rules

POWER banks are an essential when it comes to travel – but there are strict rules in place for them.

Most know the main ones – like it cannot be used inflight – but here’s one some of you might not know about which could see it taken off you before boarding.

Most airlines allow power banks up to 100Wh without special approval onboard.

But anything over that, without the say-so from the airline, and they could be confiscated for being too big and some countries being particularly strict.

The Wh – which translates to watt-hours – should be printed on the label of your power bank and if travelling on most planes it needs to be under 100Wh or less.

In places like China and Japan, some passengers have had their large power banks taken off them.

ALL IN

UK holiday parks where you can go ALL INCLUSIVE from £25pp with shows & waterparks

RETRO RATES

Our fave childhood holidays that have stayed ridiculously CHEAP – from £9.50pp

Someone on Reddit explained: “Accidentally brought a power bank that was larger than 100 watt-hour on my international trip.

“It passed US TSA as under 100, clocked 106 and 136 watt-hour in two airports in China and refused on board as over 180Wh at Guangzhou International Airport.”

Rules are strict in Japan too with Japan Airlines currently allowing two power banks with 160Wh or less in hand luggage – but that is going down to 100Wh from January 2027.

A lot have warned that the label with the Wh must be clear or risk it being taken off you as well.

Someone else said: “It is the label that matters and if you have old ones that is too faint, it is almost foregone conclusion that it will be taken.

“Friends encountered in Korea and China recently where their older power banks were taken as it wasn’t clear enough.”

For those travelling to China, there is another requirement and this is that all power banks must be marked clearly with the mark ‘CCC’.

The 3C mark is a China Compulsory Certification and the power banks must also be 100Wh or under for all flights.

Any power banks over 160Wh require airline approval – and anything over that is banned.

Most airlines will also only allow one power bank onboard – but check prior to flying as some do allow two.

Power banks must be stored in hand luggage during a flight but not used while in the air as the lithium battery inside is a fire risk – and storing them in the wrong way can cause huge disruption.

In May of this year, an easyJet flight travelling from Egypt to the UK was forced to divert to Rome after a passenger revealed they had left a phone connected and charging via a power bank in their checked luggage

In July last year, a power bank caught fire on a Bangkok Airways flight from Samui to Hong Kong.

WASHINGTON — A federal judge has ruled that a plan by the Trump administration to slash staffing at the federal agency tasked with responding to disasters by 50% was unlawful.

The opinion issued late Friday marked a victory for labor groups who had sued the agency. The labor organizations had argued that plans by the Department of Homeland Security, which was then led by Secretary Kristi Noem, violated congressional protections that were designed to safeguard the independence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The issue of the FEMA staffing was part of a much larger lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor groups, contesting efforts by the Trump administration to slash the federal workforce.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in her opinion that top Homeland Security officials late last year directed FEMA’s leadership to submit a staffing plan that included a 50% staffing cut even though the agency’s own supervisors objected.

“Frankly, the FEMA staffing plan number appears as if pulled from thin air,” wrote Illston.

FEMA responded in a statement late Saturday saying that while it does not comment on personnel matters and ongoing litigation, “DHS and FEMA are ready for the 2026 hurricane season.”

“We’re ensuring workforce stability and a strong, deployable force for upcoming national events and potential disasters; making the agency leaner, faster and laser-focused on supporting state, local, tribal and territorial partners before, during and after disasters,” the statement said. “FEMA continues to maintain a roster of experienced leadership and support staff across headquarters and regional offices.”

The Department of Homeland Security did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

In the opinion, Illston wrote that it was clear that the government violated rules established after 2005’s Hurricane Katrina that put decisions on staffing levels squarely in the hands of FEMA, not the Department of Homeland Security, and that prevented Homeland Security from “substantially” reducing the “functions” of FEMA.

Illston didn’t order a specific remedy to carry out her opinion but directed the two sides to meet and decide on a course of relief.

Although FEMA has experienced terminations, the 50% staffing cuts ultimately were not carried out. In recent months, after top leadership changes at FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, the agency has rehired some staffers who were let go.

FEMA was one of the agencies targeted for staff reductions in the federal government as part of a broad Trump administration plan to reduce the size of government. The embattled agency has been buffeted by mass staff departures, disruptions of grant programs and delays of disaster aid.

In May, a Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council submitted a final report recommending sweeping changes to how the agency supports states, tribes and territories in disaster.

The final version backed away from the recommendation to cut the FEMA workforce by 50%, which was included in a December 2025 draft reviewed by the Associated Press.

The council instead recommended the agency conduct a “strategic review” to determine “appropriate staffing levels.”

In an August report, the Government Accountability Office said it found that the departures of thousands of staff in 2025 resulted in a “loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel” and “exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges.”

More than 4,300 employees, or about 17% of FEMA’s workforce, separated from the agency in the 2025 budget year, with over 1,500 through voluntary reductions. The agency also made about 2,900 new hires.

The GAO recently recommended to Congress that it “consider requiring” FEMA to base “significant workforce decisions” on a more strategic planning process.

Without it, the GAO found, “FEMA cannot be assured that the agency is positioned to effectively meet its mission needs.”

Santana writes for the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON: A federal judge has ruled that a plan by the Trump administration to slash staffing at the federal agency tasked with responding to disasters by 50% was unlawful.

The opinion issued late Friday marked a victory for labor groups who had sued the agency. The labor organization had argued that plans by the Department of Homeland Security violated congressional protections that were designed to safeguard the independence of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The issue of the FEMA staffing was part of a much larger lawsuit filed by the American Federation of Government Employees and other labor groups, pushing back on efforts by the Trump administration to slash the federal workforce.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston wrote in her opinion that top Homeland Security officials late last year directed FEMA’s leadership to submit a staffing plan that included a 50% staffing cut even though the agency’s own supervisors objected.

“Frankly, the FEMA staffing plan number appears as if pulled from thin air,” wrote Illston.

The Department of Homeland Security and FEMA did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Illston wrote that it was clear that the government violated rules established after 2005’s Hurricane Katrina that put decisions on staffing levels squarely in the hands of FEMA, not the Department of Homeland Security and that prevented DHS from “substantially” reducing the “functions” of FEMA.

Illston didn’t order a specific remedy to carry out her opinion but directed the two sides to meet and decide on a course of relief.

Although FEMA has experienced terminations, the 50% staffing cuts ultimately were not carried out. In recent months, after top leadership changes at FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security, the agency has rehired some staffers who were let go.

FEMA was one of the agencies targeted in the federal government for staff reductions as part of a broad Trump administration plan to reduce the size of government. The embattled agency has been buffeted by mass staff departures, disruptions of grant programs, and delays of disaster aid.

In May, a Trump-appointed FEMA Review Council submitted a final report recommending sweeping changes to how the agency supports states, tribes and territories in disaster.

The final version backed away from the recommendation to cut the FEMA workforce by 50%, which was included in a December 2025 draft reviewed by The Associated Press.

The council instead recommended the agency conduct a “strategic review” to determine “appropriate staffing levels.”

In an August report, the Government Accountability Office said it found the departures of thousands of staff in 2025 resulted in a “loss of institutional knowledge and experienced personnel” and “exacerbated longstanding workforce challenges.”

More than 4,300 employees, or about 17% of FEMA’s workforce, separated from the agency in the 2025 budget year, with over 1,500 through voluntary reductions. The agency also made about 2,900 new hires.

The GAO recently recommended to Congress that it “consider requiring” FEMA to base “significant workforce decisions” on a more strategic planning process.

Without it, the GAO found, “FEMA cannot be assured that the agency is positioned to effectively meet its mission needs.”

MADRID: Charles Leclerc and Ferrari teammate Lewis Hamilton said they had cleared the air face-to-face after a clash at last weekend’s Italian Grand Prix but there were still no written rules of engagement between the pair.

Seven-times Formula One world champion Hamilton had called for written rules after being forced off onto the gravel by Leclerc on the opening lap and dropping from fourth to 10th.

The Briton eventually finished sixth while Leclerc crashed out. Asked at the Spanish Grand Prix on Thursday whether ‌anything had been ‌put in writing, Hamilton replied, “There was not.

“I’m sure ‌at some stage we’ll discuss how we can be better but we’ve not had a lot of time to turn around. You can’t change things in two days.”

Hamilton said there had been no shying away between the two drivers when they came to discuss what had happened.

“We sat face to face, just him and I, and talked about it,” he said. “We were just both open and honest and we squashed it. And ‌we can move on… I think ‌it’s healthy. It’s a relationship we have built over time.”

“Of course there’s going ‌to be frustrations… I’m sure there will be more times (where) we ‌are close (on track) because we are very close on pace. We both want to win just as much as each other and we both want to do well for the team as well.”

Ferrari are second in the championship ‌after 13 rounds, 122 points behind Mercedes. Hamilton is third overall, 76 points behind Mercedes’ leader Kimi Antonelli.

Leclerc told reporters he had reviewed footage after the race and recognised he had gone too far.

“I said it to Lewis and I think it’s very clear what we should do or should avoid going forward but I won’t go into much more details of what we’ve said,” added the Monegasque.

“The only thing I can say is it definitely did not affect the good relationship that we have and it will not affect anything going forward and that is the most important for me really.”

Leclerc said his crash at Monza at the end of the second lap had felt like a big one and he had suffered a tight neck for a couple of days after but was now fine.

Court also acquits Dow Jones on the charge of dismissal over Selina Cheng’s leadership role with the Hong Kong Journalists Association.

A Hong Kong court has convicted Dow Jones for trying to deter a journalist from taking a union role, but also acquitted the publisher on the charge of dismissal over the role, in a case that raised concerns about media freedom in the city.

Selina Cheng, who was fired by the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) in July 2024, had accused the newspaper’s publisher Dow Jones of unlawfully terminating her employment over her role chairing the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA) and of trying to prevent her from standing for a union position.

The court found the company guilty on Thursday of trying to prevent Cheng’s right to run for the union chairmanship.

However, the judge sided with Dow Jones’ argument that she was made redundant because of corporate restructuring, and not due to her role as HKJA chair.

The right to take part in a trade union is protected by Hong Kong’s labour laws. An employer found guilty on “prevent or deter” charges could be fined up to 100,000 Hong Kong dollars ($12,755).

“If reporters’ employment rights are not sufficiently safeguarded, or when their rights are violated and not enforced in law, then we can no longer work safely as reporters,” Cheng told reporters outside the court after the ruling.

The judge said the company’s requirement that Cheng seek prior permission to take a union role was an “unjustified deterrent” of her rights.

Dow Jones said it disagreed with the ruling and was evaluating next steps.

“The Wall Street Journal has a long and proud history as an employer in Hong Kong. Throughout that time, we have remained deeply respectful of its labour laws and supportive of our employees’ rights, while publishing excellent, impartial journalism about the region,” a spokesperson said.

Sentencing is expected to be handed down at a later date.

Cheng launched a private prosecution last year for illegal termination, after filing a complaint with the Labour Department that did not result in a prosecution.

Founded in 1968, the HKJA is Hong Kong’s longest-established journalists’ organisation and one of the last remaining groups advocating for media rights in the city.

Although Hong Kong was once known for its independent news outlets, media freedom has come under strain and many outlets have disbanded since Beijing imposed a 2020 national security law following sometimes violent pro-democracy protests, according to international rankings and HKJA surveys.

California and nearly two dozen other states warned the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday that allowing the U.S. Postal Service to move forward with President Trump’s new rules for mail ballots in the November election would cause “chaos” and could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters.

“In some States … compliance with USPS’ rule would be impossible ahead of the midterms, meaning that millions of voters would be unable to vote by mail and some would not be able to vote at all,” the states argued. “In the remaining States, there would be chaos — and a significant risk that millions more voters would be denied the ability to vote.”

The Democrat-led coalition — which includes California, 23 other states and the District of Columbia — also cited objections from lower-ranking state and elections officials in conservative states that have not objected to the Postal Service’s position, including the lieutenant governor and other officials in Utah saying implementation of the new rules would “be an unmitigated disaster.”

Similar warnings have emanated from Florida, Ohio, Texas and Wisconsin.

“Whatever else may be said of USPS’ new rule, it would wreak havoc on States and their voters if it takes effect at this late point,” the Democrat-led states wrote, pointing out that some States, including North Carolina and Wisconsin, have already begun to mail out ballots.

The states’ arguments were in response to the Trump administration over the weekend filing an emergency appeal to the high court, asking it to overturn a lower-court ruling halting the plan from being implemented for the Nov. 3 election.

The new rules — developed in response to a March executive order from Trump — require states to submit their complete voter lists to the Postal Service, and to adopt new ballot envelopes with individualized voter bar codes designed by the Postal Service. They require the Postal Service to then reject any mail ballots that don’t match those lists.

Trump’s order also directed the Department of Homeland Security to develop its own list of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to be compared against the state lists.

Trump and other supporters of the changes — including top officials from a dozen Republican-led states — argue they are necessary to prevent widespread voter fraud, including by non-citizens. Elections experts say there is no evidence of such widespread fraud, despite robust audits and other searches for it.

The Democrat-led states sued to block the changes on multiple grounds, including that neither Trump nor the Postal Service have any authority to regulate state-run elections, that the changes would illegally prevent eligible voters from casting ballots, and that the timeline imposed by the new rule — formally issued by the Postal Service on Aug. 21 — made compliance by November impossible.

Independent voting rights groups also sued, alleging the new rules threatened to disenfranchise voters and make their work educating voters on their options for casting a ballot impossible to carry out.

A Postal Service whistleblower recently added skepticism to the agency’s ability to implement the new rules on its end, alleging in a statement published by congressional Democrats that the agency’s online portal for verifying ballots was built in a “slapdash” manner, is “fundamentally flawed” and threatens as built to reject thousands of ballots if just a single one cannot be properly read.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani granted requests from the states and the independent groups to halt the plans from being implemented nationwide, issuing a preliminary injunction requiring the Postal Service to cease all work on them.

The Trump administration then bypassed the U.S. 1st Circuit Court of Appeals to ask the Supreme Court for relief from Talwani’s order.

Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer, the administration’s top litigator, argued that the warnings from states that the changes are unworkable, represent an overreach of federal authority or would cause chaos in November are all baseless.

“The Rule ensures that States remain responsible for determining voter eligibility and eligibility to vote by mail, and it does not dictate ballot content, mailing or receipt deadlines, or ballot-counting procedures,” Sauer wrote. “The Rule thus plainly does not seize control of States’ administration of elections — it simply imposes reasonable preparation requirements for certain election-related mail.”

Sauer argued that if the court does not allow the changes to proceed, it would cause “serious irreparable harm on the federal government, the States themselves, and the voting public” by “nullifying the Postal Service’s efforts to address the risk that the federal mails will be used to perpetrate voter fraud.”

Experts have consistently rejected those claims — including in their own filings before the high court.

Rick Hasen, director of the Safeguarding Democracy Project at UCLA Law, joined three other election experts to argue to the lower court that the Trump administration’s claims of injury were “speculative and weak.” They noted that the administration had “offered no evidence” in court that the new rules would “stop any appreciable amount of voter fraud or even that voter fraud through the mails is a widespread problem that USPS should address.”

Meanwhile, they wrote, there was “undisputed evidence” presented to the lower court that the Postal Service is “still not prepared to implement its new rule or do so accurately and efficiently, even as states have begun mailing out their ballots,” and that the “harm to the states and to voters is enormous, as the rule threatens to disenfranchise millions of elderly voters, disabled voters, military voters and all others including the most vulnerable who depend on mail voting, in both red and blue states.”

The Democrat-led states also noted that the Trump administration hadn’t proven that widespread voter fraud is a legitimate threat, but had shown it is ill prepared itself to implement the changes without causing widespread disruption — as evidenced in part by the whistleblower’s claims.

It’s unclear when the Supreme Court will rule, though a relatively quick decision is expected given the emergency nature of the appeal.

LONDON: British police said Wednesday that they have opened a criminal investigation into allegations that anti-immigration party Reform UK broke rules barring foreign donations.

Last week, Channel 4 broadcast an undercover investigation in which two senior Reform UK officials appeared to discuss ways money from an American financier could be channeled through his U.K.-based son to get around the rules.

U.K. electoral law says parties can only accept donations from British voters or U.K.-registered businesses.

The Metropolitan Police said that after the broadcast, the force “received a number of reports relating to donations and polling involving a political party.

“Detectives have assessed the information provided and determined that there are potential offenses requiring investigation,” it said.

Reform UK said it “denies any wrongdoing and will fully cooperate with the investigation.”

The party suspended Dan Jukes, a longtime adviser to Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, and party policy chief James Orr, after the documentary was aired. But Farage denied that there was any breach of electoral law.

The program showed two men purporting to be a U.S. financier and his U.K.-based son discussing with Jukes, in the presence of Farage, how 500,000 pounds ($675,000) could be donated to the party through the son. The “son” was actually a reporter from investigative group Verbatim, and the “father” an actor.

In separate footage, Orr, a Cambridge University theologian, appeared to discuss getting the U.S. donor to pay for opinion polls commissioned by Reform UK.

In a speech to the party’s conference on Friday, Farage insisted Reform UK hadn’t broken any rules or accepted “dodgy money.” He accused “foreign-funded hard-left activists” of being behind what he called “entrapment.” Verbatim is an offshoot of the Center for Climate Reporting, a nonprofit investigative group that says it’s funded by grants and donations.

Reform UK was facing questions about its funding even before the broadcast. Farage is being investigated by Parliament’s standards watchdog over an undeclared 5 million-pound ($6.7 million) gift he received from a Thailand-based cryptocurrency billionaire in 2024.

Police said Wednesday that the potential offenses raised by the TV program “are similar in nature to matters already under investigation by the Met’s Special Enquiry Team relating to donations made to the same political party. As a result, these matters will form part of that ongoing investigation.”

Founded in 2018 as the Brexit Party to push for a hard break from the European Union, Reform UK has grown rapidly in membership and support since changing its name in 2021 and honing its anti-establishment, anti-immigration message.

Though it holds just eight of the 650 seats in the House of Commons, it has often led opinion polls and was the big winner in local elections in May, a result that helped spur a panicky Labour Party to replace then-leader Keir Starmer with new Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

In July, Farage quit his House of Commons seat in protest of the parliamentary standards investigation, saying he would run for reelection and let voters be his judge. He easily won the August election, which was dismissed as a stunt by his critics and boycotted by all the other main parties.

The regulations are being updated again from September 6

A change in EU border rules comes into force on Sunday, meaning everyone from the UK heading into Europe from today could face longer queues. The European Union has been rolling out a new Entry/Exit System (EES), which sees everyone from the UK entering countries like France, Spain, Greece and Portugal having to wait for a machine to enter biometric data.

That includes having your picture taken, having fingerprints scanned and allowing the machine to take a copy of your passport. The system was launched at the end of last year, but queues were so long – sometimes around four hours – that the machines were switched off at some borders and a new date for full use was set – September 6, 2026.

EES was originally planned to go live in 2022 but has been repeatedly delayed due to technical problems and then to avoid peak travel times. It was officially launched in October 2025 and was supposed to be fully rolled out within six months.

By April this year, there had already been severe queue delays, with passengers missing flights, and Greece temporarily suspended EES – followed by suspensions at multiple other EU borders. Those suspensions are supposed to end today.

Airlines have called for the EU to extend the suspension until the end of this year. And there are reports that not everyone will face EES, with France reportedly suffering technical problems that could see it out of use this week.

The fingerprinting kiosks at Port of Dover and London St Pancras are not currently working. A Eurotunnel spokesperson told The Guardian it is “awaiting confirmation from the French authorities on the timing of this next phase”.

A source told The Guardian some countries, including Greece, may continue to use manual checks rather than the automated system despite the September 6 deadline.

Airlines trade body Iata last week called for an official extension, saying there are still delays and still reports of missed flights.

A European Commission spokesperson said: “We are in close and constructive contact with those few member states where some adjustments are needed at certain border crossing points. And during an additional period of operational adjustment that is needed at these few operational border crossing points, the commission stands ready to provide additional support to these member states.”

BRITS jetting off to countries including Spain and France should be aware of new entry rules which are set to be rolled out in full in just a matter of days.

The EU’s new Entry/Exit System (EES), which is an automated border check for non-EU nationals, comes into full force on September 7.

It involves people from third-party countries such as the UK having their fingerprints registered and photograph taken to enter the Schengen Area, which consists of 29 European countries, mainly in the EU.

This system first launched back in April, and was linked to lengthy queues and in some cases passengers missed their flights.

As it stands, EU member states are able to pause the checks in “exceptional circumstances”. This includes when queues get too long.

But come September 7, they will no longer be able to temporarily switch off the system at airports.

BEST BREAK

The holiday destinations where all-inclusive breaks are CHEAPER than B&B

BILLS BOOST

Brits can get money back on bills and restaurant spending with new bank offer 

It means the rules will be fully enforced with no exceptions, raising fears of even longer queues for British holidaymakers.

Popular holiday destinations including Greece, Spain and France have all used flexibility when needed.

Back in July, countries including Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal and Switzerland wrote to Home Affairs Commissioner Magnus Brunner asking to keep the congestion EES opt-out, EuroWeekly News reported.

The countries backed a full roll out, but did not want to face a cliff edge before Christmas.

A decision has not yet been made on the extension, so travellers should prepare to use the EES machines on September 7.

It comes as the new system has caused huge problems for those holidaying abroad this summer.

Some Brits reported waiting for up to six hours in airports and others even missed their flight.

The anti-immigration Reform UK party said two of its senior officials had stepped down on Friday, following allegations that they were secretly filmed appearing to discuss ways to circumvent UK electoral laws on foreign donations.

The far-right party, whose popularity has soared in the past two years, is already embroiled in several other funding scandals involving its leader Nigel Farage. On Friday, it announced an internal probe into the latest case, which was brought to light by a Channel 4 investigation.

Reform is currently holding its annual party conference in Birmingham, central England.

Here’s what we know about the foreign funding claims and how they could affect British politics.

What did the Channel 4 investigation show?

Channel 4, an independent broadcaster, aired footage of senior Reform officials Dan Jukes and James Orr meeting with undercover reporters who were posing as prospective Reform backers from the United States.

In one instance during the programme, which was broadcast on Thursday night, footage was shown of Jukes appearing to talk about a proposal for Reform to receive a 500,000-pound ($675,000) donation from one of the men, who was presenting himself as an American financier, through his son, who he said lives in the UK.

The “son” was actually another journalist from investigative group Verbatim, which recorded the exchange.

In separate footage, Orr appeared to discuss a plan for the US donor to fund opinion polls for Reform UK rather than donating the money directly.

He told the undercover reporter that “we just don’t have British-resident donors, British entities, that would support us”.

During the investigation, Verbatim reported that Reform officials arranged for the US donor to pay more than 30,000 pounds ($40,500) to fund three opinion polls, without disclosing the source of the funds.

Channel 4 said it had verified the findings from Verbatim, an offshoot of the Centre for Climate Reporting.

What are the UK’s rules against foreign funding for political parties?

Under UK electoral law, political parties may only accept donations from British voters or UK-registered businesses. Donations from individuals or organisations based overseas are strictly forbidden.

In a statement on Friday, a UK Electoral Commission spokesperson said political parties must report all “permissible donations” they accept exceeding 11,180 pounds ($15,120) and all “impermissible donations” exceeding 500 pounds ($676).

“Parties are responsible for ensuring their internal processes and controls are fit for purpose,” the spokesperson said. “Information about any potential attempt to evade the controls on donations is for the police to consider.”

How has Reform responded to the allegations?

Following the programme’s broadcast, Reform initially issued a statement denying any wrongdoing and claiming the allegations were a hoax.

In a later statement, however, the party said it was conducting an internal probe and that Orr and Jukes had stepped down pending its outcome.

Orr, the party’s policy head, said he had agreed to step down temporarily and would “cooperate fully” with the investigation.

Jukes, Farage’s long-term aide, denied any wrongdoing but said he had “stepped back from politics in order to clear my name”.

Farage accused the undercover journalists of “entrapment” and told broadcaster LBC, “they got a couple of our contractors to say things that perhaps should not have been said”.

“And as a result of that, you know, they have been removed this morning. And yeah, you know, I’m not happy about it,” Farage said.

“The party has broken no laws, the party has not taken any dodgy money or anything like that whatsoever,” Farage insisted.

Will Reform face legal consequences?

It remains to be seen. The UK’s ruling Labour Party has written to the police asking them to investigate possible criminal offences.

The Metropolitan Police said it was aware of the allegations in the broadcast and would assess any information provided to them.

This does not amount to the formal launch of an investigation.

Why does this matter?

The latest donation scandal is another blow for Reform, which has seen its place as the UK’s most popular party slip in opinion polls in recent months.

Last year, polling by YouGov suggested that Reform had become the most popular political party, and would likely win a UK general election if one had been held then. At that point, Labour was trailing far behind in the polls – projected to win just 27.3 percent of parliamentary seats, compared with Reform’s 41.7 percent. The former ruling Conservative Party stood at just 7 percent.

But a poll this week by YouGov showed Reform now tied with the UK’s left-wing Labour Party with 23 percent support each. The Conservatives have caught up with 20 percent.

This is not the first funding scandal Reform has grappled with, either. In July, Farage dramatically stepped down as Member of Parliament for Clacton amid allegations, also revealed in the UK media, that convicted fraudster George Cottrell, 32, recruited and paid three staff to work on Farage’s social media before the 2024 general election and has continued to allow Farage to use a five-storey Georgian townhouse he rented near Buckingham Palace.

Farage ultimately re-won his seat in Clacton at a by-election but still faces the prospect of a parliamentary inquiry into undeclared funding of 5 million pounds ($6.7m) from Thailand-based billionaire and crypto investor Christopher Harborne, who paid for Farage’s personal security before he announced his candidacy in the 2024 general election. So far, Farage denies all wrongdoing.

This week, Farage told the BBC that the parliamentary inquiry was unfair. He said there was a “wilful attempt, and it’s gone on now for months, to say that everything to do with Reform, that every individual involved with Reform is somehow a crook”.

This is evidence of “the establishment in a very coordinated way fighting back”, he claimed.

However, Justin Fisher, professor of political science at Brunel University of London, told Al Jazeera Reform’s latest donation scandal would further hurt Farage’s standing both within and outside his party, and could cost Reform votes in the next elections.

“If this was an isolated incident, then Reform would probably be able to brush it off,” said Fisher. “But it comes on top of serious questions about a donation to Nigel Farage, and a donation to Reform which allegedly had overseas links. This all contributes to a narrative which Reform is having great difficulty avoiding.”

OVER one million tourists visit Thailand every year – especially in the autumn, winter thanks to its sunny climate.

But for anyone heading there soon, there’s bad news as the amount of time you can stay is being slashed in half.

Since July 2024, the country allowed tourists from 93 countries – including the UK – to stay in the country for 60 days without a visa.

But in a matter of weeks, the allowance is being cut in half.

Starting September 15, 2026, nationals of 60 countries and territories, including the UK will be allowed to stay visa-free for up to 30 days. 

According to officials, the list was revised to “reflect current circumstances, taking into account national security and economic considerations as well as the promotion of tourism”.

ALL IN

UK holiday parks where you can go ALL INCLUSIVE from £25pp with shows & waterparks

RETRO RATES

Our fave childhood holidays that have stayed ridiculously CHEAP – from £9.50pp

Tourists can visit still visit 30 days visa-free for tourism, business engagements, and urgent or ad-hoc work.

Advice on the GOV.UK has a warning for anyone who stays in Thailand longer than the given period – or if you stay without a visa.

It reads: “If you overstay the period of your visa, you will get a fine of 500 Thai baht a day up to a maximum of 20,000 baht. You risk being:

• held in detention
• deported at your own expense
• banned from re-entering Thailand for up to 10 years

“Conditions in detention centres can be harsh.”

Other entry requirements are that your passport has an expiry of at least six months after the date you arrive and have at least one blank page for stamping.

Travellers also need to complete a digital card at least three days before arrival.

MORE travel chaos could be on the horizon for Brits as a change to the new Entry/Exit System (EES) is being introduced in a matter of days.

EES has already resulted in huge delays at airports, missed flights and these could get worse in a few weeks’ time.

Currently, EU member states are allowed to pause EES checks in “exceptional circumstances”, which includes when queues get too long.

But from September 7, EU states will no longer be able to temporarily switch off the system at their airports.

Over the summer when the number of holidaymakers increased, countries were able to switch the system off for up to six hours.

With an influx of passengers, some countries that made use of this over the summer included France, Portugal and Greece.

RETRO RATES

Our fave childhood holidays that have stayed ridiculously CHEAP – from £9.50pp

CHECK IN

Sunny European city breaks cheaper than a night out… £14 flights & £3 JUGS of wine

At some airports, the machines had to be shut down and turned on again when they get overwhelmed, just to get them to work.

Air France-KLM told Politico: “When lines form during the busy summer  months, the system is shut off to ensure smooth transit at our hubs in Paris and Amsterdam.”

However, from September 7, EES will be fully enforced with no exceptions.

EES was first introduced in April and requires Brits to register biometrics upon any first entry to a Schengen country.

However, this registration process has been causing long queues and delays at border control across European airports.

Some Brits reported waiting for up to six hours in airports and others even missed their flight.

There have been some other issues as well including one woman who is an identical twin and faced a problem when she was mistaken for her sister.

And older passengers have faced a problem with ‘faded fingerprints’.

Aug. 31 (UPI) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that President Donald Trump‘s massive, $400 million White House ballroom project can continue — over dissent from Chief Justice John Roberts and three other justices.

In the 5-4 ruling, the high court said the National Trust for Historical Preservation likely lacks the legal right to challenge the project and that national security reasons favor its continuation. This could give the Trump administration time to finish the project as lawsuits over it continue.

The court did not say if the project was legal. In a dissent, Roberts said that it likely is not, as the project was not approved by Congress.

“The White House is not just any building,” he wrote. “In failing to appreciate as much, the court misconceives the plaintiff’s injury, allowing the executive’s likely infringement of the legislature’s power of the purse and authority to regulate federal property in the District of Columbia to continue.”

Roberts called Monday’s decision “no victory for the separation of powers.”

The decision replaces a temporary court order from earlier August that allowed construction to continue.

Federal courts said earlier that the ballroom project needed to halt because it had not been approved by Congress. Administration lawyers had argued that Trump has total authority to renovate federal buildings and that the ballroom and connected security features are necessary.

The nearly 90,000-square-foot ballroom will be located on the former site of the East Wing, which Trump ordered demolished. The president initially said that it would be paid for by private donations, but The Washington Post has reported that the project (which it estimated will cost$600 million) will include $300 million in tax dollars.

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court has cleared the way for President Trump to finish building his new White House ballroom with mostly private money and without approval from Congress.

By a 5-4 vote. the justices granted an emergency appeal from Trump and his lawyers on Monday and set aside a judge’s order that would stop the construction.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, along with the court’s three liberals.

The outcome turned on standing.

The conservative majoritysaid the National Trust for Historic Preservation and its members were not personally injured by the White House ballroom project and therefore, did not have to standing to sue Trump or the National Park Service.

They also said Trump and his appointees had stressed the new ballroom was needed for national security and said the lower courts judges should not have interfered.

The decision in effect gives a green light to Trump’s go-it-alone approach which is in keeping with his history as a hotel builder. He believed the White House needed a grand ballroom that could seat hundreds of dignitaries. And he ordered the East Wing torn down in October to make room of his larger ballroom.

He also said most of the project would be paid for by $400 million in private donations.

But the Constitution gave Congress the power to manage property belonging to the United States. A 1912 law says new buildings “shall not erected…on public grounds within the District of Columbia without express authority of Congress.”

Trump chose to ignore the law and did not seek approval from Congress which is led by Republicans.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation sued in December, contending Trump was a “temporary tenant, not the owner” of the White House.

U.S. District Judge Richard Leon ruled Trump had no authority to build a new ballroom on the White House grounds without the approval of Congress, and he ordered a halt to the above-ground construction.

The D.C. Circuit Court affirmed his decision by a 2-1 vote.
“Congress has not ceded unfettered authority to the Executive Branch to dramatically redesign, reshape, and reconstruct the White House—the People’s House—to fit a particular President’s desires,” wrote Judge Patricia Millett for the appeals court.

Trump’s lawyers sent a fast-track appeal to the Supreme Court on Aug. 14.

The court’s majority allowed Trump to fend off the legal challenge by concluding the historic preservationists could not show they were harmed by a huge new ballroom that may dwarf the historic Executive Mansion.

Aug. 29 (UPI) — A federal judge in California on Friday ruled that the Trump administration violated the Constitution’s First and Fifth Amendments when it sought to deport international students critical of Israel.

Judge Noël Wise, of the Northern District of California, sided with student journalists at the Stanford Daily, which sued because some of its noncitizen writers had been afraid of deportation for expressing opinions critical of the administration’s policies.

“Foundational to America’s enduring democracy are our freedoms of speech and the press embodied in the First Amendment,” Wise wrote in a 90-page ruling. “In the United States, free speech, including the freedom to criticize the government and its leaders, is not a sign of our democracy’s fragility. It is evidence of its strength.”

Wise ruled that it was unconstitutional for State Secretary Marco Rubio to use immigration law to deport students for their opinions.

Last year, Rubio sought the deportations of several student activists in the pro-Palestininan movement, including Columbia University’s Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts University’s Rümeysa Öztürk.

Fearing similar repression, the Stanford Daily sued to stop the government from revoking the visas of other students with views critical of Israel’s war in Gaza.

Wise said the strength of the Constitution “is diminished when members of our society — citizens and noncitizens alike — must self-censor and ‘behave’ or suffer the government’s retaliation.”

“In March 2025, that retaliation was directed at those engaged in pro-Palestine and anti-Israel speech,” the judge continued. “In September 2025, caught in the government’s net were people critical of Charlie Kirk.

“In May 2026, it potentially included ‘weighing in on a peace deal that’s being negotiated’ in Iran regarding the Strait of Hormuz. Tomorrow, or perhaps even today, targets may include anyone in the United States who exercises their freedom of speech to simply express opinions the government does not like.”

Attorney Conor Fitzpatrick, whose Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued the government on behalf of the students, said, “Today’s ruling proves that free speech isn’t a privilege, but the inalienable right of every man, woman, and child.”

“In America, free speech doesn’t just belong to the people who say things the government agrees with,” the attorney added in a statement.

RULES are set to change for any Brits heading to Ireland via ferry from next month.

Passengers will be required to carry a valid passport with no exceptions – or risk being stopped before boarding for the first time in over 100 years.

The change will be enforced from September 28 and is UK Border Force tightening rules on “accuracy and integrity of passenger data before boarding”.

Currently, passengers are not required to show a passport but can be asked to have another form of photo ID with a photograph like a driving licence or a bus pass.

Ferry operators Stena Line and Irish Ferries which operate regular crossing told customers yesterday of the changes.

Irish Ferries explained: “This is a change to the current ID accepted and means that from 28 September, no other forms of photo ID will be accepted by Irish Ferries for any passengers, including Irish and UK citizens.

CHECK IN

Sunny European city breaks cheaper than a night out… £14 flights & £3 JUGS of wine

HOL YES

Cheap holiday destinations with 86p beers, £15 flights & £129pp package breaks

“This is to ensure compliance with UK Border Force requirements relating to the accuracy and integrity of passenger data before boarding.”

Irish Ferries operates two routes between Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

These go between Holyhead and Dublin, and Pembroke and Rosslare.

Another ferry enforcing these rules is Stena Line which has crossings between Holyhead and Dublin as well as Fishguard and Rosslare.

Passengers on these crossings must produce a passport on departure and it added that “no other ID is accepted”.

Customers with pre-existing bookings with both ferries will be contacted by customer service prior to their journey.

Previously, passengers didn’t have to carry their passports with them because of what’s known as The Common Travel Area (CTA).

The CTA is a passport-free zone involving the UK, Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands dating back to 1923.

British and Irish citizens don’t legally need a passport to travel between the two destinations.

But carrying passports has since became a requirement by airlines like Ryanair and Aer Lingus for passengers flying between the two destinations.

A Maryland court has ruled against a proposed constitutional amendment that could have paved the way for Democrats to redraw the state’s congressional districts ahead of the 2028 elections.

The ruling Wednesday by a judge in the state’s capital city marks another setback in Democrats’ national attempts to counter a Republican redistricting movement pushed by President Trump ahead of this year’s elections. The judge ruled that the amendment cannot appear on the November ballot, but he paused the effect of that ruling to allow for an appeal to the state Supreme Court.

Democrats already control seven of Maryland’s eight congressional seats. Democratic Gov. Wes Moore called lawmakers into a special session in August with a goal of making it easier to claim that final seat.

An amendment referred to the ballot by lawmakers seeks to sidestep a court ruling that struck down a previous Democratic redistricting plan in 2022. It would declare that a constitutional requirement for districts to be compact and take into account “natural boundaries” applies only to state legislative districts, not congressional ones.

That would allow Democratic state lawmakers to draw congressional districts that cross the Chesapeake Bay, reshaping a district east of the bay that is held by Republican Rep. Andy Harris, chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus.

Anne Arundel County Circuit Court Judge Robert Thompson ruled that lawmakers violated their own deadlines for ballot measures. Earlier this year, lawmakers passed a law signed by Moore that set a July 1 deadline for the secretary of state to certify summaries of all statewide ballot questions to the Maryland State Board of Elections.

The state attorney general’s office argued that deadline didn’t apply to the redistricting amendment because lawmakers wrote their own ballot summary for it, using their constitutional authority. The judge disagreed, instead siding with arguments by the conservative Oversight Project and Republican state lawmakers who sued.

Earlier this year, the Virginia Supreme Court also invalidated a redistricting ballot measure because of procedural violations by state lawmakers. In that case, voters had already approved an amendment in April authorizing mid-decade redistricting when the court ruled that lawmakers last year had waited too long to take an initial step necessary to qualify it for the ballot.

Virginia and Maryland both were seeking to follow the path of California, where voters approved a Democratic-backed amendment authorizing mid-decade redistricting. Democrats hope to gain as many as five congressional seats from California’s redrawn districts, plus an additional seat from new districts in Utah.

But Republicans hope to win as many as 16 additional seats from new U.S. House districts enacted in Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee and Texas.

Redistricting typically happens near the beginning of each decade, after new census data is released. But a mid-decade redistricting battle broke out after Trump urged Republican-led states to redraw congressional districts in hopes that it might help Republicans hold onto a slim House majority in this year’s midterm elections.

Lieb writes for the Associated Press.

California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states sued again Wednesday to block the U.S. Postal Service from implementing new nationwide rules for mail ballots, arguing they usurp state authority over elections at President Trump’s behest, expose voter information unnecessarily and threaten chaos in the rapidly approaching November election.

The Postal Service formally issued a 95-page “final rule” on Friday asserting that it was amending its mailing standards for mail ballots in federal elections to comply with Trump’s March executive order.

Trump demanded the rule changes as part of a broader plan to combat what he alleges — without evidence — is widespread voter fraud in the U.S., including by noncitizens voting through the mail. Election experts say there is zero evidence of such problems existing at scale.

“This mail-in voting rule is an unlawful overreach that shows just how far President Trump will go to control elections, but as I’ve said before, this fight is far from over and we are confident that the facts and the law are on our side,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement.

“Donald Trump does not run elections. States do. And his latest attack on democracy is proof of how weak he has become,” said Gov. Gavin Newsom. “California will continue to lead the way in defending democracy — using every tool at our disposal and every minute in our day. This perilous moment in history demands no less from us.”

The new postal rules require states to submit lists of eligible voters — including their names and addresses — to the Postal Service, and to use new ballot envelopes with digital barcodes that would allow the Postal Service to identify and reject ballots that don’t match those lists.

The rules do not give the Postal Service authority to dictate which voters may appear on state lists. However, the rules do acknowledge that the lists would provide state voter data to federal law enforcement for the first time, and would put those authorities in “a better position to identify any potential issues regarding compliance with federal law that may merit further investigation.”

Trump’s March executive order also required the Department of Homeland Security to use available federal data to compile its own state lists of eligible citizen voters, ostensibly to compare them with the mail voter lists provided by the states to the Postal Service, and identify and pursue any ineligible voters.

Wednesday’s lawsuit follows a Monday decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that found an earlier challenge from the states was premature, in part because it sought court relief to a rule-making process that required nothing of the states and before the Postal Service had moved to implement any changes.

“On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to fully close the door on the President’s attempt to interfere in our election administration. Today, we’re taking legal action to stop this unlawful rule in its tracks and ensure that voters can exercise their constitutional right to vote,” Bonta said.

The White House did not immediately respond Wednesday to a request for comment on the latest lawsuit.

However, it has defended Trump’s executive order as overdue and badly needed to secure U.S. elections, and hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling allowing the rule-making to proceed as “a major win for the security of American elections.”

“These are commonsense measures that protect the security of mail-in ballots and ensure only Americans are electing American leaders,” White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis said.

The high court allowed the Postal Service to move forward with its work to comply with Trump’s order, but explicitly noted that it had reached no conclusions as to the legality of the pending rules.

Trump administration officials have said they are pursuing fraudulent voters, and have warned state election officials that they could face legal consequences personally if they don’t do everything in their power to prevent voter fraud, including by noncitizens.

Critics contend Trump’s executive order was devised as an end run around laws and a slew of recent court rulings blocking the Trump administration’s demands for state voter rolls — which states, including California, have refused to provide.

States have argued the administration’s demands are in bad faith, intended to bolster Trump’s baseless claims that U.S. elections are compromised rather than enhance election security.

In issuing its new rules, the Postal Service rejected a slate of concerns from critics who submitted comments on the proposed rules, including that the changes are being proposed far too close to the November election and will cost states and localities a huge amount of money to comply with.

It also rejected concerns that creating a single nationwide voter database — which has never existed before — will provide a massive new target for foreign adversaries and other bad actors interested in disrupting U.S. elections.

The Postal Service concluded that the cost to the states is outweighed by the benefits of the changes. It said it has sufficient staffing to implement the changes, and is ready to safeguard the database it builds using “multi-layered security controls.”

The lawsuit, brought by 24 state attorneys general and the governor of Pennsylvania, asks for immediate court intervention to halt the Postal Service changes from being implemented while the litigation continues.

“Let’s be clear: the U.S. Constitution gives states the power to regulate elections — not the President and not USPS,” Bonta said. “Ballots are an extension of our voices and we’re asking the court to ensure that every person has the right to make theirs heard.”

Independent voting rights groups have also sued to block the Postal Service rules from being implemented.

Aug. 26 (UPI) — A U.S. district court has blocked Texas from banning drag performances as unconstitutional, ruling that the solution to the problem is for those who find such events offensive to just not attend.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 12 into law in June 2023 to ban “sexually oriented performances” via civil penalties on businesses that host them and criminal penalties on performers.

It has been debated in the courts since, with a court ruling it unconstitutional in 2023 and an appeals court in February allowing it to take effect while sending the case back to the district court for review.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge David Hittner, a Reagan appointee who issued the 2023 ruling, declared Senate Bill 12 an unconstitutional restriction on speech and ordered that the state be permanently enjoined from enforcing it.

“Finally, for those who find such activities as described in this case offensive, the solution is relatively simple … just don’t go,” Hittner said.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for the U.S. Senate with President Donald Trump‘s endorsement, called the ruling in a statement “flawed,” arguing without proof that it will endanger children while being “an affront to Texas values.”

“I will appeal this decision immediately and continue to fight to protect our kids,” he said online.

Meanwhile, civil rights and LGBTQ advocates celebrated the ruling.

“Today’s decision confirms that the legislature’s attempt to ban drag performances was unconstitutional from start to finish,” Brian Klosterboer, senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, which filed the original lawsuit in August 2023, said in a statement.

“This law stifled free expression across our state and made people afraid to engage in or attend drag shows and other performances. But all Texans — no matter our gender or background — are guaranteed the right to free expression.”

Brigitte Bandit, a drag performer and a plaintiff in the case, said the ruling was “a relief.”

“As a lifelong Texan, I’m sick of this state trying to censor art and stoke hatred and violence against drag artists and the LGBTQIA+ community. No one should be punished for performing drag, and I wish lawmakers would take steps to protect kids from real dangers in our state instead of trying to divide and marginalize us.”

The 20-time Grand Slam champion confirmed he’s only going to play in an exhibition match and has no plans to return.

Roger Federer is actually nervous about his tennis.

The man who won five straight US Open championships during the height of his dominance of the sport is set to play again in Arthur Ashe Stadium on Tuesday night for the first time since 2019. And he’s not quite sure how the game that perhaps nobody ever made look more elegant will appear now.

“I haven’t played a singles set in, I don’t know, [Hubert] Hurkacz at Wimbledon maybe, so it’s been five years,” Federer said on Monday, referring to his 2021 quarterfinal loss in his last Grand Slam match.

“I don’t know how it’s going to go tomorrow. So there is a lot of uncertainty but a lot of happiness that I can return to Arthur Ashe, a place where I have had so many beautiful moments.”

It’s only one set of singles in an exhibition against Andy Roddick and one set of doubles with John McEnroe against Roddick and Andre Agassi. The winner of 20 Grand Slam singles titles should be fine for those.

But a return to tennis beyond that, competing in major tennis tournaments in his mid-40s like Venus and Serena Williams?

“No, no, no, no. No, not at all,” Federer said during a news conference.

“Thanks for asking. I wasn’t sure if the question was going to get asked, but I’m happy you did so I can clarify in case anybody thought.”

At 45, Federer still looks fit, and said he enjoys working out in the gym. But he said he goes through long stretches where he is rarely on the court.

His lengthy absence from the US Open has done little to dampen his popularity, based on the number of people around the grounds who were mentioning his name. The appearance of “Roger Federer” up on the big board for all to see again, before his afternoon practice on Ashe, where Federer collected the trophy every year from 2004-08, was a welcome sight for his fans.

The trip to New York is a stop for Federer on his way to Newport, Rhode Island, where he will be enshrined in the International Tennis Hall of Fame on Saturday.

Federer never really had the chance to say goodbye to New York as a player, because there was no way to know his loss to Grigor Dimitrov in the 2019 quarterfinals would be his last match. He had reached the French Open semifinals and the Wimbledon final earlier that year, falling to Rafael Nadal in Paris and then Novak Djokovic in a fifth-set tiebreaker at the All England Club.

‘Knee is tired’

It was easy to imagine him returning to the US Open the next year and making another deep run. But after falling to Djokovic in the semifinals of the Australian Open to begin 2020, he had knee surgery that February, then another procedure in May.

He returned to play in the French Open in 2021 but had to withdraw before his fourth-round match. After the loss to Hurkacz – where he appeared to struggle and lost 6-0 in the third set – Federer had another knee surgery that August and knew there would be no more comebacks.

“The knee can’t do it any more. It’s tired,” he recalled thinking. “The mind can’t be patient even more and wait for another couple years and see what happens.”

Federer knows Tuesday night won’t be real tennis, joking that he and Roddick hopefully would be respectful and not try to drop shot each other. But it will be different from when he did return to Ashe a couple of years back to watch.

“They gave me an ovation because they saw me on the big screen, but I just feel, like, tomorrow and I guess today, as well, and Monday next week, it really gives me a true opportunity to say thank you and goodbye, which I think is important for some,” Federer said.

“It’s a nice thing to do, for sure.”

SUMMER may be on its way out, but Brits are still heading abroad – so double check these rules before you go.

If you fail to check these then you might not get to go on holiday at all.

Expiry date

The very first thing to check before you head on holiday is the expiry date on your passport.

To be valid for travel British passports must have been issued within the last 10 years.

Figures have shown up to 100,000 holidaymakers a year face being turned away at airports if their passport is more than a decade old.

So, before you travel, check the start date, not the expiry.

HOL YES

Cheap holiday destinations with 86p beers, £15 flights & £129pp package breaks

CHEAP AS CHIPS

10 UK summer holidays that are CHEAPER than a takeaway – all £12pp or less

For example, if a passport has June 2016 start date but a November 2026 expiry, it has technically expired.

Not realising this soon enough could result in a costly mistake.

Tom Vaughan, travel insurance expert at Confused.com said: “Our research shows that 1 in 5 (21 per cent) Brits have had to renew their passport within just a few weeks of travelling, and less than half (43 per cent) know that EU travel requires a passport issued within the last 10 years.

“If you do get caught out, sorting an emergency passport can now cost up to £240, and that’s before you factor in time off work and a trip to a passport office.

“Unfortunately, travel insurance won’t cover the cost, or any flights or holidays you miss as a result, and children face even longer delays as same-day service isn’t available for their passports.

“So before you finish packing, check two things: the date your passport was issued, and how long is left on it. Our passport checker can help you avoid a last-minute panic and ensure your holiday starts the way it should, stress-free.”

Additional months

A number of countries also require British holidaymakers to have a few additional months left on their passport to travel.

Any Brit heading to Europe will also need at least three months of validity left on their passport after the day you plan to leave.

If there is less than three months left on your passport, you will be refused at the gate or even beforehand and will have to renew your document.

Some other countries require even longer with some wanting six months left on the passport – this includes UAE, Egypt, and Chile.

Spare pages

Some countries actually require blank pages in your passport for manual stamping.

If you’re heading to Europe, one page of blank space is fine.

Countries requiring at least two blank pages for entry include Austria, Italy, Germany, The Bahamas and other tourist hotspots.

Standard UK passports have 34 blank pages, but you can pay extra for one with 54 if you’re a regular traveller.

CENTER Parcs is introducing new rules when it comes to bookings at their resorts.

The policy change means all guests will now have to pay £5 per person to reserve restaurant bookings, in a bid to to prevent no-shows.

The new rules are being introduced on all holidays from November 16.

The rule change has been praised by families who say they hope it opens up more bookings.

One customer said: “I’m glad they are bringing this back as it stops people making unnecessary reservations. 

“I’ve really struggled to book what I wanted this year whereas previous years with the deposit there has been plenty of choice.”

Read more on Center Parcs

RIDE ON

Abandoned theme park to be turned into ‘Center Parcs-on-Sea’ reveals new update

BRANCH OUT

Five-star holiday park that’s a ‘cheaper Center Parcs’ to open huge attraction

Another added: “Too many people not showing up and leaving restaurants empty. This ties you in unless you can afford to lose it.”

A third former guest pointed out the policy had previously been in place at Center Parcs in recent years, and he had appreciated the chance to spread the cost of the meal.

He said: “Great news, I loved paying the deposit, once the bill came it had £25 off… felt like I was winning.”

If a guest cancels 48 hours before the time of the booking they can get their deposit back, although some people felt the notice period should be less than two days.

Center Parcs has a broad range of restaurants across its five UK villages, including Huck’s American Bar & Grill (all sites), Rajinda Pradesh (all sites), The Pancake House (all sites) and Foresters’ Inn, at Longleat and Elveden. 

It is also possible to just turn up and hope a table is available, although there are no guarantees.

Some have raised issues with the new charge, in that not all of the restaurant menus shown online have prices displayed on them.

Many are arguing they should know the cost of a meal if they were partly paying in advance. 

A commenter said: “Surely you can’t take a deposit which is non-refundable on the day/day before if you don’t publish the prices of the meals?”

Center Parcs announced on its website: “To help us provide the best possible experience for our guests and make sure our restaurants are available for as many guests as possible, all restaurant bookings now require a deposit at the time of booking. 

“This will come into effect for all breaks starting from 16th November 2026 onwards.  

“If your plans change, you can cancel more than 48 hours before your reservation, and we’ll refund your deposit in full. If you cancel within 48 hours of your reservation, the deposit is non-refundable.

“Please note that restaurant bookings have their own cancellation terms, which are different from those for activity bookings.”

Sun Travel has contacted Center Parcs for additional comment.

Other new rules have been rolled out in recent months, including the scrapping of its creche service earlier this year.

Last summer it also changed its pool opening hours from 9am to 10am, while closing at 8pm instead of 10pm.

Check in times also changed last summer, depending on your lodge time – here is everything you need to know.