rules

WASHINGTON  — The Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to remove transgender markers from new passports and to require applicants to designate they were male or female at birth.

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted another emergency appeal from Trump’s lawyers and put on hold a Boston judge’s order that prevented the president’s new passport policy from taking effect.

“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth,” the court said in an unsigned order. “In both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment.”

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson filed a dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.

She said there was no emergency, and the change in the passport policy would pose a danger for transgender travelers.

“The current record demonstrates that transgender people who use gender-incongruent passports are exposed to increased violence, harassment, and discrimination,” she wrote. “Airport checkpoints are stressful and invasive for travelers under typical circumstances—even without the added friction of being forced to present government-issued identification documents that do not reflect one’s identity.

“Thus, by preventing transgender Americans from obtaining gender-congruent passports, the Government is doing more than just making a statement about its belief that transgender identity is ‘false.’ The Passport Policy also invites the probing, and at times humiliating, additional scrutiny these plaintiffs have experienced.”

Upon taking office in January, Trump ordered the military to remove transgender troops from its ranks and told agencies to remove references to “gender identity” or transgender persons from government documents, including passports.

The Supreme Court has put both policies into effect by setting aside orders from judges who temporarily blocked the changes as discriminatory and unconstitutional.

U.S. passports did not have sex markers until the 1970s. For most of time since then, passport holders have had two choices: “M” for male and “F” for female. Beginning in 1992, the State Department allowed applicants to designate a sex marker that differed from their sex at birth.

In 2021, the Biden administration added an “X” marker as an option for transgender and non-binary persons.

Trump sought a return to the earlier era. He issued an executive order on “gender ideology extremism” and said his administration would “recognize two sexes, male and female.” He required “government-issued identification documents, including passports” to “accurately reflect the holder’s sex” assigned at birth.

The ACLU sued on behalf of transgender individuals who would be affected by the new policy. They won a ruling in June from U.S. District Judge Julia Kobick who blocked the new policy from taking effect.

The transgender plaintiffs “seek the same thing millions of Americans take for granted: passports that allow them to travel without fear of misidentification, harassment, or violence,” the ACLU attorneys said in an appeal to Supreme Court last month.

They said the administration’s new policy would undercut the usefulness of passports for identification.

“By classifying people based on sex assigned at birth and exclusively issuing sex markers on passports based on that sex classification, the State Department deprives plaintiffs of a usable identification document and the ability to travel safely…{It} undermines the very purpose of passports as identity documents that officials check against the bearer’s appearance,” they wrote.

But Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued the plaintiffs had no authority over official documents. He said the justices should set aside the judge’s order and allow the new policy to take effect.

“Private citizens cannot force the government to use inaccurate sex designations on identification documents that fail to reflect the person’s biological sex — especially not on identification documents that are government property and an exercise of the President’s constitutional and statutory power to communicate with foreign governments,” he wrote.

RYANAIR’S new boarding pass rules are being rolled out this month – and passengers could face being caught out at the airport.

From November 12, the budget airline will no longer offer printed boarding passes.

Desks at the airports will no longer offer the option to print them – which currently has a fee of £55.

Instead, passengers will have to use the Ryanair app to get their mobile boarding pass.

However, it is thought as many as 15 per cent of Ryanair passengers don’t use smartphones.

CEO Michael O’Leary said: “Between 85 and 90 per cent of passengers show up with smartphones.”

FLY AWAY

Ryanair launches new UK flights to barely-known city in Europe which has £3 beers

GROUNDED

Ryanair to axe another 800,000 seats to Europe this winter

The airline has advised that even if you lost your phone or the battery dies at the airport, you will still be able to travel as long as you have checked in.

The gate agent will instead be able to assist and print one.

Airports will still have desks for checking in.

Some destinations such as Morocco still require a printed boarding pass, so passengers will have to show their digital boarding pass and will then be able to get a printed version at the airport.

Anyone who doesn’t check in before their flight will have to pay a check in fee at the airport.

The scrapping of boarding passes was initially planned for May, but this was then delayed to November 3, then to November 12.

Ryanair CMO Dara Brady said at the time: “This move to 100 per cent paperless boarding passes from November 2025 will allow us to deliver an enhanced travel experience for customers, streamlined through the myRyanair app during our less busy Winter schedule.”

It’s not the only big change that the budget airline recently rolled out.

Ryanair recently increased the size of the free bags passengers can take with them into the cabin.

Previously, the size of the small personal item was 40x20x25cm.

However, new bag sizers rolled out across all airports last month have since increased this to 40x30x20cm.

The additional 5cm means an increase of capacity from 20l to 24l, and takes it to a similar size of other airlines.

In the mean time, here is a new city you can fly to with Ryanair from the UK that you might not have heard of.

Advocates say new rules let Education Department to politically punish groups working on immigration, transgender care.

The United States Department of Education has finalised new rules that could bar nonprofits deemed to have undertaken work with a “substantial illegal purpose” from a special student loan forgiveness programme.

Those rules, finalised on Thursday, appear to single out certain organisations that do work in areas that President Donald Trump politically opposes, including immigration advocacy and transgender rights.

Under the new rules, set to take effect in July 2026, the education secretary has the power to exclude groups if they engage in activities like the “chemical castration” of children, using a politically charged term for gender-affirming healthcare, including puberty-delaying medication.

It also allows the education secretary to bar groups accused of supporting undocumented immigration or “terrorist” organisations.

The Trump administration has said its decisions “will not be made based on the political views or policy preferences of the organization”.

But advocates fear the move is the administration’s latest effort to target left-leaning and liberal organisations.

Trump has already threatened to crack down on several liberal nonprofits, which the White House has broadly accused of being part of “domestic terror networks”.

Thursday’s rules concern the Public Service Loan Forgiveness programme, created by an act of Congress in 2007.

In an effort to direct more graduates into public service jobs, the programme promises to cancel federal student loans for government employees and many nonprofit workers after they have made 10 years of payments.

Workers in the public sector, including teachers, medical professionals, firefighters, social service professionals and lawyers, are among those who can benefit.

In a statement, the Trump administration defended the updated rules, calling them a necessary bulwark to protect taxpayer funds.

The programme “was meant to support Americans who dedicate their careers to public service – not to subsidize organizations that violate the law, whether by harboring illegal immigrants or performing prohibited medical procedures that attempt to transition children away from their biological sex”, said Education Undersecretary Nicholas Kent.

Critics, however, have denounced the administration for using false claims of “terrorism” or criminal behaviour to silence opposing views and restrict civil liberties.

Michael Lukens, executive director of the Amica Center for Immigrant Rights, said the new rules weaponised loan forgiveness.

Lukens explained that many of the lawyers, social workers and paralegals who work at his organisation handle cases to stop deportations and other immigration litigation.

They count on public service loan forgiveness to take jobs that pay significantly less than the private sector, he said.

“All of a sudden, that’s going away,” Lukens told The Associated Press news agency. “The younger generation, I hope, will be able to wait this out for the next couple of years to see if it gets better, but if it doesn’t, we’re going to see a lot of people leave the field to go and work in a for-profit space.”

Organisations have raised concerns over the education secretary’s broad power to determine if a group should be barred. Short of a legal finding, the secretary can decide based on a “preponderance of the evidence” whether an employer is in violation.

The National Council of Nonprofits was among the associations criticising the change.

It said the rules would allow future administrations from any political party to change eligibility rules “based on their own priorities or ideology”.

In a major blow to LGBTQIA+ rights, Texas’ Supreme Court has ruled that judges can refuse to marry same-sex couples.

On 24 October, the state’s highest court issued an order adopting comment to Canon 4 of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct, which focuses on the “judge’s extra-judicial activities to minimise the risk of conflict with judicial obligations.”

According to the newly implemented comment, effective immediately, judges who “publicly refrain from performing a wedding ceremony based upon sincerely held religious belief” will not be in violation of the state’s judicial impartiality rules.

According to KERA News, the rule change comes after years of pushback by state legal officials against same-sex marriage and a 2020 lawsuit filed by Jack County judge Brian Umphress.

In the suit, he challenged the State Commission on Judicial Conduct’s now-withdrawn 2019 sanction of a Waco, Texas judge who refused to marry gay couples, despite still marrying heterosexual couples.

Umphress’ decision to sue stemmed from his alleged fear that he could face the same sanction.

Shortly after the amendment was announced, Texas Supreme Court clerk Blake Hawthorne said the court would not comment on the change in a statement to the aforementioned news outlet.

“The order speaks for itself, and the Court cannot comment on its connection to pending litigation,” he said.

As of this writing, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct have not commented on the aforementioned change.

The recent development in Texas comes a few weeks before the US Supreme Court will consider whether it will hear a case challenging same-sex marriage.

Back in July, Kim Davis — who made headlines in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, appealing two past verdicts that ordered her to pay $100,000 to one of the same-sex couples she denied a marriage license to, and $250,000 in attorney fees.

The filing also urged the Court to overturn the landmark Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, calling it “grounded entirely on the legal fiction of substantive due process.” Davis further claimed that the 2015 decision forced her to choose “between her religious beliefs and her job.”

On 23 October, the Court announced that it had set a date to consider whether to hear the challenge.

According to SCOTUSblog, the nine justices will meet in a private conference on 7 November.

The blog noted that the Court usually grants reviews after two consecutive conferences. The upcoming hearing will be the first for Davis’ case. If the Court denies a review following its meeting on 7 November, an announcement could be released as soon as 10 November.

For information about the status of marriage equality in the US, click here.

NEW rules have come into which will ban ALL pub crawls in a major Spanish city.

The classic activity popular with locals and tourists alike is now totally banned, whatever the time of day or night.

The ban on promoting, organising or running pub crawls has been extended to cover the entire area of Barcelona at all hours of the day, and comes into force on October 29, 2025.

The move aims to “ensure peaceful coexistence, safeguard residents’ right to rest and protect public health“.

The new rule, which also prohibits advertising related activities in any form, has been agreed following a public consultation.

A spokesman for Barcelona city council. “Pub crawling is a business that takes customers on organised drinking tours to a series of establishments that offer discounted alcoholic drinks.

YULE DO

Travel expert reveals cheap UK holiday parks with Xmas breaks from £9pp a night

SNOW WAY

All the best Xmas days out under £10 including FREE ice skating & Santa’s grotto

“It typically involves quickly consuming one or more low-quality drinks before heading to the next stop.

“This activity has been identified as a risk factor that causes disturbances in neighbourhoods, puts extra strain on public spaces and potentially leads to criminal behaviour or road safety violations.”

Organisers face fines ranging up to €3,000 (£2,641), while participants are exempt from fines, they could face them for other infractions like drinking in the streets or causing disruptions. 

Until now, pub crawls were only banned in the districts of Ciutat Vella, since 2012, and L’Eixample, since June 1, 2025.

The restrictions here were mainly focused on nighttime hours, from 7pm to 7am.

The new rules that have been introduced are for a permanent ban that applies 24 hours a day, all year-round, rather than being only seasonal.

This has been approved and will be in force for four years.

According to the city council, data provided by the police indicates that the ban on alcohol routes in Ciutat Vella and L’Eixample has worked.

They say it  has “contributed to significantly reducing the number of activities detected and has facilitated their prevention, thanks to the early detection of the offer through social networks”.

The city council says the ban has been well-received in the Ciutat Vella district, with only three fines issued last year, and authorities believe it will have a similar impact citywide.

Pub crawls have been hugely popular in Barcelona and have been widely promoted on the internet.

These have attracted hundreds of thousands of people every year and bringing in a huge income.

Most pub crawls lasted for at least six hours and others up to 24 hours, but now organisers have started to post “now unavailable” messages on their websites.

These aren’t the only rules that have been introduced, across Spain there are been lots of new sanctions put in place to stop bad behaviour.

New rules range from not wearing swimwear in towns or cities, to smoking bans, and monitoring noise complaints.

FOOTBALLER GONE

Football League star tragically dies aged just 42 after cancer battle

CHA-CHA-CHAOS

Strictly’s Amber Davies breaks silence after pro Nikita pictured kissing her

The next time you visit Spain, check out these tips by one man who visits at least 8 times a year and how to avoid the common tourist mistakes.

Plus, check out these 12 stunning and cheap destinations Spaniards love that Brits have never heard of.

Oct. 29 (UPI) — A federal judge has disqualified President Donald Trump‘s top prosecutor in Los Angeles, ruling Bill Essayli has been unlawfully serving as interim U.S. attorney for the Central District of California since late July.

The order was issued Tuesday by Judge J. Michael Seabright of the Federal District Court in Hawaii, stating Essayli “is not lawfully serving as Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California.”

The effect of the order, however, was unclear, as it states that though he may not continue in the role as interim U.S. attorney, he may continue to perform his duties as first assistant United States attorney.

“For those who didn’t read the entire order, nothing is changing,” Essayli said in a statement.

“I continue serving as the top federal prosecutor in the Central District of California.”

The ruling comes in response to motions filed by three defendants seeking to dismiss indictments brought against them and to disqualify Essayli as acting U.S. attorney.

Essayli, who was appointed by the Trump administration, was sworn in on April 2 to serve as the interim U.S. attorney for 120 days.

As his term was nearing its end on July 31, Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Essayli as a special attorney, effective upon his resignation as interim U.S. attorney.

In his ruling Tuesday, Seabright, a President George W. Bush appointee, said that Essayli assumed the role of acting U.S. attorney in violation of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, which limits the amount of time prosecutors may fill federal positions without Senate approval.

“Simply stated: Essayli unlawfully assumed the role of Acting United States Attorney for the Central District of California. He has been unlawfully serving in that capacity since his resignation from the interim role on July 29, 2025,” he said.

“He is disqualified from serving in that role.”

Despite his ruling on Essayli, Seabright denied the three defendants’ request to dismiss their indictments, stating “the prosecutions remain valid.”

The ruling is the latest going against the Trump administration’s attempts to employ people in high-ranking positions without securing congressional approval.

In August, a federal judge ruled Alina Habba, a former personal Trump lawyer, was illegally serving as acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey after her 12-day interim term expired.

Last month, a federal judge ruled that Sigal Chattah had been unlawfully serving as Acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada.

Both decisions are being appealed.

The Irish airline has decided to make a major change that will impact their passengers from 12 November onwards. Here’s everything you need to know about the new system

Ryanair passengers have been given a last-minute warning about a major change the airline is making in a matter of days.

Passengers flying with the Irish airline any time from 12 November onwards will need to follow a new rule – and not everyone is happy about it.

The budget airline has announced it is ditching physical boarding passes and going completely digital, which means paper print-outs will be a thing of the past. Travellers will now be required to show their boarding passes through the Ryanair app.

The company hopes to cut around 300 tonnes of paper annually by switching to digital, with Ryanair CMO Dara Brady explaining the airline settled on November 12 because it’s a quieter time for travel.

However, many have expressed concern about the potential challenges for elderly passengers who might not use the internet or possess smartphones.

Ryanair’s boss, Michael O’Leary, has now sought to reassure passengers with anxieties about the compulsory smartphone boarding passes. He said: “Almost 100 per cent of passengers have smartphones, and we want to move everybody onto the smartphone technology.

“The big concern that people have is: ‘What happens if I lose my battery or whatever, I lose my phone?’ reports Wales Online.

“If you lose your phone, no issue. As long as you’ve checked in before you get to the airport, we’ll reissue a paper boarding pass at the airport free of charge. But you have to check in before you get to the airport.

“Also, if your battery dies or something happens, once you’ve checked in, we’ll have your sequence number anyway at the boarding gate, we’ll take you, you’ll get on. So nobody should worry about it.

“Just make sure you check in online before you get to the airport, and then all will be fine.”

Guidance on Ryanair’s website echoes this, adding: “If you have already checked in online and you lose your smartphone or tablet (or it dies), your details are already on our system and you will be assisted at the gate.”

The website also emphasises the importance of completing their online check-in. “All Ryanair passengers will still receive email reminders to check-in online 48 and 24hrs pre-departure.

“If any passenger arrives at the airport but hasn’t checked in online (having ignored these reminders), they will still be required to pay the airport check-in fee.”

Currently, the fee is set at £55/€55 per passenger for most flights. However, passengers flying out of Spain are obliged to pay £30/€30, while those departing from Austria will be hit with a £40/€40 charge.

There are two exceptions to the new digital boarding pass rule; the first is passengers flying to Albania. Authorities there have insisted passengers present paper passes until March 2026, after which they’ve agreed passes can be digital.

Morocco has the same paper pass policy as Albania, however, it won’t be changing its rules to fit Ryanair’s new paperless policy. Michael O’Leary has confirmed the airline will make exceptions in this case and accept physical passes for flights to the African country.

DISCREET and “not blatant”, with a stranger and with mandatory payment – those were the strict rules set by Lily Allen that allegedly allowed her husband of four years to cheat.

Now the scorned songstress, 40, has ferociously lifted the lid on the ‘arrangement’ with Stranger Things actor David Harbour in a song titled ‘Madeline’.

It’s the moniker she gave to costume designer and single mum Natalie Tippett, 34, who allegedly cheated with the American, 50, despite suggesting she had given him a ‘hall pass’ to sleep with sex workers.

Fuming in lyrics, which she says are a “mixture of fact and fiction”, Lily says: “We had an arrangement; Be discreet and don’t be blatant; And there had to be payment; It had to be with strangers; But you’re not a stranger, Madeline, Madeline, Madeline, Madeline.”

The track on her comeback album West End Girl, which documents the unravelling of her relationship and his supposed infidelity, has earned critical acclaim and has three songs in the Top 40. 

Unsurprisingly, it’s Lily’s anti-monogamy stance that has raised the eyebrows of listeners but these types of ‘arrangements’ are far from unusual in the world of celebrity.  

AMERICAN RIPPER

My aunt was murdered by Boston Strangler…I can prove cops got the wrong man

LOVE RAT

Pete Wicks’ ex reveals brutal truth about TV star, from narcissism to ‘cringe’ sex

Behavioural psychologist Jo Hemmings tells The Sun some are tempted due to working away for long periods of time and feeling unable to satisfy each other sexually or emotionally.

However, she cautions: “No matter how many boundaries or rules you put in place, what happens when it becomes more than just sex and your partner falls in love?” 

“There are so, so many obstacles with these types of relationships,” Jo tells us. “And it’s interesting that Lily had this very specific boundary.

“She set it because there would be very little danger of her husband falling in love with one of these girls or having an emotional relationship when it’s purely sexual and transactional.

“It sort of sounds modern, grown-up and pre-emptive, deciding you’re in an open relationship and acknowledging what’s going on rather than being ‘cheated on’ but it rarely works.

“There is nearly always one person who is secretly less comfortable with the idea than they say they are and there’s a big difference between ‘theoretical acceptance’ and actual acceptance.

“When the gossip starts and the press finds out, when it happens on repeat and the public starts to judge their relationship it can get really, really tough. 

“And some ‘open relationships’ are less genuine than one might think, some say they are in one to protect themselves. It can be deflective in a lot of cases.

“I think a lot of celebrities are pre-empting scrutiny and that way if their partner is seen snogging the face off someone at a bar, they are one step ahead of the game.”

As Jo highlights, Lily is far from the only celebrity to be stung after opening the sexual floodgates in her relationship – with many ending in divorce, as we reveal. 

Will & Jada Pinkett Smith

The aftermath of this ill-fated ‘arrangement’ resulted in the most explosive moment ever seen at the Oscars, which led to Will Smith being banned for 10 years and scrutinised across the globe. 

In 2022, the Fresh Prince star slapped Chris Rock after he made a joke about his wife of 28 years Jada Pinkett-Smith’s alopecia, comparing her to a buzz-cut character from the film GI Jane.

Yet the origin of Will’s anger is said to have stemmed from the public ridicule and humiliation he suffered after Jada admitted to an affair two years previously. 

Describing it as an “entanglement”, she spoke of a fling with August Alsina, a rapper 21 years her junior, who was a friend of their son Jaden, during a separation from Will. 

Later Will apologised for his Oscars attack, stating: “I was gone. That was a rage that had been bottled [up] for a really long time… What I would say is that you just never know what somebody’s going through.” 

Rumours of the Smiths having an open marriage had circulated for more than a decade and even when Jada denied it in a 2013 Huffington Post interview, her cryptic response prompted more questions. 

She said: “I’ve always told Will, ‘You can do whatever you want as long as you can look at yourself in the mirror and be okay.’”

Later Jada posted a lengthy rant on Facebook questioning if loving someone meant “owning them” and if it should “operate as enslavement”.

She concluded: “Will and I BOTH can do WHATEVER we want, because we TRUST each other to do so. This does NOT mean we have an open relationship…this means we have a GROWN one.”

Jo says for some celebrities being part of a ‘power couple’ can lead to more sexually flexible relationships, as it appeared to be with the Smiths, but it rarely works. 

She tells us for some it can be a “way of protecting themselves” ahead of an affair being discovered or a way to have “a feeling of control, by agreeing on the terms” of what can and can’t be done.

“It can be hard to fulfil your partner’s emotional and physical needs when you’re half way across the world and flings may seem like a ‘harmless release’,” Jo says.

“And it’s easy for celebrities to go into these agreements with good intentions but you cannot predict how you or your partner will feel when it happens. 

“There are so many opportunities in the chaos of celebrity life for boundaries to be overstepped and so almost inevitably it will go wrong at some point.

“Even if both partners feel they are on the same page and in 100 per cent agreement, most couples aren’t. One partner always wants it more than the other and the other may not be able to accept what happened.”

Michelle Visage & David Case

Former Strictly star Michelle Visage set sparks flying away from the stage when she claimed cheating makes her marriage “stronger” – but she’s not exactly thrilled by his flings.

She told the Origins With Cush Jumbo podcast that her actor hubby David Case experiences ‘compersion’, which is considered to be ‘the opposite of jealousy’.

It’s a term often used in the polyamorous community to describe a partner feeling joy that their romantic partner had an exciting experience with another person. 

“We live openly, so he would get off knowing that I was so happy and no matter what it is that I do, and I’m not just talking sexually,” Michelle said last year.

“Whatever it is, I don’t know if I have compersion in me to be really excited if he’s doing something with another woman but I know that it exists and he is 100% that.”

While Michelle claimed it was something that “works for us” and “what makes us stronger”, Jo says it can still be problematic.

She warns it’s risky when meddling with “the intimacy of a relationship” despite the couple claiming to be “fully transparent and trusting one another”. 

Demi Moore & Ashton Kutcher

When Ghost actress Demi Moore shacked up with Ashton Kutcher, 21 years her junior, she wanted to “show him how great and fun I could be” – especially when it came to sex.

“I put him first, so when he expressed his fantasy of bringing a third person into our bed, I didn’t say no,” she admitted in her 2019 memoir Inside Out.

But her two ménages à trois, left Demi feeling “flooded with shame” and realising it was a “mistake”. Worse still, Ashton later told her it encouraged him to have affairs.

She claimed the That 70s Show actor told her the threesomes “blurred the lines” of their romance and “to some extent, justified what he’d done”.

It referred to at least three flings, including one on a San Diego stag do and another with a pal of her eldest daughter, that doomed their six-year marriage by November 2011. 

Jo says she sees issues like what happened with Demi and Ashton “a lot” in counselling – where one partner is “willing to please” because their partner “wants it so badly” and fears losing them.

“But it can have devastating consequences for the relationship,” she says. “Maybe not immediately but some struggle because they can’t unseen what they have seen or what their partner has done.

“Some aren’t even able to recall seeing their husband having sex with another woman, because it’s so brutal for them. Many prefer to turn blind eye, not see or not join in. 

“Even if they think they want it at the time, sometimes threesomes can be the last straw for a couple or for any agreed infidelity.”

Ethan Hawke & Ryan Shawhughes

Ethan Hawke’s marriage to Uma Thurman was marked by rumours of cheating, which he strenuously denied, yet after their 2003 split he made it clear he strongly believes in polyamory. 

After getting together with their former nanny Ryan Shawhughes, he argued that most people have “a childish view of monogamy and fidelity”, suggesting it as an outdated concept.

“To act all indignant, that your world has been rocked because your lover wasn’t faithful to you, is a little bit like acting rocked that your hair went grey,” Ethan told HuffPost in 2013.

It’s unclear how open the relationship with Ryan is but he encouraged speculation by stating “neither she nor I know what shape the future will come in” and justified extramarital flings. 

“Sexual fidelity can’t be the whole thing you hang your relationship on,” he added. “If you really love somebody you want them to grow, but you don’t get to define how that happens. They do.”

Shirley MacLaine & Steve Parker

Hollywood legend Shirley MacLaine, who starred in Steel Magnolias and Terms of Endearment, had an open marriage for 28 years. 

It started back in 1954 due to her producer husband, Steve Parker, predominantly working in Japan while she was in America and she admitted “no one understood it” apart from them. 

She added: “I would say better to stay friends and we don’t have enough time to talk about the sexuality of all. I was very open about all of that and so was he.”

Despite declaring extra-marital flings “the basis for a long-lasting marriage”, the couple divorced in 1982 but remained friends.  

Jo says these types of arrangements can be more common among celebrities due to them maintaining long-distance relationships because of work projects, however it’s very risky. 

“While it may feel like a safety net, it can erode trust and intimacy and instead of enjoying the ‘freedom and liberation’ they anticipate, they can feel like they are being replaced.

“You can put in a world of boundaries and rules to but what happens when your partner falls in love with someone else? When it becomes more than just sex, you’re in trouble. Your relationship is effectively over.” 

Bella Thorne & Tana Mongeau

For just over a year, Dirty Sexy Money actress Bella Thorne celebrated her open relationship with musician Mod Sun and YouTuber Tana Mongeau in loving posts online .

In 2019, she told the Gay Times: “We joke around about poly[amorous], but we aren’t in the sense that we don’t put a word, a box or label too many things. It is what it is.”

Bella even claimed that she didn’t think anybody could “really understand the bonds” she shared with Mod and Tana, only for their three-way romance to end just months later.

It all came tumbling down after what Mod – real name Derek Smith – described as a “very, very public incident” that led him to end their “toxic” relationship.

Bella later slammed Tana on X – formerly Twitter – for breaking “girl code” after she was seen on a date with Mod. 

Tana later got engaged to boxer Jake Paul and had a legally non-binding wedding to the influencer-turned-fighter in late 2019.

They too had an open relationship but she revealed it heavily contributed to them splitting up because she felt compelled to “green-light everything” to make him happy, even though it was “killing” her.

Mo’Nique & Sidney Hicks

Precious actress Mo’Nique put an end to her open relationship with her husband and manager Sidney Hicks after fearing it would lead to them breaking up. 

She first spoke about them having hall passes to cheat back in 2010, claiming “I don’t want to be owned anymore… [or] have ownership over anyone”.

Declaring her “beautiful” open relationship “my idea”, Mo’Nique said: “If sex happens with another person, that’s not a deal breaker for us.

“That’s not something where we’ll have to say, ‘Oh God, we’ve got to go to divorce court because you cheated on me,’ because we don’t cheat.” 

FOOTBALLER GONE

Football League star tragically dies aged just 42 after cancer battle

CHA-CHA-CHAOS

Strictly’s Amber Davies breaks silence after pro Nikita pictured kissing her

However by 2023, Mo’Nique, who had been with Sidney since she was 16, changed her tune saying she wanted monogamy. She said it was down to recognising the strength of their relationship and his love for her “at my worst”.

She added: “I didn’t want to sacrifice that just for a lay. So I grew out of that.”

US president muses about a third term in office despite the constitution barring him from doing so.

United States President Donald Trump has ruled out running for vice president in the 2028 election but said he “would love” to serve a third term in office.

The comments on Monday came despite the US Constitution barring anyone from being elected to the country’s presidency for a third time.

Trump, who first served as president from 2017 to 2021, began his second term in January.

The 79-year-old has repeatedly flirted with the idea of serving beyond the constitutionally mandated two terms, joking about it at rallies and teasing supporters with “Trump 2028” hats.

Some allies have taken those signals seriously, suggesting that they are exploring legal or political pathways to make it happen.

Some have said that one way around the prohibition would be for Trump to run as vice president, while another candidate stood for election as president and resigned, letting Trump again assume the presidency.

Asked whether he would run for vice president in November 2028, Trump told reporters on board Air Force One on Monday that he “would be allowed to do that”.

But, he added, he would not go down that route.

“I wouldn’t do that. I think it’s too cute. Yeah, I would rule that out because it’s too cute. I think the people wouldn’t like that. It’s too cute. It’s not – it wouldn’t be right.”

Scholars, however, say Trump is barred from running for vice president, too, because he is not eligible to be president. The 12th Amendment to the US Constitution reads, “No person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

Referring to the possibility of a third term as president on Monday, Trump said: “I would love to do it. I have my best numbers ever.”

When pressed by a reporter whether he was not ruling out a third term, he said, “Am I not ruling it out? I mean, you’ll have to tell me.”

Asked about whether he would be willing to fight in court over the legality of another presidential bid, Trump responded, “I haven’t really thought about it.”

The US president also said that Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were “great people” who could seek the presidency in 2028.

“I think if they ever formed a group, it’d be unstoppable,” he said. “I really do. I believe that.”

Trump made the comments on board the Air Force One as he flew from Malaysia to Japan.

He attended the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit in Kuala Lumpur over the weekend and, following a stopover in Tokyo, will fly to South Korea to attend the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum.

He will be meeting with several world leaders in South Korea, including Chinese President Xi Jinping.

ONE winter sun destination that sees hundreds of thousands of Brits visit each year has entered a period of mourning after the loss of its former Queen.

As a result, there will be some new rules in play for visitors that will affect everything from clothing to events.

Queen Sirikit, the mother of Thailand‘s King Vajiralongkorn, passed away on October 25, 2025.

Sirikit was the Queen of Thailand from 28 April 1950 to 13 October 2016 as the wife of King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX), well-known for her charity work, and being a style icon.

As a result of Queen Sirikit’s passing, the Royal Thai Government has announced a period of national mourning for 90 days.

Despite the mourning period, the Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) is reassuring travellers that Thailand remains open and is welcoming tourists as usual.

YULE DO

Travel expert reveals cheap UK holiday parks with Xmas breaks from £9pp a night

SNOW WAY

All the best Xmas days out under £10 including FREE ice skating & Santa’s grotto

However, it has added that visitors during this period should behave respectfully, especially when going to temples, royal sites, or government offices.

Tourism services like transportation, hotels, attractions, hospitality venues across Thailand continue to be open and operate as normal.

Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul has announced new measures for locals, which will also affect tourists.

For anyone going on holiday in the next two months, you will see members of the public dressed in mourning clothes, as a sign of respect.

Locals are likely to be wearing black, and while holidaymakers don’t have to, they are encouraged to wear clothing that isn’t brightly coloured.

Events might change slightly too as organisers have been asked to “exercise discretion and adjust event formats appropriately to reflect the national atmosphere of mourning”.

Some places will be closed, like The Grand Palace and Wat Phra Si Rattana Satsadaram (Wat Phra Kaeo) which from October 26 to November 8, 2025 won’t be open.

This is for the Royal Merit-Making Ceremony in honour of the Royal Funeral.

The Vijit Chao Phraya 2025 event in Bangkok, which was scheduled from November 1 to December 15, 2025, has been postponed in observance of the mourning period.

It will now begin on December 1, 2025 instead.

The Sukhothai Loi Krathong and Candle Festival 2025 will go ahead as scheduled from October 27 to November 5, 2025 at Sukhothai Historical Park.

The Loi Krathong Festival in Ayutthaya will also proceed as planned, with celebrations adjusted in tone.

Ms. Worapa Angkhasirisap, Director of Travel to Thailand UK & Ireland said: “Her Majesty Queen Sirikit was deeply revered as a mother figure to the Thai people.

“During this time of remembrance, we thank visiting travellers for their understanding and sensitivity toward the feelings of the Thai nation.

“Thailand remains as welcoming as ever, and we encourage travellers to continue with their current and future plans to visit.

“Hotels, hospitality venues, attractions and experiences across the country continue to operate with the warmth and hospitality for which Thailand is known.”

RAGING INFERNO

Moment huge blaze rips through historic club on town high street

CHILD’S PLAY!

Free cinema trips, family games & films that cost NOTHING this half-term

Here’s more on the best time to visit Thailand…

The best time to visit Thailand is between November and early April, as temperatures average between 32 and 36C, and there are up to nine hours of sunshine every day.

To make it even more appealing, some of Asia‘s most stunning beaches are in Thailand.

There’s accommodation for every budget in Thailand, from luxury spa resorts to thatched beach huts and hotels.

If you’d like to stay close to the lively capital of Bangkok, Pattaya and Ko Chang are relatively near the city and feature incredible white sands and resorts.

Phuket is the biggest island in Thailand and is full of hotels, miles of sandy beaches, restaurants and nightlife.

In the southern Gulf of Thailand, you’ll find luxurious beach resorts on Ko Samui, Ko Phangan, and Ko Tao islands.

One writer visited the world’s ‘most popular’ holiday island in Thailand, where beers are just £2 and there are 40 beaches to explore.

Plus, the overlooked Asian country with quiet beaches and cheap attractions gets first TUI hotel.

CHICAGO — The detention by immigration authorities of a Chicago man whose 16-year-old daughter is undergoing treatment for advanced cancer is illegal, and he must be given a bond hearing by Oct. 31, a federal judge has ruled.

Attorneys for Ruben Torres Maldonado, 40, who was detained Oct. 18, have petitioned for his release as his deportation case goes through the system. While U.S. District Judge Jeremy Daniel said in an order Friday that Torres’ detention is illegal and violates his due process rights, he also said he could not order his immediate release.

“While sympathetic to the plight the petitioner’s daughter faces due to her health concerns, the court must act within the constraints of the relevant statutes, rules, and precedents,” the judge wrote Friday.

Torres’ attorney took the ruling as a win — for now.

“We’re pleased that the judge ruled in our favor in determining that ICE is illegally detaining Ruben. We will now turn the fight to immigration court so we can secure Ruben’s release on bond while he applies for permanent residence status,” his attorney, Kalman Resnick, said in a statement Friday night.

Torres, a painter and home renovator, was detained at a suburban Home Depot store. His daughter, Ofelia Torres, was diagnosed in December with a rare and aggressive form of soft-tissue cancer called metastatic alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma and has been undergoing chemotherapy and radiation treatment.

Torres entered the U.S. in 2003, according to his lawyers. He and his partner, Sandibell Hidalgo, also have a 4-year-old son. The children are both U.S. citizens, according to court records.

“My dad, like many other fathers, is a hardworking person who wakes up early in the morning and goes to work without complaining, thinking about his family,” Ofelia said in a video posted on a GoFundMe page set up for her family. “I find it so unfair that hardworking immigrant families are being targeted just because they were not born here.”

The Department of Homeland Security alleges that Torres has been living illegally in the U.S. for years and has a history of driving offenses, including speeding and driving without a valid license and insurance.

“This is nothing more than a desperate Hail Mary attempt to keep a criminal illegal alien in our country,” Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “The Trump administration is fighting for the rule of law and the American people.”

At a hearing Thursday, which Ofelia attended in a wheelchair, the family’s attorneys told the judge that she was released from the hospital just a day before her father’s arrest so that she could see family and friends. But since his arrest, she had been unable to continue treatment “because of the stress and disruption,” they said.

Federal prosecutor Craig Oswald told the court that the government did not want to release Torres because he didn’t cooperate during his arrest,

Several elected officials held a news conference Wednesday to protest Torres’ arrest. The Chicago area has been at the center of a major immigration crackdown dubbed “Operation Midway Blitz,” which began in early September.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals handed command of Oregon National Guard troops to the president Monday, further raising the stakes in the ongoing multifront judicial battle over military deployments to cities across the U.S.

A three-judge appellate panel — including two members appointed by Trump during his first term — found that the law “does not limit the facts and circumstances that the President may consider” when deciding whether to dispatch soldiers domestically.

The judges found that when ordering a deployment, “The President has the authority to identify and weigh the relevant facts.”

The ruling was a stark contrast to a lower-court judge’s finding earlier this month.

U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut of Portland previously called the president’s justification for federalizing Oregon troops “simply untethered to the facts” in her Oct. 4 temporary restraining order.

The appellate judges said they were guided by a precedent set in the 9th Circuit this summer, when California tried and failed to wrest back control of federalized soldiers in and around Los Angeles.

Another proceeding in California’s case is scheduled before the appellate court this week and the court’s earlier decision could be reversed. At the same time, an almost identical deployment in Illinois is under review by the Supreme Court.

For now, exactly which troops can deploy in Portland remains bitterly contested in U.S. District court, where Immergut blocked the administration from flooding Portland with Guardsmen from California.

The issue is likely to be decided by Supreme Court later this fall.

The judges who heard the Oregon case outlined the dueling legal theories in their opinions. The two members of the bench who backed Trump’s authority over the troops argued the law is straightforward.

“The President’s decision in this area is absolute,” wrote Judge Ryan D. Nelson, a Trump appointee, in a concurrence arguing that the court had overstepped its bounds in taking the case at all.

“Reasonable minds will disagree about the propriety of the President’s National Guard deployment in Portland,” Nelson wrote. “But federal courts are not the panacea to cure that disagreement—the political process is (at least under current Supreme Court precedent).”

Susan P. Graber, a Clinton appointee, said the appellate court had veered into parody.

“Given Portland protesters’ well-known penchant for wearing chicken suits, inflatable frog costumes, or nothing at all when expressing their disagreement with the methods employed by ICE, observers may be tempted to view the majority’s ruling, which accepts the government’s characterization of Portland as a war zone, as merely absurd,” she wrote in her stinging dissent.

But the stakes of sending armed soldiers to American cities based on little more than “propaganda” are far higher, she wrote.

“I urge my colleagues on this court to act swiftly to vacate the majority’s order before the illegal deployment of troops under false pretenses can occur,” Graber wrote. “Above all, I ask those who are watching this case unfold to retain faith in our judicial system for just a little longer.”

State officials on the front lines of preparing for natural disasters and responding to emergencies say severe cuts to federal security grants, restrictions on money intended for readiness and funding delays tied to litigation are posing a growing risk to their ability to respond to crises.

It’s all causing confusion, frustration and concern. The federal government shutdown isn’t helping.

“Every day we remain in this grant purgatory reduces the time available to responsibly and effectively spend these critical funds,” said Kiele Amundson, communications director at the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency.

The uncertainty has led some emergency management agencies to hold off on filling vacant positions and make rushed decisions on important training and purchases.

Experts say the developments complicate state-led emergency efforts, undermining the Republican administration’s stated goals of shifting more responsibility to states and local governments for disaster response.

In an emailed statement, the Department of Homeland Security said the new requirements were necessary because of “recent population shifts” and that changes to security grants were made “to be responsive to new and urgent threats facing our nation.”

A new wrinkle tied to immigration raids

Several DHS and FEMA grants help states, tribes and territories prepare for climate disasters and deter a variety of threats. The money pays for salaries and training, and such things as vehicles, communications equipment and software.

State emergency managers say that money has become increasingly important because the range of threats they must prepare for is expanding, including pandemics and cyberattacks.

FEMA, a part of DHS, divided a $320 million Emergency Management Performance Grant among states on Sept. 29. But the next day, it told states the money was on hold until they submitted new population counts. The directive demanded that they omit people “removed from the State pursuant to the immigration laws of the United States” and to explain their methodology.

The amount of money distributed to the states is based on U.S. census population data. The new requirement forcing states to submit revised counts “is something we have never seen before,” said Trina Sheets, executive director of the National Emergency Management Association, a group representing emergency managers. “It’s certainly not the responsibility of emergency management to certify population.”

With no guidance on how to calculate the numbers, Hawaii’s Amundson said staff scrambled to gather data from the 2020 census and other sources, then subtracted he number of “noncitizens” based on estimates from an advocacy group.

They are not sure the methodology will be accepted. But with their FEMA contacts furloughed and the grant portal down during the federal shutdown, they cannot find out. Other states said they were assessing the request or awaiting further guidance.

In its statement, DHS said FEMA needs to be certain of its funding levels before awarding grant money, and that includes updates to a state’s population due to deportations.

Experts said delays caused by the request could most affect local governments and agencies that receive grant money passed down by states because their budgets and staffs are smaller. At the same time, FEMA also reduced the time frame that recipients have to spend the money, from three years to one. That could prevent agencies from taking on longer-term projects.

Bryan Koon, president and CEO of the consulting firm IEM and a former Florida emergency management chief, said state governments and local agencies need time to adjust their budgets to any kind of changes.

“An interruption in those services could place American lives in jeopardy,” he said.

Grant programs tied up by litigation

In another move that has caused uncertainty, FEMA in September drastically cut some states’ allocations from another source of funding. The $1 billion Homeland Security Grant Program is supposed to be based on assessed risks, and states pass most of the money to police and fire departments.

New York received $100 million less than it expected, a 79% reduction, while Illinois saw a 69% reduction. Both states are politically controlled by Democrats. Meanwhile, some territories received unexpected windfalls, including the U.S. Virgin Islands, which got more than twice its expected allocation.

The National Emergency Management Association said the grants are meant to be distributed based on risk and that it “remains unclear what risk methodology was used” to determine the new funding allocation.

After a group of Democratic states challenged the cuts in court, a federal judge in Rhode Island issued a temporary restraining order on Sept. 30. That forced FEMA to rescind award notifications and refrain from making payments until a further court order.

The freeze “underscores the uncertainty and political volatility surrounding these awards,” said Frank Pace, administrator of the Hawaii Office of Homeland Security. The Democratic-controlled state received more money than expected, but anticipates the bonus being taken away with the lawsuit.

In Hawaii, where a 2023 wildfire devastated the Maui town of Lahaina and killed more than 100 people, the state, counties and nonprofits “face the real possibility” of delays in paying contractors, completing projects and “even staff furloughs or layoffs” if the grant freeze and government shutdown continue, he said.

The myriad setbacks prompted Washington state’s Emergency Management Division to pause filling some positions “out of an abundance of caution,” communications director Karina Shagren said.

A series of delays and cuts disrupts state-federal partnership

Emergency management experts said the moves have created uncertainty for those in charge of preparedness.

The Trump administration has suspended a $3.6 billion FEMA disaster resilience program, cut the FEMA workforce and disrupted routine training.

Other lawsuits also are complicating decision-making. A Manhattan federal judge last week ordered DHS and FEMA to restore $34 million in transit security grants it had withheld from New York City because of its immigration policies.

Another judge in Rhode Island ordered DHS to permanently stop imposing grant conditions tied to immigration enforcement, after ruling in September that the conditions were unlawful — only to have DHS again try to impose them.

Taken together, the turbulence surrounding what was once a reliable partner is prompting some states to prepare for a different relationship with FEMA.

“Given all of the uncertainties,” said Sheets, of the National Emergency Management Association, states are trying to find ways to be “less reliant on federal funding.”

Angueira writes for the Associated Press.

Oct. 17 (UPI) — A federal appeals court panel rejected the Trump administration’s request to overturn a lower court order blocking deployment of National Guard troops in Illinois.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday said U.S. President Donald Trump‘s plan to deploy National Guard troops to Illinois “likely” violated the U.S. Constitution’s 10th Amendment, which outlines specific state power.

“The facts do not justify the president’s actions,” the 18-page ruling read, adding that “political opposition is not rebellion.”

Roughly 200 federalized National Guardsmen currently sit in Illinois via Texas and more than a dozen from California. Trump federalized an additional 300 troops over the objection of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker and Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, both Democrats.

Trump has repeatedly described Chicago and other Democratic-governed cities as a “war zone.” Pritzker has said there’s no evidence for Trump’s claims and led the state’s legal actions against the White House with other local and state officials.

During an appearance on Politico’s The Conversation podcast — to be aired Sunday — Pritzker said that Trump has “got the biggest platform in the country, the presidency, and he just says things.” He attacked Trump’s “lies” on crime.

“It’s propaganda, again, not true, but he’ll say it over and over and over again, hoping that people will believe him,” the governor said.

On Thursday, the court panel added the administration was unlikely to prove a rebellion against the U.S. government or that Trump as president could not enforce the law using regular federal forces.

The judges wrote in the decision they saw “insufficient evidence of a rebellion or danger of rebellion in Illinois.”

“The spirited, sustained, and occasionally violent actions of demonstrators in protest of the federal government’s immigration policies and actions, without more, does not give rise to a danger of rebellion against the government’s authority,” it continued.

An hearing is scheduled for Wednesday to determined if the temporary restraining order should be extended, which remains in effect until Thursday.

“To Illinoisans: Stay safe, record what you see and post it, and continue to peacefully protest. Make sure that your community members know their rights in times of crisis,” the two-term Pritzker said Thursday night on Bluesky.

THE new EES is officially underway – and the new system has already been causing long wait times at certain airports.

Passengers at Brussels Airport have complained about waiting for up to three hours to get through border control this week.

One passenger spoke to The Brussels Times about her ordeal getting through border control at Brussels Airport claiming she waited for more than three hours.

Rebecca Wells who was travelling with a US passport, told the publication that the queue for those arriving outside of the EU was much longer than the one for EU passports.

She added: “There was nobody there to brief you or tell you what was going on.”

And when it came to the new EES system, it wasn’t used. Rebecca explained that her passport was “stamped like normal”.

CHRIMBO WIN

Enter these travel comps before Xmas to win £2k holidays, ski trips & spa stays

SNOW WAY

All the best Xmas days out under £10 including FREE ice skating & Santa’s grotto

Despite there being a spot to take fingerprints, it wasn’t used.

Another disgruntled passenger took to social media taking a picture of the queue and remarked that just two out of the five customs booths were open during “peak time”.

However, another passenger who also spoke to The Brussels Times on an EU passport said it was “all digital” and she had no issues going through.

When The Brussels Times approached Brussels Airport for comment, they could not confirm whether the long wait times were due to the EES system.

A spokesperson for the Federal Police, which is responsible for the airport’s border control, told the publication that the long wait time was due to “a combination of factors”.

The new EES rules began the first phase of the rollout on October 12, 2025.

For travellers, it means having fingerprints scanned and photo taken at European borders.

The new system is being rolled out across Europe gradually and is set to be completely operational at all external Schengen border crossings by April 10, 2026.

At Dover, the new EES is required by coach drivers and won’t apply to other passengers until November 1.

Meanwhile, Eurostar has started with just business travellers, and the Eurotunnel will begin with coaches and lorries before moving to cars.

The first time you travel and will be required to use the EES system, you’ll need to register at a special machine called a kiosk.

You’ll scan your passport, then the machine will take your fingerprints and a photo.

Kids under 12 will not need to give fingerprints.

You will also answer four quick questions on the screen about your trip, such as where you are staying and confirming you have enough money for your holiday.

Once registered, your details are stored for three years, and on future trips, you’ll just need a quick face scan to verify it is you.

OMAZE-ING

I went from council flat to winning £4m house… But this is why I’m selling up

BOTTOMS UP

Wetherspoons reveals opening dates of 5 new pubs starting next week

Here’s more on the new EES rules and how it will affect your travels.

And here’s more information on the ETIAS – set to be in place from late 2026.

WASHINGTON — Dozens of reporters turned in access badges and exited the Pentagon on Wednesday rather than agree to government-imposed restrictions on their work, pushing journalists who cover the American military further from the seat of its power. The U.S. government has called the new rules “common sense.”

News outlets were nearly unanimous in rejecting new rules imposed by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that would leave journalists vulnerable to expulsion if they sought to report on information — classified or otherwise — that had not been approved by Hegseth for release.

Many of the reporters waited to leave together at a 4 p.m. deadline set by the Defense Department to get out of the building. As the hour approached, boxes of documents lined a Pentagon corridor and reporters carried chairs, a copying machine, books and old photos to the parking lot from suddenly abandoned workspaces. Shortly after 4, about 40 to 50 journalists left together after handing in badges.

“It’s sad, but I’m also really proud of the press corps that we stuck together,” said Nancy Youssef, a reporter for the Atlantic who has had a desk at the Pentagon since 2007. She took a map of the Middle East out to her car.

It is unclear what practical effect the new rules will have, though news organizations vowed they’d continue robust coverage of the military no matter the vantage point.

Images of reporters effectively demonstrating against barriers to their work are unlikely to move supporters of President Trump, many of whom resent journalists and cheer his efforts to make their jobs harder. Trump has been involved in court fights against the New York Times, CBS News, ABC News, the Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press in the last year.

Trump supports the new rules

Speaking to reporters at the White House on Tuesday, Trump backed his Defense secretary’s new rules. “I think he finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace,” Trump said. “The press is very dishonest.”

Even before issuing his new press policy, Hegseth, a former Fox News Channel host, has systematically choked off the flow of information. He has held only two formal press briefings, banned reporters from accessing many parts of the sprawling Pentagon without an escort and and launched investigations into leaks to the media.

He has called his new rules “common sense” and said the requirement that journalists sign a document outlining the rules means they acknowledge the new rules, not necessarily agree to them. Journalists see that as a distinction without a difference.

“What they’re really doing, they want to spoon-feed information to the journalist, and that would be their story. That’s not journalism,” said Jack Keane, a retired Army general and Fox News analyst, said on Hegseth’s former network.

When he served, Keane said he required new brigadier generals to take a class on the role of the media in a democracy so they wouldn’t be intimidated and also see reporters as a conduit to the American public. “There were times when stories were done that made me flinch a little bit,” he said. “But that’s usually because we had done something that wasn’t as good as we should have done it.”

Youssef said it made no sense to sign on to rules that said reporters should not solicit military officials for information. “To agree to not solicit information is to agree to not be a journalist,” she said. “Our whole goal is soliciting information.”

Reporting on U.S. military affairs will continue — from a greater distance

Several reporters posted on social media when they turned in their press badges.

“It’s such a tiny thing, but I was really proud to see my picture up on the wall of Pentagon correspondents,” wrote Heather Mongillo, a reporter for USNI News, which covers the Navy. “Today, I’ll hand in my badge. The reporting will continue.”

Mongillo, Youssef and others emphasized that they’ll continue to do their jobs no matter where their desks are. Some sources will continue to speak with them, although they say some in the military have been chilled by threats from Pentagon leadership.

In an essay, NPR reporter Tom Bowman noted the many times he’d been tipped off by people he knew from the Pentagon and while embedded in the military about what was happening, even if it contradicted official lines put out by leadership. Many understand the media’s role.

“They knew the American public deserved to know what’s going on,” Bowman wrote. “With no reporters able to ask questions, it seems the Pentagon leadership will continue to rely on slick social media posts, carefully orchestrated short videos and interviews with partisan commentators and podcasters. No one should think that’s good enough.”

The Pentagon Press Assn., which has 101 members representing 56 news outlets, has spoken out against the rules. Organizations from across the media spectrum, from legacy organizations like the Associated Press and the New York Times to conservative outlets like Fox and Newsmax, told their reporters to leave instead of signing the new rules.

Only the conservative One America News Network signed on. Its management probably believes it will have greater access to Trump administration officials by showing its support, Gabrielle Cuccia, a former Pentagon reporter who was fired by OANN earlier this year for writing an online column criticizing Hegseth’s media policies, told the AP in an interview.

Bauder writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Laurie Kellman in London contributed to this report.

Local authorities in holiday hotspot Albufeira, Portugal, have warned that the new rules will be “enforced strictly” and that the code of conduct will be in place year-round

Tourists now face fines for misplacing shopping trolleys in a popular European destination keen to crack down on bad behaviour.

British travellers visiting Portugal this year risk fines of over £1,570 for breaking new public rules in the popular holiday destination of Albufeira. The fines range from a minimum of €150 to €1800 (£130-£1570) for ignoring tightened restrictions, which include misplacing shopping trolleys, lighting barbecues on the beach, and creating excessive noise.

Local authorities have warned that the rules will be “enforced strictly” and that the code of conduct will be in place year-round.

Over the years, Albufeira has become one of the most popular tourist destinations in Portugal. With its stunning coastline, buzzing nightlife, and holiday appeal, it is easy to see why it attracts hundreds of thousands of visitors every year. But that popularity has come with some cost.

READ MORE: Hotels and airports overwhelmed as visitors to one country dump their bagsREAD MORE: I rang up the AI travel agent that’s so good people have asked it out on dates

A small number of visitors are engaging in disruptive, disrespectful or even dangerous behaviour. This has had an outsized impact on the town’s quality of life, particularly in peak season. From rowdy public drunkenness to inappropriate conduct in public spaces, these incidents have prompted concern from residents, visitors, business owners, and local authorities.

Following a year of work, the local authorities have unveiled a new code of conduct. It was put together through consultation with police, businesses and civil society organisations.

Signs have been placed across the city centre area to remind tourists and locals alike of the new rules. Authorities say the crackdown follows several high-profile incidents of disruptive behaviour last year, including viral videos of British tourists engaging in indecent acts on the main party strip.

Fines being introduced in Albufeira include:

• Wearing swimwear outside of authorised areas – €300 to €1,500 (£260–£1,300)
• Street drinking, urination or defecation in public – €300 to €1,500
• Public nudity or sexual acts in public – €500 to €1,800 (£435–£1,570)
• Sleeping in public or unauthorised camping – €150 to €750 (£130–£650)
• Spitting in public – €150 to €750 (£130–£660)
• Abandoning shopping trolleys/carts – €150 to €750

“With a €144 million investment in projects across the municipality over the last four years, Portugal is pushing to protect locals and keep its reputation as a family friendly destination.” an expert at One Sure Insurance explains.

“We are seeing fines introduced across Europe which could lead to tourists being caught out. Portugal is looking to introduce some steep fines, so we are asking British travellers to consider these new rules when on holiday to avoid unexpected costs to their trip.”

If you’re concerned about accidentally breaking one of the rules, you can speak to tourist information offices, hotel staff, your country’s consulate or local police for more details. In emergencies, dial 112.

A HISTORIC village made famous by Bridget Jones has been locked in a bitter row over strict planning rules.

Locals in Snowshill, Gloucestershire, which appeared in the 2001 film, ‘Bridget Jones’s Diary’, have been left divided over the rules.

5

5

5

The Cotswold village appeared in the much-loved classic as the home of Bridget’s parents, played by Jim Broadbent and Gemma Jones, and it is often called “the jewel of the Cotswolds”.

But now, planning rules mean real-life residents must seek permission if they want to paint their front door a new colour, erect a gate or lay a patio.

Tewkesbury Borough Council has put Snowshill under an Article 4 Direction.

The change has been made by the council to preserve the picturesque village’s “exceptional historic character”.

As a result, any work or alterations to the buildings will have to be cleared by the authority.

Alterations include, putting in a patio, changing the colour of an outside wall, installing roof lights or replacing exterior windows and doors.

But the new rules have left residents who call the picturesque village home divided.

Some supporters reckon the rules will stop the slow creep of white plastic windows and modern black doors from ruining the honey-stone cottages and old leaded windows that bring in coachloads of selfie-snapping tourists.

But others reckon it’s all got a bit too much and claim a small group are using the red tape to control what others do with their homes.

Meanwhile, concerns were raised the measures could place “undue burdens on property owners” carrying out routine maintenance.

One newer resident, who asked not to be named, told The Times that the new rules are “way too strict”.

They claimed they have had several spats with neighbours while fixing up their crumbling cottage over the past ten years.

The resident told the outlet: “It’s just a small group pushing for this, but they’re the ones being heard.

“Our house was falling apart when we bought it — we’ve poured our heart, soul and savings into making it liveable.

“Now if we want to put up a simple fence or a greenhouse, it feels like climbing Everest. We love it here, but it really does make you think twice.”

But other residents had an opposing point of view.

Long-time resident Sheila Wilkes told The Times: “Everybody wants to build bigger these days — all the little country cottages are being replaced with flashy big houses.

“I’ve lived here forever and I hate change — the houses are beautiful as they are. They don’t need tarting up.”

And Grant Brooker, 64, a retired architect who is restoring a 17th-century house, said the rules would stop people using cheaper materials which devalue properties and damage the character of the village.

Snowshill, part of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, is known for its historic buildings.

According to the council, the “majority” of buildings in the village are not listed and are “at risk” from changes that could have a “significantly harmful effect”.

Councillor Sarah Hands, from Tewkesbury Borough Council, said: “If you want to paint your door in the same or a similar colour – no one’s stopping you from doing that – [but] a different colour, would have to be put in as a planning application.”

Ms Hands added: “Changing a window here, changing a door there – you think it isn’t making much difference.

“But accumulatively over the village, if everyone started making these changes, those things that make it a beautiful, unique, preserved village would start to chip away.”

It comes after residents in another village said strict rules mean they all have to paint their doors the same colour.

5

5

TWO BIG Brother stars seemingly broke the rules in an unaired live stream moment.

A television news and fan account on X has revealed that two of the housemates broke Big Brother‘s rules by using code names to talk about who they wanted booted out next.

3

3

One of the biggest rules in the Big Brother house is talking about nominations.

In a livestream which aired this weekend, Sam and Nancy were the two housemates to break the rules.

Using code names, the pair said that one of their fellow co-stars was “fake” while using a code name to describe her.

The TV news and fan account said on X: “So I’m just catching up on what’s gone down on the first hour of live streaming…

“Sam and Nancy broke the rules using code names, and they said they want Jenny evicted next, and that she’s fake – all of which Big Brother read back to the house.

“Jenny has then been left ‘so angry’ that she cried, and that she knew she’d get nominated if the house is split in two or something.

“Also Tate was involved in a convo with Nancy slagging off Jenny and Nancy got caught lying about it literally on the live stream????

“And to top it off, Elsa is jealous that Jenny confided in Marcus about it all.”

Fans reacted to the revelation, with one saying: “First and only time I want Jenny to face eviction. She would be iconic in the secret room.”

Another added: “Jenny is a threat, that’s my only explanation for the Jenny slander.”

While a third said: “I don’t understand why contestants break the rules. The rules were explained to them. If they’ve seen past seasons they know housemates get in trouble for rule breaking.”

And a fourth penned: “Ew nancy is so bitter, why is she being like this ??”

This comes after three housemates – Richard, Elsa and Cameron B – faced possible elimination in Friday’s episode.

Cameron B ultimately became the third housemate to be evicted this series.

The 25-year-old from Bolton entered the House on Day Two, alongside three other newcomers.

Axed star George Gilbert, 23, had also been on the chopping block before his shock exit.

The Sun revealed how the parish councillor was removed after ‘unacceptable language and behaviour’.

Sources told The Sun that George left his co-stars horrified after making offensive comments which could be interpreted as antisemitic and was immediately called to the Diary Room and ejected from the house. 

“Everyone was absolutely disgusted,” an insider said.

“Nobody could believe what he said – he was clearly out to shock people.”

3