ban

Officials are considering measures that would allow UK airlines to block disruptive passengers with a history of serious misconduct from travelling, amid a sharp rise in onboard incidents since the pandemic

Ministers are exploring proposals that could result in persistent troublemakers being banned from future flights amid growing alarm over disruptive behaviour on aircraft.

Officials are weighing up a system that would enable airlines to identify passengers with a track record of serious misconduct and potentially deny them the ability to travel. Under the plans, which are still at an early stage of consideration, details of blacklisted passengers could be shared throughout the aviation industry.

Should someone attempt to book a flight after being added to the list, the airline or tour operator could receive notification and be given the choice to block the reservation, effectively grounding that individual indefinitely.

Civil liberties campaigners have, however, raised alarm about the proposals, cautioning they could set a “dangerous precedent” through the sharing of personal data and limitations on access to transport, reports the Express.

Currently, airlines have the power to ban passengers who have displayed violent or abusive conduct while travelling with them. Yet existing restrictions only extend to the specific carrier involved in the incident, meaning offenders can frequently sidestep penalties by simply booking with a different airline.

The primary hurdle facing any new system is current data protection law, which prohibits carriers from exchanging passenger details with one another, even where criminal offences have taken place.

Who is calling for some passengers to be banned from all flights for life?

Calls for stricter measures have grown louder following a string of high-profile mid-air incidents that have gone viral online, reports the Daily Mail. These have included episodes where cabin crew faced death threats and violent clashes erupted between passengers in aircraft aisles.

Such incidents are among hundreds logged annually and have often led to expensive flight diversions that wreck holidays and travel arrangements.

There appears to be widespread public backing for harsher punishments, with recent polling indicating most Britons support restrictions on passengers who commit serious misconduct while airborne.

Ryanair boss Michael O’Leary has previously urged limits on airport alcohol sales, including curbs on early morning pints, in an effort to cut the number of disruptive passengers getting on planes.

Ministers aren’t attempting to stop travellers from having a drink before their flight. Rather, they’re hoping any future system would promote better conduct while helping to safeguard cabin crew, families and fellow passengers.

It’s understood the proposals are being worked on by the Home Office and Department for Transport but remain in the early stages and require additional consultation with the aviation sector. Any system would need to tackle existing privacy regulations, which currently stop airlines from sharing passenger data.

Ministers are expected to sit down with industry bosses later this month to thrash out the details of the plans. A government source said: “Everyone should be able to enjoy a pint at the airport, but anti-social behaviour on flights is totally unacceptable.

“It threatens the safety of passengers and crew and disrupts hard-earned holidays.

“There are already tough laws in place to deal with offences committed on flights, but we are exploring with industry how we can better address this issue, ensuring we crack down on people who persistently cause chaos. Everyone should be able to fly without fuss.”

Department of Commerce issues guidance on chip restrictions amid concerns about loopholes in export control regime.

The United States has issued a notice affirming its restrictions on shipments of semiconductors to subsidiaries of Chinese companies located outside China amid concerns about loopholes in Washington’s export control regime.

The Department of Commerce said in the guidance issued on Sunday that its licensing requirements for the export of advanced AI chips applied to all businesses with headquarters or a parent company in China.

The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which falls under the Commerce Department, said it issued the clarification in response to questions about whether it was enforcing preexisting licence requirements after it had overturned former President Joe Biden’s AI Diffusion Framework.

“The answer is yes,” the BIS said in the notice.

Unveiled in the final days of the Biden administration, the AI Diffusion proposed the implementation of a globe-spanning framework to control access to AI chips, including export caps for all but the closest US allies.

The framework drew backlash from tech firms, including Nvidia, the world’s most valuable chip company, which cast the proposal as a threat to innovation and cross-border collaboration.

President Donald Trump’s administration scrapped the framework last May, ahead of its implementation, citing the “burdensome new regulatory requirements” and the harm it would do to Washington’s diplomatic relations with other countries.

Chip giant Nvidia, whose top-of-the-line Blackwell GPUs are banned for export to China, said it had already been operating in keeping with the clarified rules.

“The guidance reaffirms that NVIDIA’s sales and vetting process is correct – consistent with our existing approach, licences are required to ship controlled products to PRC headquartered companies,” a Nvidia spokesperson told Al Jazeera, using the acronym for the People’s Republic of China.

AMD and Intel, Nvidia’s main competitors in the GPU space, did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

TSMC, which manufactures the most advanced chips on behalf of clients such as Nvidia, did not immediately return an email seeking comment.

The BIS also did not respond to inquiries.

Chris McGuire, a former State Department official who worked on technology policy in the Biden administration, accused the Trump administration of providing Chinese companies a loophole to buy export-controlled chips.

“Chinese companies have been buying these chips, very likely at scale. And because BIS has not updated export control regulations to clearly state what it IS enforcing, all of this was legal,” McGuire said in a post on X.

“This clarification does make clear that Blackwell shipments to China-headquartered companies outside of China are now illegal again – which is good, although obviously we have to see how many shipments have already gone to assess how much damage was done,” McGuire said.

“BIS’ statement acknowledges these shipments have been happening when it says companies who bought chips under this loophole don’t have to stop using them.”

The US has rolled out numerous restrictions on the supply of high-end technology to China, as Washington and Beijing battle for dominance in AI.

In December, Trump announced that he would allow Nvidia to sell its H200 chip to China, in a major loosening of Washington’s export controls.

While not Nvidia’s most advanced chip, the H200 is about six times as powerful as the H20, the most advanced chip previously allowed for export to China.

Parisians cooled off in the city’s Saint-Martin canal as an unprecedented heatwave pushed temperatures across Europe far above seasonal norms. Swimmers ignored long-standing bans, swimming outside designated bathing sites.

The rule reminder comes after a flight was forced to divert and deal with the issue

An EasyJet plane had to make an emergency landing in Rome over the weekend because there was a potential fire risk linked to a passenger’s luggage. The captain told all 180 passengers that a restricted item in the cargo hold posed a serious danger and had to be dealt with on the ground.

Reports suggest that a passenger had left their phone charging in their checked baggage using a power bank. It is claimed that a woman told a flight attendant the location of her power bank, prompting the aircraft to be diverted due to a possible fire risk.

The emergency landing happened at 11.30pm on Saturday, May 23. Passengers were reportedly provided with hotel rooms, though some chose to sleep in the airport terminals, as the next EasyJet flight back to the UK wasn’t available until 2pm the following day (May 24).

On EasyJet’s website, the airline sets out its regulations regarding lithium batteries, including what is classed as “prohibited”. It said: “Power banks are accepted on EasyJet aircraft with a Wh rating not exceeding 160Wh for lithium batteries. Power banks are prohibited from use on EasyJet aircraft and must not be used to charge other devices.

“Power banks must be carried in carry-on baggage only. It is recommended that power banks be carried where they can be monitored (i.e. on your person)”

The airline also restricts people to bringing no more than two power banks per person. All power banks “must be individually protected”, according to EasyJet, such as placing them back in original retail packaging or a plastic bag.

These power bank regulations apply to virtually all major airlines, including Ryanair, Jet2, TUI and British Airways. Travellers should check with their individual airline for any specific rules and requirements concerning travelling with a power bank, reports the Express.

Why are power banks considered such a risk?

Power banks are forbidden from use or storage in specific areas on aircraft because they contain lithium-ion batteries. These batteries are extremely combustible and can suffer “thermal runaway,” a chain reaction that may cause them to overheat or ignite.

While they aren’t completely ‘banned’, power banks must be stored in hand luggage and cannot be used while airborne. This is because, should a battery overheat, cabin crew can quickly reach, identify, and put out the flames.

Charging gadgets through them generates additional heat, increasing the fire risk. Some carriers have rules stating that power banks cannot be placed in overhead lockers and must remain visible (such as in the seatback pocket or beneath the seat ahead of you) so that passengers and crew can immediately notice if smoke or flames appear.

Your entitlements if an aircraft is forced to make an emergency landing

If your aircraft makes an emergency landing or diversion, your entitlement to compensation, a refund, or an alternative booking depends entirely on the cause of the emergency. You are legally entitled to specific help during the delay, whatever the reason for the diversion.

Regardless of whether the emergency came from an airline problem or an unforeseeable circumstance, the carrier is legally required to care for you while you wait. This includes vouchers or reimbursement for reasonable meals and beverages, hotel accommodation and transport (if delayed overnight).

If your flight experiences substantial delays or is eventually cancelled, you have the right to select between alternative travel under similar conditions at the earliest opportunity or a refund. Check specific refund entitlements with your selected airline.

The Civil Aviation Authority today said ‘more awareness’ was needed as travellers ‘not aware’

Airlines have banned very common electrical items from flights – as news emerged of a surge in problems on flights caused by the items. Some carriers have begun to completely ban power banks that people use to charge their phones and tablets due to safety concerns. Generally, power banks are only permitted in carry-on, not checked luggage, amid fears they could explode and catch fire mid-flight.

The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) today said ‘more awareness’ was needed as portable chargers carry ‘serious risks’ of overheating or catching fire. Jonathan Nicholson from the CAA told BBC News that restrictions such as not putting the devices in checked luggage were not “somebody being pedantic” or “for the sake of it”, with passengers urged “to do the right thing”.

Concerns are rising that people are ignoring the bans and simply taking the devices on board. Power banks have become popular because they offer essential, portable, and fast-charging power for smartphones and other devices while on the move, easing battery anxiety. They are affordable, compact, and versatile, enabling users to remain connected without needing a wall outlet, making them perfect for travel.

It comes after a UK-bound easyJet flight was diverted to Rome last week because a passenger had packed a charging power bank in hold luggage. The airline said the captain had decided to divert “in line with safety regulations” after a passenger informed crew during the flight that the portable charger was in the hold of the aircraft. Many airlines have toughened rules on power banks, often requiring that they be stored in hand luggage because of the risk of lithium-ion batteries catching fire.

The flight touched down safely at Rome Fiumicino and was rescheduled to the next day. A survey by the CAA of 1,000 UK passengers in November 2025 suggested more than a third know what lithium batteries are and are aware rules exist, but are unsure what the rules involve. Over-55s typically knew the rules better.

Mr Nicholson said the “basic set of international rules” all passengers must follow on power banks are:

• Take them with you on board the aircraft, not in checked luggage
• A maximum of two power banks per passenger
• When on board the aircraft, don’t use them and “absolutely do not charge the power bank itself because that’s when they become really hot and most susceptible to having an issue”

Mr Nicholson said incidents involving power banks were “certainly on the rise” as portable chargers grow in popularity, alongside vapes which are not allowed in checked luggage either.

Vietnam Airlines, Vietjet Air and now Emirates have banned the batteries. Emirates states, like many airlines, the devices cannot be used during flight. In certain circumstances, they will be permitted on planes provided they are switched off and stored under your seat – not in the overhead cabin – with these rules coming into effect in October.

According to UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) safety experts, lithium batteries pose a danger on planes primarily because of their potential to enter “thermal runaway,” a phenomenon where a battery undergoes a rapid, uncontrollable rise in temperature, leading to fire, explosion, and the release of toxic fumes. Ryanair, easyJet and TUI all have regulations in place concerning power banks, batteries and electrical devices.

Ryanair

You may carry up to 15 personal electronic devices (this includes but not limited to: smartphones, tablets, laptops, cameras, handheld game consoles, headphones, power banks). Spare lithium batteries (including power banks) must be individually protected to prevent short circuits by placement in the original retail packaging or by otherwise insulating terminals by taping over exposed terminals or placing each battery in a separate plastic bag or protective pouch and carried in carry-on luggage only.

You may also carry up to 20 spare lithium batteries, provided they do not exceed 100Wh each.

Spare lithium batteries including power banks brought into the cabin should not be used to charge or power other portable electronic devices during taxi, take-off, or landing, not exceed 100Wh. They should not be placed in the cabin baggage loaded in the overhead storage locker. Be placed in cabin baggage under the seat in front, or on your person. Devices or batteries over 100Wh are not permitted in the cabin or the hold with the exception of Electric Wheelchair batteries.

Spare batteries, including power banks are not permitted in checked baggage.

For more information click here.#

easyJet

EasyJet strictly requires all lithium-ion batteries, spare batteries, and power banks to be carried in cabin hand luggage only, prohibited in hold luggage due to fire risks. Power banks under 100Wh (roughly 27,000mAh) are allowed without approval; items between 100-160Wh require airline approval. Batteries contained in portable electronic devices should be carried as carry-on baggage.

Should these items be packed in checked baggage, steps must be taken to prevent accidental activation and to safeguard the devices against damage; all devices must be completely switched off (not in sleep or hibernation mode). EasyJet imposes a limit of 15 portable electronic devices per passenger. Portable electronic devices containing non-spillable batteries must not exceed 12V or 100Wh, and passengers may carry no more than 2 spare batteries.

Where Smart Baggage is being brought into the cabin, the customer must be able to easily disconnect and remove the lithium battery / power bank, but it can remain in the bag. Smart baggage must not be accepted for travel if the lithium battery / power bank cannot be readily disconnected and removed by the customer. If smart luggage is to be checked in and placed in the hold, the lithium battery/power bank must be disconnected from the smart luggage at Bag Drop and taken into the cabin. Any exposed terminals should be protected from short circuit. The lithium battery/power bank needs to be disconnected, so if you are unable to remove it from your luggage, we won’t be able to accept the bag on board.

For more information click here.

TUI

TUI’s regulations forbid passengers from carrying loose lithium batteries, power banks, or spare batteries in checked-in luggage. These items must be kept in hand luggage only. Power banks must generally not exceed 100Wh, and terminals must be shielded from short circuits. Devices should not be recharged while on board. Dry AA(A) batteries (type Alkaline, NiMh, NiC) for small personal items such as a pocket torch or a radio are permitted, provided they are inside the device or enclosed in sturdy packaging.

Where devices are stored in hold baggage, precautions must be taken to safeguard the device from damage and to prevent accidental activation; the device must also be completely switched off (not in sleep or hibernation mode). Loose batteries and power banks should be individually protected against short circuits by storing them in their original packaging, with terminals taped or placed in a plastic bag in hand luggage.

Airline permission is always required for medical devices. For further details, see section Baggage – Medical baggage. TUI fly requires all power banks to be carried in hand luggage, never in checked baggage. They must be packed to prevent short circuits (original packaging or taped terminals). Generally, capacity is limited to 100 Watt-hours (Wh) per battery, with power banks not permitted to be used for charging devices or recharged onboard.

• Hand Luggage Only: Due to fire risk, all lithium-powered battery packs must be in the cabin. Capacity Limits: Power banks up to 100 Wh (roughly 27,000 mAh at 3.7V) are generally permitted.
• Safety Requirements: Terminals must be protected against short circuits, such as by taping them or keeping them in individual plastic bags.
• In-flight Usage: Power banks cannot be used to charge phones or laptops during flight, nor should they be recharged using aircraft power outlets.
• Storage: Keep them in your seat pocket or under your seat, not in overhead bins

For more information click here.

The CEDB has asked the sport’s global governing body Fifa to make the ban, which prohibits Vlachovsky from taking part in any football-related activity, worldwide.

It has also ordered the Football Association of the Czech Republic to revoke Vlachovsky’s coaching licence.

Leading players’ union Fifpro reported that players of 1. FC Slovacko only learned they had been secretly filmed after the arrest.

Fifpro – the global representative organisation for professional footballers – said the players were filmed on Vlachovsky’s camera hidden in a backpack, and the youngest was aged 17.

Earlier this year, a group of the victims came forward to demand further action, with players telling Czech media publication Seznam Zpravy, external Vlachovsky’s crimes had left them afraid to sleep at night and anxious about being in public in case they were being filmed.

Vlachovsky had previously led the Czech Republic Under-19s women’s team and was once voted the best women’s coach in the country.

World Gymnastics has lifted all restrictions on Russian and Belarusian athletes with immediate effect.

Athletes from both countries were banned from international competition in March 2022 following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

They were subsequently permitted to compete as neutrals towards the end of 2024 but will now be allowed to return to international competitions under their national flags.

World Gymnastics confirmed the decision in a statement, external following a meeting of its executive committee in Egypt last weekend.

The reversal applies across all five disciplines governed by World Gymnastics, including artistic, rhythmic, acrobatic and aerobic gymnastics as well as trampolining.

Russia has historically been one of the strongest countries in gymnastics.

They won two golds and 10 medals overall at the Tokyo Olympics in 2020, competing under the Russian Olympic Committee banner, before being banned from Paris 2024.

The move to allow athletes from Russia and Belarus to take part under their flags follows a similar decision by World Aquatics in April while the International Judo Federation lifted its ban last November.

The International Paralympic Committee removed its suspension on athletes from the two countries competing last year and they took part in the 2026 Winter Paralympics in Milan-Cortina.

Published on
12/05/2026 – 19:47 GMT+2

An EU committee made up of experts from member states voted on Tuesday to ban imports of Brazilian meat starting 3 September due to the use of antimicrobials to stimulate animal growth.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The decision to remove Brazil from the list of countries that comply with EU food safety standards comes as the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement between the EU and Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay provisionally entered into force on 1 May.

The deal, which liberalises trade of agri-product between both sides of the Atlantic, remains fiercely opposed by EU farmers, who fear that different production standards on both sides of the Atlantic will create unfair competition from Latin American imports.

“The fact that the Union is able to enforce the rules is essential for trust, a level playing field, and good relations with our trading partners,” an EU diplomat told Euronews.

An official with knowledge of the file said that the vote was unanimous and makes Brazil the first country removed from the list of states complying with EU restrictions on antimicrobial use in animals.

The list of third countries which comply with EU requirements, and therefore can export food-producing animals to the EU, will be formally adopted in the coming days.

The European Commission has consistently said EU food safety rules would continue to apply to agricultural products imported from Latin America after the deal enters into force.

Commission’s spokesperson Eva Hrncirova confirmed to Euronews that from 3 September Brazil will no longer be able export to the EU commodities such as bovine, equine, poultry, eggs, aquaculture, honey and casings.

“Trade agreements do not change our rules,” Hrncirova said, adding: “The Commission establishes the Union’s mandatory sanitary and phytosanitary standards, and both our farmers and exporters from third countries have to comply with them.”

Brussels has also negotiated safeguards aimed at protecting EU farmers, including mechanisms to monitor potential market disruption from a surge in imports from Mercosur countries. Quotas were also introduced for sensitive products, including poultry and meat.

Once compliance with the safety rules is demonstrated by Brazil, the EU will be able to resume the imports, and Brazil will be able to benefit from the same tariff relief as the other Mercosur countries.

easyJet passengers are being warned they could face serious consequences if they don’t completely switch off certain electronic devices

Holidaymakers travelling with easyJet this summer are being warned that they could unknowingly fall foul of strict cabin rules unless they fully switch off a commonly used electronic device before stepping on board. The trouble is that many passengers only discover the rule once they’ve already reached the airport or are on the verge of boarding, where last-minute slip-ups could spell serious problems.

According to EasyJet, the warning relates to e-cigarettes and vaping devices, which must be carried in hand luggage only and are strictly forbidden from being stowed in hold baggage under any circumstances. The airline’s official policy states: “All electronic cigarettes and vaping devices must be carried in the cabin, re-charging is strictly prohibited and the device must be completely switched off.”

It also advises passengers to keep their devices on their person where they can be kept an eye on throughout the flight, reducing the risk of accidental activation. These rules are in place due to concerns over lithium-ion batteries, which are used to power vaping devices and are well known for posing a fire risk if they become damaged or overheat.

The UK Civil Aviation Authority categorises lithium batteries as a significant safety risk in aviation due to their potential for ‘thermal runaway’, producing intense heat and flames that are notoriously difficult to extinguish in confined spaces. The International Air Transport Association has highlighted a worldwide rise in lithium battery-related incidents, which has gone hand in hand with the increasing prevalence of portable electronic devices, prompting airlines across the globe to tighten their rules considerably.

EasyJet also warns that passengers must take precautions to prevent their vaping devices from being switched on accidentally during flights, including ensuring they are fully powered down before boarding. The airline stipulates that travellers may carry no more than two spare batteries in their hand luggage, and that these must be properly protected to prevent them from coming into contact with metal objects.

Under UK aviation rules, vaping devices must be kept in hand luggage at all times. Official government guidance states that e-cigarettes are strictly prohibited from hold baggage.

Industry experts point out that confusion often arises because rules can vary between airlines and destinations, which can leave passengers unknowingly packing the wrong items before they even reach airport security. Aviation safety specialists also warn that using or charging vaping devices while on board flights is strictly prohibited by all major airlines, with penalties ranging from confiscation to fines or even travel bans in severe cases.

As summer travel demand picks up, holidaymakers are being urged to check airline regulations before they set off to avoid delays, confiscations, or being refused entry at the boarding gate.

A UNUSUAL temporary ban is being rolled out in days at a popular vacation hotspot.

The law will impact all residents, tourists, and even cruise lines.

Alcohol sales will be completely banned across all islands in the Bahamas due to the general election, officials have confirmed.

Polls open on May 12 and between the hours of 8am and 6pm, no alcohol will be available for purchase, per a government notice.

This includes even on private islands that are owned by cruise lines.

Royal Caribbean said it will be abiding by the local laws at Coco Cay, it’s private island in the Bahamas.

“Royal Caribbean is respecting and complying with all local laws and regulations, as we do with every destination we visit,” a Royal Caribbean spokesperson told PEOPLE.

Both the Wonder of the Seas and the Oasis of the Seas ships will be visiting the island on that day.

It’s beach bars Perfect Day and Royal Beach Club Paradise Island will still be open, the cruise line confirmed, and noted that passengers will still be able to get alcohol on board the ships.

Despite this, passengers are fuming about the sudden announcement.

“We scheduled a trip with stops in the Bahamas for our 40th anniversary,” one customer wrote on X.

“We are going with 26 of our friends. Planned activities at CocoCay and Nassau.

“The general election has banned all alcohol for the two days we are there. And we find out only two days before we leave? Not a way to treat customers who cruise four times a year.”

KATIE Price is plotting to get around her seventh driving ban after her husband Lee Andrews claimed he bought her a Ferrari.

The former glamour model, 47, has received bans totalling more than six years since she was first disqualified in 2010.

And last month, Katie was banned for a seventh time after failing to respond to police letters about an 80mph speeding ticket.

But the media personality said she is now planning to get an international driving licence – despite her UK driving ban.

Katie shared a life update with her social media fans today.

She was joined by her husband Lee as she filmed a clip from the back of a moving car.

back for more

Katie Price posts topless hospital pic amid ‘procedure’ weeks after surgery

STRANDED STAR

Katie Price says she’s stuck in Dubai with Lee and claims it’s safer than UK

Katie said: “Hey guys, we are just going to the hospital to get my stitches taken out and then we are going to Lee’s dad for a cup of tea.”

She added: “And to get my international driving licence…”

Lee interjected and said: “That’s the easy one, then you’ll see the car,” referring to the  £180k Ferrari that Lee claimed he gifted his wife.

But Katie’s followers were quick to correct the star, with one writing: “You cannot drive with an international driving licence with a driving ban. It still stands in other countries, there is no way around it.”

A second said: “I hope Katie realises as I wouldn’t want her to do anything illegal in Dubai.”

A third said: “Not with a ban in the UK, you can’t as the Dubai authorities do checks.”

Another commented: “You cannot get an International Driving Permit or drive in Dubai if you have a current UK driving ban. You must hold a valid full driving licence to apply for an International one and the UK court will have taken her licence so she cannot apply for one.”

This person added: “It appears you cannot legally drive in Dubai with a revoked UK licence.”

According to the GOV UK website, you cannot obtain an International Driving Licence if you are banned from driving in another country.

It is only issued to holders of a valid UK driving licence, which is revoked or suspended when you are banned.

In March, Katie was seen in the driver’s seat of a red Ferrari.

But the motor was completely different from the Ferrari she previously claimed had been a gift from self-confessed multi-millionaire Lee.

She previously told how the flash car, believed to cost around £180,000, had to remain in the UAE.

It is not clear how or when Lee purchased the car and whose name it is in ownership of.

Yet despite previously gushing over the “beautiful” gift it was nowhere to be seen during her recent video.

Lee took charge of filming as Katie got settled behind the wheel and said: “Kate is driving now – is this your first time driving in Dubai?”

She was then heard swearing as she got to grips with the automatic before he assisted and said: “There you go”.

Katie then added: “First time driving in Dubai.

The former glamour girl’s latest run-in with the law comes after a Ford Capri registered to her was caught at 80mph on the A64 near Strutton in North Yorkshire.

CCTV released by the police showed Katie behind the wheel during the incident on October 15, 2025, the same day she appeared on stage with celeb pal Kerry Katona for An Evening with Katie Price & Kerry Katona at Scarborough Spa.

Katie, who was first banned in 2010, was subsequently prosecuted and convicted of failing to respond to police, landing her with a six-month driving ban and a legal bill topping £1,000.

The former pin-up was keen to set the record straight last month.

Speaking on her podcast, The Katie Price Show the star revealed: “I found out I was banned by the papers.

“I am actually livid about that because if I’d got the letters I would have replied to it.”

Revealing what happened, Katie said: “Basically I’ve paid someone to do a job.

“They haven’t done it and… now I’m now banned from driving for six months, but I am gonna go back and see if I can appeal it.”

She then added: ” Yeah, or I just think it’s only six months where I live now, I can walk to the shop. the kids schools are ten minutes up the road.

“I get shopping delivered here anyway, because I’m always at home when I work at home.

“So it’s not like in the past where I’ve been stuck right in the middle of nowhere.”

It comes after Katie’s after new husband Lee claimed he is moving to the UK in May AND revealed details of a second wedding.

Lee popped the question to the star in January, and the couple tied the knot in Dubai just 48 hours later.

However, Katie later revealed they actually officially wed in February.

Football Australia has urged the Victorian government to reverse a ban on World Cup matches being shown on big screens at Melbourne’s Federation Square.

Australia supporters have gathered there to watch tournament matches since 2006.

However, the Melbourne Arts Precinct, which manages the venue, said behaviour in previous years had been “unacceptable and damaging”.

Video of fans celebrating went viral during the 2022 World Cup in Qatar as Australia advanced to the last 16, but there were incidents involving people being injured by flares and projectiles.

Supporters also stormed barricades during the 2023 Women’s World Cup semi-final between Australia and England, leading to the screening of the Matildas’ third-place play-off being cancelled at the square.

“After careful consideration, we’ve made the decision not to show the World Cup on Fed Square’s Big Screen this year,” said Melbourne Arts Precinct director and CEO Katrina Sedgwick on Wednesday.

“This is due to the behaviour of a small number of people at previous screenings which was simply unacceptable and damaging to Fed Square.”

RYANAIR boss Michael O’Leary has made the headlines today, calling for an early-morning ban on airports serving alcohol to passengers.

He’s calling for the big change following a rise in badly behaved passengers that have caused flights forced to divert.

He told The Times: “It’s becoming a real challenge for all airlines

“I fail to understand why anybody in airports bars is serving people at five or six o’clock in the morning. Who needs to be drinking beer at that time?

“There should be no alcohol served at airports outside [those] licensing hours,” he said. “We have been calling for many years for a limit of two drinks per person per airport, why don’t you limit people by boarding pass?”

So should we be banning morning beers at UK airports? Our travel experts go head to head…

LAST SHOT

Ryanair boss calls for BAN on beloved airport breakfast pint

AIR OFF

Ryanair boss demands EU axes new travel rules causing misery for Brit holidaymakers

‘Please don’t deny hard-working Brits this small holiday pleasure’ says Caroline McGuire, Head of Travel (Digital)

AIRPORT breakfast beers are one of those quirky British traditions, much like the Wetherspoons table number game and the dirty birthday pint.

It is pretty much guaranteed that you will see a number of sleepy-eyed Brits sinking a lager at the airport pub, no matter what time of day you arrive.

While I personally can’t stomach a drink before midday, I’m also not a fan of telling hard-working Brits how they can spend their precious seven days of holiday that they’ve been saving for all year.

Michael O’Leary has long called for there to be a two-drink limit on people drinking at airports and that is something that feels like a reasonable compromise to me.

But to ban airport bars from serving any booze outside of normal UK licensing hours – typically from around 10 or 11am – seems pretty unfair when passengers can still buy a drink on the actual Ryanair flight.

Pubs are under a huge amount of financial stress these days, thanks to a raft of anti-hospitality measures introduced by our current chancellor, Rachel Reeves.

Around two pubs are closing in the UK each day – more than 2,000 since the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic in 2020, should we really be penalising them any further?

Add to this the fact that pubs pay an extremely high rent for their airport locations, do we want to see boozers also disappearing from here too?

I’m not sure that cutting out morning drinking will see the solution to the problem that airlines are clearly having such a huge issue with, because it won’t have any effect on the thousands of flights that fly out of the UK post-midday.

I’ve been on more late-evening Ryanair flights to Ibiza than I care to remember, when I have deep sympathy for the cabin crew serving very rowdy passengers.

Mr O’Leary has been in the industry for a long time, in fact he’s one of the most experienced airline bosses in the business, and we should be listening when he says it’s a huge problem that needs sorting.

The measures he has taken in recent years to hold disruptive passengers to account with huge court fines is clearly a huge step in the right direction, although I appreciate this is a time-consuming and costly process.

But banning the small joy of a breakfast beer in these stressful modern times, with everything that’s going on in the world? Please no.

‘More drastic measures are needed’ says Kara Godfrey, Deputy Travel Editor

LOOK, I get it – you finally got that time off work, and you’re ready for a week of sunshine and relaxing.

But it has forever baffled me as to how that translates to a pint of beer or glass of champagne at 6am when normally you wouldn’t even be awake.

I can’t think of anything worse than sinking a Guinness when I’m waiting for my flight, and certainly don’t want that sloshing around in my stomach before a long journey.

If people could restrain themselves then a ban wouldn’t be needed but sadly, without airports willing to put a cap in place, it seems more drastic measures are needed.

Haven’t we all been on that awful flight where rowdy passengers just make it worse for everyone?

With Ryanair saying that as many as a flight a day are being diverted, those costs are likely to be passed onto the passenger too.

So those drunken idiots are essentially going to make your flight more expensive.

Maybe a full ban is too far, but I would say that a drink limit is definitely needed. 

I’d back airports being required to scan boarding passes, with a cap on 1-2 boozy beverages before you get on a plane.

Lets save it for the all-inclusive pool bar, guys.

Michael O’Leary, who has served as Ryanair CEO since 1993, said his airline is being forced to divert flights almost daily because of drunken, aggressive passengers

Airport bars should stop serving alcohol early in the morning, the boss of Ryanair says.

Michael O’Leary, who has served as Ryanair CEO for more than 30 years, claimed his airline is being forced to divert flights almost daily because of drunken, aggressive passengers. He said these tourists often drink in bars at airports for hours before they board their planes.

Pubs in airports do not currently need to follow the same licensing rules as bars outside these environments do. Mr O’Leary, 65, believes changing this will support his airline and others because it would help cut out aggressive behaviour in the skies.

The businessman said: “I fail to understand why anybody in airport bars is serving people at five or six o’clock in the morning. Who needs to be drinking beer at that time? There should be no alcohol served at airports outside [those] licensing hours.”

READ MORE: Ryanair passenger jailed for mid-air tirade after downing doublesREAD MORE: Drunk teacher attacked easyJet flight attendant on plane in front of his kids

A man was recently jailed for becoming abusive, causing widespread alarm throughout the Ryanair aircraft on which he was travelling from Poland to Bristol. Stephen Blofield’s case is one of several recent examples of passengers behaving aggressively after consuming alcohol.

According to The Times, Mr O’Leary has been calling for a two-drink per-person limit “for many years” and accused airports of “profiteering” off the troublesome travel ritual and “exporting the problem to the airlines”.

But father-of-four Mr O’Leary, from Kanturk, County Cork, stressed Ryanair is “reasonably responsible” with their drinks, rarely serving a passenger more than two drinks onboard. He insisted, though, drug use has entered the alcoholic mix too, worsening the issue as passengers then “want to fight”.

Footage recently emerged of a “shocking and frightening” brawl which broke out aboard a Jet2 flight from Antalya, Turkey to Manchester. The dramatic exchange, during which two people were seen grabbing at the phone and another passenger’s face culminated in airline bans for two of the people involved.

Mr O’Leary says he takes a similarly strict approach with his company, and has reminded passengers it is a criminal offence to be drunk on an aeroplane anyway, punishable by up to two years in prison and a hefty fine. Threatening and abusive passengers can be further prosecuted, as well as facing large compensation fees and prosecution in the country where the aircraft is forced to land.

It is reported flights from Britain to Ibiza, Alicante and Tenerife have been particularly problematic. Last year, a former soldier who sexually assaulted four Jet2 cabin crew during a flight to Tenerife was jailed. Joseph McCabe groped and slapped the buttocks of two flight attendants before grabbing a third around the waist and attempting to hug a fourth. The dad of two, from Glasgow, had been given for his drunken conduct on the plane.

The United States Supreme Court has temporarily reinstated a rule allowing an abortion pill to be prescribed through telemedicine and dispensed through the mail, lifting a judicial ban that narrowed access to the medication nationwide.

Justice Samuel Alito issued an interim order on Monday, pausing for one week a decision by the New Orleans-based 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals to reimpose an older federal rule requiring an in-person clinician visit to receive mifepristone.

The 5th Circuit acted in a challenge to the rule by the Republican-led state of Louisiana.

The Supreme Court’s action, called an “administrative stay”, gives the justices more time to review emergency requests by two manufacturers of mifepristone to ensure that the drug can be provided via telehealth and the mail while the legal challenge plays out.

Alito ordered Louisiana to respond to the drugmakers’ requests by Thursday and indicated that the administrative stay would expire on May 11. The court would be expected to extend the interim stay or formally decide the requests by that time.

Alito, one of the nine-member court’s six conservative justices, acted because he is designated by the court to oversee emergency matters that arise in a group of states that includes Louisiana.

The case puts the contentious issue of abortion back in front of the justices, who must confront another effort by abortion opponents to scale back access to mifepristone, with the November US congressional elections looming.

The court in 2024 unanimously rejected an initial bid by anti-abortion groups and doctors to roll back Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations that had eased access to the drug, ruling that these plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to pursue the challenge.

Mifepristone, given FDA regulatory approval in 2000, is taken with another drug called misoprostol to perform medication abortions, a method that now accounts for more than 60 percent of all abortions in the US.

The ongoing battles over abortion rights follow the court’s 2022 ruling that overturned its 1973 Roe v Wade precedent that had legalised abortion nationwide.

That ruling has prompted 13 states to enact near-total bans on the procedure, while several others have sharply restricted access.

Louisiana sued the FDA last year, claiming that a rule adopted during the administration of former US President Joe Biden, a Democrat – a rule that eased access to mifepristone by eliminating the in-person dispensing requirement – is illegal and undermines the state’s abortion ban.

The pill’s manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, and GenBioPro, which makes a generic version, intervened in the litigation to defend the 2023 regulation. The administration of current US President Donald Trump, a Republican, cited an ongoing review of safety regulations concerning mifepristone and opposed the state’s challenge.

In April, US Judge David Joseph in Lafayette, Louisiana, declined to block the regulation but agreed with the administration to put the case on hold pending the review. The 5th Circuit blocked the rule on May 1.

The legal and political fight over access to mifepristone has dominated the debate over abortion in the US over the past few years.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) called the top court’s decision on Monday a “positive short-term development”.

“The Supreme Court needs to put an end to this baseless attack on our reproductive freedom, once and for all,” Julia Kaye, senior lawyer for the Reproductive Freedom Project of the ACLU, said in a statement.

Since the Supreme Court revoked the right to abortion in 2022, Democrats have been seizing on the unpopularity of bans on the procedure and emphasising the issue in their electoral platforms.

Chuck Schumer, the top Democrat in the Senate, welcomed the top court’s decision on Monday, but said, “This fight is just beginning.”

“We will stop at nothing to prevent the Republicans from putting a national abortion ban into effect,” Schumer wrote on X.

On Monday, Republican Senator Josh Hawley cited disputed findings on the health risks associated with mifepristone, urging lawmakers to act.

“Now it’s time for Congress to ban it completely for use in abortion,” he said in a social media post.

Israeli forces have raided the city of Nablus in the occupied West Bank, firing live ammunition that killed a 26-year-old Palestinian man and wounded four others, including children. Dozens of people have suffered tear gas inhalation.

May 2 (UPI) — A Texas judge on Friday temporarily paused the state’s ban on smokable hemp products, such as flower and joints, after three industry groups and multiple companies based in the state sued over it.

The state in March expanded its limit on THC in hemp products from 0.3% levels of Delta-9 THC to cover any form of THC beyond the state’s previous limit of 0.3% total THC in dry weight of the intoxicating group of chemicals.

This variety of chemicals includes Delta-8, various forms of Delta-9, and all other cannabinoids, with the exception of CBD and CBG.

The rule adopted by the state’s health department effectively banned all smokable forms of hemp because vapes and e-cigarettes that contain any form of cannabinoid were banned in Texas last September, the Texas State Law Library reported.

Since the federal government fully legalized hemp with low levels of Delta-9 THC, companies have produced hemp with boosted levels of other cannabinoids, including THCA, a non-psychoactive chemical that converts to Delta-9 THC when heated.

The groups that used the state contend that the health department overstepped their constitutional authority and that the new rules have done irreparable harm to the Texas hemp industry, CBS Austin reported.

“We are obviously excited about this ruling,” said Jason Snell, one of the attorneys that represents the industry groups and companies, KUT News reported.

“[The judge] issued a statewide injunction which prohibits what we believe are illegal rules from going into effect, which would cripple the hemp industry statewide and deprive consumers and every day Texans from access to legal products,” Snell said.

The Texas legislature last May passed a bill that would have effectively banned all of the products, but Texas Gov. Greg Abbot vetoed, which led the health department attempting to ban the products itself.

A previous temporary restraining order on the rule was set to expire Friday afternoon at 5 p.m., but the ruling — which covers all consumable hemp products — will now allow the industry to keep doing business.

, wit

NEW ORLEANS — A federal appeals court has restricted access to one of the most common means of abortion in the U.S. by blocking mailing of mifepristone prescriptions.

Friday’s unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is requiring that the abortion pill be distributed only in person and at clinics, overruling regulations set by the federal Food and Drug Administration.

The ruling, which is likely to be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, is the biggest jolt to abortion policy in the U.S. since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe vs. Wade and allowed states to enforce abortion bans.

In the ruling, Judge Kyle Duncan, who was appointed by President Trump, agreed with the state of Louisiana’s contention that allowing the drug to be mailed there makes moot the state’s ban on abortion at all stages of pregnancy.

“Every abortion facilitated by FDA’s action cancels Louisiana’s ban on medical abortions and undermines its policy that ‘every unborn child is a human being from the moment of conception and is, therefore, a legal person,’” the ruling states.

Commonplace treatment

Mifepristone was approved in 2000 as a safe and effective way to end early pregnancies. It is typically used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol.

Surveys have found that the majority of abortions in the U.S. are provided via pills and that about 1 in 4 abortions nationally are prescribed via telehealth.

One survey of abortion providers last year estimated that more women in states where abortion is banned obtained abortions that way than by traveling to other states.

Some Democratic-led states have laws that seek to protect providers who prescribe via telehealth to patients in places with bans.

That rise in prominence is why abortion opponents have targeted the pills in legislation and litigation.

Little precedent

There is little precedent for a federal court overruling the scientific regulations of the FDA, and it wasn’t immediately clear how quickly or completely the decision would affect mailing of the drug throughout the country.

Judges have long deferred to the agency’s judgments on the safety and appropriate regulation of drugs.

FDA officials under Trump have repeatedly stated that the agency is conducting a new review of mifepristone’s safety, at the direction of the president.

The judges, all nominated by Republican presidents, noted in their ruling that the FDA “could not say when that review might be complete and admitted it was still collecting data.”

Because of rare cases of excessive bleeding, the FDA initially imposed strict limits on who could prescribe and distribute the pill — only specially certified physicians and only after an in-person appointment where the person would receive the pill.

Both requirements were dropped during the COVID-19 emergency. At the time, FDA officials under President Biden said that after more than 20 years of monitoring mifepristone use, and reviewing dozens of studies involving thousands of women, it was clear that women could safely use the pill without direct supervision.

GenBioPro, which makes generic mifepristone, said in a statement that the court’s decision “ignores the FDA’s rigorous science and decades of safe use of mifepristone in a case pursued by extremist abortion opponents.”

Broader impact

In a court filing, Louisiana’s attorney general and a woman who said she was coerced into taking abortion pills requested that the FDA rules be rolled back to when the pills were allowed to be prescribed and dispensed only in person.

A Louisiana-based federal judge last month ruled that those allowances undermined the state’s abortion ban but stopped short of undoing the regulations immediately.

Friday’s ruling is in effect as the case works its way through the courts and extends beyond Louisiana and other states with abortion bans.

Telehealth prescriptions have become common even in states where abortion is allowed — and the ruling blocks them there, too.

“This is going to affect patients’ access to abortion and miscarriage care in every state in the nation,” said Julia Kaye, an ACLU lawyer. “When telemedicine is restricted, rural communities, people with low incomes, people with disabilities, survivors of intimate partner violence and communities of color suffer the most.”

The National Right to Life Committee said the ruling “restores a critical layer of oversight” in women’s health.

“Women deserve better than an abortion-by-mail system that prioritizes ideology over safety,” said Carol Tobias, the group’s president.

Next step

Friday’s ruling sets up a likely appeal to the Supreme Court.

“I look forward to continuing to defend women and babies as this case continues,” Louisiana Atty. Gen. Liz Murrill, a Republican, said in a statement.

The conservative-majority high court overturned abortion as a nationwide right in 2022 but unanimously preserved access to mifepristone two years later.

That 2024 decision sidestepped the core issues, however, by ruling that the antiabortion doctors behind the case didn’t have legal standing to sue.

Representatives for the FDA and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately respond to requests for comment Friday evening.

In the meantime, antiabortion groups are celebrating Friday’s ruling. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, applauded the ruling as “a huge victory for victims and survivors of Biden’s reckless mail-order abortion drug regime.” She also criticized the Trump administration for taking time to conduct its own review of mifepristone, saying its slow movement has forced states to take action.

“Women and children suffer and state sovereignty is violated every day the FDA allows abortion drugs to flood the mail,” Dannenfelser said.

Mulvihill and Schoenbaum write for the Associated Press. AP writers John Hanna, Matthew Perrone and Lindsay Whitehurst contributed to this report.

Mudryk has been suspended and unable to play for either Chelsea or Ukraine since the FA provisionally suspended him 16 months ago.

He remains contracted to the Blues until 2031, having signed a long deal when he joined for £61m in 2022, as part of the club’s plan to amortise the cost of transfers and contracts.

Amortisation means spreading costs out over many years in order to reduce them in each year of a business’ accounts.

If Mudryk’s ban is upheld by Cas, he would be unable to play again until roughly December 2028, as that is four years since his provisional suspension began.

But if the ban were to be reduced by Cas, he could be back on the pitch in a much shorter timeframe. Sources close to the player believe he could be back in action as early as next season.

Chelsea would be able to terminate Mudryk’s contract once the Cas process has concluded, given an anti-doping ban constitutes a breach of employment terms in most footballers contracts.

Were they to do that, the amortised cost of the remaining years of Mudryk’s contract would disappear from the club accounts – effectively writing the expense off and helping their finances significantly.

On the other hand though, Chelsea would be entitled to sell Mudryk for some sort of transfer fee if they maintain his contract and keep paying his wages.

Or they could of course continue to pay his wages as a member of their squad and reintegrate him into the team once the ban has ended.

Chelsea winger Mykhailo Mudryk has lodged an appeal with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against a four‑year drugs ban imposed by the Football Association.

The Ukraine international, 25, has been sidelined for nearly 18 months after an “adverse finding in a routine urine test” led to a provisional suspension in December 2024.

Charged in June 2025, Mudryk was subsequently handed the maximum four‑year ban by the FA, according to a spokesperson for the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the highest legal authority in sport.

The FA has never disclosed details of the case.

In such cases, bans are typically backdated to the start of the provisional suspension, meaning his current return date would be around December 2028.

However, an appeal has now been lodged with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas) in Switzerland, with sources close to the player hopeful he could return to action as early as next season.

In a statement to BBC Sport, Cas said: “Cas confirms it has received an appeal by Mykhailo Mudryk against the FA, filed on 25 February 2026. The Parties are currently exchanging written submissions, and a hearing is yet to be scheduled.”

The BBC understands Mudryk came into contact with the cardiovascular medication meldonium, which can increase respiratory capacity and stamina, while on duty with the Ukraine national team in October 2024.

Mudryk, who joined Chelsea for an initial 70m euros (£61m) in January 2023, has not played a competitive match since November 2024.

In his only public statement when his provisional suspension began, Mudryk described his “complete shock” and said he had “never knowingly used any banned substances or broken any rules”.

Mudryk is being defended by Morgan Sports Law, the firm who worked with former Manchester United midfielder Paul Pogba during his doping case while playing for Juventus, as well as boxer Tyson Fury and cyclist Chris Froome during their respective investigations.

He is understood to want to return to playing football this year and is keeping fit by training at non-league Uxbridge FC with a private coach and having hired goalkeepers to work with.

Chelsea declined to comment as they wait for the process to take its full course and the FA said it is unable to comment on an ongoing case. Mudryk’s legal team has also been contacted for comment.

Former world champion Neil Robertson has called for a controversial chalk used by Ronnie O’Sullivan to be banned, saying most other players “hate it” and that it “makes an absolute mess of the table”.

O’Sullivan, 50, is one of only a handful of players on the World Snooker Tour (WST) to still use the traditional Triangle Chalk.

Critics say it causes more poor contacts, leading to ‘kicks’ when the cue ball hits the object ball, often resulting in players running out of position or missing pots.

Almost all players use Taom Chalk, which reduces kicks and leaves no marks on the table.

There are currently no restrictions in place on what chalks can be used in WST events so O’Sullivan, who lost a thrilling last-16 tie 13-12 to John Higgins earlier on Monday, has not done anything against the sport’s rules.

However, there was a noticeable kick in the deciding frame when the Scot was taking a shot on a red.

He could be heard saying “oh my god” when the cue ball did not run through as expected. That red was potted, but, out of position, Higgins then missed the following black, although it did not prove crucial as he sealed an incredible victory, having trailed 8-3 and 9-4.

Robertson won 13-7 in his last-16 match against Chris Wakelin to set up a meeting with Higgins, with the Australian pleased to avoid O’Sullivan – and his chalk.

“I would prefer to play John so I don’t have to contend with the chalk that Ronnie uses, which should be banned from the game,” Robertson told BBC Four.

“I don’t know how you are allowed to even use it.”