Call

Savannah Guthrie continued her calls for kidnappers to return her mother Nancy Guthrie, as the investigation into the elder Guthrie’s disappearance surpasses its six-month mark.

The “Today” show co-host during Tuesday’s broadcast shared a desperate message to those who kidnapped 84-year-old Nancy Guthrie from her Tuscon home in February.

“We just want our mom home [to] give her a proper goodbye,” she said.

Guthrie renewed her plea in response to the support that she, Nancy Guthrie and their loved ones received backstage at the 2026 Emmy Awards. Allison Janney, who won supporting actress in a drama for “The Diplomat,” said backstage that she has been thinking about the morning news anchor’s family daily and “about the loss Savannah and her family are going through.”

“It just took over,” Janney said backstage to reporters.

Federal and local law enforcement have worked for more than six months to locate the elder Guthrie, without success. Since Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance, investigators analyzed ransom notes apparently sent by those responsible for the kidnapping. One note states that Guthrie “perished shortly after she was taken” and that she is “buried in nature.”

“Nothing you could have done could have changed the outcome,” the letter states. “We want your family to know this and hope you can find peace. We are truly sorry.”

Savannah Guthrie said Tuesday that Janney’s remarks at the Emmys were touching, especially considering the actor’s win earlier in the evening, she said. She then told co-host Willie Geist she will not pass up a moment to speak about her mother. “How much we miss her and love her,” the longtime NBC personality said, her voice cracking. She added that her family is in “such pain.”

“We need help,” she continued. “So thank you Allison Janney for remembering us and for giving an opportunity to renew that call.”

Times staff writers Richard Winton and Hannah Fry contributed to this report.

Opposition bloc leads in tight Swedish election with 95% counted.

Sweden’s centre-left opposition bloc has held a narrow lead as the far-right party saw its support slip, with about 95 percent of the districts counted.

The Swedish Election Authority reported on Monday that the four opposition parties were projected to hold 176 seats in the 349-seat parliament, called the Riksdag, while the remaining 173 would go to four parties that make up or support the current conservative-led government.

Results may not be clear until early votes and overseas ballots are counted on Wednesday. If the left-leaning bloc emerges victorious, it could take even longer to form a government because of ideological tensions among its parties.

Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson is seeking a second term and has been leading the country since 2022 with a centre-right coalition that relies on the Sweden Democrats, a party with neo-Nazi roots. He could remain in office if the left-wing bloc wins its thin majority but fails to form a government.

The Sweden Democrats saw an unexpected drop in support, losing three percentage points compared with the 2022 general election, slipping from 20.5 percent to 17.5 percent. This marked the first time the far-right party suffered a loss in voter backing since it entered parliament in 2010.

Magdalena Andersson’s Social Democrats held onto first place, but a 28.1 percent share registered as one of their worst performances in more than 100 years, complicating any bid to assemble a working majority.

While the result appears somewhat out of step with recent far-right gains across parts of Europe, including Germany and Italy, the Sweden Democrats remain firmly entrenched as a dominant force in parliament.

The dip in support could be tied to changing voter priorities. In the past, many people voted for the far right, “simply because they liked their stance on refugees”, without necessarily agreeing with other policy positions, Anders Sannerstedt, a political scientist at Lund University, told AFP.

Even with a reduced vote share, the Sweden Democrats retain substantial leverage.

A closely divided legislature leaves any future government with a fragile working margin, ensuring the party remains an unavoidable force in parliament.

More broadly, the Sweden Democrats have already rewritten the boundaries of Swedish politics. Over the past decade, its once-fringe demands for strict asylum caps, easier deportations and tougher policing have been absorbed into the mainstream, with both the centre-right coalition and the Social Democrats shifting rightward to match public sentiment.

In a summary of its 100-page report, external, the JCHR points out that AI has been responsible for numerous abuses of human rights.

It cites as examples the use of AI to create sexualised images of women and girls and scanning people’s faces without their consent.

The JCHR advocates the creation of a “single, independent AI oversight body… on a statutory basis”.

It argues that the current legal framework which applies to AI is “fragmented and difficult to navigate”, “leaving gaps in protection”.

“The AI Bill should establish a regulatory regime that classifies different risk levels and mandate more demanding obligations for higher risk AI systems and models,” it says.

“Obligations should be placed on all stages of the AI lifecycle, ensuring those responsible in the supply chain for designing, amending and utilising AI systems are aware of their obligations and they are effectively addressed.

“Some uses of AI should be prohibited outright because they are incompatible with human rights. Potential areas for action include subliminal techniques, and inappropriate use of profiling or biometric data.”

“AI is heralded as an unprecedented era of technological development with the potential to transform our lives for better or for worse,” said Sobel.

“It is moving with such speed and complexity that its impact is hard to accurately predict. What is clear is that at present we are unprepared to deal with its consequences however potentially dire they may be.”

The JCHR’s 12 members are drawn from both Houses of Parliament and they currently include MPs and peers from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

Monday’s report comes amid growing general anxiety over the challenges AI poses.

Jacob Coxon, an AI researcher who quit Anthropic, told the BBC this weekend that staff developing the systems were “genuinely frightened” for the future of humanity.

An Anthropic spokesperson told BBC News that it was building “models with some of the strongest safeguards in the industry”.

RIYADH: Saudi Arabia and the UAE stressed the need for closer coordination and a united Gulf position as they discussed efforts to contain escalating tensions across the region on Sunday.

During a phone call, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan discussed rapidly evolving regional developments and efforts to prevent further escalation with Sheikh Abdullah bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, the UAE’s deputy prime minister and foreign minister.

The ministers stressed on the need to align positions and strength consultations between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to support joint Gulf action and safeguard the security and resources of GCC states.

The call comes amid renewed attacks on Gulf states, including recent Houthi strikes targeting civilian and economic sites in southern Saudi Arabia.

Prince Faisal earlier on Sunday told the BRICS summit in New Delhi that Saudi Arabia’s national security, territorial integrity and resources were “non-negotiable,” warning that GCC states would not tolerate attacks on their territories, facilities or vital interests.

He also called for a shift away from confrontation toward de-escalation and diplomatic efforts, arguing that lasting regional security depended on respect for sovereignty, non-interference and good-neighbourly relations.

Stephen McGann has opened-up about his character, Dr. Turner, being played by a new actor for the drama’s prequel

Call the Midwife legend Stephen McGann has claimed he “cannot see” the resemblance as a new actor steps into the role of Dr. Turner.

The 12th season of the much-loved BBC period drama, based on the memoirs of Jennifer Worth, concluded earlier this year with a heartbreaking finale. The death of Sister Monica Joan (Judy Parfitt) left viewers devastated, while the future of Nonnatus House remained uncertain due to advances in the NHS.

Before the show returns with season 16, a prequel titled Sisters in Arms is set to air this festive season. The three-part mini-series will be set during the London Blitz and follow familiar characters in the early stages of their careers, including Dr. Patrick Turner.

The adored GP first arrived in Poplar during the debut episode of Call the Midwife, which aired in 2012, and has since remained a favourite among fans. The character will appear in the prequel, with This Town actor Ben Rose portraying a young Patrick Turner.

Speaking about Sisters in Arms, Stephen, 63, has offered a playful glimpse into his marriage with the show’s creator, Heidi Thomas, who thinks Ben Rose is the spitting image of her husband. “I think he’s the image of Steve,” Heidi told Radio Times. “Steve can’t see any resemblance, so the audience are going to have to draw their own conclusions.”

Stephen was quick to chime in: “Do you know what happened? I’m in my house, and when the final casting was confirmed, my good lady wife and my son were conferring, going, ‘Oh, he looks like Dad, doesn’t he? Doesn’t he look like Dad?'”

Heidi laughed: “He does, he does, but you can’t see it, can you, love?” Stephen then confirmed: “I can’t see it at all.”

Stephen and Heidi first crossed paths in 1988 and exchanged vows two years later, when they were both 27. They spent their honeymoon in Tuscany before settling down in a quaint cottage in rural Essex, before moving to Cambridge. The couple share one son, Dominic. As per Stephen’s memoir, A History of My Family in Seven Maladies, he first encountered Heidi when he auditioned for her new play at the Liverpool Playhouse.

What is Sisters in Arms about?

Call the Midwife will turn back the clock to World War II as bombs rain down in Poplar, East London, at a time when the National Health Service was non-existent. Set in 1939, it will see three familiar nuns in the early stages of their careers.

According to the BBC’s synopsis: “In September 1939, Sister Monica Joan is in her prime, Sister Julienne and Sister Evangelina are young and zealous, and Nonnatus House is the beating heart of Poplar.

“Together with Sister Alice, and local GP Dr Kit, the nuns dedicate their lives to mothers, babies and those in need. But there is no gas and air, no penicillin, no cure for TB, and no welfare state. Then war is declared – and life gets even harder.”

It adds: “While bombs rain from the sky, women give birth underground, families are shattered, children run wild, and whole streets are reduced to rubble. But courage, compassion and resilience triumph as the community unites in its efforts to survive.”

Created, written, and executive produced by Heidi Thomas, Sisters in Arms welcomes a new cast, including Coronation Street’s Hayley Cropper star Julie Hesmondhalgh as Sister Alice.

Theatre star Helena Wilson is taking on the role of a young Sister Julienne, though the original actress, Jenny Agutter, will be narrating the miniseries. Ami Metcalf, who played Lynette in the first Christmas special, is returning as Betty Buckle, the first wife of Fred Buckle, now played by Ciaran Bowling. Ben Rose also takes on the role of Dr. Turner.

The BBC has confirmed that Sisters in Arms will air on BBC One and iPlayer this Christmas, though the exact days and times are yet to be confirmed.

Call the Midwife is available to stream on BBC iPlayer

NEW YORK CITY: Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the UN warned the Security Council on Thursday that “the international community cannot call for de-escalation” in Yemen “while at the same time allowing the continued flow of support that enables this (Houthi) militia to continue its hostile and criminal conduct.”

The warning from Abdulaziz Alwasil came during an emergency council session to discuss Houthi attacks against the Kingdom this week. It was requested by the UK, the penholder on Yemen, and Bahrain.

He said the latest strikes on Saudi cities, which began on Tuesday, were not an isolated episode but “an extension of a systematic, hostile approach pursued by this militia since its coup against the legitimate Yemeni government in 2014,” and part of a pattern that has also targeted commercial shipping and threatened freedom of navigation in the Red Sea and the Bab Al-Mandeb Strait.

He said a press statement by the council on Aug. 7 condemning Houthi missile strikes on the Kingdom since July 13, and attacks against commercial vessels since July 22, had gone unheeded, and the militia had answered the international warnings with further escalation.

Alwasil said Saudi Arabia had backed nearly every major effort to end the Yemen war — including the Gulf Initiative, the transitional period, the National Dialogue Conference, the Geneva, Kuwait and Stockholm talks, a 2021 initiative and the UN-brokered truce in 2022 — but the Houthis had repeatedly met those efforts with renewed violence.

“My country affirms its legitimate right to defend itself, its citizens and residents, and to safeguard our national resources,” he said, adding that Riyadh “will not hesitate to take all measures necessary to deter Houthi attacks and to protect our security, sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

He called on the council to enforce Resolutions 2216, which imposed an arms embargo and sanctions on the Houthis, and 2722, which demanded an immediate halt to Houthi attacks on commercial shipping in the Red Sea, and to send “a clear and firm message” that leaves no room for misinterpretation that attacks on the Kingdom must stop.

Yemen’s ambassador, Abdullah Alsaadi, affirmed Sanaa’s “full solidarity with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, its leadership, government and people,” and its “absolute rejection of the use of any part of the Yemeni territory as a platform for launching missiles and drones, or for threatening the security of the Kingdom or any neighboring country.”

He said the attacks amounted to the “hijacking” of Yemen’s own sovereign decisions over war and peace, carried out by a militia that operates outside of state institutions and was “militarily and technically supported by the Iranian terrorist regime.”

Saudi Arabia had shown “a great degree of restraint,” Alsaadi said, and been “the principal partner of the Yemeni people and state” in supporting institutions, salaries and services throughout the war. But he cautioned that “restraint should not be misconstrued as weakness.”

The security of Yemen and of Saudi Arabia “cannot be separated from one another,” he added, as he called for full enforcement of the arms embargo on the Houthis, and accountability for those who finance and arm the group.

It’s been five years since “Call My Agent!,” known in its home country as “Dix pour cent” (“10 percent”), ended with the staff of Paris’ bankrupt ASK talent agency moving en masse toward the exit, as in the closing moments of “The Mary Tyler Moore Show.”

The rich workplace comedy mounted four seasons from 2015 to 2020; the fourth was made without its creator, Fanny Herrero (she went on to create the fine but less successful “Standing Up,” about Parisian comics). But she has returned, along with “Standing Up” writer Lison Daniel, for “Call My Agent! The Movie,” premiering Thursday on Netflix, which picks up the scattered ensemble more or less where they imagined they’d be when the series ended, and gets them back in the same frame.

As a movie, it’s its own sort of beast — a complete statement in a single package, with not just A and B stories, but C and D as well, and arcs that might develop over a season of the show compressed into a couple of hours. But its essentials are essentially unchanged: It’s still about the difficulty of making art, and the often unsavory business that lets art get made, with known actors playing fun house versions of themselves and our heroes attempting to wrangle them into order, with whatever works — lies, bribes, real shared feelings. The regular cast, many of whom Americans will first have met here, still feel identical with their characters, rather than just professionals who have been paid to play them, so that even when the action is outlandish the emotions are real.

The focus here is on the fierce Andréa (Camille Cottin), who has left agenting and is about to direct her first movie, a drama set in the woods, and Noémie (Laure Calamy), whom Andrea hires as a replacement producer — she has become the producer of a hit workplace comedy, “Les Colleagues,” the sort of show that produces a lot of branded merch — believing that she can mold Noémie to her will. On the domestic front, Andréa separated from partner Colette (Ophélia Kolb), a co-parent to her daughter Flora — some sticky questions will arrive, doubling the pressure.

Noémie is still with Mathias (Thibault de Montalembert), once the most formidable of agents, who has quieted down somewhat owing to a Season 4 heart attack, and the fact that he’s working in the agency his daughter Camille (Fanny Sidney) announced at the end of the series. He’s feeling old (comparatively, he is, at 64 — though Liliane Rovère as agent emeritus Arlette beats him at 93) and things with Noémie are not great, which sets the stage for some romantic comedy, including a wild boar.

Andréa’s movie brings the old cast together, including sensitive junior agent turned aspiring actor Hervé (Nicolas Maury), and I am glad to see them. (Stéfi Celma’s Sophia, a receptionist turned actor, is sadly missing.) Much goes wrong, before things go right. (It’s a comedy, they will — though there are some moving dramatic moments along the way.) To be sure, there are no backstage comedies — or dramas, or dramedies — in which nothing goes wrong, or things even go mostly right. Disaster is the air they breathe.

On the eve of production, Andrea loses her male lead (Laurent Lafitte as himself) to a Wes Anderson movie; the psychologically delicate actor they get to replace him, Vincent Macaigne as himself, who’s represented by former ASK agent Gabriel (Grégory Montel), now working for their old rival, has a messy history with the other lead, Laetitia Casta, also as herself. They can barely work together. (There will be a bit of romantic comedy wrapped around this thread, as well.)

Then there’s a storm.

The French actors playing themselves are not well known here — Casta may be more familiar as a ’90s supermodel, for those who are familiar with that sort of thing — but Americans have been given the gift of cameos from Eva Longoria and an uncredited George Clooney who takes a comically unproductive lunch meeting with Andrea, crashed, in more than one sense, by Noémie.

Though the series finale made for a satisfying ending, there was already talk then of another season or a film. Still, “The Movie” arrives seemingly out of left field, as sort of a happy surprise. It doesn’t betray its legacy. We know from the supermarket magazines and internet scandal sites that some actors are seemingly as crazy as these actors pretend to be. But somehow movies get made. Most every show business satire is also a show business celebration. There’s no business like it.

RIYADH: Qatar on Wednesday condemned Houthi attacks on civilian and economic sites in southern Saudi Arabia during a phone call between the two countries’ foreign ministers.

Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani expressed his country’s condemnation of the attacks during a call with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan, the Saudi Press Agency reported.

The two officials also discussed the latest regional developments and diplomatic efforts by Saudi Arabia and Qatar to de-escalate tensions and preserve regional security and stability, SPA said.

The call came as the Iran-backed Houthis targeted civilian and economic sites in the southern cities of Abha, Khamis Mushait, Jazan and Najran, injuring 73 civilians, including women and children.

Operations at some energy facilities were temporarily halted.

The Saudi-led coalition described the attacks as a “dangerous escalation” and said it would take measures to protect the Kingdom’s sovereignty, civilians and national assets.

Qatar’s Foreign Ministry separately condemned the attacks on Tuesday as a “dangerous escalation” and a violation of Saudi sovereignty and international law.

Doha reaffirmed its “full solidarity” with the Kingdom and its support for measures taken to protect its sovereignty, security and territorial integrity, adding that Saudi security was an integral part of the collective security of Gulf Cooperation Council states.

It also called on the international community to take a firm position against the attacks and ensure the implementation of relevant UN Security Council resolutions concerning Yemen and the security of navigation in the Red Sea.

Fighting between the Houthis and forces aligned with Yemen’s internationally recognized government has intensified in recent weeks, raising fears of a return to wider conflict after a UN-brokered truce in 2022 largely halted years of fighting between the Houthis and the Saudi-led coalition.

The Houthis, who control Sanaa and much of northern Yemen, declared a naval blockade against Saudi Arabia in July and have since stepped up attacks on the Kingdom and vessels in the Red Sea. Saudi-backed Yemeni government forces have meanwhile launched an offensive on several fronts against Houthi-held areas.

SACRAMENTO — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s pending defamation case against Fox News could go to trial in early 2028, around the same time the governor could be running a 2028 campaign for president.

Newsom sued the news network last year over its coverage of a phone call that took place between the governor and President Trump in June 2025, as unrest simmered over federal immigration raids in downtown Los Angeles. The governor accused the news outlet of intentionally manipulating its coverage to give the appearance that he lied about the call.

Despite an on-air apology from Fox News host Jesse Watters and attempts from the network to have the lawsuit thrown out, a Delaware Superior Court judge late last month set a trial date for March 6, 2028. Newsom filed the lawsuit in Delaware, where Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corp., are incorporated.

Newsom’s final term in office ends in early January and he is considering a run for president. The lawsuit seeks $787 million in damages, the same amount the network paid to settle a defamation suit brought by voting machine company Dominion. The company accused Fox News of airing false claims that voting machines were manipulated to help Joe Biden win the 2020 presidential election.

Lawyers for Fox News sought to have the case dismissed and Newsom ordered to pay attorneys’ fees. Judge Sean P. Lugg denied both motions this year, a ruling upheld by the Delaware Supreme Court.

“We will continue to vigorously defend against Governor Newsom’s meritless claims, which directly implicate core First Amendment protections for free speech, political commentary and a free press,” the network said in a statement to The Times.

“No media empire, no matter how rich and powerful, should get to lie to the American people with impunity,” said Michael Teter, the attorney representing Newsom in the case. “Governor Newsom is holding Fox accountable — and looks forward to proving this case in court. The truth matters.”

The case stems from a phone call between Trump and Newsom in early June 2025 as unrest brewed in Los Angeles over federal immigration raids and hours before the president took control of state National Guard troops, ordering them to protect federal buildings and immigration agents.

Newsom’s lawsuit accuses Fox hosts Watters and John Roberts, along with two senior news staffers, of misrepresenting Trump’s statements and asserting that Newsom lied about whether the call had happened.

The governor had previously publicly spoken about a late-night phone call he had with Trump on June 6 in California, which was early June 7 for Trump on the East Coast. He said that the National Guard was never discussed during that call and that the two did not speak about the immigration raids and protests again.

Trump told reporters on June 10 that he had spoken with Newsom “a day ago.”

“Called him up to tell him, got to do a better job, he’s doing a bad job,” Trump said.

Newsom disputed Trump’s timeline, writing on social media, “There was no call. Not even a voicemail.”

Roberts then said on social media and on air that Trump sent him evidence that the call took place. Newsom’s lawsuit accused Roberts of leaving out key details about the time of the call.

Roberts “did not provide the critical fact that on June 10, President Trump had stated that he had spoken to Governor Newsom ‘a day ago.’ Nor did Mr. Roberts note that June 6 — or June 7 at 1:23 am — is not ‘a day ago’ when one is speaking on June 10,” the complaint states.

The lawsuit also accused Watters’ show of playing a clip of Trump’s remarks that was edited to remove the president’s reference to “a day ago.”

“Newsom responded, and he said there wasn’t a phone call,” Watters said after showing the clip. “He said Trump never called him. Not even a voicemail, he said. But John Roberts got Trump’s call logs, and it shows Trump called him late Friday night and they talked for 16 minutes. Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?”

A caption at the bottom of the screen during the report read, “Gavin lied about Trump’s call.”

Weeks later, Watters acknowledged the mistake and apologized, saying Newsom “wasn’t lying. He was just confusing and unclear.”

Newsom declined to drop the suit and in court documents demanded a jury trial.

Getting a trial date doesn’t necessarily mean a trial will take place, Loyola Law School professor Jessica Levinson said.

Fox’s “motion to dismiss was denied. That means the case is continuing,” she said. “But what’s also happening throughout all of this is the sides are probably talking about some sort of settlement.”

The case now enters the discovery phase, where each side collects evidence to build their case.

Court records show Fox News lawyers last month sent subpoenas to Newsom’s political action committee and several top advisors, including his chief of staff, Nathan Barankin; communications director Bob Salladay; legal affairs secretary David Sapp; and political consultants Ace Smith, Lindsey Cobia, Jason Elliott and Nathan Click.

The subpoenas ordered them to produce documents related to the network’s coverage of Newsom, the phone call with Trump and the governor’s response strategy.

If a trial does happen, Levinson said, the timing could either help or hurt Newsom’s potential presidential campaign.

“He can use it as a talking point and say, ‘I don’t leave any stone unturned. I’m seeking to vindicate my reputation. I believe in the truth, and the other side does not believe in the truth. That’s why I’m bringing this case.’ So, he can use it as a part of his stump,” she said.

But if the trial proceeds and Newsom believes it would take time away from his campaign, he could ask for it to be moved to a different date.

“Trial dates get changed all the time for much less,” Levinson said.

Raygun became a global phenomenon back in 2024, now she is speaking out in her own documentary

Netflix subscribers have said the same thing following the release of a documentary on a viral breakdancer.

Raygun, whose real name is Rachael Gunn, became a global phenomenon at the 2024 Olympics in Paris when her unconventional breakdancing routine went viral – for all the wrong reasons. Her unusual routine featured non-traditional movements including floor rolls and the now famous kangaroo hops, and she later found herself an internet meme.

After scoring zero points, the routine sparked controversy across the world, resulting in heightened mockery and online hate as she became one of the most talked about athletes of 2024.

Now, she has returned to cameras for her very own Netflix documentary titled ‘Untold: Raygun Breaking Badly’ which has today (September 1) landed on the streaming platform.

An official synopsis reads: “Nobody, least of all Rachael Gunn, expected to be an Olympian. But as Raygun’s performance at the 2024 Paris Olympics went viral overnight, so did an avalanche of memes, misinformation, and conspiracy theories questioning how she ever got there.”

Taking to Instagram, Netflix UK shared a teaser clip from the documentary as they captioned their post: “From Australian academic to global meme… Untold Raygun: Breaking Badly is now playing on Netflix!”

After landing on the streaming platform today, viewers are already having their say as opinions are divided. As some questioned “why” the documentary was released, one person penned: “There’s a Raygun documentary. That I have to watch!!! Surely there’s an interesting story behind those dances.”

Another said: “Just finished the Raygun documentary on Netflix and it is definitely a must-watch.” A third wrote: “Watching this Raygun documentary on Netflix and I’m in real tears lol Netflix the GOAT of documentaries btw but S/O to her for doing this too tho cuz [sic] she didn’t have to!”

On Instagram, one person said: “Fair play to her.” Another penned: “Just watched it. Jaw dropped to the floor all the way through. This screams Will Ferrell movie in all its aspects.”

Breakdancing, officially called breaking, made its Olympics debut in 2024. Away from the sporting event, Raygun was an academic as she has now opened up about the event that made history.

In the clip shared to social media today, Rachael can be heard saying: “Right before the Olympics, I went to my therapist, panicked. She was like ‘what’s the worst that could happen?’

“The whole world could laugh at me. She’s like ‘do you think that’s reasonable?'” She later adds: “There was this frenzy. It was this growing monster.”

Untold Raygun: Breaking Badly can be streamed on Netflix

Pakistan have responded to their series defeat by England by taking the extraordinary step of dropping seven players, calling up five uncapped players and releasing their head coach.

After two one-sided defeats in the first two Tests, the tourists have revamped their squad and backroom staff for the third and final match of the series at Edgbaston.

Five of the players dropped – Muhammad Rizwan, Imam-ul-Haq, Salman Ali Agha, Ali Usman and Khurram Shahzad – have featured in the series so far, while Aamir Jamal and Muhammad Awais Jafar have been sent home without playing.

A total of seven players have been called up. Batters Saim Ayub and Abdullah Fazal have previous Test experience and join the quintet of uncapped newcomers.

Spin-bowling all-rounder Arafat Minhas, left-arm seamer Mohammed Imran Jr, wicketkeeper Said Baig and all-rounders Mohammad Imran and Razaullah have all received call-ups.

In addition, head coach Sarfaraz Ahmed and his assistant Umar Gul have been released to be replaced by Pakistan white-ball coach Mike Hesson and former Australia seamer Ashley Noffke.

The third Test in Birmingham begins on 9 September.

Pakistan have been abject in the opening two Tests, losing the first at Headingley by an innings and the second at Lord’s by 194 runs. They have been bowled out for less than 200 in each of their four innings.

The response is remarkable. For a touring team to send home seven players and the head coach mid-series is unprecedented.

Pakistan have a history of making eccentric decisions in the wake of defeats. On England’s last tour of Pakistan in 2024, the hosts responded to losing the first Test, when England made a total in excess of 800, by playing the second Test on the same pitch in Multan.

On that occasion, Pakistan used garden heaters and fans to dry the surface, to assist their spinners. The home side won the next two Tests to win the series 2-1.

In 1995, issue 34 of Revista Bigott, a Venezuelan publication dedicated to anthropology and popular culture, discussed a resurgence of national sentiment after the 1992 coup attempts. One of its articles argued that a certain “llanero emboldening” of the coup leader, his decision to assume responsibility for what had happened, and the evocation of Simón Bolívar and the tricolor armband had restored appeal to a deeply rooted idea of ​​national identity. The government at the time tried to capitalize on this momentum to save the system, which, in light of what happened afterward, also amounted to saving democracy. But the country was already exhausted. It was burdened by the discrediting of political parties, the hangover from the “Saudi Venezuela” era, the depression that followed the 1983 devaluation known as Black Friday, widespread corruption, low oil prices, and an institutional framework that failed to modernize.

As the reader knows, Hugo Chávez ended up winning the election in 1998, and the joropo, the flags, and the constant singing of the national anthem were reborn, transcending the political debate. Everything then became known as Bolivarian, from the schools to the republic itself. Each campaign was presented as a patriotic epic, a battle, or a slogan borrowed from popular sayings. But with Chávez, the national identity was fractured. The country, the idea of ​​nationhood, and its symbols were hijacked. They belonged solely to his supporters. Just as an attempt was made to create a parallel institutional framework, something similar happened with the symbols: two flags, two coats of arms, and two ways of referring to everything. While the struggle against U.S. imperialism was presented as a heroic feat, the country was mortgaged to other powers and groups in exchange for political favors. Sovereignty was lost, both in terms of territory and the capacity to maintain a functional State serving its citizens.

These parallel structures (one crumbling, the other with feet of clay but relentless in its repression) blurred the boundaries of the republic. The country drowned in corruption and the disappearance of its shared identities. What could it defend? What could a country that expelled millions of its inhabitants and squandered its demographic dividend sound, smell, or taste like? Amid political violence, insecurity, and abuses, the economy shrank by more than half and came to be governed by the law of the strongest or the most connected, while individualism intensified. The country and its virtues became a source of nostalgia for better times or a promise of an uncertain future. The present, meanwhile, faded with bitterness.

Chavismo, in its eagerness to cling to power, also hijacked popular sovereignty. The excuse was that, although the opposition represented the majority, it should not be recognized because it was subservient and unpatriotic. After the theft of the 2024 elections and the US intervention of January 3, it became clear that the only sovereignty that truly matters to Chavismo is that which guarantees its own survival.

With the country dismantled, its people divided, and mired in neglect and impoverishment, Venezuela became the perfect prey for whoever is currently in power. One conclusion emerges from the “mega-agreement” announced by US President Donald Trump and vaguely explained by Delcy Rodríguez: details do matter. As presented, it appears to be a cruel and sad surrender of sovereignty, decided in the dead of night, like so many of the measures announced in recent decades.

The winner and his tyrant take everything—resources and concessions—as if it were a contemporary version of the handover of the Congo to Leopold II. A forced and macabre gift.

But having access to reserves is one thing; knowing how those barrels will be extracted is quite another. The question is what guarantees investors will have and, above all, what the country will receive in return. 

Between what has been announced and its implementation, a vast gap still exists, marked by illegalities and profound incompetence. There is also the risk that Venezuela will continue to replicate the “bolichicos” model, increasingly similar to that of Russia in the late 1990s: a small class of millionaires facing a country mired in impoverishment.

It will be up to oil experts and economists to study the implications of what has been announced, and to historians to review the precedents of similar agreements: the Rojas-Pereire Protocol of 1879, the concessions granted under Gómez, the Rockefeller Plan, or the concessions granted by the Pérez Jiménez dictatorship in 1956. For now, all we know is that the US administration is determined to embody everything its harshest critics have always held against it. Chavismo, for its part, is determined to become everything it claimed the opposition would be, whose rise to power it said it would prevent to “protect” Venezuela, even at the cost of violating human rights and disregarding popular sovereignty.

The situation compels us to reach agreements as a society, promote genuine democratization, and reclaim our sovereignty, understood as the collective exercise of autonomy and freedoms. If we fail to do so, we will remain subject to the circumstances and interests of others, instead of acting in accordance with our own interests. 

The outlook is not promising, but two questions remain: What future validity will any agreement signed with the regime currently governing Venezuela have? And what will the state of the planet be when Trump’s term ends on January 20, 2029?

The sequel to a beloved 1970s family film also stars Sheridan Smith and Sir Thomas Courtenay

Call the Midwife fans waiting for the show’s World War II prequel are urged to watch this inspiring movie.

Before Jenny Agutter ever appeared in BBC One’s Call the Midwife as much-loved nun, Sister Julienne, she was already famed for her many acting roles, including her part in The Railway Children.

It’s been more than 55 years since Agutter first waved her red petticoat to save a steam train from disaster in the movie adaptation of the classic story.

The original film was based on the novel by Edith Nesbit about three children who are sent to live in the countryside beside a railway line after their father is arrested on mysterious spying charges.

Agutter played the eldest child, Bobbie Waterbury, in a 1968 TV adaptation, followed by the film two years later. She also played the mother in an ITV remake in 2000.

In 2022, a sequel, The Railway Children Return, arrived, and Agutter sensationally reprised her iconic role as Bobbie.

The film is set amid the Second World War, with the action taking place in the village of Oakworth in 1944. After the major cities become unsafe to live in, three children are evacuated to the countryside, where they hope to build a new life.

They are greeted by Bobbie, who moved to Oakworth three decades earlier, and her adult daughter Annie, played by Sheridan Smith. The children soon discover an injured American soldier at the nearby railyard and attempt to help him get back home.

Tom Courtenay also stars in the movie as Uncle Walter, and is joined by John Bradley as Richard, KJ Aikens as Abe, Beau Gadsdon as Lily Watts, Eden Hamilton as Pattie Watts, Zac Cudby as Ted Watts, and Austin Haynes as Thomas Waterbury.

Directed by Morgan Matthews from a screenplay by Danny Brocklehurst, the period drama is currently available to stream in the UK on Amazon Prime Video, and fans have dubbed it a “must-watch”.

“Perfect sequel to the original, picking up many social and ethical themes of the time, many still relevant today. Great casting, strong script, and excellent photography,” one viewer wrote on Rotten Tomatoes.

A second stated: “Really good movie with excellent acting and a storyline that pulls you in”, while a third chimed in: “A World War II story that I’ve never heard about. It was very well done.”

“Good wholesome entertainment. Exciting, suspenseful, and inspirational”, explained one fan as another added: “Exceptional movie with real intent and messages given.”

While another said: “It was a beautifully told story with a true meaning of resilience, courage, strength, and making your own family when hard times are around.”

Call the Midwife is streaming on BBC iPlayer, while The Railway Children Return is streaming on Amazon Prime Video.

Aug. 23 (UPI) — Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Saturday rejected calls for wartime elections, saying the move would “destroy the country.”

Under martial law, elections have been suspended since Russia invaded the country in 2022.

Last week, ousted Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov called on the president, whose five-year term ended in 2024, to allow Ukrainians to vote again.

Responding to Fedorov for the first time, Zelenky said such a move would split the country.

“I believe that if we want to destroy the country, then during such a war we can move in the selection of elections,” Zelensky told reporters on Saturday.

“I believe that during such a war, elections in general are big risks,” the president added. “Elections right now are a tsunami for the state that will split Ukraine.”

Zelensky said he would consider fresh elections under “specific conditions,” the Guardian reported.

Those conditions include the “participation of the military, in frontline territories, abroad, where millions of our citizens have gone, fleeing the war,” the president said.

Fedorov’s removal as defense minister in July sparked protests across Ukraine. On Tuesday, he said democracy was not a “peacetime luxury.”

“Democracy cannot be held hostage by Russia,” Fedorov said. “We are fighting precisely because we want to remain a free European state.

“Therefore, we must find a legal, safe, and realistic mechanism that will allow Ukraine to restore a full democratic process even amidst a prolonged war.”

Responding to Zelensky’s comments on Sunday, Fedorov told the BBC, “Democracy should not be the hostage of Putin.”

Zelensky last discussed open elections in December, after U.S. President Donald Trump accused him of using the war as an excuse to stay in power.

Back then, the Ukrainian president said he would hold elections so long as he could secure help from the United States and other allies to keep citizens safe when they go out to vote.

Lawmakers in the United States have renewed calls for answers about conditions on board the USS Abraham Lincoln, suggesting that reports emerging from the aircraft carrier may belie a troubling pattern.

In at least three separate appeals, Democrats called for more information about how the Navy prepared for the vessel’s record-breaking deployment.

The aircraft carrier has been involved in military operations against Venezuela as well as the US-Israel war on Iran since it departed from San Diego, California, in November.

The ship has yet to dock for a port call in the time since. Having spent more than 260 days at sea, it has broken the US Navy’s record for the longest deployment without a stop.

Reports have emerged in recent weeks about crew members attempting to jump overboard amid shortages of food and other supplies.

On Tuesday, US Representative Pat Ryan published a letter sent to acting Navy Secretary Hung Cao and signed by 22 members of Congress.

It noted that the lengthy deployments “have become a pattern in the Administration’s handling of its war against Iran”.

The war, which began on February 28, shows no sign of ending. Ryan pointed out that the USS Gerald Ford had also broken records for the length of its deployment as part of the Iran war, and it, too, was the subject of worrying reports about strain on sailors’ health. The ship returned to the US in April.

“The reported conditions on the Lincoln, following so soon after the reported conditions on the Ford, leave Congress and the public concerned that the Department is not adapting quickly enough to the conditions,” Ryan wrote in his letter, dated August 14.

He also questioned whether US Central Command (CENTCOM), which oversees military operations in the Middle East, was “taking the appropriate steps to mitigate the continued challenges in our fleet”.

A delegation of California lawmakers, including Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla, has also sent a letter to the Pentagon calling for an inquiry.

Separately, a group of Democratic senators addressed another letter, dated August 15, to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, demanding answers and calling for accountability.

“This is a symptom of poor planning by both you and the President and exacerbated by the deeply unsound decision to start a war with Iran,” that letter said.

“Open-ended deployments driven by an open-ended war have real consequences for our servicemembers, and we are seeing those consequences now.”

The appeals for more information come as the USS Lincoln prepares to navigate home.

Cao revealed last week that the USS Lincoln would soon return to the US. The announcement coincided with reports that the USS George Washington has been rerouted from the Pacific Ocean to replace its fellow aircraft carrier.

But the USS Washington’s departure leaves no aircraft carrier in the Western Pacific, long portrayed as a region of strategic interest for the US as it seeks to check China’s territorial ambitions.

President Donald Trump and his defence officials, meanwhile, have argued that reports about the USS Lincoln’s conditions have been overblown.

Hegseth, for instance, has called the reports of conditions “completely misrepresented”. Trump last week also said the vessel had not been deployed “nearly long enough”.

On Monday, the president brushed aside questions about the USS Lincoln’s conditions as part of a “CNN fake report”.

Admiral Brad Cooper, the head of US Central Command, has also released a statement on social media this week, saying he has visited the USS Lincoln in recent days and found the crew “awe-inspiring”.

“This doesn’t mean that all is perfect,” he wrote. “Find any of the nearly 4 million Navy veterans in America today and they will likely tell you that service at sea for long periods isn’t for everyone.”

But he applauded the USS Lincoln’s leadership for having made “mental health and crew resilience” a priority.

Unlike Democrats, members of Trump’s Republican Party have largely not responded to the reports of mental health strain and supply shortages on the USS Lincoln.

However, Representative Don Bacon voiced concern during an interview on CBS News’s Face the Nation programme on Sunday.

“We should have oversight,” he said.

“I want to talk a little bit about forward [forces] and air base defense. Let’s be clear, we got our rear-end handed to us from drones and other vehicles, aerospace vehicles, if you will, including three F-5s that took off in Iran and flew low level and dropped bombs on an airbase,” retired U.S. Air Force Gen. Glen VanHerck just declared during a panel discussion today centered on counter-drone defenses at the annual Space & Missile Defense (SMD) Symposium in Huntsville, Alabama, at which TWZ is in attendance. Before his retirement in 2024, VanHerck served as head of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) and the U.S.-Canadian North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD).

“That’s embarrassing as an airman to me to say that happened,” VanHerck added, noting that this was the first time in decades U.S. forces had been subjected to an aerial attack of this kind.

A series of reports, as well as unconfirmed claims from Tehran, state that Iranian F-5s targeted Camp Buehring in Kuwait on an extremely dangerous low-level bombing mission. The attack reportedly came on or around March 1, just three days after U.S. and Israeli forces began launching combined strikes on Iran.

At the time of writing, the U.S. government still does not appear to have officially confirmed the Iranian F-5 strikes on Camp Buehring. TWZ has reached out to U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in light of VanHerck’s remarks today, and the command declined to comment.

NBC News was first to report on this attack in a story in April, citing anonymous U.S. officials. At that time, the outlet also said only that a single Iranian F-5 had struck Camp Buehring. American forces have been present at this base continuously since the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

In June, Iranian state media outlet PressTV aired a segment with additional claimed details about the operation, as well as interviews with what were said to be the pilots who took part. That report said that a trio of heavily refurbished Iranian F-5s, known locally as Kowsars, had been sent on the mission. Iran acquired a fleet of 166 F-5E/Fs from the United States in the 1970s under the regime of the Shah. How many of those jets were still operational to any degree when the latest conflict broke out on February 28 is unclear. The Iranian Air Force was heavily targeted by U.S. and Israeli forces from the start.

According to PressTV, the F-5s flew to Kuwait from Iran at extremely low altitudes, at times below 50 feet, and at high speed to evade detection, including by E-3 Sentry Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) jets flying above. The pilots maintained radio silence the entire time.

The PressTV report also claimed that pilots followed a route specifically designed to avoid Patriot surface-to-air missile batteries and other air defenses at Camp Buehring. Though this remains unconfirmed, it is worth noting that Patriot has known limitations when it comes to its engagement envelope. New capabilities are being developed for the system now to expand its flexibility to address targets approaching from different vectors, as well as ones that have already passed overhead. Without the aid of some type of look-down sensor capability, ground-based air defense systems more broadly cannot see through the horizon or topography, either.

Furthermore, the PressTV report claimed that F-5 strikes caused broader chaos and confusion that contributed to a Kuwaiti F/A-18 Hornet fighter shooting down three U.S. Air Force F-15E Strike Eagle combat jets. Americans and Kuwaiti authorities acknowledged this friendly-fire incident at the time, which thankfully did not result in any fatalities, but have yet to offer an official explanation for how it occurred.

Many questions remain about how Iranian F-5s would have been able to ingress and egress from Kuwait unscathed, and successfully drop unguided bombs on Camp Buehring in the process. It’s unclear where the jets launched from, and it is very possible they needed to carry significant extra fuel in external tanks just to have made the trip to and from Iran in the first place. This would also have impacted their top speed and capacity to carry ordnance.

As an aside, a pair of Iranian Su-24 Fencer swing-wing combat jets also attempted to strike targets in Qatar on March 2, but that would have been a much shorter trip across the Persian Gulf. Those jets were also shot down by Qatari F-15s before they could reach their destination.

Qatari MoD released statement noting that the QEAF downed two Iranian Su-24MK strike aircraft. Would be interesting to know which asset(s) shot them down.

“Qatar Emiri Air Force successfully shot down two (SU24) aircraft coming from the Islamic Republic of Iran.” https://t.co/ZNCaOQ7xA7 pic.twitter.com/vspjHQnDi8

— Guy Plopsky (@GuyPlopsky) March 2, 2026

In addition to the sensors associated with Patriot and other air defense systems on the ground, as well as E-3s in the air, the U.S. military has spent years developing a more integrated air and missile defense network with allies and partners across the Middle East. It is also worth noting here that Iran very actively targeted air and missile defense radars in the region early in the conflict, something we noted was its own separate wake-up call, as you can read more about here. This raises a question of what else Iran may have brought to bear in support of this operation. Iranian forces could have launched additional missile and/or drone strikes against sensors, command-and-control nodes, and other sites to help clear the way. Electronic warfare, cyber attacks, and/or deception of various kinds could have been employed, as well.

During the panel today, VanHerck said he did not believe any of this should have come as a surprise, and that it speaks to larger issues surrounding base defense facing the U.S. military today.

“People are like, ‘How come that happened? We got surprised.’ No, we didn’t get surprised,” he said. “What happened was we had two services pointing fingers at each other, and nobody made a decision on whose mission and role responsibility that was, candidly.”

Whether VanHerck’s comments here reflect his specific understanding of what happened during the attack on Camp Buehring in March, or if he was speaking more generally, is unclear. The two services he refers to here are the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Army. As part of the delineation of official roles and responsibilities after the Air Force was split from the Army in 1947, the latter service was given the lead role in defending both services’ bases against aerial attacks. Today, the Army has a broader responsibility for ground-based air and missile defense across the joint force, abroad and at home, as well.

“The department needed to say it is this service or that service’s responsibility moving forward,” VanHerck continued today. “I’m not taking sides in that. The bottom line is, we didn’t make the decision, we accepted risk, and now we’re paying the price of that risk that we accepted, candidly.”

Now, “the Air Force chief has stood up and said, ‘Okay, I’m going to take that mission on,’” VanHerck also noted. “What we can’t have happen in the next year is a bifurcated solution where you have Patriots and THAADs [Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems] operating up here, and you have counter-drone … down here, and they’re not fusing data and sharing C2 [command and control] and collaboration. That can’t happen, and we’ve got to make sure we get together and don’t allow that to happen.”

The Air Force is still very early in the process of taking on more responsibility for defending its facilities against aerial threats from the ground, and has been focusing first on acquiring and fielding new counter-drone and counter-cruise missile capabilities. Similar developments may now be afoot in the Marine Corps, particularly when it comes to ballistic missile defense. The Marines are already in the process of fielding a host of new and improved lower-tier anti-air and counter-drone systems.

For its part, in recent years, the Army has acknowledged significant gaps in its air and missile defense capabilities and capacity, especially when it comes to addressing drone threats. The service is also fully aware of the strains on its higher-end Patriot and THAAD units after decades of persistent operational demands in response to crises globally. TWZ has repeatedly called attention to concerns about the ability, or lack thereof, of the Army’s Patriot force to adequately meet operational demands now, let alone in the event of a future high-end fight against an opponent like China.

The PATRIOT Missile in Action

All of this is now further wrapped in a succession of reports that U.S. stockpiles of anti-air interceptors for Patriot and THAAD, as well as other critical munitions, are now very worryingly low after months of fighting with Iran. This follows heavy expenditures of surface-to-air missiles and other weaponry by U.S. and allied forces in the course of other conflicts and crises in recent years. Efforts to replenish those stocks, as well as expand other air and missile defense capabilities and capacity, are underway now, but are still years away from yielding real fruit.

When it comes to Iran’s reported F-5 attacks on Kuwait earlier this year, much remains unknown and unconfirmed. However, it is certainly the opinion of retired Gen. VanHerck that it should be taken seriously and speaks to the urgency with which much bigger problems with the U.S. air and missile ecosystem need to be addressed.

Contact the author: joe@twz.com