confront

Local residents living in the Lake District National Park have complained of visitors leaving litter and leaving tents behind after illegally wild camping on the banks of lakes

Wild campers and locals are going head-to-head in the UK’s best-known and most visited national park as overtourism tensions threaten to boil over.

Paths blocked by campervans. Discarded tampons and nappies. Dogs let loose on the fells. Sausages grilled in the shadow of ‘BBQs forbidden’ signs.

These are just some of the hundreds of complaints from locals fed up with what they see as unacceptable tourist behavior in the Lake District.

A great number of instances of littering, wildfires, and campers leaving equipment behind (known as fly camping) were logged in the Friends of the Lake District’s annual survey.

OPINION

“Some people have no social conscience and do not care about the impact of their behaviour on the environment or other people. We see litter on the fells, on lakesides and thrown out of cars onto grass verges. We even saw someone having a BBQ sat right next to a sign prohibiting it on Ullswater last year,” one unhappy local wrote in this year’s survey.

Another added: “I’m from the Lakes and have always appreciated the tourism and what it does for the area. However, I feel we have now got to the stage where tourism is over capacity and negatively impacting the area and the quality of life for residents and animals. Frequent traffic jams, poorly parked cars, and most upsetting of all, litter. Today we came across a discarded used nappy and a tampon. My children and I frequently go out with our litter pickers. It really saddens me to see the Lake District in environmental decline.”

It is difficult to know quite how acute the problem is. The surveys collect anecdotal evidence and solid figures on littering and anti-social behaviour are hard to come by.

What is undeniable is the shifting demographic of those coming. In 2018, 52% of visitors to Cumbria were under 50. By 2022, that’d risen to 74%.

Surprisingly, overall visitor numbers were down at the last count (2024) compared to both 2023 and the pre-Covid year of 2019. Roughly five million fewer people visited in 2024 than in 2019.

Jeremy Smith is head of campaigns and engagement at Friends of the Lake District. He believes that relations between visitors and locals have been tense since the Covid years, in part due to the changing nature of the tourists coming.

“With the increase in the number of people taking holidays in the UK, in terms of behavior, what may have been happening in Ibiza and Cyprus has been domesticated in places like the Lake District,” he told the Mirror.

Local laws were tightened earlier this year in response to resident complaints. Those causing environmental damage by littering, starting fires, or committing anti-social behaviour linked to camping or the “inappropriate use” of motorhomes can now be fined up to £100, under Westmorland and Furness Council public protection orders.

Wild camping rules are a little more complex. It isn’t legally permitted without landowner consent, but is widely tolerated if strict ‘Leave No Trace’ guidelines are followed. These require visitors to camp only above the highest fell wall (around 400m+), well away from roads and towns, stay for just one night, and never light a fire.

According to some locals, the rules are being flouted regularly.

“The path by the shore had a tent pitched in the middle of it, and when I politely pointed this out to the occupants, they swore at me aggressively,” one survey respondent wrote.

“People do not like to be questioned about leaving litter, loose dogs, motorbikes, it’s a sense of entitlement to do just as they like. There are very few authority figures, such as police or wardens. It should not be up to pensioners to police the park.”

Nigeria’s position on ransom payments rests on a sound principle: Every ransom paid strengthens criminal organisations by financing the purchase of more weapons, and encouraging more kidnappings. Every naira handed to kidnappers today may finance tomorrow’s abduction.

Yet, another reality is far more uncomfortable. It is a reality experienced daily by families whose loved ones have disappeared into forests, insurgent camps, and criminal enclaves across Nigeria. The state asks them not to pay. The same state often cannot prevent the abduction nor guarantee the rescue of the victim.

For years, successive governments have urged Nigerians to reject ransom payments as a matter of national security. The argument is strategically sound. Kidnapping has evolved into one of Nigeria’s most profitable criminal economies, sustaining terrorist groups, insurgent groups, and organised kidnapping networks across several regions. Every successful payment reinforces that economy and makes future attacks more likely.

But public policy cannot exist only in theory. It must also survive contact with human reality.

For many women and girls held captive, every additional day increases the risk of rape, forced marriage, sexual slavery, and repeated abuse. Men and boys frequently endure forced labour, torture, starvation, beatings, and execution. Children lose months or years of their education while entire families descend into financial ruin attempting to negotiate for survival.

For parents, spouses, and siblings, this is not an abstract debate about national security. They know that every phone call may be the last and that every delay may carry irreversible consequences. It is therefore unsurprising that many families choose life over policy.

Critics often ask why families continue paying ransom despite repeated warnings, but the more humane question is whether society has offered them a credible alternative.

Military rescue operations have succeeded in some high-profile cases, and security forces continue to make sacrifices under extremely dangerous conditions. However, they remain the exception rather than the experience of most victims. Across vast areas of Nigeria, rescue is uncertain, negotiations are prolonged, intelligence is limited, and families are frequently left to navigate kidnappers alone. That gap creates an impossible moral burden.

The law tells a father not to pay, but his daughter remains in captivity and the government cannot tell him when, or whether, she will come home. What should he choose?

Many policymakers evaluate ransom through the lens of national security. Families experience it through the lens of survival. Both perspectives are legitimate, but they collide in painful ways.

The contradiction becomes even sharper where governments contemplate criminalising ransom payments. Such laws may satisfy an important strategic objective, but without dramatically improving prevention, intelligence, rapid response, and hostage rescue capability, they risk punishing victims twice. First, by failing to protect them. Second, by denying them the only option they believe remains.

No family should ever have to choose between financing organised crime and abandoning someone they love. The responsibility for breaking this cycle belongs to the state, not to traumatised families.

A credible anti-ransom policy requires far more than a legal prohibition. It demands professional policing, intelligence-driven operations, rapid hostage recovery capabilities, functioning emergency response systems, stronger border control, disruption of kidnapping finances, and sustained prosecution of those who organise and profit from this industry.

Only then can the government reasonably ask citizens to bear the enormous moral cost of refusing to pay ransom. Until that day arrives, Nigeria’s ransom debate will remain trapped between principle and reality. Ending ransom payments begins with ending the conditions that make ransom appear to be the only path home.

There has been unrest on the streets of London where Morocco fans were confronted by police following their team’s 2-0 loss to France and exit from the World Cup. Several arrests were reportedly made late on Thursday night around London’s Edgware road.

EXCLUSIVE: Former Hollyoaks star Emma Rigby says she’d like to ‘sit down’ with Andrews and discover what she is willing to admit to, 30 years after the crime

The actress who plays Tracie Andrews in a new drama about the 1996 “road rage” killing of her fiancé Lee Harvey has revealed her desire to interview the convicted murderer about what really happened.

Emma Rigby, best known for her role as Hannah Ashworth in Hollyoaks, said: “I would love to make a documentary following a sit down between the two of us. I have so many questions for her. She has never told the truth on camera, it would be interesting to see what story she would tell now.”

Emma, who also starred in BBC1’s Prisoners’ Wives, was seven years old at the time of Lee’s death and knew nothing about the case before being approached for the role. To prepare, she watched many documentaries and read the book Pure Evil by Lee’s mother Maureen., played in the drama by The Witcher’s Jo Marriott.

An “avid consumer of true crime”, Emma she found Andrews’ psychology to be “fascinating” – but struggled to find one iota of sympathy for her. “The most chilling moments are when we used transcripts of what Tracie actually said,” she explained. “Her tone is terrifying and her lack of remorse is extremely sad. Tracie is the very definition of chilling. Her behaviour is shockingly unbelievable.”

The 90-minute drama, Suspect: The Road Rage Killer, will show how Tracie, then 27, was so desperate to find fame as a model, that she enjoyed being centre of attention at the press conference – even though she would quickly expose herself as a suspect rather than a witness.

“Tracie has many facets, her wanting to be on camera was one of them,” Emma says. “It was important to show how Tracie’s demise was essentially giving the camera too much.”

She said that playing her meant getting right into her head, where she found no redeeming features. “I can believe that in her way she loved Lee, and relate to a toxic situation masquerading as an all-consuming love, but this does not extend to sympathy for her actions,” Emma said. “The more I consumed, the more horrified I became. Each new detail that emerged was more shocking than the last, it makes for a gripping drama.”

Thirty years ago, Andrews was found covered in blood next to the body of her fiance Lee on a dark country lane near to their home in Alvechurch, Worcestershire. She was later found to have stabbed him in the neck and chest 42 times during an argument as they drove home from a local pub. The crime was pre-meditated, as she had hidden a knife inside her boot.

Having murdered the man she was due to marry, Andrews concocted a story about a road rage incident and said that Lee had been killed by a man in another car with “starey eyes”. But this unravelled when she contradicted statements she’d already made at the televised press conference.

The actress has struggled to understand how Andrews can have launched such a frenzied attack on bus-driver Lee, 25, who she claimed to adore. “I can believe that in her way she loved Lee, and relate to a toxic situation masquerading as an all-consuming love, but this does not extend to sympathy for her actions,” Emma said.

After being given a life sentence for murder, Andrews served the minimum 14 years before being released in 2011. Now living under the name Jenna Stephens in a southern coastal town, she married bouncer and dad-of-two Phil Goldsworthy in 2017. Two years after she was jailed Andrews, who had a history of violent attacks on her partner, admitted to killing Lee, but insisted it was done in self-defence.

Emma, 36, said it was shocking how little remorse Andrews showed over what she had done. “The key element is Tracie’s apathy – which is offset by her complete conviction to come out on top, whatever the cost.”

The actress said she’d loved getting her teeth into the meaty role, and hopes it will lead to more challenging parts being offered to her. “I hope it will reveal a whole new dimension to what I can do,” she said. “Tracie is my first onscreen role playing a real person and is someone many people are familiar with, due to the iconic press conference. I wanted to give a raw and very real performance,” she explained. “As an actor I had the most enjoyable time playing Tracie; I really loved the grit.”

– Under Suspicion: Tracie Andrews – Lover, Liar, Killer, Channel 5, Monday 13 July, 9pm

Finance ministers from the Group of Seven met in Paris to address rising global financial instability triggered by a bond market selloff and concerns over inflation linked to the ongoing conflict involving Iran.

The meeting comes at a time when global bond markets from Tokyo to New York are under pressure, as investors anticipate that higher energy prices could force central banks to maintain or increase interest rates.

Officials are also preparing for a broader discussion on structural global imbalances and coordination ahead of an upcoming G7 leaders summit.

Bond Market Pressure and Inflation Concerns

Bond yields have risen sharply across major economies as investors reassess inflation risks. Markets are increasingly focused on whether rising energy costs will translate into sustained price pressures that limit the ability of central banks to ease policy.

French officials have described the current situation as a correction rather than a crisis, though they acknowledge growing sensitivity around sovereign debt levels and fiscal sustainability.

The volatility has raised concerns particularly in highly debt sensitive economies such as Japan, where bond market movements are closely watched for spillover effects.

Diverging Views Within the G7

Despite the shared concerns, divisions remain among G7 members over how to respond to global economic instability.

European officials have emphasized the need for coordinated, temporary, and targeted responses to market shocks, while acknowledging that consensus with the United States may be difficult.

Some members argue that global economic imbalances are becoming structurally entrenched, with consumption and investment patterns increasingly misaligned across major economies.

Global Imbalances and Structural Concerns

A central focus of the discussions is the growing imbalance in global economic activity. European officials argue that long term trends show excessive consumption in some economies, under consumption in others, and insufficient investment in parts of Europe.

These structural disparities are seen as contributing to persistent trade tensions, capital flow imbalances, and financial market instability.

Officials warn that without coordinated policy responses, these imbalances could eventually lead to more severe market corrections.

Critical Minerals and Supply Chain Strategy

Another key agenda item is the global competition over critical minerals and rare earth supply chains, which are essential for electric vehicles, renewable energy systems, and defense technologies.

G7 members are exploring ways to reduce dependence on dominant suppliers, particularly China, through coordinated investment, joint procurement strategies, and diversification of supply chains.

Proposals under discussion include pooled purchasing mechanisms, market monitoring systems, and industrial policy coordination to strengthen supply security.

Analysis

The G7 meeting highlights a convergence of financial instability and geopolitical fragmentation. Rising bond yields and inflation fears are no longer isolated market issues but are now directly linked to geopolitical disruptions in energy supply and global trade routes.

At the same time, disagreements within the G7 reflect deeper structural tensions in the global economy, particularly around debt levels, consumption patterns, and industrial policy priorities.

Efforts to coordinate on critical minerals signal a shift toward more strategic economic alignment among advanced economies, where supply chain security is becoming as important as price stability.

Overall, the meeting underscores a global transition toward a more fragmented and politically driven financial system, where economic coordination is increasingly shaped by geopolitical risk rather than purely market based forces.

With information from Reuters.

EXPLAINER

The fear of renewed US strikes in Iran looms while Israeli attacks continue in Lebanon despite extended ‘ceasefire’.

United States President Donald Trump has warned Iran that the “clock is ticking” to clinch a deal to end the war as reports have emerged that Washington and Israel might be planning to carry out air strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure.

“For Iran, the Clock is Ticking, and they better get moving, FAST, or there won’t be anything left of them,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform. “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE!”

Iranian Ministry of Defence spokesperson Reza Talaei-Nik said on Sunday that the military is “fully prepared” to confront any new aggression from the US and Israel.

Saudi Arabia on Monday said it intercepted three drones, a day after a drone strike hit the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant in the United Arab Emirates.

Meanwhile, Israel has continued its bombardment of Lebanon despite another “ceasefire” extension.

As the US-Israeli war on Iran continues for its 80th day, here is what we know:

In Iran

• Mohsen Rezaei, a member of Tehran’s Expediency Council and former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps commander, issued a warning to the US to lift its blockade of Iranian ports, saying the Iranian military is ready for further confrontation. Rezaei made this warning while speaking to state television.
• Talaei-Nik said the Iranian armed forces are “fully prepared to confront any new potential attack by the US and the Israeli regime against the country”.

War diplomacy

• Mikhail Ulyanov, Russia’s envoy to international organisations in Vienna, suggested in an X post that Iran appoint a special envoy to Moscow, similar to Tehran’s arrangement with China.
• In an X post, Jean-Luc Melenchon, the leading figure of France’s left-wing La France Insoumise party, condemned “European complicity” in the US-Israeli strikes on Iran, which have triggered a wider regional war.

In the Gulf

• The New York Times reported that the Israeli military has operated two “covert” outposts in Iraq’s western desert and killed a shepherd and a soldier in a bid to hide one of the sites near the town of al-Nukhaib.
• After the drone attack on the nuclear facility caused a fire, the UAE Ministry of Defence said two other drones had been “successfully” dealt with after they were launched from the “western border”. It did not elaborate.
• The drone that got through the UAE’s defences hit an electrical generator outside the inner perimeter of the Barakah Nuclear Energy Plant, the Abu Dhabi Media Office said. Radiological safety levels were unaffected, and there were no injuries, it said. The UAE’s Federal Authority for Nuclear Regulation later confirmed that the plant remained safe with no radioactive material released from the strike.
• Saudi Arabia said the three drones it intercepted entered from Iraqi airspace and warned that it would take the necessary operational measures to respond to any attempt to violate its sovereignty and security.

In the US

• Marjorie Taylor Greene, a former US congresswoman and a once-close ally of Trump, has warned in a post on X that any attempt to send US troops into Iran would trigger what she described as a “political revolution”.
• Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, speaking to the NBC broadcaster, urged Trump to “hurt” Iran, including launching attacks on its energy sites, until it agrees to US terms on its nuclear programme. The US and Israel have hit civilian targets multiple times during the war on Iran. Attacks on civilian facilities are considered war crimes under international law.

In Israel

• Israel’s Channel 13 reported that dozens of US cargo planes carrying ammunition from bases in Germany have landed in Tel Aviv.
• Israeli media reported that the military is preparing for renewed hostilities with Iran. The public broadcaster Kan quoted an unnamed security official as saying that Israel would join any new US strikes and target Iranian energy infrastructure.

In Lebanon

• Israeli strikes have continued in southern Lebanon, where Israel issued evacuation orders for four towns and villages and then struck two of those locations.
• Strikes were also reported in Az-Zrariyah on a moving vehicle while another raid in Tayr Debba resulted in some significant casualty numbers, Al Jazeera’s Obaida Hitto reported from Tyre, Lebanon.

Global markets

• Stalled peace efforts between Iran and the US caused oil prices to rise again on Monday. This pushed the price of the global benchmark Brent crude up to about $111 per barrel, close to its highest level in weeks.

WASHINGTON — Making his first appearance before Congress since the Trump administration went to war in Iran, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth faced withering questioning from skeptical Democrats Wednesday over a costly conflict being waged without congressional approval.

The war has cost $25 billion so far, according to Pentagon numbers presented to the House Armed Services Committee during the contentious hearing, ostensibly focused on the administration’s 2027 military budget proposal, which would boost defense spending to a historic $1.5 trillion.

While Republicans focused on the details of military budgeting and voiced support for the operation, Democrats pivoted to the ballooning costs of the war, the huge drawdown of critical U.S. munitions and the bombing of a school that killed children. Some lawmakers also questioned President Trump’s dealings with allies and his shifting justification for the conflict.

Hegseth dismissed the criticism as political and rebuked lawmakers who pushed him for answers.

“The biggest challenge, the biggest adversary we face at this point are the reckless, feckless and defeatist words of congressional Democrats and some Republicans,” Hegseth said.

Democrats press about reasons for war

Wednesday’s hearing stretched nearly six hours as Democrats and some Republicans questioned Hegseth over the war and his ouster of several top military leaders.

In one tense exchange, Hegseth told Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) that Iran’s nuclear facilities were obliterated in a 2025 attack by the U.S., prompting Smith to question the Trump administration’s reasoning for starting the Iran war less than a year later.

“We had to start this war, you just said 60 days ago, because the nuclear weapon was an imminent threat,” said Smith, the ranking Democrat on the committee. “Now you’re saying that it was completely obliterated?”

Hegseth responded by saying that Iran “had not given up their nuclear ambitions” and still had thousands of missiles.

Smith said the war “left us at exactly the same place we were before.”

Democrats accused Hegseth of misleading Americans about the reasons for the conflict and said rising gas prices are now threatening the pocketbooks of millions of people in the U.S.

“Secretary Hegseth, you have been lying to the American public about this war from day one and so has the president,” said Rep. John Garamendi of Walnut Grove, who called the war “a geopolitical calamity,” a “strategic blunder” and a ”self-inflicted wound to America.”

Hegseth blasted Garamendi’s remarks.

“Who are you cheering for here?” he asked the lawmaker. ”Your hatred for President Trump blinds you” to the success of the war.

Hegseth defends firings of officers

The Defense secretary faced intense questions from Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.) about his decision to oust the Army’s top uniformed officer, Gen. Randy George, one of several top military officers to be dismissed since Trump’s reelection.

Houlahan said George was deeply respected by both members of the military and Congress and asked why Hegseth fired him. Hegseth’s response that “new leadership” was needed failed to satisfy Houlahan.

“You have no way of explaining why you fired one of the most decorated and remarkable men —” Houlahan began before Hegseth interrupted her. “We needed new leadership,” he repeated.

The Pentagon announced this month that Navy Secretary John Phelan was stepping down. Hegseth previously removed Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the Navy’s top uniformed officer, and Gen. Jim Slife, the Air Force’s No. 2 leader, while Trump fired Gen. Charles “CQ” Brown Jr. as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska said that while Hegseth is empowered to make personnel changes, he shares what he called “bipartisan concern” about the firings.

“We had a huge bipartisan majority here that had confidence in the Army chief of staff and the secretary of the navy,” Bacon said. “And I would just point out it may be constitutionally right … but it doesn’t make it right or wise.”

Hegseth has said the changes are part of building a “warrior culture” at the Pentagon.

Republican Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina defended Hegseth’s personnel moves, saying he is “trying to innovate and trying to change the way we do business.”

“I’m glad that you’re firing people,” Mace said. “There are people there that are getting in your way. They need to go.”

Republicans back Trump on Iran

During the extended hearing, Hegseth detailed plans to increase pay for service members and upgrade munitions while also announcing that, as of Tuesday, the Pentagon had authorized $400 million in military aid for Ukraine in its fight against Russia.

But the debate and the questions were dominated by the war in Iran.

While a fragile ceasefire is now in place, the U.S. and Israel launched the war Feb. 28 without congressional oversight. House and Senate Democrats have failed to pass multiple war power resolutions that would have required Trump to halt the conflict until Congress authorizes further action.

Republicans say they back Trump’s wartime leadership, for now, citing Iran’s nuclear program, the potential for talks to resume and the high stakes of withdrawal. Still, GOP lawmakers are eager for the conflict to end, and some are eyeing future votes that could become an important test for the president if the war drags on.

Democrats questioned Hegseth over the war’s economic impact and rising gasoline costs, noting Trump’s promise to lower consumer costs. Hegseth responded by citing the threat posed by Iran.

“What is the cost of Iran having a nuclear weapon that they wield?” he said.

Republicans expressed support for Trump’s decision to strike Iran, including Mace, who in late March had expressed concerns about the justification for the war. “The longer this war continues, the faster it will lose the support of Congress and the American people,” she wrote in a social media post.

On Wednesday, Mace noted her past concerns but said she is “impressed with where we are today.” She told Hegseth: “Everything I have seen, you have surpassed all of my expectations.”

Iran’s closing of the Strait of Hormuz, a vital shipping corridor for the world’s oil, has sent fuel prices skyrocketing and posed problems for Republicans ahead of the midterm elections. The U.S. has imposed a naval blockade of Iranian shipping and three American aircraft carriers are in the Middle East for the first time in more than 20 years.

The countries appear locked in a stalemate. Trump told Axios on Wednesday that he is rejecting Iran’s proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz in exchange for lifting the U.S. blockade.

Finley, Groves, Klepper and Toropin write for the Associated Press.