failed

Jess Glynne, who has been dating former footballer Alex Scott since the summer of 2023, spoke following her partner’s departure from I’m A Celebrity… Get Me Out of Here

Jess Glynne has revealed the heartbreaking reason why she didn’t join Alex Scott on the bridge after she left I’m A Celebrity.

She said that her mother suffered “a major stroke and needed urgent brain surgery”. Opening up, Jess said: “My woman might be out far earlier than she ever deserved, but l’m so unbelievably proud of her. She didn’t get the airtime to show how incredible she really is and trust me, this is only the beginning.

“I know people will wonder why I wasn’t there at the end of the bridge, so I wanted to share something personal. Over the last few weeks my mum suffered a major stroke and needed urgent brain surgery. It’s been a really serious, life-altering time for my family, and I’ve had to stay close to home. Alex would always want me to be where l’m needed most. I can’t wait to have her back by my

Alex was the first campmate evicted from I’m A Celebrity, though mystery had initially shrouded why her partner didn’t welcome the TV presenter. Ant and Dec announced the news after a phone vote, which insiders said was “incredibly close.”

Alex said: “It’s like being free. It’s been such an incredible experience. Mentally it’s been tough and I have struggled.” She added: “It’s tough in there – constantly going to get water and firewood.”

READ MORE: Alex Scott’s marriage plans with Jess Glynne as star breaks silence on secret messagesREAD MORE: I’m A Celeb star Alex Scott’s ‘invisible’ health battle she’ll have ‘for life’

During her time on the programme, the football broadcaster spoke openly about their relationship. When asked by campmate Ruby Wax about whether she’d tie the knot with Glynne, Scott replied: “I will get married to her, just waiting for her to ask, Rubes!

Speaking after her eviction, the former footballer also opened up about sneaking banned salt into camp, which she sprinkled onto dinner. Alex continued: “I just grabbed a load of salt and I put them in my sock. My campmates were in on it. And now everyday they wish they had salt.”

She also backed Shona McGarty to win. She said: “It will change her and give the confidence to be brilliant at life.” Millions are expected to have voted – mainly led by fans of popular duo Angry Ginge and Aitch.

The insider added: “It’s been unprecedented…and one of the reasons why people have had issues with the app.”

It comes as weather in camp has hit 30 degrees over the last few days – which has come as a relief after they were battered by storms earlier this week. This is a relief to the celebs as the damp conditions attract leeches, and an influx of biting insects. The insider said: “All the celebs were complaining about being bitten in the last few days…there were very uncomfortable conditions.”

KIM Kardashian broke down in tears and sobbed in the days leading up to her law exam.

The reality TV star, 45, finally took the California bar after seven years of studying but she was ultimately unsuccessful.

It was revealed earlier this month that she hadn’t passed but Kim has remained determined to try again in the hopes of qualifying as a practising lawyer.

Now, the All’s Fair actress has shared an intimate look at her two weeks leading up to the exam in which she shunned all other work commitments to focus on her studies.

The nine-minute social media vlog features an emotional scene in which a bare-faced Kim can be seen sobbing in bed after a long day of studying for her exam.

Heavily emotional, Kim spoke to the camera as she opened up about her law journey difficulties.

Gimme More

Kim Kardashian reveals friendship with Britney Spears as they cosy up in bed 

health hell

Kim Kardashian tearfully reveals she suffered brain aneurysm after Kanye split

Kim said: “F***, I’m gonna film this because oh my god I am just so tired.

“It is like every time I feel like I am a step ahead, something happens to try and stop me from doing this.

“A part of me just wants to stop.

“I feel like my brain is going to explode and i still have so much more to go.”

Whilst Kim didn’t expand on what was stopping her from studying, she was clearly suffering with problems relating to her back during the two-week period the video was filmed.

She confirmed her back had “given out” and was causing her pain.

Kim wore a large back brace throughout most of the clips in the video in order to help with the pain.

She also revealed she had undergone an MRI scan which confirmed she was dealing with some issues relating to the discs in her back.

Despite her initial worries, she admitted she was feeling confident the day before the exam and was looking forward to taking on the challenge.

The news that Kim hadn’t passed the bar exam came at the same time as her hotly-anticipated legal drama, in which she plays a lawyer, Allura Grant, premiered across the world.

Kim leads the show alongside a cast of stars including Glenn Close, Sarah Paulson, Naomi Watts and Nicey Nash.

The 45-year-old started her journey in 2018 and has frequently spoken about wanting to work in the legal profession like her father Robert Sr. 

HORROR TOWN

Our once proud town is besieged by masked machete yobs – even cops are targets

CRUEL ORDEAL

I was blinded & my pals were killed by dangerous trend in Brit holiday hotspot

Confirming the news earlier this month, the billionaire said: “Well… I’m not a lawyer yet, I just play a very well-dressed one on TV.

“Six years into this law journey, and I’m still all in until I pass the bar. No shortcuts, no giving up – just more studying and even more determination.”

The Los Angeles Police Department took more than a year to begin fully disclosing domestic abuse allegations against officers after the state passed a law that mandates reporting and can trigger permanent bans from police work in California.

The revelation came out through testimony at an administrative hearing last month for a rookie LAPD officer who was fired after the department alleged she committed time card fraud and physically assaulted her former romantic partner, a fellow cop.

A sergeant from the LAPD’s serious misconduct unit testified in a proceeding against Tawny Ramirez, according to Ramirez’s attorney and evidence from the closed-door hearing reviewed by The Times. The sergeant said the department did not start reporting certain spousal abuse cases to the state until after Ramirez was terminated in early February 2024. That is more than a year after rules took effect requiring the LAPD and other police agencies to promptly report officers accused of “serious misconduct” to the state’s police accreditation body, which grants authorization to work in law enforcement.

Senate Bill 2, passed in 2021, made domestic violence one of the nine categories of “serious misconduct” — including excessive force, dishonesty, sexual assault and acts of bias on the basis of factors including race, sexual orientation and gender — that police agencies are obligated to report to the state’s Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training, or POST.

The LAPD sergeant testified that the reporting practices were based on guidance from POST’s former compliance director, who said at a training session that agencies did not have to “report first-time misdemeanor domestic violence,” according to Ramirez’s attorney Nicole Castronovo and the hearing evidence reviewed by The Times.

Ramirez appealed the basis for her firing and has maintained she did not commit any misconduct. She denied allegations she abused her former partner.

LAPD officials believed the partial POST reporting went “against best practices” and tried to get the directive in writing, the sergeant testified, but still went along with what the official advised, according to Castronovo and the hearing evidence.

When the department sought further clarification from the POST compliance director’s successor, officials were informed that nearly all domestic-related incidents must be reported, Castronovo said.

She said she tried to press the LAPD about how many of these cases may have gone unreported, but the department said it didn’t know.

When SB 2 took effect in January 2023, police agencies were supposed to start disclosing “serious misconduct” to POST within 10 days of learning of credible allegations.

The sergeant who testified declined comment and directed questions to the department’s press office, which in a statement said that at the time SB 2 was being rolled out the LAPD “consulted” with POST “to determine which misconduct types required reporting.”

“The Department was advised that first-time, non-aggravated domestic battery did not meet the reporting threshold,” the statement read. “The Department followed this guidance, reporting only those cases with aggravating factors. In 2024, the Department adopted a new standard of reporting all allegations of domestic battery, regardless of severity.”

Ramirez’s lawyer said the testimony raises questions about the LAPD’s compliance with the law — and whether it has gone back to report other officers’ past offenses.

“It’s very scary to think that that crime wouldn’t be reported,” Castronovo said.

The LAPD accused Ramirez of assaulting her ex, Jorge Alvarado, in May 2023 based on a texted photo he provided that showed yellowish bruising on his arm from where she had squeezed it, according to the hearing evidence. Ramirez maintains Alvarado was bruised during consensual sex and argued at her at an administrative hearing that the department was unwilling to consider emails, text messages and other evidence she tried to provide that cast doubt on her accuser’s account.

The couple started dating in 2022 while both were at the Police Academy, according to Ramirez. She claims she tried to end the relationship after a few months when Alvarado turned overbearing and possessive. A colleague from Topanga Division helped her fill out an application for a temporary restraining order, Ramirez said.

A judge denied the stay away order on the grounds that Ramirez wasn’t in imminent danger, and Alvarado did not face any charges.

Alvarado did not respond to a request for comment sent to his department email.

According to hearing evidence, Alvarado first disclosed the alleged abuse by Ramirez during an interview with LAPD Internal Affairs in January 2024. Ramirez was fired less than a month later — weeks shy of completing her 18-month probationary period — after the department alleged that she lied about her reason for taking time off from work.

Meagan Poulos, a spokesperson for POST, said she wasn’t familiar with Ramirez’s case but if anything, the state agency deals with police departments “over-reporting” misconduct. Poulos said data on serious misconduct reports from the LAPD were not immediately available for review.

She added that reporting is not mandatory for spousal abuse cases that are quickly deemed unfounded or that don’t prompt an Internal Affairs investigation, and suggested LAPD officials may have “misconstrued” that to mean they didn’t have to report any such cases.

“I don’t know if that’s the case in this particular case, but I can say that’s not something that POST would advise any agency to not do,” she said.

According to Poulos and data from the agency, in 2023 there were 250-plus law enforcement agencies — the vast majority of which have fewer than 50 officers — that didn’t report a single case of serious misconduct. She said the agency regularly sends out reminders about their obligations under SB 2.

Larger agencies like the LAPD and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department have their own coordinators or standalone units charged with referring qualifying cases to state authorities for consideration. In a brief statement, the Sheriff’s Department said it has been its “practice since the inception of SB 2 to report all allegations of acts that violate the law.”

POST revoked 57 officers’ certification this year, compared to 84 last year. Another 43 officers voluntarily surrendered their certifications, while 77 had theirs at least temporarily suspended.

A POST notification doesn’t automatically result in an officer losing his or her policing certificate. Cases are reviewed by a disciplinary board comprised of civilians with a professional or personal background related to police accountability. That board convenes every few months to review POST’s investigation of misconduct allegations and recommend whether the commission should seek decertification.

Ramirez told The Times the LAPD initially said domestic violence had nothing to do with her firing. She says she was unfairly accused of violating department policy during a 2023 incident in Canoga Park in which she and another officer used force while trying to take a man into custody. It was only later that the photos of Alvarado’s bruises were used against her, Ramirez said, along with an allegation of time card fraud — which she also denies.

The LAPD said Ramirez lied and told her supervisor she needed time off to take care her of her ailing brother when she actually went to apply for a job at the Beverly Hills Police Department.

Ramirez said she was a caregiver for her brother — who has since died — and that she was applying to the Beverly Hills job in an attempt to get away from Alvarado.

Alvarado was placed on administrative leave after Ramirez reported him but has since completed his probationary period and been elevated to the rank of Police Officer II.

A decision from the LAPD disciplinary review process on whether Ramirez can be fired remains pending. She thinks it’s unfair her ex has been allowed to return to work while she’s stuck in limbo.

“Here I am still trying to get my job back and he’s a happy officer, enjoying his benefits, while I’m living this nightmare,” she said.

Times staff writer Connor Sheets and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

PORTLAND, Ore. — A federal judge in Oregon ruled Friday that President Trump’s administration failed to meet the legal requirements for deploying the National Guard to Portland after the city and state sued in September to block the deployment.

The ruling from U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial last week in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.

The administration said the troops were needed to protect federal personnel and property in a city that Trump described as “war ravaged” with “fires all over the place.”

In a 106-page opinion, Immergut found that even though the president is entitled to “great deference” in his decision on whether to call up the Guard, he did not have a legal basis for doing so because he did not establish that there was a rebellion or danger of rebellion, or that he was unable to enforce the law with regular forces.

“The trial record showed that although protests outside the Portland ICE building occurred nightly between June and October 2025, ever since a few particularly disruptive days in mid-June, protests have remained peaceful with only isolated and sporadic instances of violence,” Immergut wrote. “The occasional interference to federal officers has been minimal, and there is no evidence that these small-scale protests have significantly impeded the execution of any immigration laws.”

The Trump administration criticized the judge’s ruling.

“The facts haven’t changed. Amidst ongoing violent riots and lawlessness, that local leaders have refused to step in to quell, President Trump has exercised his lawful authority to protect federal officers and assets. President Trump will not turn a blind eye to the lawlessness plaguing American cities and we expect to be vindicated by a higher court,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman.

“The courts are holding this administration accountable to the truth and the rule of law,” Oregon Atty. Gen. Dan Rayfield said in an e-mailed statement. “From the beginning, this case has been about making sure that facts, not political whims, guide how the law is applied. Today’s decision protects that principle.”

Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — have been pushing back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that had blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. The first order blocked Trump from deploying 200 members of the Oregon National Guard; the second, issued a day later, blocked him from deploying members of any state’s National Guard to Oregon, after he tried to evade the first order by sending California troops instead.

Immergut has called Trump’s apocalyptic descriptions of Portland “simply untethered to the facts.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has already ordered that the troops not be deployed pending further action by the appeals court. The trial Immergut held further developed the factual record in the case, which could serve as the basis for further appellate rulings.

Witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to the president’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion.”

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., because of safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in Homeland Security about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem or Trump. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the Police Department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer because of property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Rush and Johnson write for the Associated Press. Johnson reported from Seattle. AP staff writer Michelle L. Price contributed to this report from Palm Beach, Fla.