JK Rowling responds to Emma Watson viral interview with parody clip

JK Rowling has responded to Emma Watson’s recent viral interview by sharing a parody video of the actor’s appearance.

The Harry Potter star, best known for her portrayal of Hermione Granger in the film adaptations of Rowling’s bestselling novels, sat down for a lengthy interview with podcast host Jay Shetty earlier this week.

Among the topics covered was her rift with Rowling over their differing views on transgender issues.

Watson, along with her co-stars Daniel Radcliffe and Rupert Grint, who played Harry Potter and Ron Weasley, respectively, have been vocal advocates for trans rights. Rowling, meanwhile, has attracted controversy for several comments that have been criticised as transphobic.

On Friday (26 September), Rowling responded to Watson’s interview by sharing a video created by comedian IntelLady, which spoofed the moment in which the actor said she would be open to speaking with Rowling again.

The author praised the comedian’s video, and in her caption wrote: “I’m here for all the spoofs.”

During the sit-down with Shetty, Watson said of their falling-out: “I think the thing I’m most upset about is that a conversation was never made possible.”

The Beauty and the Beast star added that she “will always believe” in having an open dialogue.

“I really don’t believe that by having had that experience and holding the love and support and views that I have, means that I can’t and don’t treasure Jo and the person that I had personal experiences with,” Watson said.

“I will never believe that one negates the other and that my experience of that person, I don’t get to keep and cherish, to come back to our earlier thing. I just don’t think these things are either or. I think it’s my deepest wish that I hope people who don’t agree with my opinion will love me and I hope I can keep loving people who I don’t necessarily share the same opinion with.”

Rowling has previously lashed out at Watson, Radcliffe, and Grint, with whom she once had close relationships.

Last year, the author, who once stated she would “happily” go to prison for misgendering a transgender person, said she would not forgive the actors for criticising her opinions, telling them to “save their apologies”.

This new interview with Shetty was a rare appearance for Watson, who has not appeared on the big screen since 2019’s Little Women and who has spoken about her dislike of press tours.

Elsewhere during the sit-down, she spoke about trans rights, Palestine, Israel, and the immense scrutiny she faced as a young actor in the spotlight.

‘AI spotted my skin cancer and saved my life’

When 46-year-old Lynsey Robertson helped launch a new AI skin cancer screening tool at the GP surgery where she worked, she knew she would be among the first to try it out – but she never expected to become one of its first patients.

Just hours after trying the technology, the system flagged a mole on her skin as high risk, which was soon revealed to be a deadly melanoma.

Mrs Robertson, an office manager at Buckshaw Village Surgery in Preston, Lancashire, had been overseeing the rollout of its artificial intelligence skin cancer screening service. Curious, she decided to scan a patch of skin that she had largely ignored but that had slowly changed colour.

The system flagged the lesion for urgent review under the NHS’s two-week suspected cancer pathway. That same day, Lynsey’s referral was sent off to Chorley Hospital.

“I couldn’t believe it,” she said. “I just kept thinking, what if I hadn’t said anything?”

The mole didn’t hurt and although friends had occasionally asked about it, she had always dismissed it, assuming it wasn’t serious enough to bother a doctor with.

“I’d had it for years,” she said. “It wasn’t causing me any trouble. I thought I’d be wasting the GP’s time.”

She was quickly booked in for minor surgery to remove the mole, but was diagnosed days later with malignant melanoma, an aggressive form of skin cancer that can spread rapidly through the body. Mrs Robertson then underwent a second procedure to remove all cancerous cells, which was successful.

She is now urging others not to ignore changes in their skin or unusual marks or moles, saying that had she not tested the technology at her office, “who knows what could have happened.”

The cancer detection system was developed by Skin Analytics and uses AI to analyse images of skin lesions and detect potential signs of skin cancer. The software company claims to have a 99.9 per cent accuracy in ruling out melanoma.

Healthcare workers can take a photo of suspicious patches of skin on a smartphone with a high-quality magnifying lens attached. The images are then assessed by AI, and any lesion that is flagged will then be further reviewed by a dermatologist.

The technology, which has been deployed across the country, has been conditionally approved for the next three years and has assessed more than 170,000 NHS patients since 2020.

The rapid adoption of artificial intelligence in healthcare has sparked debate in the UK as some voice concerns around data security, data bias, and a lack of human empathy. In its 10-year health plan for England, the government said it would “make the NHS the most AI-enabled health system in the world with AI seamlessly integrated into clinical pathways.”

Earlier this week, health minister Wes Streeting said: “The AI revolution is here, and we are arming staff with the latest ground-breaking technology, so patients get faster and smarter care.

“This government is reinstating the UK’s position as a technology superpower – driving vital investment and economic growth as we build an NHS fit for the 21st century.”

The skin cancer screening technology is the world’s first AI legally authorised to detect cancer without a doctor present, according to Skin Analytics. It says that polling of 2,000 people found that 73 per cent believe the NHS has a duty of care to use technology that has proven benefits for patients.

Urgent skin cancer referrals have skyrocketed in the UK in the last decade. According to the NHS, more than 17,000 people are diagnosed with melanoma each year, and around 2,300 people die annually.

A report from Cancer Research this month found that just half of the UK’s cancer patients were being diagnosed within NHS England’s target of 28 days. According to Skin Analytics, 71 per cent of people believe regulated AI could help reduce NHS wait times.

UK supermarkets axe supplier after farm workers beat piglets to death

Workers have been filmed violently killing piglets by slamming them against concrete floors at a third farm owned by a major supermarket meat supplier after the firm promised it had banned the practice.

Secret cameras captured staff illegally killing young animals by “blunt-force trauma” at a farm owned by Cranswick, Britain’s biggest pig producer, which supplies retailers with products including bacon and ham.

Some animals were left writhing in agony and slowly dying over 20 minutes, according to activists who investigated Mere Farm, Barton-upon-Humber, Lincolnshire.

The video shows workers kicking aside piglets with head injuries that had been “thumped” this way.

Tesco, Asda and Morrisons suspended the farm when The Independent showed them the footage, and Cranswick sacked four staff.

The company says it has introduced changes to reduce cruelty since much of the footage was taken, including installing hundreds of cameras on its 45 farms and retraining staff.

But one worker seen in the latest footage, who was later sacked, had completed his training only around 10 days earlier.

It’s the third of the company’s farms in under five months where staff have been found inflicting painful deaths and suffering on pigs.

In May, workers were seen “slamming” piglets to death at North Moor Farm, Lincolnshire. The company said it launched an investigation, then at its July AGM said it had banned this killing technique.

In August, covert filming at Somerby Top Farm, also in Lincolnshire, showed workers hitting pigs with boards, paddles and fists.

Supermarkets said they cut ties with Somerby Top, and Cranswick said it was recruiting five new animal-welfare officers and introducing AI surveillance.

However, animal-welfare organisation Animal Justice Project (AJP) has now revealed that in footage shot in July – two months after Cranswick said it had banned “thumping” – workers were still killing piglets by grabbing their hind legs and slamming them on concrete.

Until the practice was outlawed, piglets deemed too small to be profitable were routinely killed this way on UK farms.

The activists said equally horrifying video clips showed a trapped sow being violently abused.

Unable to get up after giving birth, the animal was allegedly left without water for over 24 hours and food for more than 54 hours.

Workers repeatedly attacked the sow, kicking her with their boots on, pulling her head with ropes, treading on her side and prodding her with a sharp shovel, the footage shows.

One worker even stood on her side with his full weight. Finally they pulled her with ropes bound around her legs.

The investigators also said they filmed nine piglets being thumped over four days and none was checked for signs of life.

They said they filmed:

Workers were filmed saying: “Bloody hell, I’d expect this to be dead” and “Think she’s gonna die anyway, let her f***ing die, innit”.

AJP said footage in March showed identical practices, “suggesting this is not isolated but systemic”.

The organisation says it’s planning legal action for Animal Welfare Act breaches.

A Cranswick spokesman said: “The behaviour depicted is wholly unacceptable and clearly breaches our values, standards and animal-welfare practices.

“Much of the material appears to pre-date the significant reforms we have been implementing, including an update to our welfare standards and the installation of AI-enabled CCTV systems.

“We will continue to work to improve the culture and practices at our farms. The individuals filmed at Mere Farm were all dismissed as soon as we saw the footage.”

A Tesco spokesperson said it suspended the farm immediately pending a thorough investigation. “Any failure to meet our high welfare standards is unacceptable and we take swift action where necessary,” they said.

Asda said it immediately suspended supply from finisher farms supplied by Mere Farm.

A Morrisons spokesperson said the company was deeply saddened by the footage and suspended it, adding: “We welcome and support Cranswick’s immediate investigation.”

A Sainsbury’s spokesperson branded the mistreatment “appalling and inexcusable”, adding: “It goes against Sainsbury’s values and standards in every respect.” They said they were in close contact with Cranswick about the fundamental overhaul of its sites, including Mere Farm.

Ayrton Cooper, of Animal Justice Project, said consumers were tired of being misled over “empty high-welfare claims”.

An Animal and Plant Health Agency spokesperson said: “We will always take appropriate action where non-compliances with welfare regulations are found.”

North Lincolnshire Trading Standards said it was investigating.

Animal Justice Project is calling for an independent public inquiry into pig farming.

Alcohol is a neurotoxin; there is no such thing as moderate drinking

A new study from the universities of Oxford, Yale and Cambridge has found that any level of alcohol consumption may increase risks of dementia. This wide-ranging study, published earlier this week on BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, suggested there may be no such thing as a “safe level” of booze, where brain health is concerned. Dr Anya Topiwala, lead author on the paper, said: “Even light or moderate drinking may increase the risk of dementia, indicating that reducing alcohol consumption across the population could play a significant role in dementia prevention.”

She went on to say that the common belief that a little bit of alcohol, the odd glass of red, say, might actually be good for the brain – neuroprotective – is almost certainly nonsense. “Genetic evidence offers no support for a protective effect,” she said. “In fact, it suggests the opposite.”

So, there you have it. Never mind congratulating yourselves for sticking to the government’s recommended guidelines on booze (14 units, spread out across seven days). Forget “everything in moderation!” and “A little bit of what you fancy does you good!” and: “I always do Dry January, so…” According to this new report, any alcohol is a potential problem.

Honestly? I’m not surprised. Slightly depressed – but not surprised.

This summer, I published my new book: How the Female Body Works. It is the result of two-and-a-half years of hard, joyful research and writing, all focused around interviews with the most knowledgeable academics, medics, neuroscientists, gynaecologists, psychologists and really any other world-renowned expert in women’s health I could get to talk to me.

It covers every stage of women’s lives, from puberty to older age. I wrote it because I realised I knew virtually nothing about my own body, which was absurd. I’d also watched the internet slowly get flooded with contradictory, confusing “advice” and – often contradictory – “wisdom” about women’s bodies, so I set out to get some definitive answers.

I asked my experts questions like “What’s a brain made of?”, “are we our personality – or are we our hormones?”, “why are breasts the shape they are? “What makes a hot flush happen? Not just ‘falling oestrogen levels’… What’s the actual function?” Dumb-but-illuminating questions, from an ignoramus, to the people whose life’s work is women’s bodies, what happens to them, and how to heal and support them.

One of the facts I came up against really early on was: women are twice as likely to get an Alzheimer’s diagnosis as men. Which troubled me. The other thing, a sort of overarching narrative, which ended up lodged in my consciousness like a bad smell, was that alcohol really isn’t very good for us. It really isn’t. Which is a shame, because it can be so fun.

Alcohol is hard on everyone – implicated in everything from cancer to strokes to heart attacks to infections – but it’s far harder on women than it is on men. This is partly because women’s livers produce less of an enzyme called alcohol dehydrogenase, or ADH, the purpose of which is to break down and eliminate alcohol from the body.

Women’s ADH levels fall further yet, in peri menopause and menopause. Beyond that, the way fat is distributed on a woman’s body means it holds onto alcohol for longer, which means female bodies are exposed to alcohol’s toxicity for longer, leaving women more vulnerable to liver damage, heart disease, and at a higher risk of breast cancer. Oh, and also? While a woman is still experiencing a menstrual cycle, alcohol will act more aggressively on her body at certain points in that cycle, leaving her (for example) far drunker, far quicker, around the time she’s ovulating, than at any other point. This is because her body is uniquely concerned with getting her pregnant, so tedious things like processing and removing alcohol from her system get jettisoned. I know!

I learned all this from Dr Sharon Cox, principal research fellow at University College London, an extraordinary scientist, whose work focuses on addictive behaviours, particularly around alcohol and nicotine. All those existing problems, she tells me, have been further exacerbated by, she says: “Women drinking more than we ever have”. Drinking has gone up in both men and women since the pandemic, when we all spent our time making cocktails along with Stanley Tucci on YouTube because there was nothing else to do, and the world was terrifying. “This is particularly in people over 30, and the increase in drinking was sharper in women.”

“Why?” I ask. “Stress?”

“These large national surveys tell us what is happening – not why. But yeah, it’s probably that alcohol was used as a stress relief – and it’s a difficult rut to get out from. [The increase has] mostly sustained.”

At no point did Dr Cox tell me not to drink. She herself drinks… well, moderately. As do I. Assuming the concept of “moderately” means anything, after this latest report, which it probably doesn’t. In fact, none of the experts with whom I spoke for my book told me not to drink, or told me to tell my readers not to drink. It’s just that, when you interview – in depth – 20-ish of the world’s leading specialists on all aspects of women’s health, and nearly every last one of them alludes, en passant, to booze, in a dispassionate, non-judgemental, scientific, but repeatedly critical way, for all manner of reasons, from all their different perspectives and individual areas of study, it’s tough to ignore.

And now a new study emerges, connecting any alcohol consumption at all with possible increased risk of dementia – one which is already twice as high in women, as it is in men – and… I sort of want to give booze up, right here and now. Don’t you?

Honestly? I sort of already have. If pre-book, I was “moderate” in my drinking, I’d now describe myself as not exactly sober… But really, not not sober, either. Physically, I have felt that enzyme in my liver, ADH, falter with age, got to a point where now, the very first sip of wine (once, so joyful, so promising, so potent!) triggers memories not of my last fun, feckless night out – but of my last hangover, the associated anxiety and anguish, all of which, by the way, were the consequence of barely three-and-a-half glasses of house white!

Being drunk used to be so fun! The silliness of tipsiness, the sweet slipe-slide toward disinhibition! I’m wondering if this instinctual and informed growing wariness around booze, coupled with a desire not to live a sober life, might explain the increasing number of people I know, ditching alcohol. The brilliant neuroscientist I interviewed for the book, Dr Sarah McKay, told me she’s hopeful the way women live their lives now – how much more educated we are, how much more likely to work, and have good, deep, social connections – which also leaves us at an advantage over earlier generations of women in terms of neuroprotection – our brains’ defences against cognitive decline.

So, should we just be giving up alcohol, full stop?

I ask Dr Federica Amati. She’s the head nutritionist at ZOE, a trusted source; earlier this summer, she caused ructions on Paul Sculfor’s This Is Powerful podcast by saying: “If you look at alcohol as a drug – like, as a pharmaceutical drug… they’ve calculated what the safe amount would be to consume before these neurotoxic, genotoxic {when a substance damages DNA] effects. And it’s two units a year.”

“I do [want to] give some nuance to that,” she tells me. Please! I say. Here for the nuance.

“We can choose some exposures we subject our body to,” Dr Amati says. “And alcohol may be one of them. But we need to be informed of the impact on our health. I have the occasional glass of red – but I don’t fool myself, it’s good for me.”

So: drink sometimes, but understand what it’s doing to you?

“Don’t if you don’t… But if you do, make sure you’re clear on the risk.”

‘How the Female Body Works (in all its miraculous glory)’ by Polly Vernon’ is out now

NHS facing ‘critical threat’ after Trump pressure to hike drug prices

The NHS is facing a “critical threat” from drug price hikes as pharmaceutical companies bow to pressure from Donald Trump, experts have warned.

The US president has announced a fresh round of tariffs on pharmaceutical firms, with 100 per cent tariffs on branded medicines from October 1.

This means medicines produced outside the US will face sky-high import charges – unless a company has invested in new factories stateside, but there is no word yet on whether the UK will get any preferential rate.

The move presents a threat to the UK’s drug industry, which is the country’s second largest exporter to the US, selling £7bn of goods across the pond last year.

It comes after some firms already announced price hikes on medicines sold in the UK, from schizophrenia medication to weight loss jabs, echoing Mr Trump’s demands that other countries should pay higher prices for US medicines so that US consumers can pay less.

But Lib Dem peer Lord Paul Scriven, co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy, warned that price rises are a “critical threat” to the NHS, driven by “ridiculous pressures from President Trump”.

He told The Independent: “President Trump’s policy is based on cheap transactional economics and not about improving health.

“I am very concerned about the short-term and longer-term implications of this trend for UK patients.”

Nearly £2bn of investment into UK pharmaceutical research has also been slashed or paused in the lead-up to Mr Trump’s announcement by companies including Astrazeneca, Eli Lilly and MSD (the global pharma giant known as “Merck” in the US); all of whom have pledged billions into new factories in the US.

The standoff between pharmaceutical companies and the UK government comes after Mr Trump said drug companies were “effectively subsidising socialism abroad with skyrocketing prices at home” by charging lower prices overseas.

But even as US drug companies boosted prices in the UK, there is nothing yet to show that costs will drop for buyers in the US.

Professor Claire Anderson, president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society, said “patients should not have to pay the price in a global trade war”, but the UK’s science minister, Lord Patrick Vallance, has warned that drug price increases “are going to be a necessary part” of solving the exodus of pharmaceutical companies from the UK.

As prices rise, it is unclear whether the Treasury will increase the health budget to pay for more expensive medicines or whether the NHS will be forced to reallocate from its already-tight budget.

The NHS has already been spending an increasing amount on medicines, with prescribing costs at £19.9bn last year, up 16 per cent from 2021/2.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has admitted the issue is a “live conversation”, suggesting that the government may bow to pressure on high prices.

If the NHS is unable to pay higher prices or negotiate reasonable deals with pharmaceutical companies, the UK could be at risk of medicine shortages and supply chain issues, particularly as manufacturing moves further afield. That could be “devastating” for patients, Henry Gregg, head of the National Pharmacy Association (NPA), told The Independent.

“It remains to be seen what impact this could have on patients and pharmacies, who are at the sharp end of a very complicated and potentially vulnerable supply chain, but we need reassurance that steps are being made to protect them,” he said.

Multinational drug companies such as Merck have faced direct calls to boost prices in the UK and abroad from President Trump.

In May, Mr Trump signed an executive order calling for a “most favoured nation” pricing policy, which pushes pharmaceutical companies to raise the cost of medicines in other countries in order to cut them for US buyers.

This pressure is already spurring clear consequences in the UK.

Just this week, pharmaceutical giant Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS) said it would charge the UK at US rates for the schizophrenia drug Cobenfy – to the tune of approximately £16,800 a year.

It is the first time BMS has done so, with UK prices usually around half of US rates.

“We agree with the Trump administration that other countries need to pay their fair share,” said Adam Lenkowsky, BMS chief commercialisation officer.

And weight loss jab producer Eli Lilly has said it would increase the UK price of Mounjaro by as much as 170 per cent, after Mr Trump called out the UK for having low prices on “fat jabs”.

And a representative for Eli Lilly said it had paused plans for its lab in London, as the company was “awaiting more clarity around the UK life sciences environment”.

In both cases, though, the companies have yet to announce equivalent price cuts in the US, suggesting that Trump’s threats to pharmaceutical companies may just bring prices up worldwide.

The US has the highest drug prices in the world, with prices on branded medicine being 3.8 times higher on average than in the UK, according to a 2022 study.

But Mr Trump appears to be more focused on increasing prices abroad to stop “global freeloading” than cutting prices at home.

“While it remains to be seen how much of the pharmaceutical sector would be affected, the proposed tariffs would undoubtedly increase costs for US healthcare,” said Mark Samuels, head of the British Generic Manufacturers Association.

In general, pharmaceutical companies are able to charge more in insurance-based health systems such as the US and France, while countries like the UK and Canada which have public health systems, demand lower prices from suppliers.

“The NHS needs to deliver for patients and for taxpayers. As the largest single purchaser of medicines in Europe, this gives the NHS tremendous buying power,” said Mr Samuels.

In addition to the standoff over prices, there is the issue of research and manufacturing.

The pharmaceutical industry contributes over £17.6bn in gross value to the UK, with £45bn through research and development, according to the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI).

“This pressure isn’t just about current prices; it’s about the future of our healthcare. We are witnessing a clear pivot away from the UK,” said Lord Scriven, adding that the country is at “risk of being left behind”.

“Tariffs will put further pressure on drug manufacturers to move away research and development of drugs from the UK, [which could have] a negative impact on pricing and access to new drugs for the NHS,” he warned.

President Trump has explicitly called for pharmaceutical companies to keep their industry within the US, a move which could deter businesses from manufacturing in the UK.

Already, Merck has cancelled its £1bn investment plans for a London research facility and scrapped existing projects, both of which had been in progress and seen sunk costs.

And AstraZeneca, Britain’s biggest company, which was at the forefront of Covid-19 vaccine development, recently paused plans for a £200m research facility in Cambridge, after announcing £37bn in investment in the US for research and development.

Combined, the cancelled or paused investments could put nearly 2,000 future and current jobs at risk.

“We cannot allow economic stupidity from Donald Trump to dismantle the foundations of our health service, which has for decades ensured that UK patients have access to affordable, life-saving medicines,” Lord Scriven said.

“The health of patients and the integrity of the NHS itself depend on it.”

E.ON Next/Independent EV Index: Prices down 7.7 per cent

Electric car prices are dropping fast, according to the first publication of the E.ON Next/The Independent EV Price Index.

The energy giant and media company have combined to produce the UK’s first-ever electric car price index that measures real-world prices (including available discounts) on every EV on sale in the UK.

The first E.ON Next/The Independent EV Price Index has revealed that over the past twelve months the median price of an EV has fallen by 7.7 per cent, a figure of £3,750.

Month-on-month, there’s been a sizeable drop of £1,228 or 2.7 per cent, thanks to the introduction of the government’s electric car grant and the additional discounts car makers introduced while waiting for the grant to be implemented.

The biggest year-on-year drop has been in the competitive small electric SUV segment – including cars like the Citroen e-C4, Mercedes EQA, Peugeot 2008 and BMW iX1 – where a drop of £5,827 or 13 per cent has been seen. Larger medium-sized electric SUVs – like the Audi Q4 e-Tron, Ford Explorer, Nissan Ariya and Skoda Enyaq – show a similarly-large year-on-year drop of £4,666 or 9.8 per cent.

The data for the E.ON Next/The Independent EV Price Index has been compiled by auto industry market insight and pricing data specialists Insider Car Deals. The prices quoted are median prices sourced from Insider Car Deal’s mystery shopping and market research analysis and are based on real-world discounts offered, including any incentives given as part of finance packages.

As well as analysing prices, the E.ON Next/The Independent EV Price Index has also revealed an increase of 25 per cent in the number of electric cars available in the UK over the past year. At the time of research there were 111 electric vehicle models available in the UK, with that number increasing all the time.

When various trim levels and different battery options are taken into account across all available models, there is a choice of 1,029 different electric car choices for UK car buyers – up 32 per cent year-on-year.

The research has also shown that median PCP (Personal Contract Purchase) monthly payments for electric cars have dropped by £55 a month, or 10.8 per cent compared with a year ago. Again, the biggest drop is in the small electric SUV segment, were median monthly payments are down £76 or 16.6 per cent per month.

The quoted PCP terms are based on discounted transaction prices, manufacturer’s APR and GFV and standardised at four years, 8,000-10,000 miles per year and a 15 per cent customer deposit (plus any manufacturer deposit contribution). Where a manufacturer imposes a maximum term of 42 or 36 months, that shorter term is used instead.

One standout deal uncovered by the E.ON Next/The Independent EV Price Index research was for a Vauxhall Mokka 115kW Ultimate 54kWh, with total discount and finance savings of 36.4 per cent (£13,524). That brings the price down to just £24,580, or a possible £292 a month on Vauxhall’s PCP finance plan.

The research also highlighted the difference in average PCP APR finance rates available on electric cars versus hybrid and internal combustion engine (ICE) models. Buyers of EVs will, on average, benefit from PCP APRs that are 3.1 per cent lower than they are for ICE models and 2.2 per cent for hybrids. The average PCP APR for an electric car currently sits at 3.5 per cent.

At the time of research, nine car makers were offering zero per cent finance – the same number as this time last year, although the brands have changed. The scale of finance deposit contributions on electric vehicles has also been revealed with the highest seen being £7,750.

‘Sadistic’ nursery worker who carried out ‘relentless’ abuse of 21 babies jailed

A 22-year-old nursery worker who carried out a “sustained and relentless” campaign of abuse against 21 children has been jailed for eight years for her harrowing crimes.

Families of the children abused by Roksana Lecka recalled the “horrifying” moment they watched CCTV of the assaults, which had left them covered in bruises and scratches.

This had included kicking a little boy four times in the face and toppling children head-first into their cots while working at two nurseries in southwest London.

Her “sadistic” crimes were discovered in June last year after she was caught pinching a number of children at Twickenham Green Montessori, part of the Riverside Nursery group, in Twickenham.

Becoming tearful, one mother told Lecka’s sentencing hearing: “The early days of the trial were the worst two days of my life. Watching how relentless Roksana was in picking out a child and assaulting them again and again was horrifying.”

Sentencing her, Judge Sarah Plaschkes KC said: “At that age, children are vulnerable because they cannot understand, let alone tell anyone of their suffering. Their parents and your employers trusted you to look after each precious and much-loved child. You violated that trust.

“You committed multiple acts of gratuitous violence. You pinched, slapped, punched, smacked and kicked them. You pulled their ears, hair and their toes. You toppled children headfirst into cots, you caused bruising and lingering red marks. When you committed these acts of cruelties, you would look at other members of staff.

She added: “Time after time, you calmly watched the pain and suffering you had caused. Your criminal conduct can be properly characterised as sadistic.”

Before the discovery of her crimes, the mother had taken a photo of a bruise on her son’s ear, which she said would have left him “screaming” in pain, and told how the trauma of the case had caused her to move out of the area.

She added: “I cannot get over how an adult could have done that to a child. My biggest worry is that my son will think that’s something adults do to children.

“It will live with me forever knowing that my son and 20 other children had to go through this.”

Looking directly at Lecka as she spoke, another mother said: “These children were so innocent and vulnerable. They couldn’t speak, they couldn’t defend themselves and they couldn’t tell us as parents to let them know something had happened to them. They were totally helpless and Roksana preyed upon them.”

Other parents said they had been left feeling “mistrustful” of leaving their children, and some found their toddlers had been left with sleeping issues and separation anxiety.

Several described feeling guilty that they had sent their children to the nursery, and that it had left them “questioning our parenting”.

Lecka, from Hounslow, previously admitted seven counts of cruelty to a person under the age of 16 and was convicted of another 14 counts by a jury at Kingston Crown Court.

After being caught pinching the children in her care, detectives from the Metropolitan Police trawled through CCTV from the nursery to discover she had repeatedly abused children under their clothes on their arms, legs and stomachs.

She pinched several children dozens of times over the course of one day, causing them to cry and flinch away from her.

In one incident, she kicked a little boy in the face several times. She was also seen covering a toddler’s mouth when he started to cry, putting her weight on a child’s back, smacking them and dragging children towards her as they attempted to pull away.

She had abused children at two nurseries between October 2023 and June 2024 – one of the counts related to Little Munchkins in Hounslow, with the remainder linked to Twickenham Green Montessori, which has since closed.

Lecka told police she smoked cannabis before her shifts, and at one point was seen vaping a metre away from a young baby.

She was employed and worked at Twickenham Green Montessori between January and June 2024, with a number of parents reporting unusual injuries and bruising in March and May that year.

Other parents accused Lecka of showing “no remorse” throughout the trial, and said her showing up to work after smoking cannabis and vaping showed a “total disregard” for the children in her care.

Taking the witness stand, one mother said: “Her defence at the trial left me speechless. Her excuses were selfish; I found she was only interested in serving herself and had a complete lack of accountability.

“Her personal life left me gobsmacked, how little she cared for the job she was in.”

Describing her as an “absolute danger” to children, one father told the court: “She has shown no remorse throughout this process and the fact she doesn’t accept she has done anything wrong is a clear indication she is a danger to society.”

Several spoke of the financial impact of childcare costs after Twickenham Green Montessori closed, and said they had been forced to take time off work due to the stress of the case.

“As parents, we live with guilt. We know it’s not our fault, but we still feel it, because we were not there to protect him,” the family of one little boy said. “This crime has changed the way we view the world and how we parent.

“We will carry the weight of what was done to him for the rest of his life.”

The court heard that Lecka had been attacked twice in prison and had been placed in a vulnerable prison wing.

Referring to Lecka’s lack of apology to the court, the judge said: “That apology rang hollow. It was an attempt to disassociate and minimise your actions. The footage demonstrates you knew what you were doing, your actions were deliberate and calculated.”

Describing her actions towards one child as “the most egregious acts of cruelty”, the judge said that Lecka should never be allowed to work with children and vulnerable people again.

Why would Denmark be the target of a Russian ‘hybrid drone attack’?

Denmark has said it was the victim of a “hybrid attack” after repeated unexplained drone activity near five of its airports this week.

The most recent was Aalborg Airport, in north Denmark, which closed on Friday following the drone sightings, while Esbjerg, Sonderborg and Skrydstrup regions all remained open despite similar incidents.

They came just two days after Danish prime minister Mette Frederiksen refused to rule out Russian involvement when drone sightings forced Copenhagen Airport into shutdown for four hours, in what she described as a “serious attack on critical Danish infrastructure”.

After Wednesday’s incident, defence minister Troels Lund Poulsen warned that it “certainly does not look like a coincidence, it looks systematic, this is what I would define as a hybrid attack”.

Similar drone sightings occurred Sweden this week, including two mysterious drones spotted over the Karlskrona archipelago in the country’s southeast, and in Norway, where Oslo Airport was forced to close for three hours on the same night as the incident in the Danish capital.

As Danish politicians hint at a real possibility of Russian involvement, The Independent takes a look at why Moscow would seek to target a country so far away.

As Danish politicians hint at a real possibility of Russian involvement, questions are now raised over why Moscow would seek to target a country so far away.

“What’s been overlooked in a lot of the foreign media coverage is the history, in terms of Russia making angry noises towards Copenhagen,” Keir Giles, an expert on the Russian military and author of Russia’s War on Everybody: And What It Means For You, explained to The Independent.

This includes the “old litany of nuclear threats, precisely because Denmark is interested in defending itself, because it is looking at purchases of long range precision strike munitions that Russia would not like it to have,” he added.

Last Wednesday, Denmark said it would acquire “long-range precision weapons” for the first time as it cited the need to deter Russia.

“With these weapons, the defence forces will be able to hit targets at long range and, for example, neutralise enemy missile threats,” Ms Frederiksen said, explaining the weapons could include either missiles or drones.

It provoked a sharp reaction from Moscow, with Russian ambassador to Denmark Vladimir Barbin describing the Danish justification about needing to strike long-distance targets as “pure madness”.

Barbin then issued a thinly-veiled nuclear threat to Copenhagen.

“No one, anywhere, ever in the world has considered threatening a nuclear power publicly. These statements will undoubtedly be taken into account,” he wrote on Telegram.

“From now on, we must assume that Denmark is not only considering the possibility of a direct military confrontation with Russia, but is also preparing for such a scenario.”

Katja Bego, a senior research fellow in Chatham House’s International Security programme, said that of the countries which don’t border Europe, Denmark has been “one of the frontrunner countries” in terms of challenging Russian aggression.

“There’s been this longer term pattern that Denmark is one of those places that’s really pushing the rest of the [Nato} alliance to increase [military] support,” she added.

Russia could be cynically trying to sow distrust in the Danish population, which has been largely in favour of significant support for Ukraine, Ms Bego explained.

“[They are] kind of selling distrust or division among the population. Other countries that were targeted here, were all very staunch supporters of Ukraine, and countries near Ukraine,” she said.

“These are Ukraine’s strongest supporters, which I think is part of a longer term pattern. We’ve seen quite a lot of this activity in the Baltic Sea.

“So I think the choice of countries here is certainly not random.”

The benefit of doing this, she explains, is that it “creates fear” and may make populations “less willing to support Ukraine moving forward”.

There is a significant financial cost to use “incredibly expensive missiles” to shoot down “really cheap drones”, as she says was done in the case of Russia’s incursion into Poland with around 20 drones earlier this month.

It’s been widely suggested that Moscow is looking to probe Nato defences to ascertain how they would really respond to a more meaningful incursion of Russia’s military.

“Nobody is in any doubt that Russia’s ambition goes far beyond Ukraine, and in order to carry out that ambition, Russia needs to know whether it will be opposed,” Mr Giles said.

Although it is unconfirmed whether Russia was involved with the recent drone incidents, he said, Moscow still learns a great deal from it even if it was “just local idiots”.

“One of the primary benefits is understanding more about the capacity of Nato and individual countries to counter Russian operations and the willingness to actually respond in a meaningful fashion,” he said.

But the capacity for victim states to deal with the threat has been proven to be “very limited”, he added.

The drone incidents would be a good means of “normalising the state of conflict”, he added, allowing Russia to get to a position where “these kinds of Russian actions are part of the background noise, as opposed to something which ought to be unacceptable”.

Ms Bego agrees, arguing that it may be Russia “testing the waters, or trying to see how Alliance members of Nato might respond”.

She added: “In this case, these are kind of lower key drones, but [the response] would not necessarily look that dissimilar if you were looking at a bigger escalation.”