cuts

WRU chiefs have said the process to decide the framework for the final decision will begin in December and finish before the end of the 2026-27 campaign.

Daniels believes there is scope to continue with four Welsh regions, and would like the WRU to explain their rationale for removing a team in the west.

“From a club perspective, we feel that the decision, and the justification, for moving from four [clubs] to three needs more work,” Daniels added.

“I understand that there is data which has been used to come up with this decision. It hasn’t been shared. We will really call for transparency in that discussion.

“These are decisions that are going to have a long-lasting effect, not just on rugby, but on communities in west Wales. I think that needs a proper airing publicly.”

He added: “Our position is that before you can come out and make statements which have such an impact on people in Wales, I still feel there is a discussion and justification needed for the move to reduce the number of teams.

“Welsh rugby should be able to accommodate four teams, just as they do in Ireland and other countries.

“If there is data and evidence that we can’t, then let’s have the discussion about how you reduce the number of teams.

“Even then, I think we would struggle to see how that should be isolated to the west and not be a broader Welsh rugby challenge to face.”

Daniels says it is Scarlets’ duty to ensure the uncertainty surrounding them does not creep into their on-field performance.

Instead, he feels the WRU’s current stance should unite Scarlets and wants to see everyone, players, supporters and staff, fighting for their future.

Diversity’s Ashley Banjo expresses concern for future dance stars amid rising costs and program cuts

Next generation of dance stars are being priced out the industry, study reveals.

The next generation of dance stars is being priced out of following in the footsteps of Shirley Ballas, Darcey Bussell and Ashley Banjo, according to a study.

Industry data from ONS revealed the number of people working as dancers and choreographers has fallen by 32 per cent since 2019.

While a separate poll of 2,000 adults found 68 per cent of Brits said dance is an important part of British culture, yet six in 10 believe the next generation of dance talent is being priced out of the industry.

And 55 per cent think only those from wealthier backgrounds can realistically pursue a career in dance.

BANJO NO!

Ashley Banjo breaks silence after appearing in Bonnie Blue documentary

GREATEST SHOW

Ashley Banjo teases very special Dancing On Ice performance

The research was commissioned by The Sky Foundation to mark the launch of the Julia Rausing Sky Arts Bursaries, a new programme providing funding, mentoring and industry support to 20 dance-makers across the UK.

The broadcaster also teamed up with Ashley Banjo MBE, the frontman of the group Diversity, to support the campaign.

Commenting on the poll, the choreographer said: “Dance opened so many doors for me growing up.

“I was lucky my Mum ran a dance school, so I was surrounded by dance from an early age and had access to opportunities that helped shape my future.

“But opportunities are becoming harder to access today, particularly for people who don’t come from an affluent background.

“Creative potential should never be determined by a family’s finances, yet these findings suggest cost is becoming an increasingly significant barrier to pursuing a career in dance.

“That’s a real concern, because talent exists everywhere – and we can’t afford to lose the next generation of dance artists and what they’ll contribute to our culture.”

The study also found 45 per cent feel the UK is missing out on dance talent which could contribute to culture, creative industries and the arts sector.

Participants believe this is due to families not being able to afford the costs of travel, equipment and competitions (63 per cent) and some young people not being able to afford creative careers (57 per cent).

Meanwhile, 67 per cent believe talent is being overlooked because they live in parts of the country with fewer creative pathways.

In total, 80 per cent believe those from less affluent backgrounds face more barriers to pursuing careers in dance.

Just six per cent believe they are on a truly even keel when it comes to making it in the industry according to the OnePoll.com data.

And only 29 per cent believe there are enough opportunities for young people to dance in their area.

This rises to 39 per cent for Londoners yet falls as low as 19 per cent for people of Yorkshire and the Humber – the lowest of any region.

Choreographers, dance-makers and artists have been encouraged to sign up to the bursary on the Julia Rausing Sky Arts Bursaries website.

Phil Edgar-Jones, trustee of the foundation and executive director of unscripted content at Sky, said: “Dance is one of Britain’s great creative strengths. It’s an artform that brings people together, tells powerful stories and reflects the diversity of communities across the UK.

“With public funding under pressure, many dance artists increasingly rely on the support of dance organisations, charities and funders to develop their careers.

“That’s why initiatives like this are so important.”

Ashley Banjo added: “No young person should feel that a career in dance is out of reach because they can’t afford lessons, travel or competitions, or because there aren’t enough opportunities close to home.

“Talent can come from anywhere, and your background shouldn’t determine your future.”

Do we still call it a “heat wave” if it never ends?

Maybe my Texas and Arizona friends can help me out here on proper nomenclature because, while everybody loves the sunshine, I’m starting to dream of the time when autumn leaves start to fall.

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. My birthday’s still a few months away. Is it OK if I have a slice of this cake, anyway? Maybe the Television Academy can send it to the Emmy nominees who are no longer invited to the ceremony this year.

Read on for more …

Awards show adaptation or mere party foul?

What if you were invited to a party and then nine days later that invitation is rescinded? A party in your honor, no less, or at least one where you are among the honorees. How would you feel? Would you be tempted to take that birthday cake I just mentioned and smash it into the face of your host?

Maybe I’ve watched the pie fight in “Blazing Saddles” one too many times. (Happy 100th birthday, Mel Brooks!) Still, if I were among the Emmy nominees in the five categories that the Television Academy shuttled off the Primetime Emmy Awards to the untelevised Creative Arts Emmy Awards, I might be reaching for some baked goods and taking aim.

The five categories excised from the show include four from the limited series/movie group — supporting actor and actress, writing and directing. (Variety series writing was also cut.) When I wrote a few weeks ago that the limited series boom had gone bust, it wasn’t my intention that the TV Academy remove more than half of the categories from the show. It could have just been a down year, people! Television was pretty meh across the board the last 12 months. Why pick on one division?

In doing so, the Television Academy effectively disenfranchised HBO’s “DTF St. Louis,” the best limited series of the season, from the ceremony. Steven Conrad’s dark comedy about suburban loneliness earned 13 nominations, including supporting acting nods for each member of its stellar ensemble — Jason Bateman, David Harbour, Linda Cardellini, Richard Jenkins and Joy Sunday. Conrad was nominated for three — writing, directing and producing the series.

But now only Harbour, Bateman and Conrad will receive tickets to the show as executive producers of the nominated series. The other actors can attend the Creative Arts Emmys, held the weekend before the Primetime Emmys. And of course, HBO will be happy to buy them tickets if they want to go to the televised ceremony too.

The question is: Will they and other nominees, which include the likes of Nick Offerman (“Death by Lightning”), Charles Melton (“Beef”) and Dakota Fanning (“All Her Fault”), want to get dressed up two weekends in a row? (First-world problems, I know.)

“It really did manifest as a disinvite for all these people,” says one awards consultant who, like other sources for this story, requested anonymity in order to speak candidly about the move. “Had the Television Academy done it before nominations came out, then at least people’s expectations would have been managed. But now it’s sort of like you got invited to the party and now you can’t come. It’s not a very nice feeling.”

“Beef” star Charles Melton’s category, supporting actor in a limited series or TV movie, will be presented at the untelevised Creative Arts Emmys the weekend before the Primetime Emmys ceremony.

(Netflix)

Why did the TV Academy wait to shift the categories until after the nominations were announced? Why focus on limited series and not, say, spread the cuts across drama and comedy categories too? Are these changes permanent?

I asked these questions to the Television Academy and the answers were, basically: We announced as soon as possible. We’re going to sidestep that second query. And we’ll see how it goes!

What this comes down to is a desire to create a show that, in the words of a TV Academy spokesperson, is “driven by the need to innovate while delivering a three-hour broadcast, keeping audience expectations and the creative structure of the ceremony in mind.”

Translation: fewer awards, fewer speeches, more throwback segments that have a chance to go viral and get people talking.

The Oscars tried this in 2022, moving eight categories off the telecast, handing them out before the broadcast began. Members hated the idea and order was restored the following year with all 23 awards being presented during the live telecast. (In 2019, when the motion picture academy announced a similar move, saying that four categories would be handed out during commercial breaks, the blowback was so fierce that the decision was almost immediately reversed.)

Emmy ratings were up 8% last year, the highest since 2021. An average of 7.42 million viewers watched. Not NFL numbers, but a continued indication that the audience level for major awards ceremonies has stabilized after steep declines during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Still, there is a feeling among some that awards shows need to adapt and pick up the pace in a time when viewers’ attention spans have shortened. Is there an appetite for a three-hour ceremony when you can simply watch the highlights the next day on social media platforms?

“If people don’t want to see actors winning awards, then the days of televised awards shows should just be over,” gripes another Emmy consultant.

One thing that might be over — or at least greatly diminished — will be submissions for the supporting acting categories for limited series/movie next year if the academy makes this revision permanent.

“I think everyone will be going lead,” one network executive joked, “even if they have just five minutes an episode.”

July 31 (UPI) — Federal officials on Friday released an updated framework for the Colorado River, requiring Arizona, California and Nevada to significantly reduce their water use in the coming years.

The plan, released by the Interior Department’s Bureau of Reclamation, reduces the water available for use by the three states by 3 million acre-feet in the coming decade.

One acre-foot is enough water for as many as four households to use for a whole year. The cuts represent the largest proposed cuts for those states to date

“The [report] contains a framework that includes sideboards that are unacceptable for the state of Arizona,” the Arizona Department of Water Resources said in a statement to The Colorado Sun. “Such reductions would devastate Arizona’s water users and its economy.”

The Colorado River’s resources are divided among seven states, combined into two groups: Upper Basin states include Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming, while Lower Basin states are Arizona, California and Nevada.

Upper Basin states have a target for voluntary cuts of up to 200,000 acre-feet per year, or 5% of their annual water use.

The Colorado River provides water for some 40 million people.

Federal officials said drought conditions over the past 25 years have dwindled the water capacity available to the states that rely on the river.

“The department has a responsibility to ensure the Colorado River system remains reliable and resilient for the millions of Americans, communities and industries that depend on it,” Interior Secretary Doug Burgum said in a statement. “This framework provides the flexibility to respond to changing hydrologic conditions while preserving the opportunity for the Basin States to continue working toward durable, consensus-based solutions.”

Adam Rowe joined BBC Breakfast presenters Emma Vardy and Roger Johnson on the famous red sofa to discuss his thoughts on the cancellation of Live at the Apollo.

A comedian has shared his thoughts on the axe of BBC’s Live at the Apollo, arguing that comedy audiences still “need something”.

34-year-old stand-up comic Adam Rowe appeared on Sunday’s instalment of BBC Breakfast to discuss his career highlights at the Apollo.

Talking to news presenters Emma Vardy and Roger Johnson, Adam said he wasn’t “surprised” the BBC decided to let the show go.

However, he did mention that it would still be good to have a programme that showcases talent live on stage. He said: “It was a massive platform.

“I think it should still be there; I think there should be a home for British stand-up.” He later added: “We need something. We need something like ‘you can watch the best of British stand-up here’ and if it’s not going to be Live at the Apollo, it’s going to have to be an independent that does it online. Maybe YouTube or something.”

The star also added that Live at the Apollo introduced a whole “generation” into the world of stand-up comedy, adding: “It’s not going to be there now.”

After more than two decades, it was recently announced that Live at the Apollo has become the latest casualty of the broadcaster’s cost-cutting plans. The stand-up series, filmed at London’s iconic Hammersmith Apollo, will not return after its next run, the BBC has confirmed.

The decision forms part of wider savings measures as the corporation looks to reduce spending by hundreds of millions of pounds in the coming years. Describing the move as a “difficult decision”, BBC bosses paid tribute to the programme’s legacy, highlighting its role in introducing audiences to both established comedy stars and rising performers in a prime-time slot.

Since launching in 2004, Live at the Apollo has become one of the broadcaster’s most enduring entertainment shows. It has also provided a platform for countless stand-up comics and helped many of them rise to mainstream success.

Before the curtain falls, one final series will be recorded at the Hammersmith Apollo later this year, giving the long-running format a final send-off.

Despite the bad news, Live at the Apollo is not the only show to be affected by the changes. The BBC has also confirmed that Blankety Blank and Celebrity Mastermind have been dropped as part of the same round of cuts.

Part of an official statement from the BBC reads as follows: “We are incredibly proud of all three of these much-loved shows and would like to thank everyone involved, both in front of and behind the camera, for bringing them to screen and making them such a success over many years.”

BBC Breakfast airs daily from 6am on BBC One.

Gladiators star Cyclone, whose real name is Lystus Ebosele, has featured on the BBC show since January 2025 but is now said to have been axed along with two others

Another one bites the dust… Cyclone has become the third professional to be axed from BBC show Gladiators. The TV star, whose real name is Lystus Ebosele, joined Bradley and Barney Walsh’s BBC revival of the 1990s classic last year, and has so far filmed two series.

But just as production got underway at the Utilita Arena in Sheffield for the next series of the reboot, Lystus, 25, is said to have been cut from the line-up and is not impressed with bosses.

A source told The Sun: “Cyclone won’t be back and she’s not happy about it. She’s now cut all ties with the show – it’s a pity as fans absolutely loved her.” The powerlifting champion has also unfollowed the official Instagram account for the programme and deleted all pictures of herself on the show.

News of Lystus’ exit comes just days after it was reported that Matty Campbell, who stars as Bionic, and Karenjeet Kaur Bains, better know to fans as Athena, had also been axed from the show, having missed out on a considerable amount of the last series after both suffering injuries.

A source said: “They won’t film this year for the show but could be back for the tour, depending on how they recover from their injuries.”

Earlier this year, Giant, 40, whose real name is Jamie Bigg, departed Gladiators amid much controversy when he went public with then-girlfriend Taylor Ryan, 28, and it emerged that she worked as a model on OnlyFans.

Execs were quick to air their disapproval, and the athlete said that he was “shocked and disappointed” by the move, which he directly linked to his partner’s racy work. It was then reported that body builder and fitness instructor Ahmad Rabus, 37, would act as his replacement, and it became apparent that he would be one of several new faces on the show.

Team GB medallist Tabby Stoecker, along with fitness influencer Florence Wong and World’s Strongest Man champion Tom Stoltman are reportedly in the lineup, whilst The Sun also reported that former England rugby star Joe Marler would be making an appearance.

The new series will introduce a soon to be revealed event, as well as the other well known challenges such as Duel, Hang Tough and the Eliminator. Popular additions from the previous series — Everest, Destruction and Suspension Bridge — are also set to return after receiving a strong response from viewers.

Produced by Hungry Bear Media in partnership with MGM Alternative UK, part of Amazon MGM Studios, Gladiators remains one of the BBC’s flagship entertainment programmes.

The most recent series, which came to an end in March, attracted an average audience of 4.6 million viewers across BBC One and BBC iPlayer over a 28-day period, while continuing to perform particularly strongly among younger audiences.

Kalpna Patel-Knight, BBC’s Head of Entertainment, said: “Since Gladiators burst back onto screens in 2024, it’s been amazing to see families across the UK rally behind the contenders and champion our phenomenal Gladiators as the true stars of Saturday nights.

“With a brand‑new series confirmed and another celebrity special on the way, audiences can look forward to even more colossal clashes, even more edge of your seat excitement and plenty of opportunities to raise those foam fingers high once again.”

The Mirror has contacted representatives for comment.

* Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Decision follows long-running feud between Trump and UN group.

The United States has announced the release of $600m for Gavi, as it cut off the World Health Organization (WHO) from the global vaccine alliance, in a major financial blow to the United Nations group.

In a joint statement, the US Department of State and the Department of Health and Human Services said: “The United States also reaffirms that it will not provide US Government funding to the World Health Organization through Gavi.”

The development, said the statement, is in line with US President Donald Trump’s instructions to “Health and Human Services Secretary Robert Kennedy Jr and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, to negotiate reforms with Gavi as a condition for renewed US support”.

US Republican Senator Susan Collins, who had pushed for the reinstatement of US funding for the global programme which expands access to immunisations around the world, welcomed the decision.

According to the State Department, Gavi agreed to work towards replacing mercury-containing vaccines with mercury-free alternatives, in partnership with its board and partner countries.

The Trump administration’s latest move against the WHO comes after historical animosity.

In 2020, Trump instructed his administration to temporarily halt funding to the WHO over its handling of the coronavirus pandemic, claiming the WHO promoted China’s “disinformation” about the virus, likely leading to a wider outbreak.

At the time, the US was the biggest donor to the WHO, contributing more than $400m in 2019, roughly 15 percent of its budget.

In January 2021, then-US President Joe Biden reversed Trump’s decisions, restoring US funding and halting the withdrawal process from the WHO.

However, on the first day of his second term, January 20, 2025, Trump said the US would withdraw from the WHO and suspended US contributions.

Experts have said the orders appear to be about ideological rather than strategic positioning.

The WHO is funded by a combination of core operating funds that each member state pays, and voluntary contributions from various partners.

At about $3.4bn, the WHO’s budget is roughly a third of that of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which got $9.3bn in core funding in 2023.

The WHO funds support programmes to prevent and treat polio, tuberculosis, HIV, malaria, measles and other diseases, especially in countries that struggle to provide healthcare domestically.

It also responds to health emergencies in conflict zones, including parts of Gaza, Sudan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and others.

The fate of hundreds of clean energy projects hangs in the balance after court documents revealed that the Trump administration targeted California and other blue states solely for political reasons when it slashed funding for the initiatives last year.

Large companies, startups, utilities, universities and other nonprofits were among those that lost out on $7.6 billion in clean energy funding terminated by the White House in October. They include the University of California, the California Energy Commission, the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power and California’s nascent hydrogen hub, the Alliance for Renewable Clean Hydrogen Energy Systems, or ARCHES.

At the time, Trump administration officials said the grants were terminated because they “did not adequately advance the nation’s energy needs, were not economically viable, and would not provide a positive return on investment of taxpayer dollars.”

But in court documents filed as part of a lawsuit challenging the cuts, the Department of Energy states the selection of grants was “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State.”

It also concedes that neither the inclusion of ARCHES, nor any other grants in the October tranche, was “based on any programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor.”

California and the 15 other states that lost funding did not vote for Trump in the 2024 election.

Legal experts said such an action is unheard of.

“The government has stipulated that grants were cut off to states that voted against Trump. As far as I know, this blatant politics in cutting off grants is unprecedented. It also is illegal,” said Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley Law School and co-counsel in the lawsuit.

More projects were cut in California than any other state, about 79 out of nearly 300. They were all for clean energy, many to address climate change, and include investments in new battery plants, upgrades for the electrical grid and initiatives to take carbon out of the air. About $1.2 billion was slated for the hydrogen hub.

Money was also to go to West Biofuels in Woodland, CALSTART in Pasadena, Charge Bliss in Aliso Viejo, Rejoule in Signal Hill, Southern California Edison, the Imperial Irrigation District and Aera Federal LLC, among many others.

The lawsuit was brought by a group of faculty members and researchers at UC Berkeley and UC San Francisco, who were among those to lose research grants. A separate lawsuit was filed by California and a coalition of 13 other states in February.

The acknowledgment of political motivation is “startling — and it is particularly so when the administration has had these larger narratives about how they’re canceling grants that are about waste, fraud and abuse,” said Claudia Polsky, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at UC Berkeley and initiating counsel in the university case. “If they want to favor oil, coal and nuclear, and disfavor clean energy innovation, that’s their prerogative as the executive. But here we have stipulations saying that none of those things were true for these staggeringly consequential DOE grants.”

The lawsuit alleges that the government’s actions violate the Constitution’s equal protection clause, which prevents arbitrary discrimination, as well as the 1st Amendment in that it is targeting researchers for how their state voted.

“None of it was about a change in priorities,” Polsky said, noting that similar grants in red states were not canceled. “None of it was about fiscal stringency. None of it was about anything except punishing people who didn’t vote for Trump.”

Judge Rita F. Lin could order the federal funding to be reinstated, and indeed has already done so through some temporary preliminary injunctions. But many of the grantees are now in “purgatory” as the case proceeds toward a final ruling, Polsky said.

Many of the projects are complex, multi-year efforts that involve a hodgepodge of agencies, experts and partnerships, such as ARCHES, the state’s billion-dollar hydrogen hub awarded under President Biden. Officials with ARCHES could not immediately be reached for comment.

News of the funding cuts first broke last fall in a post on X from Russell Vought, director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget.

“Nearly $8 billion in Green New Scam funding to fuel the Left’s climate agenda is being canceled,” Vought wrote. “The projects are in the following states: CA, CO, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, MA, MN, NH, NJ, NM, NY, OR, VT, WA.”

At a House hearing in June, however, Energy Secretary Chris Wright said decisions were not made based on politics.

The Energy Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“Secretary Wright looked me in the eye, under oath, insisting the decision to cancel California’s clean energy projects was ‘not political,’” Sen. Alex Padilla said in a statement to The Times on Monday. “The Administration’s own court filings tell a different story. These decisions jeopardize good-paying jobs, undermine American energy innovation, and drive up costs.”

Padilla is among 30 California lawmakers, including Sen. Adam Schiff and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-San José), who separately challenged the funding cuts as unlawful — writing in an October letter to the Energy Department’s independent Office of the Inspector General that the decision targeted blue states “for their perceived lack of support for President Trump.” The office subsequently launched an investigation into the claims.

“Any Trump official who lied and told the nation these clean energy grant cancellations had nothing to do with politics should resign,” Schiff said in a post on X after the latest court filings were revealed. “As the administration has now been forced to concede — these cancellations had everything to do with politics. Of the worst kind.”

A final ruling is expected in early November.

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

Protesters shut roads and ministries in Tripoli as a civil disobedience campaign over power cuts spreads to more areas.

Protesters in Libya’s capital, Tripoli, have shut down roads and public buildings across the city as a civil disobedience campaign, launched over prolonged power cuts and high electricity rates, spread to more districts.

Crowds blocked the coastal road in Janzour, west of Tripoli, late on Sunday, and gathered outside the West Tripoli power station, closing the local municipal council building in protest at the prolonged outages.

Videos posted online, verified by Al Jazeera shows, protesters burning tyres and closing down major roads elsewhere in the capital.

The footage also shows protesters unloading a truck loaded with dirt in front of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the district of Sater Turba in Tripoli to close it.

The mostly young protesters also shut the offices of state telecoms operator Libyana in the district of Souq Al-Jumaa, according to the DPA news agency, carrying banners criticising Prime Minister Abdulhamid al-Dabaiba.

The campaign was launched by the Souq Al-Jumaa Movement, which has opposed the Government of National Unity since May 2025. It said its aim was to “completely paralyse the government” rather than disrupt ordinary life.

It called for accountability over alleged corruption and for the dissolution of Libya’s existing political institutions, including the government, the House of Representatives, the State Council and the Presidential Council.

The unrest also spread to the district of Tajoura, where the Tajoura Families and Youth Movement said it would begin a full boycott of state institutions from Monday, rejecting both the unity government and the House of Representatives.

It said in a statement that the call was in protest against the deterioration of services, citing the decline in electricity, water, education and health services, alongside continuing fuel and liquidity crises and medicine shortages, while “officials are preoccupied with political conflicts”.

There was no immediate comment from the Government of National Unity.

Blackouts in Tripoli and other areas have reached up to ten hours a day, prompting the state-run General Electricity Company to reinstate load-shedding measures after two years of relative network stability.

The outages have compounded existing public frustration over inflation, currency instability, fuel and liquidity shortages, and Libya’s protracted political deadlock.

Separately, Massad Boulos, the White House adviser for African affairs, said he had held a “productive call” with Dabaiba on Sunday to discuss steps toward Libyan unification, including security cooperation between the country’s eastern and western factions.

“We also reviewed opportunities to further coordination and interoperability between Libyan forces and Africom,” Boulos said on X, adding that Washington remained committed to supporting Libya’s unification “in order to achieve durable peace, stability and prosperity”.

Jon Bon Jovi’s “Forever” tour stop was cut short after the singer said he needed to cool it.

Nearing the end of his nine-show residency at Madison Square Garden on Thursday, the 64-year-old rock icon apologized to fans when he had to pull the plug nearly an hour early.

Just before launching into “Livin’ on a Prayer,” he told the audience in a raspy voice, “I am the most grateful man in the world right now because I know I’m letting you down, and it’s not like me to do that. I feel f— great, but I’m gonna do one more song. I’m gonna need your help. I might have to cool it because I’m f— hurt.”

He performed the 1986 megahit, with the audience belting the chorus in his place toward the end. Bon Jovi then said, “I’m sorry, I’ve got to go. Stay tuned.”

“I’ve got to cool it,” he continued. “It’s just not going to get any better. Don’t throw away your ticket stubs. I’m gonna figure something out, OK? Just hold onto it, we’ll figure out how to reschedule.”

Bon Jovi embraced his band mates in a group hug before heading off stage.

Representatives for the “Bad Medicine” rocker told The Times that the concert ran for 90 minutes before ending.

“Jon Bon Jovi spoke from stage and told fans he has been battling a sinus infection, which led to the show’s early ending,” the statement continued. “As part of the Bon Jovi residency at Madison Square Garden, Jon has said numerous times that it has been a joy to return to live shows for the band.”

Bon Jovi’s “Forever” tour is the first since the namesake frontman had surgery to repair a vocal cord injury in 2022.

The tour kicked off July 7 at the New York City venue and then will head overseas for a series of international stadium dates, including stops at Scottish Gas Murrayfield Stadium in Edinburgh on Aug. 28, Croke Park in Dublin on Aug. 30, and a three-night stand at Wembley Stadium in London on Sept. 4, 6 and 9.

In 2024, Bon Jovi spoke on a Hulu panel in support of his docuseries “Thank You, Goodnight” and revealed that one of his vocal cords was “atrophying.”

“I pride myself on having been a true vocalist,” the musician said. “I’ve sung with Pavarotti. I know how to sing. I’ve studied the craft for 40 years. I’m not a stylist who just barks and howls. I know how to sing.”

“So when God was taking away my ability, and I couldn’t understand why — I jokingly have said the only thing that’s ever been up my nose is my finger — you know, so there’s no reason for any of this,” he added.

The same year, he told The Times that his voice was a “work in progress.”

“I’m an athlete coming back from an injury — Kobe Bryant with his Achilles torn off. Before I got on the plane this morning, I was at vocal therapy. The goal is 2½ hours a night, four nights a week,” he said.

In June, he told People that he was fully recovered. “It was longer than I’d ever expected, but it had to be right. We never lost faith.”

WASHINGTON — President Bush, formally abandoning the central pledge of his 1988 presidential campaign, declared Tuesday that preserving a healthy economy will require new taxes.

“It is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require” a series of measures including “tax revenue increases” as well as spending cuts, Bush said in a written statement issued after a breakfast meeting with congressional leaders of both parties.

He specifically mentioned the possibility of trimming “entitlement and mandatory” spending programs, a reference to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other benefit programs. He did not specify the type of tax increase he had in mind.

With his statement, Bush abandoned his campaign pledge–”Read my lips, no new taxes”–and opened the door to a “grand compromise” with Congress that could narrow or even close the federal deficit. Richard G. Darman, Bush’s budget director, has been advocating such a compromise almost since the day Bush took office.

At the same time, however, Bush may have sparked a full-scale revolt among conservatives in his party, many of whom believe that higher taxes are far worse for the country than continued deficits. He may also have given up what many Republican strategists see as the party’s most important issue–low taxes.

Rep. Robert K. Dornan (R-Garaden Grove) said the President’s announcement that he would consider raising tax revenues set off a “firestorm” among conservative Republicans.

“I signed a letter today . . . that said, ‘Mr. President, we hope that (tax) rates are untouchable, that they are absolutely radioactive.’ ”

Rep. William E. Dannemeyer (R-Fullerton), one of the most fiscally conservative members of Congress, said, “The Democrat game plan all along in this Congress has been to break George Bush of his promise not to raise taxes and so to lay the foundation of a campaign against him by saying he broke his promise and he can’t be trusted.

“And frankly, I’d disappointed in Mr. Bush. I thought he was smarter than falling for that.”

Democratic leaders, by contrast, welcomed Bush’s new stance, which was prepared, word by word, during the breakfast meeting.

Administration and congressional negotiators, who have been meeting since May 9 to try to craft a deficit-reduction package acceptable to all parties, have discussed a host of potential tax increases.

Some proposals, such as increased “user fees” and hikes in tobacco and alcohol taxes, might be relatively easy for Bush to embrace. The Administration has already proposed roughly $20 billion in new user fees and other minor revenue increases.

But Tuesday’s statement was made necessary because Democratic leaders said that package was unacceptable. And while White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater said it was up to the negotiators to decide what to do next, he pointedly refused to rule out broader tax increases.

Republicans, however, may find it difficult to accept Democratic demands to increase income taxes for the wealthiest Americans. “I can’t see Democrats agreeing unless there are (income tax) rate changes that ensure that (the final package) is not unfair to the poor and middle class,” said House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dan Rostenkowski (D-Ill.).

Budget negotiators hope to work out a final package before Congress leaves Washington for its August recess.

Before Tuesday’s developments, said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Jim Sasser (D-Tenn.), the budget talks “were stalemated, going nowhere. The President broke an impasse.”

Bush himself told reporters at the White House Rose Garden Tuesday afternoon: “It is essential that these talks get moving and get moving faster. I want to see this economy grow. I want jobs. I want to see the deficit down.”

Democratic leaders had insisted when the talks began that they would not get involved in specific negotiations unless Bush publicly admitted that a tax increase would be needed.

At the time, the White House insisted that all issues were “on the table” and that Bush would impose “no preconditions” on the talks. But Democrats had insisted on a more explicit statement.

After Bush gave them what they had sought, Democratic leaders appeared solemn and reserved as they struggled to avoid seeming to take political advantage of Bush’s retreat.

“We hope this is not going to be the subject of a political campaign effort,” said House Speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.) “Someone who wants to complain about taxes being raised will have to complain against both parties.”

When the negotiations began, Democrats feared that Republicans would maneuver them into a corner–forcing them to call for a tax increase and then campaigning against them as “tax-and-spend” liberals.

Many Republican candidates for the Senate this fall already have been doing just that, much as Bush had done in 1988. In that year, Bush’s favorite line–”Read my lips, no new taxes”–formed the centerpiece of his standard stump speech.

Tuesday’s statement not only abandoned that pledge but also gave up on a central tenet of the Republican political philosophy for the past decade–that the deficit is caused by too much spending, not by too little revenue.

Fitzwater, explaining Bush’s decision, said that closing the deficit without new taxes would require spending cuts so large that they “would be unacceptable to all parties.”

The White House estimates that the federal deficit will be roughly $160 billion in fiscal 1991, which begins on Oct. 1. The Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction law would require about $100 billion in across-the-board spending cuts unless the President and Congress agree on a new budget plan.

To mollify conservatives, Bush aides spent much of the day circulating word that the White House was not agreeing to anything beyond the approximately $20 billion in new user fees and related taxes that Bush has already advocated.

“I’m not changing my mind at all” on taxes, Bush insisted during a 45-minute session with 15 Latino reporters from around the country.

Vice President Dan Quayle echoed the theme. “It should not be viewed as a change of policy,” he said in an interview in Los Angeles, where he was raising money for GOP candidates. “This is a deficit reduction summit, not a tax increase summit.”

Asked if he would now admit that Bush was breaking his campaign pledge against new taxes, Fitzwater responded with a laugh: “Are you crazy? . . . Everything we said was true then, and it’s true now. We feel he said the right thing then; he’s saying the right thing now.”

Democratic leaders reacted with some anger to the White House damage control efforts.

“The President’s statement is clear and unambiguous,” said Senate Majority Leader George J. Mitchell (D-Me.). “He said that it is clear to him that tax increases are required. This is a new statement by the President. Any attempt by White House officials or other Republicans to describe the statement otherwise are totally inconsistent with what occurred today.”

Even Fitzwater conceded as much as he listed a series of factors that had forced Bush to change his mind.

The most important was the weakening of the economy since Bush took office. Fitzwater noted that economic statistics continue to show interest rates higher and growth rates lower than the White House had hoped. Bush advisers and most Democratic economists hold deficits at least partly responsible, a point conservatives dispute.

Moreover, the mounting cost of the savings and loan bailout has swelled the deficit, Fitzwater said.

Not all members of Bush’s party, however, were willing to abandon their belief that new taxes are worse than continued deficits.

“Any tax rate increase now threatens recession,” Rep. C. Christopher Cox (R-Newport Beach) said in a statement. “Just the prospect of a tax increase is like a dagger pointed at the jugular vein of the American economy.”

Within hours of Bush’s statement, 90 Republican members of Congress signed a letter to Bush declaring “we were stunned by your announcement that you would be willing to accept tax revenue increases as a part of a budget summit package.”

Rep. Ron Packard (R-Carlsbad), who represents southern Orange County, said he was “a little bit disappointed and a little bit surprised, because I think it was in a way caving in on the issue.”

“A tax increase is unacceptable,” the GOP congressmen wrote. “We will not vote for a budget package that increases tax rates for the American people.”

Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.), one of the authors of the Gramm-Rudman law, said that an agreement may not be worth having if it means a tax increase.

Times staff writers George Ramos and Robert W. Stewart in Washington and Cathleen Decker in Los Angeles contributed to this story.

GEORGE BUSH ON TAXES Oct. 12, 1987: “There are those who say we must balance the budget on the back of the workers–raise taxes again. . . . I am not going to raise taxes again.” Announcement of candidacy in Houston. Jan. 16, 1988: “I want to be the President who finally whips the budget into shape by holding the line on taxes.” Televised debate with five Republican rivals in Manchester, N.H. May 31, 1988: “I’m not going to propose a tax increase.” After meeting with campaign economic advisers at summer home in Kennebunkport, Me. June 14, 1988: “That’s the difference–as plain as day–between us. Tax cuts vs. tax hikes. I will not raise your taxes, period.” At Cincinnati rally, comparing his position with that of Democratic front-runner Michael S. Dukakis. June 24, 1988: “I’ve ruled them all out.” At a Cincinnati news conference, when asked if Bush included excise taxes or other “revenue enhancers” in his rejection of new taxes. July 9, 1988: “If you go to Yosemite Park with your trailer . . . you may have to pay a little more.” At Atlanta news conference, conceding that costs of some programs might rise for users but asserting that voters understood the difference between user fees and tax hikes. Aug. 18, 1988: “My opponent won’t rule out raising taxes, but I will, and the Congress will push me to raise taxes, and I’ll say no, and they’ll push again, and I’ll say to them ‘Read my lips: no new taxes.’ ” Acceptance speech, Republican National Convention, New Orleans. Jan. 31, 1990: “That budget brings federal spending under control. It meets the Gramm-Rudman target. It brings that deficit down further and balances the budget by 1993 with no new taxes.” State of the Union address, discussing budget he proposed to Congress. March 13, 1990: “You know my position and I have no intention of changing that position.” At White House news conference, when asked if he could promise no new taxes this year. May 24, 1990: “Things are complicated out there on this subject. . . . I’d like to do it exactly the way I propose. I’m now enough of a realist to realize that it might not be done exactly that way.” At White House news conference, when asked if he could fulfill his campaign promise. June 26, 1990: “It is clear to me that both the size of the deficit problem and the need for a package that can be enacted require . . . tax revenue increases.” Written statement after meeting with congressional leaders. PROJECTED IMPACT OF VARIOUS TAX INCREASES

Revenue Impac Proposal Next Year Fossil Fuels Tax fuels linked to global $23 warming Social Security Raise tax on benefits to 12 high earners Energy Impose 5% tax on wide range 14 of energy sources Gasoline Raise tax to 21 cents per 12 gallon from 9 cents Stock Market 0.5% tax on stock and bond 8 transactions Cigarettes, Raise 32 cents per pack and 10 Alcohol 25 cents per ounce Income Increase top income tax 4 rate to 33% Acid Rain Tax sources of air 3 pollution Estate Tax capital gains held 2 until death

t (in billions) Proposal Five Years Fossil Fuels $163 Social Security 100 Energy 80 Gasoline 59 Stock Market 58 Cigarettes, 51 Alcohol Income 42 Acid Rain 22 Estate 10

Source: Congressional Budget Office

PERSPECTIVE ON CHANGE–White House feared that Democrats would quit budget talks and blame Bush. A15

OTHER COVERAGE: A14

In his latest spat with a fellow NATO member, U.S. President Donald Trump condemned Spain as a “wasted cause” and “terrible partner” in the alliance. Speaking at the NATO Summit in Ankara, as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte looked on, Trump said he wanted to cut off all trade relations with Spain. While Spanish officials have stressed that relations won’t be affected, it does raise questions about the long-term status of the U.S. military presence in Spain, should the situation deteriorate further.

“We don’t want to do any trade business with Spain anymore… I’d like you to cut it off,” Trump said. “Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate; they don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, please, including visits. Watch them, watch them come running back; oh, they’ll come running back.”

He continued: “We don’t have to trade with them. I don’t want to do any more trade with them… Don’t even talk to them; they’re hopeless, bad people, because you know they have everybody else going and paying and working… They’re open about it, they’re hostile about it, and let’s see how hostile they remain when they call up, and they ‘please, please, we want to trade with you, sir. We want to trade with you, sir.’ They make so much money with us, and we’re going to see that they make a lot less. I want no business with them.”

According to U.S. Congress figures, mutual trade between the two countries was worth $75 billion in 2025, and the United States made $3 billion more from the relationship than Spain.

In an effort to heal the rift, Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez later insisted that relations with the United States were “very positive,” and that he had spoken to Trump.

“We talked about the World Cup… there was no tension whatsoever, on the contrary it was all very friendly,” said Sánchez.

The BBC reported that government sources in Madrid said that Spain had no plan to change their “excellent social, cultural, and economic relationship.”

The background to this is Trump’s unhappiness with the Sánchez government refusing the U.S. military permission to use its bases at Morón and Rota in Spain for missions during the war against Iran.

Another point of conflict is Sánchez’s refusal to increase defense spending to five percent of GDP, in line with NATO targets.

This is not Trump’s first threat to cut off trade relations with Spain. The same had happened back in March, in response to Sánchez’s stance on the Iran war.

While there was no change to trade between the two countries after that, were relations between the United States and Spain to worsen, the continued access to Morón and Rota would become a question.

Of the two, Naval Station Rota, in the province of Cádiz, is the most critical. It sits in a strategic position at the mouth of the Mediterranean, which is one of the world’s most important naval control points.

Described by the U.S. Navy as “the gateway to the Mediterranean,” Rota is one of the most strategically important U.S. military hubs in Europe, critical to supporting U.S. and allied naval operations across multiple theaters. The installation is central for Naval Forces Europe-Africa/Central (EURAFCENT) and the U.S. Sixth Fleet.

Located on a 6,100-acre Spanish Navy facility in southern Spain, Rota functions as a major logistical gateway linking North America with Europe, the Mediterranean, Africa, and the Middle East.

The base supports the movement of personnel, equipment, fuel, and supplies through its three operational piers, a 670-acre airfield capable of supporting U.S. Navy and Air Force aviation operations, and some of the largest weapons and fuel storage facilities in Europe.

Perhaps the highest-profile resident unit at Rota is Destroyer Squadron 60 (DESRON 60), one of three U.S. Navy destroyer squadrons permanently based outside the continental United States and the only one of these to call Europe home.

In 2024, the Arleigh Burke class destroyer USS Oscar Austin arrived at Rota, as the first of two additional destroyers to join the Forward Deployed Naval Force-Europe, which will have an eventual total of six. These warships are notably modified with special defenses tailored to the European theater, as you can read about here.

Other key Navy units at Rota include Helicopter Maritime Strike Squadron Seven Nine (HSM-79), the “Griffins,” flying the sub-hunting MH-60R Seahawk, and Explosive Ordnance Disposal Mobile Unit Eight.

Turning to Morón, this airbase is located southeast of the city of Seville in southern Spain. While Naval Station Rota is a springboard for U.S. maritime forces, Morón provides a similar role for the Air Force. Its strategic position means it plays a key role as a forward operating location for air operations, rapid response missions, and contingency support across Europe, Africa, and the Middle East.

The base’s capabilities include airfield operations, aircraft support, logistics, maintenance, communications, security, and host-nation support, all of which are geared toward rapid deployment and sustainment of U.S. forces when and where they are needed.

Resident U.S. Air Force units at Morón, under the Third Air Force, include the 496th Air Base Squadron, a geographically separated unit (GSU) that comes under the command of the 86th Airlift Wing at Ramstein Air Base in Germany. The 86th Airlift Wing flies C-130J airlifters as well as C-21A and C-37A staff transports.

Morón also serves as a critical node in the transatlantic and transeuropean tanker bridges, making it a key logistical gateway for the massive movements that are critical to buildups in Europe and the Middle East, as well as for more routine transatlantic deployments.

As well as other U.S. Air Force assets that temporarily deploy to Morón, including from the Bomber Task Force, the base also regularly hosts deployments of U.S. Marine Corps aircraft.

Both Morón and Rota operate under the U.S.-Spain Agreement on Defense Cooperation, which allows the United States and Spain to operate alongside one another and share critical infrastructure.

Morón Air Base and Naval Station Rota remain key nodes in the U.S. military’s global posture, providing a strategically positioned bridge between Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Their combined capabilities allow U.S. forces to rapidly move, stage, and sustain aircraft, ships, personnel, and equipment across multiple theaters.

A loss of access to Morón and Rota would extend far beyond a bilateral dispute between Washington and Madrid. While the United States could maintain operations through other European and regional locations, replacing the unique combination of air, maritime, and logistical capabilities provided by the two installations would take time and impose additional strain on U.S. forces. Loss of access to these bases, especially Rota, could be one of Spain’s most powerful cards to play if Trump’s rhetoric turns into action.

More importantly, any decision by a NATO member to restrict access to critical allied infrastructure would have broader implications for the alliance, raising questions about the reliability of defense commitments and the political cohesion that underpins collective security.

Contact the author: thomas@thewarzone.com

A review of a disability benefit is not expected to make “crude proposals” on changes to claimants’ payments, the minister leading the report has said.

Sir Stephen Timms told the BBC his interim review of personal independence payments (Pip) found the benefit was not “fit for purpose” and promised “fundamental change” in recommendations due in the autumn.

The disability minister said the “sustainability” of spending on the benefit, which is forecast to rise to more than £41bn by 2030, was “going to be a concern as we reach these decisions”.

Last year, the UK government asked Sir Stephen to review whether Pip was “fair and fit for the future”. His initial report will be published on Thursday.

The interim report concludes Pip is not working for millions of disabled people or the government, and suggests a sweeping overhaul of the assessment system is needed.

In evidence submitted to the review, Pip claimants described the assessment process as “dehumanising” for disabled people and a barrier to work.

The report also highlights the steep increase in the number of Pip recipients in recent years and the forecasted rise in spending on the benefit.

Pip is a benefit people with long-term illnesses and disabilities can claim if they need help with extra costs associated with living, work and care.

Eligibility for Pip is determined through an assessment.

Under the current assessment system, claimants are scored on a zero to 12 scale by a health professional on everyday tasks such as washing, getting dressed and preparing food.

Speaking to the BBC, Sir Stephen said Pip “does a very important job in helping people meet the additional costs of disability”.

But the minister said disabled people had told the review the assessment can be “demeaning” and “deter you from participating in society”.

“We’ve also found that it hasn’t kept pace with changing understanding of health and disability over the last 13 years since the benefit was introduced, so we do think quite fundamental change is needed,” Sir Stephen.

As of April this year, there were about four million claimants entitled to Pip in England and Wales.

The number of Pip recipients has risen considerably since the benefit was introduced in 2013, with the increase fuelled by claimants citing mental health conditions in recent years.

LOU Teasdale has split with footballer Andy Carroll for a third time – and for her sake, I hope this time it’s for good.

To me Andy is a classic Peter Pan, a man seemingly devoid of the ability to grow up and stop partying like he’s a single twenty-something.

We saw it in the run up to his marriage to the lovely Billi Mucklow back in 2022, when he made a buffoon of himself by passing out topless in bed with two women in Dubai, and now it seems history is repeating itself.

I watched him sidling up to two rather attractive women at Glastonbury last year and although it might have just been a flirt – who doesn’t get turned on by The Prodigy? – it was enough to get the red flags waving in my mind.

If you feel like this is the nineteenth time Andy and Lou have split over the past year, you’re a little way off but not totally incorrect.

They’ve been more on and off than my laptop over the past 12 months so I am hoping, if only for Lou’s sake, that this is the final time.

If she was one of my mates, I’d be staging an intervention because enough is enough.

This time around, insiders have said it’s Lou who has kicked Andy to the kerb, after he flew off on a boozy holiday to Ibiza, despite supposedly promising her he wouldn’t touch drink to save their relationship.

Lou, a respected make-up artist, has now wiped Andy from her social media.

But why she stood by him time and time again is what I cannot understand. They first started dating back in the autumn 2024 and on social media, naturally, it all seemed rather rosy.

Andy had only been single for a short time, following the end of his ill-fated marriage to Billi, the mother of his three youngest children.

But from the outside, all appeared to be well. And, long had been forgotten the scandal that had engulfed the lead up to their wedding back in 2022.

To recap, and if you don’t remember, Andy ended up landing himself in hot water after getting so drunk at his stag do in Dubai that he ended up topless and in bed with two women – who took photographs of him and shared them with pals.

I reported on the story at the time as I knew people close to Billi.

The former reality star was so humiliated by the footballer she almost called off the wedding.

Nothing happened between Andy and the women who partied with him in Dubai, but her friends confessed to me at the time that they were begging her not to marry him.

But their pleas fell on deaf ears and the pair looked genuinely happy in their wedding pictures in the summer of that year.

But fast-forward two years and they announced they were divorcing.

I rang one of her pals after hearing of his latest split with Lou and they made a pertinent point.

“Marrying Andy was something Billi did for love but it was never going to work out,” a friend admits.

“We told her not to go through with it but everything was in place for the wedding, calling it off would have been a nightmare.

“She did love him deep down and wanted to move past it though.

“Andy might not have cheated in Dubai but he was as drunk as a skunk and topless in bed with two women.

“What does it say about your future husband that he’s going to put himself in this position?”

Well, quite.

Not long after his split from Billi was revealed by The Sun, it emerged Andy had started dating Lou.

There was no crossover between the relationship and on the outside, things between Andy – who has two older children from a previous relationship – and Lou seemed happy.

Their Instagram accounts were full of snaps of them together in France, where Andy had been playing for fourth tier club Bordeaux.

But less than a year into their relationship, it all started to get a bit messy.

Lou, who is sober and has been for over a decade, appeared to have no issue with the fact Andy drank alcohol and the pair made it work.

But last summer, things came to a head in Mykonos – with Andy being quizzed by the police twice after two very public rows last June.

The first incident, at the Nikolus Tavern, was so shocking, a restaurant worker went on the record and told us Andy was “very drunk and furious” with Lou.

He added: “He was using very bad words. It was improper behaviour. The woman looked very upset.”

After speaking to police, Andy was allowed to return to Lou but just hours later alarmed staff called cops again after reports of damage to their £500-a-room at a posh hotel.

Andy was taken to a station for questioning but was released without being arrested. Despite the two incidents, Lou stuck by Andy and their relationship continued.

For eight more weeks, the pair went back to posting loved-up selfies online, until out of the blue – Andy’s pals confessed he had dumped Lou last August.

And thus the madness started.

A friend close to Andy was less than charming about their relationship when they told us about the break-up and said: “Andy got sick of Lou’s demands and her influencer lifestyle.

“She’s always posting on social media and he hates that. He told her it was over this week. He’s single now.”

Days later, Andy then confessed he’d “made a mistake” and they got together again.

But fast forward a few weeks and they split up once more.

This time was after a “make or break” holiday, with a friend saying: “They’ve tried to make it work, but they’re just too different.”

Bizarrely, even after all of this – they ended up patching things up – but unsurprisingly it’s now over again.

That relationship, which has become a very tedious version of Groundhog Day, should, in my opinion, end for good now.

And Lou, I implore you not to take Andy back.

There are only so many times someone can drag you down before something has got to give.

I had the misfortune of standing next to the Dagenham and Redbridge player at Glasto last summer as I watched The Prodigy and he got very friendly with two women during the set.

Lou had been on-site with Andy that weekend but by this point had retreated to the Babington House for a well-earned rest from the stench of the long-drops at Worthy Farm.

Being honest, I can’t work out what annoyed me more – having a colleague poke me repeatedly because Andy was all over these women while my favourite song Smack My B**** Up was playing or the fact he had the gall to act like a single man when he was in what appeared to be a loving relationship.

I’m not saying anything happened with those women, or that his actions went beyond a flirt and someone to lean on late at night.

But when a man truly loves a woman, he doesn’t give another one a second look, let alone put his arms around them when his missus’ back is turned.

We’ve all been the woman, or man, that forgives stupidity because we love. But as the old saying goes, once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.

Don’t let him make a mug of you, Lou.

The routes have long been popular with holidaymakers visiting the Brittany area of France, offering a range of daytime and overnight services, and the company has confirmed it’s making changes to other lines as well

Brittany Ferries has announced its making big changes to its UK to France routes ahead of the autumn months as it blames the financial impact of Covid and the ongoing effects of Brexit.

The ferry operator will sell two of its ships, including one that operates the current Poole to Cherbourg route, which it has confirmed will be closed from November 1. Passengers will need to travel to Portsmouth where there’s a daily service to Cherbourg operating in its place.

It also confirmed in a statement that: “in the face of unfair competition on the Eastern Channel, caused by subsidies to run the loss-making Dieppe-Newhaven route, the company is looking to close the Portsmouth to Le Havre route from October 2026.”

Brittany Ferries confirmed the closure date as October 1, saying: “It has operated this route for as long as possible while legal challenges are still being considered by Brussels.”

It also clarified that it’ll be moving to a “more efficient schedule” from November 1 for its ships serving Guernsey, Poole and Cherbourg. Brittany Ferries Island will “serve a triangular route as follows: Portsmouth to Guernsey, Guernsey to Cherbourg, Cherbourg to Portsmouth”. While it’s fast craft the Brittany Ferries Voyager “will continue to serve Poole to Guernsey, but with the option to travel on to St Malo”.

The company confirmed there would be: “No job losses in the UK, but potentially a small number in Le Havre subject to a consultation process currently underway.”

Brittany Ferries began running the Poole to Cherbourg route back in 1986, and it runs on the 1992 ferry Barfleur, which the company has confirmed will now be sold. The Portsmouth to Le Havre route has been operated by Brittany Ferries since 2014. Sailings to Le Havre were run during the day, while the return journeys to Portsmouth ran overnight.

Christophe Mathieu, CEO Brittany Ferries, said in a statement: “Brittany Ferries has a track record in adapting its business to long- and short-term challenges. We overcame Covid when borders were shut, we continue to wrestle with the consequences of Brexit and we are taking steps to make a holiday in France or Spain as reasonable as possible.

“But we have to be realistic. We need adapt and that means a plan to secure a future that will continue to bring opportunities for all those who live and work in the regions we serve. We have informed our ports and will work with everyone affected on this plan for the future.”

The company’s statement went on to add that it’s still feeling the effects of its Covid loan, saying it has repaid half of it, but that “the long tail of the crisis continues”.

The ferry operator’s statement goes on to say: “Into this mix has been thrown the rising tax burden of ETS, the EU’s Emission Trading System. Brittany Ferries has invested in the cleanest, greenest fleet on the Channel, including five new vessels in five years, two of which were launched in 2025.

“Despite this, the company faces a bill of some €27 million in 2026, with no allowance for the industry-leading investment already made. That’s an EU financial burden even before the UK begins to introduce an equivalent scheme for ships operating in British waters.”

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

June 27 (UPI) — Volkswagen is set to cut as many as 100,000 jobs, and end production at four of its plants, as part of a restructuring to better counter Chinese rivals in Europe.

The company is one of several German automakers that is making cuts as Chinese companies gain ground in both Germany and the rest of Europe, The Financial Times and Wall Street Journal reported.

BMW and Mercedes-Benz, as well as Stellantis and Renault, have lost market share in Europe as BYD, Chery and other Chinese brands have surpassed 10% of car sales on the continent after years of slow growth.

Volkswagen already had agreed with its employee’s unions to cut 50,000 jobs in Germany by the end of 2030 as part of making it “more efficient and leaner,” but some experts have questioned whether the increased moves will have their intended effect, the reports said.

“Every European player is losing today,” Thomas Besson, an auto market analyst at Kepler Cheuvreux, told The Times.

“This is a highly challenging situation for European carmakers,” Besson said, “because Chinese [manufacturers] are progressing [in Europe] at a much faster pace than expected, while [European manufacturers] continue to lose volumes in China and face very adverse conditions in the United States, notably due to tariffs.”

Volkswagen, which is Europe’s largest carmaker, would be dropping about 15% of its 660,000-person workforce, in addition to ending production at three Volkswagen plants and one Audi plant, CNBC reported.

The company also plans to reduce investments by about 15% — roughly $148 billion — over the next five years, while also launching new efforts at selling its products to compete with the Chinese companies.

“The entire [Volkswagen] group — including its brands and subsidiaries — must undergo profound change,” a company spokesperson told CNBC.

Every morning Marisol Winfrey Herrera’s three-and-a-half-year-old daughter Jo reminds her to turn off the tap while washing her hands and brushing her teeth.

When they leave home, she reminds her mother to keep a bottle of ice with them to offer it to homeless people, who they sometimes find wilting in the Tucson heat. At first, they press the ice-filled bottles on the homeless folks to help them revive, then they offer the water to drink and hydrate. At her daycare, Jo is taught water-saving habits to combat Tucson’s soaring heat.

It is what prompted Herrera to join No Desert Data Center, a residents’ group that opposes two large data centres coming up on either side of Tucson – the $3.6bn project on the city’s southeast edge and a $5bn project on its northwest side in the town of Marana, together known as Project Blue.

The group believes these would consume more water and power than the city set in the Sonoran Desert can afford.

“We are in the middle of a 30-year drought, which is now an extreme drought,” says Lisa Shipek, co-executive director of the Watershed Management Group, a Tucson-based nonprofit.

“Water was a unifying theme in our campaign. The Colorado River cuts are looming, and this project would take water away,” Herrera told Al Jazeera.

Water flows in the Colorado River, which provides much of Tucson’s water through the Central Arizona Project canal system, have dropped by 20 percent since the year 2000 compared with water flows in the 20th century due to climate change, melting snow caps and warmer weather, making water cuts to Tucson imminent as the state could face as much as 77 percent water cuts.

“We say Not One Drop for data centres,” says Herrera, speaking of the campaign’s particularly emotive appeal for residents as water cuts get deeper and temperatures rise, with Tucson recording the warmest weather in 125 years last July and August.

Beale Infrastructure, a San Francisco-based company that is owned by investment management company Blue Owl in New York, had asked the city of Tucson to acquire 290 acres that were outside city limits for Project Blue. That would make it the city’s largest water consumer and among its largest power consumers. Beale did not respond to an emailed request for comment.

But at city council meetings, City Councillor Kevin Dahl began seeing hundreds of residents turn up to express their opposition to the project.

“Not for many issues do we get so much response,” he said. Herrera was among those who went.

Pitting environment against unions

At council meetings, Beale executives proposed that Project Blue could be the economic engine the city needed. It would create a few thousand jobs for construction workers, ironmongers, plumbers and other such workers during the construction of the project and a few hundred after that.

“Sometimes people travel as far as Phoenix for work,” Dahl said about Arizona’s largest city, which is nearly a two-hour drive from Tucson.

The project could bring jobs closer. Beale also expected the project to generate nearly $250m in taxes for the city, county and state in the first 10 years.

This left councillors with a difficult decision to make, weighing the project’s economic benefits against allocating it a share of the city’s increasingly scarce water and power.

Activists also raised concerns about whether Tucson Electric Power (TEP), the power utility, would raise rates for consumers so it could expand capacity to provide power for Project Blue. After raising rates by 10 percent in 2023, TEP proposed a 14 percent rate hike in June 2025 for grid upgrades made in the previous year.

Lee Ziesche, an activist from the Democratic Socialists of America who is campaigning to make TEP a public utility, said Project Blue could “lead to higher temperatures and higher rates” because of the heat island effect of the air conditioners and higher rates for power.

She often hears from residents that a rate hike would make it hard to pay bills or put on air conditioning, even as the number of 100-degree Fahrenheit (37.8 degree-Celsius) days has increased in Tucson, which is among the hottest cities in the United States.

The same concerns of needing ramped-up air conditioning would plague data centres too, experts say.

“The viability of data centres in Arizona will always be subject to climate change and heat risks,” says Kate Gordon, chief executive of California Forward, a think tank that works on a sustainable economy.

“The heat in Arizona makes energy less efficient, and servers heat up, so projects will need higher amounts of water and cooling, which developers have to balance against a possibly lower real estate and labour cost,” she said. “I am always amazed at how climate does not figure in business plans.”

Dahl and Andres Cano, a supervisor in Pima County, in which Tucson is located, had discussions with Beale representatives.

“We thought they would go elsewhere if the city did not acquire the land” for the project, Dahl said. Cano also came away with the same impression.

In August 2025, Tucson councillors voted unanimously not to acquire the land for the project or provide it with water and power. In December, Cano became one of only two supervisors in Pima County to oppose the project, and it was approved for construction in an unincorporated part of the county.

“It will create short-term construction jobs for what will ultimately be a project with few wins,” Cano said. “This pitted the environment and unions, but industry is not for unions. This will have just about 100 jobs when it is done.”

With no access to Tucson’s water supply, Beale decided to cool its servers with air conditioners rather than water and use a closed-loop water system, so it would recycle and reuse water.

But Vivek Bharathan, a spokesperson for the No Desert Data Center, said using air conditioners would increase power usage.

Nearly half of TEP’s power comes from fracking, he says. Data centre demand will only mean “more fracking somewhere else, climate and health consequences all along the way”.

The state’s largest data centre

Even as Project Blue was making its way through a fraught approval process, Beale announced another data centre project in the neighbouring farming town of Marana. It was to be spread over 600 acres (242 hectares), twice the size of Project Blue. The area was spread over two farm plots, one owned by the Mormon church and the other by a family trust of city council member, Herb Kai.

This project, too, is slated to bring thousands of construction jobs to a farming town as well as tax revenues.

But when Jackie McGuire, a mother of three and former Wall Street banker, heard about it, she and other residents launched a campaign to stop the land from being rezoned for a data centre. Residents wanted Marana to stay a farming town.

McGuire, who works as a research analyst, said the data centres’ servers and large air conditioners that would be installed to keep them running would raise the project’s cost and make Marana unbearably hot.

Temperatures rose by up to 2.2F (1.22C) downwind from data centres in the Phoenix area, a study published in May had found.

“The heat generated will be like one to two million space heaters,” McGuire says. “It can go up to 112 degrees [44.4C] here already. The heat island effect could make Marana uninhabitable.”

The Marana data centre will be provided power by TEP and Trico, which announced a 7.23 percent rate hike in January.

McGuire and other residents campaigned to have a referendum on whether the land could be rezoned for a data centre. Their plea was not successful, and the city council approved the rezoning of the land.

But the experience of the campaign had invigorated McGuire, and she decided to run for city council herself. The central issue of her campaign is to bring transparency to the data centre’s functioning.

Even as the campaigns in Pima County and Marana raged on, La Osa, the state’s largest data centre project, took shape in Tucson’s neighbouring Pinal County. The 3,300-acre project by the Vermaland real estate group was expected to house 59 data centres and two of its own natural gas facilities, as well as a utility-scale battery storage system.

But residents worried about noise pollution from protracted project construction and a possible increase in power costs.

“I’m worried about the constituents in that area, about the power bills going up, even though you’re saying that they’re going to pay for it,” Pinal County Supervisor Rich Vitiello said in a board of supervisors meeting on May 27.

In the face of such opposition, a La Osa lawyer spoke at the meeting to say the project had been scaled down and would now house 11 data centres from the 59 planned earlier.

‘A straw to the aquifer’

Sharing limited water has long been an emotive issue in the state, and the looming Colorado River cuts and data centre projects have brought such concerns to a head.

Arizona fought one of the longest-running cases, stretching more than three decades, in the US Supreme Court over the sharing of Colorado River water with California. Eventually, Congress adjudicated to provide California with a greater share of the water, which turbocharged its economic growth.

“No water can flow into Tucson and Phoenix unless California gets its full share,” says Jason Robison, co-director of the Gina Guy Center for Land and Water Law at the University of Wyoming College of Law.  “Arizona has always been in a tough spot.”

It strengthened the state’s long-held tradition of conservation.

“Arizona communities have been preparing for the drought conditions we see today since 1980,” a spokesperson for the Arizona Department of Water Resources said in an emailed response.

Authorities have curtailed lawns in Tucson, he said, and educational campaigns of the kind Herrera’s daughter underwent are the norm.

It has meant that groundwater reserves go deep, and homeowners are assured of a water supply before it is given to data centres or farms.

“The use by data centres is low compared to farm use, especially alfalfa and hay,” says Eric Kuhn, retired general manager of the Colorado River Water Conservation District and co-author of Science Be Dammed: How Ignoring Inconvenient Science Drained the Colorado River.

However, “data centres are not under the same rules to replenish water” as other industries, says Sharon Medgal, director of the Water Resources Research Center at the University of Arizona. “So it adds a straw to the aquifer.”

Arizona’s governor, Katie Hobbs, who is up for re-election in November, has represented to the Bureau of Reclamation that the state is home to essential industry, including semiconductors, space and data centres, and so needs a higher share of water from the Colorado River. Water, as well as its use for data centres, has been an important issue in primary races across the state.

Construction began for Project Blue at the end of April. No Desert Data Centers’ activists arrived just after dawn to protest. Within days, they found subcontractors bringing in water to control dust on site from construction. County authorities cited Beale.

Then Beale began digging wells on site after reportedly receiving permits allowing that from the Arizona Department of Water Resources. This is likely for 31,000 gallons  (more than 117,000 litres) a year, which is just enough for toilets and kitchens and will likely be recycled for reuse after.

“This may not yet be a winning story,” Bharathan, the spokesperson for the No Desert Data Center, said. “But it is a continuing story.”

TV host Lorraine Kelly saw her team lose jobs in the IT shake up – her show Lorraine has been slashed to 30 weeks a year and gone from an hour to 30 minutes on screen

Lorraine Kelly has said the ITV cuts to her show have left her feeling “really rubbish” as rumours continue that she could leave.

The TV host has now been on screen for over 40 years, but said in an interview last year she was “not done yet” despite ITV cutting her hours. As part of daytime ITV budget cuts her show Lorraine has been slashed to 30 weeks a year and gone from an hour to 30 minutes on screen.

Speaking to Saga magazine when asked how she felt about what happened, Lorraine said: “Really rubbish. A lot of my team got made redundant. It was really hard and harder for them. We were very close-knit, but it’s all about budget. All television shows are in the same boat, we’re not alone.”

She went on to insist despite the role and hours changing, it was still “the best job in television” with lovely guests. Lorraine, 66, also spoke in the interview about her beloved dad John dying aged 84 in January and her mum’s health.

She said: “Mum’s health’s bad, but she’s grand. She’s very self-sufficient, like all those war babies are. I always keep an eye on her but don’t let her know I’m keeping an eye on her. I’ve said, ‘You can stay with us any time for as long as you like’. It’s weird. When something massive is happening, your hand still goes to your phone. Dad is – I keep speaking about him in the present tense – really into space. When [NASA’s rocket] Artemis II flew around the moon, I wanted to say, ‘Are you watching this? It’s amazing’. Then you remember he’s not there.”

She added: “When Dad wasn’t well, it brought us closer, supporting each other. It’s been a tough time, but the conversations you have with your relatives you wouldn’t have had otherwise are amazing: you talk about the past and then the wedding – that’s a new beginning.”

Lorraine is upbeat and optimistic despite a series of setbacks in life in recent months. In June 2025 Lorraine was told she was a “national treasure” during an interview and replied: “Well, that’s nice, but it’s only because I’ve been around for so long.

“I’ve been doing telly for over 40 years. It’s mad isn’t it? It’s absolutely crazy. I started in breakfast telly in 1984, and I’m still getting away with it. Extraordinarily.”

Speaking to Tom Kerridge on the Proper Tasty podcast, she added: “40 years in TV last year was incredible. I got a BAFTA. ‘Here’s a BAFTA for being alive’. I thought, ‘Hang on a minute, I’m not done yet’.”

Lorraine was told in person by ITV boss Kevin Lygo about the changes to her show which began at the start of 2026. Reports have suggested she is considering leaving her ITV show in the future and could work for BBC or other broadcasters. She made her Radio 2 debut at Christmas presenting in Jeremy Vine’s midday slot during the festive period. Her presence would also likely give any other channel a ratings boost if she ever moves, as she remains hugely popular.

* The full interview with Lorraine is in July’s Saga magazine, out now.

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

June 21 (UPI) — The Russian government on Sunday halted fuel sales to civilians and businesses not considered vital to functioning and security in Crimea.

Sergey Aksyonov, the governor of Crimea, announced people would be turned away from gas stations amid a fuel shortage and logistical difficulties related to the war with Ukraine, the BBC reported.

“Further decisions regarding the current situation in the republic’s fuel market will be announced at a later date,” he said in a post on Telegram.

The announcement came amid new attacks by Ukraine on energy and transportation infrastructure on the Crimean Peninsula, Politico reported. Russia illegally annexed the peninsula from Ukraine in 2014, and it has been at the center of fighting between the two countries ever since.

Ukraine has repeatedly targeted Russia’s energy supply in an effort to hobble its defenses and ability to transport troops and machinery. Fuel facilities in the Kerch Strait in Russia’s Krasnodar region have also been attacked.

Aksyonov said a Ukrainian drone attack on an oil depot in Kerch killed four people and injured 28.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said the attack was a “just response to Russia’s brutal attacks.”

“Russia understands only strength, and our long-range strength is certainly working for peace,” he wrote in a post on X.

WASHINGTON — More than $350 million from President Trump’s “big, beautiful bill” has been quietly directed to White House security, an allotment that Democrats warn appears to be helping fund his new ballroom project — despite the president’s insistence that no taxpayer dollars would be used.

The apportionment of funds, which the White House’s Office of Management and Budget made late Friday, comes from two accounts that were intended to provide the U.S. Secret Service with extra money for hiring and training in the aftermath of last year’s assassination attempts on the president, according to Democrats on the Senate Budget Committee. The shift was made days after Congress rejected a $1-billion request for the White House in a Homeland Security bill that Trump signed into law and as the ballroom project is tangled in legal challenges.

Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Chuck Grassley, whose panel initially drafted the security funding, said Thursday he was unaware of the allocations.

“The president said that it was all going to be paid for with private money,” said Grassley (R-Iowa). “And that’s what the country expects.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, charged that Trump’s actions are potentially illegal.

“After repeatedly telling the American people that zero taxpayer dollars would be spent on his gold-plated ballroom boondoggle, now Trump appears to be using a smoke and mirrors tactic,” Merkley said in a statement.

“Trump has proven that he can’t be trusted to follow the law,” Merkley said. “He only cares about wasting taxpayer money on his vanity projects.”

Ballroom project hits setbacks

Trump has faced setbacks in his attempts to build the ballroom on the White House grounds, where he ordered the demolition of the storied East Wing to make way for it.

Touring the construction site last month, Trump called the development a “gift” to the American people. He has repeatedly said that it is being paid for by donations — which has also run into ethics questions from watchdogs concerned about potential corruption and conflicts of interest.

Congress refused the Trump administration’s request for $1 billion for the ballroom last month. The administration wanted the money as part of a Homeland Security bill, but Republican and Democratic lawmakers rejected efforts to tack it on. It became politically toxic at a time when Americans are reeling from inflationary high costs of living.

The Washington Post reported earlier this week that the price tag for the project has ballooned to $600 million, according to a project summary prepared by the contractor, with more than half of that funding coming from taxpayers. Roll Call first reported on the apportionment of new funds for White House security.

At its core, arguments are swirling over how much of the White House project is to bolster security underground, with bomb shelters and a medical facility, and how much of the costs are related to the president’s promised 999-seat ballroom on top.

White House says Trump and donors are paying for the ballroom

A spokesman for the White House said that Trump and donors are funding some $400 million for the ballroom development, and that the coordination with the Secret Service had been noted in the initial announcement of the project.

“The East Wing Modernization Project is inextricably tied to the security of the President, the White House grounds and the certain security infrastructure assets,” said White House spokesman Davis R. Ingle in a statement.

He said the events over the past weekend, including an alleged attack plan targeting the UFC Freedom 250 event at the White House, proves why the project is needed.

“President Trump and generous American patriots are funding the ballroom to the tune of approximately $400 million, which will be a secure and appropriate venue for Presidents for generations to come,” he said.

Government lawyers have argued that the project includes critical security features to guard against a range of threats, such as drones and missiles.

The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. The Secret Service told senators last month that $220 million of the White House’s $1-billion request would go to harden the ballroom addition, with bulletproof glass, drone detection technologies, chemical and other systems.

The rest of the money would go for other security improvements, according to a document provided to Senate Republicans, including $180 million for a new, “long overdue” White House visitors screening facility.

Congress holds power of the purse

The shifting funds are certain to ignite growing concerns in Congress over the separation of powers, and the president’s use of federal funds allocated by lawmakers.

The money comes from Trump’s big tax breaks and spending cuts bill that the president signed into law last summer. It provided more than $1 billion for Secret Service resources, including “personnel, training facilities, programming, and technology; and performance, retention, and signing bonuses.”

The provision was uncontested at the time, even as Democrats voted against the broader bill. Democrats said they did not challenge this section or try to strip it out from the package.

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the specific authority to allocate funds across the federal government, including the executive and judicial branch operations.

While the president holds the power to sign — or veto — those appropriation bills, once the funding becomes law, it largely must stand.

Mascaro writes for the Associated Press.