News Desk

Good Morning Britain star Susanna Reid has been criticised for the comments she made about Tourettes syndrome, with some branding it a ‘totally uncaring, stupid and dismissive’ remark

Susanna Reid has been slammed by ITV viewers for a “totally uncaring, stupid and dismissive” remark about Tourette syndrome during a discussion on Good Morning Britain.

The presenter has come under fire for comments she made whilst discussing John Davidson, a Tourette’s campaigner who had his life serialised in new movie I Swear. Actor Robert Aramayo played the role of John in the movie, which he won Best Actor for last night.

During the BAFTAs last night, as Sinners stars Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo presented an award, John was heard shouting “shut the f**k up” and “boring” at the actors before using the N-word.

Now, Susanna Reid has been criticised for her comments about Tourettes whilst discussing the news. She said that she was still “thinking about the language'” and branded it “completely unacceptable”.

She referenced that people with Tourettes couldn’t control their ticks, but added: “There’s plenty of people watching who say, ‘Why should a racial slur ever be accepted or simply brushed away?'”

Ed then said: ‘There’s two different issues. If this racial slur was said at the awards ceremony, it shouldn’t have been broadcast. The guy who has Tourette’s – apologising for his disability is not fair or right. It’s not in his control. If it was me, I would have bleeped out the racial slur and not had the apology.”

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.

Susanna added: “But it’s absolutely vital that you apologise for it. A racial slur is always something, presumably, that needs to be apologised for.” Ed then replied: “They ought to have apologised for having it on the programme, but apologising for the gentleman with Tourette’s, you can’t apologise for his disability.”

Fans of the ITV show fumed over Susanna’s comment, with one writing: “The actor in the film regarding Tourette’s wins an award but Susanna states that we need to apologise for the consequence of that disability in real life.” Another added: “You shouldn’t apologise for #TouretteSyndrome, it can’t be helped. You should never apologise for an illness…no one asked to have the illness.”

Yesterday, at the awards, host Alan Cumming addressed the comments. He told the audience: “You may have heard some strong offensive language tonight, but if you’ve seen the film I Swear, it’s about the experience of a person with Tourette syndrome.

“It is a disability and the ticks you have heard tonight are involuntary that means the person who has Tourette syndrome has no control over their language and we apologise if it has caused offence.”

A BBC spokesperson added: “Some viewers may have heard strong and offensive language during the Bafta Film Awards 2026. This arose from involuntary verbal tics associated with Tourette syndrome, and was not intentional. We apologise for any offence caused by the language heard.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

The Winter Olympics ended as the twin flames in host cities Milan and Cortina d’Ampezzo were extinguished during a closing ceremony at the ancient Verona Arena, roughly mid-distance between the far-flung mountain, valley and city venues that made these the most spread-out Winter Games ever.

In declaring the 2026 Games over on Sunday, International Olympic Committee President Kirsty Coventry told local organisers that they “delivered a new kind of Winter Games and you set a new, very high standard for the future”.

The next Winter Games will be held in neighbouring France, which received the Olympic flag in the official handover earlier in the ceremony. Following the same spread-out model, the 2030 Winter Games will stage events in the Alps and Nice, on the Mediterranean Sea, while speed skating will be held either in Italy or the Netherlands.

A total of 116 medal events were held in eight Olympic sports across 16 disciplines, including the debut of ski mountaineering this year, over the course of 17 days of competition. With the final events wrapping up just hours before the ceremony, the 50km mass start men’s and women’s cross-country medals were awarded by Coventry inside the arena.

Hosts Italy won their highest Winter Olympic tally of 30 medals, including 10 gold and six silver, surpassing the previous record of 20 medals, set at the Lillehammer Olympics in 1994.

The closing ceremony paid tribute to Italian dance and music, from lyric opera to Italian pop of the 20th century to the DJ beat of Gabry Ponte, who got the 1,500 athletes on their feet and dancing while colourful confetti exploded on stage. Italian artist Achille Lauro delivered the last word with the song “Incoscienti Giovani”, or “reckless young people”, just before athletes who had so aptly harnessed their youthful energy for these games filed out.

The Milano Cortina Winter Olympics spanned an area of 22,000sq km (8,500sq miles), from ice sports in Milan to biathlon in Anterselva on the Austrian border, snowboarding and men’s downhill in Valtellina on the Swiss border, cross-country skiing in the Val di Fiemme north of Verona, and women’s downhill, curling and sliding sports in Cortina d’Ampezzo.

The closing ceremony concluded with the Olympic flames extinguished at the unprecedented two cauldrons in Milan and Cortina, viewed in Verona via videolink. A light show substituted for fireworks, which are not allowed in Verona to protect animals from being disturbed.

The Milan Cortina Paralympics’ opening ceremony will also take place in the Verona Arena, on March 6, and the games will run until March 15.

U.S. trade policy uncertainty has sent shockwaves through global markets, as President Donald Trump moved to impose a 15% tariff following the Supreme Court of the United States ruling invalidating his emergency trade levies. Investors reacted quickly, rotating out of risk assets and the dollar, while seeking shelter in gold, silver, and safe-haven currencies. The turbulence highlights the fragility of global investor confidence when policy reversals collide with high-stakes geopolitical and economic risks.

Wall Street and Currency Volatility

U.S. stock futures fell sharply, with S&P 500 futures down 0.5% and Nasdaq futures slipping 0.6%. The dollar weakened across major pairs, losing 0.21% versus the yen and 0.34% against the Swiss franc, while the euro gained 0.23%. European equities also reflected caution: the STOXX 600 fell 0.19%, Germany’s DAX slid 0.36%, and Britain’s FTSE 100 edged down 0.1%.

Asian markets, however, were mixed. The MSCI Asia index excluding Japan rose 0.83%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng surged 2.53% on expectations of lower tariffs for China. Japan’s Nikkei futures fell 0.4% ahead of a holiday, highlighting regional divergence driven by perceived winners and losers in U.S. tariff policy.

Safe-Haven Assets Rally

Amid the uncertainty, investors sought protection in gold and silver, which climbed 0.6% and 2% respectively. Safe-haven currencies, including the Japanese yen and Swiss franc, appreciated as risk-off sentiment grew. Government bonds saw slight gains, with the U.S. 10-year Treasury yield dipping to 4.077%, reflecting flight-to-quality buying. Brent crude prices fell 1.1% to $70.97 a barrel, reversing gains from earlier geopolitical risk sentiment linked to U.S.-Iran tensions.

Tariff Confusion and Its Economic Implications

Trump’s latest tariffs add layers of ambiguity. While the Supreme Court struck down his emergency powers, the new 15% levy relies on Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act, an untested statute. Questions remain over timing, exclusions, and applicability by country. Some nations, including the UK and Australia, had lower tariffs under prior rules, while many Asian exporters faced higher duties. The Yale Budget Lab estimates the average effective tariff rate at 13.7% following the announcement, down from 16% pre-ruling, with the 15% rate potentially dropping to 9.1% after 150 days.

“This circular process of tariff announcements, legal challenges, and revisions is creating profound uncertainty for markets,” said Rodrigo Catril, senior FX strategist at NAB.

Market Sentiment and Investor Behavior

The episode reflects broader structural concerns about U.S. trade policy’s unpredictability. Investors are no longer just reacting to tariffs themselves, but to the instability and volatility of policy enforcement. The uncertainty affects supply chains, corporate earnings forecasts, and capital allocation decisions. Nvidia’s upcoming earnings, for example, are being closely watched, given the company’s 8% weighting in the S&P 500, demonstrating how trade policy shocks can amplify market sensitivity to specific corporate results.

Analytical Outlook

Trump’s oscillating trade policy highlights a critical tension between political objectives and market stability. While tariffs are framed as instruments to advance domestic economic priorities, the resulting unpredictability imposes systemic costs: currency swings, equity market volatility, and flight to safe assets. The mixed regional responses Asian equities partially rallying, European markets cautious underscore how interconnected global trade and finance are, and how unevenly shocks are absorbed.

In essence, this episode illustrates a modern economic paradox: protective trade measures intended to strengthen domestic interests can, in practice, destabilize markets worldwide. Investors now must hedge not only against tariffs themselves but also against the policy volatility that accompanies them a scenario likely to persist as long as U.S. trade decisions are made unilaterally and unpredictably.

Trump’s approach has transformed trade from a predictable framework into a high-stakes, reactive arena, forcing global markets to continuously recalibrate. The lesson is clear: in today’s interconnected financial system, the cost of policy uncertainty often outweighs the intended protectionist benefit.

With information from Reuters.

Dani Dyer opens up about her dad Danny’s past rehab stint on their new show together The Dyers’ Caravan Park

Dani Dyer discusses the emotional letter she sent to her dad Danny Dyer during his past time in rehab on their new show The Dyers’ Caravan Park.

The Sky show sees Danny, 48, who loves a caravan park, attempt to save the great British holiday by reviving Priory Hill in Leysdown, Kent.

Danny, who has fond memories of his caravan holidays in the 1980s, is investing his money, time and hard work to bring back the spirit of the classic family holiday alongside daughter Dani, 29.

The father and daughter have a very close bond, having worked together on other projects such as True Love or True Lies, their hit podcast Sorted with the Dyers and travel show Absolutely Dyer: Danny and Dani do Italy.

Opening up during the show, Dani speaks about her close bond with dad Danny, where she reflects on his past time in rehab.

At the time, Danny was on EastEnders playing Mick Carter, a role he played from 2013 to 2022, he headed to rehab in Cape Town in 2016 after he was “slowly killing himself” by being “off his head”.

Danny previously told the BBC receiving a letter from his daughter Dani while at a rehab facility in 2016 was what convinced him to continue his treatment.

The father-of-three, who first met wife Jo Mas when they were both 14, managed to turn his life around with the help of rehab, therapy and meditation.

Talking about her dad’s journey on The Dyers’ Caravan Park, Dani says: “You know when your brain just doesn’t want to remember things? Like, it just blocks it out?

“He [dad Danny] went to rehab a couple of times. I remember the first time, I didn’t really remember the first time that he went and I wrote him a letter.

“I still to this day, I can’t remember what I wrote. You know, like when everything was such a bubble and everything was just so intense at the time.

“I knew he’d gone, but I knew that there was a reason. Like, if he hadn’t gone away, like, God knows where he’d be now.”

Talking about their close bond, Dani made an emotional death admission about her famous dad: “When he goes, I’ll have to stuff him, because I’ll need him in my garden forever. He can never leave me. He has to outlive us all.”

The Dyers’ Caravan Park launches 24 February on Sky and NOW.

**For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website**

United States Secret Service ⁠agents and local police shot and killed a man who drove into the secure perimeter of President Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida.

This story contains spoilers for Episode 6 of “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms.”

Ira Parker intended the very last scene of “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms,” Episode 6 (titled “The Morrow”), to be just “something that was a little funny.”

Sunday’s season finale of the HBO fantasy series ends with everyone, including the royal Targaryen entourage, departing Ashford after the conclusion of the trial and tournament. Just before the credits roll, Prince Maekar, who notices his young son Aegon is once again missing, frantically shouts, “Where the f— is he?”

“To be honest, the very, very, very end was almost just meant as a joke,” the showrunner says during a recent video call. “But I think people — both in my writing camp and in the HBO camp and probably in the world — took that quite literally. So I’ve maybe had to deal with it a little bit more in Season 2 than I was planning to.”

“A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” showrunner Ira Parker, right, with director Sarah Adina Smith on the set of the fantasy series.

(Steffan Hill / HBO)

Starring Peter Claffey as Ser Duncan the Tall and Dexter Sol Ansell as Prince Aegon Targaryen, “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” is an adaptation of George R.R. Martin novellas set in the same world as his “A Song of Ice and Fire” series. These “Tales of Dunk and Egg” stories take place around 100 years before the events depicted in “Game of Thrones.”

The moment in question could be a big deal for some fans of Martin’s novellas. The scene is not included in “The Hedge Knight,” the book upon which the first season of “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” is based. Whether Egg had Maekar’s permission to join Dunk’s travels as his squire is left more open ended in the novella itself.

While the young prince said he had his father’s blessing, “it’s not confirmed canonically” in the book, says Parker. “We haven’t done anything egregious here, I don’t think. [And] I believe it from a character perspective. I believe that Egg would do that again, because he’s already done it. We’ve seen him. He runs away. That’s sort of his thing. And he lies to people.”

Without sharing any details, Parker teases the situation will be addressed again next season.

Dunk (Peter Claffey) in the season finale of “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms.”

(Steffan Hill / HBO)

The showrunner, who co-created the series with Martin, admits that approaching “The Morrow” was “daunting.” Set in the aftermath of Trial of Seven, Episode 6 involved “a lot of creation” to stretch out the remaining events from the source material.

“Very early on, all of us knew that we weren’t going to add any story,” says Parker, who previously worked on “Thrones” prequel “House of the Dragon.” “The story is the story. We’re going to be 100% faithful to the novellas in that respect. But where we could add, because we needed about another 50% of material in order to fill out even our six 30-minute episodes, was going to be in the characters.”

This has meant the show has spent more time with the very relatable Dunk and his precocious charge Egg. Its supporting ensemble including Lyonel Baratheon (Daniel Ings) and Raymun Fossoway (Shaun Thomas), who give Dunk a helping hand, have also been more fleshed out. This has allowed audiences to just “enjoy hanging out in this world.”

“I wasn’t always convinced that people would allow us to do it,” Parker says. “Hanging out in Westeros. It meant a little bit of a slower start. Luckily, people have come along with us on the ride. … We really just hoped that people would be charmed enough by these characters and the story and want good things for Dunk.”

Like “The Hedge Knight,” the episode concludes by teasing Dunk and Egg’s journey to Dorne, but Parker confirms Season 2 will be an adaptation of the second novella, “The Sworn Sword,” which takes place a year and a half or so after the events of “The Hedge Knight” and sees the pair in a part of the Reach.

“I love ‘The Sworn Sword’ because I think it’s very funny, and I think the sort of ‘will they / won’t they’ between Dunk and Lady Rohanne is just good territory for us,” he says. (Parker said they considered setting Season 2 in Dorne but that it would have taken too much time to flesh out the story even with Martin’s notes.)

In a conversation edited for clarity and length, Parker discussed his collaboration with Martin, every aspect of the show being a reflection of Dunk, and “A Knight of the Nine Kingdoms.”

Lyonel Baratheon (Daniel Ings), left, and Dunk (Peter Claffey) while a maester (Paul Murphy) looks over the injured hedge knight.

(Steffan Hill / HBO)

The show is called “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms,” but in the finale, Egg points out to Dunk that there are actually nine kingdoms in Westeros. Can you explain that moment and actually showing the alternate title card?

The situation is so overwrought in this episode. With Baelor’s death and with everything that Egg has gone through, which we see him struggling with. Where Dunk’s head is at, going off alone again. The fact that they both get together is wonderful and uplifting, but we sort of had to reassure the audience — that even though Egg is now officially a prince and Dunk knows that, and this tragedy has come to pass between the two of them, the core of that relationship, what we learned to love about their relationship before all of this happened, actually still remains. So that was the importance of having a type of conversation like that. It didn’t necessarily have to be the conversation about the kingdoms, but just Egg, in his way, making sure that Dunk never feels like he knows anything. And it is a wink to the audience and to the fans [who have raised questions about the number], but we’re not changing the name of the show.

You mention Egg’s struggles and we do see just how much anger he has toward his brother Aerion in this episode. What were your thoughts on depicting that onscreen and what it says about Egg?

I talked to George a little bit about Egg and his motivations early on, and George said kids feel disappointment more acutely and that that is a huge part of it. It’s not to be discounted. I don’t want to go out there and say it’s because of Targaryen trauma and everything he’s been through. He’s a boy. Things were happening that were very nice for him that he was very happy about. Then it was all taken away and he blames people. He feels like he’s caused all these problems [for others], and when that doesn’t have a place to land, that’s what turns into anger. It just sort of brews up inside of you.

He sees Aerion as the true cause of all this. At that young age, he doesn’t know how to undirect that. He has some sort of a father there in Maekar. But the fact that he ends up with Dunk, that’s the whole story of Episode 6. Is Dunk, after all this, going to decide to save this kid who is just going to be thrown to the wolves otherwise? Who’s not going to get what he needs to direct his frustration and his disappointments to good energy targets? Kids who have that end up, generally, in better situations than kids who don’t.

It’s very important for me to show the importance of having a mentor in your life. We’re obviously very thematically about fathers and sons, knights and squires, and, to a certain extent brothers. But it is, at the core of it, what it is to have a teacher. Dunk had that in Ser Arlan. Dunk certainly has no obligation to do anything for this family at this point and he does it … because it was done for him. So he’s paying it forward, being a benefit to the person next to him.

Dunk (Peter Claffey) is ready for his next journey.

(Steffan Hill / HBO)

That’s one thing that sets Dunk apart. He’s one of the few people we see in this world who believes in doing good and that that’s what he’s supposed to be doing.

There’s an addition to that, which is that he wants so badly to do good and do right by his mentor who taught him what a knight was supposed to be. But there is this feeling that the world isn’t going to let you do that. We see somebody like Ned Stark, who’s very honorable, [but] probably suffered ultimately from his naivety — his belief in others. Dunk, I think, has one extra level. Or maybe I’m just projecting that onto him because sometimes I think about how to protect myself in this world where not everybody always has the best intentions. You so badly want to do good, but then there’s also the reality of that, and a big part of Dunk’s early journey in this world is learning those lessons.

Maybe that’s just because my head is also stuck in Book Two, where I think that is brought even more to the forefront. But he’s never going to change. He’s always going to be hopeful.

You did a Reddit AMA recently and you responded to someone who had asked about the show’s production budget that everything in this show was a reflection of the lead character. Can you explain what you meant by that?

It’s very chilling at the beginning to realize that you have one [point of view] character, but then when you realize how many facets go into making up that one person — from costumes, cinematography, music, everything — you realize you actually are telling a lot of different stories, just about one person and how they relate to the world. You have to make sure that that is one hell of an immersive experience, because it’s not like you could just have an audience member tune out if they don’t like the Dunk story this week. We had to make you feel in every single episode that you are in that situation, that you can somehow relate to Dunk and what he’s going through. This is because it’s about to get even tougher for him. Hopefully the people who come to us for the light, fun, enjoyable take on Westeros will stick with us through some of the harder, trickier, grimmer moments. Because this is George R.R. Martin’s world, and it gets dangerous.

But it was actually a very nice, natural way for us to differentiate ourselves [from the other shows]. We’re not a prequel. These are novellas that have existed for 30 years. It’s more organic. Rather than being so grand and epic in scale, it’s still small and simple and hopeful. [Dunk’s] still basically just a kid. It’s two kids setting out to have a little bit of fun. There’s got to be some some whimsy about it. That very easily allowed us to find our own voice.

Egg (Dexter Sol Ansell) has a lot of anger for his older brother.

(Steffan Hill / HBO)

How is it like to work with George R.R. Martin?

He has been wonderfully collaborative. It’s been the most fulfilling creative partnership of my whole life. A lot of people can start out in this industry reading your stuff and telling you what they think is wrong without asking you why you did something the way that you did it. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and the conversation jumping off from there, George is very good at that. Whenever he would call me about a new script, we’d talk out what’s in my head in the version of events that led me down this path. And then he talks about why he either did it another way or has issues with it. It becomes a very natural conversation. It’s an extension of a writer’s room with a living legend, one of the greatest living writers in the world today. He just likes talking about this stuff with you, and I like talking about it with him.

What were your earliest conversations with him about “Dunk and Egg” like? Did you already have an idea of how you wanted to do the show before you talked to him?

I swung pretty wildly at the beginning from the point where HBO sent it to me — where I thought “Game of Thrones” shows are 10 episodes, an hourlong each, how could we possibly do that with these three novellas — to finding out what HBO’s intentions were for it, finding out what George’s intentions were for it. Having conversations with George about what he likes, why Dunk is his sole POV character. Why, for example, he never wrote any Egg chapters. He has so many specific thoughts on all of this that that really helped inform what my approach was going to be.

I think it was very important for me to go into that first meeting, when I flew to Santa Fe to meet him, with a mile-high preparation. I knew everything possibly in and around this world and these characters, and I had a lot of pitches, if it came to that. But I didn’t go in there and lead with that. I just went and I sat down and we had conversations. I asked a lot of questions and I listened a lot. And then I went back and I re-formed and I went off and wrote a pilot. Then we were off to the races.

Raymun Fossoway (Shaun Thomas), left, was a true friend to Dunk (Peter Claffey).

(Steffan Hill / HBO)

You worked on “House of the Dragon,” which is such a different show, even though it’s in the same world. How did your time there affect how you wanted to approach this show?

That room was one of my favorite rooms that I’ve ever been in. Ryan Condal is a true writer’s writer. He has so much love for this world. It’s funny because everybody thinks comedy rooms are just so funny all the time, everybody’s cracking jokes, and drama rooms are so serious because of the material. It’s actually often the exact opposite. In drama, because comedy is not currency, everybody’s just cracking jokes all the time. And Ryan has such a sharp wit; we share a very similar sense of humor. I think it was him who put me forward for this to HBO when they were looking for a writer for “Dunk and Egg,” and I’m very grateful.

Our room for “Knight of the Seven Kingdoms” was very different. We hired all drama writers, just people that have different sensibilities. I felt like I was living my very best days. We had 11 days in that writer’s room because the writers’ strike shut us down so quickly, but we knew that that was coming up. So we got going as fast as we possibly could and we broke as much as we could. Then I assigned scripts the very last day. But those 11 days in that room, I think we broke, ultimately, 20 seasons of a show by accident.

We were having so much fun, we were creating it all for the first season. We did it all for six episodes. As soon as we got back from the strike, a few of my writers were just like, “How do you expect us to write 35-minute episodes with these beats to be broken?” We pulled it a lot, lot back from what that was, but writers rooms are the happiest place on Earth, or least lonely place on Earth. It’s not always happy — it’s hard sometimes.

Washington, DC – President Donald Trump has long been fixated on how voting in the United States is administered, claiming without evidence that his 2020 presidential election loss was the result of malfeasance.

Fast forward more than five years, and Trump is set to be in office for one of the most consequential midterm races in recent times.

It is unclear how the US president might involve himself in the midterms, which will determine whether his Republican Party maintains control over both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The results will decide whether Trump can continue to enact his agenda with relative ease or if he will face congressional pushback at every turn.

The Republican leader’s approach so far appears to be twofold, according to Michael Traugott, a political scientist and professor emeritus at the University of Michigan.

On one hand, Trump has embarked on a messaging campaign to cast doubt on any results that seem unfavourable.

“Part of what the Trump administration is doing is trying to create the impression of fraud and mismanagement in local elections so that they can argue eventually that some outcomes are not legitimate or real or should be discounted,” Traugott told Al Jazeera.

On the other hand, Trump also appears to be conducting a stress test of pre-existing election law, to see how much the federal government can intervene.

“There are actions that he could take or try to take, which would likely be stopped in the courts,” Traugott said.

“The behaviour in the Trump administration is to appeal, appeal, appeal, until it gets to the Supreme Court,” he added. “I imagine that would be their strategy.”

Calls to ‘nationalise’ election administration

Trump has been explicit about his desire to assert more federal control over the election, saying in early February that “Republicans ought to nationalise the voting”.

He pointed to what he described as “horrible corruption on elections” in some parts of the US.

The US Constitution assigns states the power to determine the “times, places and manner” of elections for federal office.

Congress, meanwhile, has the ability to “make or alter” rules related to voting through legislation or, in extreme cases, constitutional amendments.

“It’s important to remember that, in the United States, we don’t really have national elections. We have a series of state and local elections that are held more or less on the same day,” Traugott explained.

The president, meanwhile, has no constitutional role in how elections are administered, beyond signing any legislation Congress passes.

Still, it is possible for a president to leverage executive branch agencies that interact with state election administration. Trump too has explicitly blurred the lines between federal and state power.

In the Oval Office on February 3, he told reporters, “A state is an agent for the federal government in elections. I don’t know why the federal government doesn’t do them anyway.”

His statements were swiftly condemned by voting rights groups.

The League of Women Voters, a voting rights group founded in 1920, called Trump’s remarks a “calculated effort to dismantle the integrity of the electoral system as we know it”.

“Time and again, the President’s claims of widespread fraud have been disproven by nonpartisan election officials, the courts, and the Department of Justice,” it added.

Despite Trump’s claims, voter fraud is exceedingly rare in the US, and any isolated instances typically have little effect on election outcomes.

Even the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind the Trump-aligned Project 2025, has documented an inconsequential rate of voter fraud in its catalogue of cases running back to 1982.

An analysis from the centre-left Brookings Institution found that fraudulent votes failed to amount to one ten-thousandth of a percentage point of the ballots cast in states where elections tend to be the closest.

For example, Arizona is a perennial battleground in presidential elections, but it has seen just 36 reported cases of voter fraud since 1982, out of more than 42 million ballots cast. That put the percentage of fraud at 0.0000845, according to the analysis.

Department of Justice pushes boundaries

Nevertheless, the Trump administration has heaped pressure on the Department of Justice to increase its probes into alleged voter fraud.

The attorney general has demanded that 47 states and Washington, DC, a federal district, hand over their complete voter registration lists, according to a tally from the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy group.

Eleven states have complied or agreed to comply. The Trump administration has launched lawsuits against the 20 others that refused.

The Department of Justice has also stepped up its cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security to identify non-citizen voters.

Some critics have even accused the Justice Department of deploying coercive tactics to fulfil its demands for state voter information.

On January 24, for instance, US Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote a letter to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz suggesting three “common sense solutions” to “restore the rule of law” in the state.

One of those proposals was to allow the Justice Department to “access voter rolls”.

Bondi’s remarks came after a federal immigration crackdown in Minnesota had turned deadly, resulting in two on-camera shootings of US citizens.

While her letter did not directly offer a quid pro quo – access to the rolls in exchange for ending the crackdown – critics said the message it sent was clear. Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, for instance, called the letter tantamount to “blackmail”.

But four days later, on January 28, the Justice Department went even further, seizing voting records and ballots in a raid on an election facility in Fulton County, Georgia.

The state has been a sore point for Trump: Georgia voted for a Democratic presidential candidate for the first time in more than two decades during the 2020 race.

At the time, Trump infamously pressured Georgia’s secretary of state to “find more votes” following his loss. He has spread rumours about fraud in Georgia’s election system ever since.

Local officials condemned the January raid as a “flagrant constitutional violation”, saying in a lawsuit that an affidavit submitted by the FBI to obtain a search warrant relied on hypotheticals.

In other words, it failed to establish probable cause that any crime had occurred, Fulton County officials argued.

That affidavit also revealed the investigation was the direct result of a referral from Kurt Olsen, who was appointed to a White House role as Trump’s head of election security in October.

Before entering the White House, Olsen led unsuccessful legal challenges to the 2020 election results, in what Trump dubbed the “Stop the Steal” campaign.

Fulton County officials noted “multiple courts have sanctioned Olsen for his unsubstantiated, speculative claims about elections”.

What is Tulsi Gabbard’s role?

The apparent role of Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, in the election investigations has also raised questions.

Gabbard was present at the Fulton County raid, with Trump later telling reporters that she was “working very hard on trying to keep the election safe”.

Who authorised her presence, however, was the subject of contradictory statements from the Trump administration.

Gabbard said she had been sent on behalf of Trump, even though the president attempted to distance himself from the raid. The Justice Department later said Bondi had requested Gabbard’s presence. Gabbard finally said both Trump and Bondi had asked her to attend.

Whatever the case, Traugott, the political scientist, said that her presence at the scene was highly unusual.

“The director of national intelligence has been associated with observation and information gathering from foreign countries, not from domestic entities,” Traugott explained. “So historically, this is without precedent”.

In a statement, Senator Mark Warner of Virginia said he was concerned that Gabbard had exceeded the powers of her office. He said the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he is vice chairman, had not been briefed on any “foreign intelligence nexus” related to the Fulton County raid.

Either Gabbard was flouting her responsibility to keep the committee informed, Warner said, or she is “injecting the nonpartisan intelligence community she is supposed to be leading into a domestic political stunt designed to legitimize conspiracy theories that undermine our democracy”.

Gabbard, who is expected to testify before the Senate committee in March, responded in early February that she had been acting under her “broad statutory authority to coordinate, integrate, and analyse intelligence related to election security”.

She maintained her office would “not irresponsibly share incomplete intelligence assessments concerning foreign or other malign interference in US elections”.

Voter ID law

But it’s not just executive agencies like the Department of Justice and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence pushing Trump’s agenda for the midterm races.

Experts say Trump has been angling to use the Republican majorities in Congress to pass restrictive voter laws ahead of November’s election.

Trump has supported a bill, dubbed the SAVE Act, which would require citizens to provide more documentation – such as a passport or a birth certificate – when registering to vote, as well as photo identification when casting a ballot.

Rights groups have long argued that such requirements would disenfranchise some voters who lack access to such materials. As of 2023, the US State Department reported that only 48 percent of US citizens had a valid passport.

The bill would also require states to provide voter lists to the Department of Homeland Security to identify and remove non-citizens, raising concerns about voter privacy.

The legislation, which has been passed by the House, is likely to face an uphill battle in the Senate. It is already illegal for non-citizens to vote.

Even without the legislation, though, Trump has threatened to sign an executive order requiring local election organisers to require voter identification before distributing ballots.

Trump already signed a similar order last March seeking to impose new rules on elections, including voter ID requirements, reviews of electronic voting machines and restrictions on how long votes can be counted.

Nearly all of the provisions have since been blocked by federal judges. The most recent ruling by US District Judge John Chun related to restrictions like tying federal election funding to “proof of citizenship” requirements.

“In granting this relief,” Chun wrote in his decision, “the Court seeks to restore the proper balance of power among the Executive Branch, the states, and Congress envisioned by the Framers.”

Afghan officials deny claims, as they accuse Pakistan of targeting civilians and violating its sovereignty in Sunday’s border air raids.

A senior Pakistani government official has claimed that its military killed at least 70 fighters in air raids along the border with Afghanistan, claims Kabul has denied, amid escalating tensions between the two South Asian neighbours.

Talal Chaudhry, Pakistan’s deputy interior minister, offered no evidence for his claim in an interview with Geo News on Sunday evening that at least 70 rebels were killed in the attack. Pakistan’s state media reported that the death toll had jumped to 80; however, there was no official confirmation.

Pakistan’s military carried out the air raids early on Sunday, targeting what it called “camps and hideouts” belonging to armed groups behind a spate of recent attacks, including a deadly suicide bombing at a Shia mosque in the capital, Islamabad.

The country’s Information Minister Attaullah Tarar wrote on X that the military conducted “intelligence-based, selective operations” against seven camps belonging to the Pakistan Taliban group, known by the acronym TTP, and its affiliates.

Tarar said Pakistan “has always strived to maintain peace and stability in the region”, but added that the safety and security of Pakistani citizens remained a top priority.

President Asif Ali Zardari said late on Sunday that Pakistan’s recent attacks along the Afghan border were “rooted in [its] inherent right to defend its people against terrorism” after repeated warnings to Kabul went unheeded.

The attacks threaten a fragile ceasefire between the South Asian neighbours, negotiated following deadly border clashes that killed dozens of soldiers, civilians and suspected fighters in October last year.

Pakistan said it has repeatedly urged Afghanistan’s Taliban government to take action to prevent armed groups from using Afghan territory to launch attacks, but that Kabul has failed to “undertake any substantive action”.

Afghanistan has rejected Pakistani allegations that its territory is used by armed groups linked to attacks in Pakistan.

Afghanistan denies claims

The Afghan Ministry of Defence said in a statement that “various civilian areas” in the eastern provinces of Nangarhar and Paktika were hit, including a religious school and several homes. The statement called the attacks a violation of Afghanistan’s airspace and sovereignty.

Taliban government spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said “people’s homes have been destroyed, they have targeted civilians, they have committed this criminal act” with the bombardment of the two eastern provinces.

Residents from around the remote Bihsud district in Nangarhar joined searchers to look for bodies under the rubble using shovels and a digger, the AFP news agency reported.

“People here are ordinary people. The residents of this village are our relatives. When the bombing happened, one person who survived was shouting for help,” resident Amin Gul Amin, 37, told AFP.

Spokesperson Mujahid also said Pakistan’s claim of killing 70 fighters was “inaccurate”.

Mawlawi Fazl Rahman Fayyaz, the provincial director of the Afghan Red Crescent Society in Nangarhar province, said 18 people were killed and several others were wounded.

Afghanistan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs summoned Pakistan’s ambassador in Kabul to protest against the attacks.

In a statement, the ministry said protecting Afghanistan’s territory is its “Sharia responsibility”, warning that Pakistan would be held responsible for the consequences of such attacks.

KATIE Price has proudly brandished a pregnancy test days after claiming she’s pregnant with her sixth baby.

The Sun exclusively revealed the former glamour model said I Do with businessman Lee Andrews in a plush ceremony in Dubai last month.

Over the weekend, it was revealed the pair made their marriage legal in a second ceremony.

Now Katie, 47, has taken to her bathroom to tease the next steps in their relationship.

Last week she appeared to confirm she is expecting as she claimed “I’m having his baby”.

The parent of five’s new video saw her posing in a white T-Shirt, holding a test with her pink manicured fingers.

AISLE BE BACK

Moment Katie Price & new hubby exchange vows in second wedding ceremony

I DO… AGAIN

Katie Price’s marriage made legal FIVE days ago in 2nd ceremony despite fears

Her huge wedding ring was on full display in the clip, which saw her brush her dark locks over her shoulder and flash a smile to the camera.

Yet she covered up the window box on the test, meaning the verdict could not be seen.

She then said: “Hey guys so all the speculation.

“If you want to see the truth subscribe and you will see the answer”.

She then flashed a pose to end the clip and added a subscription box.

Katie married Lee after two weeks of knowing him.

She then stunned fans by appearing to confirm that she’s expecting his baby just hours after meeting his dad.

In her apparent baby announcement, Katie was also quick to take a swipe at Lee’s ex partner Alana Percival, who he was engaged to last year.

In a shock rant, Katie took to social media and said: “Alana I know rejection doesn’t feel nice and I’m married to Lee Andrews the man you want and will never have again.

“Your constant lies and put downs is clearly showing how bitter you are, go live your life little girl.

Who is Katie Price’s husband Lee Andrews?

KATIE Price tied the knot with Lee Andrews in January 2026. Yet who is he?

• Katie Price has married businessman fiancé Lee Andrews in a whirlwind wedding
• It is the fourth time Katie, 47, has been a bride. She has also been married to Peter Andre, Alex Reid and Kieran Hayler
• Katie and Lee met just after being introduced on social media
• Lee claimed he is a billionaire in a failed clip from his acting career
• He now claims to be a Dubai-based businessman
• Yet The Sun has unmasked him as a fantasist who faked celebrity links using AI-generated photos and recently talked about marrying two other women
• Failed actor is just another title to add to Lee’s questionable CV, after he claimed to have once worked as the Director of Philanthropy at The Prince’s Trust (now The King’s Trust)
• Lee also shared images – since proven to be AI – of him working with Elon Musk and Kim Kardashian
• It’s been revealed shameless Lee told former girlfriends that he had studied at Cambridge University, and has a PhD in biotechnology science
• But The Sun has seen a response from the university explaining it could not find a record of Lee being registered as a student with a date of birth they had provided
• His LinkedIn profile says Lee has been a Member of the Board of Advisors to the Labour Party since 2015
• Lee was also mocked for repeating the exact same wedding proposal on Katie – that he did for another woman just four months ago.

“I know the truth and your now embarrassing yourself, go and have the little respect for yourself that’s left.

“I know all about you and who you are.

“At least I’m the real woman he has found and deserves, but please just enjoy watching us build our empire as I’m having his child.

“I’ll enjoy the ride and big d*** energy now, I’m in the saddle.

“He’s the most beautiful human I know who never took anything from you.”

Katie furiously added: “Now disappear back under that bridge you irrelevant little troll.”

While Lee also appeared to confirm the baby news by sharing a picture of him and Katie and writing: “Perfect couple, soon to be triple.”

Over the weekend, he shared an image seemingly showing him cradling Katie’s tummy with his hand.

Katie was previously issued a warning by Lee’s exes Alana and Crystal Janke, who he dated at the same time last year. 

Last month Alana, 32, and Crystal, 40, told The Sun exclusively how they were hoodwinked by the businessman — branding him a lying swindler who preys on women.

Feb. 23 (UPI) — A Hong Kong court has rejected the appeals of 12 pro-democracy lawmakers and activists seeking to overturn their convictions in connection with a 2020 unofficial election primary that Beijing-aligned officials said was intended to undermine the city’s existing political system.

The dozen people are members of the so-called Hong Kong 47, who were sentenced in November 2024 to between 51 and 120 months in what is still the largest case so far brought under the city’s draconian National Security Law.

Eleven of the activists were convicted during the trial, while one pleaded guilty.

The court on Monday rejected their appeals. For some, they have already served their sentences and been released from prison.

Lawrence Lau Wai-chung, a barrister and democracy activist, had been acquitted in the case, but the government had appealed the decision. The court on Monday upheld that decision.

The defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit subversion under the National Security Law that Beijing imposed on Hong Kong in connection with their unofficial primary.

Held in July 2020 amid the fraying of democratic norms in Hong Kong, the activists used the primary to coordinate candidates and win a pro-democracy majority in the city’s legislature, which prosecutors said they planned to use to veto budget bills to force the resignation of Hong Kong’s chief executive.

The primary was held following protests that erupted in Hong Kong in 2019 against extradition that grew into a broader pro-democracy movement following allegations of excessive force used by police against the protesters.

In response to the protests, China imposed a new national security law on Hong Kong in July 2020, and police arrested dozens of pro-democracy figures on Jan. 6, 2021, with 47 charged with conspiracy to commit subversion in late February of that year.

The government accused them of seeking to use the legislature, under the guise of democracy, to threaten Hong Kong’s political system.

Their convictions were widely condemned by democratic nations, including Britain, Canada and the United States. Washington vowed to impose visa restrictions on officials responsible for their sentencing.

South Korea and Brazil have agreed to significantly deepen cooperation across key minerals, trade, technology and security, as President Lee Jae Myung hosted Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Seoul for the first Brazilian state visit in more than two decades. The summit, held at the Blue House, marked a symbolic reset in bilateral ties and produced an ambitious roadmap aimed at elevating relations to a strategic partnership.

The two leaders endorsed a four-year action plan designed to anchor cooperation in strategic minerals, advanced manufacturing, defence, space industries and food security. They also oversaw the signing of 10 memorandums of understanding covering trade and industrial policy, rare earths and other critical minerals, the digital economy including artificial intelligence, biotechnology and health, agricultural collaboration, small-business exchanges, and joint efforts to combat cybercrime and narcotics trafficking.

Critical Minerals at the Core

At the heart of the agreement lies a shared recognition of the growing geopolitical importance of critical minerals. Brazil holds significant reserves of rare earth elements and nickel, both essential to electric vehicles, renewable energy systems and high-tech manufacturing. South Korea, a manufacturing powerhouse heavily reliant on imported raw materials, is seeking to diversify supply chains amid intensifying global competition for resource security.

For Seoul, closer ties with Brasília offer an opportunity to secure stable access to strategic inputs while reducing exposure to concentrated supply routes. For Brazil, the partnership represents a chance to attract South Korean investment into mining, processing and downstream industries, potentially moving up the value chain rather than remaining primarily a raw-material exporter.

Trade Expansion and Industrial Policy Alignment

Brazil is South Korea’s largest trading partner in South America, and both governments signaled an intent to broaden the scope of commerce beyond traditional commodity flows. Industrial policy coordination featured prominently in the discussions, suggesting a shift toward co-development in sectors such as semiconductors, batteries and green technologies.

The emphasis on the digital economy and artificial intelligence reflects a convergence of economic strategies. South Korea’s advanced technological ecosystem complements Brazil’s expanding digital market, creating potential for joint ventures and technology transfers. Cooperation in biotech and health also indicates a recognition of demographic and public health challenges that transcend borders.

Security, Stability and Shared Democratic Narratives

Beyond economics, the leaders framed their partnership within a broader narrative of stability and democratic resilience. Lee emphasized support for peace on the Korean Peninsula, while Lula underscored Brazil’s interest in a balanced and rules-based international order.

Their personal rapport, shaped by shared experiences of early-life factory work and social mobility, added a human dimension to the diplomacy. Lee publicly praised Lula’s life story as emblematic of democratic progress, reinforcing a symbolic alignment that may help sustain political goodwill between the two administrations.

The inclusion of joint policing initiatives against cybercrime and transnational threats signals that the partnership extends into non-traditional security domains. As digital connectivity deepens, cyber resilience and coordinated law enforcement become integral to safeguarding economic integration.

Strategic Diversification in a Fragmented World

The timing of the summit is notable. As global trade faces renewed uncertainty and supply chains continue to recalibrate, middle powers such as South Korea and Brazil are seeking to hedge against volatility by strengthening bilateral and regional ties. By formalizing cooperation in minerals, technology and defence, both governments aim to insulate their economies from external shocks while positioning themselves within emerging industrial ecosystems.

The ceremonial elements of the visit including a state banquet blending Korean and Brazilian cultural traditions underscored the leaders’ intent to broaden engagement beyond transactional trade. Whether the newly signed agreements translate into measurable investment flows and industrial integration will depend on sustained political commitment and private-sector participation. Yet the framework established in Seoul suggests that both countries see strategic partnership not as a symbolic upgrade, but as a practical response to an increasingly fragmented global landscape.

With information from Reuters.

IT’S FAIR to say that Robbie Williams’ iconic song Angels is the most famous of his back catalogue and always gets everyone singing.

However, the man who claims to have originally wrote the song almost 30 years ago has reignited the decades old feud this week as he gave fans the inside story in a slew of new TikTok videos.

Irish singer-songwriter Ray Heffernan has always maintained that he wrote the first version of Angels in 1996.

However, although former Take That star Robbie confirmed that he recorded a demo with Ray, he has maintained he rewrote it significantly with Guy Chambers.

The singer also bought the rights to Angels from Ray for £7,500 before it was released in 1997.

However, over the years there has been a lot of bad blood between the two men concerning the song, and this week the feud over the iconic tune was reignited.

Read more on Robbie Williams

ROB THE MENTOR

Robbie Williams mentoring Brit rock star to stop him going off the rails

PRECIOUS MEMORIES

Robbie Williams and Ayda Field share rare family snaps for son’s birthday

It came when Robbie appeared on Radio 2 to talk about his debut album, and said: “I spoke a lot about the album I wanted to make, but the one I did make was Life Through A Lens.

“My memories of making it are, it took me less than two weeks with Guy Chambers to write the whole album.

“That didn’t necessarily mean that it was going to be a success. My album came out and it sold 33,000 copies in three months and that is not what EMI expected to do.”

Continuing with his story, the singer said: “I was about to be dropped and then fortunately I dropped The Angels, didn’t I?

“And it gave me the career that I’ve got today. I’m incredibly grateful for that song.”

But it was this last comment that appeared to really annoy Ray.

Sharing a POV video, the songwriter was seen on his couch reacting in response to Robbie’s comment about Angels, as he wagged his finger at the video and tutted with disapproval.

Since then, Ray has been dropping videos on TikTok, where he has been talking about Angels and how he “signed his rights away” to the song.

He also posted a throwback video of Robbie from 1997 where the singer talked about how he “wrote Angels in a couple of hours”.

Ray captioned the short clip with: “Body language never lies.”

The Sun has reached out to representatives of Robbie Williams for comment.

The last time the pair’s Angels feud was reignited was three years ago – again following Rob’s comments about writing the song.

It came after Ray was left incensed after listening to a Gary Barlow podcast in 2023 where the subject of who wrote Angels popped up again.

Robbie told his former Take That bandmate: “I was off my head basically, the record company has spent a lot of money signing me.

“I made a big song and dance about leaving Take That and wanting to do my own thing, and I hadn’t done anything.

“I thought I’d better get down to it, figure out my voice, and whether I can actually do this … I was at my sister’s house in the garden with a pen and a paper and I thought, right then, I’d better come up with something..(so I wrote) ‘I sit and wait .”…

Robbie then reportedly branded Ray a “fantasist” in the comments section of the podcast, after the songwriter revealed he was unhappy with what had been said.

Ray told The Irish Sun at the time: “How can Robbie Williams call me a fantasist?

“I have always maintained that as a young man, I wrote a song with Robbie, that went on to become his hit song Angels and my story of how that came about has never changed.

“Robbie now says publicly that I’m a fantasist. My question is what part of this am I making up?”

Ray also previously shared with The Irish Sun a picture featuring himself, Robbie and his family on the day he says they wrote the song together.

It was during Christmas 1996 when he met the singer in Dublin’s Globe pub.

Later the same evening, Ray claims that he invited Robbie around to his mum’s place to hear a song he’d just written.

Ray recalled: “We didn’t waste any time, starting that night where I got the guitar out in my mum’s house and played him this song I had been working on.

“This picture was taken the next night day when we played this new song. Robbie loved the song so much, he booked a studio to record his own version the next day.”

A few months later, Ray found out that Robbie was going to record Angels for his next album.

“I contacted Robbie’s management and his people said they would give us an amount of money if I signed a waiver denouncing any rights I had to the song,” he told us.

Robbie later worked on the song Angels with songwriter Guy Chambers.

The song went on to become the singer’s biggest selling single to date AND one of the biggest songs of the 90s.

Speaking about selling the rights to the song, Ray said: “I accepted a deal worth £7,500 to pay me for ‘all and any creative input’ into the song.

“I have the legal documents to prove it. So I am not making this up. You could certainly call me a dreamer in life but not a fantasist. I have never lied about this story, and every part of it is true”.

Back in 2017, Robbie defended the decision to pay Ray for Angels.

“We could have gone to court, and it all would have been down to whether what way the judge wakes up that day out of bed … So I gave him some money, and he went away,” the singer said.

New Delhi, India – As Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi emerged from his plane at Ben Gurion airport outside Tel Aviv on July 4, 2017, his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, waited for him at the other end of the red carpet laid out on the tarmac.

Minutes later, the leaders hugged. Speaking at the airport, Modi said his visit was a “path-breaking journey” – it was the first time an Indian prime minister had visited Israel. Netanyahu recalled their first meeting in New York in 2014, where, he said, “we agreed to break down the remaining walls between India and Israel”.

Nine years later, as Modi prepares to fly to Israel on February 25 for his second visit, he can largely claim to have accomplished that mission, analysts say. A relationship that was once frowned upon in India, and then carried out clandestinely, is now one of New Delhi’s most public friendships. Modi has frequently described Netanyahu as a “dear friend”, despite the International Criminal Court having issued an arrest warrant in late 2024 for the Israeli premier over alleged war crimes carried out during Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Indian diplomats and officials have justified the country’s pivot towards Israel as a “pragmatic approach” – Israel, with its tech and military expertise, has too much to offer to be ignored, they argue – balanced by efforts from New Delhi to strengthen ties with its Arab allies.

Yet, it has come at a cost, analysts say: to Palestine, and India’s relationship with it, and, according to some experts, to India’s moral credibility.

“The so-called realist turn of India has cost its moral power, which it used to enjoy in the Global South,” said Anwar Alam, a senior fellow with the Policy Perspectives Foundation think tank in New Delhi.

Amid an ongoing war in the Palestinian territory, Modi’s visit “amounts to legitimising the apartheid Israeli state”, Alam told Al Jazeera.

An ideological alliance

India was a staunch advocate for Palestine in the post-colonial world order, with major leaders backing Palestinian independence. In 1947, India opposed the United Nations plan to partition Palestine. And four decades later, in 1988, India became one of the first non-Arab states to recognise Palestine.

The end of the Cold War – India leaned towards the Soviet Union despite officially being non-aligned – forced a change in New Delhi’s calculations. Alongside an outreach to the United States, India also established diplomatic relations with Israel in January 1992.

Since then, defence ties have anchored the relationship, which has also expanded on other fronts in recent years.

Modi’s rise to power in India in 2014 proved to be the catalyst for the biggest shift in relations. Modi’s Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) has an ideology rooted in the vision of making India a Hindu nation, a natural homeland for Hindus anywhere in the world – an approach that mirrors, in many ways, Israel’s view of itself as a Jewish homeland. Both Modi and Israel view “Islamic terrorism”, which critics say is also shorthand for justifications needed to pursue broader anti-Muslim policies, as major threats.

Under Modi, India has become Israel’s largest weapons buyer. And in 2024, as Israel waged its war on Gaza, Indian weapons firms sold Israel rockets and explosives, according to an Al Jazeera investigation.

Ahead of Modi’s upcoming visit, the two countries signed a memorandum of understanding that aims to further deepen defence ties, with India exploring the joint development of anti-ballistic missile defence with Israel. In Jerusalem, Modi is scheduled to address the Knesset, Israel’s parliament.

“Modi’s address is special because of how it underlines the scale of the shift in relations under the Bharatiya Janata Party towards an overtly pro-Israel policy,” Max Rodenbeck, project director at the Washington-based Crisis Group’s Israel-Palestine department, told Al Jazeera.

But Modi’s visit is also personal for Netanyahu, Rodenbeck said. Israel is months away from a national election that is, in effect, a referendum on Netanyahu’s government – from the intelligence failures that enabled the October 7 attack by Palestinian groups to the war on Gaza that followed, as well as his attempts to weaken judicial independence through reforms.

The visit appears “as almost a personal favour to Netanyahu by boosting his image as an international statesman just as Israeli election campaigning is getting underway”, Rodenbeck said.

While several Western leaders have visited Israel since it began its genocidal war on Gaza in October 2023, few leaders from the Global South have made the trip.

At a time when the Gaza war has shrunk the set of countries willing to be seen as Israel’s friends, especially among emerging economies, Modi’s visit is significant.

Israel does not “have many friends” globally at the moment, said Kabir Taneja, the executive director of the Middle East office at the Observer Research Foundation, a New Delhi-based think tank. “So India is playing that role,” he added. “[Modi’s visit] sort of shows that Israel is not fully isolated.”

The July 2017 visit

In many ways, Modi’s visit to Israel this week will look to build on his July 2017 trip, which was a watershed moment in the bilateral ties, analysts note.

No Indian Prime Minister had previously visited Israel, but even lower-level diplomats would, until then, pair their Israel visits with parallel engagements in the Palestinian territory.

Modi broke with that policy. He did not visit Palestine in 2017, only making a trip there in 2018, by which time he had already also hosted Netanyahu in New Delhi. It had also been the first visit by an Israeli premier to India.

The 2017 Modi visit has been under scrutiny recently. An email released by the US Justice Department as part of the Jeffrey Epstein files showed that the late disgraced financier had advised a billionaire close to Modi during his trip.

After the visit on July 6, Epstein, a convicted sex offender, had emailed an unidentified individual he referred to as “Jabor Y”, saying: “The Indian Prime minister modi took advice. and danced and sang in israel for the benefit of the US president. they had met a few weeks ago.. IT WORKED. !”

India’s Ministry of External Affairs has dismissed these claims as the “trashy ruminations” of a convicted criminal.

Nonetheless, Modi’s visit to Israel solidified the bilateral relationship. Trade between the two nations has grown from $200m in 1992 to more than $6bn in 2024.

India is still Israel’s second-largest Asian trading partner after China in goods, dominated by diamonds, petroleum, and chemicals. India and Israel signed a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) in September last year and have both been looking to close negotiations on a free trade deal.

At the same time, people-to-people ties have grown as well. After Israel banned Palestinians from working in the country following the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023, thousands of Indians lined up to work in Israeli construction companies.

“India and Israel have a fairly deep strategic and economic relationship that has been flourishing since Prime Minister Modi came to office,” said the Observer Research Foundation’s Taneja.

Modi was also among the first world leaders to condemn the Hamas-led attack and throw India’s support behind Israel.

“It really, really feeds into India’s posture against terrorism,” Taneja said about the India-Israel ties. “Israel is a country that India sees facing similar crisis when it comes to terrorism.”

India accuses Pakistan of sponsoring armed attacks on its territory and in Indian-administered Kashmir. Pakistan has accepted that its nationals have, in some instances, been behind these attacks, but has rejected accusations that it has trained or financed the attackers.

Over the horizon, a different Middle East?

Despite its close ties with Israel, New Delhi under Modi has not completely abandoned its position on the Palestinian cause, calling for a two-state solution and peace through dialogue. But it has been increasingly hesitant to criticise Israel over its war crimes in the occupied Palestinian territory.

India’s historical support for the Palestinian cause is rooted in its pivotal role in the non-alignment movement, the Cold War-era neutrality posture adopted by several developing nations. Even before India gained independence, the leader of its freedom struggle, Mahatma Gandhi, decried the “imposition of Jews over Arabs” through the creation of Israel.

India now no longer calls its approach non-alignment, instead referring to it as “strategic autonomy”.

“The Middle East is the only geography where this policy actually functions, and also provide[s] dividend[s],” Taneja told Al Jazeera. “India has good relations with Israel, Arab powers and Iran alike. One of the reasons [it works is] because India does not step into regional conflicts and confrontations.”

But under pressure from US President Donald Trump, India has stopped buying oil from Iran and taken steps to end its work on developing the strategically significant Chabahar port, which New Delhi viewed as a gateway into landlocked Central Asia and Afghanistan.

Now, Trump is threatening to attack Iran. The US has amassed warships and jets near Iran, even as Washington and Tehran continue to engage in diplomatic talks.

“I suspect India may be looking over the horizon to a Middle East where Iran has suffered heavy attack from the US and Israel, and no longer projects power in the region. In these circumstances, Israel will emerge as something of a regional hegemon,” said the Crisis Group’s Rodenbeck.

“India is perhaps positioning itself to benefit. Also, Modi sees Israel as influential in Washington, and may hope that friendliness to Israel wins points with Congress and Trump, which India badly needs.”

From what one should eat to what one should say, AI chatbots on your phone have the final say. The choice of bots, though, is totally in your hands, but what choice you will make with it is barely in your hands. Are you by any chance handing your decision-making power to bots, which you assume makes your life easy? If yes, then let’s consider a few things before your next chatbot conversation. First, understand the dual system model by Daniel Kahneman. According to that, there are two types of systems in the human brain. System 1 is associated with fast, intuitive, emotional, and automatic thinking. System 2 is associated with analytical, slow, effortful, and deliberate thinking. The majority of the technology that is available for the general masses urges individuals to use system 1, as it does not require much effort. Decision-making needs system 2 and is complex and requires time and effort, though this is something that people tend to avoid at all costs. Machines were built to reduce human effort, and artificial intelligence is there to reduce the decision-making efforts, something that differentiated the individual from the technology or innovation earlier.

Now at the state level, artificial intelligence is being integrated; take the example of the United States National Defense Strategy of 2022, where the inclusion of artificial intelligence in decision-making processes was of prime importance. At the systematic level, unfortunately, until now, there have not been concrete efforts towards establishing rules regarding artificial intelligence, except for the Bletchley Declaration, which was a landmark international agreement on AI safety. Though at the individual level, rather than being careful, people are playing with and handing over their decision-making power. As was reported by the BBC, in an interview, Megan Garcia, the mother of a 14-year-old, said that an AI chatbot encouraged her son to commit suicide. Another case involving a young Ukrainian woman with poor mental health received suicide advice from an AI chatbot. Another report by Vice of a person who committed suicide after having multiple conversations with a chatbot over environmental issues. AI chatbots that run on algorithms have been taken as emotional support beings, which they are not.

They are given different names to grab the attention of the user, such as “your goth friend,” “your possessive girlfriend,” and several others. They are targeting the emotional side, or System 1, of the user, and they have been quite successful in that. Everyone today almost has an AI chatbot with whom they have a conversation at least once a day. According to Chabot’s 2025 statistics, more than 987 million people use AI chatbots today. ChatGPT dominates the AI chatbot market share with 81.85%, using it globally, followed by OpenAI’s GPT-4, Microsoft Co-Pilot, Google Gemini, Claude, and DeepSeek with 11.05%, 3.07%, 2.97%, 1.05%, and 0.01%, respectively. With that, it is becoming dangerous and needs to be handled with more care and caution. The responsibility lies on individuals as much as it lies on the state and the international organizations.

Technology has been advancing for decades, and it has been creating ease and comfort for its users. Artificial intelligence, being one such technology, is beneficial too, but it should be used to enhance the mental capabilities and not hand over one’s control over things. AI is expanding and advancing at an immeasurable speed, and it will not wait for people to wake up and make better decisions for themselves. Social media platforms will not adjust themselves to the needs of the time, as they are markets, and all they care about is what is bought, which is the thing that should be sold. If people are buying the emotional support AI, then there will be multiple chatbots with attention-grabbing titles.

An individual might take it as a joke or play with it for fun, but what they do not realize is that they are providing their personal and sensitive information to a machine whose data can be sabotaged. People nowadays, without realizing, would jump on the ongoing trends without realizing what it will do to their data. The trend of Ghibli-style photos, where photos were being generated to the extent that it led to the melting of OpenAI’s servers, prompted the company to temporarily implement rate limits. In addition to that, it resulted in an intellectual property issue involving Studio Ghibli centers. As it mimicked the iconic style of Studio Ghibli, which has been working for decades, AI stole the art, and there was no genuine accountability. This is how dangerous it gets: stealing someone’s work and then getting away with it without being charged or held accountable. This intellectual property theft by AI resulted in Hollywood writers’ protest, leading to the establishment of the 2023 WGA AI contract. WGA (Writers Guild of America) led to AI not being treated as a writer and prevented it from getting any credit or being considered “literary material.” Where the threat is so imminent, laws are not efficient, control is lost, and profit is being generated, would you really let bots decide what you will do in your life?

Viewers of ITV’s new true crime drama The Lady, starring Natalie Dormer as Sarah Ferguson, have voiced concerns about the timing of the series amid ongoing royal controversy

ITV’s The Lady debuted this evening, prompting immediate reaction from viewers just minutes into the Sarah Ferguson drama.

The four-part true crime series chronicles the devastating story of Sarah Ferguson’s royal assistant, Jane Andrews, whose trajectory from humble beginnings to palace life ended with her being convicted of murdering her partner, Thomas Cressman, in 2000.

According to the opening episode’s description, “Working-class woman Jane Andrews wants more for her life and is unlucky in love.”

It continues: “On the brink of losing all hope, she receives a letter inviting her to interview for a job with Sarah, Duchess of York, at Buckingham Palace. Securing the job, she moves to London – but life in the palace is gruelling, and Jane struggles to fit in, but she and Sarah find common ground in their experiences of love and betrayal.”

Mia McKenna-Bruce portrays Jane Andrews in the ITV production, whilst Natalie Dormer underwent a transformation to embody Sarah Ferguson, Duchess of York, reports the Express.

Within minutes of broadcast, audiences flocked to social media to voice their opinions, with numerous commenters branding it “poor taste” and “bad timing”.

One viewer declared: “Quite possibly, the worst-timed launch of a TV series, ever. #thelady,” whilst another questioned: “Was it the best time to show #TheLady, considering all the controversy around Andrew Windsor and Sarah Ferguson?”

However, a third viewer observed: “ITV couldn’t have timed this any better. It’s pretty good too #TheLady.”

Other viewers concurred, with one stating, “Bad taste at the moment showing anything to do with Sarah Ferguson,” whilst another remarked, “I don’t think this drama could have been timed any better #TheLady.”

For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website.

The production also garnered widespread acclaim, with one fan writing, “Ok tunes have me hooked already…..”

Another viewer shared their enthusiasm: “#thelady ok 15 mins in, and I’m hooked! Quality-made drama.”

Tomorrow evening’s second episode, which can be streamed on ITVX, promises: ” Jane meets dashing businessman Luis Castillo, and the two begin a relationship, but tensions soon erupt on a holiday in Greece and she becomes increasingly unstable.”

The synopsis continues: “As Jane’s carefully constructed composure starts to fracture and puts her position with the duchess at risk, a lifeline appears in the shape of the charismatic Tommy Cressman.”

The third episode will subsequently be broadcast next Sunday at 9pm on ITV.

The Lady continues tomorrow evening at 9pm on ITV, with episodes currently available to stream on ITVX.

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source.** Click here to activate**** or add us as your Preferred Source in your Google search settings.**

The offbeat thriller has won six BAFTAs, including best film and best director for Paul Thomas Anderson.

The dark comedy One Battle After Another has swept the United Kingdom’s top film honours, picking up six BAFTA awards, including best film and best director for Paul Thomas Anderson.

The film beat the Shakespearean family tragedy Hamnet, and the vampire thriller Sinners, to take the top prizes at Sunday evening’s ceremony.

The UK prizes, officially called the EE BAFTA Film Awards, often provide hints about who will win at Hollywood’s Academy Awards, held this year on March 15.

One Battle After Another, an explosive film about a group of revolutionaries in chaotic conflict with the state, won awards for directing, adapted screenplay, cinematography, and editing, as well as for Sean Penn’s supporting performance as an obsessed military officer.

“This is very overwhelming and wonderful,” Anderson said as he accepted the directing prize. “We have a line from Nina Simone that we used in our film: ‘I know what freedom is: It’s no fear’,” the director said. “Let’s keep making things without fear. It’s a good idea.”

Sinners, which has a record 16 Oscar nods, won best original screenplay for writer and director Ryan Coogler, best supporting actress for Wunmi Mosaku, and best original score.

The gothic horror story Frankenstein won three awards each, while Hamnet won two, including best British film.

The documentary about Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza, The Voice of Hind Rajab, was among the top contenders for BAFTA’s best director and non-English language film categories. But the film Sentimental Value won in the non-English language category.

The biggest surprise of the night was Robert Aramayo winning the best actor category for his performance in I Swear, a fact-based British indie drama about a campaigner for people with Tourette syndrome.

The 33-year-old British actor beat Timothee Chalamet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Michael B Jordan, Ethan Hawke and Jesse Plemons for the honour.

“I absolutely can’t believe this,” he said. “Everyone in this category blows me away.”

Jessie Buckley won best actress for playing Agnes, the wife of William Shakespeare, in Hamnet, based on the novel by Maggie O’Farrell and directed by previous Oscar winner Chloe Zhao.

The best documentary prize went to Mr Nobody Against Putin, about a Russian teacher who documented the propaganda imposed on Russian schools after Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

The film’s American director, David Borenstein, said that teacher Pavel Talankin had shown that “whether it’s in Russia or the streets of Minneapolis, we always face a moral choice”, referring to the protests against US immigration enforcement in Minnesota.

“We need more Mr Nobodies,” he said.

It beat documentaries including Mstyslav Chernov’s harrowing Ukraine war portrait, 2000 Meters to Andriivka, co-produced by The Associated Press and Frontline PBS.

The guests of honour at the awards were Prince William and Princess Kate. The event, hosted by Alan Cumming, was the first joint engagement for the pair since William’s uncle, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, was arrested on Thursday.

William, the president of the film academy, presented the BAFTA Fellowship to Donna Langley, studio head at NBC Universal.

Mérida, February 23, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan National Assembly passed the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence on Thursday, January 19. 

The government, led by Acting President Delcy Rodríguez, immediately enacted the legislation and presented it as a step toward “peace and tolerance.”

The law establishes mechanisms that aim to promote political reconciliation through a blanket amnesty for crimes or offenses committed in the context of political violence between 1999 and 2026. The final document explicitly lists high-profile contexts, including the 2002 coup against then-President Hugo Chávez, the 2014 and 2017 opposition-led violent “guarimba” street protests, and the unrest following the July 2024 presidential elections.

“This law is guided by principles of freedom, justice, equality, […] the primacy of human rights, and political diversity,” article 3 reads.

Article 7 of the amnesty bill defines the ethical and constitutional scope of the pardon, expressly excluding those who have participated in serious human rights violations, crimes against humanity, or war crimes, in accordance with Article 29 of the Venezuelan Constitution.

The legislation also excludes those prosecuted for or convicted of homicide, corruption offenses while in public office, and drug trafficking with sentences exceeding nine years.

During a press conference at the National Assembly, the head of parliament Jorge Rodríguez stated that the new law represents “a step forward to avoid the mistakes of the past.” 

“I believe that this law recognizes the victims in its articles and represents a step toward avoiding the mistakes of the past,” he told reporters. “This sends a powerful message that we can live, work, and grow politically within the framework established by the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela.”

During the Thursday session, opposition Deputy Henry Falcón from the Democratic Alliance affirmed that “amnesty is an opportunity that the state offers to forget. We cannot cling to past differences in the face of a higher interest: the country itself.”

After twenty days of consultations and debates and three two legislative debates, Jorge Rodríguez presented the final text that was unanimously endorsed by all 277 deputies. He also announced the creation of a Special Monitoring Commission, chaired by Jorge Arreaza (United Socialist Party of Venezuela, PSUV) and Nora Bracho (A New Era, UNT). This commission is responsible for ensuring the law’s implementation and addressing requests for release.

At a special ceremony held at Miraflores Palace on Thursday evening, Acting President Delcy Rodríguez formally received the Amnesty Law for Democratic Coexistence following approval by the legislature and called for national reconciliation.

“This amnesty law opens an extraordinary door for Venezuela to come together again, to learn to live together democratically and peacefully, and to rid itself of hatred and intolerance,” she expressed. “ 

Regarding the exclusions contemplated, Rodríguez asked the Commission for the Judicial Revolution, chaired by Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello, to review cases not covered by the amnesty and formulate recommendations to “heal wounds.”

The president of the legislature’s special commission, Jorge Arreaza, stated on a televised interview that the first 379 amnesty applications had been processed, primarily in Caracas.

“Both the Supreme Court and the Attorney General’s Office have received 379 requests for amnesty,” he explained. “These individuals should be released in the coming hours. This process will continue in the coming days.”

Parliamentary leader Jorge Rodríguez said on Saturday that there are a further 1,500 cases being revised.

Meanwhile, Ernesto Villegas, minister of culture and coordinator of the Program for Peace and Democratic Coexistence, reported on his Telegram channel a meeting with campesino, tenant, and labor organizations to discuss cases of activists facing legal proceedings due to social struggles over land, housing, and employment. These groups were not explicitly contemplated among the direct beneficiaries of the law.

The grassroots collectives denounced the criminalization of their social demands and provided concrete information that will be forwarded to the relevant authorities in coordination with the National Assembly’s special commission.

The meeting hosted by Villegas also saw relatives of individuals imprisoned for alleged corruption in the public sector criticize the penal system and advocate for their loved ones’ rights.

The Program for Peace and Democratic Coexistence promised to promptly send the complaints to the relevant bodies and encourage corrective actions.

Edited by Ricardo Vaz in Caracas.

THIS is the moment Katie Price’s marriage to Lee Andrews was finally legalised – after weeks of rumours.

The new couple got hitched again in a secret ceremony just five days ago.

Katie and Lee could be seen holding hands and gazing into each other’s eyes as they repeated their wedding vows.

Towards the end of the ceremony, instead of sealing the marriage with a kiss Lee leaned and embraced the mum-of-five.

It seems it was a very casual second ceremony with the pair opting to wear jeans, jumpers and trainers.

Katie and Lee faced have faced concerns about the legitimacy of their wedding last month, but The Sun can now reveal Katie and her fourth husband’s real marriage certificate.

I DO… AGAIN

Katie Price’s marriage made legal FIVE days ago in 2nd ceremony despite fears

BABY BUZZ

Katie Price’s husband says he’s ‘blessed’ as he places hand on her stomach

The 47-year-old officially said “I do” again inside Abu Dhabi’s judicial department despite her family and friends voicing their fears over Lee.

Self-proclaimed businessman Lee, 41, and former glamour model Katie signed on the dotted line to formally register their marriage on February 17.

Katie’s whirlwind marriage to the Dubai-based Lee marks the fourth time she has walked down the aisle after her marriages to Peter Andre, Alex Reid and Kieran Hayler.

In the exclusive snaps obtained by The Sun, Katie and Lee appear to be the only ones present for the ceremony – no one attended their first wedding either.

It’s believed that podcaster Katie wanted the official marriage documents ahead of her return to the UK for a shock third ceremony.

Reality TV star Katie married Lee in a quickie ceremony last month after shocking the world with her unexpected engagement that came just weeks after she split from her long-term boyfriend JJ Slater.

Katie been spending time in the UAE on honeymoon following a brief return to the UK since their wedding – despite warnings from her pals.

And it’s been far from smooth sailing for the ex-glamour model.

After meeting up with close pal Kerry Katona and her boyfriend Paolo Margaglione in Dubai, the day descended into chaos following a row.

It led to Lee punching Paolo in a shock bust-up.

Katie was then seen slurring in a video hours after claiming she’s having Lee’s baby .

It triggered a reaction from her sister Sophie Price who shared an emotional post about “pain” and “coming to your senses” amid Katie’s out of the blue marriage.

The video dived into the complexities of family relationships, following claims their once close relationship is strained.

After the dramatic Dubai trip, which saw Kerry and Paolo leave early, Katie and Kerry’s friendship is also said to be on thin ice.

Katie’s pals say they are deeply worried for the mother of five who launched a verbal attack on Lee’s ex-fiancee Alana Percival in a damning Instagram statement.

In the aftermath, Katie’s partnership with domestic abuse charity Woman’s Trust was terminated – despite those close to her insisting she did not write it.

Another of Lee’s exes, Crystal Janke, claimed he took £123,000 from her as an investment, but had failed to give her any money back.

He said he denied all the claims made by the women.

Feb. 22 (Asia Today) — South Korea’s industrial sector said there is no immediate change in tariff rates but warned that uncertainty has grown after U.S. President Donald Trump signaled plans to impose new global tariffs.

Trump said Friday he would raise the proposed “global tariff” rate from 10% to 15% following a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down his earlier reciprocal tariffs. The 15% duties previously applied to South Korea are expected to reappear under the new global tariff framework.

Industry officials said item-specific tariffs on automobiles, steel and semiconductors have not been directly addressed in the latest announcement, leaving companies cautious about possible next steps.

Major exporters are closely monitoring developments as Washington has yet to finalize detailed tariff guidelines.

Semiconductors, one of South Korea’s top export items, are currently subject to product-specific tariff discussions but remain duty-free for now. However, companies have not ruled out the possibility that Washington could soon put semiconductor tariffs on the negotiating table or raise rates to offset revenue lost from the invalidated reciprocal tariffs.

SK Group Chairman Chey Tae-won said after attending the U.S. Trans-Pacific Dialogue that he would review the court ruling before commenting further, reflecting the cautious stance of corporate leaders.

Automobile and steel tariffs are expected to remain in place regardless of the court decision. Automobiles and auto parts currently face a 15% tariff, while steel and aluminum were hit with a 50% tariff last year. Analysts said additional increases in those sectors appear unlikely in the near term.

For food, cosmetics, home appliances and chemical products, a 15% global tariff would largely mirror the current reciprocal tariff level. If the rate were set at 10% instead, exporters could see a modest reduction compared with the existing 15% rate.

While companies say there is no immediate operational impact, executives are concerned that Trump could invoke other trade authorities to introduce new measures, further complicating trade planning.

Industry officials said businesses are preparing contingency strategies as they await clearer guidance from Washington.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260222010006449

Iran signed a secret missile agreement worth approximately €500 million (approximately $589 million) with Russia in order to rebuild its air defense system, the Financial Times claimed in a report published on Sunday, Anadolu reports.

An agreement was signed between Iran and Russia in Moscow in Dec. 2025, according to information obtained by the newspaper.

Under the agreement, Russia is expected to deliver 500 Verba portable launch units and 2,500 9M336-type missiles to Iran within three years.

As part of the roughly €500 million deal, the missiles are planned to be delivered to Iran in three separate phases between 2027 and 2029.

Some sources indicated that certain systems may have been delivered to Iran earlier than the scheduled timeline, according to the daily.

Following the attacks carried out by Israel and the US against Iran in June 2025 and the 12-day war that ensued, it was claimed that the Tehran administration formally requested these defense systems from Russia in July 2025.

Iran made this request in order to boost its defense capacity and protect its strategic facilities following the attacks.

The Verba is known as one of Russia’s most modern air defense systems.

The system can be used effectively against cruise missiles and low-altitude unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs).

This Disney+ crime thriller is a must-watch for fans of Netflix’s You, with one standout difference that sets this stalker series apart from the rest.

With streaming services flooded with thrillers, crime, and mystery programmes, the storylines can occasionally feel repetitive and formulaic. There hasn’t been a riveting thriller that has captured the nation’s attention quite like Netflix’s You (2018).

However, Disney+ is venturing into this sinister realm with its new stalker thriller entitled Watching You (2025). The series delivers a nerve-wracking, gripping narrative packed with twists and shocking revelations. Audiences can anticipate intricate characters whose hidden truths gradually emerge, maintaining the tension throughout.

Yet, there’s one distinctive feature that distinguishes this programme and renders it essential viewing for thriller devotees.

What is Watching You about?

Protagonist Lina has a one-night stand, which is secretly filmed by a mystery person. However, Lina is engaged to someone else, meaning this one night of passion is an affair.

Lina is subsequently blackmailed by this enigmatic individual who appears to be monitoring her every action. Intent on exposing the stalker threatening her existence, she quickly discovers the peril may be considerably nearer than she ever suspected.

There’s murder and domestic violence in this thriller with layered characters. Whilst it may not feature the most twists and turns, the programme expertly keeps you on edge as secrets steadily emerge, given that no character is entirely blameless.

Similarities to Netflix’s You

Both programmes portray domestic violence, threats against women, stalking and murder. The villains in both shows conceal their true identity while manipulating women.

The only difference is that in Netflix’s You, stalker Joe is the main character and more charismatic than the villain in Watching You. Spoilers ahead.

However, both men are completely unhinged and will do anything to keep their secret whilst convincing themselves they are relentlessly, madly in love with the women they are obsessed with.

One reason you should watch

Watching You does a brilliant job of addressing domestic violence. Unlike Netflix’s You, this show is from the perspective and follows the actions of Lina. Though she is flawed, the show does not excuse what happened to her as a victim.

Her fight against the abuser is fierce, intense and complicated, but it is well written and delivered. Netflix’s You has been criticised for the “romanticisation” of male violence against women, as seen from Refinery29, Our Wave, and feminists.co, but Watching You intensifies the feeling of danger and suspense.

Early ratings

Commenting on IMDB, one person said: “It’s a refreshing and paychpatic watch. All the characters are stupid and follow questionable and illogical choices. But haven’t we all been there? The series reminds me of ‘You’ to a certain degree.

“It’s the plot of stalking someone and manipulating them into loving you. That’s about it with the similarities. The acting could be better; there’s some nudity, which I am not appalled by, but sometimes it makes no sense. Anyway, it’s not vulgar or anything. All in all, it’s a good show. But judge for yourselves.”

Another viewer commented: “I was very entertained by the first 3 episodes. Steamy show, interesting relationship dynamics, good performances. Despite the plot being more than obvious, I enjoyed watching the story unravel.”

They continued: “After the fourth episode, the story started getting more and more ridiculous. Characters were making one stupid decision after another, and the final episode was a letdown, the way it ended. Was that even justice being served? I doubt so.

“Overall, it’s a nice show for a binge, easy to follow despite being predictable. The finale just wasn’t to my taste. It wouldn’t hurt you to watch it.”