enemies

Celebrity Traitors stars Jonathan Ross and Cat Burns could be about to come to blows in the latest episode of the hit BBC show, a body language expert has predicted

Celebrity Traitors stars Jonathan Ross and Cat Burns could be set for fiery scenes in the upcoming episode of the hit BBC show.

The talk show legend, 64, and viral TikTok singer Cat, 25, are both taking part in the hit reality series in which a host of famous faces live in a castle and have to work out which of them is one of the titular Traitors, all guided by Strictly Come Dancing‘s Claudia Winkleman.

Both Jonathan and Cat are in fact Traitors, as is comedian Alan Carr but the other contestants are all Faithfuls, and now body language expert Judi James has explored the ‘subtle but revealing’ signs that things were not right between them during last night’s episode.

Normally, during the part in the show where the Traitors remove their hoods, there is often fits of laughter between them. But explaining what was different this time, Judi explained: “Last night’s meet-up was different though because, for Jonathan and Cat, the masks never came off. They surveyed each other without any signals of relief.”

READ MORE: Claudia Winkleman’s A-list new role after ‘blindsiding’ the BBC revealedREAD MORE: Are the Celebrity Traitors really the ‘worst Faithfuls ever’?

She added: “Their body language was subtle but revealing, proving they, both now recognise they are enemies. Last night’s meet-up was different though because, for Jonathan and Cat, the masks never came off. They surveyed each other without any signals of relief.

“We saw them ignore Alan to stare at each other, and Jonathan performed a thin ‘smile’ of recognition, which was returned by Cat. There was no pretence between them, but no open declarations of war. Jonathan let Cat know he knew what she was doing and she stared him back to let him know she intends to carry on doing it.”

Jonathan adopted a dominant, alpha pose, leaning his weight onto his hands that clutched the rail in front, leaning forward in a way that could be seen as an attempt to to silently ‘threaten’ Cat. What’s more, the singer smiled when she looked at Alan but the smile quickly faded when she clapped eyes on Jonathan.

It’s also been noted that Cat moved her ‘weight from one foot to the other,’ and this can imply a ‘fight or flight’ stance when coming face-to-face with an enemy.

But the body expert also explained how Cat held her own, adding: “Cat even showed higher status to Jonathan, raising her chin and her brows when she spoke to him and looking down her nose while he bowed his head down low.”

At the end of last night’s episode, Stephen Fry was banished from the castle despite being a Faitful. Speaking to his fellow celebrities, Stephen said he had the “best fun for years” and called the group “an extraordinary and wonderful bunch of people”.

Insisting he would hold “no hard feelings” over his banishment, he said that being involved had been a “privilege and an honour” that had filled him with “deep delight”.

On spin-off, Uncloacked, Stephen said he thought Cat, Joe and David were the Traitors, but he got the shock of his life when he found out the truth…

“Jonathan?! FFS!” he said. “Oh he played a blinder, we knew he was a superfan, but he convinced me he wanted to be Faithful!”

“Alan?! What will Paloma say? Wow does he want to end the realtionship?! Alan Carr, I don’t believe it! Two big dogs, and one small Cat!”

The Celebrity Traitors continues on 29 October at 9pm on BBC One.

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

SEOUL, Oct. 6 (UPI) — North Korean leader Kim Jong Un visited the country’s first 5,000-ton destroyer and called for bolstering naval power to “punish” threats to national sovereignty, state-run media reported Monday.

Kim visited the Choe Hyon destroyer on Sunday with high-ranking party and government officials as part of his tour of a military hardware exhibition, the official Korean Central News Agency reported.

Pyongyang launched the Choe Hyon at the Nampo Shipyard in April. The vessel is armed with a wide range of weapons, including nuclear-capable cruise missiles, according to North Korean reports.

Kim called the destroyer the “remarkable latest success” of the North’s warship-building industry and a symbol of the “rapidly developing naval forces of the DPRK,” KCNA reported.

The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea is the official name of North Korea.

The North Korean leader added that the country’s naval power “should be exercised in the vast ocean to thoroughly deter or counter and punish the enemy’s provocations for the sovereignty of the state and its security interests.”

The de facto maritime border in the Yellow Sea, known as the Northern Limit Line, has long been a source of tension between the two Koreas. North Korea does not officially recognize the NLL, which was drawn unilaterally by the U.S.-led United Nations Command after the Korean War.

The boundary area has been the location for a handful of naval skirmishes in the decades after the 1950-53 war, including the North’s 2010 torpedo attack on a South Korean warship that left 46 dead.

In January 2024, Kim called the line “illegal” and warned that even the slightest violation of the North’s territory would be considered a “war provocation.”

He later repeated the threats, saying the boundary was a “ghost … without any ground in the light of international law or legal justification.”

More recently, South Korea’s military fired warning shots after a North Korean merchant vessel crossed the border on Sep. 25.

Pyongyang unveiled a second 5,000-ton warship in May, named the Kang Kon, but the vessel suffered an accident at its launch ceremony that left it listing on its side.

Kim, who was in attendance at the launch, called the mishap a “criminal act” and warned of serious consequences for those found responsible. At least four officials were arrested in the aftermath.

The Kang Kon was repaired and relaunched in June, although analysts have questioned whether it is fully operational.

The North has vowed to build another 5,000-ton destroyer by October 2026.

In 2007, eight years after becoming Venezuela’s president, Hugo Chávez revoked the license of the country’s oldest private television station. Eight months into his second term, President Trump suggested revoking the licenses of U.S. television stations he believes are overly critical of him.

Since he returned to office in January, Trump’s remaking of the federal government into an instrument of his personal will has drawn comparisons to elected strongmen in other countries who used the levers of government to consolidate power, punish their enemies and stifle dissent.

But those familiar with other countries where that has happened, including Hungary and Turkey, say there is one striking difference: Trump appears to be moving more rapidly, and more overtly, than others did.

“The only difference is the speed with which it is happening,” said David Smilde, who lived in Venezuela during Chavez’s rise and is now a professor at Tulane University.

Political enemies of the president become targets

The U.S. is a long way from Venezuela or other authoritarian governments. It still has robust opposition to Trump, judges who often check his initiatives and a system that diffuses power across 50 states, including elections, making it hard for a president to dominate the country. Some of Trump’s most controversial pledges, such as revoking television licenses, remain just threats.

Trump has both scoffed and winked at the allegation that he’s an authoritarian.

During last year’s campaign, he said he wouldn’t be a “dictator” — except, he added, “on day one” over the border. Last month, Trump told reporters: ”A lot of people are saying, ‘Maybe we like a dictator.’ I don’t like a dictator. I’m not a dictator.”

Even so, he has moved quickly to consolidate authority under the presidency, steer federal law enforcement to prioritize a campaign of retribution and purge the government of those not considered sufficiently loyal.

In a recent social media post, Trump complained to his attorney general, Pam Bondi, about a lack of prosecution of his foes, saying “JUSTICE MUST BE SERVED, NOW!!!” Days later, the Department of Justice secured a felony indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, whom Trump has blamed for the Russian collusion investigation that dogged his first term.

The same day, Trump ordered a sweeping crackdown targeting groups he alleges fund political violence. The examples he gave of victims were exclusively Republicans and his possible targets were those who have funded Democratic candidates and liberal causes. The week before, Trump’s Federal Communications Commission chairman, Brendan Carr, threatened ABC after a comment about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk by late night host Jimmy Kimmel angered Republicans.

ABC suspended Kimmel for five days, but Trump threatened consequences for the network after it returned his show to the airwaves: “I think we’re going to test ABC out on this. Let’s see how we do,” the president said on his social media site.

Trump has said he is repaying Democrats for what he says is political persecution of him and his supporters. The White House said its mission was accountability.

“The Trump administration will continue to deliver the truth to the American people, restore integrity to our justice system, and take action to stop radical left-wing violence that is plaguing American communities.” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said Saturday in response to a question about comparisons between Trump and authoritarian leaders.

U.S. unprepared for attacks on democracy from within

Trump opened his second term pardoning more than 1,500 people convicted of crimes during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, an attempt to overturn his 2020 election loss. He has threatened judges who ruled against him, targeted law firms and universities he believes opposed him, and is attempting to reshape the nation’s cultural institutions.

On Saturday, the president said he was going to send troops to Portland, Oregon, “authorizing Full Force” if necessary. It would be his latest deployment of troops to cities run by Democrats.

Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political scientist and co-author of the book “How Democracies Die,” said he is constantly asked by foreign journalists how the U.S. can let Trump take such actions.

“If you talk to Brazilians, South Koreans, Germans, they have better antennae for authoritarians,” he said. “They experienced, or were taught by their parents, or the schools, the danger of losing a democracy.”

Of the United States, he said: “This is not a society that is prepared for authoritarianism.”

‘America has become little Turkey’

Alper Coskun presumed the U.S. wouldn’t go the way of his native Turkey, where he served in the government, including as the country’s director general of international security affairs. He left as that country’s president, Recep Erdogan, consolidated power.

Coskun now laughs bitterly at the quip his countrymen make: Turkey wanted to become little America, but now America has become little Turkey.

“It’s a very similar playbook,” said Coskun, now at the Carnegie Foundation for International Peace. The difference, he said, is that Erdogan, first elected in 2002, had to move slowly to avoid running afoul of Turkey’s then-independent military and business community.

Trump, in contrast, has more “brazenly” broken democratic norms, Coskun said.

Erdogan, who met with Trump this past week, has had 23 years in office to increase his authority and has now jailed writers, journalists and a potential political rival, Istanbul mayor Ekrem Imamoglu.

“Trump is emulating Erdogan much faster than I expected,” said Henri Barkey, a Turkish professor and expert at the Council on Foreign Relations who lives in the U.S. and has been accused by Erdogan of complicity in an attempted 2016 coup, an allegation Barkey denies.

He said Trump is following in Erdogan’s path in prosecuting enemies, but said he has yet to use the Justice Department to neutralize opponents running for office.

“We have to see if Trump is going to go to that next step,” Barkey said.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has often been cited as a model for Trump. Orbán has become an icon to some U.S. conservatives for cracking down on immigration and LGBTQ rights. Like Trump, he lost an election and spent his years out of office planning his return.

When voters returned Orbán to power in 2010, he moved as quickly as Trump, said Kim Scheppele, who was an adviser to Hungary’s constitutional court and now is a sociologist at Princeton. But there was one difference.

To avoid resistance, Scheppele said, “Orbán had a ‘don’t scare the horses’ philosophy.” She said he spent much of his first year back working on legal reforms and changes to Hungary’s constitution that set him up to consolidate power.

In Venezuela, Chavez faced resistance from the moment he was elected, including an unsuccessful coup in 2002. His supporters complained the country’s largest broadcast network did not cover it in real time, and he eventually pulled its license.

Chavez later deployed the military as an internal police force and accelerated a crackdown on critics before he died in office in 2013.

In the U.S., Smilde said, people trust the country’s institutions to maintain democracy. And they did in 2020 and 2021, when the courts, staff in the administration, and elected officials in state and federal government blocked Trump’s effort to overturn his election loss.

“But now, here we are with a more pointed attack,” Smilde said. “Here, nobody has really seen this in a president before.”

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press.

As one way to keep tabs on President Trump’s state of mind, I’m on his email fundraising lists. Lately his 79-year-old mind has seemed to be on his mortality.

“I want to try and get to heaven” has been the subject line on roughly a half-dozen Trump emails since mid-August. Oddly, one arrived earlier this month on the same day that the commander in chief separately posted on social media a meme of himself as “Apocalypse Now” character Lt. Col. Bill Kilgore, satisfyingly surveying the hellish conflagration that his helicopters had wreaked, not on Vietnam but on Chicago. “Chipocalypse” was Trump’s warning to the next U.S. city that he might militarize.

Mixed messages, to be sure.

The president hasn’t limited his celestial contemplations to online outlets. “I want to try and get to heaven, if possible,” he told the hosts of “Fox & Friends” in August, by way of explaining his (failed) effort to bring peace to Ukraine. “I’m hearing I’m not doing well.”

Well, Mr. President, here’s some advice: I don’t think you’ll get to heaven by wishing that many of your fellow citizens go to hell.

The disconnect between Trump’s dreams of eternal reward and his earthly avenging — against Democrat-run cities, political rivals, late-show hosts and other celebrity critics, universities, law firms, cultural institutions, TV networks and newspapers, liberal groups and donors, government employees, insufficiently loyal allies and even harmless protesters at a Washington restaurant — was rarely so evident as it was at the Christian revival that was Sunday’s memorial for the slain MAGA activist Charlie Kirk at State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Ariz.

Mere minutes after Erika Kirk, Kirk’s widow and successor as head of the conservative group Turning Point USA, had tearfully forgiven her husband’s accused killer, the president explicitly contradicted her with a message of hate toward his own enemies, and his continued determination to exact revenge.

Erika Kirk spoke of “Charlie’s mission” of engaging his critics and working “to save young men just like the one who took his life.” She recalled the crucified Christ absolving his executioners on Calvary, then emotionally added: “That young man. I forgive him.”

“I forgive him because it was what Christ did and what Charlie would do,” she said to applause. “The answer to hate is not hate. The answer, we know from the Gospel, is love and always love. Love for our enemies and love for those who persecute us.”

Then it was Trump’s turn.

Just one minute in, he called the 22-year-old suspect “a radicalized cold-blooded monster.” And throughout, despite investigators’ belief that the man acted alone, Trump reiterated for the umpteenth time since Kirk’s death that “radical left lunatics” — his phrase for Democrats — actually were responsible and that the Justice Department would round up those complicit for retribution.

Trump acknowledged that Charlie Kirk probably wouldn’t agree with his approach: “He did not hate his opponents. He wanted the best for them.” Then Teleprompter Trump went off script, reverting to real Trump and ad-libbing: “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie. I hate my opponent and I don’t want the best for them.” He spat the word “hate” with venom. And he got applause, just as Erika Kirk had for a very different message.

Jesus counseled “turn the other cheek” to rebuke those who harm us. Trump boasts that he always punches back. “If someone screws you, screw them back 10 times harder,” he once said. Love your enemies, as Christ commanded in his Sermon on the Mount? Nah. You heard Trump in Arizona: “I hate my opponent.”

Trump might have some explaining to do when he seeks admittance at the pearly gates.

The Bible’s words aside, a president is supposed to be the comforter in chief after a tragedy and a uniter when divisions rend the American fabric. Think of President Clinton, whose oratory bridged partisan fissures after antigovernment domestic terrorists bombed a federal building in Oklahoma City in 1995, killing 168 people, and of President George W. Bush, who visited a mosque in Washington after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, in a healing gesture intended to blunt rising anti-Muslim reactions. (Later, of course, Bush would cleave the nation by invading Iraq based on a lie about its complicity.)

Trump, by contrast, is the inciter in chief. Just hours after Kirk’s death on Sept. 10, and before a suspect was in custody, he addressed the nation, blaming “radical left political violence.” He has repeated that indictment nearly every day since, though the FBI has reported for years — including during his first term — that domestic right-wing violence is the greater threat. “We have to beat the hell out of them,” Trump told reporters. When even one of his friends on “Fox & Friends” noted radicals are on the right as well, Trump replied: “I couldn’t care less. … The radicals on the left are the problem, and they’re vicious and they’re horrible.”

All of this vituperation and vengeance suggests a big “what if”: What if Trump were more like Charlie Kirk? To ask is not to gloss over Kirk’s controversial utterances against Black Americans, gay and transgender Americans and others, but he did respectfully deal with those who disagreed with him — as he was doing when he was shot.

What if Trump, since 2016, had sincerely tried to broaden his political reach, as presidential nominees and presidents of each party historically did, to embrace his opponents and to compromise with them? What if he governed for all Americans and not just his MAGA voters? He might well have enacted bipartisan laws of the sort that Trump 1.0 promised on immigration, gun safety, infrastructure and more. In general we’d all be better off, less polarized.

And with a more magnanimous approach like that, Trump just might have a better chance at getting into heaven.

Bluesky: @jackiecalmes
Threads: @jkcalmes
X: @jackiekcalmes

WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court panel has ruled that President Trump cannot use an 18th century wartime law to speed the deportations of people his administration accuses of being in a Venezuelan gang. The decision blocking an administration priority is destined for a showdown at the U.S. Supreme Court.

Two judges on a three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in the ruling Tuesday, agreed with immigrant rights lawyers and lower court judges who argued the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 was not intended to be used against gangs such as Tren de Aragua, which the Republican president had targeted in March.

Lee Gelernt, who argued the case for the ACLU, said the administration’s use of “a wartime statute during peacetime to regulate immigration was rightly shut down by the court. This is a critically important decision reining in the administration’s view that it can simply declare an emergency without any oversight by the courts.”

Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, said the majority erred in second-guessing the president.

“The authority to conduct national security operations in defense of the United States and to remove terrorists from the United States rests solely with the President,” Jackson said. “We expect to be vindicated on the merits in this case.”

The administration deported people designated as Tren de Aragua members to a notorious prison in El Salvador and argued that American courts could not order them freed.

In a deal announced in July, more than 250 of the deported migrants returned to Venezuela.

The Alien Enemies Act was only used three times before in U.S. history, all during declared wars — in the War of 1812 and the two world wars.

The administration unsuccessfully argued that courts cannot second-guess the president’s determination that Tren de Aragua was connected to Venezuela’s government and represented a danger to the United States, meriting use of the act.

In a 2-1 ruling, the judges said they granted the preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs because they “found no invasion or predatory incursion” in this case.

The decision bars deportations from Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. In the majority were U.S. Circuit Judges Leslie Southwick, who was nominated by Republican President George W. Bush, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, who was nominated by Democratic President Biden. Andrew Oldham, a Trump nominee, dissented.

The majority opinion said Trump’s allegations about Tren de Aragua did not meet the historical levels of national conflict that Congress intended for the act.

“A country’s encouraging its residents and citizens to enter this country illegally is not the modern-day equivalent of sending an armed, organized force to occupy, to disrupt, or to otherwise harm the United States,” the judges wrote.

In a lengthy dissent, Oldham complained his two colleagues were second-guessing Trump’s conduct of foreign affairs and national security, realms where courts usually give the president great deference.

“The majority’s approach to this case is not only unprecedented — it is contrary to more than 200 years of precedent,” Oldham wrote.

The panel did grant the Trump administration one legal victory, finding the procedures it uses to advise detainees under the Alien Enemies Act of their legal rights were appropriate.

The ruling can be appealed to the full 5th Circuit or directly to the Supreme Court, which is likely to make the ultimate decision on the issue.

The Supreme Court has already gotten involved twice before in the tangled history of the Trump administration’s use of the act. In the initial weeks after Trump’s March declaration, the court ruled that the administration could deport people under the act, but unanimously found that those targeted needed to be given a reasonable chance to argue their case before judges in the areas where they were held.

Then, as the administration moved to rapidly deport more Venezuelans from Texas, the high court stepped in again with an unusual, post-midnight ruling that they couldn’t do so until the 5th Circuit decided whether the administration was providing adequate notice to the immigrants and could weigh in on the broader legal issues of the case. The high court has yet to address whether a gang can be cited as an alien enemy under the act.

Riccardi writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Michelle L. Price in Washington contributed to this report.

As Brits abroad are faced with furious graffiti and water pistols, overtourism protesters have explained why exactly visitors may have gotten the wrong end of the stick about their defiant message

Across southern Europe, holidaymakers are being greeted by graffiti bearing the slogan, ‘tourists go home’ – but there’s more to these furious signs than meets the eye.

Brits sunning themselves over in the Mediterranean may not currently be receiving the warmest welcome, with furious overtourism protesters having taken to the streets in force, brandishing water pistols.

The protests have spread across a number of holiday hotspots, with Spain, Portugal and Italy, with a number of unfortunate sunseekers finding themselves at the receiving end of a squirt.

After spritzing a couple seated at an outdoor Barcelona café, chuckling campaigner Andreu Martínez previously told the Mirror: “The squirt guns are to bother the tourists a bit. Barcelona has been handed to the tourists. This is a fight to give Barcelona back to its residents.”

Meanwhile, a number of Brits have vowed to stay clear of sunny Spain altogether, declaring: “We don’t want to go somewhere we’re not wanted.”

However, as campaigners themselves have asserted, it isn’t the tourists themselves who are the enemy.

READ MORE: Brits avoid Spain after protests and warn ‘we won’t go if we’re not wanted’

As reported by the Metro, one organiser in the Basque city of San Sebastián explained: “People who go on vacation to one place or another are not our enemies…our enemies are those who speculate on housing, who exploit workers and those who are profiting handsomely from the touristification of our cities.”

This is a view shared by many members of the Southern Europe Against Touristification coalition, who say residents are being forced out of their own hometowns thanks to unregulated tourism, which is hurting, not helping, struggling locals.

Campaigners are now piling pressure on local and central governments to adequately regulate the tourism industry, while also calling out housing firms such as Airbnb, which they say are pushing up rents at a time when living costs have already risen substantially.

Zoe Adjey, senior lecturer at the Institute of Tourism and Hospitality at the University of East London, told the publication: “This is very unusual, the tourism and hospitality industry is not the most unified. But it’s good, because as they are saying, the protests have never been about tourists.

“They’re about businesses, and what they are doing with the money they get from tourists. Where is that profit going? It’s clearly not going back into the local areas.”

She continued: “We’ve now got a situation where workers can’t afford to live within any sort of rational distance to their job.”

Do you have a story to share? Email me at [email protected]

READ MORE: This £15 sweat-proof ‘fashion glue’ stops everything from strapless tops to mini skirts slipping