demands

One year ago, thousands of young people took to the streets in multiple Nepali cities to protest against corruption. Following the resulting curfews, arrests and the killing of protesters in a crackdown on the demonstrations, the Gen Z‑led movement forced the government from power, ushering in an interim administration and opening the way for new elections.

Now, as Nepal grapples with the aftermath of devastating floods along its border with Tibet, we examine what has changed over the past year – and whether the demands of the Gen Z protesters have been met.

What happened in Nepal last year?

On September 8, 2025, youth-led “Gen Z” protests began in Kathmandu and other cities of Nepal.

Demonstrators who took to the streets were protesting a series of corruption scandals in the country and were also angered by the rising trend of the children of Nepali government officials – dubbed “Nepo kids” – documenting their lavish lifestyles online.

The protests broke out just days after the country blocked 26 social media sites including Facebook, Instagram, X (formerly Twitter), and TikTok for not complying with government rules about “harmful” content. This ban was lifted when the protests began.

Some young demonstrators defied curfews imposed by the authorities after demonstrations began, leading to arrests and the police firing live rounds at protesters, killing about 76 people. Hundreds of protesters were injured and hundreds more arrested. Protesters also set fire to several government buildings, including parliament, and the army was deployed.

Then, on September 9, Prime Minister KP Oli, 74, resigned from his position. Within a week, Nepal’s former Chief Justice Sushila Karki had been appointed as the country’s new interim prime minister.

Ultimately, the protests culminated in the current government being formed in March this year when 35-year-old rapper-turned-politician Balendra Shah was sworn in as the country’s youngest-ever prime minister.

Shah leads the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), also known as the National Independent Party, a new anti‑establishment party which emerged after the youth-led protests and won more than two‑thirds of the 165 directly elected seats in parliament in March. Traditional parties such as the Nepali Congress and the CPN‑UML have a much smaller representation than ever before.

Although he was not a street organiser of the protests, Shah became one of the most prominent political figures, channelling Gen Z’s anger into his electoral campaign.

What were the key demands of the Gen Z protesters?

They included:

• An end to corruption: Protesters demanded greater transparency and accountability from political elites they view as corrupt, as well as an end to nepotism, whereby the children of those elites live in luxury while many young Nepalis struggle financially.
• Mass resignations and suspensions: Protesters called for the resignation of Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli and the mass resignation of parliamentarians. They also called for an immediate suspension of officials who issued the order to fire on protesters.
• Political overhaul: The protesters called for the dissolution of parliament, establishment of an interim government and holding new general elections.

Have these demands been met?

The demands have been met to some extent.

For instance, Oli resigned in the wake of the Gen Z‑led protests, and several senior members of his government also stepped down. Parliament was dissolved, an interim government was established, and new general elections were held in March this year.

“Despite the loss of life and property during the movement, the interim government successfully conducted peaceful elections, leading to the emergence of a new political force in government,” Yog Raj Lamichhane, an assistant professor at Nepal’s Pokhara University, told Al Jazeera.

“The result reflected public disenchantment with the old political establishment.”

In March this year, Nepal police arrested Oli and former Home Affairs Minister Ramesh Lekhak for their alleged involvement in the deadly crackdown on the protesters last year.

However, both men were released in April after a Supreme Court order asked the police not to indefinitely extend the detention. They remain under investigation in connection with last year’s deadly Gen Z protests, but have not been formally charged.

Furthermore, the issue of corruption among political elites has barely been addressed, observers say.

Dinesh Paudel, professor at the Appalachain State University in the US, told Al Jazeera: “The fundamental concerns and issues raised by the young protestor last year are still the same, and there are no governance style changes even after the new elected government, other than some populist rhetorics on small and cosmetic topics.”

Has the leadership change made any difference?

Some of the young leaders have entered parliament and government, while others remain in activist groups. The divisions between these two groups of people are becoming more apparent as they often clash over how much to compromise with the old political establishment.

Those who were elected to parliament in March mostly belong to the Rastriya Swatantra Party (RSP), or National Independent Party.

“One of the most exciting and progressive parts is the emergence of youth in politics as most of the parliamentarians are young, educated and have much aspiration to change,” Bishnu Raj Upreti, a public policy analyst and research director at Nepal Centre for Contemporary Research (NCCR), told Al Jazeera.

“The leadership change appears to have brought some positive differences, particularly in the working style of the current prime minister,” Lamichhane said.

However, experts say the younger generation of MPs – those elected under the NIP/RSP banner as well as those in older parties – remains constrained by party hierarchies and Nepal’s entrenched political system.

“They are inexperienced and are still heavily controlled by party structures,” Upreti said. He added that wider generational distrust between young politicians and the older establishment also complicated reform efforts.

“Leadership change has started. It is good, but not enough.”

This has resulted in an apparent divide between those in government positions and those in activist groups.

In May this year, the new government invited Gen Z activists – mostly civil society leaders and youth activists – to give their input for constitutional amendments. However, 25 of the 29 invited boycotted the meeting, saying deeper systemic problems and earlier agreements with the previous administration were being ignored, according to Gen Z activist Aayush Basyal.

Basyal, who was present at the protests last year, said it was “really tricky” for young activists to adjust to working inside the system alongside the new Gen‑Z politicians now in office. “They are trying to cooperate with the authorities they previously challenged, while still pushing for the radical changes they demanded on the streets,” she explained.

“Now the Gen Z protesters of that time are divided into different factions, and some of the factions are vehemently opposing some work of government,” Upreti explained.

“So those who oppose the government are not in positive booking of the government,” Upreti added.

Where are the protesters now?

On Tuesday, families of protesters who were killed in last year’s crackdown organised a formal commemoration at what used to be Nepal’s parliament building.

After functioning as the parliament building for almost two decades, it shut down last year when Gen Z protesters trespassed and set fire to it.

Basyal said the authorities provided tight security amid rumours that some groups might try to incite violence, noting that Nepal’s “media economy” often amplifies sensational incidents even when only a few people are involved.

In the meantime, however, the divide within the Gen Z movement is becoming more stark, particularly what some see as a failure by the new leaders to advocate for protesters.

“The injured protesters have generally received medical treatment and certain monetary compensation,” Lamicchane said.

“However, the concept of compensation remains broader than financial support alone. In my view, the true compensation would be the fulfilment of the promises and objectives that inspired the Gen Z movement and the subsequent formation of a new government.”

Basyal said that while some of the people involved in the movement are now MPs or cabinet ministers, others, from poor, minority backgrounds, who lack money and influence, are still in jail and cannot speak up for themselves.

“There are people still in jail, officially more than 900 and unofficially, maybe like 1,600 plus, who are in jail for arson,” Basyal said.

He said it was troubling that these protesters remain in jail, suggesting this risks becoming “institutionalised” and raising questions over whether the government is effectively celebrating impunity.

Activists, he added, hope the new administration will treat these detainees better, but “that is yet to be seen.”

What still needs to change?

Analysts say structural changes are necessary.

“Although the government has promised reforms, particularly through changes in laws and policies, these commitments have not yet been substantially realised,” Lamichhane said.

Upreti noted that the new government has not begun any structural changes at all.

“Structural changes have to start with changing existing laws and bringing in new laws and policies,” he said.

“From what we’ve seen so far, the new leaders don’t appear to be prioritising that. Massive reform of the bureaucracy is a precondition to achieving the aims of the Gen Z movement, but the government has not yet done meaningful work in this line.”

He added that another important element is to develop better relations and deeper trust with Nepal’s two giant neighbours, India and China, since Nepal’s economic progress and geopolitical balance depend on them.

Experts also say Nepal’s highly centralised system of government is a major obstacle to deeper structural reform.

“Strong collaboration of the federal movement with provincial and local government is the necessary condition for advancing economic progress, but they ignore provincial and local government as they have no provincial and local government. It is not a good approach,” Upreti said.

“Structural changes are necessary and they come from internal power dynamics such as urban-rural divide, inherent conflict between educated elites and peasant farmers and economic and bureaucratically institutionalised corruption,” Patel said. “It is hard to imagine that there will be any structural changes, aiming to making people’s lives better, at this stage and under current circumstances.

“In short, Nepal has missed yet another opportunity from a popular uprising that would fundamentally address Nepali peoples desire for change.”

What’s next?

“This new government seems to be deeply under its own weight of expectation,” Basyal said.

He explained that historically in Nepal, there’s been an “expectation gap”: people expect a lot, governments deliver little, and that gap fuels frustration.

He said that this government has “not been transparent”.

“The prime minister, he doesn’t speak a lot in the parliament. And when he did address the parliament a few times, that was pretty chaotic, as well,” Basyal added.

“If this issue remains unaddressed, it may lead to a second wave of public disenchantment.”

Lamichhane said, however, it will take time to see if the government can address the challenges it faces.

“Let’s hope and wait for changes. Now, it’s not the appropriate time to criticise the government, as Nepal has faced an apocalypse in the form of a massive flood.”

Meanwhile, flags in Nepal flew at half-mast on Monday as the country mourned the more-than-1,300 people who are known to have died in catastrophic floods which ravaged the border region with Tibet late last month. Thousands more people are still missing.

Basyal noted that Nepal’s current constitution was finalised and promulgated in September 2015, only after the devastating April and May earthquakes created urgent political pressure to end nearly a decade of deadlock.

“It feels like the nation comes together only during national disasters. So we’re really hopeful that this sense of unity that is right now will help.”

Caracas, September 4, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Dozens of campesino families in Bolívar State, southeastern Venezuela, are calling for support from the acting Delcy Rodríguez government after their land title was arbitrarily revoked.

“This should not happen. We have worked the land which we fought for and secured legally,” campesino spokeswoman Zurima Carvajal told Venezuelanalysis.

Carvajal belongs to the “Ojo de Agua Las 3 Raíces” campesino council, which brings together 41 families in a 470-hectare land estate with the same name located in the Padre Pedro Chien municipality of Bolívar state.

The rural organization denounced that their collective land title was arbitrarily revoked in 2024 but local authorities did not give any notice for more than two years. In recent weeks, the campesino families have denounced intimidation and attempts at eviction.

“A few days ago there were shots fired against my house,” Carvajal stated. “Local police came and wrote a report, but then nothing happened.” 

The campesino leader denounced that a local family who claims to own the land has ties to military officials, National Assembly legislators, and Bolívar State Governor Yulisbeth García. Carvajal added that she has received recurring threats and that a group of men hired to intimidate the campesino council destroyed a fence, causing the families to lose five heads of cattle which ran into nearby fields.

“We urge national authorities, from Acting President Delcy Rodríguez to Agriculture Minister Vladimir Padrino, as well as the Land Institute (INTI), to investigate this case and restore our land deed,” Carvajal concluded. “There has to be a mechanism to protect those who work the land.”

The Ojo de Agua campesino council began its struggle in 2016, reporting to authorities that vast tracts of land were abandoned in the Padre Pedro Chien municipality. Shielded by Venezuela’s Land Law, which protects rural collectives who occupy and produce in idle estates, the campesino families began to settle in the area in 2018.

Carvajal recalled that the organization immediately faced intimidation and violence from would-be landowners who could not produce any property deeds after the INTI opened an investigation. However, they repeatedly destroyed the campesinos’ crops, while bringing legal charges that led to the jailing of several activists.

The Ojo de Agua organization had a decisive breakthrough after joining the 2018 Admirable Campesino March that saw hundreds of rural activists march for hundreds of kilometers to demand that the Nicolás Maduro government address agrarian issues, including landowner violence and the judicial persecution of local organizers.

With support from other campesino organizations, Ojo de Agua received its land title from the Maduro government in 2020. Carvajal affirmed that the land has been permanently productive, with a variety of crops including corn, sugar cane, beans, and vegetables, as well as a small herd of cattle.

Land struggles have recently intensified in rural Venezuela, with a growing number of rural collectives denouncing the arbitrary revocation of titles. Opposition party Vamos Vamos Venezuela, backed by agroindustrial and cattle rancher lobbies, has campaigned for the repeal of the landmark 2001 Land Law, approved by former President Hugo Chávez, in order to turn Venezuela into “a country of property owners.”

Campesino movements have vowed to fight to defend the popular gains in the countryside.

The Venezuelan acting government and parliament have yet to comment on a potential reform to the Land Law. However, the National Assembly preliminarily approved a law to “protect cattle rearing activities,” with legislature President Jorge Rodríguez publicly criticizing the nationalization of large land estates under Chávez.

In parallel with land issues, Venezuelan rural organizations have also denounced that national production is at risk due to unrestrained imports of foodstuffs such as corn, rice, and sugar. Small-scale producers have pointed the finger at agribusiness corporations for resorting to imports during harvest season in order to drive down crop prices.

The US is the second largest source of agricultural imports to Venezuela by volume, totaling $758 million in 2025. Researcher Felipe Pacheco reported that corn imports from the US more than quadrupled in the first five months of 2026, compared to the average of the prior five years.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

Caracas, September 1, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Chinese government has called for its “legitimate rights and interests” in Venezuela to be protected following reports that joint ventures involving Chinese firms are set to be displaced by a US-backed corporation.

“China-Venezuela cooperation is protected by international law and the laws of both countries. China’s legitimate rights and interests in Venezuela must be guaranteed,” foreign ministry spokesman Guo Jiakun said in a press conference on Tuesday.

Guo added that the economic and trade relations between nations “should follow the principles of equality and mutual benefit.”

Beijing’s warning came in the wake of an announced US-Venezuela oil deal that Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez termed “historic” and US President Donald Trump called “the biggest in history.”

Under the joint plan, Washington-backed North American Blue Energy Partners (NABEP) is set to receive long-term concessions to develop 17 oilfields, holding 65 billion barrels of proven crude reserves, in the Caribbean nation. The projects are split between light- and medium-crude fields in western Venezuela and extra-heavy crude ventures in the eastern Orinoco Oil Belt.

According to Reuters, five of the oilfields to be handed over to NABEP are joint initiatives with Chinese companies, including state-owned CNPC and Hong Kong-registered China Concord Petroleum. In 2025, China Concord installed a drill rig in Lake Maracaibo in what was the first major infrastructure investment in western Venezuela in many years.

Another project in the agreement is believed to be run by a joint venture between Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA and a Russian enterprise.

NABEP is owned by Venezuelan oil mogul Alejandro Betancourt and has expanded its presence in the Venezuelan oil industry in recent years. Its current oil output is around 200,000 barrels per day (bpd). Betancourt has faced multiple international embezzlement and money laundering investigations but has never been formally charged, with US officials reportedly lobbying Swiss authorities not to bring criminal charges against the Venezuelan businessman.

In a statement posted on Monday, Betancourt said Venezuela is “blessed with an abundance of natural resources” that would be “unleash[ed] to the great benefit of both Venezuelans and Americans.”

The Trump White House published a “fact sheet” on Monday, claiming that the deal “secures US energy dominance for the next century.”

The administration stated that the Department of War’s Office of Strategic Capital (OSC) will receive a 35 percent stake in NABEP at no cost. The State Department will be given the right to purchase 20 percent of NABEP’s output at cost and hold the right of first refusal for the remaining 80 percent.

Washington will also have the final say on NABEP’s board of directors and the company will be subject to US laws and government audits. The document also pledged that the Betancourt-owned company will invest “up to $100 billion” in the oilfields.

The White House went on to explain that the concessions will conform to Venezuela’s reformed Hydrocarbon Law, which was “adopted with US support” and vastly expanded benefits for private corporations. Washington has exerted significant control over the Venezuelan oil industry since its January 3 military operation, issuing sanctions waivers for select companies while the US Treasury manages crude export revenues.

The Trump administration hailed NABEP’s takeover of oilfields previously run by Russian and Chinese companies as a triumph for the Monroe Doctrine, “ensuring American dominance in our hemisphere is never again questioned.”

The US factsheet insisted that the oil concessions will last 100 years, contradicting Rodríguez, who said the agreement is for 25 years. Venezuela’s acting president vowed that the accords would usher in a new era of “welfare and prosperity.”

According to Rodríguez, the initiative has a 1.5 million bpd target and Venezuela will collect an estimated US $19 per barrel extracted, a figure significantly below the benchmarks established under the prior hydrocarbon legislation enacted by former President Hugo Chávez.

The US-Venezuela deal has drawn widespread scrutiny over its lack of transparency and the unfavorable terms for Caracas, with popular movements rallying against “neocolonialism and imperialist attacks.”

For its part, the Venezuelan National Assembly approved a resolution on Tuesday endorsing the “binational energy accords.” The proposal was backed by the United Socialist Party (PSUV) and allies as well as some opposition deputies.

National Assembly President Jorge Rodríguez, the acting president’s brother, reiterated the government’s argument that “oil underground serves no purpose” and promised that crude production will reach “levels never seen before.”

US Energy Secretary Chris Wright landed in Venezuela on Tuesday night ahead of a scheduled press conference with Acting President Rodríguez on Wednesday. The Trump official, the Venezuelan government, and NABEP are expected to formally sign agreements at the ceremony.

Alongside the White House deal, several multinational corporations, including US-based Chevron and GE Vernova, India’s state-owned ONGC, and Italy’s Eni, are expected to ink contracts with Caracas in the coming days.

Some companies are slated to update existing agreements in accordance with reformed legislation, while others are set to enter into new deals in the South American country. According to Reuters, Chevron will expand its presence in the Orinoco Oil Belt while also securing access to light crude in Monagas State.

Edited by Lucas Koerner in Philadelphia, USA.

THEY’VE spent years dodging questions and dishing out the classic “never say never” when asked about a reunion for The Saturdays.

Now it looks like Frankie Bridge and Rochelle Humes might have finally found a way to make everyone happy – and The Sun can exclusively reveal when and how.

There are always rumours that the girl group – who went on hiatus in 2014 – will perform at Mighty Hoopla festival and we can reveal Frankie and Rochelle, both 37, are closer than ever to making it happen. 

Earlier this year This Morning host Rochelle revealed her son Blake, five, is desperate to see his mum on stage and just this month Loose Women panellist Frankie confirmed she would be up for the LBGTQ pop bonanza, saying “the gays deserve it”. 

A well-placed insider said: “It’s getting to the point now where Frankie and Rochelle are close to saying yes just so everyone stops asking them about it. 

“A Saturdays set at Mighty Hoopla would go down a storm and but looks like that’s about as much as they’d be prepared to commit to.

“Offers have been made, there have been talks and – while it’s far from confirmed – for the first time it looks like everyone is keeping an open mind.” 

The Saturdays line-up also included Vanessa White, Una Healy and Mollie King and when asked about their decision to go their separate ways more than a decade ago, Rochelle recently told Jamie Laing on his Good Company podcast that it came down to money. 

She said: “For a period of [time], music artists were making money touring. 

“The tours and the brand deals were where you would make your money. The records weren’t for us.

“So we’d be the face of a shampoo and all have our own scent – that’s where we’d make our money. Those brand deals were really important to us and so was the touring.”

Meanwhile Frankie has repeatedly stated in recent years that she feels “too old” to be a pop star, firmly telling OK! Magazine previously: “I don’t think it will happen.” 

So it is no surprise that it’s Frankie and Rochelle, who first shot to fame as members of S Club Juniors in 2001, are the ones calling the shots on if and when a Saturdays comeback takes place – and they’ve made their conditions clear. 

Our insider added: “Frankie and Rochelle have been pop stars since they were 12 so they’re comfortable with that chapter being closed now. 

“If they say yes to a reunion gig, they’ve made it clear they’re not interested in recording new music or going on the road again. Their families come first.”

In a stark contrast to the attitudes of Frankie and Rochelle, Una, 44, has been championing a full-scale return for The Saturdays pretty much since they announced their hiatus. 

But she’s not had it easy. Speaking to Patrick Kielty on The Late Late Show previously, Una confirmed that The Saturdays had made a pact that they would only reunite if all five members were on board – and she was having trouble convincing everyone. 

She said: “They all went very quiet on me. I put it out there to them [in their WhatsApp group chat], when Girls Aloud were back together [in 2023], I was like, ‘we should be doing it again’. 

“There was just silence. I thought to myself, ‘tumbleweed’. So I sent a gif of tumbleweed into the group chat and there were still tumbleweeds. They didn’t even do a little laughing emoji back. That was a bit, ‘ouch’. You know?”

We’re told that, for now at least, Una is taking what she can get – and pinning her hopes on the Mighty Hoopla coming off.

“Just to have everyone nearly on the same page for a one-off gig is more than Una expected to happen,” our source said.

“But they all know that one performance will never be enough for her and it won’t be long until she’s back to her old tricks in the group chat.”

Watch this space.

David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance has asked a judge to force California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and his coalition of 11 other states to prepare to set aside as much as $1.9 billion as the Warner Bros. Discovery merger challenge heads into overtime.

In Monday’s court filing, Paramount requested the plaintiff states, including New York, Colorado, Oregon and Nevada, as well as the Writers Guild of America, post a bond that would cover the “ticking fees” Paramount promised to pay Warner shareholders should the deal stretch beyond its anticipated September close.

Ellison was confident his proposed Warner takeover would sail through its regulatory clearances. President Trump’s Justice Department approved the merger in June, as have dozens of other countries.

The states would not be required to pay the full $1.9 billion upfront. Instead, they would have to come up with a portion of that amount by Sept. 30. Should the Democrat state attorneys general and WGA lose their lawsuits, they would ultimately have to pay the full amount.

Monday’s court filing highlights Ellison’s frustrations and the financial pressures that deal delays will bring the media company. The filing also continues Paramount’s full-court political pressure campaign to get Bonta and the other states to abandon their antitrust lawsuit.

Paramount did not expect such a spirited challenge from Bonta and the 11 other Democratic state attorneys general who banded together with the WGA to try to block the $111-billion merger of two historic Hollywood studios.

Paramount’s 23-page filing, signed by former high profiile federal prosecutor Danielle Sassoon, was intended to rattle the states.

Paramount is trying to create divisions among the plaintiff states by prompting them to question their resolve in fighting a protracted and potentially expensive legal battle, according to a person familiar with Paramount’s strategy who was not authorized to speak publicly.

Because WGA has separately sued to unravel the deal, Paramount has asked the judge to have the union post a bond to cover some of the costs, too.

In its motion, Paramount cited the Clayton Antitrust Act, which is the foundation for Bonta’s lawsuit. The law carries a provision to require plaintiffs to post a bond to cover the potential financial harms of halting a transaction.

The bond gives a defendant, in this case Paramount, a way to recover lost funds should they ultimately prevail in court.

U.S. District Judge Araceli Martínez-Olguín will be asked to rule on the request during a Wednesday court hearing.

“We have satisfied all closing conditions under our merger agreement, having received regulatory clearances from 68 jurisdictions,” Paramount said in a statement. “These two lawsuits are the only barrier to closing this transaction.”

Paramount is incurring considerable legal fees and deal-related costs.

The company cited a potential eight-month merger delay because Martínez-Olguín scheduled the trial for March 2. If the case goes to trial, it might not be decided until next May.

At issue are the “ticking fees” that Paramount in February agreed pay to Warner investors should the merger be delayed . Paramount agreed to pay $.25 a share for every quarter until the acquisition finalizes.

The fees add up to $7 million a day, or $650 million per quarter.

Paramount is facing a June 4 deadline to close the deal. That’s when Warner Bros. Discovery can demand a $7-billion break-up fee.

Paramount wants to get the deal done as soon as possible, and with the approval of Mexican regulators last week, only Bonta and the states’ lawsuit stands in their way.

Paramount also is cognizant of shifting winds in Washington should Democrats regain control of Congress in November, which could bring fresh scrutiny to the merger .

Ticking fees weren’t the only costs of the extended timeline.

“There will be no integration and no ramped-up investment in content, production, and creative talent by the combined company,” Paramount said . “Employees of both Paramount and WBD are also harmed by the uncertainties caused by the delay.”

Last week, the Directors Guild of America and the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees — which represent a combined 200,000 union members — waded into the clash over the merger, which continues to carve deep divisions throughout the industry.

“We remain confident that plaintiffs’ case is without merit and will defend our pro-competitive transaction in court,” Paramount said. “We look forward to closing this transaction and delivering its benefits to consumers and entertainment industry workers in California, the United States and around the world.”

For five decades, Top Of The Pops defined the music industry.

Before streaming, YouTube, and TikTok, the hit BBC show was the go-to place for both fledgling singers looking for a big break and superstars alike.

Now the show’s assistant floor manager Gareth Davies, 51, has lifted the lid on what really went on behind the scenes — branding Jennifer Lopez and Shania Twain the biggest divas.

He also recalls how Madonna was left twiddling her thumbs after her clothes went missing.

Gareth, who worked on the show from the mid-to-late Nineties through to the early Noughties, said: “My job was to get artists from backstage and guide them to the stage for their performance.

“Jennifer Lopez had the most demands, for sure.

BAND OF BROTHERS

Blur star reveals if band will put out new music & gives solo album update

ROCK ON

Latest Glastonbury 2027 line-up rumours – from Harry Styles to Robbie Williams

“The dressing rooms were all along this narrow corridor — so nothing special, really, quite old-fashioned. But for that small stretch of space, she made it completely her own.

“The best way to describe it is that she turned her dressing room entirely white.

“I’m not sure where the fascination with white came from, but she wanted everything transformed.

“The whole room was covered from top to bottom, which was quite unusual.

“She didn’t paint it. She had plastic sheeting put up everywhere instead, so it created this striking, all-white environment.”

It’s a far cry from the image of the Bronx girl done good portrayed in the lyrics of her 2002 hit Jenny From The Block.

But J.Lo’s antics pale into insignificance compared to country legend Shania Twain.

Recalling how the superstar was flanked by her team at all times, Gareth said: “Shania Twain had a really large entourage with her, and my lasting memory was watching her walk from the dressing rooms to the studio.

“There was this long line of people moving ahead of her, like a relay.

“Apparently she didn’t open doors, so someone would always be one step ahead holding it open for her. It was this perfectly choreographed system so she could just keep walking.”

Shania appeared on the show four times during Gareth’s time on the series, making her debut in June 1999 with That Don’t Impress Me Much before returning in December that same year. She also performed in 2000 and 2002.

But for every diva, there was also an unlikely down-to-earth performer.

Perhaps the most surprising was Janet Jackson, sister of the late King of Pop, Michael Jackson.

Gareth said: “I remember everyone on the studio floor waiting quite a long time for Janet to arrive.

“We were all being very casual about it, thinking, well, she’s a major A-lister, of course she’s going to be late. So we just waited around.

“But it turned out Janet and all her dancers had been there the whole time, quietly waiting on stage themselves while we were all waiting for her.

“She was just there in her tracksuit bottoms and hoodie, completely relaxed in that effortlessly cool way.

“What really stayed with me was how kind, gentle, and soft she was. Everyone was genuinely taken aback.

“She felt like one of the dancers, really, just keen to be part of the group rather than setting herself apart as the star.”

Kylie Minogue was also reportedly a total sweetheart.

Speaking about the I Should Be So Lucky singer, Gareth said: “I was quite obsessed with Kylie.

“I remember knocking on her dressing room door with my little script in hand.

“I’d already managed to get Gina G’s autograph — it was around the time she was doing the Eurovision Song Contest (in 1996) — so I thought, right, I’m going to get Kylie Minogue’s on here too.

“I knocked on the door, told her I was a big fan, and she was so lovely.

“She invited me in and chatted with me for a bit, just as a person rather than as a BBC employee. That really stayed with me.”

As well as performing on the show, Kylie went on to make a number of presenting cameos.

Music legend Madonna made her Top Of The Pops debut in January 1984, belting out her single Holiday. She went on to perform a further 13 times, all of which were lapped up by fans. But Gareth recalls how one performance almost didn’t happen after she lost her costume.

He told online gambling platform Zingo Bingo: “I do remember that one time when Madonna came over, everything felt much tighter and more rushed than usual.

“Sometimes an artist would record several songs from an album in one go, so they wouldn’t have to keep coming back again and again.

“From the moment she arrived, it was straight into the studio, rehearsing, back to get ready, then out on stage.

“But she and her team had all rushed in from a hotel in central London, and somehow her stylist had left all the outfits behind.

“We actually had to delay because Madonna had nothing to wear.

“It really felt like she had someone responsible for every tiny detail, so you can imagine whoever was in charge of the wardrobe that day was probably in serious trouble.”

First broadcast on the BBC on New Year’s Day in 1964, Top Of The Pops ran for over four decades.

But despite the huge names and viewing figures, the show was actually as humble as it gets, with greasy-spoon breakfasts being served metres away from where LA-based megastars were doing their pre-show yoga.

Gareth said: “It was filmed at Elstree Studios, where EastEnders was shot, and Grange Hill was filmed there too.

“It was a very traditional, slightly old-fashioned BBC studio that hadn’t really been updated for years. You had this classic canteen staffed by people who’d been there forever, serving no-frills British fry-ups, along with old-school dressing rooms.

“Elstree felt quite remote, almost in the middle of nowhere. So when artists came over, especially from America, they were expecting to appear on the BBC’s biggest music show.

“They probably imagined being right in the heart of London where everything’s happening.

“Instead, they were on the quiet outskirts with very little going on.

“It did make for some surreal moments. You’d spot a big star sitting near a soap star legend, tucking into a breakfast.”

The show was so big that from 2001 to 2005, the BBC hosted the Top Of The Pops Awards at the Manchester Arena.

Explaining how the show felt more like a family at times, Gareth said: “What was so nice was that there really wasn’t much for anyone to do.

“An artist might rehearse at ten in the morning, and then we wouldn’t record until seven in the evening, so they’d just be hanging around.

“It created a real sense of community. You got to see people as much backstage and offstage as you did onstage, which was quite unique.

“Normally, artists come in, rehearse, and then disappear until they’re needed.

“But there, everyone stayed, mingled, and just spent time together, which gave it a very different, much more relaxed atmosphere.

“I remember the first time the Spice Girls got on stage for their rehearsals, they were all jumping around and hugging each other. That was a moment where they felt they had made it.

“The five of them just had this amazing chemistry together. Their personalities worked so well and it wasn’t faked for cameras.

“You’d go into the dressing room and the energy was electric. They were so fun.”

After five decades of being “still number one”, the final Top Of The Pops aired on July 30, 2006.

The BBC said in a statement: “The decision to bring the show to an end after 42 years has not been taken lightly and over the past few years every effort has been made to maintain the quality and distinctiveness of the show.

“However, the BBC’s Creative Future Music Strategy has concluded that in a rapidly changing musical landscape, Top Of The Pops no longer occupies the central role it once did.”

Scottish rock band Snow Patrol were the final ever act to play on the show — belting out their single Chasing Cars.

Published on
11/08/2026 – 13:25 GMT+2

Crude and US Treasury yields rose together as traders judged that the exchange of compensation demands between the US and Iran has pushed any potential deal further out of reach.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The US president said on Monday he had told his negotiators to seek payment from Iran for Americans killed and wounded in attacks he attributes to Tehran going back decades, including the bombing of the USS Cole in the year 2000 and for Iranians killed in protest crackdowns.

In a follow-up post on Truth Social he expanded on the demand, saying Iran should also pay for “the damages and death caused to the people of Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Gaza”.

Tehran, whose representatives had sought compensation for five months of US and Israeli bombardment, says the Strait of Hormuz will stay shut until Washington lifts its naval blockade, ends sanctions and releases frozen Iranian assets.

The front month contract on Brent traded at around $89.8 a barrel on Tuesday and West Texas Intermediate at about $84.2, both up roughly 2.5%.

The US bond market read it the same way, with yields rising across the US curve in a modest global sell-off, the two-year over 4.25%, the ten-year above 4.7% and the thirty-year higher than 5.27%. The yields for all durations are trading at the highs of this year.

Since yields move inversely to prices, the rise means investors are selling government debt as they expect that costlier oil will feed into inflation and strengthen the case for higher interest rates.

Money markets now put roughly even odds on a Federal Reserve rate hike in September, with July inflation data due on Wednesday.

Control claimed, traffic missing

The current stalling of US-Iran negotiations is deliberate as US President Donald Trump appears to have been favouring a slower approach as of late.

The US president told Axios in an interview published on Sunday that the US is “low-keying it,” meaning Washington was only semi-negotiating and content to watch Iran’s inflation and empty coffers do the work, a signal he is prepared to let economic pressure mount rather than order a fresh military campaign.

In the Oval Office on Monday, he struck a triumphant note, claiming the US controls “100%” of the Strait of Hormuz, that only the US Navy holds sway in the region, that American forces have swept it clear of Iranian mines and that the blockade of Iranian ports is impenetrable.

However, shipping data tells another story.

Confirmed crossings have run at 6 to 11 vessels a day recently, against the 130 to 140 daily before the war, according to Kpler data, leaving traffic at a fraction of normal levels throughout the five-month conflict.