Is vaccine sceptic RFK now the most dangerous man in the White House?

Before he set foot in 200 Independence Avenue, Washington DC, Robert F Kennedy Jr, US president Donald Trump’s secretary of health and human services, had raised more than a few eyebrows from America’s medical establishment. Around 17,000, to be precise – that’s how many doctors signed a letter from the Committee to Protect Health Care urging senators to reject his nomination, saying he was “unqualified to lead” and was “actively dangerous”.

Their petition failed. Today, Kennedy Jr, better known as RFK, is head of an agency with an almost two trillion-dollar budget and a little over 80,000 employees. On Monday, speaking from the White House, Trump and the US secretary of health and human services said women should not take acetaminophen, also known by the brand name Tylenol, “during the entire pregnancy.” It was announced that the Food and Drug Administration would begin notifying doctors that the use of acetaminophen “can be associated” with an increased risk of autism, but neither Trump or Kennedy Jr provided any peer reviewed medical evidence to support this. They also raised unfounded concerns about vaccines contributing to rising rates of autism.

“I’m absolutely speechless,” Dr. Craig Spencer, Associate Professor of the Practice of Health Services, Policy and Practice at the Brown University School of Public Health, wrote on X after the press conference announcing the administration’s claims. “Like, wow. This is the worst ‘health’ press conference I maybe have ever seen. And I watched every one during Covid. How are we doing this again???”

It was back in May when Trump unveiled The Maha (Make America Healthy Again) Report, the administration’s blueprint for “making our children healthy again”. This report reflected Kennedy’s most contentious views on vaccines, pesticides, prescription drugs, and a description of America’s children as overmedicated and undernourished.

“Never in American history has the federal government taken a position on public health like this,” Kennedy then told a group of supporters. The Washington Post reported that medical experts said some of its suggestions “stretched the limits of science”.

In an interview to coincide with its release, Kennedy said parents should be sceptical of “any medical advice” and should “do their own research” – something Kennedy critics say amounts to a dangerous rejection of scientific consensus; a call for Americans to replace peer-reviewed evidence with internet rabbit holes. As one critic noted, researching a vaccine isn’t like shopping for a toaster. But in Kennedy’s world, health policy becomes a choose-your-own-adventure, and critics say the consequences for public trust and child health are real.

The mission of Kennedy’s Department of Health and Human Services is to “enhance the health and wellbeing of all Americans by providing for effective health and human services and by fostering sound, sustained advances in the sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services”.

Yet Kennedy is one of America’s leading vaccine conspiracy theorists, even campaigning against the Covid shot designed to help stem the tide of a disease that has killed more than seven million worldwide. In 2021, Instagram disabled his account for repeatedly sharing debunked claims about the vaccine.

Since releasing the report, which cited hundreds of studies, critics have found that some of those studies did not actually exist, something which was then acknowledged by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt. However, while she told reporters that the report would be updated, she doubled in her defence of RFK’s vision, saying: “It does not negate the substance of the report, which, as you know, is one of the most transformative health reports that has ever been released by the federal government.”

The rise of the so-called Maha movement within the Trump administration is, according to its some, a chilling embrace of figures and ideologies that undermine established public health principles.

Trump also announced his nominee for surgeon general: Casey Means, a medical doctor who dropped out of her surgical residency due to disillusionment with healthcare and who subsequently chose to practise functional medicine, a form of alternative medicine, and is now known for her “wellness” advocacy.

Among Kennedy’s many claims: that vaccines cause autism; that psychiatric drugs cause mass shootings; that HIV is not the cause of Aids and instead it’s due to recreational drug use. He has said Covid was “targeted to attack caucasians and Black people” and argued that exposure to pesticides is a cause of gender dysphoria.

During a televised town hall earlier this year, he claimed, without evidence, that Darpa, the US Defence Department’s research and development arm, is spraying Americans with chemicals via jet fuel, reviving long-debunked “chemtrail” conspiracy theories. He has also made controversial statements about raw milk and fluoride in drinking water (Florida governor Ron DeSantis just signed a bill banning the addition of fluoride to public water supplies, making Florida only the second state to outlaw a practice long considered a cornerstone of public health).

Since taking office, Kennedy has fired 10,000 staffers – before admitting some programmes were mistakenly cut and would be reinstated. A couple of weeks back, he appeared before Congress to ask for less money for the agency, planning drastic cuts in line with Trump’s agenda.

Like Kennedy, Casey Means is sceptical about vaccine safety and calls for more research on their cumulative effects, despite there being no evidence that the current Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) schedule is unsafe.

Timothy Caulfield is a health law and science policy professor at the University of Alberta in Canada, and an expert in debunking pseudoscience in wellness culture. He is convinced the Maha movement at the centre of the US government will do harm for generations to come. “Their erosion in trust in scientific institutions is tremendously damaging,” Caulfield says.

Following the disruption of the Trump administration, it was reported that 75 per cent of scientists who responded to a survey in Nature were planning to leave the country, with Europe and Canada among the top choices for relocation.

“One of my greatest fears is the degree to which they’re undermining institutions like the National Institutes of Health and the CDC, which is going to make it more difficult to point to the truth,” Caulfield says. “[Kennedy’s] resurrection of the lie around vaccines and autism is a really good example of this because he tries to position himself and his team as being on the high ground.”

There have been more measles cases in the US during the first three months of 2025 than in all of 2024, according to the CDC. However, Kennedy has downplayed the seriousness of infections, actions experts see as damaging confidence in vaccines.

The roots of this scepticism lie with former British doctor Andrew Wakefield. Wakefield was struck off the UK medical register after his 1998 paper suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism sparked a major health scare. I interviewed Wakefield some years ago and he remained defiant, despite his discredited idea that there’s an autism-vaccine link. His distrust of the medical establishment has found a new platform in Maha.

Caulfield adds that having people who trained as medical doctors can make the movement seem more legitimate. He points to Dr Mehmet Oz, a TV staple of American daytime television, who Trump recently nominated as the administrator for Medicare and Medicaid, government programmes that provide health insurance for pensioners and people on low incomes. “Dr Oz almost made it noble to open your mind to embracing fringe ideas and disproven ideas,” Caulfield says. Oz has promoted the antimalarial hydroxychloroquine as a cure for Covid.

If Kennedy, Means and Dr Oz are the political wing of the Maha movement, the “crunchy mums” are its foot soldiers.

A loosely defined but increasingly vocal group, they’re just as likely to be found on Instagram as in a food co-op, posting about raw milk, cloth diapers, or the dangers of seed oils. But what began as a subculture rooted in environmentalism and food equity has morphed into a more politicised movement that blends wellness, parental autonomy, and deep mistrust of mainstream medicine. And Kennedy is their leader.

His anti-establishment rhetoric against Big Pharma, food additives, and what he sees as the corrupt medical-industrial complex, has found fertile ground among mothers who feel dismissed or ridiculed by conventional health authorities. For them, it’s about reasserting control over their families’ health in a system they no longer trust. Kennedy speaks their language and validates their deepest fears.

But his critics warn of the real-world consequences of promoting medical misinformation.

Jonathan Jarry is a science communicator with McGill University’s Office for Science and Society. He says RFK is part of a much larger wellness movement that has, for many years now, told people what they should blame for their health problems.

“Basically, modernity itself has been turned into the bogeyman,” Jarry says. “Everything that screams modernity, like pesticides and food dyes and even vaccines. Anything that your grandma didn’t have access to.”

But, Jarry says, there’s always a kernel of truth buried inside the messaging from Maha – that’s what makes it so effective. Of course, there are issues with ultra-processed foods. And so when people hear RFK and other Maha leaders identify a problem, it often has a ring of truth to it. “People say, ‘Finally he’s talking about this thing we knew was bad,’” Jarry says. “But the problem is that the solution they’re offering is completely wrong. That’s what happens when you have somebody who says, ‘I see your pain and I know what’s causing it; I know what we can blame for this, so follow me and together we will enact the right solutions even when those solutions are completely pseudo-scientific.’”

Jarry says we know what it takes to be healthy, and none of this is revolutionary. Of course, there’s a kernel of truth in the idea that corporations don’t necessarily have our best interests at heart. “But [Kennedy] will demonise the entire pharmaceutical industry and anybody who works in health regulation or vaccine development. And that can be appealing to people looking at these giant institutions that are raking in millions and millions of dollars, thinking there’s something wrong there.”

Dr Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine and an expert on vaccines, told Mother Jones magazine that he was deeply concerned that the vaccine ecosystem “could collapse and we could see polio in the wastewater and the return of regular measles and pertussis outbreaks”.

Jarry says he shares Hotez’s fear. “I think that it is very likely that we’re going to see a resurgence of vaccine-preventable illnesses. We’re already seeing what’s happening with measles and there’s going to be more. And unfortunately, these diseases don’t stop at the border. And so there will be ripple effects on other countries throughout the world.

“Add to that the complete evisceration of the biomedical research funding apparatus in the United States … and [I think] we’re going to go backwards to a time when these infections were spreading routinely and people are going to suffer and die for no good reason. And this is what’s really horrifying.”

Reform plan to crack down on migration dubbed ‘unworkable stunt’

Tens of thousands of people who have legally settled in Britain could be at risk of deportation under plans by Reform UK to scrap the main route towards British citizenship – a policy that was immediately dismissed as “an unworkable stunt based on dodgy maths”.

Nigel Farage said the current option of indefinite leave to remain – open to those who have lived and worked in Britain for five years – has “betrayed democracy” and vowed to abolish it.

The plans were condemned by migration charities and think tanks, as well as the care industry, which warned of crippling labour shortages.

Doubt was also cast over Mr Farage’s claim that savings from the policy would be “considerably larger” than the £230bn once suggested by the Centre for Policy Studies (CPS), despite the think tank having since said its figure should no longer be used.

And despite the Reform leader’s claims the proposals would cut Britain’s welfare bill, it has emerged that EU citizens would be exempted from plans to ban all migrants from receiving benefits. This means only 2.7 per cent of universal credit claimants would be affected by Reform’s clampdown.

Josephine Whitaker-Yilmaz, head of advocacy at charity Praxis, warned the proposals would “tank our already-struggling economy, by disrupting the lives of millions of people who’ve been living and working legally in the UK for many years”.

Ben Brindle, a researcher at the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, questioned Mr Farage’s statement that half of those who have migrated to the UK are not working.

And Sunder Katwala, director of British Future, said: “Threatening to revoke the settled status of millions who already have indefinite leave is morally wrong, beyond the legal and practical chaos it would cause – it undermines the very idea of belonging in this country.”

Mr Farage told reporters his plans would target the “Boris-wave” – the wave of legal immigrants who arrived under post-Brexit rules created by Boris Johnson.

“Half the ‘Boris-wave’ migrants do not work, and never will,” he said. “At least 800,000 of them will shortly qualify for indefinite leave to remain, which gives them lifetime access to our welfare state. This is a scam on the British people perpetrated by the Tory party. Reform will avert this crisis.”

But Mr Brindle said: “It does seem from the existing – patchy – data that more than half are working. As for the ‘will never work’ part of it, I’m not sure what the basis of any prediction about the future would be. Generally we see that employment rates go up over time for the groups who do worse in the labour market, such as family members.”

Asked if the plans would also target those from Hong Kong and Ukraine, who came to Britain under government schemes, a visibly irritated Mr Farage responded: “800,000 people are due to qualify for indefinite leave to remain over the course of the next few years. This press conference is to say none of them will get it. Thank you.”

In a policy document, Reform said the £230bn savings figure would be achieved by “taking decisive action on immigration and welfare”.

But the CPS, which first came up with the figure, said “overall cost estimates should no longer be used” after the Office for Budget Responsibility “revised their definitions of some of the fiscal data contained within our report”.

Asked to address the CPS’ statement, Mr Farage said: “The £230bn figure, as Zia [Yusuf, head of policy] has just said, that is without a doubt too low. It underestimates things, I suspect many more than 800,000 actually will apply for indefinite leave to remain, plus it’s quite tough to get all the figures.

“And if you go back to those who have already been granted indefinite leave to remain, without doubt the number is considerably bigger.”

Ms Whitaker-Yilmaz said: “As is becoming the norm with Reform, these proposals are nothing but an unworkable stunt based on dodgy maths. But let’s be clear what this boils down to: Reform do not want foreigners here. Indefinite leave to remain is crucial: it enables people to put down roots in their communities and fulfil their potential, and brings them a step closer to gaining British citizenship.”

Meanwhile, Nadra Ahmed, executive chair of the National Care Association, said Reform “do not understand the value of social care”.

“More worryingly they seem out of step with their own councillors,” she told The Independent, referring to Linden Kemkaran, leader of Reform-run Kent council, who wrote to the Home Office criticising government plans to tighten visas for health and care workers.

Labour Party chair Anna Turley added: “Farage is unable to say how many families his policy would break up, what the cost to businesses would be, what would happen to pensioners and how long it would take to implement – basic questions that any serious political party would know the answers to before making an announcement like this.”

And Nicola Ranger, general secretary of the Royal College of Nursing, said the plans are “abhorrent beyond words”, adding: “These are people who have come to the UK to care for patients and become part of our communities. They deserve so much better than this.”

She continued: “It shows neither compassion nor an understanding of the fundamental role our brilliant migrant nursing staff play in health and care. Without them, services would simply cease to function.”

Duchess of York dropped as patron by multiple charities over leaked Epstein emails

Seven charities have dropped the Duchess of York as patron after leaked emails appeared to show her apologising to paedophile Jeffrey Epstein for disowning him.

Children’s hospice Julia’s House announced the move on Monday, followed by food allergy charity The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, Prevent Breast Cancer, the Teenage Cancer Trust and the British Heart Foundation.

Both the National Foundation for Retired Service Animals (NFRSA) and the Children’s Literacy Trust have also reportedly dropped Sarah Ferguson, according to the BBC.

Their decisions came after it emerged that Ms Ferguson had called Epstein a “steadfast, generous and supreme friend”, according to a leaked email dated 26 April 2011 – just weeks after she told reporters she would “never have anything to do with” the convicted sex offender again.

A spokesperson for the duchess previously said she had sent the email only in an attempt to “assuage Epstein and his threats”, claiming he had threatened to sue her for defamation for her comments in the media.

Julia’s House said in a statement issued to The Independent: “Following the information shared this weekend on the Duchess of York’s correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein, Julia’s House has taken the decision that it would be inappropriate for her to continue as a patron of the charity. We have advised the Duchess of York of this decision and thank her for her past support.”

The Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, which was launched after teenager Natasha Ednan-Laperouse died from a severe allergic reaction to eating a baguette, had asked the duchess to become a patron when it was founded in 2019.

In a statement, founders Nadim and Tanya Ednan-Laperouse said: “We were disturbed to read of Sarah, Duchess of York’s, correspondence with Jeffrey Epstein.

“Sarah Ferguson has not been actively involved with the charity for some years. She was a patron, but in the light of the recent revelations, we have taken the decision that it would be inappropriate for her to continue to be associated with the charity.

“We would like to thank her for her kindness and support in the past.”

Prevent Breast Cancer said in a statement: “The Duchess of York is no longer a patron of Prevent Breast Cancer. We have advised her of this decision and thank her for her past support.”

The Teenage Cancer Trust also announced it had dropped The Duchess of York as a patron, a spokeswoman said.

“We have made the decision to end our relationship with the Duchess of York, and as of today she is no longer a patron of Teenage Cancer Trust. We have communicated this decision to the duchess,” they said.

“We would like to thank the Duchess of York for her support.”

A spokesperson for the British Heart Foundation said: “Sarah, Duchess of York, is no longer serving as an ambassador for the British Heart Foundation.

“We are grateful for the duchess’ support for our work and thank her for her past efforts to help us save and improve lives by funding pioneering research into cardiovascular disease.”

The Children’s Literacy Trust issued a statement which read: “Given the recent information which has come to light about the Duchess of York and Jeffrey Epstein, the Children’s Literacy Charity has asked the Duchess of York to step down from her role as Patron.

“We are grateful for the Duchess of York’s support for children’s literacy over the years but now feel it would be inappropriate for her to continue as Patron of the charity.”

The leaked email, first reported by the Sun on Sunday and the Daily Mail, reportedly showed that the duchess had “humbly apologised” to Epstein for linking him to paedophilia in the media, before lathering him with praise about his strength and generosity.

The duchess gave an interview to the Evening Standard on 7 March 2011 in which she apologised for accepting £15,000 from Epstein. She went on to issue what appeared at the time to be a heartfelt apology for her association with the disgraced financier, who died in prison eight years later in 2019.

“I abhor paedophilia and any sexual abuse of children and know that this was a gigantic error of judgment on my behalf. I am just so contrite I cannot say,” the duchess told the newspaper. “Whenever I can, I will repay the money and have nothing ever to do with Jeffrey Epstein ever again.”

Little over a month later, reports suggest the duchess sent an email from her private account to the convicted paedophile, apologising and telling him she had felt “broken and lost” after being told not to associate with him.

The email is reported to have read: “I know you feel hellaciously let down by me. And I must humbly apologise to you and your heart for that. You have always been a steadfast, generous and supreme friend to me and my family. I am apologising to you today for not replying to your email or reaching out to you.

“I was bedridden with fear. I was paralysed. I was advised, in no uncertain terms, to have nothing to do with you and to not speak or email you. And if I did – I would cause more problems to you, the duke and myself. I was broken and lost. So please understand. I didn’t want to hurt Andrew one more time. I was in overriding fear. I am sorry.”

The duchess’s spokesperson has said she was “taken in by his lies” and sent the email only to avoid the threat of defamation.

They said: “The duchess spoke of her regret about her association with Epstein many years ago, and as they have always been, her first thoughts are with his victims.

“Like many people, she was taken in by his lies. As soon as she was aware of the extent of the allegations against him, she not only cut off contact but condemned him publicly, to the extent that he then threatened to sue her for defamation for associating him with paedophilia. She does not resile from anything she said then.

“This email was sent in the context of advice the duchess was given to try to assuage Epstein and his threats.”

Epstein was found dead in his cell at a federal jail in Manhattan in August 2019 while he awaited trial on sex-trafficking charges. The death was ruled a suicide.

The charities’ removal of Ms Ferguson from her position comes just days after former UK ambassador to the US, Peter Mandelson, was sacked by prime minister Sir Keir Starmer on 11 September, after correspondence emerged showing the Labour grandee expressing support for Epstein.

Why Gen X parents like me are having more sex than our Gen Z kids

Sex, drugs and rock’n’roll was once the rightful province of the young – the latter two leading to the former – while oldies spluttered disapproval that was often rooted in jealousy. Nottingham Playhouse’s acclaimed new production, The Last Stand of Mary Whitehouse, reminds us of a lost era (the 1960s to the 1980s) when a grey-haired former art teacher generated countless headlines by fulminating against pre-marital sex, the counterculture and homosexuality.

Fast forward 50 years and now your average retired, female art teacher would have pink or platinum hair, be on HRT and quite possibly Hinge, enjoying plentiful sex without the fear of pregnancy. So dramatic is the erotic glow-up of Gen X and Boomers that a new survey from sex-toy retailer Lovehoney has just reported – shock, horror – that “grandparents and parents” are having more sex than Gen Z (the benighted tribe of youngsters aged 18 to 26).

These findings mirror the UK’s biggest and most trusted monitor of sexual behaviour Natsal (The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles), which has also reported a distinct decline in amorous liaisons among Gen Z. Nor is this an uptight British youth thing: America’s National Survey of Family Growth and France’s Fécondité-Contraception, which also use large data sets to monitor their nations’ libido, have noted identical trends. Millennials are still topping the sex charts, but their younger brothers and sisters have lost their mojo.

You don’t have to be Masters and Johnson to make an educated guess as to why this is happening. The Boomers and Gen X were the last demographics to widely afford home ownership and to benefit from long periods of low inflation, economic growth, secure employment, generous pension schemes and improved public health. We grew up believing in our sacred right to travel, leisure, exercise and partying like it’s 1999, which we duly did before and after the millennium. We refuse to grow up and have the cash to sell out Glastonbury tickets in nanoseconds. If Mick Jagger and Madonna aren’t giving up on kneetremblers, why on earth should we? Especially now we have the hormone patches and Viagra to keep going.

Generation Z are a whole different kettle of fish – I should know, I have two at home and six nieces and nephews in the same cohort. These sacrificial lambs came of age amid the mind-warping distortions of the internet age and the physical, psychological and economic ravages of the Covid pandemic.

As if that weren’t enough, they face the horrors of eco-devastation and daily news of fresh deaths in Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan. Social media made them frontline warriors in the gender wars, where hyper-fluid influencers propose up to 72 different identities, some of which scream “pathological fear of sexual intimacy”. There’s nothing new in being “asexual”, but what about “aromantic” (feeling no romantic attraction to others), “demisexual” (can only feel sexual attraction after forming a strong emotional bond) or “queerplatonic” (unusually intense same-sex friendships that are not sexual)?

But more to the point, they have grown up in an age where the normal way to meet potential mates is via dating apps. My 21-year-old student son is not unusual in thinking it’s “creepy” to chat up strangers in clubs and pubs. Also, like many of his age group, he barely drinks – which means the drunken fumbles that defined my generation’s apprenticeship in sex have become more frowned upon.

Meanwhile, apps like Tinder, Bumble and Hinge encourage a conveyor-belt, swipe-right mentality, where one fledgling romance becomes fungible with others. The young women I canvas live in dread of being liked, seduced, then ghosted – they’d rather not date at all than be treated as disposable. Often, I wonder if a young woman’s gender fluidity is more based on a mistrust of their male peers than true sexual instinct. Added to which, both sexes are aware of the pervasive influence of online porn on sexual behavior and fear that an olympic standard of erotic expertise is needed.

And if a youngster does make it through the Sexual Slough of Despond and back to their bedroom, their chances of privacy are zero. Almost everyone in this age group is either living with their parents or in a packed student dorm. Long gone are the days of squats and cheap rentals, where you could entertain your lover in the paradise of a Harrow Road bedsit, as I did circa 1991. No wonder they’re the most anxious generation since Dr Freud invented psychoanalysis: every other teen has a diagnosis of ADHD, ASD or OCD and a great number are on antidepressants, which can further dampen libido.

Instead, it’s we oldies reaping the key benefits of the topsy-turvy new sexual order. Married couples who have weathered the child-rearing years are suddenly empty-nesters who have the time and space to re-fire their sex lives. It’s not uncommon for partnered-up Gen Xers to experiment with “love drugs” like MDMA to recreate the ecstatic connections many found on the dance floor in the 1990s. Quite a few women I know have, in a similar spirit, gone on Tantra courses, or taken psilocybin (magic mushrooms) to recover their lost erotic, creative selves.

Among the older singles I know, there’s such a surge in the use of online dating sites that many 50, 60 and even 70-somethings are having second awakenings. A 61-year-old by-the-book acquaintance stumbled into a Soho bar meet-up two weeks ago with the conversation-stopper: “I had my first threesome last night, two men and one woman.” He then proceeded to tell the silenced drinkers that this encounter was his first experience of gay sex and wouldn’t be his last.

I sometimes wonder if the large swathe of oldies unleashing their libido have now frightened their offspring back into a Peter Pan-like Neversexland – just as AbFab’s Saffy became ever more puritanical in the face of her unboundaried mother, Edina. Nothing is liberating for the young about silver foxes and vixens boasting of orgasmic pleasure – if the oldies are doing it, it just becomes something you’d pay to avoid.

By setting about our own personal, late-life sexual revolution, we have grabbed young adults’ erotic oxygen and denied them space to feel they’re breaking taboos and exploring uncharted delights. We libertines may pay a sky-high price for our pleasures if our children shut up shop altogether and never reproduce.

Why the Ballon d’Or got it wrong

So now we fully transition from the Lionel Messi–Cristiano Ronaldo era to the modern equivalent of Florian Albert or Allan Simonsen.

That isn’t to be disrespectful to two genuine greats, or to the 47th player to win the Ballon d’Or, Ousmane Dembele. He, like his predecessors, at least has a good argument to claim the award.

It’s just that, as was the case way back then, it doesn’t feel like one of those victories that is going to be overly celebrated from the vantage point of the future. There’s an element of trying to force present performances to fit something grander, to amplify them into something that meets the bar.

So, in the absence of a major men’s tournament, or a player who was truly dominant at the elite level, Dembele was the next man along. The 28-year-old was Paris Saint-Germain’s joint top scorer in the Champions League knockout stages, scoring four goals.

Two of those were genuinely big goals against Liverpool and Arsenal, but the other two were against Brest, where PSG only showcased how they spend most of their year: enjoying their vast economic advantage to pummel French opposition in games that are barely contests.

All of that starts to feel a little thin when you consider the list of players in this millennium alone who have not won the award: Xavi Hernandez, Andres Iniesta, Thierry Henry, Paolo Maldini, and – so far – Robert Lewandowski, Mohamed Salah and Erling Haaland.

Part of this is just the luck of a given year, and who you happen to be up against. Alongside that, though, is the ongoing tension around what the award actually represents: whether it’s about being the most valuable player, or a genuine bid to crown the best – the most talented – footballer in the world.

Of course, “most talented” is somewhat dependent on the application of that talent… which is why the award feels like it should be some subjective combination of the two.

This is what Messi and Ronaldo showcased for so long, which has probably warped perspectives to a certain degree. They were performing at this astonishing level, and directly delivering the biggest trophies along the way.

Even if you take the now accepted wisdom that Messi was the greater player, and perhaps the best of all time, Ronaldo still had an obvious claim to every victory. Four of his five wins accompanied Champions Leagues. Otherwise worthy winners such as Xavi, Iniesta, Lewandowski and Haaland were simply unlucky to be competing against them in the middle of very long prime periods.

On the other side, though, Dembele is perhaps lucky that he was up against a player who is perhaps seen as being on the cusp of his prime. Lamine Yamal would have been a much more fitting winner of the trophy. He’s clearly already the best player in the world. He performs to a higher level than anyone else, doing things that other players couldn’t have conceived of. He’s also doing them in the biggest games.

It’s not Yamal’s fault that Barcelona failed to beat Inter in that sensational Champions League semi-final. He was the player who did the most to try to avoid that.

All of this similarly applies to Aitana Bonmati, who rightly won the women’s award ahead of Mariona Caldentey and Alessia Russo, one of five England players who finished in the top 10 but ultimately fell short.

Bonmati is clearly the best player in the world. She performs to a higher level than anyone else, doing things that other players couldn’t have conceived of. She’s also doing them in the biggest games.

It’s not Aitana’s fault that Barcelona failed to beat Arsenal and Spain failed to beat England in the finals she played in. She was most responsible for delivering her teams there. But while Aitana was already a two-time winner – this third award affording her that gold-standard historic achievement – that often means it’s more palatable to vote for a player who doesn’t win the biggest team prizes.

Did Yamal miss out because he is still so young, and there’s a sense of having to rise to it? He would have been the first teenager to win the award.

And yet even if you reduce it to a basic, binary choice between the two, Yamal performed to a higher level than Dembele, and also did more. The only real difference was that Dembele’s team won the final. And there’s even an argument that Khvicha Kvaratskhelia was more influential in that.

If it was just down to the glare of the European Cup, it would be oddly fitting for a trophy that has evolved from an old-world gravitas and traditional prestige to something that is more about glamour and gaudiness. Even the trophy itself has become much more ostentatious over the years, something that you really notice if you look back at those old photos of Johan Cruyff or George Best lifting their humble little orb.

Duly, the lobbying is said to have been more aggressive than ever this year, and it has got more pronounced as the seasons have gone on. The Messi-Ronaldo era influenced this, so it’s another case of modern football eating itself.

None of this is to argue against the acknowledgement of an individual’s worth in a team sport. Some players are obviously more decisive, and it’s right – and actually part of the fun of the sport – that this is recognised.

It’s just that, as has been the case in a few other years in the course of the competition’s seven decades, it doesn’t necessarily feel like the 2025 Ballon D’Or fully did that.

Yamal did much more.

How subtle wit shaped the social codes of British culture

The British are a funny lot. In the most literal sense, obviously. The birthplace of Vic and Bob, Morecambe and Wise, Julia Davis and Sara Pascoe is, pound for pound, arguably the funniest nation on earth. But we’re also a funny lot in the other sense – a bit odd, a little unreadable. For outsiders, decoding a Brit can be baffling, because we so rarely say what we mean. We communicate in code, default to irony, and hide behind humour like it’s an invisibility cloak.

There’s a strong case to be made that the British sense of humour – self-deprecating, absurdist, forever puncturing pomposity – has become the defining national trait. More so, even, than driving on the left, putting milk in tea, or holding entire conversations about the weather. The thing that really makes us us is our collective compulsion to make each other laugh. Want a snapshot of Britain at its best? Look no further than this year’s Edinburgh Fringe, with sets from Ahir Shah, Josie Long, Bridget Christie, Nish Kumar, Toussaint Douglass, Leila Navabi and Ivo Graham. A brilliantly diverse line-up, united by one shared attribute: every single one of them is absolutely hilarious.

But why has humour become so central to Britain’s sense of identity? There’s no single answer, but a few theories spring to mind.

First: the class system. Britain’s social hierarchy has long been a source of tension – and tension, as any comic will tell you, is comedy’s favourite plaything. From Tony Hancock muttering darkly in East Cheam and Harold Steptoe’s eternally thwarted ambitions, to the iconic 1960s Frost Report sketch in which John Cleese looks down on Ronnie Barker, who in turn looks down on Ronnie Corbett, our social structures have been ripe for sending up.

But perhaps even more relevant is the fact that Britain is a country of frequently inclement weather. If you live on a beach under brilliant blue skies, you’re less likely to spend much of your time squirreled away in your bedroom writing sitcoms, or holed up in a pub entertaining your mates with well-worked one-liners. And life on this island is just inherently comic, isn’t it? Dreary days, of that sort that we know well, are just funny in a way that sparkling Spanish summer days simply aren’t.

In other cases, it’s harder to say which came first: the cultural quirk or the comedy. Victorian prudishness, for instance, undoubtedly spawned the gloriously euphemistic tradition of bawdy seaside postcards and the how’s-your-father sauciness of the Carry On films. But maybe it works both ways. Perhaps it’s our in-built sense of the ridiculous that made us prudish in the first place. For those of us not blessed with Love Island physiques, our unclothed bodies are – let’s be honest – fairly comic. Maybe we’re not appalled by nudity because we’re repressed, but because we can’t stop laughing.

What is clear is that nowhere else is humour so entangled with the rules of polite society. Take the uniquely British ‘polite insult’ – a national art form. Shakespeare had Orlando declare, with perfect froideur in As You Like It: “I desire we be better strangers.” Today, we’ve refined the technique further. “How interesting,” or “Good for you,” are rarely compliments. And this love of the not-quite-compliment is everywhere in British TV comedy, from Rowan Atkinson’s exquisitely passive-aggressive Blackadder to Basil Fawlty’s majestic withering disdain:

“I’m so sorry to have kept you waiting, your lordship… I do apologise, please forgive me. Now, was there something – is there something – anything I can do for you? Anything at all?”

That love of sarcasm and subtext seeps into every part of British life. We find it near impossible to admit to being good at anything. Self-praise feels grubby. Even compliments are hedged with qualifiers. And we say sorry constantly – even when we don’t mean it. Especially when we don’t mean it.

Of course, life would probably be simpler if we all agreed to be a bit more direct. No more layers of irony. No more cryptic banter or euphemism. Just say what you mean. But, to use a phrase soaked in British understatement: that’s not really our cup of tea, is it?

Now you’re in the know, don’t forget to set the juice loose with Maynards Bassetts – grab a bag today!

Top Burnham ally slams Starmer on eve of Labour conference

One of Andy Burnham’s closest allies has launched a damning attack on Sir Keir Starmer on the eve of Labour’s conference, accusing the prime minister of overseeing “rot” in the Labour Party.

Former donor Sacha Lord said it is the first of the party’s annual gatherings he will miss since joining in 2022, accusing Sir Keir of having abandoned Labour’s values.

He lashed out at “poor decisions being made from the top” and warned hundreds of Labour councillors stand to lose their jobs in May as a result.

Mr Lord was Greater Manchester’s night time economy adviser under Mr Burnham for seven years until January and his intervention comes amid mounting speculation the so-called King in the North is plotting a bid to oust Sir Keir.

He has repeatedly entertained rumours he is gunning for the Labour top job amid one of Sir Keir’s toughest spells since the general election. And last week Mr Burnham refused to rule out stepping down as mayor early to return to Westminster and challenge Sir Keir.

Mr Burnham has long been a favourite to succeed Sir Keir and is a strong ally of Lucy Powell, who is favourite to win Labour’s deputy leadership contest. He also has the support of culture secretary Lisa Nandy as well as other cabinet ministers.

It is understood Mr Lord, who founded the Parklife festival and runs Manchester’s Warehouse Project nightclub, would return as a donor to Labour if Sir Keir was replaced as leader.

Speaking to The Independent before Labour’s conference kicks off in Liverpool this weekend, Mr Lord said: “Since joining the Labour Party, this will be the first conference that I’ll be missing.

“I joined on the back of several meetings with the then Shadow Cabinet, who promised me a vision as the party of both business and growth.

“This was then reiterated at their manifesto launch in 2024.”

He said it “simply has not been the case”, attacking Rachel Reeves’ “disastrous” 2024 Budget. He said it was a nightmare for pubs, restaurants, hotels and bars and has resulted in a slew of closures and more than 110,000 job losses.

Mr Lord said: “I don’t have faith in the current leadership, which has recently shown a lack of both judgement and loyalty.

“The cabinet is now again far too London centric, having promised more power to the regions, which now seems just shallow words.

“It’s apparent the current Chancellor has no interest in Hospitality, the UK’s 5th biggest sector. Her national insurance increase was both reckless and short sighted.

“Sadly, I predict that many good, hard-working Labour councillors will lose their jobs in May, purely from poor decisions being made from the top.

“Decisions that to me, don’t represent Labour Party values.

“A fish rots from the head.”

The scathing attack comes amid a torrid time for the PM, who has this month lost his deputy prime minister Angela Rayner after she resigned amid a tax scandal. He was also forced to sack Lord Mandelson as ambassador to the US in an embarrassing U-turn just 24 hours after defending him at PMQs in a row over his close friendship with Jeffrey Epstein.

Labour is currently 14 points behind Nigel Farage’s Reform UK in the polls, on just 18 per cent, almost half the party’s rating at the general election last year.

Sir Keir is hoping to turn the page at the party’s conference, rallying activists and MPs behind a “patriotic call for national renewal”.

But he will likely face further challenges from disgruntled MPs over his handling of the economy, his stance on Israel’s bombardment of Gaza and his refusal to scrap the two-child benefit cap.

A Labour Spokesperson said: “After 14 years of Conservative decline, including Liz Truss’ disastrous mini budget, Britain’s economy was on its knees. That’s why the Labour Government took emergency action to stabilise our economy and fix the foundations that rotted away under the Tories.

“With Keir Starmer’s leadership, wages are finally rising faster than prices, interest rates have been cut five times and we’ve secured three major trade deals. And since Labour came into power, more than half a million people have moved into employment.

“We’re turning the page on years of decline and are focused on putting more money in working people’s pockets.”

Travel chaos at major airport after mystery drones ground flights

A “capable” drone operator showing off their skills is to blame for shutting down Copenhagen Airport on Monday night, police say.

Flights at the airport, Scandinavia’s largest, were halted for several hours.

Around 35 flights were diverted to other airports during the shutdown, information from the flight tracking website FlightRadar showed.

The perpetrator has not been identified.

Officials chose not to shoot down the drones due to a risk to passengers at the airport, planes on the runways, and nearby fuel depots, Jes Jespersen, senior police inspector of the Copenhagen Police, said during a news conference.

Mr Jespersen called the pilot “a capable actor” and said the culprit seemed intent on showing off their skills and possibly practicing their techniques.

There were no signs that the drone pilot intended to cause harm to anyone, he added. The drones‘ lights turned on and off and appeared to engage in different flight patterns.

“It all indicates that you are not out to attack anyone, but you are out to show off and maybe to practice,” he said.

Still, authorities could not rule out the possibility of the drones being part of a Russian hybrid attack, he said.

The two to three drones appeared to have flown many kilometres to reach the airport. Investigators are looking at how the drones reached the airport — whether it was by land or possibly by boat.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen called it “the most serious attack on Danish critical infrastructure to date”.

Flights at the airport resumed early on Tuesday, though delays and cancellations continued through the morning.

“Copenhagen Airport has reopened after being closed due to drone activity. However, there will be delays and some canceled departures. Passengers are advised to check with their airline for further information,” its official website said.

A drone incident the same evening at the airport in Oslo, Norway, forced all traffic to move to one runway, according to Norwegian broadcaster NRK. Traffic later returned to normal and it’s unclear who was responsible.

Jespersen said nothing immediately linked the Oslo and Copenhagen incidents, but officials would look into any potential ties.

Security concerns in northern Europe are heightened following an increase in Russian sabotage activities and multiple drones and fighter jet incursions into Nato airspace in recent weeks.

In 2023, London’s Gatwick Airport closed its runway for almost an hour after a drone was reported nearby. In December 2018, more than 140,000 travellers were stranded or delayed during the Christmas season after dozens of drone sightings shut down Gatwick for parts of three consecutive days.