big

After two turbulent years with Eamonn Holmes at GMTV, Anthea Turner walked away from the show on Christmas Eve 1996 – she still believes his envy of her National Lottery show was the problem

A popular television presenter who worked with Eamonn Holmes says there was almost instant friction when she joined him on an iconic daytime TV show.

Eamonn has been one of the most recognisable stars on British television for decades and has worked with a long line of famous faces, including his ex-wife, Ruth Langsford.

But he hasn’t jelled with every colleague he has ever worked with. According to Anthea Turner, Eamonn took exception to her background when she joined him on the GMTV sofa in 1994.

“Eamonn is a trained journalist and I’m not,” she told The Times. “That caused tension from the start… The other thing was I didn’t have my ass on that sofa for very long before I was asked to present the National Lottery too, and I think that also annoyed him.”

Anthea’s first lottery show appearance attracted a huge TV audience of around 22million. Eamonn reportedly lobbied GMTV bosses to get her sacked, accusing her of being “too ambitious” and giving her the disparaging nickname ‘Princess Tippy Toes.’

She told The Sun: “I was always asked if I was ambitious and, if I said yes, I was made out to be a ruthless person who would walk over anybody to get where I wanted. It would be said that I was hormonal, or I was stamping my feet.’

She added: “And yet ask that question to a man, and if he’s ambitious, we think: ‘What a guy’. You’d never hear anyone say that about Eamonn or Phillip Schofield. No, they’re just doing their job.”

Anthea walked away from the “toxic” situation at GMTV on Christmas Eve 1996. Over a decade later, the former Blue Peter presenter said she was still “hurt” by the way she was perceived.

Speaking on the Miranda Holder Weekly Fashion Podcast, she said: “I haven’t weighed myself down with anything from the past, or any of that negativity.

“Nobody likes injustice, nobody wants to be misrepresented. It hurts, it really hurts.”

In a televised reunion in 2018, Anthea said that she had mixed feelings about Eamonn, saying: “There is a fine line between hate and love isn’t there? We were chatting in the break, Eamonn and I are a bit lazy and it’s easier to stay friends.”

Her remarks sparked a somewhat tense atmosphere in the This Morning studio, with Eamonn’s then-wife Ruth Langsford visibly taking exception to Anthea calling him her “ex.”

Ruth stressed that she and Eamonn were “properly married,” before Anthea interrupted her, saying: “Ah but we were telly husband and wife.”

While Anthea and Eamonn were said to have put an end to their bitter feud with her This Morning appearance, she later said that any talk of a friendship was exaggerated, telling the Express:”I don’t think Eamonn and I speak lots. “Those are just headlines saying that we reunited.”

She added: “Obviously, there was the hullabaloo. In fact, I went to Belfast where he was doing a show, and I remember going up there, it must have been about 15 years ago, and we signed a Good Friday Agreement.”

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

Christmas was only a few days away and the Finnish capital of Helsinki was ringing with festive cheer as we explored the Tuomaan Markkinat in Senate Square, sipping from mugs of hot, spicy glögi (mulled wine), and biting into joulutorttu (jam-filled puff pastries shaped like catherine wheels). A cold front had brought abundant snow and inhaling was rather painful at -8C, but nothing could still the tremble of excitement.

Along with my husband and two young daughters, I was here to take the Santa Claus Express to the northern city of Rovaniemi, the heart of Finnish Lapland – and the “official” home of Father Christmas. A regular commuter train for the rest of the year, come late November the Santa Claus Express is Finnish Railways’ flagship service, offering the ultimate sleeper-train adventure. As I checked my watch and announced it was finally time to make our way to Helsinki central station, the girls were pink in the cheeks, eyes sparkling from all the surrounding golden lights.

The Visalia Unified School District’s public board meeting in March was a festive and upbeat affair with a performance by a student chamber music group and a commendation for a high school cheer squad.

When the seven-member board went into closed session, the agenda was decidedly grimmer: Six former students were suing the district over sexual abuse they said they suffered decades earlier at the hands of a kindergarten teacher.

Out of public view, the board unanimously approved a $3-million settlement with provisions intended to keep the community in the dark forever.

Under the terms of the agreement, the women, their lawyers and families were prohibited from disclosing any aspect of the deal, including the amount they were paid.

“The Parties agree that they will respond to any inquiries they may receive from any third parties regarding the lawsuit by stating only that ‘the matter has been resolved’ without any further elaboration, discussion or disclosure,” the settlement instructed.

It was Visalia’s fifth secret settlement in the last three years, one of a flurry that districts are quietly approving statewide.

A Times investigation found that California’s public schools, faced with a historic surge of sex abuse lawsuits, are increasingly using nondisclosure agreements and other tactics that celebrities and big corporations rely upon to protect their reputation.

At least 25 districts have resolved suits or other claims in ways that hinder taxpayers from learning about the allegations, the cost of settling them or both, The Times found. These hidden settlements total more than $53 million. Legal experts say that these settlements may be in violation of state law, and that some should be investigated by the state attorney general.

While shielding the names and identifying details of sex abuse victims is widely accepted, courts have repeatedly said the public has a right to know allegations leveled against government employees and the money spent to compensate accusers.

Lawmakers in California have also largely banned the use of confidentiality provisions for settlements involving sexual assault and harassment, on the belief that transparency helps victims heal and leads to public accountability.

“There’s very significant problems with government agencies acting like private companies and requesting or insisting on these kinds of nondisclosure or non-disparagement clauses in settlement agreements,” said David Loy, legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, based in San Rafael. “Because at the end of the day, the government works for the people and the people have a very compelling interest in knowing about claims and allegations of misconduct.”

California’s school districts are now grappling with a deluge of sex abuse cases resulting from a 2019 law that changed the statute of limitations for childhood sexual abuse and created a new window — from 2020 to 2022 — in which anyone could file a lawsuit for past alleged abuse.

The Times identified more than 1,000 lawsuits against school districts filed since 2020, with more than 750 filed due to the new law. Some lawsuits allege abuse as far back as the 1950s. Most cases are still making their way through the courts, but more than 330 have settled for roughly $700 million, with $435 million paid out for claims related to the new law. The state projects that local education agencies will ultimately pay out between $2 billion and $3 billion once cases work through the court system. Much of this is taking place outside the public eye.

In Visalia, confidentiality clauses negotiated by district lawyers acknowledged the public’s right to obtain the information — and then attempted to make sure they never would. Four agreements specifically barred former students receiving secret payouts from “directly or indirectly” encouraging others to file a request under the state Public Records Act — the method The Times used to review copies of agreements referenced in this story.

A spokesperson for Visalia Unified declined an interview request, and the school district did not answer written questions.

Anaheim Union High School District paid three men, who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher, $3.3 million in 2023.

(Robert Gauthier / Los Angeles Times)

Several districts attempted to prevent allegations from becoming public by paying off accusers before they filed lawsuits that would have detailed the claims of sex abuse for anyone to see.

Anaheim Union High School District paid a trio of men who said they had been abused by a junior high teacher $3.3 million in 2023 after their attorney sent the district a draft of a lawsuit he said he was prepared to file in Superior Court.

The terms of the payout two years ago required that the men and their lawyers “not seek publicity relating to the facts and circumstances giving rise” to their claims, and indeed, the settlements have not been previously reported.

John Bautista, a spokesperson for Anaheim Union, said in a statement that the district and its insurer settled the draft lawsuits after going through discovery in a related case and “did not want to incur additional expenses of filing a lawsuit.”

“Nothing in the agreement would prevent the claimant/plaintiff from speaking with the press concerning the facts of the case if the press contacted [them],” Bautista said.

At least one district paid an accuser before anything was put in writing, records show. Victor Elementary School District in the High Desert negotiated a $350,000 settlement with one former student after his lawyer relayed abuse allegations in a phone call. Asked by The Times for a document describing the claimed misconduct, a district official said no such records existed.

Some districts suggest the confidentiality restrictions are needed to avoid a “snowball effect” of further litigation.

San Diego Unified, hit by more than a dozen lawsuits over alleged sex abuse since 2020, has settled four for a total of $2.44 million, each with a confidentiality clause that, at a minimum, prevents the accuser or her lawyer from disclosing the settlement amount. One of the settlements blocks the accuser from discussing the matter with anyone except her lawyer or financial advisor or in response to a subpoena.

San Diego officials acknowledged that confidentiality is ultimately limited — the documents can be disclosed via public records requests — but the district proceeded with pursuing restrictions on the accusers and their representatives.

“The purpose is to keep plaintiffs’ lawyers from using these settlements as marketing tools,” said James Canning, a spokesman for San Diego Unified.

Former state Sen. Connie Leyva, seen here while in the Legislature in 2019, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions. “That sounds illegal,” Leyva said.

(Rich Pedroncelli / Associated Press)

Efforts to curb the use of secret settlements gained momentum in the 1980s, with growing public awareness of how confidentiality agreements had kept the public in the dark about environmental or health hazards, such as asbestos.

In 2016, California prohibited settlement agreements that block the disclosure of factual information about sexual abuse or any sex offense that could be prosecuted as a felony.

In the wake of the #MeToo movement, lawmakers in 2018 passed the STAND Act, which prohibits nondisclosure agreements in sexual harassment, discrimination and other sexual assault cases that don’t rise to felony prosecution. Three years later, the Silenced No More Act widened the prohibition on nondisclosure agreements to include any harassment case. The law still gives victims the option to protect their identity.

The lead sponsor of both bills, former state Sen. Connie Leyva, said she was taken aback by school districts using confidentiality provisions.

“That sounds illegal,” said Leyva, now the executive director of public radio and TV station KVCR. “We did not speak specifically about children or about schools, but it shouldn’t be happening.” She added, “Our bill was meant to apply to everyone everywhere.”

Several settlement agreements obtained by The Times included caveats by stating they were “confidential to the extent allowed by law,” or contained similar carve-outs. Experts said such provisos still have the effect of muzzling a victim’s speech and hindering public accountability.

“While it’s possible that these work-arounds don’t violate the letter of the STAND Act, they certainly violate its spirit,” said Nora Freeman Engstrom, a professor at Stanford Law School, who co-authored a study on the effect of the STAND Act in L.A. courts.

Southern Kern Unified School District agreed to pay $600,000 to a former student who alleged sex abuse and included an acknowledgment of the STAND Act in the agreement. Still, the settlement bars the former student, Corey Neufer, from “actively” publicizing the deal.

Reached by phone, Neufer said that although he deliberately chose to sue under his own name, rather than as John Doe, he was told that the confidentiality provision was standard and necessary for the final settlement.

“That was one of the stipulations — that I don’t speak about it or give any details,” said Neufer, who indicated the confidentiality was far broader than the text of his settlement suggests. “My lawyer instructed me to not talk about the case.”

The STAND Act allows for plaintiffs or claimants to put language in a settlement agreement that shields their identity and disclosure of any facts that could lead to their identity. However, if a public official or government agency — such as a school district — is part of the settlement, that language cannot be included.

Of the dozens of settlements reviewed by The Times, two specifically noted that the accuser wanted confidentiality to shield their identity.

Several had restrictions that appeared to exceed the STAND Act, such as a 2024 settlement for $787,500 paid by Ceres Unified to a custodian who said she was sexually harassed by a colleague. The signed agreement states that the settlement, its terms and any belief that the district or its employees engaged in unlawful behavior were all confidential. If asked, the custodian could only say, “The matter has been resolved.”

David Viss, an assistant superintendent at Ceres Unified, said in an email that the agreement complied with the law: “We believe the settlement agreement is consistent with the STAND Act.”

The overwhelming majority of sex abuse cases filed against school districts reach a settlement. For districts, a settlement can be more cost-effective than mounting a legal defense through a jury trial, and unlike a panel of jurors, a settlement provides a level of fiscal certainty. At times, the decision to settle is driven less by school board members than an insurance company or liability coverage provider.

John Manly, whose law firm specializes in childhood sex abuse, said school districts and their insurance providers frequently ask for confidentiality and non-disparagement clauses when negotiating a payout.

Lawyer John Manly, seen at his law offices in Irvine in 2023, has represented sex abuse survivors for more than 20 years. He says that confidentiality agreements “benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)

“We get these requests all the time, and we decline,” Manly said. “Confidentiality agreements benefit one person, which is the perpetrator, and those who enable them.”

At Los Angeles Unified School District, scores of people accused former San Fernando High School wrestling coach Terry Gillard of abuse. In 2022, LAUSD agreed to pay 23 accusers a total of $52 million to settle molestation and abuse claims — a settlement negotiated by Manly’s law firm.

A year later, LAUSD agreed to pay three other women who alleged abuse by Gillard a total of $7.5 million.

Although those represented by Manly’s team did not have a confidentiality or non-disparagement agreement in their settlement, LAUSD sought an extensive confidentiality agreement for the payout to the three other women, curtailing discussion of the settlement and underlying abuse claims.

That settlement barred their lawyer from making any sort of statement — or encouraging others to make a statement — about the compensation deal, and barred comments that could “defame, disparage or in any way criticize” LAUSD, its employees and leaders.

Only the women, their lawyer, “immediate family” and “tax professional” could know about the settlement, according to the agreement.

“If asked about the status of this dispute, plaintiffs counsel may only state, ‘they have voluntarily and fully resolved their claims against the Los Angeles Unified School District,’ or words to that effect,” declares the settlement agreement.

The lawyer for the women, Anthony DeMarco, did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Manly said the State Bar of California should investigate lawyers on both sides who agree to language that they know conflicts with state law. And he called on Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into such restrictive agreements.

“It’s wrong. It’s bad for the community and it’s bad for the victim. The lawyers that do it — defense and plaintiff — should be ashamed of themselves.”

L.A. Unified, which has added confidentiality provisions in at least seven settlements since 2020, defended its practices as a way to amicably resolve litigation, according to a statement from a spokesperson.

“These settlement agreements keep the settlement details, such as the amount, confidential. They do not prohibit the disclosure of the facts behind the claims,” the LAUSD spokesperson said.

Some legal experts want Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to investigate school districts that continue to lock victims into restrictive nondisclosure agreements.

(Genaro Molina / Los Angeles Times)

While several districts use secrecy provisions in settlement agreements to hide the details of sex abuse cases, others, like Visalia Unified, also are able to keep payouts quiet by approving them in closed session at regular school board meetings.

In 2021, the president of the board of Wasco Union High School District received a letter from a lawyer based in Iowa who represented a former Wasco student. The lawyer said his client had been sexually abused nearly a decade earlier by her former coach and teacher, and accused her then-principal, Kevin Tallon, among others, of not taking appropriate steps when confronted with evidence of abuse.

Tallon, now Wasco’s superintendent, was named as a defendant in the draft lawsuit, and the lawyer included a copy. He gave the district 14 business days to respond.

“If I do not hear back from you, I will proceed with the lawsuit,” wrote the lawyer, Thomas Burke.

The letter touched off a negotiation that culminated at the Wasco school board’s final meeting of 2021. The meeting’s agenda for the closed session was circumspect: “Conference with Legal Counsel — Settlement Agreement.” But behind closed doors, the board voted 5 to 0 to approve a settlement, according to meeting minutes, ensuring that there would probably never be a public airing of the allegations against the teacher or superintendent. The meeting minutes reflect only that a settlement was approved — not the amount or nature of the abuse accusations. The district paid $475,000 in the settlement, a sum that The Times obtained via records request.

Tallon, the superintendent who was named in the draft lawsuit, declined an interview but provided written responses to questions. He said the district and its staff “fulfilled its duties diligently and with integrity,” and said the settlement was approved in a way that adhered to the Brown Act, the state’s open meeting law.

“The settlement was not intended to conceal allegations; it was meant to responsibly limit risk and bring closure to a sensitive situation,” Tallon said in the statement.

Legal experts agreed that Wasco’s school board complied with the Brown Act — thereby exposing that law’s limits and potential loopholes. Since the threat of litigation did not result in a filed case or formal claim, the board could treat it as “anticipated litigation” and discuss it in closed session, away from the public. And since settlement offers — like any contract negotiation — are not final until agreed upon, they too can be approved in closed session, away from the public.

Loy, the legal director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the Brown Act could be amended to proactively require public agencies to ultimately disclose the details and amounts of settlements. School districts, he added, could also opt to be more open, without being compelled to by state lawmakers.

“Agencies owe a duty to the public to be more proactive and more transparent, even than the bare minimum letter of the law might allow them to get away with,” Loy said.

The lack of transparency also coincides with a crisis in local news, which has resulted in far less coverage of city halls, courthouses and school boards from the Imperial Valley to the shores of Eureka.

At one time, newspapers big and small had reporters at school board meetings who probably would have noticed settlements on the agenda and submitted records requests to reveal them.

With local media absent, agencies have quietly approved settlements in closed session, with no watchdog to suss out the underlying facts.

“Diligent people or reporters know to do that: Please give me copies of every settlement approved this week or this month,” said Loy, the First Amendment Coalition’s legal director. “But that requires an extra step.”

MICKEY ROURKE is trying to get his movie career back on track – despite his Celebrity Big Brother disgrace.

The veteran Hollywood star was booted off the ITV reality show earlier this year for his “unacceptable behaviour.”

But luckily for Mickey his name has been linked to two big-screen biopics.

One is about the life of Black Sabbath legend Ozzy Osbourne while another will be on US country legend Johnny Cash.

One of my Hollywood insiders said Mickey’s name had repeatedly come up in meetings about the films when discussions turned to casting the older versions of the music legends.

They told me: “Producers here don’t even know about the Celebrity Big Brother thing, Mickey is golden in the States.

read more on mickey rourke

ON THE EDGE

CBB’s JoJo Siwa reveals unaired row with Mickey Rourke that left her ‘shook up’

CBB BAD BOY

Mickey Rourke’s CBB ‘game plan’ revealed by co-star after he refused to unpack

“This town also loves an underdog, and movie bosses think Mickey still has an Oscar-worthy performance they can wring out of him.

“He was a top actor back in the day — he would have been on a par with James Dean and Marlon Brando if he hadn’t taken wrong turns and gone down a bad path.

If the evil overlords of Hollywood give us the green light we could be filming in the spring

Jack Osbourne

“There are scripts in the pipeline on Ozzy and Johnny, and Mickey’s name has come up in meetings about both projects.

“They want to portray Ozzy’s final days before that amazing show at Villa Park, and they want a performance like Mickey gave in The Wrestler.

“They’re confident he could do it.”

It’s understood streaming giants Amazon MGM and Apple are interested in both projects, with big-name directors in the frame to oversee it — including Martin Scorsese.

Ozzy’s son Jack Osbourne first told me they were working on a film about his dad’s life before Ozzy’s homecoming show back in July.

Jack said: “We do have the film on the way. We have a lot of good forward momentum on the Ozzy biopic.

“We have a director attached now and the script is done and Sony Studios is going to be producing it.

“We are really excited about it so maybe we will do the premiere here in Birmingham.

“If the evil overlords of Hollywood give us the green light we could be filming in the spring so maybe it will be out summer 2027 — fingers crossed.”

I’m sure Mickey will be crossing his toes, as well as his fingers, that he gets the part.

JAMIE LEE: IT’S FREAKIER ONLINE

HER long-awaited sequel to 2003’s Freaky Friday – imaginatively titled Freakier Friday – went down a storm with fans.

And Hollywood legend Jamie Lee Curtis says she knows exactly why we are seeing a resurgence in sequels and prequels.

Speaking to comedian Geoff Norcott on this Times Radio show, Jamie said: “Nostalgia is very hot right now.

“Because people are feeling so freaked out by what’s happening that you cling, you cling to nostalgia to make you feel safe.”

Jamie, whose new film Ella McCay is out now, went on to slam cancel culture and attacks on free speech.

She added: “We’re all trying to figure out, what can we say? What can’t we say?

“The echo chamber is awful. Social media is awful. You say something that you believe in, you get hammered for it. I mean, hardcore.

“It’s hard to hold on to both the frustration you’re feeling but the sense of optimism and hope.

“I feel hope because I believe that the hatred is imploding, and I think we’re seeing it.”

IT’S STAR SHREK

THE life of a Bizarre reporter isn’t all red carpets and bubbly – sometimes you end up in a swamp with an ogre and a talking donkey.

Our Jack was invited backstage at the latest adaptation of Shrek: The Musical at Colchester’s Charter Hall to meet the cast before they kicked off their near sold-out run at the venue.

With Red Dwarf’s Danny John Jules as Donkey and CITV’s Chris Edgerley as Lord Farquaad, the show is based on the hit 2001 film starring Mike Myers and Eddie Murphy.

Shrek and Princess Fiona are played by Joseph Rawlings and Rachel Jerram.

A refreshing change from the annual festive panto, the cast delivered a brilliant version of the big screen hit with a seriously impressive set to match.

Shout out to Ceris Hine as the perfectly executed Gingy, delivering our favourite Gingerbread Man performance of the year.

Chatting backstage about playing the pint-sized villain, Chris explained how spending the show on his knees left him in agony at times.

He said: “I’m a lot taller than Farquaad so I’m knee-padded up to the hilt but it’s worth it.

“Halfway through rehearsals we had to add extra padding as it was hurting too much.

“Hopefully the audience will have as much fun as we do.”

Unlike the fairytale dictator, this musical certainly doesn’t come up short.

JAMIE’S SO FESTIVE

Jamie Cullum: The Pianoman At Christmas @ Royal Albert Hall, London

★★★★★

THERE’S nothing more festive than a trip to London’s Royal Albert Hall at Christmas – although a Jamie Cullum show there beats anything else to get you in the spirit.

Inspired by his criminally underrated 2020 album The Pianoman At Christmas, his two-hour seasonal spectacle, backed by a big band – “this is what expensive musicians sound like,” he half-joked – was an absolute treat.

And soon there will be more. He said of himself and wife Sophie Dahl : “We are trying to write the film of the Pianoman At Christmas.

“I told her I was going to announce it tonight so now we have to finish it.”

His voice is as smooth as a pricey whiskey and sounded just as great doing his original numbers as it did with family favourites Frosty The Snowman and Jingle Bells.

And as for Hang Your Lights, it deserves to be a modern Christmas classic.

Forget the turkey and mistletoe, Jamie Cullum’s annual festive show should be a staple of everyone’s Christmas.

HOWELL DAVIES

LILY’S SKIT ON STRANGER FLINGS

DAVID HARBOUR has another TV show to avoid, after his ex-wife Lily Allen called up Dakota Johnson to bring her infamous “Madeline” to life on Saturday Night Live.

During the show, Lily performed her explosive track Tennis – with Dakoka playing the “other woman” Madeline.

At the end of Lily’s performance, Dakota brought Madeline to life and appeared to reveal for the first time what this other woman may have told Lily about allegedly getting with David behind her back.

Dakota said: “I hate that you’re in so much pain right now.

“I really don’t want to be the cause of any upset.

“He told me that you were aware this was going on and that he had your full consent.

“’If he’s lying about that, then please let me know.

“Because I have my own feelings about dishonesty. Lies are not something that I want to get caught up in.”

Dakota then planted a kiss on Lily’s cheek as she said: “Love and light, Madeline.”

A British company has unveiled plans for a new ‘flying taxi’ service that would whisk passengers to the airport in a matter of minutes, but there are still some regulatory hurdles to overcome

A British firm has revealed bold plans for a ‘flying taxi’ service that will transport passengers to airports, with this cutting-edge travel option expected to cost no more than an Uber.

Vertical Aerospace claims its electric Valo aircraft, engineered to reach speeds of up to 150mph across distances of up to 100 miles, could provide swift and effective city-to-airport links, enabling travellers to bypass airport traffic jams. For instance, a journey from Canary Wharf to Heathrow Airport would take just 12 minutes by aircraft versus an hour by road.

The firm, which recently conducted flight trials at Cotswolds Airport, is now targeting airline-standard safety approval by 2028 before launching commercial operations in early 2029.

Vertical Aerospace has released images of its prototype aircraft, which it claims delivers a luxurious experience for up to six passengers, featuring ample baggage capacity. Pictures of the aircraft reveal a sleek, contemporary design with an interior boasting comfortable seating and big windows, reports the Express.

Despite the aircraft’s high-end appearance, the company intends to provide an affordable and accessible service. A spokesman confirmed: “Ultimately, the potential is for this aircraft to be a similar cost as hiring an Uber.”

Vertical has also announced its proposed route network at launch, which would initially link Cambridge and Oxford -Bicester with the capital as well as Heathrow and Gatwick Airport. Aside from airport transfers, the firm suggests these innovative aircraft could be used for emergency medical services, cargo delivery, and even defence operations.

Vertical confirmed plans to build seven aircraft in the UK for testing with the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA).

In a statement, Vertical announced approximately 1,500 pre-orders for Valo. The company projected that manufacturing these aircraft could generate 2,000 skilled jobs in the UK by 2035.

Stuart Simpson, CEO of Vertical Aerospace, stated: “Electric flight will transform how cities move, and London is one of the best places in the world to prove it. With Skyports and Bristow, we have the aircraft, infrastructure and operational strength to lead this market. These plans show the commercial potential of services we aim to see operating following regulatory approval in 2028 and we look forward to bringing them to life with our partners.”

READ MORE: Exact easyJet and Ryanair seats to pick for extra legroom with no further priceREAD MORE: Avoid packing 4 particular items in your hand luggage – or risk delays at airport

However, gaining CAA approval could pose a challenge for these futuristic vehicles. At present, the CAA is conducting a consultation on vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) aircraft to ensure their safe operation within the UK.

The consultation commenced last month and will continue until the end of January 2026, inviting interested parties to share their views. This process will help establish safety standards for pilot licenses, aircraft, and landing sites, ensuring the proper regulation of VTOLs.

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

Hi and welcome to another edition of Dodgers Dugout. My name is Houston Mitchell. Looks like the Dodgers found a new closer for Christmas.

The new closer

Well, the Dodgers did what many did not expect: give another long-term, big-money deal to a closer. They have agreed to a deal with former Mets closer Edwin Díaz on a three-year, $69-million deal. There will be $4.5 million deferred each year and the value of the contract as tabulated for luxury tax purposes will be $21 million per year. It’s a record for annual value for a reliever, breaking the record held by….. Díaz.

Díaz was considered by most to be the top reliever on the market. Last season with the Mets, he was 6-3 with a 1.63 ERA and 28 saves. In 66.1 innings, he gave up 37 hits and walked 21 while striking out 98. He turns 32 in March. He had three blown saves and allowed six of 15 inherited runners to score.

If there is a red flag here, it is that his fastball velocity has dropped from an average of 99 mph in 2023 to 97 mph last season. Which is still pretty fast of course.

You’ll forgive me for not doing somersaults over the deal yet. It could turn out to be an amazing signing. However, as we saw last season with Tanner Scott, relievers are like a box of chocolates: You never know what you are going to get. Díaz has a much better record of success than Scott did. But we’ve seen over the last few seasons what can happen with a signing (Scott, Kirby Yates), decline in form (Blake Treinen) or injuries (Evan Phillips, Michael Kopech, Brusdar Graterol).

But the Dodgers did need bullpen help, and they signed the best reliever on the market, so it’s hard to find fault in that.

You can read more on the signing in this story by Jack Harris.

And an analysis, which includes discussion of a possible salary cap, from Bill Shaikin here.

Fernando misses the Hall

The Contemporary Baseball Era Committee for the Baseball Hall of Fame met Sunday. It was a 16-member committee, and there were eight candidates to consider: Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Carlos Delgado, Jeff Kent, Don Mattingly, Dale Murphy, Gary Sheffield and Fernando Valenzuela.

The only person elected: Kent, wh was named on 14 ballots (you had to be on 12 for election).

The others:

Nine votes
Carlos Delgado

Six
Don Mattingly
Dale Murphy

Fewer than five
Barry Bonds
Roger Clemens
Gary Sheffield
Fernando Valenzuela

The committee made a big mistake in not electing Fernando, and really embarrassed itself by not giving him even five votes.

When you look at the numbers, Fernando is at best a borderline candidate. He won a Cy Young and Rookie of the Year award, but won only 173 games in his career.

However, when you consider what he meant for the sport in addition to his accomplishments as a player, he qualifies. The three players who created more baseball fans than any other are Babe Ruth, Jackie Robinson and Fernando. The fact the Dodgers have a massive Latino following can be traced back to Fernando. He created fans in other cities. He opened MLB to an almost entirely untapped market.

But, some people look only at the numbers. Fernando should be in the Hall. So should Maury Wills. Unfortunately, it’s looking increasingly unlikely that either will make it.

And congratulation to Jeff Kent, who played for the Dodgers but will go into the Hall as a Giant. So, not that big of a congratulations. His election enhances the candidacy of another former Dodger: Chase Utley.

New book

Last week I told you about a new book by Ross Porter, the longtime Dodger announcer who used to do the “Ask Ross Porter” feature in this newsletter. The book, “The Ross Porter Chronicles — Volume 1: The Dodger Years,” is a compendium of interviews he has done over the years with Dodgers, including Steve Garvey, Davey Lopes, Bill Russell, Ron Cey and Sandy Koufax.

Reaction was overwhelming, and as a result, they sold out of signed books. However, if you still want a signed copy to give to someone as a Christmas present (it would make a great gift for a Dodger fan), you have an alternative. You can order the book at Amazon. Make sure you have it shipped to you before Dec. 21. Ross will be signing books in person on Dec. 21 from 1-3 p.m. at Northridge Sports & Memorabilia, 9514 Reseda Blvd,, Unit 14.

Anyone who buys the book on Amazon can bring it to the signing, and Ross will sign it for free. He’ll also sign any Dodger items you bring.

It’s a great chance for you to meet a Dodger icon. Ross is 87. The icons from our Dodger childhood won’t be there forever. If you have a chance to go out there, I highly recommend it.

In case you missed it

Analysis: Could Dodgers’ Edwin Díaz signing portend more big moves later this offseason?

Starz picks up drama on gambling scandal involving Shohei Ohtani’s former interpreter

Shaikin: Dodgers signing of Edwin Díaz shows they aren’t going to worry about a potential salary cap

Dodgers and Edwin Díaz agree to terms in blockbuster move to shore up bullpen

Former Dodgers, Giants slugger and noted curmudgeon Jeff Kent voted into the Hall of Fame

Fernando Valenzuela falls short of induction into National Baseball Hall of Fame

Metro votes to approve Dodger Stadium gondola project despite protests

And finally

Fernando Valenzuela pitches a no-hitter. Watch and listen here.

Until next time…

Have a comment or something you’d like to see in a future Dodgers newsletter? Email me at houston.mitchell@latimes.com. To get this newsletter in your inbox, click here.