knocked

Reigning champ Aryna Sabalenka beat Jessica Pegula while Amanda Anisimova upset Naomi Osaka to make first US Open final.

Amanda Anisimova rallied from a set down to defeat four-times Grand Slam champion Naomi Osaka 6-7(4) 7-6(3) 6-3 and reach the US Open final, where she will take on holder Aryna Sabalenka for another shot at a maiden major crown.

“Oh my God. It means the world,” the 24-year-old said on Thursday after reaching her first final at Flushing Meadows.

“I’m trying to process that right now. It’s absolutely a dream come true. This has been a dream of mine like forever to be in the US. Open final and the hope is to be the champion.”

Twice US Open champion Osaka was playing in her first major semifinal since 2021 and embraced the big occasion in the prime-time glare of Arthur Ashe Stadium.

The pair twice traded breaks in a tight opening set, and after a delayed line call by the automated system disrupted play, Osaka refocused and let out a big roar when Anisimova hit a shot into the net on set point in the tiebreak.

The 23rd seed struggled to carry the momentum forward in the next set, however, with Anisimova matching Osaka’s intensity.

After the players traded ferocious hits for 12 games in the next set, Anisimova pounced in the tiebreak to drag the match to a decider.

The eighth seed, who lost 6-0 6-0 to Iga Swiatek in the Wimbledon final two months ago, surged ahead 4-1 thanks to a forehand winner and held her nerve from there to close out the victory and reach back-to-back Grand Slam finals.

“She was really giving me a run for the final. I wasn’t sure I would make it past the finish line. I tried to dig deep. It was a huge fight out there,” Anisimova added.

“I tried to stay positive. There was a lot of nerves in the beginning and that’s something I’m trying to work on. Yeah, this tournament means so much to me that I think that was really getting to me.

“In the end, you’re just trying to fight your way through. I’m trying to enjoy the moment. We were both playing amazing tennis, and sometimes that was like ‘how are we making these shots?’ but we were and we just kept going.”

Sabalenka keeps back-to-back dream alive

Reigning champion Sabalenka came from behind to beat American fourth seed Jessica Pegula in three sets to return to the US Open final.

World number one Sabalenka overcame Pegula 4-6, 6-3, 6-4 in a rerun of last year’s final.

It’s the Belarusian’s third successive appearance in the Flushing Meadows final.

“It was a really tough match – she played incredible tennis as always and I had to work really hard to get this win,” said Sabalenka.

“Just super happy to be back in the final and hopefully I can go all the way again.”

Sabalenka, 27, is seeking to become the first player to win consecutive singles titles in New York since Serena Williams won three in a row from 2012-2014.

She has now made the final at four of the last five Grand Slams but has not added to her haul of three majors since winning the 2024 US Open.

“I’ll go out there on Saturday and I’ll fight for every point like the last point of my life,” she said.

On any other day, Townsend, playing at her home major, would have been the crowd favourite.

On Sunday, the Louis Armstrong Stadium rode every high and low as she spurned eight match points before losing to Barbora Krejcikova in three sets to exit the women’s singles in the last 16.

But on the same stage in the doubles, she was playing against a partisan crowd.

Williams is, after all, a four-time champion at Flushing Meadows across the formats, winning back-to-back singles titles in 2000 and 2001 and earning two doubles titles alongside sister Serena in 1999 and 2009.

Across her career, she has fought back from wrist and back injuries as well as being diagnosed with Sjogren’s syndrome, an autoimmune disease that causes fatigue.

This was her first appearance in the last eight of a Grand Slam since reaching the semi-finals in the singles in New York in 2017 and her first doubles quarter-final since winning Wimbledon in 2016.

But despite the raucous reception as she walked on to court, the match was one-way traffic.

The top seeds were relentless, winning 12 of the first13 points to race into a 3-0 lead.

Their success was met with polite, if muted, applause and it was not until the fourth game, when Williams rolled back the years with a bruising forehand winner off Siniakova’s serve, that the crowd erupted into life.

Williams later held her second service game to 15 but Townsend and Siniakova, who only dropped six points on serve throughout the match, had one foot in the last four after 22 minutes.

The second set proved more competitive, with Williams and Fernandez both holding their serves, but with their opponents sending down 12 winners and just two unforced errors, they could not get a foothold in the match.

Townsend and Czech Siniakova, who have yet to drop a set, will face fourth seeds Veronika Kudermetova and Elise Mertens for a place in the final.

Elsewhere on Tuesday, Britain’s Joe Salisbury and Neal Skupski – the sixth seeds – fought back from a set down to reach the third round of the men’s doubles with a 4-6 7-6 (7-3) 6-4 win over Monaco’s Hugo Nys and Frenchman Edouard Roger-Vasselin.

However, Briton Marcus Willis was knocked out as he and Karol Drzewiecki of Poland fell to 4-6 6-3 6-1 defeat by Czech pair Tomas Machac and Matej Vocel.

WASHINGTON — President Trump has audaciously claimed virtually unlimited power to bypass Congress and impose sweeping taxes on foreign products.

Now a federal appeals court has thrown a roadblock in his path, ruling that he is violating the law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled Friday that Trump went too far when he declared national emergencies to justify imposing sweeping import taxes on almost every country.

The ruling largely upheld a May decision by a specialized federal trade court in New York. But the 7-4 appeals court decision tossed out a part of that ruling that would have overturned the tariffs immediately, allowing the Trump administration time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The ruling was a big setback for Trump, whose trade policies have rocked financial markets, paralyzed businesses with uncertainty and raised fears of higher prices and slower economic growth.

Which tariffs did the court knock down?

The court’s decision centers on the tariffs — export taxes — Trump imposed in April on almost all U.S. trading partners and levies he imposed before that on China, Mexico and Canada.

Trump on April 2 — “Liberation Day,” he called it — imposed so-called reciprocal tariffs of up to 50% on countries with which the United States runs a trade deficit and 10% baseline tariffs on almost everybody else.

The president later suspended the reciprocal tariffs for 90 days to give countries time to negotiate trade agreements with the United States — and reduce their barriers to American exports. Some of them did — including the United Kingdom, Japan and the European Union — and agreed to lopsided deals with Trump to avoid even bigger tariffs.

Those that didn’t knuckle under — or otherwise incurred Trump’s wrath — got hit harder this month. Laos got rocked with a 40% tariff, for instance, and Algeria with a 30% levy. Trump also kept the baseline tariffs in place.

Claiming extraordinary power to act without congressional approval, Trump justified the taxes under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, by declaring the United States’ long-standing trade deficits “a national emergency.”

In February, he’d invoked the law to impose tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China, saying that the illegal flow of immigrants and drugs into the U.S. amounted to a national emergency and that the three countries needed to do more to stop it.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to set taxes, including tariffs. But lawmakers have gradually let presidents assume more power over tariffs — and Trump has made the most of it.

The court challenge does not cover other Trump tariffs, including levies on foreign steel, aluminum and autos that the president imposed after Commerce Department investigations concluded that those imports were threats to U.S. national security.

Nor does it include tariffs that Trump imposed on China in his first term — and President Biden kept — after a government investigation concluded that Beijing used unfair practices to give its technology firms an edge over rivals from the United States and other Western countries.

Why did the court rule against the president?

The administration had argued that courts had approved President Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in the economic chaos that followed his decision to end a policy that linked the U.S. dollar to the price of gold. The Nixon administration successfully cited its authority under the 1917 Trading With the Enemy Act, which preceded and supplied some of the legal language used in the IEEPA.

In May, the U.S. Court of International Trade in New York rejected the argument, ruling that Trump’s April 2 tariffs “exceed any authority granted to the President’’ under the emergency powers law. In reaching its decision, the trade court combined two challenges — one by five businesses and one by 12 U.S. states — into a single case.

On Friday, the federal appeals court wrote in its 7-4 ruling that “it seems unlikely that Congress intended to … grant the President unlimited authority to impose tariffs.”

A dissent from the judges who disagreed with Friday’s ruling clears a possible legal path for Trump, concluding that the 1977 law allowing for emergency actions “is not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority under the Supreme Court’s decisions,” which have allowed Congress to grant some tariff authorities to the president.

So where does this leave Trump’s trade agenda?

The government has argued that if Trump’s tariffs are struck down, it might have to refund some of the import taxes that it’s collected, delivering a financial blow to the U.S. Treasury. Revenue from tariffs totaled $159 billion by July, more than double what it was at the same point the year before. Indeed, the Justice Department warned in a legal filing this month that revoking the tariffs could mean “financial ruin” for the United States.

It could also put Trump on shaky ground in trying to impose tariffs going forward.

“While existing trade deals may not automatically unravel, the administration could lose a pillar of its negotiating strategy, which may embolden foreign governments to resist future demands, delay implementation of prior commitments, or even seek to renegotiate terms,” Ashley Akers, senior counsel at the Holland & Knight law firm and a former Justice Department trial lawyer, said before the appeals court decision.

The president promptly said he would appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court. “If allowed to stand, this Decision would literally destroy the United States of America,” he wrote on his social media platform.

Trump does have alternative laws for imposing import taxes, but they would limit the speed and severity with which he could act.

For instance, in its decision in May, the trade court noted that Trump retains more limited power to impose tariffs to address trade deficits under another statute, the Trade Act of 1974. But that law restricts tariffs to 15% and to just 150 days on countries with which the United States runs big trade deficits.

The administration could also invoke levies under a different legal authority — Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — as it did with tariffs on foreign steel, aluminum and autos. But that requires a Commerce Department investigation and cannot be imposed merely at the president’s own discretion.

Wiseman and Whitehurst write for the Associated Press.

EXCLUSIVE: Nikolaj Coster-Waldau stars as William, Duke of Normandy, in upcoming BBC series King & Conqueror.

Most will recognise Nikolaj Coster-Waldau for his role of Jaime Lannister in Game of Thrones but for his latest venture, he’s transformed into William, Duke of Normandy – or as many will know him, William the Conqueror.

The Danish actor will go head to head against James Norton in the BBC historical drama which follows the events leading up to the Battle of Hastings in 1066.

King and Conqueror also marks the first time Nikolaj has directed. And funnily enough, his directorial debut saw him choreograph a scene which sees the leading actor fight bare-chested.

Speaking of filming the fight, which fans will get the chance to see in episode five, he recalled: “That was tough. I was spending a lot of time planning that because we only had so much time to do it.

“The stunt team was incredible. The trick, or the challenge, when you do something like that, of course, because everyone’s bare-chested, you can’t hide anything. You know you’re going to hurt yourself when you do these things, so we had to be very careful.”

Heaping praise on the stunt team, which included UFC and MMA fighters, Nikolaj shared: “These guys insane. The Icelandic guys, they’re brilliant. I mean, there’s one scene, the guy I’m fighting – he’s in fights in the the big stuff – which is why I wanted to be the guy choking him out.

“There’s this big, big guy – at one point, he lifts up James [Norton] – early in the fight, he takes one of the other stunt guys and he throws him against this wagon.

“And that was planned but what wasn’t planned was that he’s thrown him so hard that he went through the wagon and he like completely crashed the whole thing. The sound you hear, it’s literally a guy being thrown through. But they just took it.”

He went on to share that during filming, everyone got so involved, one member of the team was knocked out.

“We had rehearsals where there was a guy knocked out. I mean they go so close, right? And it was a mistake both of them. I mean you should always be able to hold your fist but the other guy, he instead like holding the distance, he kind of moved forward right as he was swinging.

“And they were also you know MMA fighters. So his tooth went out, blood out. And then the other guy, of course, because he hit the tooth, broke [his knuckle], he had to have stitches in his hand as well.”

King and Conqueror is the story of a clash that defined the future of a country for a thousand years.

The synopsis reads: “Harold of Wessex and William of Normandy were two men destined to meet at the Battle of Hastings in 1066; two allies with no design on the English throne, who found themselves forced by circumstance and personal obsession into a war for possession of its crown.”

King and Conqueror airs Sunday 24 August on BBC One at 9pm.

An expert braved a mini tour of the UK’s ‘worst hotel chain’ properties and reportedly found a tissue in a kettle, scum in a pool, a view of an overflowing skip and mismatched, tired furniture were among the delights waiting to greet him

After a hotel chain was named the worst in Britain for the 11th consecutive year, a curious expert decided to investigate to see if things were really that bad at their numerous properties across the country in prime locations.

Britannia Hotels has consistently been awarded the dubious title of worst hotel chain in surveys conducted by consumer magazine Which? Many of its individual properties also have low to average scores on Tripadvisor where visitors have left scathing reviews.

Guest complaints include issues with cleanliness, tired furniture, poor service and barely edible food. It comes after a Brit abroad slams all-inclusive hotel food asking ‘what on earth is this?’

READ MORE: Abandoned UK Butlin’s site is now seaside town’s ‘hell hole’ hotelREAD MORE: Beachgoers left stunned after rare sea creature spotted off British coast

Travel writer Gavin Haines wanted to see if the reports and findings were accurate and if things were really that bad on site. He stayed at three different hotels belonging to Britannia and it’s safe to say what he experienced certainly backed the research and reviews.

He had contacted Which? editor Rory Boland about the “abysmal” overall customer satisfaction ratings and was advised not to even bother visiting. “With over a decade of dismal reviews, our results suggest that Britannia should be avoided at all costs,” he was told.

Despite this he braved a stay at the Royal Bath in the traditional coastal town of Bournemouth. The grand hotel has a rich history – it was opened in 1838 on Queen Victoria’s Coronation Day and was the first hotel in the town.

It is set in its own landscaped grounds with spectacular views out to sea, which, its dedicated wedding website claims, makes it the perfect spot for your special day.

However Gavin found the venue’s interior special in a very different way. “The mismatched furniture looks like it was sourced in haste from a house clearance shop and makes me feel homesick,” he writes in the Telegraph.

“While the views make me want to call the Samaritans (if we can reasonably describe a rusty air conditioning unit, some broken guttering and fag ends on an enclosed flat roof as views).”

He couldn’t even bring himself to make a brew to improve his experience because the kettle had tissue inside it, “for reasons I’d rather not speculate on”.

One of the Royal Bath’s selling points is its spa with a heated indoor pool, steam room and gym. Unfortunately this also let the side down with a reported “line of scum” clinging to the tiles in the pool.

On Tripadvisor, where the hotel has a 2.6 score out of 5, one recent review backed his slimy discovery. In July this year, one visitor was looking forward to a spa day with high tea that had been booked by a friend but was incredibly “disappointed” by what they encountered.

“The Spa and pool was shabby, dated with missing tiles and broken lockers,” they revealed. “Nobody was at the desk so we had to wait to be allowed in. The crescent shaped pool was full of kids and toddlers, a tiny jacuzzi and sauna which were full and there were not enough loungers to accommodate everyone and hardly creating a peaceful luxurious experience!”

The high tea was more of a low point as well with, “sweaty cheese and curling bread”. When it came to Gavin’s dining experience, he did note that there probably wasn’t anywhere else in the popular town where you could get a three course meal for £15 in such grand surroundings, but you “get what you pay for”.

In his case it was a rock hard bread roll, overcooked and undercooked (quite a feat) carrots in the beef stew and a glow in the dark dessert.

Unfortunately his nights at other properties in the group were on par. The “ironically named” Palace Hotel in Buxton (3 out of 5 on TripAdvisor), like the Royal Bath, is a beautiful old building in a classical style set in five acres of gardens.

Sadly he didn’t get to admire these out of the window of his room that was “so cold I didn’t want to get out of bed”. Instead he was met with the choice view of an overflowing skip and old furniture dumped in a grotty car park.

While other visitors were similarly disappointed with the hotel, with many on Tripadvisor complaining of dirty rooms with poor facilities, there were those who appreciated its faded grandeur: “This hotel has lots of character & charm, yes parts are dated but that adds to its beauty,” shared one.

Another agreed: “For me the grandness of the building and the aspect looking out of the town was wonderful. Room didn’t have a window – as a result I had the best night’s sleep – didn’t know what time it was! I’d visit again – can put up with a bit of outdatedness for the charm and style of the place.”

Meanwhile, Gavin’s not-so-magical mystery tour had more delights in store at the Grand Burstin, Folkestone (2.7 out of 5 on TripAdvisor). The hotel made headlines in 2022 when chunks of its facade blew off, plummeting below onto a coach in the car park. Two people were injured. The year before a family cut short their stay there and likened it to Fawlty Towers – the disastrous hotel in John Cleese’s classic comedy.

So Gavin probably arrived with some understandable fear and trepidation, which would have been entirely justified but here he was treated to rose petals in his room.

However it seemed these weren’t a romantic welcome token from a thoughtful housekeeper and instead, “had presumably featured in a recent low-budget dirty weekend”. The spa facilities here were described as “scuzzy” and evoked “verruca socks”.

With plenty of Tripadvisor reviews of the various properties calling out their tired appearance, there are also those that highlight improvements that have been made, especially at the Royal Bath.

Britannia has invested £1million there recently but it seems, as with a lot of its premises, it’s pot luck what room you are allocated. One horrified guest says they were given a “cheap, nasty and dinky” room without a window in the “stinking” East Wing. While on the flip side, another was reportedly allocated a “spacious” room with a sea view, despite not paying extra for it.

It’s a similar pattern at the Burstin. While the reviewer wasn’t at all impressed with his room, others had a very different experience. One returning guest was perfectly happy with their allocation in August this year. They wrote on Tripadvisor: “Another superb stay here. But this time an even better room with an even better perfect sea view. Room was lovely clean and comfortable Well done Grand Burstin.”

Another who was wary of what to expect after reading poor reviews shared: “I was pleasantly surprised by the hotel. Its not the Ritz or something flash and modern, it is what you pay for – a budget hotel.”

The Mirror has contacted Britannia Hotels for comment.

Britain’s Jacob Fearnley suffered a first-round defeat by Zizou Bergs at the Cincinnati Open.

Fearnley was making his debut at the tournament and was comfortably beaten 6-1 6-4 by the Belgian.

The 24-year-old is ranked 55 in the world – just three places below Bergs – but struggled in his first meeting with the 26-year-old.

Fearnley faced nine break points on his serve, losing four, and could only convert one of the two he earned.

His defeat follows a recent first-round exit at the Canadian Open.

In the women’s draw, Britain’s Katie Boulter faces Olga Danilovic in the first round, with the winner playing British number one Emma Raducanu.

LIVERPOOL fans who lined the streets to celebrate the club’s Premier League triumph have spoken out after a car ploughed into a crowd.

A 53-year-old white British man from Liverpool was arrested at the scene on Water Street just after 6pm and is thought to have been the driver of the car, police said.

4

4

4

Some 27 injured people were rushed to hospital – two with serious injuries – and 20 were treated at the scene, with more patients self-presenting later on, the North West Ambulance Service said.

A survivor of the Manchester Arena bombing was one of those knocked to the floor by the car.

Frankie, 24, told the Mail: “I was at the Manchester Arena incident. I don’t want to go out again.

They continued: “The side of the car went into me and I fell to the floor. It’s all a blur.

“I’ve got cuts and bruises and I’ll be fine but there’s loads who have got more severe injuries.”

Meanwhile, supporter Harry Rashid, 48, was a stone’s throw away from the swerving vehicle during the terrifying scene.

“It happened about 10 feet away from us,” he said.

“We were just in a crowd and we had no control over where we would be, because it was a very narrow street. 

“The vehicle came to our right. It emerged from just right next to an ambulance, which was parked up.

“This grey people carrier just pulled up from the right and just rammed into all the people at the side of us.

“It was travelling south, down Water Street, straight towards this strand, which is where the docks are.

“It was extremely fast. Initially, we just heard the pop, pop, pop of people just being knocked off the bonnet of a car.”

Merseyside Police are leading the investigation and were initially supported by counter-terrorism police.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said: “The scenes in Liverpool are appalling — my thoughts are with all those injured or affected.”

He later praised the “remarkable bravery” shown by the emergency services in Liverpool and added: “Everyone, especially children, should be able to celebrate their heroes without this horror.”

Home Secretary Yvette Cooper described the scenes as “truly shocking” and thanked the emergency services for their “swift response”.

4