bashe said fresh talks were ongoing.

The row comes at a time when Africa is supposed to be moving towards greater free trade through the establishment of a continent-wide free-trade area, which began operating four years ago.

South African exports of various fruits, including apples and grapes, to Tanzania will be hit. Meanwhile, landlocked Malawi, which has relied on Tanzanian ports to carry its exports such as tobacco, sugar and soybeans to the rest of the world, will have to reroute its goods.

• Trump’s tariffs could be death knell for US-Africa trade pact
• Africa is important to Trump, despite aid cuts, envoy tells BBC

Malawi’s ban on the import of certain produce, announced in March, was designed as a temporary measure covering goods from all countries to protect local producers, according to the authorities in Lilongwe.

“It is a strategic move to create an environment where local businesses can thrive without the immediate pressure of foreign competition,” Malawi’s Trade Minister, Vitumbiko Mumba, said at the time.

Tanzania’s agriculture minister said Malawi’s move had “directly affected” his country’s traders and described the restrictions as “unfair and harmful”.

While confirming the import ban, Bashe assured Tanzanians that it would not threaten their food security.

“No Tanzanian will die from a lack of South African grapes or apples,” he said, adding that, “we are taking these actions to protect Tanzanian interests”.

Neither South Africa nor Malawi have commented on Tanzania’s move.

At the Kasumulu crossing, through which most Tanzania-Malawi trade passes, only a handful of lorries transporting cargo such as fuel were spotted on the Tanzanian side.

On a normal day, more than 15 lorries loaded with agricultural produce would cross the frontier, drivers told BBC.

On the Malawian side, many lorries that should be transporting bananas and tomatoes through Tanzania were parked and empty.

“[The drivers] are now trying to find alternative products to transport. It’s been very difficult for them because they are used to carrying agricultural goods, and now they can’t carry not just bananas and tomatoes, but even maize and potatoes,” Happy Zulu, a business person, told BBC.

Trade flows between Tanzania, Malawi and South Africa – all members of the Southern African Development Community (Sadc), a regional political, security and economic body – were already being affected last week.

On Saturday Bashe posted a social media video showing a pile of rotten bananas in a truck stranded at the border with Malawi, saying it was hard for Tanzania to tolerate the trend.

Tonnes of tomatoes also spoiled at the border recently after lorries from Tanzania were denied entry into Malawi.

Malawi has become an increasingly important market for Tanzanian goods in recent years, with exports trebling between 2018 and 2023, according to official Tanzanian figures.

But while Tanzania can seek alternative markets such as in Kenya, Namibia and South Sudan, Malawi may find it harder to get its goods out of the country.

Much of its exports go through the Tanzanian port of Dar es Salaam, as well as essential imports such as fuel and machinery.

Losing access to Dar es Salaam would likely force Malawi to move shipments through the Mozambican ports of Beira and Nacala – options that may be more expensive.

Bashe argued the ban was not meant to provoke a trade war but to protect Tanzania’s interests.

“Tanzania will not continue to allow unequal market access to persist at the expense of its people,” he said.

• Is it checkmate for South Africa after Trump threats?
• Tanzania signs major carbon credit deal covering national parks
• Tanzania’s second-hand trade war
• Malawi seeks billions of dollars from US firm over ruby sales

A trade war between the world’s two biggest economies is now in full swing.

Chinese exports to the US face up to 245% tariffs, and Beijing has hit back with a 125% levy on American imports. Consumers, businesses and markets are braced for more uncertainty as fears of a global recession have heightened.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s government has repeatedly said it is open to dialogue, but warned that, if necessary, it would “fight to the end”.

Here’s a look at what Beijing has in its arsenal to counter US President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

China is the world’s second-largest economy, which means it can absorb the impacts of the tariffs better than other smaller countries.

With more than a billion people, it also has a huge domestic market that could take some of the pressure off exporters who are reeling from tariffs.

Beijing is still fumbling with the keys because Chinese people are not spending enough. But with a range of incentives, from subsidies for household appliances to “silver trains” for travelling retirees, that could change.

And Trump’s tariffs have given the Chinese Communist Party an even stronger impetus to unlock the country’s consumer potential.

The leadership may “very well be willing to endure the pain to avoid capitulating to what they believe is US aggression”, Mary Lovely, a US-China trade expert at the Peterson Institute in Washington DC, told BBC Newshour earlier this month.

China also has a higher threshold for pain as an authoritarian regime, as it is far less worried about short-term public opinion. There is no election around the corner that will judge its leaders.

Still, unrest is a concern, especially because there is already discontent over an ongoing property crisis and job losses.

The economic uncertainty over tariffs is yet another blow for young people who have only ever known a rising China.

The Party has been appealing to nationalist sentiments to justify its retaliatory tariffs, with state media calling on people to “weather storms together”.

President Xi Jinping may be worried but, so far, Beijing has struck a defiant and confident tone. One official assured the country: “The sky will not fall.”

China has always been known as the world’s factory – but it has been pouring billions into becoming a far more advanced one.

Under Xi, it has been in a race with the US for tech dominance.

It has invested heavily in homegrown tech, from renewables to chips to AI.

Examples include the chatbot DeepSeek, which was celebrated as a formidable rival to ChatGPT, and BYD, which beat Tesla last year to become the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) maker. Apple has been losing its prized market share to local competitors such as Huawei and Vivo.

Recently Beijing announced plans to spend more than $1tn over the next decade to support innovation in AI.

US companies have tried to move their supply chains away from China, but they have struggled to find the same scale of infrastructure and skilled labour elsewhere.

Chinese manufacturers at every stage of the supply chain have given the country a decades-long advantage that will take time to replicate.

That unrivalled supply chain expertise and government support have made China a formidable foe in this trade war – in some ways, Beijing has been preparing for this since Trump’s previous term.

Ever since Trump tariffs hit Chinese solar panels back in 2018, Beijing sped up its plans for a future beyond a US-led world order.

It has pumped billions into a contentious trade and infrastructure programme, better known as the Belt and Road initiative, to shore up ties with the so-called Global South.

The expansion of trade with South East Asia, Latin America and Africa comes as China tries to wean itself off the US.

American farmers once supplied 40% of China’s soybean imports – that figure now hovers at 20%. After the last trade war, Beijing ramped up soy cultivation at home and bought record volumes of the crop from Brazil, which is now its largest soybean supplier.

“The tactic kills two birds with one stone. It deprives America’s farm belt of a once‑captive market and burnishes China’s food security credentials,” says Marina Yue Zhang, associate professor at the University of Technology Sydney’s Australia-China Relations Institute.

The US is no longer China’s biggest export market: that spot now belongs to South East Asia. In fact China was the largest trading partner for 60 countries in 2023 – nearly twice as many as the US. The world’s biggest exporter, it made a record surplus of $1tn at the end of 2024.

That doesn’t mean the US, the world’s biggest economy, is not a crucial trading partner for China. But it does mean it’s not going to be easy for Washington to back China into a corner.

Following reports that the White House will use bilateral trade negotiations to isolate China, Beijing has warned countries against “reaching a deal at the expense of China’s interests”.

That would be an impossible choice for much of the world

“We can’t choose, and we will never choose [between China and the US],” Malaysia’s trade minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz told the BBC last week.

Trump held firm as stocks plummeted following his sweeping tariffs announcement in early April, likening his staggering levies to “medicine”.

But he made a U-turn, pausing most of those tariffs for 90 days after a sharp sell-off in US government bonds. Also known as Treasuries, these have long been seen as a safe investment. But the trade war has shaken confidence in the assets.

Trump has since hinted at a de-escalation in trade tensions with China, saying that the tariffs on Chinese goods will “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero”.

So, experts point out, Beijing now knows that the bond market can rattle Trump.

China also holds $700bn in US government bonds. Japan, a staunch American ally, is the only non-US holder to own more than that.

Some argue that this gives Beijing leverage: Chinese media has regularly floated the idea of selling or withholding purchases of US bonds as a “weapon”.

But experts warn that China will not emerge unscathed from such a situation.

Rather, it will lead to huge losses for Beijing’s investments in the bond market and destabilise the Chinese yuan.

China will only be able to exert pressure with US government bonds “only up to a point”, Dr Zhang says. “China holds a bargaining chip, not a financial weapon.”

What China can weaponise, however, is its near monopoly in extracting and refining rare earths, a range of elements important to advanced tech manufacturing.

China has huge deposits of these, such as dysprosium, which is used in magnets in electric vehicles and wind turbines, and Yttrium, which provides heat-resistant coating for jet engines.

Beijing has already responded to Trump’s latest tariffs by restricting exports of seven rare earths, including some that are essential for making AI chips.

China accounts for about 61% of rare earths production and 92% of their refining, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

While Australia, Japan and Vietnam have begun mining for rare earths, it will take years before China can be cut out of the supply chain.

In 2024, China banned the export of another critical mineral, antimony, that is crucial to various manufacturing processes. Its price more than doubled amid a wave of panic buying and a search for alternative suppliers.

The fear is that the same can happen to the rare earths market, which would severely disrupt various industries from electric vehicles to defence.

“Everything you can switch on or off likely runs on rare earths,” Thomas Kruemmer, director of Ginger International Trade and Investment, told the BBC previously.

“The impact on the US defence industry will be substantial.”

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky has ended an historic visit to South Africa, signalling a dramatic improvement in the once-strained relations between the two nations.

The visit marked a diplomatic breakthrough for the Ukrainian leader in his efforts to counter Russia’s strong – and growing – influence in Africa.

“I’m sure that Russia will be annoyed by the visit, but I don’t think it can do much about it,” said Steven Gruzd of the South African Institute of International Relations think-tank.

But Russia disrupted Zelensky’s visit by carrying out an air strike on Ukraine’s capital Kyiv, forcing him to announce that he will cut short the trip by returning home immediately after meeting President Cyril Ramaphosa.

The South African leader said the visit had “reaffirmed” the bonds between the two nations, pointing out that Zelensky’s visit was the first in 33 years by a Ukrainian head of state.

Apart from a brief stopover in Cape Verde in 2023 while flying to Argentina, this was also Zelensky’s first visit to Africa since he became Ukraine’s president in 2019.

Ukraine grasped the diplomatic significance of African states, when many of them – including regional powerhouse South Africa – refused to condemn Russia’s full-scale invasion of its territory in 2022.

“Ukraine neglected the continent in terms of foreign policy, but it has changed that over the last three years, doubling its embassies from 10 to 20,” Mr Gruzd told the BBC.

“But it’s in a very crowded space – Russia, China, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates are all trying to increase their influence in Africa.”

Zelensky’s visit to South Africa at this point was especially significant, as Ukraine’s relationship with the US – its main weapons supplier – has soured since President Donald Trump took office in January.

He briefly paused military aid, denounced Zelenksy as a “dictator”, and has accused Ukraine of being responsible for the war.

“Ukraine needs every bit of legitimacy it can get internationally – not just in Europe. Wars aren’t only won in the battlefield, but also in courts of public opinion around the world,” said Prof Siphamandla Zondi, a political analyst at the University of Johannesburg.

For South Africa’s President Cyril Ramaphosa, the visit was equally significant, as his country, too, was under intense pressure from the Trump administration.

“The US has turned diplomacy on its head,” Mr Gudz said, adding: “Everyone is looking for new friends.”

Ramaphosa saw Zelensky’s visit as an attempt to boost his credentials as a peacemaker, saying their talks focused on efforts to reach a “comprehensive peace”.

The South African leader also held a phone conversation with Putin ahead of Zelensky’s visit.

“We both affirmed the strong bilateral relations between our respective countries,” Ramaphosa said in a post on X.

“We further committed to working together towards a peaceful resolution of the Russia-Ukraine conflict,” he added.

Ramaphosa first tried to assume the role of peacemaker in 2023 when he led a delegation of African leaders to both Kyiv and Moscow in an attempt to mediate an end to the conflict.

The initiative came as South Africa faced a backlash from then-US President Joe Biden’s administration, which questioned its professed neutrality in the conflict after it held a naval exercise with Russia and China.

Relations worsened after Washington’s then-ambassador to Pretoria accused South Africa of supplying arms and ammunition to Russia.

Ramaphosa later appointed a judge-led inquiry to investigate the allegation. It found no evidence to back up the ambassador’s claim, but relations between South Africa and the Biden administration remained strained.

South Africa’s ties with Russia have not been a sore point for Trump, as he too gets along with Putin and has been pushing Zelensky to make a deal with the Russian leader.

However, Trump’s relationship with South Africa has reached rock bottom over its genocide case against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and for what he calls the “unjust and immoral practices” against the white-minority Afrikaner community – an allegation Ramaphosa’s government denies.

Prof Zondi said South Africa would have to ensure that Ramaphosa’s talks with Zelensky did not hurt its attempts to mend relations with the Trump administration.

“South Africa will want to explain that it is adding to the efforts to build peace, and its role is not in competition with that of [the] US,” he added.

Ramaphosa was on cue, announcing on Thursday that he had spoken to Trump about the conflict in Ukraine.

Crucially, Ramaphosa also seized the opportunity to discuss relations between South Africa and the US, and said he and Trump had agreed to meet soon.

This would be their first meeting since Trump’s return to office, and Ramaphosa will be hoping that US-South Africa relations get back on track.

Earlier this month, Trump announced a 30% tariff on South African goods, although he later paused the hike for 90 days.

Ramaphosa will be hoping that their talks lead to Trump softening his stance, as such high tariffs would be a major blow to South Africa’s economy.

Ramaphosa’s talks with Zelensky also focused on strengthening trade ties with Ukraine, as South Africa’s economy was in crisis, with low growth and high unemployment.

“Any volume of trade, no matter how small, is critical for South Africa,” Prof Zondi said, adding that strong relations between the two nations could also benefit Ukraine in its efforts to extend its influence on the continent.

“South Africa could be Ukraine’s gateway to Africa because of its ports and financial systems,” Prof Zondi said.

If this happens, it would mark a new chapter in Ukraine-Africa relations, though not necessarily at the expense of Russia.

“Both Russia and Ukraine are the biggest exporters of cereals to Africa. Africa needs both. It cannot be expected to choose sides,” the analyst said.

A magician who tricked her way into the Magic Circle is finally being granted membership – 34 years after she was kicked out.

Sophie Lloyd says she disguised herself as a man to fool examiners into letting her join the elite society in 1991, at a time female magicians were not allowed to be members.

When the Circle announced it was permitting women to join later that year, Ms Lloyd revealed her deception, prompting the society to expel her at the very same meeting it admitted its first female magicians.

Following a public search to find her, the Circle has now apologised to Ms Lloyd and is presenting her with a membership certificate on Thursday evening.

“I’m beyond thrilled,” Ms Lloyd told Radio 4’s Today programme on Thursday.

In the late 1980s, Ms Lloyd was studying at a school of mime in London where she befriended magician Jenny Winstanley.

“Jenny was increasingly frustrated that women, including herself, could not join the Magic Circle,” Ms Lloyd said. “So she came up with an idea to infiltrate the society by having me dress as a man. She couldn’t do it herself as she was too recognisable.”

It was a colossal undertaking. Ms Lloyd had worked as Miss Winstanley’s assistant at gigs but hadn’t performed magic on her own, so had to learn.

She invented a new identity – Raymond Lloyd – and spent about two years studying the character. She disguised herself with a wig, body suit and “croaky” voice. She wore gloves to hide her feminine hands.

There was nothing she could do about her height – 5ft 2in (1.57m) – so instead she styled Raymond as a “young-looking, 18-year-old,” with some facial “fluff”, she told Canadian broadcaster CBC in 1991.

Ms Lloyd told the Today programme that her character was “totally believed.” She had no problems wearing the body suit, but the gloves made it “very hard” to do sleight of hand tricks, she said.

By March 1991, Ms Lloyd was ready to have her skills put to the test. Rather than being scrutinised at the Magic Circle’s headquarters – which Ms Lloyd and Miss Winstanley deemed too risky – Ms Lloyd opted to invite the society’s examiners to a 20-minute performance at a working men’s club in front of 200 spectators. To cover up her voice, Ms Lloyd said Raymond had laryngitis.

Ms Lloyd even stayed for a drink with one of the examiners after the show.

A week later, Ms Lloyd was told she had been granted membership to the Circle.

For months, Raymond Lloyd performed magic and even socialised with other Magic Circle members.

When Ms Lloyd and Miss Winstanley later heard the society was going to begin accepting female magicians as members, they decided to come clean about their deception and Miss Winstanley told the society about it over the phone.

But the Magic Circle did not take kindly to the news. The duo got a letter saying that Raymond had been expelled, and in October 1991, at the first meeting accepting women into the society, Ms Lloyd was kicked out.

“We couldn’t get our heads round it,” Ms Lloyd said.

Ms Lloyd spent about 10 years performing across the country as a magician, including performing anti-bullying shows, before she moved to Spain, where she took early retirement and has been involved in animal rescue work. Miss Winstanley went on to run a pottery firm in Norfolk, before she died in a car crash in 2004.

The Magic Circle started a search for Ms Lloyd last year.

“I felt it important that the Magic Circle should be able to recognise Sophie as the role model for women magicians, as well as show that we are now a completely open society,” said Laura London, the society’s first female chair.

Ms Lloyd only found out about the search for her when her sister sent her a link to an interview. Initially reluctant to join the society because of the amount of time that had passed, she eventually decided to do it to honour Miss Winstanley’s legacy.

Today, the Magic Circle is still heavily male-dominated. The society has around 1,700 members, of which 5% are women.

Ms Lloyd will receive her new membership certificate at an event at the Circle’s London headquarters on Thursday evening, which will feature performances by five magicians and be attended by both members of the society and the general public. The society says Miss Winstanley will also be recognised at the event.

“This is for Jenny, really,” Ms Lloyd said. “I just think Jenny would have loved it.”

Get our flagship newsletter with all the headlines you need to start the day. Sign up here.

Shot 16 times in an assassination attempt in 2017, Tindu Lissu is the great survivor of Tanzanian politics – and one of its most persecuted politicians.

But some are asking whether he has now reached the the end of the line.

Lissu, the leader of the main opposition party, Chadema, is back in the limelight after being charged with treason – a crime for which the maximum sentence is the death penalty.

Still, he is undeterred. Despite the enormous risk, he believes he can pressure the government to institute reforms, ahead of presidential and parliamentary elections in October.

But can he weather the storm in a harsh political environment, and against what he believes are politically driven charges?

His party has been disqualified from the elections and he has been in detention for the past two weeks.

In September last year, Lissu told the BBC that nothing would come on a silver platter, and it would take courage to demand reforms “on the streets and in the villages”.

To achieve his goals, he felt he had to take over Chadema’s leadership.

A fiery politician, Lissu was critical of the way the party was being run, accusing then chairman Freeman Mbowe of being too reconciliatory towards the government.

In an intense race, he ousted Mbowe from the post.

After just three months at the helm of Chadema, Lissu was this month arrested and detained for a speech allegedly calling for the public to launch a rebellion and disrupt the elections.

He was not allowed to enter a plea on the treason charge but pleaded not guilty to a separate charge of publishing false information.

Prior to his arrest, he had been holding gatherings across the country with a rallying call of “no reforms, no elections”.

He said the current system was rigged in favour of the ruling CCM party, adding that without reforms, there was no point in taking part in the elections.

He is due to reappear in court on Thursday. He cannot seek bail because he has been charged with treason.

His international lawyer, Robert Amsterdam, told the BBC that it was their “mission to defend democracy”.

Yet it is no simple task – CCM has won every election since independence, and is unlikely to easily let go of its stranglehold on power.

There is also a rift in Chadema, with some members disagreeing with Lissu’s strategy.

The party is barred from contesting October’s election after it refused to comply with the electoral commission’s requirement to sign a code of conduct.

The document’s key objective “is to ensure that political parties and their supporters behave well… and maintain peace and harmony” during the elections.

Chadema sees the code of conduct as a ploy to contain the opposition, and it fears that state repression will continue.

In September a senior Chadema party official was abducted and brutally killed amid a wave of abductions of government critics.

During local elections in November, Chadema said thousands of its candidates were barred from participating. The ruling party won about 98% of the seats.

The government dismissed suggestions that the elections were not free and fair, saying they were held in accordance with the rules.

But for Lissu, the local elections justified his calls for reforms ahead of the presidential and parliamentary polls.

• Tanzania’s main opposition party banned from election
• Why Samia’s hesitant reforms are fuelling Tanzanian political anger

Campaign group Human Rights Watch has expressed similar fears, and has urged the government to end political repression.

The Catholic Church has added its voice to calls for the unconditional release of Lissu, and for fair elections.

But the arrest of opposition politicians has continued, despite Prime Minister Kassim Majaliwa promising earlier this month that the authorities would ensure security and fairness in the polls.

The BBC has reached out to the government for comment.

President Samia Suluhu Hassan gave Tanzanians greater political freedom after she took office following the death in office of her predecessor John Magufuli in 2021.

However, Tanzania was once again “beginning to see the wave of repression and state-orchestrated violence” that characterised Magufuli’s rule, Tanzanian political analyst Nicodemus Minde said.

It was during that era that Lissu survived an assassination attempt.

Before his arrest, Lissu said his party had a list of “minimum but critical reforms that must be made to guarantee free elections”.

Mr Amsterdam, his lawyer, told the BBC that this included the formation of “a truly independent national electoral commission with members unconnected to the government” – and this must be enshrined in the constitution.

Chadema is also demanding that when there are electoral disputes, the burden of proof should lie with the commission to show that the vote was free and fair.

Lissu’s strategy has come at a heavy cost to himself and Chadema, as a faction within the party, known as G-55, has adopted a softer stance.

It has called for the party to contest the elections while pursuing talks with the government over its demands.

That is the approach taken by the second largest opposition party, ACT-Wazalendo.

Along with 16 fringe opposition parties, it has signed the code of conduct. Only Chadema has refused.

Lissu appears to see neighbouring Kenya – where mass protests last year forced the government to drop plans to increase taxes – as a model to follow.

At the time, he told the BBC that Tanzanians had not “pressed hard enough for democratic reform”, and what Kenya went through in order to get [its] democratic dispensation is something that we need to do”.

Whether such a strategy would work is unclear, as many Tanzanians appear reluctant to publicly support a campaign that could rattle the government.

But Mr Amsterdam said the more intransigent the government, the more it would spur Chadema’s supporters “to push forward and engage in civil disobedience”.

He added that Chadema would use “every legal and political tool” to achieve change.

But political analyst Thomas Kibwana criticised Lissu’s strategy, saying that with the term of the current parliament due to end in June there would not be enough time to give legal effect to any major reforms ahead of the October election.

He said it might be better for Chadema to wait until after the election.

Fulgence Massawe, the director of a legal rights organisation in Tanzania, told the BBC that Chadema’s push for electoral reforms faced significant hurdles, but the party had the right to go to court to challenge its exclusion from the elections.

Mr Minde said that if Chadema remained shut out of the elections, the ruling party is likely to increase its already overwhelming majority in parliament.

The analyst added that Chadema might even lose its standing as the main opposition party, and “of course nature pulls back and probably other opposition parties will seize this opportunity”.

It is a risk that Lissu and the party have chosen to take.

• ‘Manhandled and choked’ – Tanzanian activist recounts abduction
• Fiery Tanzanian politician Tundu Lissu elected to head opposition party
• Tanzania opposition youth leader dumped at beach after abduction
• John Magufuli: The cautionary tale of the president who denied coronavirus

The pace of diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine is quickening.

Talks are taking place in London between officials from the UK, Germany, France, Ukraine and the United States. Donald Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff is heading to Moscow for his fourth meeting with President Putin.

And yet there is little clarity about where these efforts are heading or whether they will be successful.

Not so long ago the American plan for ending the fighting in Ukraine was clear.

There would be an immediate, unconditional 30-day ceasefire followed by longer-term talks to establish a permanent settlement to the war.

Ukraine agreed to this and – under pressure from the US – made a huge concession; it would no longer demand the promise of long-term security guarantees before any cessation of hostilities.

But Russia refused to play ball, insisting there could be no end to the fighting until a whole series of conditions were met.

In particular, Vladimir Putin said “the root causes” of the war had to be addressed, namely his fears of an expanding Nato alliance and the very existence of Ukraine as a sovereign state somehow presenting a threat to Russia’s security.

The US accepted the premise of this Russian argument and is now deep in the weeds of a potential ceasefire proposal.

In recent days, there have been various leaks about the latest US ideas, the status and veracity of which is disputed among diplomats.

But there seems to be a framework along the following lines: Russia would halt its invasion along current lines, and would give up its ambition to control the remaining parts of the four regions of eastern Ukraine it has yet to occupy, namely Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.

In return, the US would accept the four occupied territories de facto as Russian controlled.

It would also recognise Crimea – which was annexed illegally by Russia in 2014 – as de jure Russian territory. The US would also ensure Ukraine ruled out joining Nato.

As part of this plan, the US might also take control of the controversial Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant – currently in Russian hands – and feed the electricity to both parts of Ukrainian territory.

This proposal would then be backed up with the US threat – as rehearsed by both President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio – that it would give up on the negotiations if there was no immediate agreement.

At first sight, this proposal seems unlikely to succeed.

President Zelensky has already made it clear Ukraine would never concede that Crimea is Russian sovereignty.

Even if he wanted to do that, he could not because it would first require a referendum of the Ukrainian people.

The European powers have made clear they would not accept Russian sovereignty over Crimea, something that would breach post-war international legal norms that borders should not be changed by military force.

Legal experts say there are even technical issues about the US recognising Crimea because of certain laws passed by the US Congress.

But despite that, western diplomats do not dismiss the plan out of hand. “There is a landing space,” one told me. “It is just a question of whether there is enough trust between the parties to move forward.”

They say that because the proposed deal, as leaked so far, contains huge gaps.

There is no reference to any ban on western countries continuing to rearm Ukraine, something that in the past has been a red line for Russia.

There is no reference, either, to Russia’s demands for Ukraine to be “demilitarised”, in other words for its army to be reduced massively in size, again another long-term Moscow demand.

Under the deal, Ukraine may not be allowed to join Nato but it could join the European Union.

There is no apparent objection to a European “reassurance force” deploying to western Ukraine after any ceasefire to deter future Russian aggression.

But it is still not clear if the US is willing to provide a “backstop” to this force. There is also uncertainty about what economic sanctions against Russia would be lifted and when, and under what circumstances.

In other words, a huge amount of detail is unclear and still to be discussed.

And all sides seem far apart.

Ukraine still wants an immediate conditional ceasefire and then talks. The US wants a quick win. And Russia wants to get deep into the detail of a peace deal, the like of which normally takes months if not years to resolve.

There is an old Russian saying that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Right now we seem far away from that.

In Quebec, the issue of independence from Canada has long simmered. But faced with US tariffs and President Donald Trump’s comments about making Canada the 51st US state, many voters are now seeking unity.

Suzanne Dumont knows who she will vote for in Canada’s election, though it’s a decision made “not from my heart, it’s from my head”.

The 70-year-old from Quebec City considers herself a sovereigntist, but hopes when Canadians go to the polls on Monday they’ll elect a majority government to take on Trump.

The Bloc Québécois, a federal party that supports independence and only runs candidates in the predominantly French-speaking province, can’t deliver on that, she says.

Supporting the Conservatives is “unthinkable” to Ms Dumont, so this time she will be voting Liberal.

In Montreal, Louis Plouffe is picking up groceries at the city’s Jean-Talon market.

He tells the BBC that he thinks the Bloc “defends Quebec’s interests well” as an opposition party in Parliament. Still, “it’s not being in power”, the 65-year-old says, and he wants a government with a strong mandate “ready for the wave that’s coming” from the US.

And while Mr Plouffe has reservations about the Liberal leader, he believes Mark Carney has come across as credible and confident in interviews. He too will vote for the party.

“Canadian patriotism is on the rise in Quebec”, said Émilie Foster, an adjunct professor in politics at Carleton University. “We prefer to be part of Canada instead of being part of the United States, if we have to choose,” she says.

Sébastien Dallaire, a pollster with Léger, puts it this way: “It’s hard to say now is the time to talk about Quebec sovereignty, or now is the time to do things specifically to defend Quebec, when clearly there’s a national crisis and everybody is staring not at Ottawa as the adversary, but as Washington as the clear opponent.”

A recent Léger survey suggests that almost 40% of voters for the Bloc believe an independent Quebec would have less influence than Canada as a whole in dealing with the US.

The Liberals are currently polling at about 46% in the province, with the Bloc a distant second at 25%, slightly ahead of the Conservatives, who have long struggled to gain real traction there.

Quebec can be a wildcard in general elections, and winning the province – which holds 78 seats of the 343 in the House of Commons – can propel a party to power.

The abandonment of smaller parties – like the Bloc, the left-leaning New Democrats or the Green Party – is a trend seen nationwide as Canadians rally around either the Liberals or the Conservatives in the face of a new threat from their neighbour.

Carney, a former central banker for Canada and the UK, is seeking to paint himself as the leader most able to help the country navigate the crisis. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is billing himself as the change candidate who can restore the “Canadian promise”.

It has been a remarkable election campaign, one sparked by the resignation of longtime Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then overshadowed by an unprecedented intervention from an American president which transformed the state of the race.

Trump’s tariffs are expected to hit Quebec especially hard. The province is one of the biggest suppliers to the US of aluminium, a sector hit by Trump’s 25% tariffs. Its significant forestry and dairy industries are also in the president’s sights.

Quebec also fiercely protects its identity and its culture as a distinct society, and has twice held referendums on whether to seek independence from the rest of Canada. That’s why the US president’s repeated digs at Canada’s sovereignty has sparked such disquiet here.

Bloc MP Louis-Philippe Sauvé, a former political aide, is fighting to hold on to the seat he won just last September in a special election in the southwest Montreal riding of LaSalle-Émard-Verdun – an upset victory in a district considered a Liberal stronghold.

The riding is historically working-class, and in recent years parts have become some of the trendiest in the city.

Gentrification has brought pressures, and Sauvé tells the BBC during a pause while campaigning that issues like housing, homelessness and immigration all come up as he goes door-knocking, just as they did six months ago.

“That’s all still there, but for sure this general election is very much monopolised by challenges posed by the US, the Canada-US relationship,” he says. “That’s really what everyone’s talking about.”

He admits some frustration that it’s become the “ballot box question”.

“Trump won’t be president of the United States for eternity,” he adds. “The housing crisis will still be a problem in the next few years.”

• What Trump really wants from Canada
• Who’s who in Canada’s federal election
• What did Canadian voters make of the big debate?
• ‘My home is worth millions – but young people are priced out of this city’

The Bloc’s struggles come despite a consensus that party leader Yves-François Blanchet hasn’t had many stumbles in the campaign.

His pitch is that the party can be a check on federal powers, warning that Ottawa might sell out provincial interests if push comes to shove in trade and security talks with the US, which are expected to launch shortly after the 28 April election.

And in a number of ways, Carney is also an unusual choice for Quebec voters. Born in western Canada, his French can be shaky – usually a political liability in the province.

Even Trudeau, widely viewed as bilingual, faced scrutiny over his linguistic abilities. Carney has given his own French a six out of 10. Ms Dumont said she would “never” rate him that high.

Carney has also come out against sensitive issues for many Quebecers, including saying that a Liberal government would intervene if a bill that expands French-language requirements in the province were challenged at the Supreme Court.

“I have a hard time explaining the lack of reaction by Quebecers,” says Bloc MP Sauvé of Carney’s enduring popularity in the province. “It’s like there is a Teflon effect.”

The Liberal candidate in the riding, Claude Guay – the former CEO of IBM Canada who is taking his first run at politics – says Quebecers have taken notice of things like Trump signing an executive order making English America’s official language. (French is Quebec’s official language, while Canada is officially bilingual.)

“The threat of the 51st state, for example, really impacts the opinions of people that may have been sovereigntist and they’re thinking: ‘Well, do we have a better place in Canada?'” he says.

Still, no one suggests that the issue of Quebec sovereignty has been settled. About 30% of Quebecers currently back independence even as some are opting to vote with the Liberals this election.

For Mr Plouffe, the shopper at the Montreal market, however, now is just not the time to take the leap.

“It’s not saying it won’t happen, and I won’t say I won’t support it. But we’re not ready,” he says.

In India, you can face criminal charges for tethering an animal on the street, flying a kite in a manner that causes alarm, skipping a school attendance order or handing a feeding bottle to a mother who can’t breastfeed.

Of the 882 federal laws on the books, 370 contain criminal provisions – together criminalising 7,305 acts and omissions. These range from the absurd to the serious: failing to give a month’s notice before quitting your job or not walking your dog enough, to offences like illegal arms possession, murder and sexual assault.

Delhi-based think-tank Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy calls it “India’s crisis of over-criminalisation”.

In a new report, The State of the System: Understanding the Scale of Crime and Punishment in India, the think-tank has produced the country’s first comprehensive database of crimes, mapping the extent of criminalisation across 370 federal laws.

The report flags India’s habit of reaching for criminal law to solve just about everything – even the mundane. It notes that many laws criminalise “routine, everyday actions”.

You could, for instance, be charged for tethering your goat on a public street, fixing a leaky tap without a licence or not naming the owner of a building when asked.

Then there are the truly obscure offences – like a parent ignoring a school attendance order, applying for a driver’s licence when banned or littering in a zoo. Basically, there’s a criminal penalty waiting around every corner of daily life.

Let your pigs wander on to a field or road and you could be fined 10 rupees (12 cents). Disturb an animal or litter in a zoo? Six months in jail or a 2,000-rupee fine. And failing to exercise your dog can cost you up to 100 rupees and three months in jail.

Promoting infant milk substitutes or feeding bottles to pregnant women or mothers can lead to up to three years in jail or a 5,000-rupee fine. (This was meant to curb aggressive marketing by formula food companies, but the law also applies to individuals, which makes it controversial.)

Jail is the go-to punishment in India – 73% of crimes carry prison terms ranging from a single day to 20 years.

More than 250 offences across 117 laws penalise delays in filing documents – everything from wealth and property tax returns to gift declarations, the report finds.

Some 124 crimes across 80 laws criminalise obstructing a public officer, often without clearly defining what causes “obstruction”.

Even the death penalty isn’t off the table – not just for murder or mutiny, but for damaging an oil or gas pipeline or a sentry caught sleeping on duty. In all, a staggering 301 offences in India can legally cost you your life.

Out of 7,305 offences under central laws, nearly 80% come with fines – from as low as two rupees to a staggering 50m rupees.

To be fair, many of these provisions are rarely used – India’s crime records bureau tracks around 50 laws, even though 370 carry criminal penalties.

“They’re not heavily enforced, but they create ample opportunities for rent-seeking,” Naveed Mehmood Ahmad, co-author of the study at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, told me.

“There’s enough in the books to jail almost anyone for some technical non-compliance. It’s less about actual use and more about the potential for misuse.”

This “excessive use of criminal law not only disrupts the daily lives of ordinary citizens but also creates significant barriers for business operations”, the report says.

Businesses in India face a maze of regulations, but using criminal law as the default for non-compliance is excessive, disproportionate and often counter-productive, experts say.

The report also talks about some glaring inconsistencies in crime and punishment.

Rioting – the use of force or violence by an unlawful assembly – is punishable with up to two years of imprisonment. Meanwhile, falsely reporting a birth or death for official records can lead to three years of imprisonment.

The irony? Violence in public gets a lighter sentence than a lie on paper.

Even more striking: crimes of vastly different severity carry the same penalty – like practicing homoeopathy without a licence, jumping a red light, or forcing someone into labour – all punishable with a one-year sentence.

The sheer number of crimes tied to everyday life and business shows how heavily the state leans on criminalisation to enforce compliance, the report says.

“This over-reliance has significant costs, not just for citizens and businesses, but also for state machinery.”

Over 34 million criminal cases are pending in India’s courts, with 72% stuck for more than a year. Prisons are overcrowded, running at 131% capacity, while courts and police forces continue to grapple with chronic staff shortages

Even the law-and-order machinery is stretched. As of 1 January 2023, India had just 154 police personnel per 100,000 people – well below the sanctioned 195. Nationwide, there are 581,000 vacancies against an approved strength of 2.72 million.

“Even then, we continue to rely on this overburdened system to combat minor infractions, including those that attract nominal fines,” the report says.

It says that criminal law should be limited to acts that threaten core societal values – like public safety, national security, life, liberty, property and social harmony.

Authorities say they plan to scrap criminal penalties in more than 100 legal provisions – on top of the 180 already axed in 2023. It’s not just legal clean-up; it’s a chance to rethink how the law treats people. Less fear, more trust. Less suspect, more citizen.

Jordan’s government has banned the Muslim Brotherhood a week after it said members of the Islamist group had been arrested on suspicion of planning rocket and drone attacks.

Interior Minister Mazen al-Faraya told a news conference that all of the Brotherhood’s offices would be closed and its assets confiscated, and that any activities would be considered illegal.

There was no immediate response from the Brotherhood, which denied any links to the alleged attack plots.

It is not clear how the ban will affect the group’s political arm, the Islamic Action Front, which is the largest opposition group in parliament. But its headquarters was raided by police following Faraya’s announcement.

The IAF’s secretary general, Wael Saqqa, insisted that it was an independent political party, explaining that it had “no relationship with any other organisational body”.

“We always declare that we are committed to order, the law, and the provisions of the constitution,” he said.

In 2020, Jordan’s top court ruled that the Brotherhood was “dissolved” because it had not settled its legal status.

However, the group continued its political and other activities, and the IAF participated in last year’s parliamentary elections, winning 31 out of the 138 seats.

Last week, Jordan’s General Intelligence Department said it had arrested 16 people suspected of planning attacks aimed at “targeting national security, sowing chaos and sabotage”.

They involved possession of explosives and automatic weapons, the manufacture of rockets, the concealment of one rocket ready to be launched, a project to manufacture drones, and the training of individuals both in Jordan and abroad, it said.

Faraya claimed during Wednesday’s news conference that members of the Brotherhood “operate in the shadows and engage in activities that could undermine stability and security”.

Authorities had found “explosives and weapons transported between Jordanian cities and stored in residential areas”, as well as covert rocket manufacturing facilities and training and recruitment operations, he alleged.

He also said Brotherhood members had attempted to remove and destroy documents from their headquarters “in an effort to conceal their activities and suspicious affiliations”.

The group has denied having any involvement in, or knowledge of, the alleged attack plot and stressed that it is “committed to its peaceful approach”.

The Brotherhood was founded in Egypt almost 100 years ago and has local branches across the world. One of its aims is to create a state ruled by Islamic law, or Sharia.

It is outlawed in Egypt and several Arab countries, whose governments see it as a threat.

Prosecutors have indicted former South Korean President Moon Jae-in on charges of bribery related to his former son-in-law’s job at an airline.

Prosecutors argue his former son-in-law, identified only by his surname Seo, had little experience in the aviation industry but was hired in exchange for the airline’s CEO leading a state-funded agency.

Moon led the country from 2017 to 2022 and is best remembered for his attempts to broker a peace deal with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un.

He joins a long list of South Korean presidents whose political careers have been marred by scandal, from jail to assassination to suicide.

Former President Yoon Suk Yeol, who was removed from office this month for his shock martial law declaration, is also facing criminal charges.

Besides Moon, former lawmaker Lee Sang-jik has also been indicted, prosecutors say. He is being accused of bribery and breach of trust.

In 2022, Lee was sentenced to six years in prison for embezzling company funds.

The founder of budget carrier Eastar Jet, Lee was named the head of the Korea SMEs and Startups Agency in 2018 – the same year that Seo was appointed executive director of his airline’s subsidiary Thai Eastar Jet.

Between 2018 and 2020, Seo received around 217 million won ($150,000; £113,000) in salary and housing support – a sum that prosecutors say constitute bribes intended for Moon.

According to prosecutors, Seo was appointed “despite any relevant experience or qualifications in the airline industry”, said a Reuters report.

He “frequently left his post for extended periods… and did not perform his duties in a manner befitting the position”, it added.

The residence of Moon Da-hye, the former president’s daughter, was raided last September during investigations of the bribery allegations.

Moon’s indictment comes amid a series of prosecutions against officials in his administration. Earlier this month, Moon’s former national security advisor and defence minister were indicted for allegedly leaking intelligence to activists.

The country’s prosecution service is often accused of being politicised – and when the government changes hands, it’s common for rival politicians to be investigated.

The current government is led by acting president and prime minister Han Duck-soo the People Power Party’s.

Moon’s Democratic Party has condemned the prosection, calling it a “politically motivated move aimed at humiliating a former president”.

Bite marks found on the skeleton of a Roman gladiator are the first archaeological evidence of combat between a human and a lion, experts say.

The remains were discovered during a 2004 dig at Driffield Terrace, in York, a site now thought to be the world’s only well-preserved Roman gladiator cemetery.

Forensic examination of the skeleton of one young man has revealed that holes and bite marks on his pelvis were most likely caused by a lion.

Prof Tim Thompson, the forensic expert who led the study, said this was the first “physical evidence” of gladiators fighting big cats.

“For years our understanding of Roman gladiatorial combat and animal spectacles has relied heavily on historical texts and artistic depictions,” he said.

“This discovery provides the first direct, physical evidence that such events took place in this period, reshaping our perception of Roman entertainment culture in the region.”

Experts used new forensic techniques to analyse the wounds, including 3D scans which showed the animal had grabbed the man by the pelvis.

Prof Thompson, from Maynooth University, in Ireland, said: “We could tell that the bites happened at around the time of death.

“So this wasn’t an animal scavenging after the individual died – it was associated with his death.”

As well as scanning the wound, scientists compared its size and shape to sample bites from large cats at London Zoo.

“The bite marks in this particular individual match those of a lion,” Prof Thompson told BBC News.

The location of the bites gave researchers even more information about the circumstances of the gladiator’s death.

The pelvis, Prof Thompson explained, “is not where lions normally attack, so we think this gladiator was fighting in some sort of spectacle and was incapacitated, and that the lion bit him and dragged him away by his hip.”

The skeleton, a male aged between 26 and 35, had been buried in a grave with two others and overlaid with horse bones.

Previous analysis of the bones pointed to him being a Bestiarius – a gladiator that was sent into combat with beasts.

Malin Holst, a Senior Lecturer in Osteoarchaeology at the University of York, said in 30 years of analysing skeletons she had “never seen anything like these bite marks”.

Additionally, she said the man’s remains revealed the story of a “short and somewhat brutal life”.

His bones were shaped by large, powerful muscles and there was evidence of injuries to his shoulder and spine, which were associated with hard physical work and combat.

Ms Holst, who is also managing director of York Osteoarchaeology, added: “This is a hugely exciting find because we can now start to build a better image of what these gladiators were like in life.”

The findings, which have been published in the Journal of Science and Medical Research PLoS One, also confirmed the “presence of large cats and potentially other exotic animals in arenas in cities such as York, and how they too had to defend themselves from the threat of death”, she said.

Experts said the discovery added weight to the suggestion an amphitheatre, although not yet found, likely existed in Roman York and would have staged fighting gladiators as a form of entertainment.

The presence of distinguished Roman leaders in York would have meant they required a lavish lifestyle, experts said, so it was no surprise to see evidence of gladiatorial events, which served as a display of wealth.

David Jennings, CEO of York Archaeology, said: “We may never know what brought this man to the arena where we believe he may have been fighting for the entertainment of others, but it is remarkable that the first osteoarchaeological evidence for this kind of gladiatorial combat has been found so far from the Colosseum of Rome, which would have been the classical world’s Wembley Stadium of combat.”

The first trailer for the second season of Wednesday – the most watched show in Netflix’s history – has given fans the first glimpses of Joanna Lumley and Steve Buscemi in their new roles, alongside a host of returning favourites.

The streamer has announced it will split the new season in half – releasing the first episodes on 6 August and the second batch on 3 September.

This series follows Wednesday Addams, played by Jenna Ortega, as she returns to Nevermore Academy, now under the leadership of new principal Barry Dort (Buscemi).

Also joining the school this term is her little brother Pugsley (Isaac Ordonez), a character described by executive producer Tim Burton as an “outcast among outcasts”.

Wednesday’s parents will also have an increased presence on campus this season – “a rare new form of torture for the fiercely independent amateur sleuth”, Netflix said.

The first full-length trailer, which was released, appropriately, on Wednesday, opened with the show’s lead character going through airport security.

As the metal detector beeps, she has to unload a knuckle duster, cattle prod, several knives and Thing – a disembodied hand – from her bag, before a security guard challenges her about the tube of sun cream she is also carrying.

“Wednesday Addams is one of the coolest characters of all time,” Ortega said as the trailer launched.

“So to have gotten the opportunity to play her once was incredible, and then to be able to slip into the costume and tone again, it’s so much fun.

“She runs circles around everyone that she has a conversation with, so to play someone who’s so much more intelligent than you will ever be, it’s quite funny and strange and enjoyable.”

Veteran British actress Lumley has joined the cast as Hester Frump, Wednesday’s grandmother and closest ally.

“The first day on set when Joanna walked on, she just was Hester and she nailed every single line, and it’s just so delicious,” said show creator Miles Millar. “She’s perfect and hilarious.”

Lumley described the Nevermore atmosphere as “intoxicating”, adding: “It’s wonderful. I get to wear many, many huge wigs, one on top of the other – and lots of quite constraining clothes, so I love it.”

Meanwhile, Buscemi described Principal Dort as “a bit of a mysterious figure”, adding: “Something about him is not right, but he loves the school and he has real outcast pride.”

The first series of Wednesday was Netflix’s biggest hit to date, and cemented Ortega as a major screen star. She has since appeared in Beetlejuice Beetlejuice, Death of a Unicorn and Scream XI.

In the trailer, Wednesday’s mother Morticia (Catherine Zeta-Jones) notes it’s the first time her daughter has returned to school willingly.

For her part, Wednesday describes returning to school as “like returning to the scene of the crime”, noting that she “already knows where the bodies are buried”.

Later, the young Addams daughter is seen attending a macarbre tea party for a group of dolls.

“Wherever there’s murder and mayhem,” Wednesday reflects, “you will always find an Addams.”

The trailer’s reference to “mayhem” could hint at a previously reported cameo appearance from Lady Gaga, who recently released an album of that name.

Netflix will be hoping the series replicates the success of the first. Its decision to split the new season in half is likely due to efforts to retain subscribers, refresh its platform and increase the hype around the show.

1. Wednesday
2. Stranger Things (season four)
3. Adolescence
4. Monster: The Jeffrey Dahmer Story
5. Bridgerton (season one)
6. The Queen’s Gambit
7. Bridgerton (season three)
8. The Night Agent
9. Fool Me Once
10. Stranger Things

Source: Netflix

The Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwandan-backed M23 rebels have agreed to halt fighting in the east of the country until peace talks mediated by Qatar reach their “conclusion”.

It is the latest truce deal since the rebels stepped up an offensive in eastern DR Congo where authorities say 7,000 people have been killed since January.

Both sides on Wednesday jointly announced to work towards peace following more than a week of talks, which they described as “frank and constructive”.

Last month, Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi and his Rwandan counterpart Paul Kagame also reaffirmed their commitment to an “unconditional” ceasefire in a surprise meeting in Doha.

The decades-long conflict has intensified since January when M23 staged an unprecedented offensive, seizing Goma and Bukavu – eastern Congo’s two largest cities – and sparking fears of a wider regional war.

DR Congo accuses Rwanda of arming the M23 and sending troops to support the rebels in the conflict. Despite assertions from both the UN and US, Rwanda has denied supporting the M23.

• What’s the fighting in DR Congo all about?
• The evidence that shows Rwanda is backing rebels in DR Congo
• Your phone, a rare metal and the war in DR Congo

Rwanda has said its forces are acting in self-defence against the Congolese army and allied militias, some of which it accuses of links to the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

DR Congo also accuses Rwanda of illegally exploiting its mineral deposits in the east of the country, which Rwanda denies.

In a joint statement released separately by the M23 and Congolese government on Wednesday, each side pledged to give peace talks a chance.

“By mutual agreement, both parties reaffirm commitment to the immediate cessation of hostilities, a categorical rejection of any hate speech, intimidation, and call on all local communities to uphold these commitments,” they said in a statement read on Congolese national TV and and posted on X by the M23 spokesperson Lawrence Kanyuka.

They said the ceasefire would apply “throughout the duration of the talks and until their conclusion”.

Sources in the Qatar talks told Reuters news agency that the outcome of the meetings were almost derailed by “technical” issues.

It is not clear how long the truce will hold as several ceasefires have been agreed since 2021, before later collapsing.

Belgium’s Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Prevot termed the truce a “crucial step towards ending the violence”.

Qatar has been mediating between the two parties after the rebels refused to attend peace talks in Angola last month.

The Congolese government had long refused to hold direct talks with M23, branding it a “terrorist” group.

• DR Congo conflict tests China’s diplomatic balancing act
• How DR Congo’s Tutsis become foreigners in their own country
• ‘They took all the women here’: Rape survivors recall horror of DR Congo jailbreak

The boss of the biscuits factory where McVitie’s chocolate digestives have been made for the last 100 years reckons people have always eaten them incorrectly.

Anthony Coulson, general manager at the company’s chocolate refinery and bakery in Stockport, said the teatime staple was originally meant to be eaten with the chocolate-covered side facing down.

“It’s the world’s most incredible debate, whether you have the chocolate on the top or the chocolate on the bottom,” mused Mr Coulson, who admitted he was a chocolate-on-top man.

The factory opened in 1917, with the chocolate digestive launched eight years later.

About 80 million packets are made every year, with all of the chocolate made in Greater Manchester.

The chocolate digestive was launched about a quarter of a century after the plain variety, whose name was inspired by the belief that the baking powder in the recipe would help with digestion.

And although people might think of the chocolate digestive as being topped with chocolate, the company has said that as the plain biscuits pass through a “chocolate reservoir”, the chocolate actually coats the underside of it.

Lynn Loftus, who has worked at the factory for 36 years, called the biscuit “timeless”, adding that she thought it would be around for many years to come.

Craig Leech, who has worked at McVitie’s for 21 years, started off in the factory by putting the chocolate on top of the biscuits.

“I just come in with a positive attitude. I know the people and the products inside out,” said Mr Leech, who is now a planning manager for the refinery.

Alix Knagg, who has been working there for six months, said the chocolate digestive was “still a great product 100 years on”.

A trade war between the world’s two biggest economies is now in full swing.

Chinese exports to the US face up to 245% tariffs, and Beijing has hit back with a 125% levy on American imports. Consumers, businesses and markets are braced for more uncertainty as fears of a global recession have heightened.

Chinese President Xi Jinping’s government has repeatedly said it is open to dialogue, but warned that, if necessary, it would “fight to the end”.

Here’s a look at what Beijing has in its arsenal to counter US President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

China is the world’s second-largest economy, which means it can absorb the impacts of the tariffs better than other smaller countries.

With more than a billion people, it also has a huge domestic market that could take some of the pressure off exporters who are reeling from tariffs.

Beijing is still fumbling with the keys because Chinese people are not spending enough. But with a range of incentives, from subsidies for household appliances to “silver trains” for travelling retirees, that could change.

And Trump’s tariffs have given the Chinese Communist Party an even stronger impetus to unlock the country’s consumer potential.

The leadership may “very well be willing to endure the pain to avoid capitulating to what they believe is US aggression”, Mary Lovely, a US-China trade expert at the Peterson Institute in Washington DC, told BBC Newshour earlier this month.

China also has a higher threshold for pain as an authoritarian regime, as it is far less worried about short-term public opinion. There is no election around the corner that will judge its leaders.

Still, unrest is a concern, especially because there is already discontent over an ongoing property crisis and job losses.

The economic uncertainty over tariffs is yet another blow for young people who have only ever known a rising China.

The Party has been appealing to nationalist sentiments to justify its retaliatory tariffs, with state media calling on people to “weather storms together”.

President Xi Jinping may be worried but, so far, Beijing has struck a defiant and confident tone. One official assured the country: “The sky will not fall.”

China has always been known as the world’s factory – but it has been pouring billions into becoming a far more advanced one.

Under Xi, it has been in a race with the US for tech dominance.

It has invested heavily in homegrown tech, from renewables to chips to AI.

Examples include the chatbot DeepSeek, which was celebrated as a formidable rival to ChatGPT, and BYD, which beat Tesla last year to become the world’s largest electric vehicle (EV) maker. Apple has been losing its prized market share to local competitors such as Huawei and Vivo.

Recently Beijing announced plans to spend more than $1tn over the next decade to support innovation in AI.

US companies have tried to move their supply chains away from China, but they have struggled to find the same scale of infrastructure and skilled labour elsewhere.

Chinese manufacturers at every stage of the supply chain have given the country a decades-long advantage that will take time to replicate.

That unrivalled supply chain expertise and government support have made China a formidable foe in this trade war – in some ways, Beijing has been preparing for this since Trump’s previous term.

Ever since Trump tariffs hit Chinese solar panels back in 2018, Beijing sped up its plans for a future beyond a US-led world order.

It has pumped billions into a contentious trade and infrastructure programme, better known as the Belt and Road initiative, to shore up ties with the so-called Global South.

The expansion of trade with South East Asia, Latin America and Africa comes as China tries to wean itself off the US.

American farmers once supplied 40% of China’s soybean imports – that figure now hovers at 20%. After the last trade war, Beijing ramped up soy cultivation at home and bought record volumes of the crop from Brazil, which is now its largest soybean supplier.

“The tactic kills two birds with one stone. It deprives America’s farm belt of a once‑captive market and burnishes China’s food security credentials,” says Marina Yue Zhang, associate professor at the University of Technology Sydney’s Australia-China Relations Institute.

The US is no longer China’s biggest export market: that spot now belongs to South East Asia. In fact China was the largest trading partner for 60 countries in 2023 – nearly twice as many as the US. The world’s biggest exporter, it made a record surplus of $1tn at the end of 2024.

That doesn’t mean the US, the world’s biggest economy, is not a crucial trading partner for China. But it does mean it’s not going to be easy for Washington to back China into a corner.

Following reports that the White House will use bilateral trade negotiations to isolate China, Beijing has warned countries against “reaching a deal at the expense of China’s interests”.

That would be an impossible choice for much of the world

“We can’t choose, and we will never choose [between China and the US],” Malaysia’s trade minister Tengku Zafrul Aziz told the BBC last week.

Trump held firm as stocks plummeted following his sweeping tariffs announcement in early April, likening his staggering levies to “medicine”.

But he made a U-turn, pausing most of those tariffs for 90 days after a sharp sell-off in US government bonds. Also known as Treasuries, these have long been seen as a safe investment. But the trade war has shaken confidence in the assets.

Trump has since hinted at a de-escalation in trade tensions with China, saying that the tariffs on Chinese goods will “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero”.

So, experts point out, Beijing now knows that the bond market can rattle Trump.

China also holds $700bn in US government bonds. Japan, a staunch American ally, is the only non-US holder to own more than that.

Some argue that this gives Beijing leverage: Chinese media has regularly floated the idea of selling or withholding purchases of US bonds as a “weapon”.

But experts warn that China will not emerge unscathed from such a situation.

Rather, it will lead to huge losses for Beijing’s investments in the bond market and destabilise the Chinese yuan.

China will only be able to exert pressure with US government bonds “only up to a point”, Dr Zhang says. “China holds a bargaining chip, not a financial weapon.”

What China can weaponise, however, is its near monopoly in extracting and refining rare earths, a range of elements important to advanced tech manufacturing.

China has huge deposits of these, such as dysprosium, which is used in magnets in electric vehicles and wind turbines, and Yttrium, which provides heat-resistant coating for jet engines.

Beijing has already responded to Trump’s latest tariffs by restricting exports of seven rare earths, including some that are essential for making AI chips.

China accounts for about 61% of rare earths production and 92% of their refining, according to estimates by the International Energy Agency (IEA).

While Australia, Japan and Vietnam have begun mining for rare earths, it will take years before China can be cut out of the supply chain.

In 2024, China banned the export of another critical mineral, antimony, that is crucial to various manufacturing processes. Its price more than doubled amid a wave of panic buying and a search for alternative suppliers.

The fear is that the same can happen to the rare earths market, which would severely disrupt various industries from electric vehicles to defence.

“Everything you can switch on or off likely runs on rare earths,” Thomas Kruemmer, director of Ginger International Trade and Investment, told the BBC previously.

“The impact on the US defence industry will be substantial.”

Tuesday’s bloodshed in Pahalgam – where at least 26 tourists were killed in a hail of gunfire – marks the deadliest militant attack in Indian-administered Kashmir since 2019.

The victims weren’t soldiers or officials, but civilians on holiday in one of India’s most picturesque valleys. That alone makes this strike both brutal and symbolic: a calculated assault not just on lives, but on a fragile sense of normalcy the Indian state has worked hard to project in the disputed region.

Given the fraught history of Kashmir – claimed in full by both India and Pakistan but ruled by each only in part – India’s response is likely to be shaped as much by precedent as by pressure, say experts.

For starters, Delhi has swiftly taken a series of retaliatory steps: closing the main border crossing, suspending a critical water-sharing treaty, and expelling diplomats.

More significantly, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh has vowed a “strong response,” pledging action not just against the perpetrators but also the masterminds behind the “nefarious acts” on Indian soil.

The question, analysts say, is not whether there will be a military response – but when, and how calibrated it will be, and at what cost.

“We are likely to see a strong response – one that signals resolve to both domestic audiences and actors in Pakistan. Since 2016 and especially after 2019, the threshold for retaliation has been set at cross-border or air strikes,” military historian Srinath Raghavan told the BBC.

“It’ll be hard for the government to act below that now. Pakistan will likely respond, as it did before. The risk, as always, is miscalculation – on both sides.”

Mr Raghavan is alluding to two previous major retaliations by India in 2016 and 2019.

After the deadly Uri attack in September 2016, where 19 Indian soldiers were killed, India launched what it called “surgical strikes” across the de facto border – also known as the Line of Control (LoC) – targeting what it said were militant launch pads in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

And in 2019, after at least 40 paramilitary personnel were killed in Pulwama, India hit an alleged militant camp in Balakot with airstrikes – its first such strike deep inside Pakistan since 1971. Pakistan responded with air raids, leading to a dogfight and the brief capture of an Indian pilot. Both sides showed strength but avoided full-scale war.

Two years later, in 2021, they agreed to an LoC ceasefire, which has largely held – despite recurring militant attacks in Indian-administered Kashmir.

Michael Kugelman, a foreign policy analyst, believes that the combination of high fatality levels and the targeting of Indian civilians in the latest attack “suggests a strong possibility of an Indian military response against Pakistan, if Delhi determines or merely assumes any level of Pakistani complicity”.

“The chief advantage of such a reaction for India would be political, as there will be strong public pressure for India to respond forcefully, ” he told the BBC.

“Another advantage, if a retaliation successfully takes out terrorist targets, would be restoring deterrence and degrading an anti-India threat. The disadvantage is that a retaliation would risk a serious crisis and even conflict.”

What are India’s options?

Covert action offers deniability but may not satisfy the political need to visibly restore deterrence, says Christopher Clary of the University at Albany in the US.

That leaves India with two possible paths, he notes.

First, the 2021 LoC ceasefire has been fraying, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi could greenlight a return to cross-border firing.

Second, airstrikes or even conventional cruise missile strikes, like in 2019, are also on the table – each carrying the risk of a retaliatory spiral, as seen in the air skirmishes that followed then.

“No path is without risks. The US is also distracted and may not be willing or be able to assist with crisis management,” Mr Clary, who studies the politics of South Asia, told the BBC.

One of the gravest risks in any India-Pakistan crisis is that both sides are nuclear-armed. That fact casts a long shadow over every decision, shaping not just military strategy but political calculations.

“Nuclear weapons are both a danger and a restraint – they force decision-makers on both sides to act with caution. Any response is likely to be presented as precise and targeted. Pakistan may retaliate in kind, then look for an off-ramp, says Mr Raghavan.

“We’ve seen this pattern in other conflicts too, like Israel-Iran – calibrated strikes, followed by efforts to de-escalate. But the risk is always that things won’t go according to script.”

Mr Kugelman says that one of the lessons of the Pulwama crisis is that “each country is comfortable using limited counter retaliation”.

“India will need to weigh the political and tactical advantages of retaliation with the risk of a serious crisis or conflict.”

Hussain Haqqani, a former Pakistani ambassador to the US, believes escalation is possible this time, with India likely to consider limited “surgical strikes” like in 2016.

“The advantage of such strikes from India’s point of view is they are limited in scope, so Pakistan does not have to respond, and yet they demonstrate to the Indian public that India has acted,” Mr Haqqani, a senior fellow at Anwar Gargash Diplomatic Academy and Hudson Institute, told the BBC.

“But such strikes can also invite retaliation from Pakistan, which argues that it is being blamed in a knee jerk reaction, without any investigation or evidence.”

Whatever course India chooses – and however Pakistan responds – each step is fraught with risk. The threat of escalation looms, and with it, the fragile peace in Indian-administered Kashmir slips further out of reach.

At the same time, India must reckon with the security failures that allowed the attack to happen in the first place. “That such an attack occurred at the peak of tourist season,” Mr Raghavan noted, “points to a serious lapse – especially in a Union Territory where the federal government directly controls law and order.”

Who will be the next pope? The decision could have a profound impact on the Catholic Church and the world’s 1.4 billion baptised Roman Catholics.

It also promises to be a highly unpredictable and open process for a host of reasons.

The College of Cardinals will meet in conclave in the Sistine Chapel to debate and then vote for their preferred candidates until a single name prevails.

With 80% of the cardinals appointed by Pope Francis himself, they are not only electing a pope for the first time, but will offer a broad global perspective.

For the first time in history, fewer than half of those given a vote will be European.

And although the college may be dominated by his appointments, they were not exclusively “progressive” or “traditionalist”.

For those reasons, it is harder than ever to predict who will be elected the next pope.

Could the cardinals elect an African or an Asian pope, or might they favour one of the old hands of the Vatican administration?

Here are some of the names being mentioned as Francis’s potential successor.

• LIVE UPDATES: Follow the latest after the Pope’s death
• IN PICTURES: Symbolism on show as Pope lies in open coffin
• EXPLAINER: Key candidates in an unpredictable contest to be the next Pope
• PROFILE: Acting head of the Vatican Cardinal Kevin Farrell
• VISUAL GUIDE: How the next Pope is chosen by secret vote

Nationality: Italian

Age: 70

Softly spoken Italian Cardinal Parolin was the Vatican’s secretary of state under Pope Francis – making him the pope’s chief adviser. The secretary of state also heads the Roman Curia, the Church’s central administration.

Having acted effectively as deputy pope, he could be considered a frontrunner.

He is viewed by some as more likely to prioritise diplomacy and a global outlook than the purity of Catholic dogma. His critics consider that a problem, while his supporters see a strength.

But he has been critical of the legalisation of same-sex marriage around the world, calling a landmark 2015 vote in favour in the Republic of Ireland “a defeat for humanity”.

The bookmakers may back him but Cardinal Parolin will be well aware of an old Italian saying that stresses the uncertainty of the pope-picking process: “He who enters a conclave as a pope, leaves it as a cardinal.”

Some 213 of the previous 266 popes have been Italian and even though there has not been an Italian pope in 40 years, the pivot of the upper echelons of the Church away from Italy and Europe may mean there may not be another for now.

Nationality: Filipino

Age: 67

Could the next pope come from Asia?

Cardinal Tagle has decades of pastoral experience – meaning he has been an active Church leader among the people as opposed to a diplomat for the Vatican or cloistered expert on Church law.

The Church is massively influential in the Philippines, where about 80% of the population is Catholic. The country currently has a record five members of the College of Cardinals – which could make for a significant lobbying faction if they all back Cardinal Tagle.

He is considered a moderate within the Catholic definition, and has been dubbed the “Asian Francis” because of a dedication to social issues and sympathy for migrants that he shared with the late pope.

He has opposed abortion rights, calling them “a form of murder” – a position in line with the Church’s broader stance that life begins at conception. He has also spoken against euthanasia.

But in 2015 when he was Archbishop of Manila, Cardinal Tagle called for the Church to reassess its “severe” stance towards gay people, divorcees and single mothers, saying past harshness had done lasting harm and left people feeling “branded”, and that each individual deserved compassion and respect.

The cardinal was considered a candidate to be pope as far back as the 2013 conclave in which Francis was elected.

Asked a decade ago how he viewed suggestions he could be next, he replied: “I treat it like a joke! It’s funny.”

Nationality: Congolese

Age: 65

It’s very possible the next pope could be from Africa, where the Catholic Church continues to add millions of members. Cardinal Ambongo is a leading candidate, hailing from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

He has been Archbishop of Kinshasa for seven years, and was appointed cardinal by Pope Francis.

He is a cultural conservative, opposing blessings for same-sex marriage, stating that “unions of persons of the same sex are considered contradictory to cultural norms and intrinsically evil”.

Though Christianity is the majority religion in the DRC, Christians there have faced death and persecution at the hands of jihadist group Islamic State and associated rebels. Against that backdrop, Cardinal Ambongo is viewed as a fierce advocate for the Church.

But in a 2020 interview, he spoke in favour of religious plurality, saying: “Let Protestants be Protestants and Muslims be Muslims. We are going to work with them. But everyone has to keep their own identity.”

Such comments could lead some cardinals to wonder if he fully embraces their sense of mission – in which Catholics hope to spread the Church’s word throughout the world.

Nationality: Ghanaian

Age: 76

If chosen by his peers, the influential Cardinal Turkson would likewise have the distinction of being the first African pope for 1,500 years.

Like Cardinal Ambongo, he has claimed not to want the job. “I’m not sure whether anyone does aspire to become a pope,” he told the BBC in 2013.

Asked if Africa had a good case to provide the next pope based on the Church’s growth on the continent, he said he felt the pope shouldn’t be chosen based on statistics, because “those types of considerations tend to muddy the waters”.

He was the first Ghanaian to be made a cardinal, back in 2003 under Pope John Paul II.

Like Cardinal Tagle, Cardinal Turkson was considered a potential pope a decade later, when Francis was chosen. In fact, bookmakers made him the favourite ahead of voting.

A guitarist who once played in a funk band, Cardinal Turkson is known for his energetic presence.

Like many cardinals from Africa, he leans conservative. However, he has opposed the criminalisation of gay relationships in African countries including his native Ghana.

In a BBC interview in 2023, while Ghana’s parliament was discussing a bill imposing harsh penalties on LGBTQ+ people, Turkson said he felt homosexuality should not be treated as an offence.

In 2012, he was accused of making fear-mongering predictions over the spread of Islam in Europe at a Vatican conference of bishops, for which he later apologised.

Nationality: Hungarian

Age: 72

A cardinal since the age of 51, Peter Erdo is highly regarded in the Church in Europe, having twice led the Council of European Bishops’ Conferences from 2006 to 2016.

He is well known among African cardinals and he has worked on Catholic relations with the Orthodox Church.

The archbishop of Budapest and primate of Hungary grew up in a Catholic family under communism, and he is considered a potential compromise candidate.

Erdo played a prominent role in Pope Francis’s two visits to Hungary in 2021 and 2023, and he was part of the conclaves that elected Francis and his predecessor Pope Benedict.

His conservative views on the family have found favour with some parts of the Church and he has navigated the “illiberal democracy” of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban. During Europe’s migrant crisis in 2015, he said the Church would not take in migrants as it was tantamount to human trafficking.

Nationality: Italian

Age: 83

Only cardinals under 80 can vote in the conclave, but Angelo Scola could still be elected.

The former Archbishop of Milan was a frontrunner in 2013 when Francis was chosen, but he is thought to have fallen victim to the adage of entering the conclave as Pope and leaving as cardinal.

His name has resurfaced ahead of the conclave, because of a book he is publishing this week on old age. The book features a preface written by Pope Francis shortly before he was admitted to hospital in which he said “death is not the end of everything, but the beginning of something”.

Francis’s words show genuine affection for Scola, but the college of cardinals might not see his focus on old age as ideal for a new pope.

Nationality: German

Age: 71

Germany’s top Catholic cleric is also very much a Vatican insider too.

The Archbishop of Munich and Freising was chosen as an adviser when Francis became pope in 2013. For 10 years he advised the Pope on Church reform and still oversees financial reform of the Vatican.

He has advocated a more accommodating approach towards homosexuals or transgender people in Catholic teaching.

But in 2021 he offered to resign over serious mistakes in tackling child sexual abuse in Germany’s Catholic Church. That resignation was rejected by Francis.

Two years ago he left the Council of Cardinals, the Pope’s most important advisory body, in what was seen in Germany as a setback for his career in the Church.

Nationality: Canadian

Age: 80

Cardinal Ouellet has twice before been seen as a potential candidate for Pope, in 2005 and 2013.

For years he ran the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops, which chooses candidates for the episcopate around the world, so he has played a significant and formative role in vetting the future members of the Catholic hierarchy.

As another octogenarian, he will not be able to play a part in the conclave itself, which may hinder his chances.

Ouellet is viewed as a conservative with a modern outlook, who is strongly in favour of maintaining the principle of celibacy for priests.

He opposes the ordination of women priests, but he has called for a greater role for women in running the Catholic Church, saying that “Christ is male, the Church is feminine”.

Nationality: American

Age: 69

Could the papacy go to an American for the first time?

Chicago-born Cardinal Prevost is certainly seen as having many of the necessary qualities for the role.

Two years ago Pope Francis chose Prevost to replace Marc Ouellet as prefect of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Bishops, handing him the task of selecting the next generation of bishops.

He worked for many years as a missionary in Peru before being made an archbishop there.

Prevost is not just considered an American, but as someone who headed the Pontifical Commission for Latin America.

He is seen a reformer, but at 69 might be viewed as too young for the papacy. His period as archbishop in Peru was also clouded by allegations of covering up sexual abuse claims, which were denied by his diocese.

Nationality: Guinean

Age: 79

Well-liked by conservatives in the Church, Cardinal Sarah is known for his adherence to doctrine and traditional liturgy and was often considered opposed to Pope Francis’s reformist leanings.

The son of a fruit-picker, Sarah became the youngest archbishop aged 34 when Pope John Paul II appointed him prelate in Conakry in Guinea.

He has had a long and impressive career, retiring in 2021 as head of the Vatican’s office that oversees the Catholic Church’s liturgical rites.

While not considered a favourite for the papacy, he could attract strong support from conservative cardinals.

Nationality: Italian

Age: 60

Ordained in Italy when he was 25, Pizzaballa moved to Jerusalem the following month and has lived there ever since.

Pope Francis made him Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem five years ago and later cardinal, and Pizzaballa has spoken of the city as “the heart of the life of this world”.

Fellow cardinals will have been impressed by his deep understanding of Israelis and Palestinians and the ongoing war in Gaza.

However, his relative young age and inexperience as a cardinal may count against him, as could his affinity to Francis among cardinals seeking a change in direction.

Nationality: Canadian

Age: 78

Cardinal Czerny was appointed cardinal by Pope Francis and is like him a Jesuit, a leading order of the Catholic Church known for its charitable and missionary work around the world.

Although he was born in the former Czechoslovakia, his family moved to Canada when he was two.

He has worked widely in Latin America and in Africa, where he founded the African Jesuit Aids Network and taught in Kenya.

Czerny is popular with progressives in the Church and was considered close to Pope Francis. He is currently head of the Vatican’s Dicastery for Promoting Human Integral Development.

Although a strong candidate, it seems unlikely the cardinals would choose a second Jesuit pope in succession.

K-pop group Just B’s member Bain has revealed to fans he is “proud to be part of the LGBT community” – a rare move in an industry known for its tight control over artists’ behaviour, where stars typically keep details of their personal lives private, particularly relationships.

The star, 23, is now among only a handful of K-pop artists who have come out publicly.

Bain made the announcement in front of fans while performing a solo at a concert in Los Angeles on Tuesday night.

The moment was met with loud cheers from the crowd, according to videos circulating on social media.

“To anyone out there who’s part of the LGBT community, or still figuring it out – this is for you guys,” Bain, whose real name is Song Byeong-hee, said in a video posted on his social media after the concert.

“You are seen, you are loved, and you were born this way,” he added, before launching into a performance of Born This Way by pop icon Lady Gaga, whom he referred to as “my queen”.

His bandmates welcomed the announcement. Just B member Siwoo said he cried while watching Bain’s performance. “I know how hard it was for him, and that made me want to cry more,” he said, according to Korean media outlet News1.

The band’s fans have shown their support as well. “We love you so much and are so proud of you for being yourself,” reads a top-liked comment under his Instagram post.

“You are so loved. So proud to be your fan. Be proud of who you are,” another fan wrote.

Formed in 2021, Just B is a six-member act that has released five EPs and multiple singles.

Coming out remains extremely rare in South Korea’s highly-pressurised entertainment industry. While homosexuality is not illegal in the country, it remains taboo, and same-sex marriage is not legally recognised.

A 2022 Human Rights Watch report described discrimination against LGBT people in South Korea as “pervasive”.

Bain is not the first K-pop star to come out. Just last month, Lara, an Indian-American member of the girl group Katseye, came out as queer on a K-pop fan community platform. In 2020, Jiae from the now-disbanded girl group Wassup announced on Instagram that she is bisexual.

China has sent back planes it ordered from the US in its latest retaliation over Trump tariffs, the boss of aircraft maker Boeing has said.

Kelly Ortberg said two planes had already been returned and another would follow after trade tensions between the two countries escalated.

Boeing’s chief executive told CNBC that 50 more planes were due to go to China this year but their customers had indicated they will not take delivery of them.

The US put 145% tariffs on imports from China and it hit back with a 125% tax on US products.

Speaking in the Oval Office on Tuesday, Trump said he was optimistic about improving trade relations with China, saying the level of tariffs he had imposed would “come down substantially, but it won’t be zero”.

However, Mr Ortberg said China “have in fact stopped taking delivery of aircraft because of tariff environment”.

Boeing is America’s largest exporter with about 70% of its commercial aircraft sales outside of the US.

Mr Ortberg said Boeing was assessing options to re-market 41 of the already built planes to other customers as there was high demand from other airlines.

He said there were nine planes not yet in Boeing’s production system and he wanted to “understand their intentions and if necessary we can assign to other customers”.

He added Boeing was “not going continue to build aircraft for customers who will not take them”.

Later in the afternoon, Mr Ortberg told an investor call “there is not a day that goes by that we’re not engaged with either cabinet secretaries or either POTUS himself (President Trump) regarding the trade war between China and the USA.”

He added he was “very hopeful we’ll get to some negotiations”.

On Wednesday, America’s Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told the International Monetary Fund (IMF) conference there was an opportunity for a “big deal” between the US and China on trade.

Asked about an upcoming meeting between the countries, Bessent said it would be an “incredible opportunity” to strike an agreement, if China was “serious” on making its economy less dependent on manufacturing exports.

Mr Ortberg also told investors others in the Boeing supply chain were now exposed to tariffs – mainly in Japan and Italy where universal tariffs of 10% are being implemented.

Brian West, Boeing’s chief financial officer said during the call “free trade policy is very important to us” and Boeing will continue to work to with suppliers to ensure continuity.

Boeing has reported smaller losses for the first quarter of the year after it manufactured and delivered more planes.

Production had slumped in 2024 due to a series of crises and a strike by about 30,000 American factory workers.

It wants to increase output of its 737 MAX jets to 38 a month in 2025.

An Australian politician has been convicted of supplying drugs after he initially dismissed a video showing him snorting a white substance as a “deepfake”.

Former South Australian Liberal party leader David Speirs was fined A$9,000 (£4311; $5,720) and ordered to complete 37.5 hours of community service by an Adelaide court on Thursday.

Speirs was arrested in September after footage of him snorting off a plate was published by News Corp. He initially denied wrongdoing and reportedly told the news outlet it was a “deepfake” and that he had never used cocaine.

However, he later admitted that was a lie and the ensuing scandal and charges led to his resignation from parliament.

Last month, Speirs pleaded guilty to supplying cocaine to two men in August.

Speirs’ defence said he used drugs “as a form of escapism” from the stress of his work, but the offences did not occur in a work capacity.

The case had sparked intense media scrutiny, with prosecutors arguing that it was in the public’s interest given Speirs’ senior position in politics.

His lawyer had previously asked the court not to record the conviction so his client could travel overseas, but the magistrate said the offences were “too serious”.

“The need for public denunciation for this type of offending and the need for general deterrence is too great to refrain from recording a conviction,” magistrate Brian Nitschke said on Thursday.

Nitschke acknowledged Speirs’ defence that the offences occurred during a time of stress but added it was “certainly no excuse”.

Speirs stepped into the role of South Australia’s Liberal leader in 2022 and had served 10 years as a member of parliament.

He did not speak to media after his sentencing.

India has announced measures targeting Pakistan, a day after 26 people were killed by gunmen at a Himalayan tourist attraction in Indian-administered Kashmir.

They include the closure of the main border crossing linking the two countries, the suspension of a landmark water-sharing treaty, the expulsion of diplomats and an order for some Pakistani visa holders to leave within 48 hours.

Pakistani officials, who have denied the country’s role in the attack, are meeting on Thursday to come up with a response, its foreign minister said.

The attack in Pahalgam was one of the deadliest in recent memory for the restive region – and is threatening to aggravate already icy bilateral ties.

India and Pakistan both claim Kashmir in full but control it only in parts. Since India’s partition and the creation of Pakistan in 1947, the nuclear-armed neighbours have fought wars over the territory.

The Indian government has responded furiously to the attack and has signalled it holds Pakistan indirectly responsible. India has long accused successive governments in Islamabad of supporting armed groups in the region, which Pakistan strongly denies.

“Those behind this heinous act will be brought to justice,” Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi said in a post on X. “Our resolve to fight terrorism is unshakable and it will get even stronger.”

India also said it would suspend the Indus Water Treaty – a treaty that has been in place since 1960 and survived decades of hostile diplomacy.

The treaty gives India control over the eastern rivers, and Pakistan the western ones, of the Indus river and its tributaries. The agreement stipulates that India must, with few exceptions, allow water from the western rivers to flow downstream into Pakistan.

Indian security agencies believe a group called the Kashmir Resistance was behind the attack, though BBC News has not independently verified that.

A manhunt for the gunmen responsible was continuing on Wednesday evening.

Pakistan’s government said its National Security Council – the country’s highest military and security body – would meet on Thursday.

In the aftermath of the Pahalgam attack, the Pakistani foreign ministry said it was “concerned at the loss of tourists’ lives” and expressed condolences.

Under the measures announced by India on Wednesday, Pakistani military advisers based at the Delhi embassy were told to leave immediately, and more diplomatic expulsions are planned for next week, a statement said.

The Pahalgam attack risks reigniting long-running tensions between the nuclear-armed rivals.

Earlier, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh also signalled India’s response would go beyond targeting the perpetrators.

He said: “We will not only reach those who have perpetrated this incident but also those who, sitting behind the scenes, have conspired to commit such acts on the soil of India.”

The attack has been widely condemned by international leaders and has generated outrage and mourning in India.

Eyewitnesses have described chaotic and bloody scenes as holidaymakers including entire families fled for their lives.

Some witnesses said it appeared the gunmen targeted non-Muslims but others have described the shooting as random.

Most of the victims were Hindu men, though a local Muslim man was among the victims.

“We cannot get over the fact that such an incident has occurred, and that too in the place we call heaven on earth,” Akib Chaya, a hotel owner and a member of the Kashmir Chamber of Commerce, told BBC’s Newshour.

“Tourists have been coming to Kashmir since the last three or four decades and they have never been touched.”

India’s government has not given an official account on whether people were targeted on the basis of religion.

Mahmoud Abbas has called Hamas “sons of dogs” in a fiery speech in which he demanded the group release the hostages it is still holding, disarm, and hand over control of Gaza in order to end the war with Israel.

The president of the Palestinian Authority told a meeting in the occupied West Bank that Hamas had given Israel “excuses” to continue its attacks on Gaza, and told it to “release the hostages and be done with it”.

The remarks were the strongest against the group that the president has delivered since the war began 18 months ago.

A Hamas official condemned what he called Abbas’s “derogatory language” towards “a significant proportion… of his own people”.

Last week, the group rejected an Israeli proposal for a new ceasefire in Gaza, which included a demand to disarm in return for a six-week pause in hostilities and the release of 10 of the 59 remaining hostages.

Hamas reiterated that it would hand over all of the hostages in exchange for an end to the war and a full Israeli withdrawal. It also ruled out giving up its weapons.

The PA, which is led by Abbas and dominated by his Fatah movement, has only governed parts of the West Bank since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007, a year after it won legislative elections.

The PA’s leadership has regularly insisted it is ready to take over running post-war Gaza. But it has been criticised by Palestinians for not speaking out enough or taking effective action.

Abbas lashed out at Hamas in furious speech to a meeting of the Palestinian Central Council in Ramallah.

“Hamas has given the criminal occupation [Israel] excuses to commit its crimes in the Gaza Strip, the most prominent being the holding of hostages,” he said.

“Sons of dogs, just release whoever you’re holding and be done with it. Shut down their excuses and spare us.”

The president also said Hamas must “hand over” responsibility for Gaza and its weapons to the PA, and transform into a political party.

A member of Hamas’s political bureau, Bassem Naim, criticised Abbas’s decision to “describe a significant and integral part of his own people using derogatory language”, according to AFP news agency.

“Abbas repeatedly and suspiciously lays the blame for the crimes of the occupation and its ongoing aggression on our people,” he added.

Hamas and the PA have been bitterly divided for decades, with their rift ensuring that no unified Palestinian leadership in both the West Bank and Gaza has been able to emerge.

Abbas, 89, is seen as an irrelevance by many Palestinians.

He has remained in power without election for many years, presiding over a PA that is seen by its critics as ineffective at best and corrupt at worst. Hamas has essentially accused it of collaborating with Israel.

In a separate development on Wednesday, Hamas’s military wing released a video showing the Israel-Hungarian hostage Omri Miran, 48, in an underground tunnel.

“On the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day, when we say ‘Never Again,’ an Israeli citizen cries out for help from Hamas’ tunnels. It is a moral failure for the State of Israel,” his family said in a statement.

Israel started blocking all deliveries of humanitarian aid and commercial supplies to Gaza on 2 March and resumed its offensive two weeks later, saying that the pressure would force Hamas to release the remaining hostages.

Since then, at least 1,928 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

On Tuesday night, 10 people were killed in an Israeli air strike on a school in the north-eastern Tuffah neighbourhood of Gaza City that was being used as a shelter for displaced families, according to the Hamas-run Civil Defence agency.

A woman who was living at the school with her husband, children and grandchildren said they were asleep when the attack happened.

“We woke up to fire surrounding us from all sides. My daughters suffered burns on their hands and legs. One of the women with us was taken to the hospital, but we still don’t know what her condition is,” she told BBC Arabic’s Gaza Lifeline programme. “Several young people were burned alive.”

“This war has dragged on for nearly two years now. And what has it brought us? Just more death, more suffering,” she added.

The Civil Defence said its first responders also recovered another four bodies from attacks on two homes in the same area.

The Israeli military said on Wednesday that it struck “a gathering of terrorists operating within a Hamas and [Palestinian] Islamic Jihad command and control centre” in the area of the school.

It accused Hamas of using civilians as human shields – an allegation that the group has repeatedly denied.

The UN meanwhile warned that the 52-day Israeli blockade had deprived Gaza’s 2.1 million population of “the basic necessities for human survival”. It has reported a rise in malnutrition and severe shortages of medicines at hospitals.

On Wednesday, the foreign ministers of the UK, France and Germany called on Israel to end the blockade, saying it was “intolerable”.

“We urge Israel to immediately restart a rapid and unimpeded flow of humanitarian aid to Gaza in order to meet the needs of all civilians,” said a joint statement.

They also described as “unacceptable” Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz’s “recent comments politicising humanitarian aid and Israeli plans to remain in Gaza after the war”, adding that Israel was bound under international law to allow aid deliveries.

The Israeli foreign ministry rejected the allegation that aid was being politicised.

It also insisted that the country was acting in full accordance with international law and that there was “no shortage of aid in Gaza” because 25,000 aid lorries had entered during the recent two-month ceasefire.

“Israel is fighting Hamas, which steals humanitarian aid, uses it to rebuild its war machine, and hides behind civilians,” a statement said.

“Hamas started this war, and Hamas is responsible for its continuation and for the suffering of both Palestinians and Israelis. The war can end tomorrow if the hostages are released and Hamas lays down its weapons,” it added.

The Israeli military launched a campaign to destroy Hamas in response to an unprecedented cross-border attack on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

More than 51,300 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory’s health ministry.

In Quebec, the issue of independence from Canada has long simmered. But faced with US tariffs and President Donald Trump’s comments about making Canada the 51st US state, many voters are now seeking unity.

Suzanne Dumont knows who she will vote for in Canada’s election, though it’s a decision made “not from my heart, it’s from my head”.

The 70-year-old from Quebec City considers herself a sovereigntist, but hopes when Canadians go to the polls on Monday they’ll elect a majority government to take on Trump.

The Bloc Québécois, a federal party that supports independence and only runs candidates in the predominantly French-speaking province, can’t deliver on that, she says.

Supporting the Conservatives is “unthinkable” to Ms Dumont, so this time she will be voting Liberal.

In Montreal, Louis Plouffe is picking up groceries at the city’s Jean-Talon market.

He tells the BBC that he thinks the Bloc “defends Quebec’s interests well” as an opposition party in Parliament. Still, “it’s not being in power”, the 65-year-old says, and he wants a government with a strong mandate “ready for the wave that’s coming” from the US.

And while Mr Plouffe has reservations about the Liberal leader, he believes Mark Carney has come across as credible and confident in interviews. He too will vote for the party.

“Canadian patriotism is on the rise in Quebec”, said Émilie Foster, an adjunct professor in politics at Carleton University. “We prefer to be part of Canada instead of being part of the United States, if we have to choose,” she says.

Sébastien Dallaire, a pollster with Léger, puts it this way: “It’s hard to say now is the time to talk about Quebec sovereignty, or now is the time to do things specifically to defend Quebec, when clearly there’s a national crisis and everybody is staring not at Ottawa as the adversary, but as Washington as the clear opponent.”

A recent Léger survey suggests that almost 40% of voters for the Bloc believe an independent Quebec would have less influence than Canada as a whole in dealing with the US.

The Liberals are currently polling at about 46% in the province, with the Bloc a distant second at 25%, slightly ahead of the Conservatives, who have long struggled to gain real traction there.

Quebec can be a wildcard in general elections, and winning the province – which holds 78 seats of the 343 in the House of Commons – can propel a party to power.

The abandonment of smaller parties – like the Bloc, the left-leaning New Democrats or the Green Party – is a trend seen nationwide as Canadians rally around either the Liberals or the Conservatives in the face of a new threat from their neighbour.

Carney, a former central banker for Canada and the UK, is seeking to paint himself as the leader most able to help the country navigate the crisis. Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre is billing himself as the change candidate who can restore the “Canadian promise”.

It has been a remarkable election campaign, one sparked by the resignation of longtime Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then overshadowed by an unprecedented intervention from an American president which transformed the state of the race.

Trump’s tariffs are expected to hit Quebec especially hard. The province is one of the biggest suppliers to the US of aluminium, a sector hit by Trump’s 25% tariffs. Its significant forestry and dairy industries are also in the president’s sights.

Quebec also fiercely protects its identity and its culture as a distinct society, and has twice held referendums on whether to seek independence from the rest of Canada. That’s why the US president’s repeated digs at Canada’s sovereignty has sparked such disquiet here.

Bloc MP Louis-Philippe Sauvé, a former political aide, is fighting to hold on to the seat he won just last September in a special election in the southwest Montreal riding of LaSalle-Émard-Verdun – an upset victory in a district considered a Liberal stronghold.

The riding is historically working-class, and in recent years parts have become some of the trendiest in the city.

Gentrification has brought pressures, and Sauvé tells the BBC during a pause while campaigning that issues like housing, homelessness and immigration all come up as he goes door-knocking, just as they did six months ago.

“That’s all still there, but for sure this general election is very much monopolised by challenges posed by the US, the Canada-US relationship,” he says. “That’s really what everyone’s talking about.”

He admits some frustration that it’s become the “ballot box question”.

“Trump won’t be president of the United States for eternity,” he adds. “The housing crisis will still be a problem in the next few years.”

• What Trump really wants from Canada
• Who’s who in Canada’s federal election
• What did Canadian voters make of the big debate?
• ‘My home is worth millions – but young people are priced out of this city’

The Bloc’s struggles come despite a consensus that party leader Yves-François Blanchet hasn’t had many stumbles in the campaign.

His pitch is that the party can be a check on federal powers, warning that Ottawa might sell out provincial interests if push comes to shove in trade and security talks with the US, which are expected to launch shortly after the 28 April election.

And in a number of ways, Carney is also an unusual choice for Quebec voters. Born in western Canada, his French can be shaky – usually a political liability in the province.

Even Trudeau, widely viewed as bilingual, faced scrutiny over his linguistic abilities. Carney has given his own French a six out of 10. Ms Dumont said she would “never” rate him that high.

Carney has also come out against sensitive issues for many Quebecers, including saying that a Liberal government would intervene if a bill that expands French-language requirements in the province were challenged at the Supreme Court.

“I have a hard time explaining the lack of reaction by Quebecers,” says Bloc MP Sauvé of Carney’s enduring popularity in the province. “It’s like there is a Teflon effect.”

The Liberal candidate in the riding, Claude Guay – the former CEO of IBM Canada who is taking his first run at politics – says Quebecers have taken notice of things like Trump signing an executive order making English America’s official language. (French is Quebec’s official language, while Canada is officially bilingual.)

“The threat of the 51st state, for example, really impacts the opinions of people that may have been sovereigntist and they’re thinking: ‘Well, do we have a better place in Canada?'” he says.

Still, no one suggests that the issue of Quebec sovereignty has been settled. About 30% of Quebecers currently back independence even as some are opting to vote with the Liberals this election.

For Mr Plouffe, the shopper at the Montreal market, however, now is just not the time to take the leap.

“It’s not saying it won’t happen, and I won’t say I won’t support it. But we’re not ready,” he says.

“Out! Out! Out!”

The voice in the Telegram video is insistent. Loud. Sometimes musical.

And the message unambiguous.

“All of Hamas, out!”

On the streets of Gaza, more and more Palestinians are expressing open defiance against the armed group that’s ruled the strip for almost 20 years.

Many hold Hamas responsible for plunging the tiny, impoverished territory into the worst crisis faced by Palestinians in more than 70 years.

“Deliver the message,” another crowd chants, as it surges through Gaza’s devastated streets: “Hamas is garbage.”

“The world is deceived by the situation in the Gaza Strip,” says Moumen al-Natour, a Gaza lawyer and former political prisoner who’s long been a vocal critic of Hamas.

Al-Natour spoke to us from the shattered remains of his city, the flimsy canvas side of the tent which now forms part of his house billowing behind him.

“The world thinks that Gaza is Hamas and Hamas is Gaza,” he said. “We didn’t choose Hamas and now Hamas is determined to rule Gaza and tie our fate to its own. Hamas must retreat. “

Speaking out is dangerous. Hamas has never tolerated dissent. Al-Natour seems undaunted, writing a furious column for the Washington Post at the end of March.

“To support Hamas is to be for Palestinian death,” he wrote, “not Palestinian freedom”.

Wasn’t it dangerous to speak out in this way, I asked him.

“We need to take a risk and speak out,” he replied without hesitation.

“I’m 30 years old. When Hamas took over, I was 11. What have I done with my life? My life has been wasted between war and escalating violence for nothing.”

Since Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007 by violently ousting political rivals, a year after winning national elections, there have been three major wars with Israel and two smaller conflicts.

“Humanity demands that we raise our voices,” al-Natour said, “despite suppression by Hamas”.

Hamas may be busy fighting Israel, but it’s not afraid to punish its critics.

At the end of March, 22-year old Oday al-Rubai was abducted by armed gunmen from a refugee shelter in Gaza City.

Hours later, his body was found covered in horrific wounds.

The Palestinian Independent Commission for Human Rights said Oday had been tortured, calling his death “a grave violation of the right to life and an extrajudicial killing”.

Al-Rubai had participated in recent anti-Hamas protests. His family blamed Hamas for his death and demanded justice.

Days earlier, a frightened al-Rubai posted a dark, grainy video on social media in which he expressed his fear that Hamas militants were coming for him.

“Gaza has become a city of ghosts,” he said, glancing over his shoulder.

“I’m stranded in the street, not knowing where to go. I don’t know why they’re after me. They destroyed us and brought ruin to us.”

At his funeral, a small crowd demanded revenge and repeated demands for Hamas to get out of Gaza.

Last summer, Amin Abed almost suffered the same fate, following his decision to speak out against Hamas.

Masked militants beat him senseless, broke bones all over his body and damaged his kidneys. Abed survived but had to seek medical treatment abroad.

Now living in Dubai, he’s still involved in the protest movement, and believes that Hamas’ authority is diminished.

“Hamas’ power has begun to fade,” he told me.

“It targets activists and civilians, beats and kills them to scare people. But it’s not how it was before.”

Before the ceasefire collapsed last month, Hamas fighters seemed intent on highly visible displays of power.

But now, with Israel once again attacking relentlessly, the same gunmen have retreated underground and Gaza’s civilians have been plunged back into the misery of war.

Some of the more recent protests suggest that civilians, driven to the edge of madness by a year and a half of Israeli bombardment, are losing their fear of Hamas.

Beit Lahiya, at the northern end of the Gaza Strip, has seen some of the most vociferous opposition.

In a series of voice notes, an eyewitness – who asked not to be named – described several recent incidents in which local residents prevented Hamas fighters from carrying out military actions from inside their community.

On 13 April, he said, Hamas gunmen tried to force their way into the house of an elderly man, Jamal al-Maznan.

“They wanted to launch rockets and pipes [a derogatory term used for some of Hamas’ home-made projectiles] from inside his house,” the eyewitness told us.

“But he refused.”

The incident soon escalated, with relatives and neighbours all coming to al-Maznan’s defence. The gunmen opened fire, injuring several people, but eventually were driven out.

“They were not intimidated by the bullets,” the eyewitness said of the protesters.

“They advanced and told [the gunmen] to take their things and flee. We don’t want you in this place. We don’t want your weapons that have brought us destruction, devastation and death.”

Elsewhere in Gaza, protesters have told militants to stay away from hospitals and schools, to avoid situations in which civilians are caught up in Israeli air strikes.

But such defiance is still risky. In Gaza City, Hamas shot one such protester dead.

With little to lose and hopes of an end to the war dashed once more, some Gazans direct their fury equally at Israel and Hamas.

Asked which side he blamed most for Gaza’s catastrophe, Amin Abed said it was “a choice between cholera and the plague”.

The protest movement of recent weeks is not yet a rebellion, but after almost 20 years of rule Hamas’ iron grip on Gaza is slowly slipping.

Andrew Flintoff has given his first account of the car crash he was in while filming Top Gear, saying he thought he “was dead” in the immediate aftermath.

The England cricketer-turned-TV presenter sustained serious facial and rib injuries when the three-wheeler car he was driving for the BBC motoring programme rolled over in 2022.

Speaking in a new Disney+ documentary, ‘Freddie’ Flintoff said that despite the trauma, he “remembers everything about it”.

“I thought I was dead, because I was conscious but I couldn’t see anything,” he recalled.

“I was thinking, is that it? Is that it? You know what I mean? Just black for the rest of my days?

“My hat came over my eyes – so I pulled my hat up and I thought, no I’m not [dead], I’m on the Top Gear track, this is not heaven.”

Flintoff then looked down to see blood, and said his “biggest fear” was that he no longer had a face left.

“I thought my face had come off. I was frightened to death.”

He recalled being in “agony” for between half an hour and 40 minutes until an air ambulance arrived and he was taken to hospital.

The incident took place on 13 December 2022 at Top Gear’s test track at Dunsfold Park Aerodrome in Surrey.

He was driving an open-topped Morgan Super 3 when it flipped and slid, dragging him along the track during filming.

Speaking in the documentary, he described how time seemed to slow down as the car rolled over, and how his quick reactions as a cricketer allowed him to move his head in an attempt to avoid even worse injuries.

“As it started going over, I looked at the ground and I knew, if I get hit here on the side [of the head] then I’ll break my neck, or if I get hit on the temple I’m dead. The best chance is to go face down.

“And then I remember hitting [the ground] and my head got hit,” he added. “But then I got dragged out, and the car went over, and I went over the back of the car, and then [I got] pulled face down on the runway about 50m underneath the car. And then I hit the grass and then [it] flipped back.”

Surgeon Jahrad Haq, who treated Flintoff, told the documentary the injuries were “very complex” – a mixture of hard and soft tissue injuries, broken teeth, lost teeth and elements of the upper jaw bone that were also fractured and displaced.

He “lost a really significant portion of his upper lip – the skin and some of the underlying muscle – and also his lower lip,” he said.

Mr Haq said the injuries were in the “top five” in terms of severity of those he had seen during his career.

Reflecting on the recovery, Flintoff said he “didn’t think I had it in me to get through” the ordeal.

“This sounds awful. Part of me wishes I’d been killed. Part of me thinks I wish I’d died,” he added.

“I didn’t want to kill myself. I don’t want to mistake the two things. I was not wishing, but thinking, this would have been so much easier…

“Now I try to take the attitude, you know what, the sun will come up tomorrow, and then my kids will still give me a hug, and I’m probably in a better place now.”

One of England’s most successful cricketers, Flintoff previously said he is “loving” his return to the sport coaching England Lions – the development squad underneath England Men’s cricket team.

Flintoff’s wife Rachael told the documentary his return to the sport was crucial on the road to recovery.

“When Andrew needed it most, cricket was there for him,” she said. “It sounds a bit weird saying it, a bit over the top to say, but I do think cricket saved him. It gave him a reason for being, again.”

The 47-year-old also returned to television last year with a second series of his BBC programme Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams, which saw him take a team of young cricketers from his hometown of Preston on a tour of India, a year after his crash.

The acclaimed series is up for a Bafta Television Award in the factual series category next month.

He also hosted a reboot of darts game show Bullseye over Christmas, which will return for a full series later this year.

In 2023, the BBC “rested” Top Gear for the foreseeable future. A financial settlement was also reached with Flintoff.