change

Loyal British Airways customers should be aware that the UK’s flag carrier is making a change to its Avios loyalty points scheme that will come into force on November 24

British Airways passengers should put November 24 in their diaries, as the UK flag carrier is preparing to make a change that’ll impact repeat customers.

Avios is the loyalty scheme of more than 30 major airlines, including British Airways, Iberia and Aer Lingus. It allows you to earn points that you can then exchange for flights, although you still need to pay taxes and fees.

Last year, BA announced a change to the scheme that left some repeat customers fuming. The price of trips booked through the scheme went up.

An off-peak return trip in economy from London to New York bought through Avios used to cost 50,000 points and £100 fee, now it costs 55,000 and £120. Similar hikes were introduced across premium economy, business, and first class.

However, now the airline has announced another change that will be a little more welcome. British Airways Holidays is updating its Avios offering. Launching on 24 November 2026, members of The British Airways Club booking a holiday package with British Airways Holidays can collect six Avios for every £1 spent on the total package price.

Avios will be calculated on the full booking value and then divided equally between all travellers on the booking. Club members will be able to collect their individual share or choose to pool their Avios through a Household Account.

BA has said that the change will make “booking with British Airways Holidays even more rewarding”. It replaces the current approach, in which all customers collect Avios on the flight element of their holiday package and the lead passenger can also collect one bonus Avios for every £1 spent on the holiday package booking.

BA has shared an example of how the new system could be better for customers. Two people heading to Crete could see each traveller collect 11,316 Avios – enough for them to secure a one-way Reward Flight to Paris each, using 10,000 Avios, plus a £2.50 fee. Previously, the lead booker could have collected 5,462 Avios and the second traveller 1,690 Avios from just the flight element of the booking.

Andrew Flintham, managing director at British Airways Holidays, said: “For many people, a holiday is the ultimate reward, so we want booking one to feel rewarding too. For Avios collectors, that relationship should be symbiotic. A holiday should not only be somewhere they can spend their Avios; it should also help them build their balance towards whatever comes next. Our aim is to create a simpler and more compelling offer for our Club members. Whether those Avios help reduce the cost of another holiday, contribute towards a future flight or make an upgrade possible, it means the value of the holiday can continue long after customers return home.”

A look at two of this week’s top high school football games in the Southland:

FRIDAY

San Pedro (6-1) at Carson (7-1), 7 p.m.

The intensity level on the field and in the stands will be something to see in this Marine League title-decider. It really comes down to the quarterback. Seth Solorio of San Pedro has 23 touchdown passes. Chris Fields III of Carson has passed for 16 touchdowns and run for 12 more . Stop Fields and everything changes. The pick: Carson.

San Clemene (7-0) at San Juan Hills (7-1), 7 p.m.

San Clemente is on the verge of a Southern Section Division 1 playoff berth but needs to win out. The Tritons’ defense will be tested by San Juan Hills receiver Luke Frith, who will have a new quarterback because of an injury. San Clemente QB Preston Beck is also hurting, with receivers Ryan Matheson and Jaxson Rex potential big-play weapons. The pick: San Clemente.

Joe Lycett was voted off after telling the Faithful he was desperate to become a Traitor, admitting afterwards ‘I’ve done this to myself’

Banished Faithful Joe Lycett was so desperate for a green cloak that after being voted out of The Celebrity Traitors he called for a rule change allowing dumped players to return as baddies.

His exit last night came after he loudly proclaimed he wanted to be recruited into the turret – which didn’t happen – but nobody believed him when he truthfully announced his disappointment the next morning.

“I’d like to motivate the Traitors to find an unknown clause in the contract that can bring back a Faithful that’s been banished to recruit because I’m there if they want me,” he laughed.

The comedian, 38, received 11 of the 14 votes after what seemed like a big slip-up at the round table in which he said that if he went, the Traitors would need to recruit again. Afterwards he acknowledged that he only had himself to blame. “I sort of didn’t play being a Faithful or a Traitor right. I tried to straddle both, and I was being greedy and I was rightly punished for it.

“I’m a silly billy – it was a combination of me begging for recruitment and then the Faithful being thick as mince. I concede I’ve done this very much to myself, but I was too hungry to be recruited. And you know, if being passionate is a crime, then banish me from the castle.”

Joe, who was instrumental in exposing Richard E Grant as a Traitor by asking him what he was on the first day, said the experience of being kept separate from friends and family during filming had been enjoyable. Asked to explain what he’d learned about himself by taking part in the game, he said: “The word that comes to mind for this whole experience is gratitude. It’s made me really grateful for my life. I’m really grateful that I am in a position that I get to experience this, because I’m famous enough to be in the mix. I loved having my phone taken away from me, and I’m really grateful for the fact that I have a lovely life to miss.”

Admitting that the game was sometimes “infuriating”, but also “joyous and thrilling”, Joe said he thinks the most likely winner is Romesh Ranganathan. “I think Romesh is a front runner,” he said. “I think he’s kind of unreadable but may get heat just on that basis. Then I think there could be a real curve ball, like Jerry or Joanne, someone who’s playing it in a way that’s out there.”

But he said it was hard to stick to strategies when you were inside the castle. “I’ve gone to Round Tables not knowing who I was going to vote for, and I don’t know who’s a Traitor – any of them could win at this stage.”

Miranda Hart formed such a close bond with Joe during their time filming together that she wept when he left – having refused to put his name on her slate and writing Ross instead. During the programme she explained: “Three or four years ago, due to illness, I thought that I might not ever have a gentle walk around a park again. Now I find myself on a Scottish Highland wheelbarrowing along a very large head. It’s really exciting.”

Miranda, 53, has been suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome for many years, which she believes was caused by having Lyme disease as a teenager. Having recently recovered enough to sign up for the programme, she has joined in with the missions wholeheartedly. In last night’s effort she grew tired carrying the statue parts at one point so swapped to transport a giant head in a wheelbarrow towards the plinth where it could be erected on top of its body, earning money for the prize pot. The current fund stands at £46,000, after the players successfully constructed five out of the six statues.

The comedy star tearfully told James Acaster that having fun outside with Joe had made her feel the happiest she’d felt in a long time. “I can’t believe how emotional I’m getting,” she said, as the floodgates opened. “Connection and laughter and joy are bigger than this game and to meet someone and to just play and laugh, it’s all us humans need.”

The good news is that she is proving so popular in the castle that many fans are calling for a return of her BBC sitcom Miranda, which last aired with a Christmas special in 2015. Another suggestion is that she stars in a different show. “A Miranda detective series like Jonathan Creek would be… such fun!” one fan said.

Joe felt that he would miss her too. “Miranda is someone that I’ve met briefly in the past and I’ve always loved. I’m really pleased that I got a chance to play with her, do some sort of an improv, essentially, and kind of mess about. I got very close with her.”

He said that – against his expectations – he’d got on well with everyone. “I really, really liked them all – and didn’t expect to when I saw the lineup. I thought, well, there’s going to be some people I’m going to find difficult, or are divas or whatever. And the reality was completely different.”

Joe’s high point came right at the start when he asked the question that sparked Richard E Grant’s astonishing outburst. The comic said he was glad he hadn’t been persuaded to ignore it. “I know lots of people tried to steer me away from it, but I was like, there’s no game around that, he absolutely meant it when he said it to me. God knows what was going through his head. It was an absolutely superb, classic, Richard E. Grant way of responding to this game. It’s one of the most iconic performances I’ve ever seen.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Widespread voter disillusionment and pocketbook anxieties set a volatile stage for the GOP weeks before election night.

Voter sentiment across the United States is increasingly negative towards US President Donald Trump’s domestic and foreign policies, according to a new Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll.

In the closing weeks before the November 3 US congressional midterm elections, 80 percent of Americans polled said the country needs substantial change or “complete and total upheaval” in how it is run, according to the survey of over 1,100 US adults released on Thursday.

Democrats and independents are much more likely than Republicans to want a total overhaul of the country’s direction, the survey found, but even Republican voters are still looking for some change. Slightly fewer than half, 45 percent, want substantial change, while 13 percent are seeking upheaval.

The results point to a pervasive appetite for legislative realignment that poses a risk to the Republican Party’s power as it looks to keep control of both houses of the US Congress.

Fuelled by soaring living costs, everyday economics is driving a majority of the electorate, with 85 percent of respondents saying the economy is one of the most significant issues in weighing their vote in the upcoming election. About eight in 10 registered voters disapprove of how Trump is handling the cost of living, and about three-quarters disapprove of his performance on the economy.

Only about one-third of registered voters overall have a “very” or “somewhat” favourable view of the Republican president, and a similar share approve of his performance as president.

More voters want Democrats to win control of Congress and have a more negative view of Republicans.

Immigration and crime rates are also top concerns for some voters, according to the survey results, with 45 percent of voters identifying them as top priorities, though the two issues are prioritised disproportionately by Republican voters who reference them more frequently than Democrats. Conversely, Democratic voters are more prone to name healthcare as their top priority.

Emerging cultural and technological concerns drew less immediate alarm across the board: 35 percent of voters ranked artificial intelligence as a substantial issue, while transgender issues sit significantly lower at 12 percent.

Healthcare is also considered a top issue for 69 percent of voters, while 64 percent cite the war on Iran as top-of-mind.

Despite their grievances, a majority of voters across both major American parties still value civic engagement.

About two-thirds of registered voters in the survey say it’s “extremely” important to vote in the upcoming election, while about two in 10 say it’s “very” important. Seventy-five percent of Democratic voters view it as “extremely” important, compared to roughly 60 percent of Republican respondents.

Football’s global governing body is expected to change a rule that allowed a red card for USA forward Folarin Balogun to be controversially overturned during the World Cup, according to media reports on the agenda for Thursday’s FIFA council meeting in Zurich.

The decision-making body is convening for the first time since this year’s tournament, and a ⁠⁠motion to prohibit such actions in the future will be top of the agenda. Members will also discuss the organisation’s funding, rules and other matters amid a turbulent time in the sport.

During the World Cup’s round-of-32 match, Balogun received a red card for stepping awkwardly on the right ankle of Tarik Muharemovic of Bosnia in a 2-0 win for the home team. It triggered an automatic one-game suspension.

However, United States President Donald Trump urged FIFA President Gianni Infantino to review the case, and Balogun’s red card was overturned, allowing him to play in the USA’s round-of-16 match against Belgium.

The decision to overturn Balogun’s red card ignited one of the tournament’s biggest controversies, with widespread criticism from football federations, former FIFA officials, experts and coaches.

The 37-member FIFA council is expected to vote on whether to prohibit disciplinary committees from overturning automatic match suspensions at the World Cup, but the Balogun controversy is unlikely to go away.

FIFA Vice President Debbie Hewitt is among the sport’s leaders who have asked ‌‌‌‌Infantino to release all documents related to the case.

Thursday’s FIFA council meeting is the first since Infantino came ‌‌‌‌under ‌‌‌‌fire earlier this year for a now-shelved plan to sell a 20 percent stake in the World Cup’s commercial business to private investors.

Infantino has faced calls to resign from the leaders of three regional football confederations – UEFA (Europe), AFC (Asia) ⁠⁠⁠⁠and CONCACAF (North and Central America and the Caribbean) – and their representatives will be present in Zurich for the FIFA meeting.

They will be joined by their counterparts from Africa, South America and Oceania.

On the agenda will be a discussion of the failed FIFA Forward Enterprise (FFE) scheme, which Infantino was forced to abandon ⁠⁠⁠⁠within days of announcing it in July.

Under the plan, Infantino proposed selling a minority stake in a FIFA commercial subsidiary to private investors, with a company launched by Joshua Kushner, the brother of Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, identified as the proposed lead investor.

The council will also address FIFA’s governance, with some of the sport’s most powerful figures determined to limit Infantino’s powers if they cannot force him out of office.

Infantino, 56, will stand for re-election in March 2027, with a ‌‌‌‌November 18 deadline looming for potential candidates to submit their nominations.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court sided with Republicans Wednesday and gave political parties and their fundraising committees lower rates for broadcast campaign ads.

Over two dissents, the justices granted a fast-track appeal from the Trump administration and the National Republican Congressional Committee and upheld the use of the GOP-friendly rule in the midterm election.

In a brief order, the court said the issue should be left to the Federal Communications Commission.

The outcome has given Republican candidates an advertising edge in the final weeks of the campaign.

Federal law says a “legally qualified candidate” running for election is entitled to a “lower unit charge” for campaign ads in the 60 days prior to an election.

However, on March 30, the FCC, under Republican control, announced that broadcasters must extend the lower rates to political parties and their joint fundraising committees.

The FCC notice did not explain the basis for this change, and it refused to hold a commission hearing to debate the issue.

But the change was seen as benefiting Republicans.

Democratic candidates have raised more money from direct but limited contributions from individuals, while Republicans have raised far more through party committees that are funded by wealthy donors.

The non-partisan Campaign Legal Center said the FCC’s rule change was “contrary to the text and purpose of the federal statute and would effectively grant super PACs an advertising discount.”

Anna Gomez, the lone Democrat on the FCC, issued a statement objecting to the change.

“The American public should not have sweeping election-year rule changes forced on them in the dark, on the eve of the election, without a single opportunity for public input,” she said.

Democratic Senate candidates Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Jon Ossoff of Georgia and Roy Cooper from North Carolina objected to the FCC rule change in April and and asked for a review.

When no action was taken, they filed suit in federal court. They argued the FCC had no authority to change the law that gave only candidates, not fundraising committees, the benefit of the lower ad rates.

Since then, the two sides have gone back and forth in the courts, with both accusing the other of seeking a late change in the rules.

The U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia ruled for the Democrats in a pair of 2-1 decisions.

“Suffice to say that any ‘chaos’ is the FCC’s fault, not ours,” Judge Robert B. King, a Clinton appointee, said on Oct. 7. It “has endeavored to create from whole cloth a new rule entirely outside the purview of judicial review.”

But the Supreme Court stepped in twice to overturn the 4th Circuit and rule for the Republicans.

In a Sept. 4 order, the court said in an unsigned order the 4th Circuit intervened too soon. The law “makes clear that an aggrieved party must wait for the Commission to resolve its application for review by order before filing a petition for judicial review.”

Only Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

In September, the FCC did nothing other than to ask for public comments on its March rule change.

Frustrated with the delay, the 4th Circuit issued a second order requiring the FCC to act by Oct. 9.

Last week, in response to an appeal from Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, Chief Justice John G. Roberts put the 4th Circuit order on hold.

On Wednesday, the full court said the 4th Circuit Court should have left the issue to the FCC.

“Our system of separation of powers does not allow the judiciary to meddle in the workings of a coordinate branch of the government in this manner,” the court said an unsigned opinion.

In dissent, Jackson and Justice Sonia Sotomayor voted to deny the administration’s appeal.

Zack Polanski calls for internal rule reforms to give party leaders greater control over policy after Zionism vote.

Zack Polanski, the leader of the United Kingdom’s Green Party, has proposed a potential overhaul of his party’s democratic mechanisms, calling for the leader to have larger control over strategic direction.

The appeal came in an article published in The Guardian on Sunday after party members passed a motion declaring that Zionism is racism at their annual conference on October 4 in a divisive vote.

Polanski also failed to grab a parliamentary seat in the wake of the row with Israel in a by-election.

The Labour Party won the election for the parliamentary seat vacated by former leader Keir Starmer in Holborn and St Pancras on Friday, fending off a strong challenge from the left-wing Green Party in a boost for British Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

“Our party democracy must now evolve to meet that – creating wider engagement for members, giving leaders more responsibility to set the party’s strategic direction, and making our processes as robust and accessible as possible,” he wrote.

“Above all, that unity must be deployed in the service of changing this country for the better,” the Green Party leader added.

Criticism over vote on motion

Polanski also replied to the criticisms of him for not participating in the vote on the motion on Zionism.

“I have been asked why I was not present for the vote. The answer is that my priority was fighting a hugely consequential by-election for our party,” he said, adding that he put all his “energy into the race in Holborn and St Pancras”.

He admitted that some members feel “let down” by his decision not to make an appearance there.

The Green Party’s motion, which called for “Palestinian liberation, the right of return, Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS), and a full arms embargo against Israel” was criticised by Jewish groups, other parties and most Green Party MPs.

After conceding defeat in the fiercely contested by-election, Polanski answered his critics, saying he would stay on as leader.

He was barred from entering Israel after his party backed a motion to define Zionism as racism.

From this month the new rule will start coming in at all UK airports with it fulling in force by early 2027

Anyone with a passport has been warned of a major change for all travellers – coming in early 2027. People who may hve been hit by delays getting back into the UK and tryin to use an eGate has been told of the rule change.

From early 2027, passengers arriving in the UK will be able to pass through the gates without showing their passports, according to the Home Office. East Midlands Airport became the first to offer the new system this week, which uses facial technology to scan passengers on approach.

After taking a photo, the system checks the passenger against verified immigration, travel and passport information. The gate then opens automatically once the checks are complete, meaning passengers do not need to place their passport on the e-gate reader.

If further checks are needed, travellers will need to put their passport on the reader or may be directed to a Border Force officer. After opening at the Leicestershire hub, the Home Office said all UK airports will have contactless e-gates by early 2027. Passengers must still carry their passports, though.

Here’s how it works:

• passengers approach an eGate and have their photo taken
• the system checks this live image against verified immigration, travel and passport information
• the eGate opens automatically once these checks are complete

The system uses state-of-the-art facial technology to verify a passenger’s identity before the UK’s robust border security checks are carried out in full. Legitimate travellers can then simply walk through, without needing to place their passport on the eGate reader.

If further checks are needed, passengers will need to place their passport on the reader or may be directed to a Border Force officer, as happens today. Border Force officers will continue to monitor all eGates offering assistance, and passengers should keep their passport with them at all times.

Testing shows the new contactless system is up to 25% faster than using a passport on an eGate.

The phased rollout starts at East Midlands Airport, initially for British citizens, before expanding to more airports and other nationalities already eligible for eGates over the coming months.

Phil Douglas, Director General of Border Force, said: “This is a win for travellers coming to our brilliant country. By using state-of-the-art technology, we are making journeys smoother and faster, all while fully maintaining the UK’s robust border security.

“Our digital transformation also builds on our work this summer to extend eGates to children aged eight and above, making life a little easier for families.

Karen Dee, chief executive of AirportsUK, the trade body for UK airports, said: “This will be excellent news for the passenger and demonstrates how UK airports continue to be at the forefront of new technologies to keep our borders safe, while improving the travelling experience.

“It is vital that we have the fast, efficient borders that arrivals into the UK now expect, and we will work closely with our members and government officials to ensure a smooth rollout.”

Chris Wilson, Head of Terminal & Capacity Planning at Birmingham Airport, said: “We’re pleased to be one of the first airports in the UK to introduce UK Border Force’s contactless eGates.

“Working closely with our industry partners and government agencies, we have actively supported the rollout of the new UK Border Force system here at Birmingham Airport.”

Customers arriving into the UK will benefit from this new speedier and smoother arrival through the border. Millions of people already use eGates every year – the fastest way for legitimate travellers to enter the UK. This marks the latest step in the government’s efforts to modernise the UK border, delivering on the Immigration White Paper.

Earlier this year to e-gates at UK airports were expanded to include younger children allowing, children aged eight and nine returning to the UK to use e-gates.

The gates use facial recognition technology to check passengers’ identities against the photo in their passport, which is generally quicker than manual inspections. Children must be at least 120cm tall so they can be seen by biometric scanners, and accompanied by an adult.

Under previous rules, only passengers aged 10 and above were allowed to use the gates, forcing families with younger children to queue for passport booths.

In addition to the 13 UK airports with e-gates, children aged eight and nine are also now permitted to use them at ports in Brussels and Paris, where juxtaposed checks take place.

Two residents of the village of Bibury, Gloucestershire, are taking matters into their own hands after becoming fed up with a change in tourists’ behaviour after the Covid-19 pandemic

A couple who live in one of the UK’s most beautiful villages, located in the Cotswolds, have announced their plans to leave after a major change in the area following the Covid-19 pandemic.

Brian and Jill Skarda have decided to leave the village of Bibury, Gloucestershire, a place named “the most beautiful village in England” by William Morris, due to the worsening behaviour of visitors.

Brian and Jill originally moved to Bibury, which was also branded the “world’s most beautiful village” by Forbes last year, that lies along the River Coln, from Barnsley. During their time in the area, they joined the parish council and became part of everyday life.

Writing in the Village Life magazine in a column known as Tales from the Riverbank, Mr Skarda admitted “we have had enough invasive tourism”.

Mr Skarda, who highlighted Arlington Row as a key point of issue, explained that he felt tourists are now getting too up close and personal with locals, so much so they had been finding it harder to go about their own lives.

He explained: “We have decided that we have had enough invasive tourism in Arlington Row…We have been here for over 14 years and noticed that since Covid, visitor behaviours have changed.

“They have become more inconsiderate and the sheer numbers of tourists …meant that, on occasions, we have virtually been unable to get out of our front door.”

In the latter part of his column, the Independent reported that Mr Skarda said he hoped that Bibury would one day “resolve its tourism issues” after complaining the area was being “ruined by the very people who come to see it”.

When it comes to Bibury, Mr Skarda isn’t the only person to have taken issue with the seasonal influx of tourists.

Speaking to the Independent, parish council chairman Craig Chapman said overtourism was having an impact on the local environment too.

He added: “Over the summer with the hot weather, people would not just sit on the river bank but would go in the water and even bring chairs in to sit on to cool down.

“The main concern is the wildlife, but also the whole area with people using it like it is a recreational area. When they go into the water they can upset the habitat.”

So great are the concerns about the impact on Bibury’s environment that last month, they announced they were going to put up fences around the river to stop people paddling in it.

Mr Skarda’s and Mr Chapman’s remarks about the village comes as debate grows about the impact of overtourism in places like Bibury and Castle Combe.

Every year, thousands of people from all over the world and the UK flock to these aesthetically pleasing places, many of which they have seen in films, to admire them.

Whilst these visits can be good for the local economy, locals are often caught in the crossfire.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court justices sounded wary Monday of state-by-state lawsuits that could impose huge damage verdicts on energy producers for the impact of global climate change.

Instead, several of them suggested these local and state claims may be blocked by the federal Clean Air Act.

“Interstate air and water pollution are matters for federal law,” said Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh. “We don’t have to reinvent the wheel. This kind of pollution is a federal matter unless Congress says otherwise.”

Justice Elena Kagan appeared to agree. State-by-state lawsuits “get in way of how Congress decided to regulate greenhouse gases,” she said.

At issue before the court was the question of whether cities and states may sue oil and gas producers for the damages inflicted by climate change.

California and nearly three dozen states and municipalities have filed such claims, but none have gone to trial.

Last year, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Boulder County may sue for damages in a local court.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear an appeal from the oil industry backed by the Trump administration. Its lawyers argued that the Constitution and federal law do not allow for such claims to be resolved in local courts.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts sounded skeptical of opening the door to a wave of climate change lawsuits. “There will be 50 different cities. How would that work out?” he asked a lawyer representing Boulder.

For much of the two-hour argument, the justices struggled over whether federal law imposes a limit on such lawsuits, or instead whether states and their judges are free to seek damages for the harm they have suffered.

They did not signal a clear outcome but most of them sounded as though they leaned toward saying that federal law governs such far-reaching damage claims.

The energy producers turned to the Supreme Court after losing in state court.

They hope the high court will shut down more than three dozen lawsuits seeking damages for the impact of climate change.

So far, judges across the nation have been divided. Some have ruled that federal law preempts or blocks states and counties from suing under state law.

But others, including the Colorado Supreme Court, ruled the lawsuits may proceed under state law.

Justice Samuel A. Alito, a staunch conservative, said he is sitting out the case, presumably because he owns stock in oil companies that would be affected by a ruling.

If the court splits 4-4 and cannot rule, it would be major disappointment for the oil industry because it would allow all the climate-change suits to proceed, at least for now.

The Fletcher family are back on Sunday with a new instalment of Fletcher’s Family Farm

Kelvin and Liz Fletcher reflected on what the future holds for their Cheshire Farm on Sunday’s Fletcher’s Family Farm.

The episode, airing today, sees the couple, who share the highs and lows of farming in their ITV series, Liz floated the idea of a maize maze with a cafe, while leaving room for Kelvin to grow oats.

Before the couple sat down to discuss their options for the farm, Kelvin had a bone to pick with Liz over the dishes. He said, “Liz made tea last night, and then she just leaves everything as it was last night. When I make tea, as soon as I finish making it, I tidy up. “

Liz chimed in sarcastically, “And on today’s lesson of how to clean, Kelvin is going to talk you through it,” to which the former soap star replied, “What can I say? I like a tidy ship. And before we talk through our plans for the farm, we’ve got a couple of domestic issues to clean up.”

Turning to his wife, he asked, “Tell me why you keep buying eggs and why you’re buying that many eggs when we’ve got chickens?”

As Liz retorted back that they were the farm’s eggs, Kelvin pointed out, ” They’ve got stamps on them though, darling. I can’t get my head around it. Why’d you buy eggs?”

“Because I can’t keep wasting time looking for eggs,” Liz explained. “So I just think if I’ve bought them, I’ve definitely got them. It’s a bonus.”

“Sometimes I just don’t want to be the parent or the wife. I just want to be like 18 again. I’ve got no responsibilities,” Liz added before turning her attention to the future of the farm. “Should we just discuss the front fields with the crop? Got my notebook, which will also make Kelvin annoyed.”

“Are we sitting next to each other or not?” Kelvin asked, prompting Liz to joke: “No, I’m not your friend.” Kelvin added, “Living and working together can sometimes be a challenge, but we always kiss and make up. Eventually.”

Despite the teasing, Liz had a clear idea of how they could divide the field between their two ambitions. She told Kelvin, “Let’s split it. So I’d like to do the maize in this bottom bit, and then you can have your oats in this top bit. Because I’d like to do a maze with something happening in the middle, a cafe.”

Explaining why she wanted to try something different, she added: “Because I don’t want to waste the whole field on oats again, just in case it doesn’t work, and at least we can lift this, and maybe make some money out of it as an event and as a crop.”

“Yeah. Okay,” Kelvin nodded in agreement, to which a surprised Liz asked, “Is that just a straight yes?”

Kelvin added, “Yeah, that’s a good plan.”

Fletcher’s Family Farm airs on Sunday at 11.25am on ITV.

New York lawmakers are renewing a push to change the state’s sexual assault laws after prosecutors in the United States said the current rules made it difficult to bring charges for an alleged gang rape at a Cornell University fraternity house.

At issue is whether someone who willingly becomes intoxicated can be considered mentally incapacitated and therefore unable to consent to sex.

Under current New York law, only someone who was drugged or given alcohol without their knowledge can be considered “mentally incapacitated” because of intoxication and unable to consent. The same does not apply to someone who willingly consumed alcohol or drugs.

State Assemblyman Jeffrey Dinowitz and State Senator Nathalia Fernandez are sponsoring bills in their respective chambers that would change that.

In the state Senate, the bill is known as S10632, and in the New York Assembly, it is filed as Assembly Bill A101.

In a post on the social media platform X, Dinowitz said the proposed law would allow prosecutors to focus on whether someone was capable of consenting, rather than how they became intoxicated, and whether the accused “knew or should have known” that the person was unable to consent.

He said people who voluntarily drink or take drugs currently face significant barriers in sexual assault cases, particularly if they remain partly conscious or responsive during an alleged assault.

“The fact that someone made the choice to consume alcohol or another intoxicating substance should never be used to undermine their experience or shift responsibility onto the survivor when they’ve been sexually assaulted,” Dinowitz wrote.

The years-long reform effort has gained new momentum after Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten said the existing law was one reason his office initially declined to pursue charges against several Cornell students accused of sexually assaulting a woman on October 19, 2024.

The woman, identified only as Jane Doe, was 20 at the time. She has since filed a civil lawsuit against seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity, as well as Cornell University and several other defendants.

The lawsuit alleges fraternity members gave her alcohol and ketamine and sexually assaulted her after she became incapacitated.

Doe also reported her allegations to campus police in November 2024.

In a statement explaining why his office did not pursue charges afterwards, Van Houten said Doe never claimed at the time that she had been involuntarily intoxicated, physically forced or unconscious. He also said she did not clearly express that she did not consent.

Any of those circumstances could have provided grounds for prosecutors to pursue rape charges under New York law, according to the district attorney.

“On the contrary, Jane Doe’s statement described her participation in drug use and sexual conduct as voluntary, conscious, and consensual,” Van Houten wrote.

“In this case, multiple prosecutors and criminal investigators reviewed Jane Doe’s statement and correctly determined the alleged facts as set forth in the statement do not constitute a crime.”

Since the lawsuit was filed, Van Houten’s office has faced intense scrutiny. It said on Monday that it will reopen the investigation and bring the case before a grand jury, which will consider whether there is enough evidence to indict anyone.

Van Houten also told CBS News on Wednesday that he had not seen a transcript of a campus police interview conducted three weeks after the alleged assault in which the woman said: “I can say with 100% confidence I was raped.”

Cornell has defended its handling of the case, saying it investigated the allegations and disciplined the accused students, with penalties ranging from suspension to expulsion.

On Wednesday, New York Governor Kathy Hochul said the university had agreed to her request to bring in an outside law firm to conduct a new investigation into its handling of the case.

Previous efforts to change New York’s sexual assault laws have foundered in the state legislature. Senate bill S10632 has passed its chamber but has never received a vote on the Assembly floor.

“Rape is the only crime that I’m aware of where, if the victim was drunk, they may not get justice,” Dinowitz, the assembly member, said in an interview with Reuters. “There shouldn’t be any difference in terms of the survivors of sexual assault between the people who are voluntarily intoxicated and who are involuntarily intoxicated.”

New York is one of 19 states where a person can be considered mentally incapacitated because of intoxication only if they did not willingly become intoxicated, according to Elizabeth Jeglic, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice who studies sexual abuse.

“It doesn’t make sense,” Jeglic said. “If you’re incapacitated, you’re incapacitated, regardless of whether you consumed it yourself or somebody else gave it to you without your consent.”