detail

Monty Python star Eric Idle appeared on Monday’s The One Show to talk about his new book Idle in Provence: A Brief History of Thyme

Monty Python star Eric Idle was left confused over a The One Show detail.

The actor, comedian, musician and writer, 83, appeared on Monday’s episode of the BBC programme to talk about his new book Idle in Provence: A Brief History of Thyme. It comes as a Monty Python ‘row’ has erupted between John Cleese and Eric in recent days.

As Eric was introduced to The One Show, the comedy star grilled hosts Alex Jones and Roman Kemp, asking: “Can I ask you a question? I mean, this is called The One Show, right?”

To which the duo confirmed this fact, a confused Eric then pointed out: “There’s two of you!” with Alex, 49, responding: “I know!” and Roman, 33, replying: “Fair, that’s fair!”

Alex then quipped: “I know, they need us both!” with Eric joking: “A spare? Is that what you said?” Alex then continued: “If one of us passes out, you know, there’s somebody else there.” Roman then joked: “I’m just a passenger, Eric, that’s all!”

Also on Monday’s show were Jack Whitehall and Daisy Edgar-Jones. Jack, 38, said of being on the sofa alongside Eric: “He’s an absolute icon! One of my comedy heroes and this is a privilege to be here with the great Eric Idle!”

During his time on the show, Eric spoke about his new book and his property in the south of France, which he purchased in 1971 and has spent 50 years renovating.

Over the years, Eric has hosted some very famous guests at his French home, including the late Robin Williams and David Bowie, as he recalled stories that included the duo on Monday’s show.

Host Roman said: “You mentioned so many other famous friends in the book as well and it’s your way, you say, of keeping their memory alive.”

To which Eric replied: “Well you know people say: ‘Oh, you’re name dropping!’ and I say: ‘Well, you’re not name dropping when they’re dead, it’s history’ and actually very interesting people both of them.

“Extraordinarily interesting people and David an extraordinary man. I mean polymath, he knew everything about music, art, literature, the whole lot!”

The One Show airs on weeknights at 7pm on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., on Thursday declined to detail possible punishments for two House Democrats who voted with Republicans this week on a procedural vote on GOP-backed bills. File Photo by Daniel Heuer/UPI | License Photo

Sept. 3 (UPI) — House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., on Thursday declined to detail any punishment for two Democratic lawmakers who voted earlier this week with Republicans on a procedural vote to advance GOP-led bills.

Democratic Reps. Jared Golden of Maine and Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington on Tuesday voted to advance debate on Republican-led bills, including a resolution condemning socialism that GOP leaders want to use against Democrats during the fall election season.

Without their votes, the procedural vote would have failed. Jeffries and other Democratic leaders sharply criticized the votes by Golden and Gluesenkamp Perez as a “breach of trust” and said there would be a “serious response.”

Jeffries told a news conference Thursday that he spoke with Gluesenkamp Perez, calling the discussion “productive” and “forward-looking.

Some House Democrats suggested Gluesenkamp Perez should be removed from the Appropriations Committee over vote.

“Marie Gluesenkamp Perez, of course, is an important member of the House Democratic Caucus fighting hard for the people that she represents in Washington and a leader of the Blue Dogs,” Jeffries said.

“And we value every single member in our caucus – progressives, the New Dems and Blue Dogs – and we’re going to move forward together, in unity, in order to solve problems for the American people.”

Jeffries said there was a continuing “family discussion about how we all move forward together.”

He tasked an internal panel in charge of caucus rules to discuss sanctions in new rules to prevent House Democrats from voting with Republicans on important procedural votes. The panel, which met Wednesday, did not take immediate action.

Jeffries said Democrats will discuss possible changes to internal caucus rules because of the defections. However, he suggested there be punishments for Gluesenkamp Perez or Golden.

Gluesenkamp Perez is seeking re-election in a district that leans Republican, while Golden is retiring. She represents a district that U.S. President Donald Trump won in 2024, and she is a top target for Republicans in November’s election.

The Jury viewers were left baffled as tensions erupted among the jurors just minutes into the first episode of the new Channel 4 series.

The Jury took a turn minutes into the new series.

Viewers were left baffled just moments into the return of the Channel 4 series after tensions began to rise among the 12 jurors. The BAFTA-winning programme returned for a new series on Tuesday (September 1) night, once again putting a group of ordinary people in a specially constructed jury room in a recreated murder trial.

This time, the jury is considering the case of two brothers, one just 14 years old, who are accused of killing their stepfather. The brothers admit stabbing the man more than 69 times while he was asleep, with the jury having to decide whether the killing was an act of desperation or a calculated murder.

However, viewers were quick to comment on the reaction inside the jury room after the first trial and initial evidence had been presented. As the 12 contestants began discussing what they had heard, it quickly became clear that they were far from united in their views.

One juror, Jamie, admitted he was struggling to remain objective because of the age of one of the defendants. “This is mental,” he said. “My main aim is to be completely objective and then there’s a 14 year old put in front of me and it’s thrown it out of the window. I’ve got a boy that’s nearly f****** 14. As a dad, two young boys. I feel like it’s made it so much more challenging to be objective.”

He later described the evidence they had heard as a “massive bombshell”. Another juror questioned whether the group could fairly assess the case given that Daniel was only 14. “Do we feel that we can make a fair decision, because he’s so young?” they asked.

But not everyone believed Daniel’s age should influence their thinking. Kim insisted: “Age doesn’t come into it for me. Maybe it should but as it stands, I’m not looking at it as an age thing.”

Christopher, 20, disagreed and argued that Daniel’s age could be important when considering his responsibility for what happened. “I think it ought to a bit. I’m gonna be a really annoying sociology student right now,” he said. “But I think we do need to consider his age because I think that’s going to impact whether he’s in full control of his faculties.”

Jamie agreed with Christopher’s argument, pointing out that a teenager’s brain is still developing. “Their brain is still forming. So how can you say someone’s completely responsible as an adult when they’re not an adult?” he asked.

Kim, however, pushed back strongly. “So it justifies him killing him? No,” she replied. Jamie insisted the situation was more complicated than that. “But it’s not as simple as that. It’s not a simple thing,” he said.

Kim responded: “For you, maybe not, but for me, it is that simple. I am very black and white.” She went on to focus on the circumstances of the killing, arguing that the number of stab wounds made it difficult for her to separate Daniel’s age from the crime itself.

“The killing was nasty. The amount of times Daniel stabbed him. There was no justifying that,” she said. “Looking at him as a 14 year old, rather than the crime that he’s committed, I think it kind of clouds the judgement.”

Chloe, 23, also took a firm position on the issue. “Yeah. That’s overkill. You know what you’re doing after you’ve done it over 69 times,” she said. “If you’ve already done one big gash on the neck, you can’t do that to someone and expect them to be walking around perfectly the next day.”

She added that she believed the brothers intended to kill their stepfather and did not think Daniel’s age could be used as an excuse. “If they were adult enough to commit an adult crime, then surely they can take the punishment,” Chloe said.

The heated discussion came relatively early in the programme, with viewers watching the jurors begin to form opinions as the case started to unfold. Some viewers were surprised to see such strong opinions emerging while the group had only been presented with an early portion of the evidence.

One viewer wrote on X: “Not seen any evidence yet and they already arguing #TheJuryC4.” Another said: “Making up your mind before you’ve heard even a lick of evidence is insane but go off I guess.” A third questioned the make-up of the jury, asking: “Do they actually have level headed people on the series this time? #TheJury.”

However, not everyone watching was critical of the programme. One viewer praised the return, writing: “I’m watching, it’s one of the best programmes on TV and with all the debate over jury trials, a fitting watch. #TheJury.”

As the first episode continued, the jurors were presented with further information about the case, giving them more evidence to consider as they attempted to establish exactly what had happened.

You can stream the new season of The Jury on Channel 4

BBC’s Escape to the Country saw couple Matt and Jamie embark on a house hunt in Devon, where they were wowed by a clever country house feature

Escape to the Country host Sonali Shah admitted she was “obsessed” with one property as the BBC show accompanied two new house hunters to Devon.

As the property series supports prospective buyers, it was down to Sonali to help Matt and Jamie find their rural dream home in and around the idyllic county of South West England during Wednesday’s (August 26) episode of the BBC series.

Jamie, an NHS genetic counselor based in the Oxfordshire town of Wantage, and her partner Matt, an aerospace engineer living in Eastleigh, Hampshire, had a budget of £550,000 to purchase their property together, with hopes of the house becoming a family home in the future.

When Sonali visited the third property on her list, she shared her excitement and said: “Our mystery house is all about location, and I can’t wait to see their reaction about being smack bang in the middle of the village. The house itself, oh my word.”

The host later confessed to Jamie and Matt: “I’m going to be straight, I am obsessed with this house,” before Jamie later confirmed it was a “dream home.”

The handsome Georgian house, situated in Ipplepen, offered four bedrooms and two reception rooms, nestled in the very heart of the village, and was priced at £530,000.

As Matt and Jamie explored the charming home, they were particularly struck by one standout feature — a first-floor laundry room.

Matt said, “It’s a clever use of space, actually,” as Jamie replied, “It is a really smart idea. You’re not having to lug washing baskets up and down the stairs every five minutes. I don’t know why everyone doesn’t do that.”

Despite Jamie highlighting the “perfection” of the property’s interior design, she noted the garden offered no room for a workshop — something that could prove a dealbreaker. Matt conceded the home fell short of their “practical needs”, yet remained keen.

Later in the episode, which originally aired in 2024, Jamie and Matt unveiled the outcome of their property search on Escape to the Country.

The couple delightedly announced they had placed an offer on the very first property, with Matt saying: “After seeing the second and third one, the first was the best fit for us.”

Their offer had been accepted, and Matt and Jamie had successfully purchased a property in Mutterton which was on the market for £550,000. The 19th-century cottage boasted three bedrooms, an annexe, and a sizeable kitchen.

Escape to the Country airs on BBC One and is available to stream on iPlayer