faces

Since October 7, 2023, the war of images has eclipsed the war of weapons. From Gaza’s pulverised hospitals and starving infants to mass graves and desperate fathers digging through rubble, every pixel captured on a smartphone strikes deeper than a missile.

These raw, unfiltered, and undeniable images have a far greater impact than any press conference or official speech. And for the first time in its history, Israel cannot delete them or drown them in propaganda.

The horrifying images of the Israeli army massacring people at aid distribution locations prompted newspaper Haaretz’s Gideon Levy to write on June 29: “Is Israel perpetrating genocide in Gaza? […] The testimonies and images emerging from Gaza don’t leave room for many questions.”

Even staunchly pro-Israel commentator and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman no longer buys into the Israeli narrative. In a May 9 op-ed, addressed to US President Donald Trump, he declared: “This Israeli government is not our ally,” clarifying that it is “behaving in ways that threaten hard-core US interests in the region”.

Once, Israel’s narrative was protected by the gates of editorial rooms and the gravity of Western guilt. But the smartphone shattered those gates. What we see now is no longer what Israel tells us — it’s what Gaza shows us.

The platforms carrying these images — TikTok, WhatsApp, Instagram, X — don’t prioritise context; they prioritise virality. While older generations might look away, younger ones are glued to the stream of suffering, absorbed by every pixel, every siren, every moment of destruction. The global public is agitated, and this works against the Israeli interest. Israel is no longer just at war with its neighbours; it is at war with the lens itself.

The psychological toll of this visual war is reverberating deep inside Israeli society. For decades, Israelis were conditioned to see themselves as global narrators of trauma, not subjects of international scrutiny. But now, with videos of Israeli bombardment, flattened Gaza neighbourhoods, and emaciated children flooding every platform, many Israelis are grappling with a growing ethical predicament.

There is unease, even among centrists, that these visceral images are eroding Israel’s moral high ground. For the first time, public discourse in Israeli society includes fear of the mirror: what the world now sees and what Israelis are forced to confront.

Internationally, the effect has been even more destabilising for Israel’s diplomatic standing. Longstanding allies, once unconditionally supportive, now face growing domestic pressure from citizens who are not consuming official statements but TikTok’s live streams and Instagram’s image feed.

Lawmakers in Europe and North America are openly questioning arms shipments, trade deals, and diplomatic cover, not because of the briefings they have on Israeli war crimes but because their inboxes are flooded with screenshots of scattered body parts and starving children.

The battlefield has expanded into parliaments, campuses, city councils, and editorial rooms. This is the backlash of a war Israel cannot win with brute force. To regain control of the narrative, Israeli officials have pressured social media platforms to curb content they dislike. Yet even Israel’s most sophisticated public diplomacy efforts are struggling to keep pace with the virality of raw documentation.

Behind closed doors, the Israeli military is no longer merely worried about public relations; it is concerned about prosecution. The Israeli army has admonished soldiers for taking selfies and filming themselves demolishing Palestinian homes, warning that such material is now being harvested as evidence by international human rights organisations.

Footage and images from social media have already been used by activists to target Israeli servicemen abroad. In a number of cases, Israeli citizens have had to flee countries they were visiting due to war crimes complaints filed against them.

In the age of smartphones, the occupation is no longer just visible — it’s indictable.

In the past, Israel fought wars that it could explain. Now, it fights a battle it can only react to — often too belatedly and too clumsily. The smartphone captures what the missile conceals. Social media disseminates information that official briefings attempt to suppress. The haunting images, digitally preserved, ensure that we never forget any devastating atrocity, or act of brutality.

Images of conflict do not just convey information; they can also redefine our perceptions and influence our political positions. The powerful “Napalm Girl” photo that captured the aftermath of an attack by the US-allied South Vietnamese army on civilians during the Vietnam War had a profound impact on American society. It helped create a significant shift in public opinion regarding the war, accelerating the decision of the US government to end it.

Today, in Gaza, the stream of powerful images does not stop. Despite Israel’s best efforts, the global opinion is overwhelmingly against its genocidal war.

Smartphones have completely changed the nature of conflict by putting a camera in the hands of every witness. In this new era, Israel struggles to defeat the relentless, unfiltered visual record of its crimes that calls for justice.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

EXPLAINER

MPs in the UK have voted to proscribe the group as a terrorist organisation, but what has it actually done?

Members of Parliament in the United Kingdom voted overwhelmingly this week to proscribe the campaign group, Palestine Action, as a terrorist organisation under anti-terrorism laws, putting the group on a par with armed groups such as al-Qaeda and ISIL (ISIS).

A draft order to amend the Terrorism Act 2000 to do this, brought by Home Secretary Yvette Cooper, passed through the House of Commons on Wednesday by 385 votes to 26.

Cooper tabled the order in parliament just days after Palestine Action activists broke into RAF Brize Norton, the largest station of the Royal Air Force in Oxfordshire, and sprayed two military planes with red paint, resulting in millions of pounds of criminal damage, according to police.

On Friday, the High Court in London is hearing a challenge to the order. Palestine Action co-founder Huda Ammori has asked for a temporary block on the legislation.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the Airbus Voyager incident in an X post, saying: “The act of vandalism committed at RAF Brize Norton is disgraceful.”

Palestine Action describes itself as “a pro-Palestinian organisation which disrupts the arms industry in the United Kingdom with direct action”. It says it is “committed to ending global participation in Israel’s genocidal and apartheid regime”.

The government claims it is a “terrorist” outfit.

But what has the group actually done?

What happened at Brize Norton?

In the highest-profile move made by the group so far, activists sprayed red paint into the turbine engines of two Airbus Voyager aircraft, used for air-to-air refuelling.

According to Manaal Siddiqui, a spokesperson for Palestine Action, “These [Royal Air Force] aircraft can be used to refuel and have been used to refuel Israeli fighter jets.” He added that planes from Brize Norton fly to the British air force base in Cyprus, from where they are “dispatched on spy missions and that intelligence is shared with the Israeli government and the Israeli air forces”.

What else has the group done?

Since its founding in July 2020, Palestine Action (PA) has carried out hundreds of protests across the UK aimed at disrupting the operations of companies they accuse of profiting from Israeli military operations, with a particular focus on the Israeli arms manufacturer, Elbit Systems.

Palestine Action members’ tactics typically involve breaking into facilities, chaining themselves to machinery, daubing buildings with red paint and destroying equipment.

They include the following incidents:

• The group launched a series of break-ins at Elbit’s Ferranti site in Oldham, near Manchester in northern England. Between 2020 and early 2022, the site was repeatedly occupied and vandalised, culminating in Elbit closing the facility in January 2022 – an outcome Palestine Action declared as a major victory.
• In 2021, the group occupied the Leicester drone factory operated by UAV Tactical Systems, a subsidiary of Elbit. Activists chained themselves to the roof for nearly a week. Ten people were arrested, but later acquitted.
• Throughout 2022, PA’s actions became more frequent. In April, they blockaded another Elbit site in Braunstone, Leicestershire. In June, they broke into the Thales UK factory in Glasgow and caused more than 1 million pounds ($1.37m) of damage with smoke bombs and property destruction. Five activists were jailed.
• Following the launch of Israel’s war on Gaza in October 2023, Palestine Action intensified its efforts. They targeted the BBC’s headquarters in London with red paint to protest against the broadcaster’s perceived pro-Israel bias, and blockaded facilities of arms manufacturers including Lockheed Martin, the US aerospace and defence group which has a base in London, and Leonardo, the defence and security group.
• Palestine Action has also expanded internationally. In November 2023, its newly launched US branch occupied the roof of an Elbit facility in Merrimack, New Hampshire, with three activists arrested and later released with misdemeanour charges.
• In August 2024, activists drove a van into Elbit’s headquarters in Bristol, stormed the building and caused extensive damage. At about the same time, they spray-painted the Ministry of Defence, in central London, red and defaced a statue of Arthur Balfour with tomato ketchup inside the House of Commons. Balfour was a former Conservative prime minister who, as serving foreign secretary in 1917, authored the Balfour Declaration which supported the establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.
• In June 2025, the group carried out one of its most provocative actions to date: infiltrating RAF Brize Norton, the UK’s largest airbase. Activists used electric scooters to breach security and vandalised military aircraft with red paint.

What does Palestine Action say about being banned?

In a statement posted on its X profile, Palestine Action said: “The real crime here is not red paint being sprayed on these warplanes, but the war crimes that have been enabled with those planes because of the UK government’s complicity in Israel’s genocide.”

The group added that the government’s move could risk criminalising legitimate protest.

The statement also accused Starmer of “hypocrisy” since the prime minister, back in 2003, supported protesters who broke into an RAF base to stop US bombers heading to Iraq. At the time, Starmer was a lawyer.

“I think it’s a very knee-jerk reaction from an embarrassed government, and it’s an overblown reaction,” Siddiqui said.

Siddiqui said it was unprecedented for Palestine Action to be proscribed as a terrorist organisation. “The majority of the proscribed groups are international. The majority of them take actions in very, very different ways. Palestine Action would be a complete outlier. It’s a draconian approach for the government to stifle protests that they just don’t like. It’s genuinely terrifying for anyone who cares about civil liberties in the UK.”

In all, 81 groups are proscribed in the UK under the Terrorism Act 2000. They include political movements with armed wings such as Hamas and Hezbollah, as well as armed groups like ISIS (ISIL), al-Qaeda and Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan.

Critics blasted Paramount Global’s decision to pay $16 million to settle President Trump’s lawsuit over “60 Minutes” edits, calling the move a “spineless capitulation” that erodes U.S. press freedoms.

Paramount late Tuesday agreed to a landmark settlement with Trump to end his $20-billion broadside against CBS News. The president will not be paid directly, or indirectly, as part of the deal, Paramount said. Instead, the money will go to cover Trump’s legal fees and help finance his future presidential library.

Paramount’s leaders hope the settlement will help clear a path for Trump-appointed regulators to bless the company’s $8-billion sale to David Ellison’s Skydance Media. They wanted to tamp down tensions with the president.

But journalists and others on Wednesday said the payoff will embolden attacks by Trump and his allies on news outlets. Some called the settlement a stain on the proud legacy of CBS News, the one-time home of such fearless journalists as Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite and Mike Wallace.

“This is a shameful decision by Paramount,” Clayton Weimers, executive director of Reporters Without Borders USA, said in a statement. “Shari Redstone and Paramount’s board should have stood by CBS journalists and the integrity of press freedom. Instead, they chose to reward Donald Trump for his petty legal assault.”

Trump’s legal team quickly celebrated the settlement, saying: “President Donald J. Trump delivers another win for the American people as he, once again, holds the Fake News media accountable for their wrongdoing and deceit.”

Bob Corn-Revere, chief counsel for the non-profit 1st Amendment advocacy organization Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, took an opposing view, saying wider repercussions would result.

“A cold wind just blew through every newsroom,” Corn-Revere said in a statement. “Paramount may have closed this case, but it opened the door to the idea that the government should be the media’s editor-in-chief.”

Federal Communications Commissioner Anna M. Gomez, the lone Democrat on the panel, said the settlement was “a desperate move [by Paramount] to appease the Administration and secure regulatory approval of a major transaction currently pending before the FCC.”

“This moment marks a dangerous precedent for the 1st Amendment, and it should alarm anyone who values a free and independent press,” Gomez said.

For months, Paramount executives have been torn over how to handle Trump’s $20-billion lawsuit. The dispute helped prompt the departure of two senior CBS News executives who tried to hold their ground, particularly as “60 Minutes” continued airing stories that took a hard look at Trump’s policies and actions.

Journalists were horrified by the board’s willingness to settle the case rather than defend 1st Amendment freedoms.

CBS News staffers feared the company would be forced to apologize when they said they did nothing wrong. (The settlement, negotiated through a mediator, did not require an apology.)

The legal wrangling began in October when CBS broadcast different portions of an answer given by then-Vice President Kamala Harris to a question about the Biden administration’s waning clout with Israel’s prime minister.

CBS’ “Face the Nation” program ran a clip of Harris giving a muddled response to the question. A day later, “60 Minutes” aired a different portion of her answer. This one was forceful and succinct.

CBS has acknowledged editing Harris’ answer.

Trump and fellow conservatives seized on the edits, claiming CBS had manipulated Harris’ answer to make her appear more authoritative to enhance her standing with voters. He called the edits an example of election interference.

Trump and fellow conservatives seized on CBS’ edits to Harris’ answer, calling them an example of election interference.

(Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

CBS has long denied such claims.

Paramount Co-Chief Executive George Cheeks said during the company’s shareholder meeting Wednesday that settlements are designed for companies to avoid “being mired in uncertainty and distraction.”

“Companies often settle litigation to avoid the high and somewhat unpredictable costs of legal defense, the risk of an adverse judgment that could result in significant financial or reputational damage, and the disruption to business operations that prolonged legal battles can cause,” Cheeks said.

That rationale did little to mollify detractors who alleged that Trump’s complaints were thin.

Vice President Kamala Harris talks to “60 Minutes” correspondent Bill Whitaker.

(CBS News)

Paramount’s settlement “will be remembered as one of the most shameful capitulations by the press to a president in history,” said Seth Stern, director of advocacy for the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Paramount said the agreement with Trump included a release from threatened defamation claims.

But it’s not clear that Paramount’s headaches will go away.

Three left-leaning U.S. Senators — Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) want to take a closer look at Paramount’s decision-making.

In May, the senators sent a strongly worded letter to Paramount’s controlling shareholder, Redstone. They cautioned that a settlement could be viewed as bribing an elected official to win favorable regulatory treatment with regard to the Skydance merger.

“This could be bribery in plain sight,” Warren said in a statement Wednesday. “I’m calling for a full investigation into whether or not any anti-bribery laws were broken.”

“When Democrats retake power, I’ll be first in line calling for federal charges,” Wyden separately wrote in a post on the Bluesky social media site. “In the meantime, state prosecutors should make the corporate execs who sold out our democracy answer in court.”

Some journalists said they feared the settlement could have a chilling effect, particularly among news organizations that lack deep pockets or have unrelated business pending before the federal government.

“CBS News may weather the financial hit, but smaller newsrooms facing similar legal threats could be pushed to the brink,” Tim Richardson, journalism and disinformation program director at the nonprofit PEN America, said in a statement.

“The danger is clear,” Richardson said, calling the settlement a “spineless capitulation.”

“Emboldened politicians and powerful actors will feel more free than ever to weaponize lawsuits and bring regulatory pressure to bear to silence and censor independent journalism.”

Following a surge in arrests by armed, masked federal immigration agents in unmarked cars, some California Democrats are backing a new bill in Congress that would bar officials from covering their faces while conducting raids.

The No Masks for ICE Act, introduced by Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-New York) and co-sponsored by more than a dozen Democrats, would make it illegal for federal agents to cover their faces while conducting immigration enforcement unless the masks were required for their safety or health.

The bill would also require agents to clearly display their name and agency affiliation on their clothes during arrests and enforcement operations.

Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Burbank), who is co-sponsoring the bill, said Tuesday that the legislation would create the same level of accountability for federal agents as for uniformed police in California, who have been required by law for more than three decades to have their name or badge number visible.

“When agents are masked and anonymous, you cannot have accountability,” Friedman said. “That’s not how democracy works. That’s not how our country works.”

The bill would direct the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to set up discipline procedures for officers who did not comply and report annually on those numbers to Congress.

A DHS spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The department has previously warned of a spike in threats and harassment against immigration agents.

The mask bill has no Republican co-sponsors, meaning its chances of getting a hearing in the GOP-controlled House are slim.

“I would think that there’s Republicans out there who are probably hearing the same thing that I’m hearing from my constituents: ‘I don’t like the idea of people jumping out of a truck, carrying very large guns with masks over their faces, and I have no idea who they are,’” Friedman said.

Friedman said she hoped that Republicans concerned about governmental overreach and the so-called “deep state” — the idea that there is a secretive, coordinated network inside the government — would support the bill too.

The proposal comes after weeks of immigration raids in Southern California conducted by masked federal agents dressed in street clothes or camouflage fatigues, driving unmarked vehicles and not displaying their names, badge numbers or agency affiliations. Social media sites have been flooded with videos of agents violently detaining people, including dragging a taco stand vendor by her arm and tossing smoke bombs into a crowd of onlookers.

The raids have coincided with an increase in people impersonating federal immigration agents. Last week, police said they arrested a Huntington Park man driving a Dodge Durango SUV equipped with red-and-blue lights and posing as a Border Patrol agent.

In Raleigh, N.C., a 37-year-old man was charged with rape, kidnapping and impersonating a law enforcement officer after police said he broke into a Motel 6, told a woman that he was an immigration officer and that he would have her deported if she didn’t have sex with him.

And in Houston, police arrested a man who they say blocked another driver’s car, pretended to be an ICE agent, conducted a fake traffic stop and stole the man’s identification and money.

Burbank Mayor Nikki Perez said Tuesday that city officials have received questions from residents like, “How can I know if the masked man detaining me is ICE or a kidnapper? And who can protect me if a man with a gun refuses to identify himself?”

Those issues came to a “boiling point” last weekend, Perez said, when a man confronted a woman at the Mystic Museum in Burbank, asked to see her documents and tried to “act as a federal immigration agent.” Staff and patrons stepped in to help, Perez said, but the incident left behind a “newfound sense of fear, an uncertainty.”

“Why is it that we hold our local law enforcement, who put their lives on the line every day, to a much higher standard than federal immigration officers?” Perez said.

The bill in the House follows a similar bill introduced in Sacramento last month by state Sen. Scott Wiener that would bar immigration agents from wearing masks, although it’s unclear whether states can legally dictate the conduct or uniforms of federal agents.

Republicans in the US are trying to get President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ tax and spending bill passed by the Senate despite opposition from Democrats, who say it will be the most expensive bill in history while giving benefits to the wealthy.

Senate Republicans narrowly advanced a budget bill that is pivotal to President Donald Trump’s second-term agenda ahead of a self-imposed 4 July deadline.

In a 51-49 vote largely along party lines, the Senate has moved to open debate on the bill, a key initial hurdle that Republicans scrambled to overcome. Two Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the move to take up the bill.

Party leadership had been twisting arms for the initial vote on the “Big Beautiful Bill” on Saturday, following the release of its latest version – all 940 pages – shortly after midnight.

Republicans were divided over how much to cut welfare programmes in order to extend $3.8tn (£2.8tn) in Trump tax breaks.

The bill’s fate on the Senate floor remains uncertain, as Republicans in the chamber continue to quarrel over the bill’s provisions. Vice-President JD Vance travelled to the Capitol on Saturday night to offer a tiebreak vote, though party leaders were ultimately able to negotiate majority support without his help.

Meanwhile, Democrats say they will drag out the process in protest at the bill, with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer saying his party will force Republicans to read out the nearly 1,000 pages of text before the Senate can begin debate and potentially take up a final vote.

Separately, some Republicans in the House of Representatives have expressed concerns over the changes in the Senate version of the bill. The sprawling tax and spending measure passed the House of Representatives by a single vote last month.

The Senate’s version of the bill included a series of changes meant to address points of disagreement among Republicans. Still, party leaders struggled to secure enough votes.

In a memo sent to Senate offices, the White House endorsed the latest revisions to the bill and called for its passage.

The memo reportedly warned that failure to approve the budget “would be the ultimate betrayal”.

Republicans Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina joined Democrats in rejecting the bill.

As the Senate vote concluded, President Trump posted on Truth Social, his social media platform, that Tillis was making a “BIG MISTAKE”. He wrote that he would be meeting with candidates who “come forward wanting to run in the Primary against “Senator Thom” Tillis”.

However, the bill did win over some Republicans who had expressed scepticism, including centrist Republicans Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin intially voted against it, but changed his vote at the end of the voting session.

The latest version was designed to appease some backbench Republican holdouts.

Other amendments incorporate input from the Senate parliamentarian, an official who reviews bills to ensure they comply with the chamber’s procedures.

It includes an increase in funding for rural hospitals, after some party moderates argued the original proposal would harm their constituents.

There are also changes to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap), which provides food benefits to low-income Americans.

Under the latest bill, Alaska and Hawaii would be temporarily exempt from a proposed requirement for some states to start footing the bill for the programme, which is currently fully funded by the federal government.

The revision comes after Alaska’s two Republican senators pushed for an exemption.

The legislation still contains some of its core components, including extending tax cuts passed by Republicans in 2017, as well as the addition of new cuts that Trump campaigned on, such as a tax deduction on Social Security benefits and the elimination of taxes on overtime work and tips.

More contentious measures are also still in place, including restrictions and requirements on Medicaid – a healthcare programme used by millions of elderly, disabled and low-income Americans.

Democrats have heavily criticised this piece of the bill, saying it will limit access to affordable healthcare for millions of Americans.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that 7.8 million people would become uninsured due to such Medicaid cuts.

Senator Patty Murray, a Washington state Democrat, took to social media on Saturday to argue the bill contains “the largest healthcare cuts in history”.

Another critic of the bill is Elon Musk, who wrote on X on Saturday that the latest iteration of the bill “will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harms to our country”.

Musk took issue with taxes the bill proposes on solar and wind energy projects.

The bill now needs a simple majority to clear the Senate. With Republicans holding 53 seats out of 100, plus a tiebreaker from Vice-President JD Vance, the party can only afford three defections.

Coronation Street’s Gary Windass has been missing for a while, and now spoilers have confirmed he’s secretly been attacked and is fighting for his life in a coma

Gary Windass’ fate in Coronation Street and what happened to him will finally be explained on the ITV soap, as a shocking new image confirms his fight for survival.

The character has been missing after failing to return home, leaving his loved ones worried. It escalates next week as Gary misses his stepson Liam Connor’s birthday, and Maria Connor decides to report her husband as a missing person.

Detective Kit Green soon gets involved and reassures Maria that an unidentified coma patient discovered is not Gary. But we learn someone has attacked him and is covering their tracks, with their identity revealed very soon.

New spoilers and a horrifying image reveal Gary is facing death, and is fighting for his life in a coma. While spoilers had revealed Gary was in hospital, there’s new details surrounding the mystery.

Gary has been viciously attacked by a yet to be named person or people. He’s now unconscious in hospital, with it yet to be revealed whether he survives or not.

READ MORE: Coronation Street ‘reveal’ what Nina and Summer saw as character left for dead

As his family wonders where he is, someone knows and has chosen to stay silent. After brutally attacking Gary they’ve gone to huge lengths to cover up their grim crime, and we will see the full extent of this in upcoming episodes.

Not only that, but it’s been revealed that the attacker is hiding Gary’s real identity to stop his family from being informed about what has happened. The attacker is still very much involved in the plot, and we will soon find out who they are and why they did their crime.

Gary is very close to the Street, in a coma in Weatherfield General – so will Maria and the police find him? Friday’s episode will reveal the moment Gary is revealed to be a coma patient at the hospital in a dramatic development to the mystery surrounding his vanishing act.

As Maria’s concern continues she’s stunned to get a message from him claiming to be staying with a mate. But something happens next week that leaves her seriously worried, and she heads to the police station to report him as missing.

The attacker meanwhile has claimed Gary is someone else, faking his name and identity. To make matters worse, the attacker is also fraudulently claiming to be his next of kin.

Knowing the state he is in, they continue to keep it from his family to cover their tracks. Obviously pretending to be family to keep an eye on his condition, what will they do if Gary wakes up?

Gary remains in a critical condition as the storyline continues, and the episodes ahead will delve into the events that left him in a coma. With secrets to be uncovered and the identity of those involved coming to light, there’s so much to come out about what has happened.

Coronation Street airs Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 8pm on ITV1 and ITV X. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

Emmerdale fans will see the arrivals of two new characters next week, both causing trouble on the ITV soap, with danger, betrayals, discoveries and secrets under threat

There’s plenty of carnage coming up on Emmerdale, with two new faces, secrets under wraps and a brutal attack.

One iconic character faces death after a violent attack, with him rushed to hospital in a life-threatening condition. Someone is double crossed, and it could have serious repercussions.

A character is nervous over their recent near-kiss with someone else as he fears it could be exposed, while a feud rumbles on too. Kicking things off, there’s a horrifying twist for Paddy Kirk next week.

Paddy, who has been on the soap for decades, is brutally attacked and left lifeless, as his dad Bear races to save him. Amid a time of conflict between the father and son, Bear battles to save his son’s life when the vet is injured badly by a dog.

Paddy is trying to rescue a sheep caught in the fence on the land of new farmer Celia, only to be caught and bitten by an aggressive dog. Bear manages to save him, but he’s left traumatised by the incident. As Paddy’s loved ones gather at the hospital, he emerges from surgery.

READ MORE: EastEnders Shane Richie addresses Alfie ‘exit’ and teases huge Zoe Slater twist

But he and wife Mandy Dingle are reeling when Bear launches a verbal attack on his son’s character. Taking the words to heart, a heartbroken Paddy sobs silently before struggling in the fallout. Soon he heads for Celia’s farm to confront her about the attack but it doesn’t go well.

He blames Bear for this and the pair are further apart than ever before. Telling his dad to move out, he’s clear he wants nothing to do with him but will this be it for them amid Bear’s own mystery worrying storyline?

Celia isn’t the only new arrival to the show next week, as newcomer Ray, a new villain, also makes his mark. As Ross Barton and his brother Lewis Barton’s secret weed hustle continues, Mack Boyd makes a horrifying decision amid his own involvement in the plot.

With Moira Dingle still facing financial issues and struggling to keep the farm, with Mack still thinking he’s to blame, they consider whether to sell the weed to a dealer for a huge sum of money. When Lewis refuses, Mack goes behind their backs and agrees to sell up to Ray.

Lewis assumes his brother Ross has betrayed him and their relationship falls apart as Mack feels guilty over what he’s done. Mack is left desperate though without the brothers on board, as he struggles to meet the dealer’s demands.

So when all the plants go missing from the barn, Ross accuses Mack of stealing it and selling it all to Ray but he protests his innocence. So who has taken the weed and where is it now?

Vinny Dingle also faces turmoil next week after he recently tried to kiss his pal Kammy Hadiq. While Kammy has said he won’t tell anyone including Vinny’s fiancée Gabby Thomas, Vinny can’t help but fear it will be exposed.

He’s avoiding his pal so when Gabby invites Kammy to their engagement party, Vinny is in turmoil. Finally next week Sarah Sugden supports her grieving grandfather Cain Dingle who’s upset when the whole family is barred from his son Nate Robinson’s funeral by Tracy.

Emmerdale airs weeknights at 7:30pm on ITV1 and ITVX, with an hour-long episode on Thursdays. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

The soaps are lining up big scenes this coming week, with Emmerdale danger for Robert Sugden, a devastating Coronation Street drug plot and an EastEnders exit teased

There’s some really big moments coming up this week ahead on Emmerdale, EastEnders and Coronation Street.

One soap is about to air a massive week of episodes as they tackle an LSD storyline, and the serious consequences of drug use. We’ll see characters in danger, mystery scenes yet to be revealed and trouble for one character.

Over on Emmerdale, we might see someone become killer John Sugden’s next victim. Robert Sugden is left facing danger at the hands of his brother according to the soap, who has released cryptic spoilers that hint at deadly scenes.

EastEnders could be hinting at an exit too following the news Bernadette Taylor would be leaving the BBC soap. New spoilers hint at trouble involving the character, so it’s perhaps a hint of how she will exit the show.

READ MORE: EastEnders Shane Richie addresses Alfie ‘exit’ and teases huge Zoe Slater twist

Emmerdale’s Robert Sugden in danger

Robert Sugden seemingly facing a life-or-death situation next week., the soap has hinted to viewers. Ryan Hawley’s character faces danger as teased in images and spoiler lines.

While it’s being kept a mystery on what actually happens, what we do know is that John wants to get rid of his brother after seeing him as a threat. Spoilers revealed that after Robert is drugged by his date, John drives off with Robert in the back of his van.

It’s not been made clear if John has orchestrated the drugging or not, but he’s soon very much involved. Robert soon finds himself at the mercy of killer John it would seem, or at least that’s what the soap has teased, as he’s left “lifeless”.

Images see John looming with a syringe in his hand with Robert laying down in the van. But will John really go as far as to kill his own sibling? While spoilers have hinted Robert wakes up, it’s yet to be revealed if there’s more scenes with John or if he remains in danger.

EastEnders exit ‘sealed’

Bernadette Taylor’s exit storyline may have been teased, as she’s asked by cousin Felix Baker for her seal of approval over his new romance with Johnny Carter. But with her reluctant to after him covering up the murder of her brother Keanu, something Felix knows nothing about, will it come back to haunt all those involved?

Theres a strange discovery though when some weird invoices are spotted linked to the Panesar account, which Bernie has access to. She dismissed the concerns, but soon she’s questioned once more. As Ravi and Suki go to confront Bernie about the irregularities, will they make a discovery and is this linked to Bernie’s looming exit?

Coronation Street LSD horror

There’s dramatic scenes starting next week with the soap set to tackle an LSD storyline. The repercussions could be massive as multiple characters are caught up in the drama.

There’s potentially devastating scenes ahead as disaster hits the street after a house party. Aadi Alahan decides to throw a gathering, only for troublemaker Brody Michaelis to bring a bottle of LSD.

Aadi spots the drugs and kicks Brody out of the party, leading to chaos as he refuses to go before finally fleeing. But Aadi makes a decision he could live to regret when he, Nina and Summer decide to drink the LSD.

Aadi leaves his unattended only for someone else to accidentally drink it. What follows is a dramatic turn of events with Nina and Summer high only to be left terrified when they hear sirens, with it hinted something bad has happened.

As for another resident, the person who took the third cup of LSD is left in a bad way and their condition deteriorates.

Emmerdale airs weeknights at 7:30pm on ITV1 and ITVX, with an hour-long episode on Thursdays. EastEnders airs Mondays to Thursdays at 7:30pm on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.

Coronation Street airs Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays at 8pm on ITV1 and ITV X. * Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

The amount of money that the city of Los Angeles pays annually for police misconduct, trip and falls, and other lawsuits has ballooned, rising from $64 million a decade ago to $254 million last year and $289 million this fiscal year.

The reasons are complicated, ranging from aging sidewalks to juries’ tendency to award larger judgments to possible shifts in legal strategy at the city attorney’s office to an increase in the sheer number of lawsuits against the city.

The biggest chunk of payouts over the past five years were for “dangerous conditions” — lawsuits singling out faulty city infrastructure, such as broken elevators — at 32%, followed by civil rights violations and unlawful uses of force at 18%, and traffic collisions involving city vehicles also at 18%.

City officials have cited the legal payouts as a significant factor in a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2025-26 that was closed with layoffs and other spending cuts.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, who took office in December 2022, heads the office that defends the city against lawsuits.

In an interview with The Times and public appearances throughout the city, Feldstein Soto cited a backlog of cases from the COVID-19 pandemic, when courts were barely moving, that were settled or went to trial in recent years.

“Structured settlements” negotiated by her predecessor, Mike Feuer, which are paid out annually rather than in one lump sum, have also contributed to the tab, she said.

Feldstein Soto also said she believes juries are increasingly antagonistic to city governments, resulting in larger verdicts.

Feuer said in an interview that the city was entering into structured settlements before he took office, and he does not believe he increased their use.

To explain the rise in legal liability payouts during his tenure — from about $40 million in 2013 to about $91 million in 2022 — Feuer cited a lack of investment in city infrastructure like streets and sidewalks during the 2008 financial crisis.

In public appearances, Feldstein Soto has sometimes blamed plaintiffs for trying to get financial compensation for what she characterized as risky behavior or interpersonal disputes.

Speaking to the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association earlier this year, she said that two types of lawsuits — “dangerous conditions” lawsuits and those brought by city employees over working conditions — are ripe for abuse. Some employees who sue the city simply don’t like their bosses, Feldstein Soto said, citing a lawsuit by an LAPD captain, Stacey Vince, who alleged that higher-ups retaliated against her after she complained about her boss. Vince was awarded $10.1 million by a jury, and the city subsequently settled the case for just under $6 million.

Feldstein Soto also described one man who sued the city as an “idiot.” The man was riding his electric scooter without a helmet, Feldstein Soto said, when he crashed on an uneven sidewalk and into a nearby tree, suffering a traumatic brain injury.

According to Feldstein Soto, taxpayers ultimately pay the price for these lawsuits.

“Please understand that every dollar you award is your money,” she said.

The number of lawsuits filed against the city has risen each year since the pandemic, from 1,131 in 2021 to 1,560 in 2024.

At the same time, the average amount the city pays per case has increased dramatically, from under $50,000 in 2022 to $132,180 in 2024. A contributing factor is the increase in payouts of least $1 million, with 17 such cases in 2022 and 39 in 2024. (The city counts settlements or jury verdicts in the fiscal year they are paid out, not when the dollar amount is decided.)

From July 2024 to March 2025, the city paid $1 million or more in 51 lawsuits.

Feldstein Soto said these “nuclear verdicts” cut deep into the city budget and could raise payouts for similar cases in the future.

Total annual payouts in police misconduct cases jumped from $15 million in 2020 to $50 million in 2024. Dangerous conditions cases rose from around $41 million in 2020 to about $84 million in 2024.

Earlier this year, the city paid $21 million to plaintiffs in a series of lawsuits related to a botched LAPD bomb squad fireworks detonation that injured more than 20 people and displaced many residents.

Also this year, the city paid out a $17.7-million verdict to the family of a man with mental health issues killed by an off-duty LAPD officer.

This coming fiscal year, the city increased its allocation for liability payouts from about $87 million to $187 million — far less than what it has been paying in recent years — out of a $14-billion budget.

City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who chairs the council’s public works committee, said the rising payouts stem in part from the city’s long-term lack of investment in infrastructure. The city spent about 10% of its overall budget on streets and other public works last year — substantially less than it spent on police, said Hernandez, who favors a smaller LAPD.

“As a city, we don’t invest in the maintenance of our city,” she said. “I have felt like I’ve been screaming into the void about some of these things.”

In one lawsuit paid out this year, the city agreed to give $3 million to a man who tripped over a slightly uneven sidewalk and suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Last April, the city reached a $21-million settlement with a man whose skull was broken by a street lamp part that fell on him. The city had gone to trial, with a jury awarding the man $22 million, but the parties eventually settled for the slightly lower amount.

“I believe the driving force is the delays and lack of maintenance of the city that has caused an increase in such incidents,” said Arash Zabetian, a lawyer for the man hit by the streetlight.

Some plaintiffs’ attorneys say that Feldstein Soto’s legal strategies are contributing to the rising liability costs. They assert that she is taking more cases to trial, resulting in larger verdicts than if she had settled.

Matthew McNicholas, an attorney who often sues the city on behalf of police officers, said he recently went to trial in five cases and won all of them, for a total payout of more than $40 million.

He would have been happy to settle all five cases for a total of less than $10 million, he said.

One of the lawsuits, which ended with a $13-million verdict, was filed by two male officers accused of drawing a penis on a suspect’s abdomen. The officers alleged that higher-ups did not cast the same suspicion on their female colleagues.

In another of the lawsuits, a whistleblower alleged that he was punished for highlighting problems in the LAPD Bomb Detection K-9 Section. A jury also awarded him $13 million.

“It’s not a tactic to say we’re going to play hardball. It’s just stupid,” McNicholas said. “I am frustrated because she goes and blames my clients and runaway juries for her problems.”

Greg Smith, another plaintiffs’ attorney, said he has also noticed a tendency at Feldstein Soto’s office to push cases to trial.

“Everything is a fight,” Smith said. “I have been suing the city for 30 years, and this has been the worst administration with respect to trying to settle cases.”

Feldstein Soto said her office settles “every case we can.”

“It’s in nobody’s interest to go to trial. It’s a waste of resources,” she said. “But we will not settle cases where we don’t think we’re liable or where the demand is unreasonable.”

To stem the flood of large payouts, Feldstein Soto is looking to Sacramento for help, proposing a bill that would cap lawsuits against California cities at $1 million or three times the economic losses caused by an incident, whichever is greater. Caps on damages exist already in 38 states, according to Feldstein Soto’s office.

She has yet to find a state legislator to sponsor the bill.

Mauricio Sulaiman smiled as he recalled the call during which a boxing legend asked him to challenge current welterweight champion Mario Barrios.

The president of the World Boxing Council (WBC) did not think about it for a moment and immediately got to work to fulfill the request of the legendary Manny Pacquiao.

One of the most iconic and respected figures in boxing history is back.

“It was a positive call, I told him I wanted to challenge the champion one more time and that I can still fight. He was happy to hear that,” Pacquiao told L.A. Times en Español.

Manny Pacquiao speaks about his boxing comeback at a news conference in Los Angeles on June 3.

(Greg Beacham / Associated Press)

Sulaiman fulfilled “PacMan’s” wish and his bout against “Aztec Warrior” Barrios will be on July 19 at the MGM Grand Garden Arena in Las Vegas.

“He called me and said, ‘Help me fulfill my dream of retiring with the WBC, which was where I started at flyweight,’” Sulaiman said. “Manny’s relationship with the WBC is decades old, we’ve been in very good times and we’ve been in difficult times and now that he needs support, we are here for him.”

Born into poverty in the Philippines, Pacquiao became the only boxer to win world titles in eight different divisions, from flyweight to super welterweight. He defeated Oscar De La Hoya, Ricky Hatton, Miguel Cotto, Juan Manuel Marquez, Erik Morales and Marco Antonio Barrera.

His explosive style, speed and charisma made him a global idol, especially in Asia and Latin America. In addition to being world champion in multiple bodies (WBC, WBA, WBO, WBO, IBF), he was recognized as “Boxer of the Decade” by the Boxing Writers Assn. in 2010 and also developed a political career, becoming a senator in his country, which cemented his status as a national hero in the Philippines.

During his career, Pacquiao has suffered eight losses and two draws, but his impressive 62 victories — 39 of them by knockout — earned him a place in the Boxing Hall of Fame. He is being inducted in Canastota, N.Y., on June 8.

The former champion has been welcomed by the boxing world with open arms, but with caution.

Pacquiao claims his hand movements are just as quick as in his prime, but at 46, many doubt he is the same as before. In August 2021, Pacquiao lost a unanimous decision to Cuba’s Yordenis Ugás in what was then his last fight before retirement.

During the fight against Ugás, Pacquiao looked slow, unresponsive and in what seemed to be the twilight of his career. He said several issues caused his problems during the fight, among them, his political career, a lawsuit against him by his former promoter Paradigm Sports Management and muscle ailments that were further inflamed by a pre-fight massage.

Pacquiao did say whether he will be around to face more of boxing’s stars after his bout with Barrios.

“I’m still here, one at a time,” Pacquiao said. “This is me, if there are changes in my fighting style, I have to listen to my body, my heart and if my mind is also there, then I will know if I’m done.”

Manny Pacquiao wears the champion’s belt after defeating Brandon Rios during their WBO international welterweight title fight on Nov. 24, 2013, in Macau.

(Vincent Yu / Associated Press)

Since the announcement of his return, many have shown concern for what might happen to him in the ring against a younger and physically fit Barrios.

“I appreciate that they are concerned, however, the only people I worry about is my family,” Pacquiao said. “How I move, how I train, what kind of condition I’m in, they support me because they can still see the old Manny Pacquiao.”

During his four-year absence from boxing, he was dedicated to his family and his country as a politician, but he said he remained active and in good physical condition, so he feels his return to the ring will not be difficult.

“At my home in the Philippines, I have my own training facility, with a gym, two basketball courts, everything — pickleball, badminton, table tennis,” Pacquiao said. “Plus, I have a yard in the back of my house that’s a kilometer long where I run.”

Sixteen years separate Pacquiao and Barrios.

Pacquiao made his professional debut in January 1995, Barrios was born just four months later. That bout will pit experience versus youth.

Barrios may have more elements in his favor, such as his height, as he stands 6-feet tall while Pacquiao is 5-foot-5. Barrios’ reach is 71 inches, while Pacquiao’s reach is 67 inches.

“I’m younger, I have youth on my side, he has the experience, but I have to go out there and use all that advantage, my height, my speed, my timing, if I do that I can come out on top.”

Although the confirmation of the fight came as a surprise to many, Barrios was mentally prepared for the possibility. He knew that the return of a legend like Pacquiao was not an isolated rumor, but a latent option.

“At first, I really couldn’t believe it, but I had been told it could happen anytime in 2025,” recounted the San Antonio, Texas native, who has a record of 29 wins, two losses and one draw. “I thought the best thing to do was to be ready, in March I was told it could happen during the summer, then I felt it would definitely happen. He’s a legend, he’s achieved so much, but at the end of the day, he’s a fighter who wants to take my title.”

Yordenis Ugas punches Manny Pacquiao during a welterweight championship boxing match on Aug. 21, 2021, in Las Vegas.

(John Locher / Associated Press)

Pacquiao could have chosen a more accessible opponent for his comeback, someone who would allow him to regain his rhythm and confidence. But he chose Barrios, a champion in his prime.

“I don’t know if it’s an insult or complement,” Barrios reflected. “The type of fight he brings to the ring is a lot of action, I have to be smart, I shouldn’t let him succeed.”

While he respects Pacquiao’s legacy, Barrios is determined to impose his own stamp on a historic evening.

He is known for the way he arrives in the ring, accompanied by traditional Aztec dancers, as well as his colorful attire that represents his indigenous roots.

Barrios hopes to continue with his traditional entrance, but he said the occasion calls for something special.

“It’s going to be a very similar entry, always bringing the … ancestral strength,” Barrios said. “… I’m going to have all that, but we’re going to do something even bigger.”

This article first appeared in Spanish via L.A. Times en Español.

EastEnders fans have dealt with a number of schedule changes over the past few weeks – and things are about to change once again – with fans set for double bills of the BBC soap

It’s been a dramatic few weeks in EastEnders with shock returns, a new executive producer, and huge schedule changes. However, it looks like things aren’t set to calm down anytime soon.

Last week, for Kat and Alfie’s wedding, the soap moved it’s scheduling from Tuesday – Friday due to the football. This Monday, fans were unable to sit down and watch EastEnders with their morning cuppa. The soap delayed it’s usual 6am iPlayer release for Ben Wadey’s first episode – in which Zoe Slater made her shock return.

Fans will be happy to know that the soap will resume to it’s normal Monday – Thursday schedule next week, with episodes dropping at 6am on iPlayer. However, the week after that will see a huge schedule shakeup due to Wimbledon coverage.

For the first time in a while, the soap will air a double bill on Monday June 30 and Tuesday July 1, meaning fans will get their two hour fix of EastEnders over two days.

On Monday June 30, the BBC soap will begin at the earlier time of 7pm, airing back to back episodes.

The second episode of the day will air straight after, meaning things will wrap up at 8pm. It will be the exact same schedule on Tuesday (July 1) with the soap airing a double bill from 7pm – 8pm.

That’s not the only major change though, as the soap will be airing on BBC Two for those two days as BBC One will be airing coverage from the first two days of Wimbledon. The soap will be off air on Wednesday and Thursday – with the next episodes airing the following week.

Spoilers have revealed a huge week before the double bills, with the Kat and Alfie drama continuing. Kat continues to worry about how things are between them and she soon confides in someone about their lack of communication.

Elsewhere, she soon makes an alarming discovery about her ex Phil Mitchell. Phil’s worried about Nigel deteriorating amid his dementia diagnosis, and some of his actions next week leave Phil struggling.

He then ends up injured when he and Nigel grapple over a pan of boiling water, as Kat suggests he gets some extra support to care for Nigel. She’s not the only one, as ex-Denise also tells him he needs to look after himself.

Phil isn’t the only one sparking concern however, as Elaine Peacock is also sparking concern as she struggles after her split from George Knight.

EastEnders airs Mondays to Thursdays at 7:30pm on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.

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