care

Trudy Polkinghorn

‘Our light and joy’

Trudy Polkinghorn

Karen Staniland

Scholes initially kept his son’s diagnosis secret during his playing career and revealed he was dropped by United manager Sir Alex Ferguson while attempting to handle the situation privately.

“I never got a break from it, even when playing – it was very hard in those days,” Scholes, one of United’s key players in the 1999 Treble season, added.

“I don’t think they diagnosed it until he was two-and-a-half years old. But you knew early something was wrong, but then you get the diagnosis, and I’d never heard of it.

“I remember the first time after it, we were playing Derby away and I just didn’t want to be there.

“I remember the manager dropped me the week after, and I hadn’t told anyone. I ended up telling them a few weeks later, as it was quite hard.

“Even now, I don’t want sympathy or anything. I just thought, even if I did speak to someone about it, it’s not going to help Aiden.

“The big concern now is, because you’re getting a bit older, what happens when you’re not here? That’s the thing that’s now on my mind all the time.”

Autism spectrum disorder – its medical name – is the name for a range of conditions that affect how a person communicates and interacts with the world around them, as well as their interests and behaviour.

It is not a disease or an illness, but a condition that somebody is born with, and it is estimated that one in every 100 people in the UK is autistic.

WASHINGTON — The government shutdown has reopened debate on what has been a central issue for both major political parties in the last 15 years: the future of health coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Tax credits for people who get health insurance through the marketplaces created by the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, expire at the end of the year.

Democrats say they won’t vote to reopen the government until Republicans negotiate an extension of the expanded subsidies. Republicans say they won’t negotiate until Democrats vote to reopen the government. Lawmakers in both parties have been working on potential solutions behind the scenes, hoping that leaders will eventually start to talk, but it’s unclear if the two sides could find compromise.

As Congress circles the issue, a poll from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that about 6 in 10 Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about their health costs going up in the next year. Those worries extend across age groups and include people with and without health insurance, the poll found.

A look at the subsidies that are expiring, the politics of the ACA and what Congress might do:

Enhanced premium help during the pandemic

Passed in 2010, the ACA was meant to decrease the number of uninsured people in the country and make coverage more affordable for those who don’t have private insurance. The law created state by state exchanges, some of which are run by the individual states, to try to increase the pool of the insured and bring down rates.

In 2021, when Democrats controlled Congress and the White House during the COVID-19 pandemic, they expanded premium help that was already in the law. The changes included eliminating premiums for some lower-income enrollees, ensuring that higher earners paid no more than 8.5% of their income and expanding eligibility for middle-class earners.

The expanded subsidies pushed enrollment to new levels and drove the rate of uninsured people to a historic low. This year, a record 24 million people have signed up for insurance coverage through the ACA, in large part because billions of dollars in subsidies have made the plans more affordable for many people.

If the tax credits expire, annual out-of-pocket premiums are estimated to increase by 114% — an average of $1,016 — next year, according to an analysis from KFF.

Democrats push to extend subsidies

Democrats extended those tax credits in 2022 for another three years but were not able to make them permanent. The credits are set to expire Jan. 1, with Republicans now in full control.

Lacking in power and sensing a political opportunity, Democrats used some of their only leverage and forced a government shutdown over the issue when federal funding ran out on Oct. 1. They say they won’t vote for a House-passed bill to reopen the government until Republicans give them some certainty that the subsidies will be extended.

Democrats introduced legislation in September to permanently extend the premium tax credits, but they have suggested that they are open to a shorter period.

“We need a serious negotiation,” Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer has repeatedly said.

Republicans try to scale the ACA back, again

The Democratic demands on health care have reignited longstanding Republican complaints about the ACA, which they have campaigned against for years and tried and failed to repeal in 2017. Many in the party say that if Congress is going to act, they want to scrap the expanded subsidies and overhaul the entire law.

The problem is not the expiring subsidies but “the cost of health care,” Republican Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said Tuesday.

In a virtual briefing Tuesday, the libertarian Cato Institute and the conservative Paragon Health Institute branded the subsidies as President Joe Biden’s “COVID credits” and claimed they’ve enabled fraudsters to sign people up for fully subsidized plans without their knowledge.

Others have pitched more modest proposals that could potentially win over some Democrats. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., has said he is open to extending the subsidies with changes, including lower income limits and a stop to auto-enrollment that may sign up people who don’t need the coverage.

The ACA is “in desperate need of reform,” Thune has said.

House Republicans are considering their own ideas for reforming the ACA, including proposals for phasing out the subsidies for new enrollees. And they have begun to discuss whether to combine health care reforms with a new government funding bill and send it to the Senate for consideration once they return to Washington.

“We will probably negotiate some off-ramp” to ease the transition back to pre-COVID-19 levels, said Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, the head of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, during a virtual town hall Tuesday.

Is compromise possible?

A number of Republicans want to extend the subsidies. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said most people who are using the exchanges created by the ACA “don’t really have another option, and it’s already really, really expensive. So I think there are things we can do to reform the program.”

Hawley said he had been having conversations with other senators about what those changes could be, including proposals for income limits, which he said he sees as a “very reasonable.”

Bipartisan groups of lawmakers have been discussing the income limits and other ideas, including making the lowest-income people pay very low premiums instead of nothing. Some Republicans have advocated for that change to ensure that all enrollees are aware they have coverage and need it. Other proposals would extend the subsidies for a year or two or slowly phase them out.

It’s unclear if any of those ideas could gain traction on both sides — or any interest from the White House, where President Donald Trump has remained mostly disengaged. Despite the public stalemate, though, lawmakers are feeling increased urgency to find a solution as the Nov. 1 open enrollment date approaches.

Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire has been talking to lawmakers since the shutdown began, trying to find areas of compromise. On Tuesday, she suggested that Congress could also look at extending the enrollment dates for the ACA since Congress is stalled on the subsidies.

“These costs are going to affect all of us, and it’s going to affect our health care system,” she said.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writers Lisa Mascaro and Joey Cappelletti in Washington and Ali Swenson in New York contributed to this report.

Big Brother housemates got to buy some luxury items in the Eyedeal Mini Mart

Big Brother viewers were quick to ask ‘is she for real’ as Elsa made a bizarre confession.

The ITV hit reality show made a return to screens on Monday (October 13) night for a brand new episode and the housemates got to buy some luxury items in the Eyedeal Mini Mart.

Big Brother gathered the Housemates in the living area and announced: “Housemates, today you will have another opportunity to spend your eye currency in the EyeDeal Mini Mart.

“Big Brother has restocked the shelves with even more goodies, luxuries and some new surprise temptations. It’s up to you whether you want to splash the cash now or save it for a rainy day… Richard, Nancy and Sam, as you have zero eyes, you will not enter the shop today.”

One by one the housemates entered Big Brother’s EyeDeal Mini Mart however their was a major twist as Big Brother told each housemate who entered: “Big Brother would like to draw your attention to an incredible buy-one get-one free deal in the shop today.

“A very special item. An Immunity Pass. If you buy this deal, you get not one but two weeks immunity from eviction.”

Marcus wasn’t tempted by the immunity pass as he opted to use his eye balls to get a romantic dinner to enjoy with fellow housemate Elsa.

Later on, Marcus and Elsa were seen in the garden having a romantic dinner for two because Tate bought a jail pass for Marcus, which meant he had to spend his half of the date from his jail cell.

The couple were treated to a cooked dinner and Caroline couldn’t help but come outside and ask: “Is it gorgeous?” Elsa replied: “It’s lovely.”

As they enjoyed their romantic moment together, Marcus took the opportunity to confess: “This is the best date I’ve ever been on.” Caroline asked: “Really?” Marcus responded: “Yeah.”

There was one moment that caught viewers’ attention as Marcus was seen cutting Elsa’s food after she revealed that her mum cuts all her food for her at home.

It didn’t take long for viewers to rush straight to social media to share their reaction as one fumed: “Is Elsa for real.. she still has her mum cut up her food.. is she for real or is she taking the p***.”

Another commented: “Elsa “I have to get my mum to cut my food” F****** hell.” A third asked: “Um..why can’t Elsa cut up her own food? #BBUK #BigBrother.”

One fan commented: “Please save the airtime for the drama. I don’t care about this Marcus/Elsa facade.”

Meanwhile another added: “Elsa is a grown woman — does she really think acting like a child makes her more interesting?! Getting Marcus to cut her food for her and bragging that her mum does it too is wild #BBUK #BigBrother.”

Big Brother airs weekdays from 9pm on ITV2 and ITVX

Oct. 9 (UPI) — Pope Leo XIV on Thursday released his first major document, calling on Christians and others not to become indifferent to hunger and extreme poverty across the world.

The pope’s first apostolic exhortation, called Dilexi te, builds on the final text published by Leo’s predecessor Pope Francis, which highlighted the “close connection” between love for God and love for the poor, according to the Vatican.

“With this document, signed on Oct. 4, the feast of Saint Francis of Assis, Pope Leo situates himself firmly on the path laid out by his predecessors, including Saint John XXIII, with his appeal … to wealthier countries not to remain indifferent to nations oppressed by hunger and extreme poverty,” the Vatican said in a news release.

Titled “I Have Loved You,” Leo wrote that Francis had started preparing the document and he had finished it, saying that he is “happy to make the document my own — adding some reflections,” The New York Times reported.

In the document, Leo noted the existence of moral, spiritual and cultural poverty, in addition to the poverty of poorer people and nations lacking the material means of subsistence and calls the world’s commitment to the poor “insufficient.”

Leo wrote that the modern world continues to measure poverty using outdated criteria that “do not correspond to present-day realities,” which the “dictatorship of an economy that kills” has exponentially grown the gap between the rich and poor.

Noting that a “throwaway culture” tolerates indifference toward the poor, Leo called for a change in mentality for people to move away from the “illusion of happiness derived from a comfortable life … centered on the accumulation of wealth and social success at all costs, even at the expense of others.”

“The poor are not there by chance or by blind and cruel fate,” Leo wrote. “Nor, for most of them, is poverty a choice. Yet, there are those who still presume to make this claim, thus revealing their own blindness and cruelty.”

Of all the finger-pointing and recriminations that come with the current federal government shutdown, one of the most striking elements is that the Trump administration blames it on Democratic support for granting taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants. The White House has called out California specifically, saying the state exploits a legal “loophole” to pay for that coverage with federal dollars, and other states have followed suit.

“California utilized an egregious loophole — since employed by several other states — to draw down federal matching funds used to provide Medicaid benefits for illegal immigrants,” the White House said in a policy memo released Wednesday as a budget stalemate forced a shutdown of the U.S. government.

The administration said that the Working Families Tax Cut Act, which goes into effect in October 2026, closes the loophole by prohibiting the use of taxpayer money to provide healthcare coverage to undocumented immigrants and other noncitizens.

In the memo, the White House accused congressional Democrats of wanting to repeal those policy reforms as a condition to keep the government running.

Izzy Gardon, a spokeswoman for Gov. Gavin Newsom, said there’s nothing to the administration’s underlying assertion that California and other states have found some sort of loophole that enables them to funnel Medicaid money to noncitizens.

“This is false — CA does not do this,” Gardon said in a one-line email to the L.A. Times.

Healthcare policy experts agree. California is not exploiting a “loophole,” said Adriana Ramos-Yamamoto, a senior policy analyst at the California Budget & Policy Center, a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that studies inequality.

“The state is making lawful, transparent budget choices to invest in health coverage with its own dollars,” Ramos-Yamamoto said in a statement to The Times. “These investments improve health outcomes, strengthen communities, and lower health care costs in the long run.”

At issue is Section 71117 of the Republican-backed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which imposes nearly $1 trillion in reductions to federal Medicaid healthcare spending for low-income Americans over the next 10 years. The provision allows states “to finance the non-federal share of Medicaid spending through multiple sources, including state general funds, healthcare related taxes (or ‘provider taxes’), and local government funds,” as long as taxes on healthcare providers are imposed uniformly so as not to unfairly burden providers of Medicaid services.

The bottom line, analysts said, is the administration is citing a problem with the law that doesn’t seem to exist, at least not in California.

“The so-called California loophole references a provision in the law that ends a waiver of the uniformity requirements for provider taxes — this provision has nothing to do with using federal funds to pay for care for undocumented immigrants,” said Jennifer Tolbert, a healthcare expert at the nonprofit healthcare research, polling and news organization KFF.

“But the White House makes the claim that California uses the money they get from the provider tax to pay for care for undocumented immigrants,” Tolbert said.

Fact-checking the administration’s claim is all the more difficult because there are no official data on how states spend money collected from provider taxes, Alice Burns, another KFF analyst, added. What’s more, California is among several states that offer some level of Medicaid coverage to all immigrants regardless of status. And because California cannot be federally reimbursed for healthcare spending on people who are not in the country legally, those expenses must be covered at the state level.

The White House memo goes on to claim that if Democrats were to succeed at repealing the provisions in the Working Families Tax Act, the federal government would have to spend an additional $34.6 billion in taxpayer money “that would continue to primarily be abused by California to fund healthcare for illegal immigrants.”

This assertion also misconstrues the facts, according to KFF.

“What we do know is that the $35 billion in savings that is referenced in the White House Fact Sheet refers to the federal government’s estimated savings … resulting from states making changes to their provider tax systems,” KFF spokesperson Tammie Smith said. That is, the projected savings aren’t connected to healthcare for immigrants living in the U.S. illegally.

Political squabbling aside, California’s approach to medical coverage for low-income, undocumented immigrants is set to undergo a major shift thanks to provisions in the 2025-26 state budget that the Democrat-led legislature and Newsom approved in June.

Starting on Jan. 1, adults “who do not have Satisfactory Immigration Status (SIS)” will no longer be able to enroll in Medi-Cal, California’s Medicaid program, according to the state’s Department of Health Care Services webpage. Those who already have this coverage can keep it and continue to renew their enrollment. And starting on July 1, Medi-Cal enrollees who are age 19-59, undocumented and not pregnant will have to pay a $30 monthly premium to keep their coverage.

The changes, which Newsom called for in the spring to offset a ballooning Medi-Cal budget deficit, drew criticism from some immigrant rights groups, with the California Immigrant Policy Center describing the moves as “discriminatory.”

“In light of the militarized mass immigration raids and arrests causing fear and chaos across California, we are disappointed that the governor and the leadership in the Legislature chose to adopt a state budget that makes our communities even more vulnerable,” Masih Fouladi, the center’s executive director said at the time.

Everyone in California who qualifies for Medi-Cal will still be eligible to receive emergency medical and dental care, no matter their immigration status.

West Yorkshire Police

‘Institutional scandal’

Supplied

‘Victims not heard’

BBC/Andrew Jackson

A PENSIONER has died after reportedly falling from a window at a care home.

Emergency crews were scrambled to Berrycroft Manor care home in Romiley, Stockport, on Monday morning.

Greater Manchester Police confirmed a 78-year-old woman was taken to hospital following a fall and died the following day.

It is understood the woman fell from a window, according to the Manchester Evening News.

The care facility’s manager described the incident as a “tragic accident” and said an investigation is underway.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC), the care home and medical provider regulator, is aware of the incident.

Michael Blissett, home manager at Berrycroft Manor, said: “This was a tragic accident, and our thoughts and prayers are very much with the family. We extend our heartfelt condolences to them.

“Everyone here is shocked and saddened by the accident. Investigations are still continuing as to exactly how this has happened.

“Safety here is paramount and we are working with HSE [Health and Safety Executive] and CQC to ensure this never happens again.”

A GMP spokesperson added: “Shortly after 7.30am yesterday (September 29), officers responded to reports of a concern for the welfare of a woman following a fall at a care home on Berrycroft Lane, Stockport.

“Emergency services attended but sadly, a 78-year-old woman died from her injuries in hospital later that day.

“Her family are currently being supported. Enquiries are ongoing to establish the full circumstances of her death.”

A CQC spokesperson said: “CQC has been made aware of the death of a resident at Berrycroft Manor in Stockport, and our condolences are with the family at this sad time.

“We are in close contact with the home and police as they look into the circumstances around this incident, so we can understand if there is any regulatory action that needs taken to ensure people are receiving safe care.

“CQC’s priority, at all times, is the health and wellbeing of people using health and social care services, and all information we receive informs our monitoring of services and future inspections.

“We’d encourage anyone who has concerns about a health and social care service to let us know. This can be done by emailing [email protected] or via our customer service centre on 03000 616161.”

Do you know more? Email [email protected]

1

A California woman is suing Dignity Health, alleging two hospitals denied her emergency abortion services due to their Catholic directives, violating state law and putting her life in danger.

During two separate pregnancies, Rachel Harrison’s water broke at just 17 weeks — a condition that can cause deadly complications. An abortion is typically the course of action recommended by doctors, but on both occasions staff members at Dignity Health hospitals refused to act because they detected a fetal heartbeat, the lawsuit alleges.

The second time it happened, Harrison experienced life-threatening sepsis and had to travel to a hospital outside her insurance network to receive a blood transfusion, the complaint states.

Harrison, 30, and her partner Marcell Johnson filed a lawsuit against Dignity Health in San Francisco Superior Court on Friday. The claim, first reported by Courthouse News Service, alleges that subsidiaries Mercy San Juan Medical Center and Mercy General Hospital refused to provide her emergency abortion care for religious reasons.

The 24 Catholic hospitals within the Dignity Health network follow a set of “Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Services,” which caused Harrison to be turned away from an emergency room during the loss of a high-risk pregnancy, the complaint alleges.

“While publicly touting their hospitals’ qualifications as reliable emergency services centers, Dignity Health prioritized its own religious directives over the best interests of Rachel’s health and well-being,” the lawsuit alleges.

Last September the state filed a similar lawsuit against a Catholic hospital in Eureka after a woman whose water broke at 15 weeks was denied an emergency abortion. That hospital then agreed to provide emergency abortions in cases where a woman’s health is at risk.

A spokesperson for Dignity Health did not comment on the specific allegations contained in Harrison’s lawsuit.

“When a pregnant woman’s health is at risk, appropriate emergency care is provided,” the spokesperson said in a statement. “The well-being of our patients is the central mission for our dedicated caregivers.”

On Sept. 13, 2024, according to Harrison‘s lawsuit, she experienced a condition called previable preterm premature rupture of the membranes, or previable PPROM, when her water broke at just 17 weeks of pregnancy.

This condition is fatal for the fetus and dangerous for the mother.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the standard of care is to inform the patient that the pregnancy is not viable and recommend termination as the safest option to reduce maternal risk. Miscarrying the fetus naturally comes with higher risk of infection and blood loss, both of which can lead to permanent loss of reproductive function or even death.

Last September, Harrison traveled to Mercy San Juan Medical Center in Carmichael for emergency care, but doctors did not recommend an abortion, the complaint alleges.

“Instead, Rachel was told that because of the hospital’s Catholic affiliation, there was nothing more the hospital could do for her,” the complaint states. “Confused and distressed, Rachel was discharged and left to complete a high-risk miscarriage of a fetus ‘the size of an avocado’ — as she was told by the physician’s assistant — at home, on her own, and without medical supervision.”

She went to a Kaiser hospital the following morning and received emergency care, the lawsuit says.

Last December, Harrison was thrilled to learn that she was pregnant again, but then “her worst nightmare” repeated itself. At 17 weeks pregnant, she once again experienced previable PPROM, the complaint states.

Her insurance only covers OB/GYN care within the Dignity Health network, so she went to Mercy General Hospital in Sacramento.

In a repeat of her past experience, her lawsuit alleges, staff members told her they could not provide the care she sought due to the fetal heartbeat. She was able to access care at another hospital, her complaint says, but experienced sepsis and heavy blood loss in the process.

The lawsuit alleges that the denials violated California’s Emergency Services Law, which requires hospitals operating a licensed emergency room to treat patients suffering from emergency medical conditions, including previable PPROM.

Harrison also alleges that Dignity Health violated the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Unlawful Competition Law and her right to privacy under the California Constitution.

Harrison and her partner are seeking an order requiring Dignity Health hospitals to provide emergency abortions in a manner compliant with state law, as well as compensatory and punitive damages.

A WOMAN who “never” wears a bra has hit back at those criticising her for the choice.

Lauren has never made a secret of her dislike of the underwear, but her openness has seen her hit with criticism online.

3

3

3

However, in a video on her TikTok page, she responded to the backlash, and said she doesn’t understand why people care.

“I don’t know why so many of you have got such a problem with the fact that I don’t wear a bra,” she said.

“I don’t have enough chest, I don’t think, to warrant wearing a bra every single day.”

Lauren added that if she “absolutely has to”, she’ll put on a bra, but will always go for an unpadded, unwired ‘bralette’ type option.

But even wearing one of them makes her feel “anxious and antsy”, and makes her “skin itch”.

And considering Jennifer Aniston made it “trendy not to wear a bra” in the 90s, Lauren doesn’t get why she can’t get away with it in 2025.

“It doesn’t affect your day, whether I wear a bra or not… why do you care?” she continued.

“If somebody else walking down the street didn’t wear a bra, I’d be like, ‘oh, she’s not wearing a bra’ and continue with my day.

“I don’t care who wears a bra or who doesn’t. I don’t care what other women decide to do with their bodies.

“That is up to them. It is none of my business!

“If I don’t wear a bra because I don’t want to, that is none of your business. Okay?”

“I don’t care what other women decide to wear or not wear, if your comfortable and happy and living your best life then you do you boo,” Lauren captioned her video.

People were quick to comment on the video, with one admitting: “If I could get away without wearing one, I would.

“In the house I never do, or as soon as I’m home it’s off, but when I’m out I have to.

“They’re so uncomfortable and make me feel restricted. But no-one wants to see this swinging about in public.”

“The fact people care or have an opinion on other people wearing a bar is WILD to me,” another added.

Top bra tips

Fabulous’ Deputy Fashion Editor, Abby McHale has shared her tips for keeping your bras looking their best.

1. Don’t wash your bras in the washing machine on their own, this is how your wiring will get damaged. Instead either wash in a pillowcase or take them in the shower with you and wash as you would your body. 

2. Always start on the loosest hooks for your back, that way as the bra is worn more and the elastic stretches you can tighten it up with the tighter hooks. 

3. If you wear your bra two to three times a week then it should last between six months to a year before you need to replace it. 

4. You should always be able to feel your bra throughout the day, if you don’t it means it’s not doing its job properly. 

5. It’s actually the band across the back that keeps your boobs upright and not the cups itself.

“You do you babe!”

“It’s no business of anyone else, you do what is comfortable for you, and sod the haters!” a third insisted.

“You look absolutely fabulous without one and I think you should wear whatever you like,” someone else agreed.

“Just be free and enjoy,” another urged.

THE NHS is chucking tens of millions of pounds down the drain by failing to stamp out health tourism.

At a time of sky-high taxes, it’s intolerable that money is being lavished on “free” care for foreign visitors.

1

New figures show that hospitals are owed £252million for treatment given to patients from abroad — that’s enough to provide 5,000 extra nurses.

The NHS prides itself on providing medical attention free at the point of use to anyone who needs it, irrespective of their status or wealth.

But it is not a charity and trusts have a duty to safeguard taxpayers’ money.

With 7.4million on waiting lists for routine treatment in England, it is an outrage that bosses are writing off such huge sums.

Brits facing long delays for ops or forced to wait for hours on hospital trolleys will be appalled that this small fortune is not being spent on them and their families.

To make matters worse, one of the main reasons managers do not bother to chase outstanding fees is simply that it makes them feel “uncomfortable”.

Public satisfaction with the NHS — which also spent £1.8million on “staff networks” hosting “woke” events over the past two years — has sunk to a record low.

Three-quarters of hospitals are in debt.

Health Secretary Wes Streeting has warned senior execs there is “nowhere to hide” on “wasteful spenders”.

They’re hiding in plain sight currently.

Petering out

PAINFULLY slowly, the truth about the Peter Mandelson debacle is being dragged out of Number Ten.

After going to ground at the end of last week, Sir Keir Starmer surfaced yesterday to admit he HAD known about emails from Mandelson to the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he defended his US ambassador at Prime Minister’s Questions.

Specifically he knew the Foreign Office was investigating what would prove to be a huge scandal, but did not know — or did not ask — precisely what had been written.

This is a prime example of the PM blasting himself in both feet.

First by chaotically backing then sacking Mandelson — and then by taking an age to set out the facts.

Danny ploy

WHILE Labour rips itself apart, Nigel Farage is getting on with making Reform more professional.

MP Danny Kruger — the latest Tory defector to his party — is a serious thinker, with experience of No10.

Putting him in charge of Reform’s preparations for Government is another sign Farage isn’t messing around.

PRINCE Harry is desperate and needing stardust from King Charles in order to stay relevant, even if it means sacrificing his privacy, a royal expert has claimed.

The Duke of Sussex, 41, briefly met with his father, for the first time in 19 months, during his visit to the UK last week.

3

3

3

Their meeting, lasting just under an hour, was followed up by an interview where Harry said his priority this year was to “focus on my dad”.

However, Royal Expert and Biographer Ingrid Seward has said that Harry’s move was just a “PR stunt” as he “needs the King’s stardust” in order to stay relevant.

She told The Sun: “I think it’s a massive PR move to re-establish Harry in the hearts of the British people.

“Harry needs the stardust of his father. He needs people to see him as the son of a king.

“His earning power is related to who he is. Without being the royal he is, Harry would not be interested to anyone in California.

“But because he is the son of a king, and the brother of an heir to the throne, he is of great interest and he needs that connection.”

Ingrid explained that since Harry “makes his money in America”, through his Netflix deals and other ventures, he would need to keep his image strong there.

She said the view of a “split” family did not sit well with audiences in the US, and so this decision would help mend that image and keep him relevant.

Ingrid continued: “This is a big, big PR push, and Harry was finally all smiles and charm, reminiscent of himself of old.”

Turning to Harry’s statement that his “conscience was clear”, in regards to the publication of his controversial memoir Spare, Ingrid said: “I’m not sure that Harry knows what a clear conscience is.

“You don’t badmouth your family in print and then have a clear conscience.

“Whether what he was saying was true or not, you just don’t do that.”

Ingrid added: “And it has far-reaching consequences, as it has had with Harry.

“But Harry obviously wants to wipe the slate clean, but people’s memories are a little bit longer than that, and I think a lot of the royal family are still very angry, and I suspect that Charles isn’t particularly happy with his son.

“But to him, it’s more important to welcome Harry, if not back into the family, at least back into his own, you know, personal fold, because at least Charles can then keep an eye on what he’s doing as well.”

HARRY’S BRIEF MEETING WITH CHARLES

This comes after Harry spoke out after briefly meeting King Charles during his visit.

The meeting, a “private tea” between the two, lasted 55 minutes – almost double the time Harry got last year.

And when quizzed on the possibility of further meetings with the King, Harry said: “The focus really has to be on my dad”.

He also leapt to the defence of his controversial memoir, Spare, claiming his “conscience is clear”.

Speaking to The Guardian, the Duke said: “I know that (speaking out) annoys some people and it goes against the narrative.

“It was a series of corrections to stories already out there. One point of view had been put out and it needed to be corrected.

“It was a difficult message, but I did it in the best way possible. My conscience is clear. It is not about revenge, it is about accountability.”

After his four-day trip, a spokesperson for Harry told how he “loved catching up with old friends” and colleagues.

Harry also admitted he wants to spend more time in the country.

When asked if he would bring his children, Archie, six, and Lilibet, four, he responded: “This week has definitely brought that closer.”

NASHVILLE — Two nice tuneups.

Two opportunities that showed the Rams can indeed be Super Bowl contenders.

Now the real season — and test — begins.

The Rams’ 33-19 victory over the Tennessee Titans on Sunday at Nissan Stadium improved their record to 2-0.

Puka Nacua scored on a long touchdown run, Matthew Stafford passed for two touchdowns — including his first to Davante Adams — and edge rusher Byron Young had two sacks and forced a fumble to lead the Rams.

Next up: The defending Super Bowl-champion Philadelphia Eagles.

That will be the real measuring stick for a Rams team and coach Sean McVay, who is aiming for a third Super Bowl appearance in eight years.

So next Sunday, the Rams will confidently return to Lincoln Financial Field, where they lost to the Eagles in the NFC divisional round.

The Texans and the Titans are a far cry from the Eagles.

Eagles running back Saquon Barkley, the reigning NFL offensive player of the year, torched the Rams in the 2024 regular season and the playoffs.

He rushed for 255 yards in a Week 12 victory over the Rams, scoring on runs of 70 and 72 yards. In January, he ran for 205 yards and scored on runs of 62 and 78 yards.

Texans quarterback C.J. Stroud is a rising star and Titans rookie quarterback Cam Ward appears on track to possibly become one. But neither is Jalen Hurts, who has played in two Super Bowls and won a title.

Eagles receivers A.J. Brown and DeVonta Smith are a talented tandem, and the offensive line is perhaps the NFL’s best.

And a defense, led by coordinator Vic Fangio, features tackle Jalen Carter, who ended the Rams’ Super Bowl hopes last season when he sacked Stafford one play before Stafford’s final pass fell incomplete.

On Sunday, in a matchup between quarterbacks picked No. 1 in the NFL draft, the veteran came out on top.

Rams quarterback Matthew Stafford looks to pass in the first half against the Titans on Sunday.

(Wesley Hitt / Getty Images)

Stafford, the top pick in 2009, completed 23 of 33 passes for 298 yards, with an interception.

Ward, the top pick in the 2025 draft, completed 19 of 33 passes for 175 yards and a touchdown.

Along with his 45-yard touchdown run, Nacua caught eight passes for 91 yards. Adams caught six passes for 106 yards, including a 16-yard touchdown.

Tight end Davis Allen scored his second touchdown of the season, and running back Blake Corum rushed for his first career touchdown.

The Rams trailed 13-10 at halftime after they gave up 10 points in the final 38 seconds of the second quarter.

The Rams had built a 10-3 lead on Nacua’s long touchdown run and a short field goal by Joshua Karty. But Ward made a sensational play to complete a nine-yard touchdown pass, and then Titans linebacker Cody Barton intercepted a Stafford pass to set up a field goal that gave the Titans the lead.

The Rams got the ball to start the second half and they moved downfield to the three-yard line. But for the second time in the game, they could not convert the opportunity into a touchdown and had to settle for another field goal.

The Titans regained the lead with a long field goal, setting up the Rams most impressive drive.

Stafford completed passes of 24 and 22 yards to Nacua and Corum ran for 15 yards to give the Rams first-and-goal at the eight-yard line. After failing to convert two earlier goal-line opportunities into touchdowns, the Rams finally came through.

Stafford passed to Allen along the right sideline, and the third-year pro reached for the goal line. Officials initially ruled he was short of a touchdown, but upon review it was determined the ball crossed the goal line, giving the Rams a 20-16 lead.

After Young forced a fumble that linebacker Nate Landman recovered, Stafford connected with Adams for a 27-16 lead.

Corum’s short touchdown run completed the scoring for the Rams, who opted to run out the clock rather than score at the end of the game.

It was a week Crescenta Valley football coach Hudson Gossard will never forget.

It began with him having to switch from defensive coordinator to offensive coordinator after coaching changes. Then his wife had to undergo surgery. Then he had to take care of final preparations for Crescenta Valley to open its new stadium on Sept. 5.

“It was an unbelievable atmosphere,” Gossard said. “High school kids dream of playing on their own high school campus. It was something awesome, something special.”

Gossard was almost in tears after what happened before the game against South Pasadena. He said before every game he receives a kiss from his wife, Codi. She was driven from the hospital and surprised him with a kiss.

“She’s a saint,” he said.

Gossard went to the press box to call the plays just like his father, Dennis, who passed in June after some 50 years being involved with Crescenta Valley football.

Crescenta Valley ended up winning the game 42-21. The emotions and memories won’t be forgotten.

This is a daily look at the positive happenings in high school sports. To submit any news, please email [email protected].

A FORMER Premier League goalkeeper has been diagnosed with two terminal illnesses and is now receiving palliative care.

Russell Hoult’s family confirmed the ex-Derby County star is suffering with primary sclerosing cholangitis and stage four bile duct cancer.

2

2

The 52-year-old footballer had spells at Leicester City, West Bromwich Albion, Derby County and Nottingham Forest during his 20-year career.

His starring role came for Derby in the mid-to-late 90s.

Hoult made 138 appearances for the Rams and played a big part in their 1996 promotion season back into the Premier League.

The dad-of-two went on to play 67 games in the top-flight across four years for Derby.

Hoult retired back in 2013 and

Hoult was diagnosed with primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) in September 2023, before the family was dealt another blow in August last year, when they received the “devastating” news that he also has stage four bile duct cancer (Cholangiocarcinoma).

How does one care for their aging parent without losing sight of their own identity?

The first thing Roxana Ortega will say is: “We have to not abandon ourselves.”

The L.A.-born Latina actress outlines the deeply emotional process of caring for an aging parent in her first play, “Am I Roxie?,” which premieres Sept. 11 and kicks off the Geffen Playhouse’s 2025-26 season.

The production will remain through Oct. 5 at the Gil Cates Theater and is directed by Bernardo Cubría, (“Crabs in a Bucket” and “The Play You Want”).

Ortega’s one-woman show was inspired by her mother, Carmen, whose memory is in decline due to Alzheimer’s disease. Bounded by her commitment to being the perfect Latina daughter, Ortega illustrates how she stepped up to provide caregiving duties, while trying to sustain her acting career — even if it was just a Jimmy Dean breakfast sandwich commercial.

“This show to me is about how to not abandon ourselves in a time of such great darkness,” says Ortega through a video call.

Onstage, Ortega masterfully transforms her solo act into an ensemble performance, through her many quirky accents and mannerisms alone; her characters range from her three Peruvian tías to an imaginary cholo critic and a perky, silicone-bloated nurse.

Capturing a broad emotional spectrum, from joy to grief, it is clear that Ortega — a former troupe member of the Groundlings Sunday Company — showcases a lifetime of skills on the Westwood stage.

“Everything just merged as I was trying to write about what was happening,” says Ortega. “I was also leaving sketch comedy [group] the Groundlings, so I was finding my own voice. All those things merged to birth this, a perfect combination of so many desires and dreams I’ve had.”

With over 80 acting credits to her name, the multi-hyphenate artist is best known for voicing the melodramatic Frida Casagrande from Nickelodeon’s Emmy-winning show “The Casagrandes,” an animated sitcom about a family living in the fictional Great Lakes City. Other notable credits include Netflix’s “Grand-Daddy Day Care” and “Santa Clarita Diet,” Warner Bros.‘ “Miss Congeniality 2” as well as the popular Fox series “New Girl.”

Audiences should buckle up — preferably with tissues at the ready — for a roller coaster of emotions, as they witness Ortega relinquish control over an unchangeable fate, while holding compassion for her mother and herself in “Am I Roxie?”

This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity.

Your one-woman show, “Am I Roxie?,” explores your personal journey as a caretaker for your aging parent, but it also focuses on your artistic aspirations. Can you walk me through your decision to make this the subject of your next project?

I’ve always wanted to turn my personal material into art; most artists do feel that way. I had been doing it for quite a while in sketch comedy, [by] taking characters like my tías, who I find to be so hysterical, and trying to put them into things. So I knew somewhere in the back of my brain — or in the middle — that I wanted to do a show about my family. I watched Ruben Santiago-Hudson’s “Lackawanna Blues,” so I always wanted to do that.

This play approaches heavy topics with humor. How did you strike that balance?

I think that’s just the way my brain works. I think a lot of comedians are this way; we’re always looking for laughs and maybe that’s how we survive ’cause we are very sensitive people — I’m very sensitive and very intense, so laughter is that levity.

Through the development process, we did have some discussions about certain moments. Do we want people to laugh when I’m in the chaise longue texting, “Is [my mom] still alive?” We had more “Shark Tank” sounds running through that and then changed it.

Caregiving is obviously a huge endeavor for Latinos — Latina women, more specifically. How do you make sense of the idea of care now?

I [think of] abandonment. There’s something so primal when somebody is aging and you can tell, “This person was in charge of me; they’re so vulnerable; now they need me. Oh my god, I can’t abandon them, right?” You feel like, “I don’t want to be abandoned, so I don’t want to abandon them.” It really shocked me how strong that urge was and I think we also have to not abandon ourselves. We absolutely cannot.

If you go into the caregiving world, they talk about care like: “Here’s your pills, here’s the food and we have some music coming in.” Maybe if you’re lucky, there’s bingo — but my mom wouldn’t play bingo! Are you f— kidding me? Care should be individualized. It should address the spirit.

Guilt creeps up in this play disguised as your inner Latina critic every time you do something that feels selfish in light of your mom’s situation. What relationship do you have with your inner critic now?

I definitely feel like I’ve gone through a journey from fear to love with the task of caregiving and even in relation to myself; I learned to love myself more, which is part of caring for yourself.

In this process of putting [my story] out there, of just being so gentle with myself and saying, “No matter what happens, no matter how it’s received, I’m not going to put my identity on the line.” There will be no beating myself up. There will be no, “Now you’re terrible because this, this, this …” It’s always a practice. Life is too short for us to feel bad.

There’s no benefit to suffering, and most of our suffering we do to ourselves through that critic by giving it power. And in our culture, sometimes it’s glorified.

You’re an overachiever, a Berkeley grad and former Groundlings member. But in “Am I Roxie?,” you balance the urgency of achieving your goals with the grief of losing a parent who is still alive. How did it feel to not give up on your dreams?

I felt like a terrible daughter. It’s hard. There’s a point in the show when I leave my mom and she says, “Don’t leave me here,” and I leave her and go to an audition. That’s a hard moment and I can tell that the audience is like, “How could you do that?” It feels vulnerable to show that I did that. But then, how does a mother leave their child at kindergarten? How can you find the balance where you are nurturing yourself and nurturing somebody else?

It was hard. I would beat myself up a lot and cry about feeling so terrible. And then go the next day to absolve myself. The more [my mom] found other relationships with a caregiver, the more I felt like, “Okay, she’s safe.”

Motherhood is also at the core of your story — not just with your mother, but as you explore your own fertility journey. How did your concept of motherhood change after caring for your mother?

What I didn’t explicitly say in the play is that I am a mother. I mothered my mother. Now, not everyone who is a mother by having a baby is necessarily a “mothering mother.” Something that this disease taught me is what these words really mean. What is it to be a sister? What is it to be a mother? What I learned in caring for my mom is that I am a mother, because I was able to nurture on such a deep level. Even when all the signs showed that she’s not there anymore. A mother knows her baby. She was my baby at the end.

After our fertility journey, 10 years of trying, me birthing this piece of art was me mothering my creativity into existence.

 You don’t mention Alzheimer’s by name until that very end. Why?

Part of it was accepting the journey and being able to say the diagnosis. Sometimes there’s an avoidance around Alzheimer’s. Nobody wants to say the word or talk about the disease ’cause it’s sad. So I wanted to make it a moment when I actually said it so that we can see the weight of it. Hopefully viewers will leave the theater being able to speak about it and to know it in an intimate way. Naming it is so important, so we can take the sting and discomfort off.

There are tender moments onstage where you let out tears. What is it like to relive those real-life moments on stage every night?

It is so difficult, more difficult than I thought it would be. My mom is onstage with me when I walk out there. I take her hand and I put her in that little opera chair next to me and we are together. Saying goodbye to her every night is hard.

Haru Urara, the mare who won over horse racing enthusiasts in Japan and abroad with her perpetual losing streak, has died. She was 29.

Yuko Miyahara, a representative for Urara’s longtime care facility Matha Farm in the southeast Chiba prefecture of Japan, confirmed to Japanese outlet Friday Digital that the animal athlete died early Tuesday of colic. She was surrounded by staff.

“Urara was 29. In human years that’s almost 90, but really, until yesterday she was doing really well,” Miyahara said in the article, which was translated to English. “It was so sudden … lately Uhara was getting visitors even from outside Japan. It’s really unfortunate.”

The horse, whose name translates to Glorious Spring, debuted in 1998 at the Kochi Racecourse. The track advertised its resilient star’s losing streak as part of its efforts to stay in business. Urara’s reputation — bolstered by her signature pink racing accessories and fan merchandise — breached the perimeters of the Kochi racetrack and made her a global phenomenon. In 2004 former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi even expressed his support for the mare.

“I’d like to see Haru Urara win, even just once,” Koizumi said. “The horse is a good example of not giving up in the face of defeat.”

Trained by her longtime trainer Dai Muneishi, Urara kept racing — she lost a total of 113 races and finished second in only four of those — until her retirement in August 2004. Her owner at the time parted ways with the Kochi racetrack and Urara disappeared for several years after her retirement. Since 2014 she had been receiving care at Matha Farms.

Her career and unexpected global fame were the subject of the 2016 ESPN documentary “The Shining Star for Losers Everywhere.”

“At the time, Haru Urara must have been a star of hope for the losers,” trainer Muneishi said in the documentary.

Interest in Urara’s legacy of losing and resilience reignited earlier this year with the global release of the mobile game “Uma Musume: Pretty Derby” in June. “Uma Musume,” initially released in Japan in 2021, is a racing simulator that re-imagines real-life racehorses as anime horsegirls. Players are “trainers” who support racers, leveling them up to climb the ranks. In the video game, Haru Urara is a horsegirl whose features are various shades of pink. Her character is also featured in the “Uma Musume: Pretty Derby” anime series.

The game’s official X (formerly Twitter) account shared the news of the racehorse’s death “with heavy hearts” and mourned the “legendary” athlete.

“We share our condolences to all the staff involved in Haru Urara’s care,” the post said.

Times staff writer Tracy Brown contributed to this report.

Aug. 13 (UPI) — A federal appeals court has ruled that Arkansas may enforce its ban on minors receiving gender-affirming care, overturning a lower court’s decision that found the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit issued its ruling Tuesday, stating the lower court erred in June 2023 when it struck down Arkansas’ Save Adolescents From Experimentation Act for violating the First Amendment and both the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause.

It said the lower court’s ruling was incongruent with a recent Supreme Court decision that upheld Tennessee’s gender-affirming care ban for minors.

“Because the district court rested its permanent injunction on incorrect conclusions of law, it abused its discretion,” the appeals court ruled.

Arkansas’ Republican attorney general, Tim Griffin, celebrated the ruling.

“I applaud the court’s decision recognizing that Arkansas has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological health of children and am pleased that children in Arkansas will be protected from risky, experimental procedures with lifelong consequences,” he said in a statement.

Gender-affirming care includes a range of therapies, from psychological, behavioral and medical interventions with surgeries for minors being exceedingly rare. The medical practice has been endorsed by every medical association.

Despite the evidence and the support of the medical community, Republicans and conservatives, often with the use of misinformation, have been targeting gender-affirming care amid a larger push threatening the rights of the LGBTQ community.

Arkansas passed the SAVE Act in 2021, but then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson vetoed it that same year, calling the ban a “product of the cultural war in America” that would interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. The GOP-majority legislature then overrode his veto, making Arkansas the first state to pass a bill banning gender-affirming care for minors in the United States.

Four transgender minors and their parents then challenged the law, saying it violated their rights, resulting in the 2023 ruling overturning the ban, which marked a victory in the fight for LGBTQ healthcare until Tuesday.

“This is a tragically unjust result for transgender Arkansans, their doctors and their families,” Holly Dickson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas, said in a statement.

“As we and our clients consider our next steps, we want transgender Arkansans to know they are far from alone and we remain as determined as ever to secure their right to safety, dignity and equal access to the healthcare they need.”

The ruling comes as Republicans seeking to restrict transgender healthcare have gained a support in the White House with President Donald Trump who has implemented several federal policies that align with their efforts.

On his first day in office, President Donald Trump signed an executive order making it federal policy that there are only two genders, male and female, both of which were determined at “conception.” He has also banned transgender Americans from the military and has sought to bar transgender athletes from competing on teams and in competitions that align with their gender identity.

Twenty-six states and the territory of Puerto Rico have banned gender-affirming care for minors, according to the Movement Advancement Project.

Israel’s war on Gaza has injured more than 150,000 Palestinians.

Many with life-changing injuries need specialist long-term care, but face devastation and blockade by Israel.

What’s the impact of all this on Gaza’s people now – and into the future?

Presenter: Adrian Finighan

Guests:

Dr Khamis Elessi – Neurorehabilitation and pain medicine consultant at al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza

Dr Samah Jabr – Palestinian psychiatrist and psychotherapist and former head of the Mental Health Unit at the Ministry of Health in Palestine; author of the book Radiance in Pain and Resilience: The global reverberation of Palestinian historical trauma

Dr Ghassan Abu Sittah – Served as a war surgeon in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere in the Middle East; professor of Conflict Medicine at the American University of Beirut