A New York judge has dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400m (£295m) defamation lawsuit against his former co-star Blake Lively.

The pair, who both starred in the 2024 film It Ends with Us, have been locked in a legal battle for several months, with a trial set for next year.

Judge Lewis Liman on Monday dismissed Baldoni’s countersuit, which alleged extortion, defamation and other allegations.

Baldoni brought the suit after Lively filed a legal complaint last year against her former co-star, accusing him of sexual harassment and starting a smear campaign against her.

Lively filed a suit against Baldoni’s Wayfarer Studios in December 2024, alleging she was sexually harassed on set and that Baldoni retaliated against her for bringing those complaints, among other allegations.

Lively also shared details of the allegations in a New York Times article published before her lawsuit.

Baldoni then brought defamation suits against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist, claiming they were aiming to ruin his career and reputation with the allegations, as well as the New York Times.

Baldoni’s lawsuit centred on two claims: that Lively “stole the film” from him and his company Wayfarer by threatening not to promote it, and that she and others promoted a false narrative that Baldoni sexually assaulted her and launched a smear campaign against her, Judge Liman explained in his opinion.

But Baldoni and his production company “have not adequately alleged that Lively’s threats were wrongful extortion rather than legally permissible hard bargaining or renegotiation of working conditions”, he wrote.

Additionally, the judge wrote, Baldoni and his company had not proved defamation because the “Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements” in her lawsuit, which are privileged.

The judge also determined that evidence did not show that the New York Times “acted with actual malice” in publishing their story, dismissing that $250m suit as well.

“The alleged facts indicate that the Times reviewed the available evidence and reported, perhaps in a dramatized manner, what it believed to have happened,” he wrote. “The Times had no obvious motive to favor Lively’s version of events.”

In a statement shared with US media, Lively’s lawyers called the opinion “a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane and The New York Times”.

In a post on her Instagram, Lively said that “Like so many others, I’ve felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us”.

“While the suit against me was defeated, so many don’t have the resources to fight back,” she said, adding that she was “more resolved than ever to continue to stand for every woman’s right to have a voice in protecting themselves”.

The BBC has contacted Baldoni’s lawyers for comment.

Judge Liman said Baldoni would be allowed to amend and refile his allegations related to interference with contracts by 23 June.

Judge Liman’s dismissal comes a week after Lively asked to withdraw two of the claims in her suit against Baldoni – intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In the original lawsuit, she said she experienced “severe emotional distress” in response to the alleged sexual harassment and smear campaign.

It Ends With Us is an adaption of a best-selling Colleen Hoover novel, which features Blake Lively as the main character, Lily Bloom, a young woman who grew up witnessing domestic abuse and finds herself in the same position years later.

US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine sceptic, has removed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations.

Announcing the move in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy said that conflicts of interest on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (Acip) were responsible for undermining trust in vaccinations.

Kennedy said he wanted to “ensure the American people receive the safest vaccines possible.”

Doctors and health experts have criticised Kennedy’s longstanding questioning of the safety and efficacy of a number of vaccines, although in his Senate confirmation hearing he said he is “not going to take them away.”

On Monday he said he was “retiring” all of the Acip panel members. Eight of the 17 panellists were appointed in January 2025, in the last days of President Biden’s term.

Most of the members are practicing doctors and experts attached to major university medical centres.

Kennedy noted that if he did not remove the committee members, President Trump would not have been able to appoint a majority on the panel until 2028.

“The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine,” Kennedy wrote.

He claimed that health authorities and drug companies were responsible for a “crisis of public trust” that some try to explain “by blaming misinformation or antiscience attitudes.”

In the editorial, Kennedy cited examples from the 1990s and 2000s and alleged that conflicts of interest persist.

“Most of ACIP’s members have received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies, including those marketing vaccines,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

The move appears contrary to assurances Kennedy gave during his confirmation hearings. Bill Cassidy, a Republican Senator from Louisiana who is also a doctor, reported that he received commitments from the health secretary that Acip would be maintained “without changes.”

On Monday, Cassidy wrote on X: “Of course, now the fear is that the Acip will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.

“I’ve just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I’ll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.”

Acip members are required to disclose conflicts of interest, which are posted online, and to recuse themselves from voting on decisions where they may have a conflict.

“The problem isn’t necessarily that ACIP members are corrupt,” Kennedy wrote. “Most likely aim to serve the public interest as they understand it.

“The problem is their immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy.”

Dr Bruce Scott, president of the American Medical Association, a professional organisation for American doctors, said mass sacking “upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives.”

“With an ongoing measles outbreak and routine child vaccination rates declining, this move will further fuel the spread of vaccine-preventable illnesses,” Dr Scott said in a statement.

Kennedy did not say who he would appoint to replace the board members. Acip has a meeting scheduled starting 25 June, at which members are scheduled to vote on recommendations for vaccines for Covid, flu, meningococcal disease, RSV and other illnesses.

The BBC contacted the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Acip chair, Dr Helen Keipp Talbot, for comment.

Theo will be responding to reader comments about this article between 12pm and 1pm today. Go to the comments section at the bottom of this page to share what you think about the rise of these more affordable EVs.

In China, they call it the Seagull, and it has looks to match. It is sleek and angular, with bright, downward-slanting headlights that have more than a hint of mischievous eyes about them.

It is, of course, a car. A very small one, designed as a cheap city runabout – but it could have huge significance. Available in China since 2023, where it has proved extremely popular, it has just been launched in Europe with the name Dolphin Surf (because Europeans apparently aren’t as keen on seagulls as Chinese people).

When it goes on sale in the UK this week, it’s expected to have a price tag of around £18,000. That will still make it, for an electric car on western markets, very cheap indeed.

It won’t be the outright lowest-priced model on offer: the Dacia Spring, manufactured in Wuhan jointly by Renault and Dongfeng, and the Leapmotor T03, which is being produced by a joint venture between Chinese startup Leapmotor and Stellantis, both cost less.

But the Dolphin Surf is the invasive species that has long-established brands most worried. That is because the company behind it has been making ever bigger waves on international markets.

BYD is already the biggest player in China. It overtook Tesla in 2024 to become the world’s best-selling maker of electric vehicles (EVs), and since entering the European markets two years ago, it has expanded aggressively.

“We want to be number one in the British market within 10 years,” says Steve Beattie, sales and marketing director for BYD UK.

BYD is part of a wider expansion of Chinese companies and brands that some believe could change the face of the global motor industry – and which has already prompted radical action from the US government and the EU.

It means once-unknown marques like Nio, Xpeng, Zeekr or Omoda could become every bit as much household names as Ford or Volkswagen. They will join classic brands such as MG, Volvo and Lotus, which have been under Chinese ownership for years.

The products on offer already encompass a huge range, from runabouts like the tiny Dolphin Surf to exotic supercars, like the pothole-jumping U9, from BYD’s high-end sub-brand Yangwang.

“Chinese brands are making massive inroads into the European market,” says David Bailey, professor of business and economics at Birmingham Business School.

In 2024, 17 million battery and plug-in hybrid cars were sold worldwide, 11 million of those in China. Chinese brands, meanwhile, had 10% of global EV and plug-in hybrid sales outside their home country, according to the consultancy Rho Motion. That figure is only expected to grow.

For consumers, it should be good news – leading to more high-quality and affordable electric cars becoming available. But with rivalry between Beijing and western powers showing no sign of subsiding, some experts are concerned Chinese vehicles could represent a security risk from hackers and third parties. And for established players in Europe, it represents a formidable challenge to their historic dominance.

“[China has] a huge cost advantage through economies of scale and battery technology. European manufacturers have fallen well behind,” warns Mr Bailey.

“Unless they wake up very quickly and catch up, they could be wiped out.”

China’s car industry has been developing rapidly since the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001. But that process accelerated rapidly in 2015, when the Communist Party introduced its “Made in China 2025” initiative. The 10-year plan to make the country a leader in several high-tech industries, including EVs, attracted intense criticism from abroad, and particularly the US, amid claims of forced technology transfers and theft of intellectual property – all of which the Chinese government denies.

Fuelled by lavish state funding, the plan helped lay the groundwork for the breakneck growth of companies like BYD – originally a maker of batteries for mobile phones – and allowed the Chinese parent companies of MG and Volvo, SAIC and Geely, to become major players in the EV market.

“The general standard of Chinese cars is very, very high indeed,” says Dan Caesar, chief executive of Electric Vehicles UK.

“China has learned extremely quickly how to manufacture cars.”

Yet competition in China has become ever more cut-throat, with brands jostling for space in an increasingly saturated market. This has led them to hunt for sales elsewhere.

While Chinese firms have expanded into East Asia and South America, for years the European market proved a tough nut to crack – that is, until governments here decided to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel models.

The transition to electric cars opened the door to new players.

“[Chinese brands] have seen an opportunity to get a bit of a foothold,” says Oliver Lowe, UK product manager of Omoda and Jaecoo, two sub brands of the Chinese giant Chery.

Low labour costs in China, coupled with government subsidies and a very well-established supply chain, have given Chinese firms advantages, their rivals have claimed. A report from the Swiss bank UBS, published in late 2023, suggested that BYD alone was able to build cars 25% more cheaply than western competitors.

Chinese firms deny the playing field is uneven. Xpeng’s vice chairman Brian Gu told the BBC at the Paris Motor Show in 2024 that his company is competitive “because we have fought tooth and nail through the most competitive market in the world”.

Concerns that Chinese EV imports could flood international markets at the expense of established manufacturers reached fever pitch in 2024.

In the US, the Alliance for American Manufacturing warned they could prove to be an “extinction-level event” for the US industry, while the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen suggested that “huge state subsidies” for Chinese firms were distorting the European market.

The Biden administration took dramatic action, raising import tariffs on Chinese-made EVs from 25% to 100%, effectively making it pointless to sell them in the US.

It was condemned by Beijing as “naked protectionism”.

Meanwhile, in October 2024, the EU imposed extra tariffs of up to 35.3% on Chinese-made EVs. The UK, however, took no action.

Matthias Schmidt, founder of Schmidt Automotive Research, says the EU’s tariffs have now made it harder for Chinese firms to gain market share.

“The door was wide open in 2024… but the Chinese failed to take their chance. With the tariffs in place, Chinese manufacturers are now unable to push their cost advantage onto European consumers.”

European manufacturers have been racing to develop their own affordable electric cars. French car-maker Renault is among them.

At its factory in Douai, in northeastern France, an army of spark-spitting robots weld sections of steel to form car bodies, while on the main assembly line, automated systems mate together bodyshells, doors, batteries, motors and other parts, before human workers apply the finishing touches.

The factory has been making cars for Renault since 1974, but four years ago, the ageing production lines were replaced with new highly automated, digitally-controlled systems.

Part of the site was also taken over by the Chinese-owned battery firm AESC, which built its own “gigafactory” next door.

It’s part of Renault’s wider plan to set up an ultra-modern EV “hub” in northern France. Mirroring the lean production techniques of Chinese manufacturers, the hub cuts costs by maximising efficiency and ensuring that suppliers are located as close as possible.

“Our target was to be able to produce affordable electric cars here to sell in Europe,” explains Pierre Andrieux, director of the Douai plant, arguing that automated processes “will enable us to do that profitably”.

But the company is also exploiting something the Chinese brands do not have: heritage. Its latest model, the Renault 5 E-tech, built in Douai, borrows its name from one of the company’s most famous products.

The original Renault 5, launched in 1972, was a quirky little everyman car with boxy looks and low running costs that became a cult classic.

The new design, despite being a state-of-the art EV, pays homage to its predecessor in name and appearance, in an effort to emulate its popular appeal.

But irrespective of how desirable Chinese cars are in comparison with European rivals, some experts believe we should be wary of them – for security reasons.

Most modern vehicles are internet-enabled in some way – to allow satellite navigation, for example – and drivers’ phones are often connected to car systems. Pioneered by Tesla, so-called “over-the-air updates” can upgrade a car’s software remotely.

This has all led to concerns, in some quarters, that cars could be hacked and used to harbour spyware, monitor individuals or even be immobilised at the touch of a keyboard.

Earlier this year, a British newspaper reported that military and intelligence chiefs had been ordered not to discuss official business while riding in EVs; it was also alleged that cars with Chinese components had been banned from sensitive military sites.

Then in May, a former head of the intelligence service MI6 claimed that Chinese-made technology in a range of products, including cars, could be controlled and programmed remotely. Sir Richard Dearlove warned MPs that there was the potential to “immobilise London”.

Beijing has always denied all accusations of espionage.

A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in London says that the recent allegations are “entirely unfounded and absurd”.

“China has consistently advocated the secure, open, and rules-based development of global supply chains,” the spokesperson told the BBC. “Chinese enterprises operating around the world are required to comply with local laws and regulations.

“To date, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that Chinese EVs pose a security threat to the UK or any other country.”

Joseph Jarnecki, research fellow at defence and security think-tank The Royal United Services Institute, argues that potential risks can be mitigated.

“Chinese carmakers exist in this highly competitive market. While they’re beholden to Chinese law and that may require compliance with national security agencies, none of them want to damage their ability to grow and to have international exports by being perceived as a security risk,” he says.

“The Chinese government equally is conscious of the need for economic growth. They’re not hell-bent on solely conducting surveillance.”

But the car industry is just one area in which Chinese technology is becoming increasingly enmeshed in the UK economy. To achieve the government’s climate objectives, for instance, “It will be necessary to use Chinese-supplied technology”, adds Mr Jarnecki.

He believes that regulators of key industries should be given sufficient resources to monitor cyber security and advise companies using Chinese products of any potential issues.

As for electric cars powered by Chinese technology, there’s no question that they’re here to stay.

“Even if you have a car that’s made in Germany or elsewhere, it probably contains quite a few Chinese components,” says Dan Caesar.

“The reality is most of us have smartphones and things from China, from the US, from Korea, without really giving it a second thought. So I do think there’s some fearmongering going on about what the Chinese are capable of.

“I think we have to face the reality that China is going to be a big part of the future.”

When 26-year-old Umar Sofi received his acceptance letter from Columbia University’s School of Journalism, he thought the hardest part of his journey was over.

After trying for three years, Mr Sofi had finally been admitted to his dream university and even secured a partial scholarship. He quit his job in anticipation of the big move.

But on 27 May, when the US suddenly paused student visa appointments, the ground slipped from beneath his feet.

“I was numb. I could not process what had happened,” Mr Sofi, who lives in Indian-administered Kashmir, told the BBC.

Some 2,000km (1,242 miles) away in Mumbai, 17-year-old Samita Garg (name changed on request) went through a similar ordeal.

A day after she was accepted into a top US university to study biochemistry – her first step towards becoming a dermatologist – the US embassy halted student visa appointments.

“It is scary and stressful,” Ms Garg told the BBC over the phone. “It feels like I’ve been left in the lurch, not knowing when this will end.”

Both Mr Sofi and Ms Garg now have only a few weeks to secure their visas before the academic year begins in August, but little clarity on whether they can go ahead with their plans.

Last month President Donald Trump’s administration asked US embassies across the world to stop scheduling appointments for student visas and expand social media vetting of applicants.

This wider move followed a crackdown on America’s elite universities like Harvard, which Trump accused of being too liberal and of not doing enough to combat antisemitism.

Trump’s decisions have had far-reaching repercussions in India, which sends more international students to the US than any other country.

Over the last month, the BBC spoke with at least 20 students at various stages of their application process, all of whom echoed deep anxieties about their futures. Most chose to remain anonymous, fearing retribution from the US government and worried that speaking out now could hurt their chances of obtaining a visa, or renewing it.

• Trump’s battle on international students explained… in 70 seconds
• Students say they ‘regret’ applying to US universities after visa changes
• Trump suspends foreign student visas at Harvard

More than 1.1 million international students were enrolled in US colleges in the 2023-24 school year, according to Open Doors, an organisation that collects data on foreign students.

Nearly a third of them, or more than 330,000, were from India.

Educational consultants report that applications to US universities for the upcoming autumn semester have dropped by at least 30% because of the uncertainty.

“Their biggest fear is safety – what if their visas are rejected or they’re deported mid-term?” said Nikhil Chopra, founder of TC Global, an international education consultancy.

Experts say many students are now either deferring their plans or switching to countries perceived to be more “stable” like the UK, Germany, Ireland and Australia.

Prema Unni (name changed on request) was accepted into three US universities for a master’s in data analytics. But instead of preparing for the move, he decided to forgo the opportunity altogether.

“There’s uncertainty at every step – first the visa, then restrictions on internships and part-time work, and the constant surveillance while on campus,” Mr Unni said. “It is very stressful.”

The halt on visa interviews is the latest in a series of policies tightening immigration rules for students. A few weeks ago, the US warned that students who drop out or miss classes without proper notification risk having their visas revoked, and could be barred from future entry.

These decisions have come around the time of the year when 70% of student visas are issued, or renewed, sparking great unease among Indian students.

“No student wants to go to a country and then have the visa policy suddenly change,” Chris R Glass, a professor at Boston College told the BBC. “They need stability and options.”

The uncertainty will have long-term consequences – both for the aspirations of Indian students, but also for the US’s future as a coveted higher education hub – says Prof Glass.

Foreign student enrolment in US universities was slowing even before Trump’s latest salvo.

According to The Indian Express newspaper, the US denied 41% of student visa applications between the fiscal years 2023 and 2024, the highest rejection rate in a decade, and nearly doubling from 2014.

Data from Student and Exchange Visitor Information Systems (SEVIS), which tracks foreign students’ compliance with their visas, showed a nearly 10% drop in international student enrolments as of March this year compared with the same period in 2024.

International students are a financial lifeline for many US colleges, especially regional and state universities offering STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and other master’s programmes.

These students pay significantly higher tuition fees than US citizens.

In the 2023–24 academic year alone, foreign students contributed $43.8bn to the US economy, according to Nafsa, an association of International educators. They also supported over 375,000 jobs.

“This really isn’t about a short-term disruption of tuition revenue. This is about a long-term rupture in a strategic relationship that benefits both countries,” Prof Glass said.

For decades the brightest Indian students have depended on an American education in the absence of top quality Indian universities or a supportive research ecosystem.

In turn they’ve helped plug a skills gap in the US.

Many land highly sought-after jobs after they finish their courses – in particular, representing a significant pool of skilled professionals in sectors like biotechnology, healthcare and data science – and have even gone on to lead iconic companies.

Everyone from Google’s Sunder Pichai to Microsoft’s Satya Nadella went to the US as students.

While this has often led to concerns of a “brain-drain” from India, experts point out that India is simply unable to solve the problem of quality and quantity higher education in the immediate future to provide a domestic alternative to these students.

Experts say it will be a lose-lose situation for both countries, unless the cloud of uncertainty lifts soon.

Palestinians in Gaza say they were fired on once again as they headed to one of the aid distribution centres run by the Israeli- and US-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation on Monday.

Witnesses said that for the first time they were fired on by Palestinian gunmen near the GHF site in the Tal al-Sultan area of Rafah, in the south. They also said Israeli troops fired on them.

Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry said six people were killed and 99 injured from areas designated for aid collection.

The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports.

The GHF said the Tal al-Sultan site did not open on Monday and that there were no incidents at two other sites which did hand out aid.

It comes days after Israel’s prime minister acknowledged that it was arming Palestinian clans in Gaza who were opposed to Hamas.

Almost every day since the GHF began distributing aid on 26 May, there have been deadly incidents near one or other of the four centres it has so far opened.

Dozens of Palestinians have been killed while approaching one site in the Tal al-Sultan area of Rafah on a route that runs through an Israeli military zone.

In the previous incidents, witnesses have said that Israeli forces opened fire at crowds. The Israeli military has denied that troops fired at civilians within the site, but it has said that troops fired at “suspects” who ignored warning shots and approached them.

In Monday’s incident, people at the scene said that Palestinian gunmen shot at them, as well as Israeli forces.

They said the gunmen appeared to be allied with the Israeli forces, as they were operating near them and moved back into an Israeli military zone.

One witness told BBC Arabic’s Middle East daily programme that he saw a group of young men dressed in civilian clothes and with their faces completely covered when he arrived in the area to get a box of food aid from the GHF site.

“At first, we thought they might be Palestinian youths helping with the process, but suddenly, they began shooting at us,” Hisham Saeed Salem said.

“Even those who managed to get a box of aid were targeted and shot. We still don’t know who these attackers are. They took everything from us – some even stole from us during the chaos,” he added.

Another man, Mohammed Sakout, said: “Several young men were shot and killed right behind me. I narrowly escaped death – some bullets passed just inches from my head.”

“At first, it was the Israeli army that was shooting at civilians. But today, we were shocked to discover the presence of gangs and militias,” he added.

At Nasser hospital in the nearby city of Khan Younis, a seriously injured man being treated for a gunshot wound to his neck, Mohammed Kabaga, told the Associated Press: “A group of masked armed men who were organising us starting firing towards us directly.”

“We went to get aid. They said to stand in line. We stood in line and suddenly they started shooting at us. While I was standing, I was surprised when a bullet hit me, I got dizzy and fell down,” he said.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) told the BBC that it was looking into the reports.

The GHF said in a statement that it opened two sites on Monday in the Saudi neighbourhood of Rafah and Wadi Gaza, in the centre of the Strip, and that “aid distribution at both sites proceeded without incident”.

When asked by the BBC about the reports from Tal al-Sultan, a GHF spokesperson said there was “nothing around our sites”.

However, a post on the group’s Facebook account did say on Monday afternoon that the Tal al-Sultan centre was closed due to the “chaos of the crowds”.

The GHF’s interim executive director, John Acree, said it had delivered more than 11 million meals over the past two weeks “without an injury or major incident at our distribution sites”.

Gaza’s health ministry said hospitals had received a total of 127 dead and 1,287 injured people from “areas designated for aid distribution” during the same period.

The GHF, which uses US private security contractors, aims to bypass the UN as the main supplier of aid to Palestinians.

The UN and other aid groups refuse to co-operate with the new system, saying it contravenes the humanitarian principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence.

They also warn that Gaza’s 2.1 million population faces catastrophic levels of hunger after an almost three-month total Israeli blockade that was partially eased three weeks ago.

The US and Israel say the GHF’s system will prevent aid being stolen by Hamas, which the group denies doing.

The Israeli military launched a campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 54,927 people have been killed in Gaza since then, according to the territory’s health ministry.

A yacht carrying 12 people that were trying to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza has been towed to the Israeli port city of Ashdod, after it was seized by Israeli forces.

Israel’s foreign ministry said the boat had docked and that those aboard the vessel, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, were “undergoing medical examinations to ensure they are in good health”.

Organisers said the Madleen was aiming to bring a “symbolic” amount of aid to Gaza in defiance of an Israeli naval blockade. They said it was intercepted by Israeli forces in international waters in the early hours of Monday.

Israel dismissed it as a “selfie yacht”, saying it would deport the passengers to their home countries.

The aid on board the Madleen includes rice and baby formula, organisers the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) said.

Citizens of Brazil, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Turkey are onboard the vessel – among them Rima Hassan, a French member of the European Parliament, and Omar Faiad, a French journalist with Al Jazeera.

Earlier on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron called for a swift return of six French activists on board the vessel and called on Israel to ensure the “protection” of the activists.

Sweden’s foreign ministry said it was in contact with Israeli authorities in a statement shared with the Reuters news agency, while Turkey condemned the interception as a “heinous attack” in international waters.

FFC said it had not been allowed contact with any of the 12 passengers since the vessel was intercepted by Israel in the early hours of Monday.

The boat set sail from Italy on 1 June to raise awareness of starvation conditions in Gaza.

Israel says its blockade on Gaza is necessary to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas fighters there.

Video shared by the FFC showed the activists sitting down in life jackets with their hands raised as Israeli forces boarded the boat. Those on board could be seen throwing mobile phones overboard.

Israel’s foreign ministry shared footage of soldiers handing out sandwiches and water bottles to the activists after it was intercepted.

After reporting that the yacht had been boarded, the FFC posted short, pre-recorded videos of some of the activists, including Thunberg.

In the footage, they say “if you see this video, we have been intercepted and kidnapped” by the Israeli military or forces supporting Israel.

On Sunday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz warned that Israel would act against any attempt to breach the blockade.

He wrote in a post on X: “I have instructed the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] to act to prevent the ‘Madeleine’ [sic] hate flotilla from reaching the shores of Gaza – and to take whatever measures are necessary to that end.”

The FFC has argued that the sea blockade is illegal, characterising Katz’s statement as an example of Israel threatening the unlawful use of force against civilians and “attempting to justify that violence with smears”.

“We will not be intimidated. The world is watching,” FFC press officer Hay Sha Wiya said on Sunday.

“The Madleen is a civilian vessel, unarmed and sailing in international waters, carrying humanitarian aid and human rights defenders from across the globe… Israel has no right to obstruct our effort to reach Gaza.”

In 2010, Israeli commandos killed 10 Turkish activists when they boarded the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, which was leading an aid flotilla towards Gaza.

Israel recently began to allow limited aid into Gaza after a three-month land blockade, prioritising distribution through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which is backed by Israel and the US but widely condemned by humanitarian groups.

The UN’s human rights chief, Volker Türk, said last week Palestinians were being presented with the “grimmest of choices: die from starvation or risk being killed while trying to access the meagre food that is being made available”.

In a post on X early on Monday, the Israeli foreign ministry said: “While Greta and others attempted to stage a media provocation whose sole purpose was to gain publicity – and which included less than a single truckload of aid – more than 1,200 aid trucks have entered Gaza from Israel within the past two weeks, and in addition, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has distributed close to 11 million meals directly to civilians in Gaza.

“There are ways to deliver aid to the Gaza Strip – they do not involve Instagram selfies.”

It is 20 months since Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to the unprecedented Hamas-led cross-border attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 54,880 people have been killed in Gaza since, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Ahmad has been hiding in Afghanistan for years.

The former Afghan military employee is living in fear of being found by the Taliban, which seized power in 2021 as US forces withdrew from the Central Asian nation.

As a result, Ahmad is unable to get a job or access medical care, relying on donations from friends outside the country to survive. His son, 12, is unable to go to school.

If they are found, Ahmad says, the Taliban “will remove” him.

His hope had been refugee resettlement in the US, but – with just a medical check to complete – the process was put on pause by the Trump administration.

Still, he hoped. Then, on Thursday he woke to the news that US President Donald Trump had issued a new order banning the entry of Afghan passport holders to the US, citing national security threats.

“I am not a threat to the United States,” Ahmad told the BBC. The BBC is not using his real name because of concerns about his safety.

“We were friends of the United States,” he added.

• Why are these 12 countries on the list?
• How nations have responded
• Everything else we know about the ban – so far
• Trump’s new ban dodges pitfalls from last time, experts say
• Chad halts US visas in revenge for Trump travel ban

Trump’s sweeping travel ban came into force on Monday, blocking people from Afghanistan and 11 other countries, including seven from Africa, as well as countries like Haiti and Yemen, from entering the US. There are partial bans on seven other countries.

According to the ban, Afghanistan was included because the Taliban are considered by the US government to be a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) group, and the country does not have “a competent or co-operative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents”, or “appropriate screening and vetting measures”. It also notes a relatively high rate of people overstaying their visas.

The Trump administration has, however, recently dropped temporary protected status for more than 9,000 Afghans living in the US, arguing its assessments showed the security and economic situation in Afghanistan had improved.

But those living in Afghanistan are faced with a series of restrictions brought in by the Taliban government in line with its strict interpretation of Sharia law.

The ones affecting women – including the enforcement of head coverings, restrictions on travel and education over the age of 12 – amount to a “gender apartheid”, according to the United Nations. The Taliban says it respects the rights of women in line with Sharia and Afghan culture.

A different UN report from 2023 found there were credible reports that hundreds of former government officials and armed forces members had been killed since the group returned to power in 2021, despite a general amnesty. The Taliban has previously said all Afghans could “live in the country without any fear” – and those abroad should come back and help rebuild the country.

“There is a general amnesty,” Mohammad Suhail Shaheen, Taliban ambassador to Qatar, told the BBC earlier this year. “Countrywide security is prevalent in Afghanistan. Every citizen and traveller can travel to any corner of the country without any obstacles or any difficulties.”

There are exceptions to Trump’s ban – including for Afghans who worked directly with the US military before the Taliban back took control of the country in 2021.

But Ahmad, whose application for resettlement was backed by a former US service member, does not qualify for a Special Immigrant Visa (SIV) because he did not work directly for the US.

And he is far from the only one.

• Trump to end protected status for Afghans

Some 200,000 Afghans have been resettled since the US military’s chaotic withdrawal, but there are still tens of thousands more waiting for a decision.

Many have fled across the border to neighbouring Pakistan to wait for a decision to be made on their application.

Samira, who spoke to the BBC’s Afghan Service, is currently in Pakistan – which has been expelling tens of thousands of Afghans in recent months. If the path to the US is closed to her, she is not sure what to do next.

“Returning to Afghanistan is not an option for us – it would be incredibly challenging,” she said. “Our children have already lost years of education, and we have no hope of safely going back.”

More than 8,300 family members of US citizens are ready for an interview in Afghanistan, with more than 11,400 others awaiting family reunification, according to US Department of State data shared by AfghanEvac.

Mojo, who asked to be identified by his nickname, is one of the 200,000 Afghans who have already reached the US, because he worked directly for the US military. He is now a US citizen.

His sister, however, remains in Afghanistan where she and her husband are “living in a hide and seek game”, he says. They change their address and city every couple months in order to stay safe.

They passed the background and medical checks for refugee resettlement, but like the others who spoke to the BBC, they became trapped when the process was paused in January.

This latest order has made Mojo, who lives in Houston, Texas, and the rest of his family lose “all our hope completely” .

“I wish that he would change his mind, make some exception, change the rules or take his order back and let people have a peaceful life,” he said.

• Pakistan expels tens of thousands of Afghans
• Afghans hiding in Pakistan live in fear of forced deportation
• Ex-US generals describe chaos of Afghanistan withdrawal

The ban also affects Afghans who are not trying to reach the US for resettlement.

Zarifa Ghafari is studying at Cornell University in New York state, but is currently in Germany for the summer with her young child.

She said she began a “frantic” race back to the US on Thursday in order to continue her studies, before the start of the travel ban on Monday.

The ban has put her under “immense pressure” and has made her feel “very vulnerable”, the the 30-year-old former politician told the BBC.

What makes it worse, she said, was that she regularly had to return to Germany every few months to maintain her residency status there too. Describing her situation as “precarious”, she said she worried about how she could make her regular trips to Germany when the travel ban began.

Shawn VanDiver, of AfghanEvac, said the ban broke a promise Americans had made to Afghans over the 20 years they were in the country.

“This policy punishes people who escaped the Taliban, risked everything to support democracy, are already vetted, were told by the US government to wait,” he wrote on social media platform X.

“They’re not threats. They’re our allies – and they’re being left behind.”

Meanwhile, many of those still in Afghanistan have other problems to contend with.

As one Afghan man in Kabul told AFP news agency: “We don’t even have bread, why are you asking me about travelling to America?”

Authorities have imposed a curfew and shut down the internet in parts of the troubled north-eastern Indian state of Manipur after protests erupted over the arrest of leaders from an ethnic group.

On Sunday, police arrested five leaders of Arambai Tenggol, an armed Meitei radical group, including their chief Asem Kanan Singh.

India’s top investigation agency said Singh was arrested at Manipur’s Imphal airport for his involvement in “various criminal activities” related to the violence that broke out in the state in 2023.

Manipur has been rocked by periodic violence since 2023 after ethnic clashes between the two largest groups, the majority Meitei and minority Kuki, over land and influence.

More than 250 people have been killed in the conflict, with tens of thousands displaced.

Arambai Tenggol identifies itself as a social outfit and wields considerable influence in the state, enjoying support from the Meitei community.

The latest round of tensions began on 7 June, when India’s top investigation agency arrested Singh and four other leaders of Arambai Tenggol, following which he was taken to Guwahati city in the neighbouring state of Assam.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which is investigating cases related to violence in Manipur, said that the trial for these had been shifted from Manipur to Guwahati in Assam “in view of the law and order situation in Manipur”.

After the arrests, protesters demanding the release of members of Arambai Tenggol stormed a police post, set fire to a bus and blocked roads in parts of Imphal.

Some protesters also clashed with security personnel, The Hindu newspaper reported.

A 13-year-old boy was injured after security forces fired tear gas shells and live rounds to disperse crowds, The Hindustan Times reported.

State lawmaker Okram Surjakumar said the arrests had thrown the state into chaos.

Following the violence, the state government suspended internet and mobile data services in five districts of the state for five days and imposed an indefinite curfew in one. Gatherings of four or more people has also been prohibited in the some parts.

Arambai Tenggol has also declared a 10-day shutdown in parts of the state since Saturday night.

Priyanka Gandhi, leader of the opposition Congress party, on Sunday questioned why the government was unable to bring to peace to the conflict-hit state.

Earlier this year, the Indian government brought the state under direct federal rule after the chief minister resigned following criticism from opposition groups.

Gandhi blamed Prime Minister Narendra Modi, saying he had not met representatives from the state or made any efforts for peace.

“It is the prime minister’s responsibility to ensure peace and security for the citizens of the country. To step back from this is to turn away from one’s duty,” she wrote in a post on X.

The ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has been sharply criticised by opposition leaders and rights groups for its handling of the conflict. Opposition leaders have also criticised Modi for not visiting the state since the violence first began in 2023.

On Sunday, a multi-party delegation of state lawmakers met the state governor.

BJP lawmker Kh Ibomcha said the delegation had asked that the arrested leaders be released after they were questioned by the police.

Canada will significantly boost its defence spending to hit a Nato target of 2% of GDP years earlier than planned, Prime Minister Mark Carney has announced.

In a speech at the University of Toronto on Monday, Carney said the action was required to ward off the “multiplying” threats from hostile governments, terrorist entities and cyber criminals.

He also conceded his country was “too reliant” on the United States for defence, adding that Washington was “reducing its relative contribution to our collective security”.

Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte is pushing for members to agree to a new spending target of 3.5% of GDP at a summit later this month.

In his address, Mark Carney said the world was at a “hinge moment” similar to the end of the Second World War. He said his country must act in the face of an aggressive Russia and China, and threats to Arctic security.

He also accused Washington of looking to “monetise its hegemony” by making access to its market more costly.

Canada spent 1.4% of its GDP on defence in 2024. GDP stands for gross domestic product, and is a measure of all the economic activity of companies, governments, and people in a country.

During the election campaign earlier this year, Carney had pledged to hit the 2% spending target by 2030, while the previous government under Justin Trudeau had promised to meet it by 2032. However on Monday, Carney said the spending goal would be hit by March next year.

The prime minister said Canada’s equipment had aged, “hindering our military preparedness”.

Only one of four submarines were seaworthy and less than half the maritime fleet and land vehicles were in good working order, he said.

Carney said the new strategy would have four pillars – investing more in soldiers and equipment, expanding the military’s capability, strengthening the domestic defence industry, and diversifying Canada’s defence partnerships.

This is an age where “middle powers” must act to defend themselves knowing “if they’re not at the table, they’re on the menu”, Carney said.

Carney’s announcement comes just a week before Canada hosts the G7 Summit from 15 to 17 June.

Speaking to reporters later, Carney said the government’s new plan includes a cash increase of C$9.3bn ($6.5bn, £4.8bn) for this fiscal year, which he said will bring Canada’s defence spending to the Nato threshold.

Some of it would be immediately “spendable” on personnel and equipment.

This would include investing in new submarines, aircraft, ships, armoured vehicles and artillery, as well as new drones and sensors to monitor activity in the Arctic and seafloor approaches to the country, he said.

Carney said the government would also create a new defence procurement agency, following criticisms of the current process as slow and unwieldly. The agency would “move more quickly in making procurement decisions” and would focus on building domestic capacity.

A report by a parliamentary committee in June 2024 highlighted that delays, cost overruns, bureaucratic hurdles, a shortage of personnel and the politicisation of the defence procurement process raised concerns about the government’s ability to provide the armed forces with the equipment it needed “in a timely and cost-effective manner”.

Pierre Poilievre, the leader of the opposition Conservatives, said his party supports increased defence spending, and accused the Liberals, who have been in power for a decade, of failing to properly fund the country’s military.

Nato members have for years pledged to meet the 2% target – now seen as the bare minimum – but Canada has long lagged behind its allies.

Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte arrived in London on Monday where he said the military alliance needed a “400% increase in air and missile defence” to maintain a credible defence deterrence.

Last week, Rutte proposed that Nato members spend 5% of their GDP on defence – something US President Donald Trump has called for in the past.

Russia has launched a “massive” drone attack on the capital, Kyiv Mayor Vitali Klitschko has said, while a maternity ward in Odesa has also been targeted.

The Odesa drone attack hit medical facilities and homes, killing a 59-year-old man and injuring four, Governer Oleg Kiper said, according to Agence France-Presse.

In the capital, emergency services were called to four districts a couple of hours after midnight on Tuesday, Klitschko said on the Telegram messaging app.

The latest attacks come after Russia’s biggest drone strike on Ukraine on Monday, which Moscow said were retaliatory measures for Ukraine’s recent attacks inside Russia. The covert “Operation Spider Web” targeted Russian bomber planes.

After the operation struck air bases deep inside Russia, US President Donald Trump called Vladimir Putin, and said the Russian president had promised to respond “very strongly” to the attacks.

Air raid alerts were in place across large parts of Ukraine, the country’s official air aid map showed, including the Dontetsk, Luhansk and Kharkiv regions in the east.

“Stay in shelters! The massive attack on the capital continues,” Klitschko warned on Telegram.

The head of Kyiv’s military administration said on Telegram that the attacks on various districts happened “simultaneously”.

South Koreans are celebrating their first win in the Tony Awards, which they say highlights their country’s status as a cultural powerhouse.

The acclaimed Broadway production of Maybe Happy Ending, which debuted in South Korea almost a decade ago, won six Tonys, including best musical.

Maybe Happy Ending is about the romance between two humanoid robots living in an apartment building on the outskirts of Seoul. It entered Sunday night’s awards ceremony with 10 nominations.

With the Tonys, South Koreans have now won the four most coveted awards in US entertainment. Squid Game won Emmy awards in 2022 while Parasite won four Oscars in 2020. Soprano Sumi Jo won a Grammy in 1993.

On Sunday, South Korean lyricist Hue Park and American composer Will Aronson took home the Tony for best original score and best book of a musical.

Before making their Broadway debut with Maybe Happy Ending in 2024, the pair, who met as students at New York University, had written the musical in both English and Korean.

“This is amazing!” one post on Threads reads. “I heard the Broadway version got even more polished. I’m so proud that Korea is becoming a true cultural powerhouse.”

“This feels like a dream come true for the Korean Wave,” reads another post. “I’m just as thrilled as when Parasite won the Oscars, Squid Game won the Emmys, and Han Kang received the Nobel Prize.”

Former Glee star Darren Criss, who played one of the robots, Oliver, won best lead actor in a musical. It was his first Tony win.

The musical, which also stars Helen J Shen as robot Claire, was already on a streak this awards season.

It bagged some of the top prizes at the Outer Critics Circle Awards and Drama League Awards this year.

First directed by Kim Dong-yeon, Maybe Happy Ending premiered in Seoul in 2016 to much critical acclaim. It has since been revived several times in South Korea and abroad – in both Korean and English.

Maybe Happy Ending’s success comes as South Korean artists continue to break ground in entertainment, especially with K-pop acts like BTS and Blackpink dominating music in the last few years.

It also serves as a window into Korean culture, some social media users say.

“It’s amazing that Korean elements like Jeju Island, fireflies, and hwabun (a plant pot) were kept in the Broadway version too,” reads one post on Threads.

“I already felt proud just seeing it nominated, but watching the local audience react so positively made it even more special.”

It is 1am on 3 June. A near gale force wind is blasting into Scotland. Great weather for the Moray East and West offshore wind farms, you would have thought.

The two farms are 13 miles off the north-east coast of Scotland and include some of the biggest wind turbines in the UK, at 257m high. With winds like that they should be operating at maximum capacity, generating what the developer, Ocean Winds, claims is enough power to meet the electricity needs of well over a million homes.

Except they are not.

That’s because if you thought that once an electricity generator – whether it be a wind farm or a gas-powered plant – was connected to the national grid it could seamlessly send its electricity wherever it was needed in the country, you’d be wrong.

The electricity grid was built to deliver power generated by coal and gas plants near the country’s major cities and towns, and doesn’t always have sufficient capacity in the wires that carry electricity around the country to get the new renewable electricity generated way out in the wild seas and rural areas.

And this has major consequences.

The way the system currently works means a company like Ocean Winds gets what are effectively compensation payments if the system can’t take the power its wind turbines are generating and it has to turn down its output.

It means Ocean winds was paid £72,000 not to generate power from its wind farms in the Moray Firth during a half-hour period on 3 June because the system was overloaded – one of a number of occasions output was restricted that day.

At the same time, 44 miles (70km) east of London, the Grain gas-fired power station on the Thames Estuary was paid £43,000 to provide more electricity.

Payments like that happen virtually every day. Seagreen, Scotland’s largest wind farm, was paid £65 million last year to restrict its output 71% of the time, according to analysis by Octopus Energy.

Balancing the grid in this way has already cost the country more than £500 million this year alone, the company’s analysis shows. The total could reach almost £8bn a year by 2030, warns the National Electricity System Operator (NESO), the body in charge of the electricity network.

It’s pushing up all our energy bills and calling into question the government’s promise that net zero would end up delivering cheaper electricity.

Now, the government is considering a radical solution: instead of one big, national electricity market, there’ll be a number of smaller regional markets, with the government gambling that this could make the system more efficient and deliver cheaper bills.

But in reality, it’s not guaranteed that anyone will get cheaper bills. And even if some people do, many others elsewhere in the country could end up paying more.

The proposals have sparked such bitter debate that one senior energy industry executive called it “the most vicious policy fight” he has ever known. He has, he says, “lost friends” over it.

Meanwhile, political opponents who claim net zero is an expensive dead end are only too ready to pounce.

It is reported that the Prime Minister has asked to review the details of what some newspapers are calling a “postcode pricing” plan. So is the government really ready to risk the most radical shake-up of the UK electricity market since privatisation 35 years ago? And what will it really mean for our bills?

The Energy Secretary, Ed Miliband, is certainly in a fix. His net zero policy is under attack like never before. The Tories have come out against it, green politicians say it isn’t delivering for ordinary people, and even Tony Blair has weighed in against it.

Meanwhile Reform UK has identified the policy as a major Achilles heel for the Labour government. “The next election will be fought on two issues, immigration and net stupid zero,” says Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice. “And we are going to win.”

Poll after poll says cost of living is a much more important for most people, and people often specifically cite concerns about rising energy prices.

Miliband sold his aggressive clean energy policies in part on cutting costs. He said that ensuring 95% of the country’s electricity comes from low-carbon sources by 2030 would slash the average electricity bill by £300.

But the potential for renewables to deliver lower costs just isn’t coming through to consumers.

Renewables now generate more than half the country’s electricity, but because of the limits to how much electricity can be moved around the system, even on windy days some gas generation is almost always needed to top the system up.

And because gas tends to be more expensive, it sets the wholesale price.

Supporters of the government’s plan argue that, as long as prices continue to be set at a national level, the hold gas has on the cost of electricity will be hard to break. Less so with regional – or, in the jargon, “zonal” – pricing.

Think of Scotland, blessed with vast wind resources but just 5.5 million people. The argument goes that if prices were set locally, it wouldn’t be necessary to pay wind farms to be turned down because there wasn’t enough capacity in the cables to carry all the electricity into England.

On a windy day like 3 June, they would have to sell that spare power to local people instead of into a national market. The theory is prices would fall dramatically – on some days Scottish customers might even get their electricity for free.

Other areas with lots of renewable power – such as Yorkshire and the North East, as well as parts of Wales – would stand to benefit too. And, as solar investment increases in Lincolnshire and other parts of the east of England, they could also see prices tumble.

All that cheap power could also transform the economics of industry. Supporters argue that it would attract energy-intensive businesses such as data centres, chemical companies and other manufacturing industries.

In London and much of the south of England, the price of electricity would sometimes be higher than in the windy north. But supporters say some of the hundreds of millions of pounds the system would save could be used to make sure no one pays more than they do now.

And those higher prices could also encourage investors to build new wind farms and solar plants closer to where the demand is. The argument is that would lower prices in the long run and bring another benefit – less electricity would need to be carried around the country, so we would need fewer new pylons, saving everyone money and meaning less clutter in the countryside.

“Zonal pricing would make the energy system as a whole dramatically more efficient, slashing this waste and cutting bills for every family and business in the country,” argues Greg Jackson, the CEO of Octopus Energy, one of the biggest energy suppliers in the UK.

Research commissioned by the company estimates the savings could top £55 billion by 2050 – which it claims could knock £50 to £100 a year off the average bill. Octopus points out Sweden made the switch to regional pricing in just 18 months.

The supporters of regional pricing include NESO, Citizens Advice and the head of the energy regulator, Ofgem. Last week a committee of the House of Lords recommended the country should switch to the system.

There are, however, many businesses involved in building and running renewable energy plants that oppose the move.

“We’re making billions of pounds of investments in renewable power in the UK every year,” says Tom Glover, the UK chair of the giant German power company RWE. “I can’t go to my board and say let’s take a bet on billions of pounds of investment.”

He’s worried changing the way energy is priced could undermine contracts and make revenues more uncertain. And he says it risks undermining the government’s big push to switch to green energy.

The main cost of wind and solar plants is in the build. It means the price of the energy they produce is very closely tied to the cost of building and, because developers borrow most of the money, that means the interest rates they are charged.

And we are talking a lot of money. The government is expecting power companies to spend £40bn pounds a year over the next five years on renewable projects in the UK.

Glover says even a very small change in interest rates could have dramatic effects on how much renewable infrastructure is built and how much the power from it costs.

“Those additional costs could quickly overwhelm any of the benefits of regional pricing,” says Stephen Woodhouse, an economist with the consultancy firm AFRY, which has studied the impact of regional pricing for the power companies.

That would come as already high interest rates have combined with rising prices for steel and other materials to push up the cost of renewables. Plans for a huge wind farm off the coast of Yorkshire were cancelled last month because the developer said it no longer made economic sense.

And there’s another consideration, he says. The National Grid, which owns the pylons, substations and cables that move electricity around the country, is already rolling out a huge investment programme – some £60bn over the next five years – to upgrade the system ready for the new world of clean power.

That new infrastructure will mean more capacity to bring electricity from our windy northern coasts down south, and therefore also mean fewer savings from a regional pricing system in the future.

There are other arguments too. Critics warn introducing regional pricing could take years, that energy-intensive businesses like British Steel can’t just up sticks and move, and that the system will be unfair because some customers will pay more than others.

But according to Greg Jackson of Octopus, the power companies and their backers just want to protect their profits. “Unsurprisingly, it’s the companies that enjoy attractive returns from this absurd system who are lobbying hard to maintain the status quo,” he says.

Yet the power companies say Octopus has a vested interest too. It is the UK’s biggest energy supplier with some seven million customers, and owns a sophisticated billing system it licenses to other suppliers, so could gain from changes to the way electricity is priced, they claim.

And the clock is ticking. Whether the government meets its clean power targets will depend on how many new wind farms and solar plants are built.

The companies who will build them say they need certainty around the future of the electricity market, so a decision must be taken soon.

It’s expected in the next couple of weeks. Over to you, Mr Miliband.

Sign up for our Future Earth newsletter to keep up with the latest climate and environment stories with the BBC’s Justin Rowlatt. Outside the UK? Sign up to our international newsletter here.

Joe is somewhat shorter than the average American man, at 5ft 6in (1.67m) – but when Ashley came across his Tinder profile last year, the last thing she was thinking about was Joe’s height.

“We were talking about our hobbies and passions,” Ashley says, “not superficial things.”

News that the dating app where Ashley and Joe found love is trialling a new feature – allowing some premium users to filter potential matches according to their height – was met with mixed reactions earlier this week.

While daters like Ashley worry it might stifle possible connections, others say the feature might actually help shorter men find a match.

Tinder’s trial is running in “limited” parts of the world, excluding the UK, with the feature only available to those who pay for its two highest subscription tiers. Tinder has not told the BBC which countries it is being trialled in.

It works by informing the app’s matching algorithm based on a user’s stated preference, rather than filtering out certain users altogether. But online reaction to its launch has ranged from amusement to outrage.

“Tinder just declared war on short kings,” wrote one social media user, while another said they’d be “using the Tinder height filter to filter out all men taller than 5ft 9in”.

Another commented: “I don’t care what Tinder says – short kings are elite.”

Ashley, from Wisconsin, says she understands why height can be a deal-breaker for some daters – but that wasn’t the case for her.

“I’ve heard people talk: ‘I can’t wear heels or my partner will look shorter,'” the 24-year-old says, “but that’s never mattered to me”.

Joe is “just such an amazing person”, she says, it wouldn’t matter to her “if he was six feet tall or five feet tall”.

Using a height filter might actually have prevented her and Joe from ever meeting, she adds – and she reckons others could be missing out too.

Joe, meanwhile, says Tinder’s height filtering feature could actually make dating harder for shorter men.

“Limiting yourself to physical things about someone will lessen your opportunities and chances of finding a partner,” he says. “Height shouldn’t matter when you’re looking for forever.”

The 27-year-old says his own dating experience hadn’t “all been so bad” and that his matches had judged him based on his personality, rather than his height.

But he thinks the new Tinder filter might affect other users’ chances of meaningful connections.

Tinder is not breaking new ground here – seasoned swipers will be familiar with various kinds of filter, which are now common features of dating apps including in the UK.

Hinge, a key Tinder competitor, already allows paying users to filter matches according to their height. Other filters include education level, religion, and checking whether potential matches smoke, drink or take drugs.

Bumble allows premium users to avoid matches with certain star signs, while paying Grindr users can filter by body type.

But as the world’s largest dating app, Tinder’s experiment with height filtering still has huge significance, and has sparked discussion in Britain too.

At 5ft 9in, Matt Heal, from Manchester, says he feels jaded about the online dating scene.

Matt’s around average height for a man in the UK, but says some daters’ preferences for taller men have disadvantaged him on the apps.

“As someone who is neither very tall nor financially well off, I have definitely felt desensitised about dating [using apps],” he says.

The 28-year-old thinks it’s understandable that apps like Tinder try to optimise their matching algorithms, though.

“People have preferences based on all sorts of things,” Matt says, adding these features help people “see others they are interested in, rather than swiping for hours on people you don’t consider compatible”.

However, he thinks daters shouldn’t be too rigid about what they’re looking for.

“If you were into people who are over six feet, would you really not date someone who’s 5ft 11in” – if they were good looking and had similar interests?”

Matt feels it’s easier for men his height to meet people offline, explaining that meeting someone in person, through mutual friends, for example, can mean a less prescriptive approach.

But Beth McColl, 31, thinks the Tinder height filter may offer shorter men some reassurance. The London-based writer and podcaster says it could help people avoid “women who only want to date really tall men”.

Whether or not women will actually use this feature, Beth is uncertain.

“Women typically don’t have a problem with dating a shorter man,” Beth says, “but they do, maybe, have a problem with dating a shorter man who is really hung up on it.”

Aside from the filters, Beth believes the real problem of modern dating lies with the dating apps themselves.

“It encourages us to treat dating like picking something from the menu,” she says, adding, “there’s nothing in being a little bit taller that will make that man a better partner – but I think we’ve tricked ourselves into thinking that there’s truth in that.”

As to whether the Tinder move will prove popular with users on a mass scale – that remains to be seen.

“Features like this capitalise on a well-known preference – some women desire taller partners,” says Lara Besbrode, managing director at The Matchmaker UK. “They don’t address the deeper issues at the heart of online dating fatigue.”

But, she says, attraction is “not static” and can evolve over time.

“A man who is 5ft 7in (1.7m), but confident, kind, and emotionally attuned can be far more attractive than someone who ticks the 6ft (1.8m) box but lacks substance,” Lara says.

Tinder told the BBC its new filter demonstrates it is “building with urgency, clarity, and focus” and that it is “part of a broader effort to help people connect more intentionally” on the app.

A spokesperson said: “Not every test becomes a permanent feature, but every test helps us learn how we can deliver smarter, more relevant experiences and push the category forward.”

And that fleeting moment when stumbling across each other’s profiles on a dating app can be vital, as Ashley and Joe know.

Ashley worries that people who use Tinder’s new filter “might be cutting themselves off from people who’re a potential match for them, rather than someone who’s their preferred height”.

But for now her swiping days are over, and her relationship with Joe is blossoming. He’s “phenomenal”, Ashley says, “super sweet”.

From the moment Justin Baldoni announced in 2019 that he was adapting the best-selling book It Ends With Us into a film, there was a widespread frenzy.

There are few books in recent years that have become as big a cultural phenomenon as Colleen Hoover’s novel – it has sold 20m copies and became an internet sensation on TikTok with more than one billion tags on the app.

When Blake Lively, who rose to fame in the 2000s in Gossip Girl, was cast as the main character, fans became even more excited, describing her as the perfect choice to play Lily Bloom, a young woman who grew up witnessing domestic abuse and winds up in the same position years later.

Lily, a florist in Boston, navigates a complicated love triangle between her charming but abusive boyfriend Ryle Kincaid – played by Jane the Virgin’s Justin Baldoni – and her compassionate first love, Atlas Corrigan (Brandon Sklenar).

Released last August, the film became a box office success bringing in more than $350m (£280m) globally.

But despite its financial success, everything wasn’t running so smoothly behind the scenes. Rumours of a feud between Baldoni and Lively began swirling before the film was even released.

In December, Lively filed a legal complaint against her co-star, accusing him of sexual harassment and starting a smear campaign against her. Baldoni strongly denies that and filed a suit in response, which was dismissed by a judge in June.

Here is the story so far:

For a film about domestic abuse, the press tour for It Ends With Us was probably not what you would have expected. There were pink carpets, flowers galore and the promotion of Lively’s new haircare brand and her husband’s gin company.

Instead of advocacy on the red carpet, Lively highlighted fashion and florals.

At the London premiere, press were told to keep questions “fun and light-hearted” with one event organiser telling me to “steer away from questions on domestic abuse”.

One of her remarks made at the New York premiere – “you are so much more than just a survivor or just a victim” – sparked backlash on social media.

Domestic abuse survivor Ashley Paige criticised Ms Lively’s language and told the BBC that Lively was promoting the film like it’s “the sequel to Barbie”.

Lively was also criticised for her comments in another clumsy promotional tour video where she said: “Grab your friends, wear your florals and head out to see it.”

Alongside the press tour being described as “tone-deaf”, people started asking questions about why the Lively and Baldoni weren’t photographed on the red carpet together at the film’s New York premiere.

The pair also did no interviews together during the press tour and at the London premiere, which Baldoni didn’t attend, I was warned by Lively’s team to not “ask any questions about Justin”.

Internet sleuths also spotted that cast members including Lively and author Hoover did not follow Baldoni on social media.

Neither Lively or Baldoni addressed rumours of a feud during the press tour and the only reference to each other was Baldoni telling Today that his co-star was a “dynamic creative”.

“She had her hands in every part of this production, and everything she touched made [it] better,” he said about the 37-year-old.

During the film’s press tour, Baldoni hired a crisis manager, Melissa Nathan, whose previous clients include Johnny Depp and Drake.

Shortly after the press tour, Lively faced a barrage of criticism on social media relating to her comments on that tour as well as from old interviews.

One of the interviews to resurface was one shared by a Norwegian journalist, Kjersti Flaa, who posted a video on YouTube of her interviewing Lively in 2016. It was titled “The Blake Lively interview that made me want to quit my job.”

Flaa has since said she had “nothing to do with Justin Baldoni and his smear campaign”.

Actor Brandon Sklenar, who plays Atlas in the film, defended Lively and said in a post on Instagram that people had been “vilifying” the women involved in the film online.

He said it was “disheartening to see the amount of negativity being projected” and that someone close to him who had experienced a relationship similar to Lily’s had credited the film with “saving her life”.

Four months after the film’s launch, Lively filed a legal complaint against Mr Baldoni in which she accused him of sexual harassment.

The complaint also listed Wayfarer Studios, Mr Baldoni’s production company which produced It Ends With Us, as a defendant.

The legal filing accuses Mr Baldoni and Wayfarer CEO Jamey Heath of “repeated sexual harassment and other disturbing behaviour”. Some other female cast and crew had also spoken up about their conduct, the filing alleges.

It also alleges that Ms Lively, Mr Baldoni and other people involved in the development of the film attended a meeting in January to address “the hostile work environment” on set. Her husband, actor Ryan Reynolds, attended the meeting alongside her, according to the complaint.

At the meeting, attendees agreed to a list of demands, including Mr Baldoni and Mr Heath making “no more descriptions of their own genitalia”, requiring an intimacy coordinator on set at all times when Ms Lively was in scenes with Mr Baldoni and no “friends” of the producers and directors being on set during scenes when Ms Lively was in a state of nudity.

The list of demands also implied that Mr Baldoni had asked Ms Lively’s trainer how much she weighed and alleged that Mr Baldoni and Mr Heath had spoken about their “pornography addiction” to Ms Lively.

In the filing, Ms Lively also alleges that Mr Baldoni and his team attacked her public image after the meeting.

She accuses him of orchestrating a plan to “destroy” her reputation in the press and online, including hiring a crisis manager who led a “sophisticated, coordinated, and well-financed retaliation plan” against her and used a “digital army” to post social media content that seemed authentic.

“To safeguard against the risk of Ms Lively ever revealing the truth about Mr Baldoni, the Baldoni-Wayfarer team created, planted, amplified, and boosted content designed to eviscerate Ms Lively’s credibility,” her team wrote in the filing.

It adds: “They engaged in the same techniques to bolster Mr Baldoni’s credibility and suppress any negative content about him.”

In the filing, Ms Lively says that this had led to “substantial harm” that affected “all aspects” of her life.

Mr Baldoni’s legal team told the BBC the allegations are “categorically false” and said they hired a crisis manager because Ms Lively had threatened to derail the film unless her demands were met.

Responding to the legal complaint, Mr Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, said: “It is shameful that Ms Lively and her representatives would make such serious and categorically false accusations against Mr Baldoni, Wayfarer Studios and its representatives.”

Mr Freedman accused Ms Lively of making numerous demands and threats, including “threatening to not show up to set, threatening to not promote the film”, which would end up “ultimately leading to its demise during release, if her demands were not met”.

Hollywood stars including America Ferrera, Amber Tamblyn and Alexis Bledel have publicly backed Blake Lively after she filed her complaint.

Ferrera, Tamblyn and Bledel, who starred with Lively in 2005 film The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, issued a joint statement on Instagram, on Sunday saying they “stand with her in solidarity”.

“Throughout the filming of It Ends with Us, we saw her summon the courage to ask for a safe workplace for herself and colleagues on set, and we are appalled to read the evidence of a premeditated and vindictive effort that ensued to discredit her voice,” they wrote.

Colleen Hoover, the author of It Ends With Us, also showed her support, describing Ms Lively as “honest, kind, supportive and patient”.

In early December Baldoni was awarded a women’s solidarity honour by Vital Voices, a global non-profit organisation that focuses on empowering women.

The organisation has rescinded the award after the legal complaint filed by Lively alleged “abhorrent conduct” by the actor, his studio and a crisis public relations team that it said was “contrary to the values” it held.

And since the legal complaint, Baldoni’s podcast co-host Liz Plank announced she was leaving The Man Enough show.

The podcast bills itself as creating “a safe environment” for exploring issues such as how “masculinity” shows up in relationships, as well as “sex, success” and “mental health”.

On 31 December Baldoni’s lawyers filed a $250m libel lawsuit against New York Times over its reporting of Lively’s allegations against him.

The paper published an article on 21 December entitled: “‘We Can Bury Anyone’: Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine.”

Federal Judge Lewis Liman dismissed the defamation suit in June.

Baldoni and nine other plaintiffs including publcist Melissa Nathan had accused the paper of libel and false-light invasion of privacy.

The lawsuit said the paper “‘cherry-picked’ and altered communications stripped of necessary context and deliberately spliced to mislead”.

A New York Times spokesperson said the story was “meticulously and responsibly reported” and it plans to “vigorously defend” itself.

In dismissing the suit, Judge Liman said the Times “reviewed the available evidence and reported, perhaps in a dramatized manner, what it believed to have happened”. “The Times had no obvious motive to favor Lively’s version of events,” the judge wrote.

On 16 January, Baldoni filed a lawsuit against Lively and her husband Ryan Ryenolds.

He sued them for $400m (£326m) damages on claims of civil extortion, defamation and invasion of privacy.

Baldoni’s lawyer Bryan Freedman said the actress and her partners had disseminated “grossly edited, unsubstantiated, new and doctored information to the media”.

He also said Lively and her team had “attempted to bulldoze reputations and livelihoods for heinously selfish reasons”.

Judge Liman dismissed the suit in June, saying Baldoni and his company “have not adequately alleged that Lively’s threats were wrongful extortion rather than legally permissible hard bargaining or renegotiation of working conditions”.

On 21 January, Baldoni released three out-takes of a romantic scene from the film as evidence that Lively’s claims of sexual harassment are unfounded.

The video’s caption says the footage shows both actors “clearly behaving well within the scope of the scene and with mutual respect and professionalism”.

However, Lively’s lawyers said the footage showed him “repeatedly leaning in toward Ms Lively and attempting to kiss her”.

They added that every moment was “improvised by Mr Baldoni with no discussion or consent in advance, and no intimacy co-ordinator present”.

“Any woman who has been inappropriately touched in the workplace will recognise Ms Lively’s discomfort,” they said.

The following week, a voicemail of Baldoni apologising to Lively during an exchange about a script rewrite in April 2023 was also released.

A judge has set a date for their case to trial – 9 March 2026.

Baldoni has published a website called Lawsuit Info with his amended complaint and a timeline of events related to his lawsuits against Lively and New York Times.

Published on 1 February it contains two legal documents: Baldoni’s latest court filings against Lively and Reynolds, and a 168-page document entitled “timeline of relevant events” related to the dispute and the production of the film.

The latter includes alleged text message exchanges between him and Lively.

Baldoni’s lawyer, Bryan Freedman, told BBC News that Baldoni amended his lawsuit due “to the overwhelming amount of new proof that has come to light”.

Lively’s representatives are yet to comment, but a New York Times spokesperson told BBC News that Baldoni’s legal filings were “rife with inaccuracies” about the newspaper, “including, for example, the bogus claim that The Times had early access to Ms Lively’s state civil rights complaint”.

On 3 February, a pretrial meeting was held at a federal court in Manhattan.

The hour-and-a-half hearing became heated as lawyers for each side claimed the other was badmouthing their client outside of court.

Judge Liman said both sides have “given the public plenty to feast upon” and added that if the case ended up being “litigated in the press”, he could be forced to make the March 2026 trial date earlier, so jurors do not become prejudiced against either of the defendants.

He also said he is barring the lawyers from making statements publicly that could sway the outcome of a trial.

During the mid-1970s, under Prime Minister Indira Gandhi’s imposition of the Emergency, India entered a period where civil liberties were suspended and much of the political opposition was jailed.

Behind this authoritarian curtain, her Congress party government quietly began reimagining the country – not as a democracy rooted in checks and balances, but as a centralised state governed by command and control, historian Srinath Raghavan reveals in his new book.

In Indira Gandhi and the Years That Transformed India, Prof Raghavan shows how Gandhi’s top bureaucrats and party loyalists began pushing for a presidential system – one that would centralise executive power, sideline an “obstructionist” judiciary and reduce parliament to a symbolic chorus.

Inspired in part by Charles de Gaulle’s France, the push for a stronger presidency in India reflected a clear ambition to move beyond the constraints of parliamentary democracy – even if it never fully materialised.

It all began, writes Prof Raghavan, in September 1975, when BK Nehru, a seasoned diplomat and a close aide of Gandhi, wrote a letter hailing the Emergency as a “tour de force of immense courage and power produced by popular support” and urged Gandhi to seize the moment.

Parliamentary democracy had “not been able to provide the answer to our needs”, Nehru wrote. In this system the executive was continuously dependent on the support of an elected legislature “which is looking for popularity and stops any unpleasant measure”.

What India needed, Nehru said, was a directly elected president – freed from parliamentary dependence and capable of taking “tough, unpleasant and unpopular decisions” in the national interest, Prof Raghavan writes.

The model he pointed to was de Gaulle’s France – concentrating power in a strong presidency. Nehru imagined a single, seven-year presidential term, proportional representation in Parliament and state legislatures, a judiciary with curtailed powers and a press reined in by strict libel laws. He even proposed stripping fundamental rights – right to equality or freedom of speech, for example – of their justiciability.

Nehru urged Indira Gandhi to “make these fundamental changes in the Constitution now when you have two-thirds majority”. His ideas were “received with rapture” by the prime minister’s secretary PN Dhar. Gandhi then gave Nehru approval to discuss these ideas with her party leaders but said “very clearly and emphatically” that he should not convey the impression that they had the stamp of her approval.

Prof Raghavan writes that the ideas met with enthusiastic support from senior Congress leaders like Jagjivan Ram and foreign minister Swaran Singh. The chief minister of Haryana state was blunt: “Get rid of this election nonsense. If you ask me just make our sister [Indira Gandhi] President for life and there’s no need to do anything else”. M Karunanidhi of Tamil Nadu – one of two non-Congress chief ministers consulted – was unimpressed.

When Nehru reported back to Gandhi, she remained non-committal, Prof Raghavan writes. She instructed her closest aides to explore the proposals further.

What emerged was a document titled “A Fresh Look at Our Constitution: Some suggestions”, drafted in secrecy and circulated among trusted advisors. It proposed a president with powers greater than even their American counterpart, including control over judicial appointments and legislation. A new “Superior Council of Judiciary”, chaired by the president, would interpret “laws and the Constitution” – effectively neutering the Supreme Court.

Gandhi sent this document to Dhar, who recognised it “twisted the Constitution in an ambiguously authoritarian direction”. Congress president DK Barooah tested the waters by publicly calling for a “thorough re-examination” of the Constitution at the party’s 1975 annual session.

The idea never fully crystallised into a formal proposal. But its shadow loomed over the Forty-second Amendment Act, passed in 1976, which expanded Parliament’s powers, limited judicial review and further centralised executive authority.

The amendment made striking down laws harder by requiring supermajorities of five or seven judges, and aimed to dilute the Constitution’s ‘basic structure doctrine’ that limited parliament’s power.

It also handed the federal government sweeping authority to deploy armed forces in states, declare region-specific Emergencies, and extend President’s Rule – direct federal rule – from six months to a year. It also put election disputes out of the judiciary’s reach.

This was not yet a presidential system, but it carried its genetic imprint – a powerful executive, marginalised judiciary and weakened checks and balances. The Statesman newspaper warned that “by one sure stroke, the amendment tilts the constitutional balance in favour of the parliament.”

Meanwhile, Gandhi’s loyalists were going all in. Defence minister Bansi Lal urged “lifelong power” for her as prime minister, while Congress members in the northern states of Haryana, Punjab, and Uttar Pradesh unanimously called for a new constituent assembly in October 1976.

“The prime minister was taken aback. She decided to snub these moves and hasten the passage of the amendment bill in the parliament,” writes Prof Raghavan.

By December 1976, the bill had been passed by both houses of parliament and ratified by 13 state legislatures and signed into law by the president.

After Gandhi’s shock defeat in 1977, the short-lived Janata Party – a patchwork of anti-Gandhi forces – moved quickly to undo the damage. Through the Forty-third and Forty-fourth Amendments, it rolled back key parts of the Forty Second, scrapping authoritarian provisions and restoring democratic checks and balances.

Gandhi was swept back to power in January 1980, after the Janata Party government collapsed due to internal divisions and leadership struggles. Curiously, two years later, prominent voices in the party again mooted the idea of a presidential system.

In 1982, with President Sanjiva Reddy’s term ending, Gandhi seriously considered stepping down as prime minister to become president of India.

Her principal secretary later revealed she was “very serious” about the move. She was tired of carrying the Congress party on her back and saw the presidency as a way to deliver a “shock treatment to her party, thereby giving it a new stimulus”.

Ultimately, she backed down. Instead, she elevated Zail Singh, her loyal home minister, to the presidency.

Despite serious flirtation, India never made the leap to a presidential system. Did Gandhi, a deeply tactical politician, hold herself back ? Or was there no national appetite for radical change and India’s parliamentary system proved sticky?

There was a hint of presidential drift in the early 1970s, as India’s parliamentary democracy – especially after 1967 – grew more competitive and unstable, marked by fragile coalitions, according to Prof Raghavan. Around this time, voices began suggesting that a presidential system might suit India better. The Emergency became the moment when these ideas crystallised into serious political thinking.

“The aim was to reshape the system in ways that immediately strengthened her hold on power. There was no grand long-term design – most of the lasting consequences of her [Gandhi’s] rule were likely unintended,” Prof Raghavan told the BBC.

“During the Emergency, her primary goal was short-term: to shield her office from any challenge. The Forty Second Amendment was crafted to ensure that even the judiciary couldn’t stand in her way.”

The itch for a presidential system within the Congress never quite faded. As late as April 1984, senior minister Vasant Sathe launched a nationwide debate advocating a shift to presidential governance – even while in power.

But six months later, Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her Sikh bodyguards in Delhi, and with her, the conversation abruptly died. India stayed a parliamentary democracy.

Thousands gathered on Sunday in an ancient town in south-west Nigeria for a spectacular display of culture, colour and tradition.

The Ojude Oba festival in Ijebu-Ode, brought together locals and visitors to pay homage to the Awujale – the traditional ruler of the Ijebu people.

This union of drummers, musicians and dancers coupled with a fashion parade told a tale of people deeply connected to their roots.

Ojude Oba – a Yoruba phrase meaning “the kings forecourt” – began over two centuries ago.

Earmarked for the third day after Eid, this was originally a modest gathering of the Muslim faithful, thanking the king for allowing them to practise their religion freely.

But it has grown to symbolise pride, unity and identity among all the Ijebu people regardless of religion.

The women were elegantly turned-out in colourful traditional dresses, known here as iro and buba, along with the gele, or head wrap.

Their outfits were made from lace or aso-oke, a locally sourced fabric woven by the Yoruba people.

The sunglasses and hand fans meant to provide respite for the blistering sun were must-have accessories, complementing the looks.

Dressed in traditional Yoruba agbada, the men agree months ahead on what outfits, colour and accessories to use for the festival.

Each year, they tweak the style and colour and display. Accessories include matching caps, beads and shoes.

Regardless of social status, the people are classified into age groups known as regbe-regbe, with hundreds belonging to each one. They are aimed at fostering unity among the locals.

The horses were adorned in colourful ornaments of gold and silver. Their riders displayed their prowess and the strength of their horses circling the arena to thunderous applause from spectators.

Shots from locally made guns sent white smoke into the air, signalling the arrival of each of the traditional warrior family, known as Balogun or Eleshin.

They protected the Ijebu kingdom from external aggression at one time.

The flamboyant parade of culture provides an economic boost to the area as dress makers, weavers, shoe makers, jewellers and others are contracted to make the desired outfits and matching accessories.

• Nigeria’s Egungun festival: Colour, culture and community
• Nigeria’s spectacular horse parade closing Ramadan
• Nigerians take to the streets for Calabar Carnival

A small marble sculpture thought to be a copy of the French artist Auguste Rodin’s work has turned out to be the real thing, selling for almost $1m at an auction in France on Monday.

The sculpture, called “Despair”, a figure of a woman hugging her knees and holding one foot, is a work by the famed sculptor from 1892 that had disappeared after being sold at an auction in 1906.

For the owners, “Despair” turned to delight when the piece they believed to be a Rodin copy was confirmed as authentic by the Comite Rodin after a six-week probe.

French auctioneer Aymeric Rouillac described it as an “extremely rare” find and the work was put up for auction and eventually sold for €860,000 (£725,000; $982,000).

“Despair” was originally modelled by Rodin as part of his series of figures for The Gates of Hell.

According to the Musée Rodin, the figure is a depiction of sorrow and the French sculptor created other versions after it was positively received.

After the family who owned the 28.5cm (11 inches) marble figure – which had sat on their piano for years – approached Mr Rouillac, he and his team spent months investigating the origins of the piece.

In March, Mr Rouillac brought the piece to the Comité Rodin, a research group dedicated to studying the works of Rodin, who confirmed its authenticity six weeks later.

The committee found that “Despair” had disappeared after being sold at an auction in 1906.

“We have rediscovered it,” Mr Rouillac told the AFP news agency.

Liberia’s former speaker and three other members of the House of Representatives have been released from prison after paying a bond of £325,000 ($440,000).

Jonathan Fonati Koffa, Abu Kamara, Dixon Seboe and Jacob Debee were charged over their alleged role in the burning of the Capitol building last December.

All four men face several charges, including arson, criminal mischief, attempted murder and other alleged offences.

The huge blaze broke out at the parliament building a day after plans to remove Koffa as speaker sparked protests in the capital, Monrovia. Police value the damage at $8.6m.

On Friday, Liberian police said there were “credible links” to suggest Koffa was “strategically involved” in the incident. Koffa has previously denied any connection to the fire.

Lawmakers Kamara, Seboe and Debee – who are all members of the opposition Congress for Democratic Change (CDC) party – were detained alongside Koffa on Friday in connection with the case.

They spent a night in detention at the national police headquarters, before being transferred to the Monrovia Central Prison on Saturday, where they were held for two nights.

Representative Priscilla Cooper has also been charged, but was not detained due to ill-health.

The court has placed a travel ban on the accused pending the conclusion of the case.

The blaze on 18 December last year destroyed the entire joint chambers of the West African nation’s legislature. No one was inside the building at the time.

The day before had seen tense protests over the plans to remove Koffa, with demonstrators including an aide to former President George Weah arrested.

Several individuals, including Koffa and Representative Frank Saah Foko, were brought in for questioning by police.

Foko, a prominent figure in the House of Representatives, allegedly uploaded a video to Facebook in which he said: “If they want us to burn the chambers, we will burn it.”

Liberia’s House of Representatives has been beset by a long-running power struggle.

Koffa had been locked in a stand-off with his political opponents, with dozens of lawmakers voting for his impeachment last October over accusations of poor governance, corruption and conflicts of interest.

Although the bid to impeach him fell short of the two-thirds majority required, the group of 47 lawmakers who had voted for the move unilaterally appointed their own speaker.

Last month, Koffa resigned as speaker after months of political deadlock.

• Plane carrying Liberian president involved in landing scare
• Life begins at 40? Africa’s legendary veteran footballers
• Liberian star JZyNO: Kendrick Lamar is a prophet to me

A referendum in Italy on easing citizenship rules and enhancing workers’ rights has been declared invalid.

Around 30% of voters participated – well short of the 50% threshold required to make the vote binding – in the poll, which began on Sunday and ran until 15:00 (14:00 BST) on Monday.

The ballot featured five questions covering different issues, including a proposal to halve the length of time an individual has to live in Italy before they can apply for citizenship from 10 to five years.

The referendum was initiated by a citizens’ initiative and supported by civil society groups and trade unions, all of whom campaigned for the Yes vote.

For them, the outcome – which saw turnout levels as low as 22% in regions like Sicily and Calabria – will come as a blow.

Reaching the 50% threshold was always going to be a struggle – not least because the Italian government, led by hard-right Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, largely ignored the referendum or actively discouraged people from voting.

“Whether just above 30% or just below 30%, this is a low figure, below the expectations and targets set by the promoters,” Lorenzo Pregliasco, the founder of political polling company YouTrend, told Italy’s SkyTG24.

Last week, Meloni announced she would boycott the vote, declaring Italy’s existing citizenship law as “excellent” and “very open”. She visited a polling station in Rome on Sunday but did not cast a vote.

But activists argued that a 10-year wait to apply for citizenship was far too long, and that reducing the requirement to five years would bring Italy in line with many of its European neighbours.

Shortly after polls closed, Meloni’s Brothers of Italy (FdI) party posted an image of opposition leaders on Instagram with the caption: “You’ve lost!”

“The only real objective of this referendum was to topple the Meloni government. In the end though Italians toppled you,” the post read.

Pina Picierno of the opposition Democratic Party (PD), said the referendum had been a “deep, serious and avoidable defeat,” and called the failure to reach the 50% threshold a “huge gift to Giorgia Meloni and the right”.

Half a million signatures are required to call a referendum in Italy. However, there are now calls for that threshold to be increased to reduce the number of votes put to the public.

“We spent a lot of money sending… millions of ballots abroad for Italian [expats] to vote, and they’ve been wasted,” said foreign minister Antonio Tajani on Monday.

Only about half of the 78 referendums held in Italy since World War Two have attracted enough votes to make them binding.

The first one, held on 2 June 1946, saw 89% of Italians go to the polls and just over half of those vote to replace the monarchy with a republic.

In later years, referendums on abortion and divorce were also held successfully.

The last referendum to reach the required threshold was a 2011 vote against a law privatising water services.

The families of missing Ukrainian soldiers gathered close to the border with Belarus on Monday, as a planned prisoner swap between Russia and Ukraine took place.

As the bus carrying prisoners of war arrived, a crowd of relatives surged forward, many brandishing photos of missing fathers, brothers and sons.

Faces were filled with apprehension. Few expected to be reunited, and most were just desperate for information after waiting years for any news.

During the latest round of direct talks in Turkey last week, the two warring sides agreed to exchange sick and heavily wounded prisoners of war, those aged under 25, and the bodies of 12,000 soldiers.

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky said the exchange would unfold “in several stages” over the coming days.

Writing on Telegram, he said: “The process is quite complicated, there are many sensitive details, negotiations continue virtually every day.”

Russia’s defence ministry said “the first group of Russian servicemen under the age of 25 were returned from the territory controlled by the Kyiv regime” and that a “similar number” had been returned to Ukraine. Neither side provided an exact figure of how many people had been exchanged.

As with past exchanges, Moscow said the repatriated Russian soldiers were receiving psychological and medical assistance in Belarus.

Officials in Kyiv said some of the Ukrainian prisoners who returned on Monday had been in Russian captivity since the beginning of the war.

Tetiana, who had gathered with other Ukrainians in the Chernihiv region close to Belarus, carried a cardboard sign with photos of her father, Valentyn, and cousin, Mykola, both still missing.

“When my father went to fight, my biggest fear was that he would go missing,” she said, her eyes filling with tears. “I hoped maybe he’d be wounded and come back.”

The war has exacted a heavy toll on the family. Tetiana’s uncle was killed last September, but his body was only recently returned for burial.

When one of the returned prisoners appeared at an upstairs window, women waiting below hurled the names of regiments at him, hoping he might have news.

He apologised, made a heart sign with his hands and called out “slava Ukraini” – glory to Ukraine. “Heroiam Slava” – glory to the heroes – the crowd replied in unison.

Glimpsed briefly through the crowd as they were escorted inside, some of the soldiers looked gaunt.

“They spent a lot of time in Russian places of detention, without any visits of International Red Cross,” Petro Yatsenko, of Ukraine’s Coordination HQ for prisoners of war, told the BBC.

“Their health conditions are very poor. They have not had sufficient food. Of course they need a long period of rehabilitation.”

But 23-year-old Valera, back on home soil after three years and three months of captivity, seemed happy enough after a bowl of Ukrainian soup.

As he turned to leave, women pressed forward, pushing pictures of the missing into his arms, hoping he might recognise someone.

Last week, Moscow and Kyiv accused each other of disrupting the planned repatriation of the bodies of dead soldiers.

Russia said that the bodies of more than 1,000 Ukrainian soldiers had been taken to an agreed exchange point but that Ukrainian officials had never arrived. Ukraine accused Moscow of “playing dirty games” and alleged that Russia was not sticking to the agreed parameters of the swap.

In late May, Russia and Ukraine each handed over 390 soldiers and civilians in the biggest prisoner exchange since Russia launched the full-scale invasion in 2022.

Meanwhile, war continued overnight, with Moscow launching a record 479 drones at Ukraine, including in the western region of Rivne that had been largely spared from attacks.

Russia’s defence ministry said it had targeted Rivne’s Dubno base and described this as “one of the retaliatory strikes” in response to Ukraine’s audacious drone attacks on Russian airfields on 1 June.

The overnight Russian launches caused damage in several Ukrainian regions but there were no reports of casualties.

Russia has recently escalated its attacks on Ukraine, with each week bringing a new record of drones fired at the country.

For its part, Kyiv said it attacked another Russian airbase in the Nizhny Novgorod region, which lies 400 miles from the Ukrainian border.

Ukraine said the base houses planes that launch hypersonic missiles and that it had damaged “two units of enemy aircraft”.

It also targeted an electronics factory that Kyiv says manufactures equipment to guide drones and aerial bombs.

Video shows one of the explosions caused by an attack drone, and a large fire at the plant. Production there has been suspended.

Dozens of activists have staged a protest outside a mortuary in Kenya’s capital, Nairobi, following the death of a 31-year-old man in police custody.

Albert Omondi Ojwang’s death has sparked outrage in Kenya. He was arrested following a complaint by the deputy police chief, who accused him of tarnishing his name on social media.

In an initial statement, police said that Mr Ojwang “sustained head injuries after hitting his head against a cell wall” while in custody.

However, the Ojwang family’s lawyer, Julius Juma, said the body bore signs of severe physical trauma, including swelling on the head, nose and ears.

Mr Juma also cited bruises on Mr Ojwang’s shoulders and hands – injuries which, he said, were inconsistent with a single impact against a wall.

Kenya’s Independent Policing Oversight Authority (IPOA) has launched an inquiry into his death.

Holding placards and chanting “Stop killing us”, a crowd protested outside Nairobi City mortuary, where Mr Ojwang’s body is being kept.

The crowd later marched to the Central Police Station where Mr Ojwang was being held at the time of his death.

Mr Ojwang was arrested in Homa Bay, a town in western Kenya, on Friday, over a post on X that was allegedly critical of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Eliud Lagat.

He was subsequently transferred over 350 km (220 miles) to Nairobi and booked into the Central Police Station on Saturday.

According to Mr Kanja, Mr Ojwang was arrested after Mr Lagat filed a complaint that his name was being “tarnished”.

“It was on that basis that investigations were actually being carried out,” Mr Kanja said at a press conference.

Responding to mounting public pressure, Mr Kanja announced that senior officers at Nairobi’s Central Police Station had been “interdicted”.

Police spokesperson Michael Muchiri, told the BBC that this means the officers could not perform their duties, and would receive half their salaries, pending the outcome of the investigation by IPOA.

Speaking at a press conference, Inspector General Kanja said the police would give the investigators all “necessary support” to resolve the case.

Mr Ojwang was found unconscious during a routine inspection of the cells and “rushed to hospital, where he was pronounced dead on arrival”, police say.

The director of Amnesty International’s Kenya branch, Irungu Houghton, told the BBC that Mr Ojwang’s death was “very suspicious”.

Mr Houghton said it was “quite shocking” that Mr Ojwang was not booked in at the local police station after being detained, but was instead taken on a long journey.

On Sunday, he called on the independent investigators to secure what he described as “the crime scene” at the police station in Nairobi.

Mr Ojwang’s death in detention comes at a time of rising concern about how some government critics are being treated.

Last week, software developer Rose Njeri, who created a tool to help people oppose a government finance bill, was charged with violating a cybercrime law. She denies the charge.

• Why Kenya’s president has so many nicknames
• The ‘tax collector’ president sparking Kenyan anger
• BBC identifies security forces who shot Kenya anti-tax protesters

Music superstars J Balvin, Doja Cat and Tems will perform a half-time show at the Club World Cup final in New Jersey next month, as football follows the example of the Super Bowl.

Colombian singer Balvin, US rapper Doja Cat and Nigerian star Tems will cram their performances into the 15-minute half-time break.

The line-up has been curated by Coldplay’s Chris Martin, and the event will hope to emulate the success of the long-running Super Bowl half-time show, which has featured stars including Kendrick Lamar, Rihanna and The Weeknd in recent years.

Teams including Chelsea, Manchester City, Real Madrid and Paris St-Germain will take part in the tournament across the US from 15 June to 13 July.

Fifa president Gianni Infantino said: “This show will be unforgettable – not just for its spectacle on a landmark night, but also for the lasting impact it will make.”

Previously an annual tournament contested by seven teams, the Club World Cup has been expanded to 32 teams and is aiming for an increased global profile.

Superstar player Lionel Messi will take part for US team Inter Miami, although the team’s participation has raised some eyebrows.

There will be no Cristiano Ronaldo, though, who has declined offers to play for various teams. The 40-year-old is out of contract with Saudi Arabian club Al-Nassr at the end of June.

Theo will be responding to reader comments about this article between 12pm and 1pm today. Go to the comments section at the bottom of this page to share what you think about the rise of these more affordable EVs.

In China, they call it the Seagull, and it has looks to match. It is sleek and angular, with bright, downward-slanting headlights that have more than a hint of mischievous eyes about them.

It is, of course, a car. A very small one, designed as a cheap city runabout – but it could have huge significance. Available in China since 2023, where it has proved extremely popular, it has just been launched in Europe with the name Dolphin Surf (because Europeans apparently aren’t as keen on seagulls as Chinese people).

When it goes on sale in the UK this week, it’s expected to have a price tag of around £18,000. That will still make it, for an electric car on western markets, very cheap indeed.

It won’t be the outright lowest-priced model on offer: the Dacia Spring, manufactured in Wuhan jointly by Renault and Dongfeng, and the Leapmotor T03, which is being produced by a joint venture between Chinese startup Leapmotor and Stellantis, both cost less.

But the Dolphin Surf is the invasive species that has long-established brands most worried. That is because the company behind it has been making ever bigger waves on international markets.

BYD is already the biggest player in China. It overtook Tesla in 2024 to become the world’s best-selling maker of electric vehicles (EVs), and since entering the European markets two years ago, it has expanded aggressively.

“We want to be number one in the British market within 10 years,” says Steve Beattie, sales and marketing director for BYD UK.

BYD is part of a wider expansion of Chinese companies and brands that some believe could change the face of the global motor industry – and which has already prompted radical action from the US government and the EU.

It means once-unknown marques like Nio, Xpeng, Zeekr or Omoda could become every bit as much household names as Ford or Volkswagen. They will join classic brands such as MG, Volvo and Lotus, which have been under Chinese ownership for years.

The products on offer already encompass a huge range, from runabouts like the tiny Dolphin Surf to exotic supercars, like the pothole-jumping U9, from BYD’s high-end sub-brand Yangwang.

“Chinese brands are making massive inroads into the European market,” says David Bailey, professor of business and economics at Birmingham Business School.

In 2024, 17 million battery and plug-in hybrid cars were sold worldwide, 11 million of those in China. Chinese brands, meanwhile, had 10% of global EV and plug-in hybrid sales outside their home country, according to the consultancy Rho Motion. That figure is only expected to grow.

For consumers, it should be good news – leading to more high-quality and affordable electric cars becoming available. But with rivalry between Beijing and western powers showing no sign of subsiding, some experts are concerned Chinese vehicles could represent a security risk from hackers and third parties. And for established players in Europe, it represents a formidable challenge to their historic dominance.

“[China has] a huge cost advantage through economies of scale and battery technology. European manufacturers have fallen well behind,” warns Mr Bailey.

“Unless they wake up very quickly and catch up, they could be wiped out.”

China’s car industry has been developing rapidly since the country joined the World Trade Organisation in 2001. But that process accelerated rapidly in 2015, when the Communist Party introduced its “Made in China 2025” initiative. The 10-year plan to make the country a leader in several high-tech industries, including EVs, attracted intense criticism from abroad, and particularly the US, amid claims of forced technology transfers and theft of intellectual property – all of which the Chinese government denies.

Fuelled by lavish state funding, the plan helped lay the groundwork for the breakneck growth of companies like BYD – originally a maker of batteries for mobile phones – and allowed the Chinese parent companies of MG and Volvo, SAIC and Geely, to become major players in the EV market.

“The general standard of Chinese cars is very, very high indeed,” says Dan Caesar, chief executive of Electric Vehicles UK.

“China has learned extremely quickly how to manufacture cars.”

Yet competition in China has become ever more cut-throat, with brands jostling for space in an increasingly saturated market. This has led them to hunt for sales elsewhere.

While Chinese firms have expanded into East Asia and South America, for years the European market proved a tough nut to crack – that is, until governments here decided to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel models.

The transition to electric cars opened the door to new players.

“[Chinese brands] have seen an opportunity to get a bit of a foothold,” says Oliver Lowe, UK product manager of Omoda and Jaecoo, two sub brands of the Chinese giant Chery.

Low labour costs in China, coupled with government subsidies and a very well-established supply chain, have given Chinese firms advantages, their rivals have claimed. A report from the Swiss bank UBS, published in late 2023, suggested that BYD alone was able to build cars 25% more cheaply than western competitors.

Chinese firms deny the playing field is uneven. Xpeng’s vice chairman Brian Gu told the BBC at the Paris Motor Show in 2024 that his company is competitive “because we have fought tooth and nail through the most competitive market in the world”.

Concerns that Chinese EV imports could flood international markets at the expense of established manufacturers reached fever pitch in 2024.

In the US, the Alliance for American Manufacturing warned they could prove to be an “extinction-level event” for the US industry, while the European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen suggested that “huge state subsidies” for Chinese firms were distorting the European market.

The Biden administration took dramatic action, raising import tariffs on Chinese-made EVs from 25% to 100%, effectively making it pointless to sell them in the US.

It was condemned by Beijing as “naked protectionism”.

Meanwhile, in October 2024, the EU imposed extra tariffs of up to 35.3% on Chinese-made EVs. The UK, however, took no action.

Matthias Schmidt, founder of Schmidt Automotive Research, says the EU’s tariffs have now made it harder for Chinese firms to gain market share.

“The door was wide open in 2024… but the Chinese failed to take their chance. With the tariffs in place, Chinese manufacturers are now unable to push their cost advantage onto European consumers.”

European manufacturers have been racing to develop their own affordable electric cars. French car-maker Renault is among them.

At its factory in Douai, in northeastern France, an army of spark-spitting robots weld sections of steel to form car bodies, while on the main assembly line, automated systems mate together bodyshells, doors, batteries, motors and other parts, before human workers apply the finishing touches.

The factory has been making cars for Renault since 1974, but four years ago, the ageing production lines were replaced with new highly automated, digitally-controlled systems.

Part of the site was also taken over by the Chinese-owned battery firm AESC, which built its own “gigafactory” next door.

It’s part of Renault’s wider plan to set up an ultra-modern EV “hub” in northern France. Mirroring the lean production techniques of Chinese manufacturers, the hub cuts costs by maximising efficiency and ensuring that suppliers are located as close as possible.

“Our target was to be able to produce affordable electric cars here to sell in Europe,” explains Pierre Andrieux, director of the Douai plant, arguing that automated processes “will enable us to do that profitably”.

But the company is also exploiting something the Chinese brands do not have: heritage. Its latest model, the Renault 5 E-tech, built in Douai, borrows its name from one of the company’s most famous products.

The original Renault 5, launched in 1972, was a quirky little everyman car with boxy looks and low running costs that became a cult classic.

The new design, despite being a state-of-the art EV, pays homage to its predecessor in name and appearance, in an effort to emulate its popular appeal.

But irrespective of how desirable Chinese cars are in comparison with European rivals, some experts believe we should be wary of them – for security reasons.

Most modern vehicles are internet-enabled in some way – to allow satellite navigation, for example – and drivers’ phones are often connected to car systems. Pioneered by Tesla, so-called “over-the-air updates” can upgrade a car’s software remotely.

This has all led to concerns, in some quarters, that cars could be hacked and used to harbour spyware, monitor individuals or even be immobilised at the touch of a keyboard.

Earlier this year, a British newspaper reported that military and intelligence chiefs had been ordered not to discuss official business while riding in EVs; it was also alleged that cars with Chinese components had been banned from sensitive military sites.

Then in May, a former head of the intelligence service MI6 claimed that Chinese-made technology in a range of products, including cars, could be controlled and programmed remotely. Sir Richard Dearlove warned MPs that there was the potential to “immobilise London”.

Beijing has always denied all accusations of espionage.

A spokesperson for the Chinese embassy in London says that the recent allegations are “entirely unfounded and absurd”.

“China has consistently advocated the secure, open, and rules-based development of global supply chains,” the spokesperson told the BBC. “Chinese enterprises operating around the world are required to comply with local laws and regulations.

“To date, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that Chinese EVs pose a security threat to the UK or any other country.”

Joseph Jarnecki, research fellow at defence and security think-tank The Royal United Services Institute, argues that potential risks can be mitigated.

“Chinese carmakers exist in this highly competitive market. While they’re beholden to Chinese law and that may require compliance with national security agencies, none of them want to damage their ability to grow and to have international exports by being perceived as a security risk,” he says.

“The Chinese government equally is conscious of the need for economic growth. They’re not hell-bent on solely conducting surveillance.”

But the car industry is just one area in which Chinese technology is becoming increasingly enmeshed in the UK economy. To achieve the government’s climate objectives, for instance, “It will be necessary to use Chinese-supplied technology”, adds Mr Jarnecki.

He believes that regulators of key industries should be given sufficient resources to monitor cyber security and advise companies using Chinese products of any potential issues.

As for electric cars powered by Chinese technology, there’s no question that they’re here to stay.

“Even if you have a car that’s made in Germany or elsewhere, it probably contains quite a few Chinese components,” says Dan Caesar.

“The reality is most of us have smartphones and things from China, from the US, from Korea, without really giving it a second thought. So I do think there’s some fearmongering going on about what the Chinese are capable of.

“I think we have to face the reality that China is going to be a big part of the future.”

US Health Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr, a vaccine sceptic, has removed all 17 members of a committee that issues official government recommendations on immunisations.

Announcing the move in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Kennedy said that conflicts of interest on the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (Acip) were responsible for undermining trust in vaccinations.

Kennedy said he wanted to “ensure the American people receive the safest vaccines possible.”

Doctors and health experts have criticised Kennedy’s longstanding questioning of the safety and efficacy of a number of vaccines, although in his Senate confirmation hearing he said he is “not going to take them away.”

On Monday he said he was “retiring” all of the Acip panel members. Eight of the 17 panellists were appointed in January 2025, in the last days of President Biden’s term.

Most of the members are practicing doctors and experts attached to major university medical centres.

Kennedy noted that if he did not remove the committee members, President Trump would not have been able to appoint a majority on the panel until 2028.

“The committee has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interest and has become little more than a rubber stamp for any vaccine,” Kennedy wrote.

He claimed that health authorities and drug companies were responsible for a “crisis of public trust” that some try to explain “by blaming misinformation or antiscience attitudes.”

In the editorial, Kennedy cited examples from the 1990s and 2000s and alleged that conflicts of interest persist.

“Most of ACIP’s members have received substantial funding from pharmaceutical companies, including those marketing vaccines,” he wrote in the Wall Street Journal.

The move appears contrary to assurances Kennedy gave during his confirmation hearings. Bill Cassidy, a Republican Senator from Louisiana who is also a doctor, reported that he received commitments from the health secretary that Acip would be maintained “without changes.”

On Monday, Cassidy wrote on X: “Of course, now the fear is that the Acip will be filled up with people who know nothing about vaccines except suspicion.

“I’ve just spoken with Secretary Kennedy, and I’ll continue to talk with him to ensure this is not the case.”

Acip members are required to disclose conflicts of interest, which are posted online, and to recuse themselves from voting on decisions where they may have a conflict.

“The problem isn’t necessarily that ACIP members are corrupt,” Kennedy wrote. “Most likely aim to serve the public interest as they understand it.

“The problem is their immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy.”

Dr Bruce Scott, president of the American Medical Association, a professional organisation for American doctors, said mass sacking “upends a transparent process that has saved countless lives.”

“With an ongoing measles outbreak and routine child vaccination rates declining, this move will further fuel the spread of vaccine-preventable illnesses,” Dr Scott said in a statement.

Kennedy did not say who he would appoint to replace the board members. Acip has a meeting scheduled starting 25 June, at which members are scheduled to vote on recommendations for vaccines for Covid, flu, meningococcal disease, RSV and other illnesses.

The BBC contacted the US Department of Health and Human Services and the Acip chair, Dr Helen Keipp Talbot, for comment.

This weekend, tensions boiled over in the Los Angeles area after a week of immigration sweeps in the region sparked violent protests against the Trump administration and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency.

President Donald Trump’s decision to send 700 US Marines and 4,000 National Guard troops to the Los Angeles area to support the federal response to the unrest has opened a volatile chapter in his mass deportation campaign.

The location of the raids and subsequent protests – a liberal-leaning city in a state controlled by Democrats – also gave the White House an ideal public foil as it seeks to show progress on removing illegal immigrants and instilling law and order.

Governor Gavin Newsom, a Democrat and prominent critic of the president, wrote on X that the troop deployment was a “deranged fantasy of a dictatorial President”.

The raids in America’s second-biggest city are unfolding against the backdrop of an aggressive push to raise arrest and deportation numbers, as the administration has been disappointed with its current pace.

ICE has ramped up its enforcement actions in recent weeks as it faces pressure to show progress on Trump’s signature policy initiative.

The agency arrested 2,200 people on 4 June, according to NBC News, a record for a single day.

The network reported that hundreds of those arrested were enrolled in a programme known as Alternative to Detention, which allows for the release and monitoring of individuals not deemed an immediate threat.

• Live updates from LA protests
• LA’s unrest in maps and pictures

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, the man widely seen as the intellectual architect of the deportation policy, has repeatedly said the White House hopes that ICE can scale up to 3,000 arrests a day, up from 660 or so during the first 100 days of Trump’s presidency.

“President Trump is going to keep pushing to get that number up higher each and every single day,” Miller told Fox News in late May.

Yet for much of the first 100 days of the administration, deportations were on par with, and at times below, those recorded during the last year of Joe Biden’s presidency.

The White House stopped publishing daily deportation figures early in 2020.

“I’m not satisfied with the numbers,” the administration’s border tsar, Tom Homan, told reporters at the White House at the end of May. “We need to increase.”

Homan added that the Trump administration had “increased the teams a lot” and that “we expect a fast increase in the number of arrests”.

Several senior ICE officials – including Kenneth Genalo, its top deportation official – have left their roles at the agency in recent months.

In February, ICE also moved two top officials overseeing deportations, as well as the agency’s acting director, Caleb Vitello.

At the time of the more recent reshuffle, the agency characterised the move as organisational realignments that will “help ICE achieve President Trump and the American people’s mandate of arresting and deporting illegal aliens and making American communities safe”.

• How LA erupted over a rumour
• Everything we know about the protests
• Analysis: A political fight Trump is eager to have

The Department of Homeland Security said in a press release that the immigrants detained in the recent Los Angeles raids included individuals convicted of sex crimes, burglary, and drug related charges, among other offences.

Local immigration advocates and community members, however, say that families have been torn apart and nonviolent immigrants detained.

At a rally on Monday, Los Angeles City Councilmember Ysabel Jurado said that a Friday raid at a warehouse in the Fashion District “was not about public safety, it was a fear driven, state violence designed to silence, to intimidate, to disappear”.

While opinion polls show that Trump’s immigration policies are popular with a majority of Americans, some of his backers have expressed concern about tactics.

The co-founder of Latinas for Trump, for example, Florida State Senator Ileana Garcia, wrote on X that “this is not what we voted for”.

“I understand the importance of deporting criminal aliens, but what we are witnessing are arbitrary measures to hunt down people who are complying with their immigration hearings – in many cases, with credible fear of persecution claims – all driven by a Miller-like desire to satisfy a self-fabricated deportation goal,” she added.

Federal authorities have conducted more frequent immigration raids across the US, in states that lean both towards Democrats and Republicans. Some Republican-controlled states, like Tennessee, have assisted federal authorities.

“California was willing to resist,” said John Acevedo, an associate dean at Emory Law School, who studies free speech and protests in the US.

Images of violence and resistance on the streets of Los Angeles gave Trump a catalyst for the deployment of the National Guard.

“For his base, it does quite a bit. It shows he’s serious, and allows them to show he will use all means necessary to enforce his [immigration] rules,” Prof Acevedo said.

Protesters in Los Angeles – which calls itself a sanctuary city, meaning it limits co-operation with federal immigration enforcement – did not relish the role they believed the administration had chosen for their city.

“This is my people, you know, I’m fighting for us,” said Maria Gutierrez, a Mexican-American who protested for two days in Paramount, a city in LA County that saw protests after residents spotted ICE agents in the area.

The unrest there involved looting and at least one car burning. Authorities used rubber bullets and tear gas.

She said there are some protesting in LA, including those in the nearby city of Compton, that share a belief that they were protecting the city from immigration enforcement and saw the Trump administration’s threats as a challenge.

Ms Gutierrez believed undocumented immigrants who commit violent offences should be targeted, but not those who she believes work hard and aspire to a better life.

“This is our city. We’re angry, we know how to protect ourselves and this isn’t going to scare us,” she said.

But the community is not united in support for the protests that have captured national attention.

Juan, who lives near Paramount, came to the US illegally and later became a citizen, but supports ICE’s actions.

“ICE agents have a job to do, just like you and I,” said Juan, who asked the BBC to withhold his last name given the federal operations in the area.

He said he worked for years as a day labourer, but gained citizenship and has four children who graduated from college.

“It’s hard,” he said. “I have family who don’t have papers, too.

“But you can’t really fight it if you’re here and you’re not supposed to be.”

“A crime is a crime,” he said.

A New York judge has dismissed Justin Baldoni’s $400m (£295m) defamation lawsuit against his former co-star Blake Lively.

The pair, who both starred in the 2024 film It Ends with Us, have been locked in a legal battle for several months, with a trial set for next year.

Judge Lewis Liman on Monday dismissed Baldoni’s countersuit, which alleged extortion, defamation and other allegations.

Baldoni brought the suit after Lively filed a legal complaint last year against her former co-star, accusing him of sexual harassment and starting a smear campaign against her.

Lively filed a suit against Baldoni’s Wayfarer Studios in December 2024, alleging she was sexually harassed on set and that Baldoni retaliated against her for bringing those complaints, among other allegations.

Lively also shared details of the allegations in a New York Times article published before her lawsuit.

Baldoni then brought defamation suits against Lively, her husband Ryan Reynolds, their publicist, claiming they were aiming to ruin his career and reputation with the allegations, as well as the New York Times.

Baldoni’s lawsuit centred on two claims: that Lively “stole the film” from him and his company Wayfarer by threatening not to promote it, and that she and others promoted a false narrative that Baldoni sexually assaulted her and launched a smear campaign against her, Judge Liman explained in his opinion.

But Baldoni and his production company “have not adequately alleged that Lively’s threats were wrongful extortion rather than legally permissible hard bargaining or renegotiation of working conditions”, he wrote.

Additionally, the judge wrote, Baldoni and his company had not proved defamation because the “Wayfarer Parties have not alleged that Lively is responsible for any statements other than the statements” in her lawsuit, which are privileged.

The judge also determined that evidence did not show that the New York Times “acted with actual malice” in publishing their story, dismissing that $250m suit as well.

“The alleged facts indicate that the Times reviewed the available evidence and reported, perhaps in a dramatized manner, what it believed to have happened,” he wrote. “The Times had no obvious motive to favor Lively’s version of events.”

In a statement shared with US media, Lively’s lawyers called the opinion “a total victory and a complete vindication for Blake Lively, along with those that Justin Baldoni and the Wayfarer Parties dragged into their retaliatory lawsuit, including Ryan Reynolds, Leslie Sloane and The New York Times”.

In a post on her Instagram, Lively said that “Like so many others, I’ve felt the pain of a retaliatory lawsuit, including the manufactured shame that tries to break us”.

“While the suit against me was defeated, so many don’t have the resources to fight back,” she said, adding that she was “more resolved than ever to continue to stand for every woman’s right to have a voice in protecting themselves”.

The BBC has contacted Baldoni’s lawyers for comment.

Judge Liman said Baldoni would be allowed to amend and refile his allegations related to interference with contracts by 23 June.

Judge Liman’s dismissal comes a week after Lively asked to withdraw two of the claims in her suit against Baldoni – intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

In the original lawsuit, she said she experienced “severe emotional distress” in response to the alleged sexual harassment and smear campaign.

It Ends With Us is an adaption of a best-selling Colleen Hoover novel, which features Blake Lively as the main character, Lily Bloom, a young woman who grew up witnessing domestic abuse and finds herself in the same position years later.

When 26-year-old Umar Sofi received his acceptance letter from Columbia University’s School of Journalism, he thought the hardest part of his journey was over.

After trying for three years, Mr Sofi had finally been admitted to his dream university and even secured a partial scholarship. He quit his job in anticipation of the big move.

But on 27 May, when the US suddenly paused student visa appointments, the ground slipped from beneath his feet.

“I was numb. I could not process what had happened,” Mr Sofi, who lives in Indian-administered Kashmir, told the BBC.

Some 2,000km (1,242 miles) away in Mumbai, 17-year-old Samita Garg (name changed on request) went through a similar ordeal.

A day after she was accepted into a top US university to study biochemistry – her first step towards becoming a dermatologist – the US embassy halted student visa appointments.

“It is scary and stressful,” Ms Garg told the BBC over the phone. “It feels like I’ve been left in the lurch, not knowing when this will end.”

Both Mr Sofi and Ms Garg now have only a few weeks to secure their visas before the academic year begins in August, but little clarity on whether they can go ahead with their plans.

Last month President Donald Trump’s administration asked US embassies across the world to stop scheduling appointments for student visas and expand social media vetting of applicants.

This wider move followed a crackdown on America’s elite universities like Harvard, which Trump accused of being too liberal and of not doing enough to combat antisemitism.

Trump’s decisions have had far-reaching repercussions in India, which sends more international students to the US than any other country.

Over the last month, the BBC spoke with at least 20 students at various stages of their application process, all of whom echoed deep anxieties about their futures. Most chose to remain anonymous, fearing retribution from the US government and worried that speaking out now could hurt their chances of obtaining a visa, or renewing it.

• Trump’s battle on international students explained… in 70 seconds
• Students say they ‘regret’ applying to US universities after visa changes
• Trump suspends foreign student visas at Harvard

More than 1.1 million international students were enrolled in US colleges in the 2023-24 school year, according to Open Doors, an organisation that collects data on foreign students.

Nearly a third of them, or more than 330,000, were from India.

Educational consultants report that applications to US universities for the upcoming autumn semester have dropped by at least 30% because of the uncertainty.

“Their biggest fear is safety – what if their visas are rejected or they’re deported mid-term?” said Nikhil Chopra, founder of TC Global, an international education consultancy.

Experts say many students are now either deferring their plans or switching to countries perceived to be more “stable” like the UK, Germany, Ireland and Australia.

Prema Unni (name changed on request) was accepted into three US universities for a master’s in data analytics. But instead of preparing for the move, he decided to forgo the opportunity altogether.

“There’s uncertainty at every step – first the visa, then restrictions on internships and part-time work, and the constant surveillance while on campus,” Mr Unni said. “It is very stressful.”

The halt on visa interviews is the latest in a series of policies tightening immigration rules for students. A few weeks ago, the US warned that students who drop out or miss classes without proper notification risk having their visas revoked, and could be barred from future entry.

These decisions have come around the time of the year when 70% of student visas are issued, or renewed, sparking great unease among Indian students.

“No student wants to go to a country and then have the visa policy suddenly change,” Chris R Glass, a professor at Boston College told the BBC. “They need stability and options.”

The uncertainty will have long-term consequences – both for the aspirations of Indian students, but also for the US’s future as a coveted higher education hub – says Prof Glass.

Foreign student enrolment in US universities was slowing even before Trump’s latest salvo.

According to The Indian Express newspaper, the US denied 41% of student visa applications between the fiscal years 2023 and 2024, the highest rejection rate in a decade, and nearly doubling from 2014.

Data from Student and Exchange Visitor Information Systems (SEVIS), which tracks foreign students’ compliance with their visas, showed a nearly 10% drop in international student enrolments as of March this year compared with the same period in 2024.

International students are a financial lifeline for many US colleges, especially regional and state universities offering STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) and other master’s programmes.

These students pay significantly higher tuition fees than US citizens.

In the 2023–24 academic year alone, foreign students contributed $43.8bn to the US economy, according to Nafsa, an association of International educators. They also supported over 375,000 jobs.

“This really isn’t about a short-term disruption of tuition revenue. This is about a long-term rupture in a strategic relationship that benefits both countries,” Prof Glass said.

For decades the brightest Indian students have depended on an American education in the absence of top quality Indian universities or a supportive research ecosystem.

In turn they’ve helped plug a skills gap in the US.

Many land highly sought-after jobs after they finish their courses – in particular, representing a significant pool of skilled professionals in sectors like biotechnology, healthcare and data science – and have even gone on to lead iconic companies.

Everyone from Google’s Sunder Pichai to Microsoft’s Satya Nadella went to the US as students.

While this has often led to concerns of a “brain-drain” from India, experts point out that India is simply unable to solve the problem of quality and quantity higher education in the immediate future to provide a domestic alternative to these students.

Experts say it will be a lose-lose situation for both countries, unless the cloud of uncertainty lifts soon.

A yacht carrying 12 people that were trying to bring humanitarian aid to Gaza has been towed to the Israeli port city of Ashdod, after it was seized by Israeli forces.

Israel’s foreign ministry said the boat had docked and that those aboard the vessel, including Swedish activist Greta Thunberg, were “undergoing medical examinations to ensure they are in good health”.

Organisers said the Madleen was aiming to bring a “symbolic” amount of aid to Gaza in defiance of an Israeli naval blockade. They said it was intercepted by Israeli forces in international waters in the early hours of Monday.

Israel dismissed it as a “selfie yacht”, saying it would deport the passengers to their home countries.

The aid on board the Madleen includes rice and baby formula, organisers the Freedom Flotilla Coalition (FFC) said.

Citizens of Brazil, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and Turkey are onboard the vessel – among them Rima Hassan, a French member of the European Parliament, and Omar Faiad, a French journalist with Al Jazeera.

Earlier on Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron called for a swift return of six French activists on board the vessel and called on Israel to ensure the “protection” of the activists.

Sweden’s foreign ministry said it was in contact with Israeli authorities in a statement shared with the Reuters news agency, while Turkey condemned the interception as a “heinous attack” in international waters.

FFC said it had not been allowed contact with any of the 12 passengers since the vessel was intercepted by Israel in the early hours of Monday.

The boat set sail from Italy on 1 June to raise awareness of starvation conditions in Gaza.

Israel says its blockade on Gaza is necessary to prevent weapons from reaching Hamas fighters there.

Video shared by the FFC showed the activists sitting down in life jackets with their hands raised as Israeli forces boarded the boat. Those on board could be seen throwing mobile phones overboard.

Israel’s foreign ministry shared footage of soldiers handing out sandwiches and water bottles to the activists after it was intercepted.

After reporting that the yacht had been boarded, the FFC posted short, pre-recorded videos of some of the activists, including Thunberg.

In the footage, they say “if you see this video, we have been intercepted and kidnapped” by the Israeli military or forces supporting Israel.

On Sunday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz warned that Israel would act against any attempt to breach the blockade.

He wrote in a post on X: “I have instructed the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] to act to prevent the ‘Madeleine’ [sic] hate flotilla from reaching the shores of Gaza – and to take whatever measures are necessary to that end.”

The FFC has argued that the sea blockade is illegal, characterising Katz’s statement as an example of Israel threatening the unlawful use of force against civilians and “attempting to justify that violence with smears”.

“We will not be intimidated. The world is watching,” FFC press officer Hay Sha Wiya said on Sunday.

“The Madleen is a civilian vessel, unarmed and sailing in international waters, carrying humanitarian aid and human rights defenders from across the globe… Israel has no right to obstruct our effort to reach Gaza.”

In 2010, Israeli commandos killed 10 Turkish activists when they boarded the Turkish ship Mavi Marmara, which was leading an aid flotilla towards Gaza.

Israel recently began to allow limited aid into Gaza after a three-month land blockade, prioritising distribution through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which is backed by Israel and the US but widely condemned by humanitarian groups.

The UN’s human rights chief, Volker Türk, said last week Palestinians were being presented with the “grimmest of choices: die from starvation or risk being killed while trying to access the meagre food that is being made available”.

In a post on X early on Monday, the Israeli foreign ministry said: “While Greta and others attempted to stage a media provocation whose sole purpose was to gain publicity – and which included less than a single truckload of aid – more than 1,200 aid trucks have entered Gaza from Israel within the past two weeks, and in addition, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation has distributed close to 11 million meals directly to civilians in Gaza.

“There are ways to deliver aid to the Gaza Strip – they do not involve Instagram selfies.”

It is 20 months since Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to the unprecedented Hamas-led cross-border attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, in which about 1,200 people were killed and 251 others were taken hostage.

At least 54,880 people have been killed in Gaza since, according to the territory’s Hamas-run health ministry.

Dozens of people have been arrested in Los Angeles after days of violent protests, which erupted following immigration raids.

US President Donald Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard troops to the city, triggering a political row. He also condemned what he called “violent, insurrectionist mobs”.

People began gathering after federal immigration officers arrested large groups of unauthorised immigrants in areas with large Latino populations.

While the demonstrations started out as peaceful, five self-driving vehicles were set on fire, protesters shut down a major freeway, and there were reports of looting in affected parts of America’s second largest city.

• Follow live coverage of the protests
• Full story: Unlawful assembly declared in downtown LA
• How city erupted over rumours of immigration raid at a hardware store
• Analysis: Trump’s intervention in LA may thrill his base but inflame tensions

The protests began on Friday after it emerged Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were carrying out raids in areas of the city with prominent Latino populations.

Raids have stepped up after Trump returned to the White House and pledged to crack down on illegal immigration.

The BBC’s US partner, CBS News, reported that recent operations took place in the Westlake district as well as in Paramount, south of LA – where the population is more than 82% Hispanic.

There were also reports of an ICE raid at a Home Depot shop in Paramount, which officials told the BBC were false.

ICE later told CBS that 44 unauthorised immigrants were arrested in a single operation at a job site on Friday. Another 77 were also arrested in the greater LA area on the same day.

The protests have been largely limited to downtown LA, which has been declared an “unlawful assembly” area by police after days of clashes.

• Vehicles were set alight on Sunday, and police accused protesters of using incendiary devices against horse patrols. Meanwhile, officers in riot gear have used flash-bang grenades and pepper spray to subdue crowds. The unrest temporarily brought the 101 freeway to a halt, and there were reports of looting
• The downtown Federal Building has become a flashpoint after it emerged that ICE detainees were allegedly being held there. On Saturday, ICE accused “over 1,000 rioters” of surrounding and attacking the building
• A Home Depot shop in Paramount, roughly 20 miles (32 km) south of downtown LA, has become another key protest site. Tear gas and flash-bangs were deployed against protesters who also gathered on Saturday, and armed National Guard troops guarded a nearby business park on Sunday
• The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) said it made 29 arrests on Saturday. A further 27 people were arrested on Sunday
• Separately, about 60 people were arrested and three officers injured following unrest in San Francisco on Sunday, police there said

Elsewhere in the sprawling city of LA, life continues as normal – and some areas were closed off over the weekend for the LA Pride parade.

On Saturday, Trump deployed 2,000 National Guard members to the Los Angeles area, triggering a political row with state politicians.

The National Guard acts as a hybrid entity that serves both state and federal interests. Typically, a state’s force is activated at the request of the governor.

Trump circumvented that step by invoking a rarely-used federal law, arguing that the protests constituted “a form of rebellion against the authority of the government of the United States”.

This is reportedly the first time the National Guard has been activated without request of the state’s governor since 1965.

The move has been condemned by California Governor Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass, who said they believed local police could handle the situation.

Newsom accused Trump of an “illegal” act that was “putting fuel on this fire”, and then sued Trump’s administration.

In its lawsuit filed on Monday California argued that Trump was going against the US Constitution, which has protections for states’ rights , in deploying the guard against the governor’s wishes. The 10th amendment says that any power not expressly granted to the federal government in the Constitution goes to the states.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta called the deployment an “inflammatory escalation unsupported by conditions on the ground” and “exceeds the federal government’s authority”.

The role of the National Guard is to protect federal agents, including ICE and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel, as they carry out their duties.

The troops will not be conducting their own immigration raids or performing regular policing – which remains the role of the (LAPD).

The law generally prohibits domestic use of federal troops for civilian law enforcement, outside of some exceptions like the Insurrection Act.

Although Trump has threatened to invoke that act in the past, during the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, for example, he has not done so here.

Trump’s allies have defended his decision to mobilise the National Guard. Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth also said active-duty US marines stationed at nearby Camp Pendleton would be sent if needed and were on “high alert”.

The recent raids are part of the president’s aim to enact the “biggest deportation operation” in US history. Los Angeles, where over one-third of the population is born outside of the US, has been a key target for operations.

In early May, ICE announced it had arrested 239 undocumented migrants during a week-long operation in the LA area, as overall arrests and deportations lagged behind Trump’s expectations.

The following month, the White House increased its goal for ICE officials to make at least 3,000 arrests per day.

Authorities have expanded their search increasingly to include workplaces such as restaurants and retail shops.

The ambitious deportation campaign has included removing migrants to a mega-prison in El Salvador, including at least one who was in the US legally. Many of Trump’s actions have been met by legal challenges.

Police in India say a woman, who had gone missing after her husband was found brutally murdered during their honeymoon, is in custody after she surrendered.

The families of the couple had alleged that the bride had also either been killed or abducted and mounted a huge campaign to find her.

Police now allege that Sonam Raghuvanshi, 25, hired killers to murder her 30-year-old husband Raja during their trip to the tiny north-eastern state of Meghalaya. Four men have also been arrested.

Sonam’s father Devi Singh has defended his daughter saying “she is innocent and she cannot do this”.

The newly-wed couple from Indore city in the central state of Madhya Pradesh had chosen Meghalaya for their honeymoon because they had heard it had “very beautiful valleys”, Raja’s brother Sachin Raghuvanshi told the BBC at the weekend, before Sonam’s arrest.

The couple had married on 11 May in Indore in a ceremony blessed by both their families.

“Their marriage was arranged four months back and they were both happy and there had been no fights between the couple before or after marriage,” Raja’s other brother Vipin Raghuvanshi said.

The couple left for Meghalaya on 20 May. But four days into their trip, they went missing.

Police and disaster relief teams, accompanied by local people, searched for the couple. Videos from the area showed rescuers rappelling down hills and cliffs in valleys covered in mist. Officials said rain and low visibility were hampering the search operations.

A week later, Raja’s decomposed body was found in a gorge with his throat slit and his wallet, a gold ring and a chain missing. And Sonam had disappeared without a trace.

Their families mounted a huge campaign, accusing the Meghalaya police of not doing enough to solve Raja’s murder or find Sonam – an accusation contested by the state’s chief minister.

The couple’s families demanded that the case be handed over to the federal police for a proper investigation and met influential caste leaders and federal ministers in their home state to lobby for this.

Last Friday, they also wrote a letter addressed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to deliver justice for Raja and find Sonam.

But on Monday morning, Director General of Meghalaya police Idashisha Nongrang said Sonam had surrendered at a police station in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghazipur district.

Three other suspects, who are also from the couple’s home state Madhya Pradesh, have been arrested in overnight raids, DGP Nongrang said.

“One person was picked up from Uttar Pradesh and another two accused were apprehended from Indore. Sonam surrendered at the Nandganj police station and was subsequently arrested.”

Later, addressing a press conference, Superintendent of Police Vivek Syiem said a fourth man had been arrested in Meghalaya in connection with the case on Monday morning.

He did not give any motive for Raja’s murder but described Sonam “as the main suspect”.

In response to a reporter’s question on “whether Sonam was in an extra-marital relationship with one of the arrested men”, Mr Syeim said “if you join the dots, then it would seem like it”. But he added that these details could be verified only after the two were questioned.

Sonam’s father Devi Singh told ANI news agency that his daughter had reached “a dhaba [roadside eatery] in Ghazipur last night where she borrowed a mobile phone and called her brother – who then called the police”.

Mr Singh said he had not been able to speak to his daughter but he believed that she had “somehow managed to escape her captors” and insisted that she was “innocent”.

Mr Singh also accused the Meghalaya police of “making up stories” and appealed to Home Minister Amit Shah to order a federal inquiry into the case for the truth to come out.

Raja’s brother Vipin Raghuvanshi initially told reporters he would “not accept Sonam’s involvement in the murder until she confessed”.

But he later said that one of the arrested men named by the police worked in Sonam’s office.

“Only Sonam can clarify,” he said. “If she’s guilty, she should be punished.”

Mr Raghuvanshi, who had repeatedly criticised Meghalaya’s police and government for not doing enough to solve the case, also said “I now believe that Meghalaya government was not lying. They were telling the truth”.

On Monday morning, after the news broke, Meghalaya Chief Minister Conrad Sangma complimented his state’s police force, saying that they had achieved a “major breakthrough” in seven days. Another minister, Alexander Laloo Hek, said that the state’s police, government and even ordinary people had been unfairly blamed while the search was going on.

“The truth has come out,” he said.

The government has committed £14.2bn of investment to build the new Sizewell C nuclear plant on the Suffolk coastline, ahead of the Spending Review.

It will create 10,000 direct jobs, thousands more in firms supplying the plant and generate enough energy to power six million homes, the Treasury said.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves said it was a “landmark decision” that would kickstart “economic growth”.

However, Alison Downes, director of pressure group Stop Sizewell C, condemned the announcement, adding it was a move the government would “come to regret”.

Reeves said the project would be the “biggest nuclear building programme in a generation”.

Energy Secretary Ed Miliband said nuclear energy would “deliver a golden age of clean energy abundance” and help boost the UK’s energy security.

The government insists that nuclear power provides enormous amounts of low carbon, non-intermittent energy that forms a crucial part of the UK’s energy future.

However, Sizewell C will take at least a decade to complete and the plant of which it is a copy, Hinkley Point C in Somerset, will switch on in the early 2030s – more than a decade late and costing billions more than originally planned.

The final investment decision on the funding model for the plant is due later this summer.

The Sizewell C project has faced opposition at local and national level from those who think it will prove to be a costly mistake.

Ms Downes said she believed the money could be spent on other priorities and feared the project would “add to consumer bills”.

“There still appears to be no final investment decision for Sizewell C, but £14.2bn in taxpayers’ funding, a decision we condemn and firmly believe the government will come to regret,” she said.

“Ministers have still not come clean about Sizewell C’s cost and, given negotiations with private investors are incomplete, they have signed away all leverage and will be forced to offer generous deals that undermine value for money.”

On Saturday about 300 protesters demonstrated on Sizewell beach against the project.

The Sizewell C investment is the latest in a series of announcements in the run-up to the government’s Spending Review, which will be unveiled on Wednesday.

The review will see the chancellor set out day-to-day spending and investment plans for each government department.

A number of policies have already been announced, including the U-turn on winter fuel payments, a commitment to increase defence spending, and investment in the science and technology sector.

Sizewell C has had other pots of funding confirmed over the years by government and in September 2023 a formal process to raise private investment was opened.

Ministers and EDF have previously said there were plenty of potential investors and they were close to finalising an agreement on it.

Once operational, Sizewell C is expected to employ 900 people.

As well as Sizewell C, the government said it was investing £2.5bn over five years into research and development for fusion energy and making investments into its defence nuclear sector.

This included development of HMNB Clyde and investment in Sheffield Forgemasters.

A charity event at the home of Pink Floyd drummer Nick Mason ended in “chaos”, with people stuck in traffic for hours as they tried to leave.

More than 15,000 people went to Middlewick House near Corsham on Saturday and Sunday to view its extensive gardens and Mason’s collection of supercars and classic vehicles.

But some drivers said it took people hours to leave the event, which raised money for Wiltshire and Bath Air Ambulance Charity and The Wiltshire Bobby Van Trust.

Organisers have since apologised for the travel issues but described the event as a success.

Donna Fielder attended the fundraiser and described it as “chaos”.

“We were heading back to our car at about one o’clock and, as we walked through the top field, we could see rows of stationary traffic,” she told the BBC.

“I barely moved 50m [164ft] in the space of an hour.”

Ms Fielder said there was a “huddle” of marshals by the exit gate but claimed they “didn’t have a clue”.

“There were still cars being brought in – classic cars for viewing – and I think that’s what caused a lot of it,” she added.

“You had people jamming into lanes to create lanes to get out and then you’ve got six or seven cars diverging from different directions.”

Organisers put new traffic measures in place for this year’s event after similar issues in previous years. This included a separate entrance for cars arriving from Chippenham and diversions for non-event traffic.

A spokesperson for the Wiltshire Bobby Van Trust said: “This year’s Middlewick House Open Garden event drew a record crowd of more than 15,000 people across the weekend, including an unprecedented number of people turning up on the Sunday to buy tickets on the door.

“We had people visit from across the UK – we apologise to those affected by the traffic build up around Corsham and those impacted by the delay exiting the car parks.

“We will be collating all feedback and adding it into our review process ahead of the 2026 event.”

The trust works with Wiltshire Police to help elderly and vulnerable people with home security.

BBC Wiltshire’s Jeremy Stern went to the fundraiser and said there were “hundreds” of cars trying to use one “narrow” exit.

“By the time the traffic started moving it was chaos, as frustrated drivers looked for any which way to get out of the car park,” he said.

“The car park attendants did their best but there weren’t enough of them to marshal so many lines of traffic.

“It took two hours for us to get out. Some people I spoke to said they had been waiting even longer.”