News Desk

POSING in the exclusive £300-a-night Soho Farmhouse wearing a pair of £100 wellington boots, Elle Swift proudly showed off her latest brand – a collection of oversized tracksuits.

But what should have been a defining moment swiftly turned sour and sparked a huge backlash. It’s the latest scandal to engulf the 29-year-old star after she was accused of racism, her American dream collapsed, and both her and husband Connor’s dads’ prison stints came back to haunt them. Here, we take a look at the struggles Elle and Connor have faced along the way.

Three years ago, popular TikTok influencer Elle was close to losing it all when a series of highly offensive racist tweets she had written as a teenager re-emerged online – she was dropped by her management, lost over 100k followers and was forced to publicly apologise.

Elle and Connor – who she married that same year in 2022 – made the decision to relocate to America for a fresh start, but after just 12 months the pair returned to the UK, with their future very much up in the air.

Eight months on, Elle was finally ready to reveal her rebrand. And last weekend, after much teasing, she finally unveiled Our Good Sunday, her new clothing line and latest bid to secure fame and fortune.

She was once very down to earth and while people get she wants to be aspirational, it is in fact just unaffordable.

Insider on her launch

But almost immediately, a notably slimmed-down Elle was hit with criticism, with an insider telling us: “The launch of Our Good Sunday wasn’t as good as they had been hoping at all.”

Fans questioned the extortionate price point and a rival social media couple teased their own very similar product.

While she has waxed lyrical about the high quality materials used to make the clothes, the price tag is nothing short of eyewatering. 

A plain hoodie will set you back £66, the sweatshirt is £60, a t-shirt £40 and a tote back £45.

The aesthetic Elle is aiming for is clear – the luxury location she shot the collection in and the expensive clothing she’s used to accessorise it are a clear sign. 

But the move has left her fans feeling angry and alienated – with one person commenting: “I was hoping the prices would be a bit more affordable, as a parent myself I can’t afford this luxury.”

Another added: “Most women/Mums won’t be able to afford this. Such a shame. I really think you should review the prices.”

The insider explained: “People are very confused about the whole launch and are struggling to understand why she would be charging so much for simple clothes. She was once very down to earth and while people get she wants to be aspirational, it is in fact just unaffordable and pricing out her core audience.”

Further questions were raised when she initially told her followers there was limited stock – but days later said they had ordered lots of stock to ensure fans would be able to get their hands on it. Her fans speculated that she had been hoping to sell out, so backtracked over how much stock she had.

A representive from Elle’s legal team told us: “We are informed by Elle Swift that she is proud to launch Good Sunday. The first limited edition collection is made in small batches from certified organic fabrics in Portugal, reflecting Good Sunday’s commitment to ethical production and sustainable practices. Each piece is designed to be special, and once sold out, it won’t be restocked.”

RIVAL CLOTHING LAUNCH

Negative comments appeared to have been deleted and a week on – plenty of stock is still available despite Elle and Connor relentlessly plugging the brand and hinting there will be more than just tracksuits. 

And in a twist that the couple weren’t expecting – social media’s most famous couple, Alfie Deyes and Zoe Sugg used this weekend to tease their new brand, which rather unfortunately is called Dear Sunday.

Our insider said: “Zoe knows Elle well and actually stood by her when a lot of people didn’t. There is no way she knew that Elle was doing something so similar but it’s all very bad timing. At the end of the day Zoe and Alfie still have the ultimate pulling power.”

Those who have followed Elle for a while will know it’s not the first time she’s launched a clothing brand.

The social media star, who went by the name Elle Darby before she tied the knot, was initially known for posting vlogs about her trips to the gym, plus the usual make up tutorials and get ready with me videos.

She launched Angelle clothing in 2019 – it featured a range of tracksuits and tote bags and was affectionately named after her followers, who she refers to as angels. It was a huge hit.

I didn’t speak to my dad for an entire year when he was in prison because he was too emotional to speak on the phone to his kids.

Elle on her dad

But in 2022, she announced that the brand was taking a break and she wasn’t sure what its future would hold.

Elle married Connor earlier that year after the birth of their son Romeo.

They went on to have son Saint in 2023 and in December 2024 they welcomed daughter Honey Jane.

RACISIM SCANDAL

The break from Angelle came shortly after her horrifying racist comments, which she wrote when she was 15, circulated online. She has since apologised.

In March of last year the couple decided to start afresh in America and set up home in Houston. It ended up being an incredibly expensive relocation and after having her third child, Elle and Connor decided to move back home.

Our insider said: “The whole America move ended up being a bit of a disaster really and Elle really didn’t want to admit defeat.

“It cost them a lot to move out there but also life there was very pricey and at the end of the day they were homesick. It’s also a lot harder to be a stand out social media creator in a country with many established names.”

Since coming back to the UK, Elle has been inundated with comments about how ‘glowing’ she is and how happy she looks.

Fans also questioned how trim Ellie has been looking just months after giving birth, with one person commenting: “Girl we need a weight loss journey.”

Another added: “I can not get over your hair and your body transformation, mum goals and motivation.”

AMERICAN DREAM AND PRISON DADS

The move to America was tinged with sadness – her mum Deborah had passed away in 2020 and her dad – Giles – is prohibited from visiting the States, so it meant she would be completely isolated from her family. 

Elle’s love of America actually started when her dad – a multimillionaire banker – was convicted of fraud and extradited to the US,  in the wake of one of the biggest scandals in business history.

The family spent nearly two years in and out of court in the US and Elle has admitted she loved that time, saying her dad made it a ‘positive’ experience. 

Giles, along with Gary Mulgrew and David Bermingham, was one of the NatWest Three – a trio of British bankers convicted of fraud and sentenced to 37 months in separate American jails in 2002.

Elle – who is one of five girls – was 10 when her dad went to prison for two years but has insisted it didn’t affect her. 

The brave influencer explained: “I think surrounding issues caused a lot more impact on my childhood than him actually being a prison.

“I missed him, I didn’t speak to my dad for an entire year because he was too emotional to speak on the phone to his kids.”

Interestingly, Connor’s dad was also in prison – and was absent from the first two years of his life, even missing his birth. 

The insider said: “The fact that both Connor and Elle’s dads have been in prison was a bonding experience for them. It does however haunt them both and no matter how hard they try to portray a picture perfect image, it does hang over them.”

In 2020, Elle suffered more heartache when her mum Deborah passed away on Mother’s Day after battling a brain tumour for five years.

The moment changed her life forever and while she spoke about gratitude a fair bit before, it took on a whole different meaning to her.

As she remembered her mum this year, she told her followers: “Five years ago this week my entire life changed forever. I said goodbye to my mum and had a humbling life lesson that the things we ‘think’ matter.. just don’t. Here’s your reminder that if you’re lucky enough to have love, you have it all.”

Elle might have had a few hiccups along the way – and her latest launch might not have had the impact she hoped, but she’s determined to succeed. And despite everything, it looks like this time she might just.

The Sun has contacted Elle for comment.

Heavy flooding in Talisay City, Cebu has destroyed homes after Typhoon Kalmaegi dumped a month’s worth of rain. One person died in a low-income area that evacuated early, while dozens may be trapped in a nearby subdivision where residents did not leave. Al Jazeera’s Barnaby Lo is there.

Warner Bros. Discovery reported a $148 million loss in the third quarter, hitting a sour note as the company began fielding interest from would-be buyers as Hollywood braces for a transforming deal.

Earnings for the entertainment company that includes HBO, CNN and the Warner Bros. film and TV studios fell short of analyst expectations. A year ago, the company reported profit of $135 million for the third quarter.

Revenue of $9.05 billion declined 6% from the year-ago period. The company swung to a loss of 6 cents a share, compared to last year’s earnings of 5 cents a share.

Still, Chief Executive David Zaslav spent much of Thursday’s call with analysts touting his company’s underlying strengths — while avoided giving details about the company’s sale.

“It’s fair to say that we have an active process underway,” Zaslav said.

Warner Bros. Discovery on Thursday reiterated it is forging ahead with previously announced plans to split into two separate entities by next spring. However, the Warner board acknowledged last month that it was also entertaining offers for the entire company — or its parts — after David Ellison’s Paramount expressed its interest with formal bids.

Paramount has made three offers, including a $58 billion in cash and stock for all of Warner Bros. Discovery. That bid would pay Warner stockholders $23.50 a share.

The Ellison family appears determined to win one of Hollywood’s most storied entertainment companies to pair with Paramount, which the Ellisons and RedBird Capital Partners acquired in August.

But Warner Bros. Discovery’s board, including Zaslav, voted unanimously to reject Paramount’s offers and instead opened the auction to other bidders, which is expected to lead to the firm changing hands for the third time in a decade.

Board members are betting the company, which has shown flickers of a turnaround, is worth more than the offers on the table. Despite its rocky third-quarter results, Warner’s stock held its ground in early morning trading at around $22.60 a share.

“Overall we are very bullish,” Zaslav said of the company’s business prospects.

“When you look at our films like ‘Superman,’ ‘Weapons’ and ‘One Battle After Another,’ the global reach of HBO Max and the diversity of our network’s offerings, we’ve managed to bring the best, most treasured traditions of Warner Bros. forward into a new era of entertainment and [a] new media landscape,” he said.

But the company’s results underscored its business challenges.

The studio witnessed a major decline in advertising revenue in the third quarter, reporting $1.41 billion, down 16% from the previous year, which executives attributed to declines in the audience for its domestic linear channels, including CNN, TNT and TLC.

Distribution revenue also took a hit, as the company reported sales of $4.7 billion, a decrease of 4% compared to last year.

Studio revenue increased 24% to $3.3 billion, powered by the success of DC Studios’ “Superman,” horror flick “Weapons” and the latest installment of “The Conjuring.” But even those box office wins couldn’t totally offset shortfalls in other areas of its content business.

Last year, the company was able to sub-license its rights to broadcast the Olympics in Europe, which pushed content revenue to $2.72 billion. But this year, revenue was down 3% to $2.65 billion.

Burbank-based Warner Bros. has had a string of success in theaters, with nine films opening at the top spot globally at the box office. The studio recently surpassed $4 billion in worldwide box office revenue, making it the first studio to do so this year. Warner Bros. last achieved that milestone in 2019.

Zaslav would like to continue with Warner’s break-up plans, which were announced last June.

The move would allow him to stay on to manage a smaller Hollywood-focused entity made up of the Warner Bros. studios, HBO, streaming service HBO Max and the company’s vast library, which includes Harry Potter movies and award-winning television shows such as “The Pitt.”

The company’s large portfolio of cable channels, including HGTV, Food Network and Cartoon Network, would become Discovery Global and operate independently.

Beyond Paramount, Philadelphia-based Comcast, Netflix and Amazon have expressed interest in considering buying parts of the company.

The company said its third quarter loss of $148 million was the result of a $1.3 billion expense, including restructuring costs.

Nov. 6 (UPI) — President Donald Trump’s calls to ramp up nuclear weapons testing last week have put nuclear watchdogs and world leaders on alert while experts say the United States has little to gain.

In a post on Truth Social on Oct. 29, Trump said he is ordering the Department of Defense to immediately begin testing nuclear weapons “on an equal basis.” What this means remains unclear, though Energy Secretary Chris Wright said in an appearance on FOX News these would not be full-scale explosive tests.

“These are not nuclear explosions,” Wright said. “These are what we call non-critical explosions.”

The comment by Wright echoes the stance Brandon Williams, under secretary of energy for Nuclear Security in the Department of Energy, shared during his Senate confirmation hearing in May. Williams said testing nuclear weapons above the criticality threshold would not be advisable.

According to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Weapons Ban Monitor, the United States possesses more than 5,000 nuclear weapons. It has performed 1,054 explosive nuclear tests, more than any other country.

The type of testing the president is calling for is an important distinction to make, Dylan Spaulding, senior scientist for the Union of Concerned Scientists, told UPI. The delivery systems of nuclear weapons and the components of the weapons are commonly tested.

Subcritical tests are also performed. These are tests that do not yield a sustained nuclear reaction that would cause an explosion.

“He did mention testing on an equal basis,” Spaulding said. “If that’s the case, in fact the United States already does conduct all the kinds of tests of our nuclear delivery systems and even the components of the weapons themselves that other countries do.”

The United States and most of the rest of the world, aside from North Korea, have refrained from full-scale nuclear weapons testing for more than 30 years. In 1993, the United States signed a unilateral moratorium on explosive testing under the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Breaking from the treaty is likely to open the door to escalation in the form of other countries, including adversaries like China and Russia, openly testing nuclear explosives, Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center, told UPI.

“What if those countries decided that maybe this is a cue for them to test?” Sokolski said. “Would that provoke any of the larger states that signed [the treaty] but didn’t ratify to test?”

The only country to break from the agreement in this treaty is North Korea, conducting six nuclear tests concluding in 2017.

Sokolski argues that the United States has the least to gain by breaking the moratorium and setting off a precedent for open nuclear weapons testing. The United States’ research in the field is extensive, beyond that of any other country. Other countries, such as Russia, China, India, Pakistan and North Korea stand to benefit the most from more explosive research while the United States would likely gain little more knowledge.”

“I spend a lot of time talking to weapons designers about this. You don’t test for reliability testing generally,” Sokolski said. “That requires 10 to 20 datapoints. That means 10 to 20 tests of each design. That seems kind of wasteful. You don’t design to prove things you’ve already proven.”

“If you’re doing a design that is totally radical, that’s something different, but we’re not,” he continued. “We’re fiddling with yield-to-weight ratios. There are countries like Israel who have tested once, in 1979, one test. Are you telling me their stockpile is unreliable and doesn’t work? If you want to make weapons you can do it very cheaply and quickly without testing.”

Spaulding agrees that full-scale testing is not necessary, adding that scientists continue to analyze data from the repository of the United States’ nuclear weapons testing history.

“We are still learning from those underground tests,” he said. “Other countries don’t have that advantage right now but we would be essentially giving them permission to catch up by returning to testing.

The argument for more live-testing of nuclear weapons capabilities is that it can insure and assure that the stockpile of weapons is reliable.

The United States has the Stockpile Stewardship Program that already tests the reliability and safety of its nuclear weapons. Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, told UPI the scientific community is “very confident” in the program.

While the United States is one of only nine countries that have not ratified the treaty, it is legally bound as a signatory to not violate the object or purpose of the agreement, Kimball said. He is doubtful that this will deter Trump.

Of the 1,054 explosive nuclear tests performed by the United States, 928 have been conducted at the Nevada Nuclear Site in south-central Nevada about 65 miles outside of Las Vegas. The site is the only candidate for hosting further nuclear testing, according to experts.

The last explosive test was conducted in 1992 before the United States began observing the international moratorium.

Past tests at the site yielded observable health and environmental impacts on residents of the region and beyond.

“Anyone born in ’63 or earlier, they were exposed to some level of strontium 90, which was showing up in the baby teeth of American children in the 50s and 60s,” Kimball said. “It accumulates in the teeth because you drink milk and it gets concentrated in the teeth.”

The United States joined the Soviet Union and United Kingdom in the Limited Test Ban Treaty in 1963, in part because of the baby teeth study. The treaty banned nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater.

Subjects of the baby teeth study were children in the St. Louis area, more than 1,600 miles from the Nevada nuclear test site.

With the atmospheric testing ban in place, explosive testing was moved underground in deep boreholes. This was meant to limit nuclear fallout, lessening environmental and health implications.

The vertical testing shafts are reinforced to limit geological impacts but the powerful explosions still generate fractures in the earth and the leakage of radionuclides, a hazardous radioactive material.

People who lived downwind of the Nevada test site, known as downwinders, have experienced higher than average rates of cancer.

“These downwinders, in their second generation, they’re still suffering from some of these adverse health effects,” Kimball said. “They are particularly angry. Trump’s announcement is a slap in the face to them as they see it. They want to see all forms of testing, above and below ground, concluded.”

Restarting full-scale testing would be no small task, Sokolski said. What he refers to as a “quick and dirty” test, one that provides an explosion but little in the way of research, would take months and millions of dollars to prepare.

“To get data, depending on how much data, we could be talking about one to two years and much, much more money, maybe approaching a higher order of magnitude, a billion [dollars],” Sokolski said. “Those stumbling blocks are the ones of interest.”

The US Supreme Court has questioned US President Donald Trump’s authority to use emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs on trading partners around the world.

In a closely watched hearing on Wednesday in Washington, DC, conservative and liberal Supreme Court judges appeared sceptical about Trump’s tariff policy, which has already had ramifications for US carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers.

The US president had earlier claimed that his trade tariffs – which have been central to his foreign policy since he returned to power earlier this year – will not affect US businesses, workers and consumers.

But a legal challenge by a number of small American businesses, including toy firms and wine importers, filed earlier this year, has led to lower courts in the country ruling that Trump’s tariffs are illegal.

In May, the Court of International Trade, based in New York, said Trump did not have the authority to impose tariffs and “the US Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to regulate commerce”. That decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC, in August.

Now, the Supreme Court, the country’s top court, is hearing the issue. Last week, the small business leaders, who are being represented by Indian-American lawyer Neal Katyal, told the Court that Trump’s import levies were severely harming their businesses and that many have been forced to lay off workers and cut prices as a result.

In a post on his Truth Social Platform on Sunday, Trump described the Supreme Court case as “one of the most important in the History of the Country”.

“If a President is not allowed to use Tariffs, we will be at a major disadvantage against all other Countries throughout the World,” he added.

What happened in Wednesday’s Supreme Court hearing, and what could happen if the court rules against Trump’s tariffs?

Here’s what we know:

What was discussed at the Supreme Court on Wednesday?

During a hearing which lasted for nearly three hours, the Trump administration’s lawyer, Solicitor General D John Sauer, argued that the president’s tariff policy is legal under a 1977 national law called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

According to US government documents, IEEPA gives a US president an array of economic powers, including to regulate trade, in order “to deal with any unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy, or economy of the United States, if the President declares a national emergency with respect to such threat”.

Trump invoked IEEPA in February to levy a new 25 percent tax on imports from Canada and Mexico, as well as a 10 percent levy on Chinese goods, on the basis that these countries were facilitating the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the US, and that this constituted a national emergency. He later paused the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, but increased China’s to 20 percent. This was restored to 10 percent after Trump met Chinese President Xi Jinping last month.

In April, when he imposed reciprocal tariffs on imports from a wide array of countries around the world, he said those levies were also in line with IEEPA since the US was running a trade deficit that posed an “extraordinary and unusual threat” to the nation.

Sauer argued that Trump had imposed the tariffs using IEEPA since “our exploding trade deficits have brought us to the brink of an economic and national security catastrophe”.

He also told the court that the levies are “regulatory tariffs. They are not revenue-raising tariffs”.

But Neal Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses that have brought the case, countered this. “Tariffs are taxes,” Katyal said. “They take dollars from Americans’ pockets and deposit them in the US Treasury. Our founders gave that taxing power to Congress alone.”

What did the judges say about tariffs?

The judges raised another sticking point: Also, under the US Constitution, only Congress has the power to regulate tariffs. Justice John Roberts noted that “the [IEEPA] statute doesn’t use the word tariff.”

Liberal Justice Elena Kagan also told Sauer, “It has a lot of actions that can be taken under this statute. It just doesn’t have the one you want.”

Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump during his first term as president, asked Sauer, “Is it your contention that every country needed to be tariffed because of threats to the defence and industrial base?

“I mean, Spain, France? I could see it with some countries, but explain to me why as many countries needed to be subject to the reciprocal tariff policy,” Coney Barrett said.

Sauer replied that “there’s this sort of lack of reciprocity, this asymmetric treatment of our trade, with respect to foreign countries that does run across the board,” and reiterated the Trump administration’s power to use IEEPA.

Liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor took issue with the notion that the tariffs are not taxes, as asserted by Trump’s team. She said, “You want to say that tariffs are not taxes, but that’s exactly what they are.”

According to recent data released by the US Customs and Border Protection agency, as of the end of August, IEEPA tariffs had generated $89bn in revenues to the US Treasury.

During the court’s arguments on Wednesday, Justice Roberts also suggested that the court may have to invoke the “major questions” doctrine in this case after telling Sauer that the president’s tariffs are “the imposition of taxes on Americans, and that has always been the core power of Congress”.

The “major questions” doctrine checks a US executive agency’s power to impose a policy without Congress’s clear directive. The Supreme Court previously used this to block former President Joe Biden’s policies, including his student loan forgiveness plan.

Sauer argued that the “major questions” doctrine should not apply in this context since it would also affect the president’s power in foreign affairs.

Why is this case the ultimate test of Trump’s tariff policy?

The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority and generally takes several months to make a decision. While it remains unclear when the court will make a decision on this case, according to analysts, the fact that this case was launched against Trump at all is significant.

In a recent report published by Max Yoeli, senior research fellow on the US and Americas Programme at UK-based think tank Chatham House, said, “The Supreme Court’s outcome will shape Trump’s presidency – and those that follow – across executive authority, global trade, and domestic fiscal and economic concerns.”

“It is likewise a salient moment for the Supreme Court, which has empowered Trump and showed little appetite to constrain him,” he added.

Penny Nass, acting senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund’s Washington DC office, told Al Jazeera that the verdict will be viewed by many as a test of Trump’s powers.

“A first impact will be the most direct judicial restraint at the highest level on Presidential power. After a year testing the limits of his power, President Trump will start to see some of constraints on his power,” she said.

According to international trade lawyer Shantanu Singh, who is based in India, the global implications of this case could also be huge.

“One objective of these tariffs was to use them as leverage to get trade partners to do deals with the US. Some countries have concluded trade deals, including to address the IEEPA tariffs,” he told Al Jazeera.

After the imposition of US reciprocal tariffs in April and again in August, several countries and economic blocs, including the EU, UK, Japan, Cambodia and Indonesia, have struck trade deals with the US to reduce tariffs.

But those countries were forced to make concessions to get those deals done. EU countries, for example, had to agree to buy $750bn of US energy and reduce steel tariffs through quotas.

Singh pointed out that an “adverse Supreme Court ruling could bring into doubt the perceived benefit for concluding deals with the US”.

“Further, trade partners who are currently negotiating with the US will have to also adjust their negotiating objectives in light of the ruling and how the administration reacts to it,” he added.

Other countries including India and China are currently actively engaged in trade talks with the US. Trade talks with Canada were terminated by Trump in late October over what Trump described as a “fraudulent” advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan speaking negatively about trade tariffs, which was being aired in Canada.

What happens if the judges rule against Trump?

Following Wednesday’s Supreme Court Hearing, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who was at the court with Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, told Fox News that he was “very optimistic” that the outcome of the case would be in the government’s favour.

“The solicitor general made a very powerful case for the need for the president to have the power,” he said and refused to discuss the Trump administration’s plan if the court ruled against the tariff policy.

However, Singh said if the Supreme Court does find these tariffs illegal, one immediate concern will be how tariffs collected so far will be refunded to businesses, if at all.

“Given the importance that the current US administration places on tariffs as a policy tool, we can expect that it would quickly identify other legal authorities and work to reinstate the tariffs,” he said.

Nass added: “The President has many other tariff powers, and will likely quickly recalibrate to maintain his deal-making efforts with partners,” she said, adding that there would still be very complicated work for importers on what to do with the tariffs already collected in 2025 under IEEPA.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Coney Barrett asked Katyal, the lawyer for the small businesses contesting Trump’s tariffs, whether this process of paying money back would be “a complete mess”.

Katyal said the businesses he’s representing should be given a refund, but added that it is “very complicated”.

“So, a mess,” Coney Barrett stated.

“It’s difficult, absolutely, we don’t deny that,” Katyal said in response.

In an interview with US broadcaster CNN in September, trade lawyers said the court could decide who gets the refunds. Ted Murphy, an international trade lawyer at Sidley Austin, told CNN that the US government “could also try to get the court to approve an administrative refund process, where importers have to affirmatively request a refund”.

What tariffs has Trump imposed so far, and what has their effect been?

Trump has imposed tariffs of varying rates on imports from almost every country in the world, arguing that these levies will enrich the US and protect the domestic US market. The tariff rates range from as high as 50 percent on India and Syria to as low as 10 percent on the UK.

The US president has also imposed a 50 percent tariff on all copper imports, 50 percent on steel and aluminium imports from every country except the UK, 100 percent on patented drugs, 25 percent levies on cars and car parts manufactured abroad, and 25 percent on heavy-duty trucks.

According to the University of Pennsylvania’s Penn Wharton Budget Model, which analyses the US Treasury’s data, tariffs have brought in $223.9bn as of October 31. This is $142.2bn more than the same time last year.

In early July, Treasury Secretary Bessent said revenues from these tariffs could grow to $300bn by the end of 2025.

But in an August 7 report, the Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that “all 2025 US tariffs plus foreign retaliation lower real US Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth by -0.5pp [percentage points] each over calendar years 2025 and 2026”.

Meanwhile, according to a Reuters news agency tracker, which follows how US companies are responding to Trump’s tariff threats, the first-quarter earnings season saw carmakers, airlines and consumer goods importers take the worst hit from tariff threats. Levies on aluminium and electronics, such as semiconductors, also led to increased costs.

Reuters reported that as tariffs hit factory orders, big manufacturing companies around the world are also struggling.

In its latest World Economic Outlook report released last month, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) said the effect of Trump’s tariffs on the global economy had been less extreme.

“To date, more protectionist trade measures have had a limited impact on economic activity and prices,” it said.

However, the IMF warned that the current resilience of the global economy may not last.

“Looking past apparent resilience resulting from trade-related distortions in some of the incoming data and whipsawing growth forecasts from wild swings in trade policies, the outlook for the global economy continues to point to dim prospects, both in the short and the long term,” it said.

Netflix has released a new four-episode series that follows a serial killer who strikes terror in Italy by targeting couples parked in lovers lanes – and viewers have been urged to check it out

Netflix subscribers are being urged to watch a gripping mini-series that will have you hooked from the very first episode. Film enthusiast Eccy Reviews, who shares the latest film and TV recommendations on social media, has told his followers they must watch The Monster of Florence.

The four-part series tells the true story of a “serial killer who strikes terror in Italy by targeting couples parked in lovers lanes, authorities explore a case from 1968 that may be key to identifying The Monster of Florence”. Directed by Leonardo Fasoli and Stefano Sollima, the programme features performances from Francesca Olia, Liliana Bottone, and Marco Bullitta.

Discussing the series, Eccy Reviews said: “You need to stop whatever you’re doing because Netflix just dropped a brand new series and it honestly might be one of the best shows of the year.”.

“It’s based on a true story. Now, trust me when I tell you that the first episode will have you absolutely hooked. It made me binge the entire thing and I honestly can’t recommend it enough.

“It can’t go under the radar. Everyone needs to watch it, everyone needs to talk about it. So make sure to get this show on your watch list and get it watched.”

Responding to his recommendation, one viewer said: “When I say my jaw just kept hitting the floor! This was a lot to take in but I did like it.”

Another commented: “Straight out of a Criminal Minds episode.”

A third wrote: “I always follow your recommendations, I’m starting it now.”

One viewer shared their thoughts on IMDb, stating: “I’d never heard of these murders until I watched this series.

“It’s well-acted and portrays the changing look and feel of the time periods in which it is set – a 20 year time span – through decor, cars, fashions and background music.

“The treatment of women is absolutely disturbing – not just the horrific murders but also the total misogyny and disrespect that they lived under in some family units.

“Apart from the detectives investigating these crimes – and the innocent victims – I don’t think there is one man featured who has any redeemable qualities.

“It was interesting but at times repetitive in that the same event was shown several times, albeit from different people’s perspective.”

Another viewer chimed in with: “This crime thriller is based on true events. After long time finally a solid psycho murder episode from Italy on Netflix.

“I find it is actually on short supply to see good series or movies from Italy on Netflix. The first episode was for me too slow paced and I thought already to stop.

“But the longer I watched it the more interesting the story got. There are many flashbacks to reconstruct the mystery puzzles and help so the audience to understand what was really going on.

“The atmosphere and filming locations have been wonderfully created from the 60s to the 80s.

“The actors played the characters respectably and I think the director did a great job too.

“If you liked the other two psycho killer series on Netflix Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Gein this is for you. Final vote: 7/10.”

Imagine walking for days and nights to escape gunfire. You carry your child in your arms, guiding them through the darkness to avoid drone attacks. You have no food, no water, and nowhere safe to go.

This is the reality for families in Darfur and across Sudan, where civilians are being trapped, targeted, and terrorised as the country’s brutal war enters its third year. In el-Fasher and other parts of Darfur, entire communities have been besieged. Those who try to flee are attacked; those who remain face starvation, violence, and disease.

Behind these headlines are women and children who are suffering the most. Sexual violence is being used systematically to punish, to terrorise, and to destroy. Women and girls are abducted, forced to work for armed groups during the day, and then assaulted at night, often in front of others. Many survivors are children themselves. Some of the girls who have become pregnant through rape are so young and malnourished that they are unable to feed their babies.

Perpetrators no longer attempt to hide their crimes. Violence has become so widespread that recording or documenting cases can cost you your life. In Tawila, North Darfur, only one clinic run by Doctors Without Borders can provide care for rape survivors.

Boys are also being drawn into the conflict. Over the past 10 days, three trucks filled with children were reported heading towards Nyala, while in South Darfur, children are being armed and sent to fight. Families are disappearing without a trace.

Aid workers are also targeted. They are being kidnapped for ransom, assaulted, sometimes killed, and targeted because armed groups believe humanitarian organisations can pay. Many of those delivering aid are Sudanese women who risk their lives every day to bring food, water, and protection services to others.

Violence has also taken on an ethnic dimension. One displaced person told us, “I cannot go back, they will know by my skin colour which tribe I am from, and they will kill me.”

Sudan is now the world’s largest displacement crisis and one of its most severe humanitarian emergencies. More than 30 million people need urgent assistance. Fifteen million have been forced from their homes. Hunger and cholera are spreading fast. Clinics have been destroyed, schools are closed, and 13 million children are out of school, their education and futures slipping away.

Yet even amid this devastation, Sudanese women’s organisations are leading the response. They are running safe spaces, supporting survivors of violence, and keeping children learning where they can. They know their communities and continue their work despite constant danger. Their courage deserves not only recognition but also support.

The humanitarian response, however, remains catastrophically underfunded. Only about a quarter of what is needed has been received. Without immediate resources, millions will be left without food, medical care, or shelter as famine looms. Funding protection and psychosocial support for women and children is not optional. It is life-saving.

And this is not only a crisis of violence but also a crisis of indifference. Each day the world looks away, more lives are lost and more futures erased. The international community must support investigations into war crimes, including sexual violence, ethnic killings, and attacks on aid workers. Silence is not neutrality. Silence gives a blank cheque for horror to continue.

We must act now, urgently. Governments and donors must fully fund the humanitarian response and ensure access for those delivering aid. They must press all parties to immediately stop attacks on civilians, guarantee safe passage for those fleeing, and allow relief operations to reach those cut off by the fighting.

Humanitarian workers and grassroots organisations are risking their lives so that others might live. The world must match their courage with urgent action.

Above all, Sudan’s women and girls must be part of shaping peace. They are already leading by organising, sheltering, and rebuilding amid the chaos. Their courage offers a glimpse of the country Sudan could still become.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial policy.

Deadly protests followed the 92-year-old president’s re-election, which opponents have called ‘fraudulent’.

Cameroon’s longtime leader, Paul Biya, has been sworn in for a new seven-year term following his victory in last month’s presidential election, which his opposition rival has described as “a constitutional coup”.

Addressing Parliament on Thursday, the world’s oldest president promised to stay faithful to the confidence of the Cameroonian people and pledged to work for a “united, stable and prosperous” country.

There were deadly protests in several parts of Cameroon days after the October 19 vote, followed by a three-day lockdown this week after former minister and key contender Issa Tchiroma claimed victory and alleged vote tampering.

The government has confirmed that at least five people were killed during the protests, although the opposition and civil society groups claim the figures are much higher.

The incumbent, Africa’s second-longest serving leader, took the oath of office during a session of Parliament in what residents describe as the heavily militarised and partially deserted capital, Yaounde.

Priscilla Ayimboh, a 40-year-old seamstress in Yaounde, does not see a new term for Biya as likely to change anything.

“I’m tired of Biya’s rule and I no longer care whatever he does. It’s a pity. I wonder what will become of Cameroon in the next seven years: there are no roads, water, and jobs,” she said.

Munjah Vitalis Fagha, a senior politics lecturer at Cameroon’s University of Buea, told The Associated Press news agency that Biya’s inauguration was “taking place in a tense yet controlled political atmosphere, marked by deep divisions between the ruling elite and a growingly disillusioned populace”.

Fagha added: “The ceremony occurs amid calls for political renewal, ongoing security challenges in the Anglophone regions, and widespread concerns over governance and succession.”

Cameroon’s top court on October 27 declared Biya the winner of the election, with 53.66 percent of the vote, ahead of his ally-turned-challenger, Tchiroma, who secured 35.19 percent.

Tchiroma insists Biya was awarded a “fraudulent” victory in the election.

“The will of the Cameroonian people was trampled that day, our sovereignty stolen in broad daylight,” Tchiroma wrote on Wednesday night. “This is not democracy, it is electoral theft, a constitutional coup as blatant as it is shameful.”

Biya came to power in 1982 following the resignation of Cameroon’s first president and has ruled since, following a 2008 constitutional amendment that abolished term limits. His health has been a topic of speculation as he spends most of his time in Europe, leaving governance to key party officials and family members.

He has led Cameroon longer than most of its citizens have been alive – more than 70 percent of the country’s almost 30 million population is below the age of 35. If he serves his entire term, Biya will leave office nearly 100 years old.

The results of his nearly half-century in power have been mixed; armed rebellions in the north and the west of the country, along with a stagnant economy, have left many young people disillusioned with the leader.

JUDI Dench has revealed a heartbreaking health update and admitted she struggles every day.

The legendary actress, 90, first opened up about her age-related  macular degeneration (AMD) in 2012.

Earlier this year, Dame Judi told how she “can’t leave home alone” due to the worrying condition.

And now she has admitted she’s lost her vision completely.

The Oscar-winner, who scooped the accolade for her role as supporting actress in Shakespeare in Love, has said: “I can’t see any more.”

She told the crowds at Theatre Royal, Bury St Edmunds, where she is a patron: “When I go to the theatre, I can’t see.

SUPERSPY GONE 

‘Inspiration for Judi Dench’s M’ Dame Stella Rimington dies aged 90

FIRST FEMALE ‘M’

MI6 to get first female chief 30yrs after Judi Dench landed role in Bond

“Hopeless.”

Yet she revealed she had been catching up on the Celebrity Traitors “dirt” – and how pal Celia Imrie was getting on – through word of mouth.

It comes after the star of screen and stage told how it was “impossible” to read scripts.

CONDITION REVEAL

Macular degeneration is the biggest cause of sight loss in the UK, affecting more than 700,000 people.

AMD is an eye disease that can blur an individual’s central vision.

According to the National Eye Institute, age-related macular degeneration “happens when aging causes damage to the macula – the part of the eye that controls sharp, straight-ahead vision.”

The disease does not cause total blindness, but it can make everyday activities difficult.

LIFE-CHANGING

Judi has been candid in addressing her worsening health battle.

During an interview on Trinny Woodall’s Fearless podcast, Dame Judi says “somebody will always be with me” when she leaves the house.

She continued: “I have to [have someone] now because I can’t see.

What is age-related macular degeneration (AMD)?

DAME Judi Dench has spoken openly about her diagnosis of age-related macular degeneration (AMD). Yet what is it?

Macular degeneration is the biggest cause of sight loss in the UK, affecting more than 700,000 people.

It first affects people in their 50s.

AMD is an eye disease that can blur an individual’s central vision.

According to the National Eye Institute, age-related macular degeneration “happens when aging causes damage to the macula – the part of the eye that controls sharp, straight-ahead vision.”

The disease does not cause total blindness, but it can make everyday activities difficult.

Recently, we reported on research which suggested a person’s choice of morning brew could impact their eyesight.

In a study of more than 500,000 people, scientists from the Hubei University of Medicine in China found a link between instant coffee intake and the risk of dry AMD – one of the forms of the sight-robbing disease.

In contrast, ground coffee and decaffeinated brews bore no links to AMD.

“And I will walk into something or fall over.

“I’m always nervous before going to something.

“I have no idea why. I’m not good at that at all.

“Not at all. Nor would I be now.

“And fortunately, I don’t have to be now because I pretend to have no eyesight.”

The Oscar winner, famed for playing M on nine James Bond movies, added she was “no good at that at all” when she used to attend events alone.

SCREEN QUEEN

Dame Judi made her professional debut in 1957 with the Old Vic Company and is now referred to as one of Britain’s best actresses.

After landing roles on TV and in movies from the late 50s, she has starred in a plethora of big titles, with IMDB crediting her for 120 on-screen productions.

Some of her notable roles include Chocolat, Notes on a Scandal, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, Philomena and Iris and also her role as “M” in several James Bond films.

She’s a ten-time Bafta winner including winning Best Actress in A Fine Romance (1981) in which she appeared with her late husband, Michael Williams.

Judi has also been nominated for six Oscars and won one of these as Best Supporting Actress for Shakespeare in Love in 1998.

STRICTLY SECRET

The video of married celeb & pro dancer that threatens to detonate Strictly

SCHOOL’S OUT

I was a teacher earning £40k – now I run a £250k business & work 2 days a WEEK

She has also won seven Laurence Olivier Awards and has a further eight nominations under her belt for her professional theatre work.

She was made an Officer of the Order of the British Empire in 1970, and a Dame of Order of the British Empire in 1988.

Nov. 6 (UPI) — An evaluation of the Louvre Museum’s security measures — underway long before a costly break-in last month — found Thursday that the Paris institution had fallen “considerably behind” in upgrading its technical infrastructure and security.

The report from the French Court of Auditors took a look at both the facilities of the museum and the Louvre Museum Endowment Fund from 2018 to 2024. It was completed before the Oct. 19 break-in during which thieves made off with eight bejeweled items worth millions.

The report said the theft highlighted “the importance of long-term investments in modernizing the museum’s infrastructure and restoring the palace.”

The authors of the report took issue with the Louvre’s acquirement of 2,754 items over eight years, one-fourth of which were on display. These items — and renovations of displays — represent an investment of $167 million, double what the Louvre allocated for maintenance, upgrades and building restoration.

“Throughout the period under review, the court observed that the museum prioritized visible and attractive operations, such as the acquisition of works, and the redesign of its displays, to the detriment of the maintenance and renovation of buildings and technical installations, particularly those related to safety and security,” the report said.

The report recommended that the Louvre eliminate a rule that requires the museum spend 20% of its ticket revenues — $143 million in 2024 — on acquiring new works. This would allow the facility to redirect funds to update the building without additional state funding. Auditors said the museum could also lean more heavily on its endowment fund to make the upgrades.

Police in France have arrested several people believed to be connected to the October heist. The theft saw four people use a truck with a ladder to break into the upper-floor Apollo Gallery and steal jewelry from display cases.

Among the items stolen were items once owned by French Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte and his wife, Empress Joséphine de Beauharnais.

After months of blockade and starvation in Gaza, Israel allowed a new United States venture – the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) – to distribute food. Branded as a lifeline, its sites quickly became known by Palestinians and dozens of human rights groups as “death traps”.

Fault Lines investigates how civilians seeking aid were funnelled through militarised zones, where thousands were killed or injured under fire.

Through the testimonies of grieving families, a former contractor, and human rights experts, the film exposes how GHF’s operations replaced UNRWA’s proven aid system with a scheme critics say was designed for displacement, not relief. At the heart of this investigation is a haunting question: was GHF delivering humanitarian aid – or helping turn breadlines into killing fields?

This article contains some spoilers for the Netflix miniseries “Death by Lightning.”

If politics today make your head spin, wait until you see Netflix’s “Death by Lightning.” The four-part miniseries, premiering Thursday, chronicles one of the more jaw-dropping stretches of post-Civil War American history, when corruption ran rampant, a presidential nominee was drafted at the 11th hour, only to be assassinated early in his term by one of his biggest fans — becoming perhaps the greatest head of state we never really got to have.

And the show answers the burning expletive-laced question posed by its first line: Who is Charles Guiteau?

“I’ve been in a James Garfield rabbit hole for seven years of my life at this point,” says showrunner Mike Makowsky, who adapted Candice Millard’s 2011 chronicle of Garfield and Guiteau, “Destiny of the Republic.” Those who paid attention in history class probably remember that Garfield served briefly as our 20th president in 1881 before being shot and killed. Those who remember more than that are few and far between.

“My own agent half the time refers to him as Andrew Garfield,” says Makowsky. “And I have to confess, I knew very little about Garfield, like most Americans, until I picked up Candice Millard’s remarkable book.”

Realizing he knew little about one of the four American presidents to be assassinated, Makowsky thought, “Since I would desperately like to be on ‘Jeopardy!’ someday, I was like, ‘Let me educate myself.’ I wound up reading the entire book in one sitting.”

“Death by Lightning,” directed by “Captain Fantastic” auteur Matt Ross, boasts a remarkable cast: Betty Gilpin as First Lady Lucretia Garfield; Nick Offerman as Garfield’s successor, a hard-drinking, hard-partying Chester A. Arthur; Michael Shannon as James Garfield, the polymath president, crusader against corruption and noble to a fault; and Matthew Macfadyen as Charles Guiteau, the frustrated office-seeker who shot him.

“I wanted to cast people who were somewhat counterintuitive,” says Ross. “If you read the cast list for this, you might assume Michael Shannon was playing Guiteau because he has played a lot of complicated, for lack of a better word, villains — tough guys, bad guys. And Matthew Macfadyen has played more heroic characters.”

Guiteau is definitely no Darcy from “Pride and Prejudice,” or Tom Wambsgans from “Succession,” for that matter. In the series’ conception of him, he shares more DNA with Martin Scorsese’s unhinged protagonists than he does with Darcy — or, certainly, with Garfield.

The proto-incel with a gun

As portrayed in “Death by Lightning,” Guiteau is a rotten-toothed, scheming, big-dreaming, delusional charlatan and possible sociopath. He’s the proto-incel, and the diametrical opposite to Garfield, whom Makowsky defines as “lawful good,” to borrow the Dungeons & Dragons classification.

“I think the most reductive view of Guiteau is ‘chaotic evil,’ right? But that’s the least interesting rendering of this person,” he says. “What are the societal factors that alienate a man like Guiteau from his fellow human beings? The show is meant to probe into his psyche.”

He was a member of the Oneida community, a religious sect based in New York that practiced communalism, free love and mutual criticism, which is depicted in the series (and yes, they founded the flatware company). But Guiteau couldn’t partake in what Makowsky delicately called the “benefits” of such a society, largely because his delusions of grandeur alienated him from others there. The women reportedly nicknamed him “Charles Gitout.”

“Everyone who encountered him described him as being disagreeable, odd, rude, selfish,” Ross says, explaining the need for an actor who had the opposite qualities. “He’s an extreme example of someone who had no work to be seen for, but was so desperately looking for affirmation and love.”

Charles Guiteau (Matthew Macfadyen) was part of the Oneida community, which practiced communalism and free love, but he wasn’t accepted by its members.

(Larry Horricks/Netflix)

Ross describes Macfadyen as someone who’s empathetic, warm and funny. “I wanted that humanity because the real Guiteau was a deeply disturbed man who was psychologically brutalized by his father to the point he was a non-functioning person.”

Makowsky says as he was reading Millard’s book, he thought of Rupert Pupkin, Robert De Niro’s deranged-fan protagonist in Scorsese’s “King of Comedy.” “This guy showing up, day in and day out, hoping for an audience with his hero [Garfield], being continually rebuffed to the point where something in his brain breaks,” he says of Guiteau. “He felt like a direct historical antecedent to the Rupert Pupkins and Travis Bickles of the world. He fell through the cracks and we lost potentially one of our greatest presidents because of it.”

Makowsky recalls shooting the only dialogue scene between Garfield and Guiteau, when the “greatest fan” finally gets to meet his idol. To Makowsky’s surprise, Macfadyen’s Guiteau “just burst into tears. That wasn’t scripted. It was so overwhelming to him. I think in that moment, more than any other in the series, you feel something for this man.”

Party (hearty) over country

Garfield was succeeded in office by Chester A. Arthur, whom Makowsky calls one of the least likely persons to ever become president. “The man had never held elected office,” he says. “His one political appointment prior to his nomination for vice president was as chief crony of the spoils system of [New York Sen.] Roscoe Conkling’s political machine. The level of corruption was so audacious and insane.”

He’s played with oft-drunken brio by Nick Offerman, whose voice Makowsky says he heard in his head as soon as he started writing the role: “I was like, it has to be Nick Offerman.” He took some liberties with the character and events, including a memorable sequence where Arthur and Guiteau go on a bender. Makowsky says they “probably never had a wild night out in New York, but it was an indelible proposition and I couldn’t resist.”

Nick Offerman plays eventual President Chester A. Arthur, who was closely aligned with New York Sen. Roscoe Conkling (Shea Whigham).

Betty Gilpin portrays First Lady Lucretia Garfield as her husband’s intellectual equal. (Larry Horricks / Netflix)

As to the first lady, “Lucretia Garfield was every bit her husband’s intellectual equal. But she couldn’t vote. There was a ceiling to what a woman in her day could accomplish,” Makowsky says, wistfully musing on what she might have achieved, given the chance. “And Betty [Gilpin] radiates that strength and that acute intelligence.”

Having recently given birth, Gilpin took her family along to Budapest for filming, voraciously researching Lucretia and reading her entire correspondence with her husband. The role gets meatier as the series progresses until she initiates an unforgettable, blistering encounter with Guiteau to button the story.

“Betty jokingly said to me, ‘If you cut that scene, I will kill you.’ I was like, ‘There’s no way that scene is being cut. It’s one of my favorite scenes in the entire show,’” Ross recalls. “Everyone who read it was like, ‘Oh my God, this scene.’ And Betty just knocked it out of the park, take after take after take.”

The forgotten president

Ross says when he first read Makowsky’s scripts, he thought they were “fantastically relevant” and offered a fresh look at American history. “As an American, I’m always trying to figure out what it means to be American,” he says. “The story of Garfield, you couldn’t make it up. He was a hero of working people and the promise of American democracy — having a representational democracy where those in power and the wealthy are not controlling the laws of the land, which could not be more relevant today.”

Makowsky calls Garfield “a poster boy for the American dream,” rising from poverty to the nation’s top office.

“He was a war hero and a Renaissance man that did math theorems while he was in Congress and who could recite Homer from memory,” he says. “This remarkable individual, fiercely intelligent and a brilliant, powerful orator, was far ahead of his time on certain political questions of the day. He was an outspoken proponent for civil rights and universal education and civil service reform.”

In real life, and as depicted in the series, Garfield worked with notable Black leaders like Frederick Douglass and Blanche Bruce, the first Black register of the Treasury, whom he appointed.

“The great tragedy is we were robbed of a potentially generational leader in Garfield,” Makowsky says.

“Death by Lightning” showrunner Mike Makowsky says Americans were robbed of a “potentially generational leader” in James Garfield.

(Larry Horricks / Netflix)

Garfield wasn’t even seeking the nomination when he spoke on behalf of another candidate at the Republican National Convention of 1880, but his speech so moved the delegates that they eventually persuaded him to accept the nomination after more than 30 votes failed to produce another winner. It reminded Makowsky of then-Sen. Barack Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic National Convention, where he presented “a strong and confident, optimistic vision for the future of our country.”

Nowadays, such a rise seems less likely. “I don’t know if that would happen today, obviously because of money in politics; no one can run if they don’t have phenomenal backing,” Ross says.

Ross emphasizes the show is “not a history lesson,” drawing a distinction between drama and documentary. At times, “Death by Lightning” plays like a black comedy. Makowsky’s dialogue, while usually honoring what we think of as the formality and vocabulary of the 1880s’ idiom, occasionally veers into hilariously cathartic invective that bracingly reminds us these were living, breathing people with fire in their bellies.

“Ken Burns could make a 10-hour documentary to encapsulate all the nuances of this incredible story,” says Ross. What Makowsky did, Ross says, was contextualize the history through the prism of two very different people, Garfield and Guiteau.

“One is this incredibly admirable American figure I think everyone should know about, the greatest president we never really had. And then the other is a charlatan, a deeply broken, deeply mentally ill man who just kind of wanted to be Instagram-famous, just wanted to be known. You see this moment in history through their eyes, and I thought that was delicious.”

Tigray was the centre of a devastating two-year war that pitted the TPLF against Ethiopia’s federal army.

Ethiopia’s Afar region has accused forces from neighbouring Tigray of crossing into its territory, seizing several villages and attacking civilians, in what it called a breach of the 2022 peace deal that ended the war in northern Ethiopia.

Between 2020 and 2022, Tigray was the centre of a devastating two-year war that pitted the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) against Ethiopia’s federal army and left at least 600,000 people dead, according to the African Union.

In a statement released late on Wednesday, Afar authorities said TPLF fighters “entered Afar territory by force today”.

The group, which governs the Tigray region, was accused of “controlling six villages and bombing civilians with mortars”. Officials did not provide details on casualties.

“The TPLF learns nothing from its mistakes,” the Afar administration said, condemning what it described as “acts of terror”.

The conflict earlier this decade also spread into neighbouring Ethiopian regions, including Afar, whose forces fought alongside federal troops.

According to Afar’s latest statement, Tigrayan forces attacked the Megale district in the northwest of the region “with heavy weapons fire on civilian herders”.

The authorities warned that if the TPLF “does not immediately cease its actions, the Afar Regional Administration will assume its defensive duty to protect itself against any external attack”.

The renewed fighting, they said, “openly destroys the Pretoria peace agreement”, referring to the deal signed in November 2022 between Ethiopia’s federal government and Tigrayan leaders, which ended two years of bloodshed.

While the fragile peace had largely held, tensions between Addis Ababa and the TPLF have deepened in recent months. The party, which dominated Ethiopian politics from 1991 to 2018, was officially removed from the country’s list of political parties in May amid internal divisions and growing mistrust from the federal government.

Federal officials have also accused the TPLF of re-establishing ties with neighbouring Eritrea, a country with a long and uneasy history with Ethiopia. Eritrea, once an Italian colony and later an Ethiopian province, fought a bloody independence war before gaining statehood in 1993.

A subsequent border war between the two nations from 1998 to 2000 killed tens of thousands. When Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed came to power in 2018, he signed a landmark peace deal with Eritrea, but relations have soured again since the end of the Tigray conflict.

England squad: AJ Brimson, Joe Burgess, Daryl Clark, Herbie Farnworth, Tom Johnstone, Mikey Lewis, Harry Newman, Mikolaj Oledzi, George Williams (capt), Harry Smith, Mike McMeeken, Jez Litten, Matty Lees, Kai Pearce-Paul, Kallum Watkins, Morgan Knowles, Owen Trout, Alex Walmsley, Morgan Smithies.

Australia XIII: Reece Walsh, Mark Nawaqanitawase, Kotoni Staggs, Gehamat Shibasaki, Josh Addo-Carr, Cameron Munster, Nathan Cleary, Patrick Carrigan, Harry Grant, Tino Fa’asuamaleaui, Angus Crichton, Hudson Young, Isaah Yeo (captain).

Interchanges: Tom Dearden, Lindsay Collins, Reuben Cotter, Keaon Koloamatangi.

Reserves: Bradman Best, Lindsay Smith, Mitchell Moses.

The Celebrity Traitors finale is almost upon us – however, the BBC hit show left some viewers confused when it didn’t air in its usual Wednesday slot last night

Fans of the Celebrity Traitors are on tenterhooks as they wait for the show’s highly-anticipated final, with the five remaining contestants competing for up to £100,000 for their chosen charities. However, many were left frustrated last night when they tuned into BBC One at 9pm to be greeted by Shetland’s Ashley Jensen and not the giggly Alan Carr.

Viewers took to social media to voice their disappointment, with one writing: “WHAT DO YOU MEAN TRAITORS ISNT ON TONIGHT??? #CelebrityTraitors.” Another said: “Gaslit myself into thinking celebrity traitors was on tonight. It’s not.

“I don’t even know why I thought that. I guess it’s time for big brother then. #BBUK.”

Thankfully, fans won’t have to wait much longer for their Celebrity Traitors fix – with the final set to air tonight. The show is airing its big finale on BBC One at 9pm tonight with a 70-minute episode.

“As the ultimate game of deception and trust draws to a close, the stakes have never been higher as the celebrity players face their final, explosive mission,” the BBC teases. “With the prize fund complete, will the pressure of winning cloud anyone’s vision?

“Will the Faithful banish all the Traitors to secure victory, or will the Traitors manage to deceive until the bitter end?”

The castle content doesn’t stop there, with Ed Gamble hosting the final episode of The Celebrity Traitors: Uncloaked immediately after the final at 10:10pm on BBC Two. All the finalists will be joining him for their exclusive first interviews alongside Claudia Winkleman as they reflect on the record-breaking series.

Earlier today, the Celebrity Traitors’ famous fans revealed who they’re backing ahead of tonight’s final – with Strictly Come Dancing’s Shirley Ballas on the side of the Traitors. “Having watched every series of The Traitors, I’m hoping either Alan or Cat can win as Traitors,” she said.

“If they go, then I would love Joe to win for the Faithfuls. This year’s series has been absolutely spectacular and off the chart. My mother and I are engrossed in the whole thing.”

While Coronation Street’s Sally Lindsay said: “Alan, you have always been a legend since I met you 25 years ago and you have been the legend in this. You are the champion!”

Unfortunately, the winner has been spoiled for some fans, with the episode leaking early on Canadian streamer Crave a day early. “PSA: The finale of the Celebrity Traitors was accidentally leaked in Canada yesterday,” one concerned fan wrote on social media.

“Stay away from Traitors news and communities if you don’t want to get spoiled.”

The Celebrity Traitors airs tonight at 9pm on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.

Join The Mirror’s WhatsApp Community or follow us on Google News , Flipboard , Apple News, TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads – or visit The Mirror homepage.