This is the first Champions League season to feature six clubs from one nation and history will be made if all six of England’s representatives go through.
Back in 2017, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United and Tottenham all progressed, making England the first country to have five teams in the knockouts of the competition.
However just two of those sides – Liverpool and Manchester City – got beyond the last 16, while the Reds went all the way to final after knocking City out in the quarter-finals.
In the final, Liverpool were beaten by Real Madrid.
According to Opta’s predictions, Arsenal have a 99.8% chance of progressing to the knockouts, with Manchester City on 97.4% and Liverpool on 95.5%.
However, the predictions model is a little less confident over the automatic progress of the other three sides with Newcastle on 82%, Chelsea on 80.8% and Tottenham on 72%.
Former Liverpool midfielder Stephen Warnock told BBC Sport: “I’d say at the moment it is [significant what English teams are doing], but it doesn’t matter what goes on at the moment because we saw what happened last year, when Liverpool were dominating and finished top of the league stage – and then they were suddenly knocked out by PSG who had been rubbish up until then.
“So I just don’t see at the moment, unless you get knocked out, what effect it is going to have and it does not mean the English teams are going to get through the knockout stages because it all depends on the draw, and how you are set up later in the competition.”
If the ads are any indication, Proposition 50 offers Californians a stark choice: “Stick it to Trump” or “throw away the constitution” in a Democratic power grab.
And like so many things in 2025, Trump appears to be the galvanizing issue.
Even by the incendiary campaigns California is used to, Proposition 50 has been notable for its sharp attacks to cut through the dense, esoteric issue of congressional redistricting. It comes down to a basic fact: this is a Democratic-led measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts to help their party win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026 and stifle President Trump’s attempts to keep Republicans in power through similar means in other states.
Thus far, the anti-Trump message preached by Proposition 50 advocates, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other top Democrats, appears to be the most effective.
Supporters of the proposal have vastly outraised their rivals and Proposition 50, one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history, leads in the polls.
“Whenever you can take an issue and personalize it, you have the advantage. In this case, proponents of 50 can make it all about stopping Donald Trump,” said former legislative leader and state GOP Chair Jim Brulte.
Adding to the drama is the role of two political and cultural icons who have emerged as leaders of each side: former President Obama in favor and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger against, both arguing the very essence of democracy is at stake.
Schwarzenegger and the two main committees opposing Proposition 50 have focused on the ethical and moral imperative of preserving the independent redistricting commission. Californians in 2010 voted to create the panel to draw the state’s congressional district boundaries after every census in an effort to provide fair representation to all state residents.
That’s not a political ideal easily explained in a 30-section television ad, or an Instagram post.
Redistricting is a “complex issue,” Brulte said, but he noted that “the no side has the burden of trying to explain what the initiative really does and the yes side gets to use the crib notes [that] this is about stopping Trump — a much easier path.”
Partisans on both sides of the aisle agree.
“The yes side quickly leveraged anti-Trump messaging and has been closing with direct base appeals to lock in the lead,” said Jamie Fisfis, a political strategist who has worked on many GOP congressional campaigns in California. “The partisanship and high awareness behind the measure meant it was unlikely to sag under the weight of negative advertising like other initiatives often do. It’s been a turnout game.”
Obama, in ads that aired during the World Series and NFL games, warned that “Democracy is on the ballot Nov. 4” as he urged voters to support Proposition 50. Ads for the most well-funded committee opposing the proposition featured Schwarzenegger saying that opposing the ballot measure was critical to ensuring that citizens are not overrun by elected officials.
“The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people,’” Schwarzenegger told USC students in mid-September — a speech excerpted in an anti-Proposition 50 ad. “Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”
California’s Democratic-led Legislature voted in August to put the redistricting proposal that would likely boost their ranks in Congress on the November ballot. The measure, pushed by Newsom, was an effort to counter Trump’s efforts to increase the number of GOP members in the House from Texas and other GOP-led states.
The GOP holds a narrow edge in the House, and next year’s election will determine which party controls the body during Trump’s final two years in office — and whether he can further his agenda or is the focus of investigations and possible impeachment.
Noticeably absent for California’s Proposition 50 fight is the person who triggered it — Trump.
The proposition’s opponents’ decision not to highlight Trump is unsurprising given the president’s deep unpopularity among Californians. More than two-thirds of the state’s likely voters did not approve of his handling of the presidency in late October, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll.
Trump did, however, urge California voter not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early, falsely arguing in a social media post that both voting methods were “dishonest.”
Some California GOP leaders feared that Trump’s pronouncement would suppress the Republican vote.
In recent days, the California Republican Party sent mailers to registered Republicans shaming them for not voting. “Your neighbors are watching,” the mailer says, featuring a picture of a woman peering through binoculars. “Don’t let your neighbors down. They’ll find out!”
Tuesday’s election will cost state taxpayers nearly $300 million. And it’s unclear if the result will make a difference in control of the House because of multiple redistricting efforts in other states.
But some Democrats are torn about the amount of money being spent on an effort that may not alter the partisan makeup of Congress.
Johanna Moska, who worked in the Obama administration, described Proposition 50 as “frustrating.”
“I just wish we were spending money to rectify the state’s problems, if we figured out a way the state could be affordable for people,” she said. “Gavin’s found what’s working for Gavin. And that’s resistance to Trump.”
Newsom’s efforts opposing Trump are viewed as a foundational argument if he runs for president in 2028, which he has acknowledged pondering.
Proposition 50 also became a platform for other politicians potentially eyeing a 2026 run for California governor, Sen. Alex Padilla and billionaires Rick Caruso and Tom Steyer.
The field is in flux, with no clear front-runner.
Padilla being thrown to the ground in Los Angeles as he tried to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the Trump administration’s immigration policies is prominently featured in television ads promoting Proposition 50. Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor who briefly ran for president in 2020, raised eyebrows by being the only speaker in his second television ad. Caruso, who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass in the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral race and is reportedly considering another political campaign, recently sent voters glossy mailers supporting Proposition 50.
Steyer committed $12 million to support Proposition 50. His initial ad, which shows a Trump impersonator growing increasingly irate as news reports showing the ballot measure passing, first aired during “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Steyer’s second ad fully focused on him, raising speculation about a potential gubernatorial run next year.
Ads opposing the proposition aired less frequently before disappearing from television altogether in recent days.
“The yes side had the advantage of casting the question for voters as a referendum on Trump,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who worked for Schwarzenegger but is not involved with any of the Proposition 50 campaigns. “Asking people to rally to the polls to save a government commission — it’s not a rallying call.”
Fenerbahce’s home EuroLeague fixtures against Israeli sides Maccabi Tel Aviv and Hapoel Tel Aviv next month have been relocated to Germany over security concerns.
The Turkish side were scheduled to host the clubs in Istanbul on 11 and 13 November, but the games will now be played in Munich on the same dates because of what Fenerbahce said were security measures implemented by Turkish authorities.
Fenerbahce said the games will be played at SAP Garden in the German city and be “open to the participation of our fans”.
The EuroLeague defending champions also had to relocate two games against Maccabi, originally scheduled to be held in Istanbul, to Lithuania last year.
Relations between Turkey and Israel have deteriorated since Israel launched a military campaign in Gaza in response to the Hamas-led attack on southern Israel on 7 October 2023.
Large anti-Israel demonstrations have taken place across Turkey since.
Last week, Fenerbahce and fellow EuroLeague side Efes Istanbul criticised the tournament organisers’ decision to allow Israeli clubs to resume playing at home from 1 December.
The Israeli teams have been playing their EuroLeague and EuroCup home games abroad since October 2023.
It is only the latest in a series of incidents where tensions surrounding the Israel-Gaza war have affected sports.
Earlier this month, a decision was made to bar Maccabi Tel Aviv football fans from attending the Europa League fixture against Aston Villa in Birmingham on 6 November on safety grounds.
Violence also broke out before Maccabi’s match against Ajax in the same competition in November last year.
There were also protests at the Israel national football team’s 2026 World Cup qualifier games in Norway and Italy this month.
Meanwhile, Israel-Premier Tech are to drop Israel from their name from next season after the cycling team, owned by Israeli-Canadian property billionaire Sylvan Adams, were at the centre of several disruptions by protesters during last month’s Vuelta a Espana in Spain.
Today’s announcement will do little to calm the often seething cauldron of Welsh rugby, particularly in west Wales.
The WRU said only one of the three future teams in Wales will be based in the west where both Ospreys (Swansea) and Scarlets (Llanelli) are based.
Scarlets and Ospreys are on a previous funding agreement until 2027 – worth just £4.5m a year – after refusing to sign the new participation agreement earlier this year.
There is still a hope within the governing body that the teams could merge but would open a tender process if they do not.
That process even opens the unlikely prospect that one of those clubs could apply for the licence based in Cardiff or east Wales.
The WRU, meanwhile, is a stakeholder in the URC – along with the four other national governing bodies – and would need support from the league to alter the number of regions competing.
Surveys have shown a majority of Welsh rugby fans would like the WRU to approach the English clubs to see if there could be an Anglo-Welsh league.
Reddin had stated that option was not on the table and the WRU remains committed to the URC.
So while the present now has greater clarity, the longer-term future of Welsh rugby will still remain uncertain.
Price felt he “didn’t play well” in the 3-1 win away to Luxembourg when his early penalty was saved despite Jamie Reid tucking away the rebound.
However, he responded with a goal against Germany to bring his international tally to 10 and credits manager Michael O’Neill for giving him the confidence to bounce back against the four-time world champions.
“It’s about not getting too high when things are going well or getting too low when they aren’t,” he said.
“The Luxembourg game I missed a penalty, didn’t play well and was coming off a low point but then you play against Germany.
“The night before, Michael came over and said ‘forget about what happened the other night, you’ll go and do something tomorrow’ and it happened. Michael has been around so long he’ll have seen it with other players, so it was a great feeling to get one against Germany.”
The 22-year-old is part of the new crop of Northern Ireland players bidding to reach a major finals for the first time since Euro 2016 when O’Neill was in his first stint as manager.
However, he believes the “maturity” in the camp can help them through the upcoming games.
“The ground and the fans will be electric, but it’s about staying calm and composed because if you let the occasion get to you, it’s never the best thing.
“We’ve the right level of maturity in the group and players who have been there before, so they can help us.
“I hope they (opposition) realise we have a good young side and every team comes here fears it as they should do.”
DONALD Trump has warned of a “massive bloodshed” if Hamas fails to agree to a peace deal in the coming days.
Trump warned he will “not tolerate delay” from Hamas – and has urged both sides to move quickly towards a deal or else “all bets will be off”.
5
Trump has warned of a ‘massive bloodshed’ if Hamas fails to agree to a peace deal in the coming daysCredit: Getty
5
Hamas agreed to some parts of the 20-point US peace planCredit: AP
Trump revealed indirect talks between Israel, Hamas and other mediators from the Arab countries have been “very positive” – and that he expects the first phase of his proposed peace deal should be completed “this week”.
Taking to his Truth Social platform, the US president said: “There have been very positive discussions with Hamas, and Countries from all over the World (Arab, Muslim, and everyone else) this weekend.
“These talks have been very successful and are proceeding rapidly. The technical teams will again meet on Monday, in Egypt, to work through and clarify the final details.
“I am told that the first phase should be completed this week, and I am asking everyone to MOVE FAST.
“Time is of the essence, or massive bloodshed will follow – something that nobody wants to see.”
It comes after Hamas agreed to some parts of the 20-point US peace plan, including releasing hostages and handing over Gaza governance to Palestinian technocrats.
Though it said it was seeking negotiations on other issues.
Negotiators from both sides will now gather at the Egyptian resort town of Sharm El-Sheikh, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressing hope that the hostages could be released within days.
The White House said Trump had also sent two envoys to Egypt – his son-in-law, Jared Kushner and Middle East negotiator Steve Witkoff.
Trump’s Final Ultimatum to Hamas: The 48-Hour Peace Deal Deadline
Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Sunday urged Israel to stop bombing Gaza ahead of the discussions in Egypt.
“You can’t release hostages in the middle of strikes, so the strikes will have to stop,” Rubio told CBS News talk show “Face the Nation”.
“There can’t be a war going on in the middle of it.”
The radical Islamist fanatics seized 251 hostages during their October 7 attack, 47 of whom are still in Gaza.
Of those, the Israeli military says 25 are dead.
Israel, meanwhile, has continued to carry out strikes.
Gaza’s civil defence agency, a rescue force operating under Hamas authority, said Israeli attacks killed at least 20 people across the territory on Sunday, 13 of them in Gaza City.
He revealed that Tel Aviv agreed to the initial withdrawal line presented to Hamas – and that a peace process will begin as soon as the terror group accepts the proposal.
Hamas has previously rejected a phased Israeli withdrawal, insisting instead on an immediate and full pullout.
Over the weekend, the terror group called for a swift start to a hostage-prisoner exchange with Israel, as negotiators from both sides prepared to meet in Egypt for crucial talks.
However, there is so much that could still go wrong.
5
A map handed out by the White House showing the phases of withdrawal of the IDF from the Gaza StripCredit: White House
5
Palestinian Hamas fighters escort Israeli hostages Ohad Ben Ami, Eli Sharabi and Or Levy on a stage before handing them overCredit: AFP
5
Israeli PM Netanyahu says ‘Hamas will release all our hostages’Credit: Sky News
The 20-point peace plan proposes an immediate end to fighting and the release within 72 hours of living Israeli hostages held by Hamas – as well as the remains of hostages thought to be dead.
Nearly 2,000 Palestinian prisoners will be freed from Israeli prisons in exchange.
Hamas’s political leadership, based in Qatar, are said to be open to accepting it – but with amendments.
Although they have been unable to hold sway, as they do not have control of Israeli hostages – whose fate plays a crucial part in the deal.
Hamas demands that issues over Gaza’s future should be discussed within a comprehensive Palestinian national framework, which it will be part of.
But Trump has ruled that out, with Israel saying in no way can the terror group remain in power for peace to occur.
Senior Hamas mouthpiece Mousa Abu Marzouk said the group will not disarm – one of the key points of Trump’s peace deal – until the Israeli “occupation” ends.
Bibi’s vow
But Netanyahu on Saturday warned that the demilitarisation of Gaza is imminent.
“Hamas will be disarmed and Gaza will be demilitarised – either the easy way or the hard way, but it will be achieved,” he said in his speech.
Hamas said it was ready “to hand over the administration of the Gaza Strip to a Palestinian body of independents (technocrats) based on Palestinian national consensus and supported by Arab and Islamic backing.”
It has previously offered to release all hostages and to hand over administration of the Gaza Strip to a different body.
A successful ceasefire could then pave the way for 48 hostages – of whom just 20 are believed to be alive – to be released from Gaza terror tunnels after two years in hell.
A truce – if it holds – could also allow vital humanitarian aid to flood into the besieged coastal strip, where Hamas says more than 66,000 Palestinians have died in fighting.
A new “Board of Peace” chaired by the US president and run by former UK PM Tony Blair would then move in to rebuild the strip before peace-loving Palestinians take over.
Earlier this week, Izz al-Din al-Haddad, the most senior Hamas military commander still in Gaza, told the BBC that Trump’s plan “serves Israel’s interests and ignores those of the Palestinian people”.
Israel has already backed Trump’s peace plan, which involves an immediate ceasefire, the release of all hostages and Hamas disarmament.
Trump’s 20-point peace plan in full
1. Gaza will be a deradicalized terror-free zone that does not pose a threat to its neighbors.
2. Gaza will be redeveloped for the benefit of the people of Gaza, who have suffered more than enough.
3. If both sides agree to this proposal, the war will immediately end. Israeli forces will withdraw to the agreed upon line to prepare for a hostage release. During this time, all military operations, including aerial and artillery bombardment, will be suspended, and battle lines will remain frozen until conditions are met for the complete staged withdrawal.
4. Within 72 hours of Israel publicly accepting this agreement, all hostages, alive and deceased, will be returned.
5. Once all hostages are released, Israel will release 250 life sentence prisoners plus 1700 Gazans who were detained after October 7th 2023, including all women and children detained in that context. For every Israeli hostage whose remains are released, Israel will release the remains of 15 deceased Gazans.
6. Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.
7. Upon acceptance of this agreement, full aid will be immediately sent into the Gaza Strip. At a minimum, aid quantities will be consistent with what was included in the January 19, 2025, agreement regarding humanitarian aid, including rehabilitation of infrastructure (water, electricity, sewage), rehabilitation of hospitals and bakeries, and entry of necessary equipment to remove rubble and open roads.
8. Entry of distribution and aid in the Gaza Strip will proceed without interference from the two parties through the United Nations and its agencies, and the Red Crescent, in addition to other international institutions not associated in any manner with either party. Opening the Rafah crossing in both directions will be subject to the same mechanism implemented under the January 19, 2025 agreement.
9. Gaza will be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee, responsible for delivering the day-to-day running of public services and municipalities for the people in Gaza. This committee will be made up of qualified Palestinians and international experts, with oversight and supervision by a new international transitional body, the “Board of Peace,” which will be headed and chaired by President Donald J. Trump, with other members and heads of State to be announced, including Former Prime Minister Tony Blair. This body will set the framework and handle the funding for the redevelopment of Gaza until such time as the Palestinian Authority has completed its reform program, as outlined in various proposals, including President Trump’s peace plan in 2020 and the Saudi-French proposal, and can securely and effectively take back control of Gaza. This body will call on best international standards to create modern and efficient governance that serves the people of Gaza and is conducive to attracting investment.
10. A Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza will be created by convening a panel of experts who have helped birth some of the thriving modern miracle cities in the Middle East. Many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas have been crafted by well-meaning international groups, and will be considered to synthesize the security and governance frameworks to attract and facilitate these investments that will create jobs, opportunity, and hope for future Gaza.
11. A special economic zone will be established with preferred tariff and access rates to be negotiated with participating countries.
12. No one will be forced to leave Gaza, and those who wish to leave will be free to do so and free to return. We will encourage people to stay and offer them the opportunity to build a better Gaza.
13. Hamas and other factions agree to not have any role in the governance of Gaza, directly, indirectly, or in any form. All military, terror, and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities, will be destroyed and not rebuilt. There will be a process of demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors, which will include placing weapons permanently beyond use through an agreed process of decommissioning, and supported by an internationally funded buy back and reintegration program all verified by the independent monitors. New Gaza will be fully committed to building a prosperous economy and to peaceful coexistence with their neighbors.
14. A guarantee will be provided by regional partners to ensure that Hamas, and the factions, comply with their obligations and that New Gaza poses no threat to its neighbors or its people.
15. The United States will work with Arab and international partners to develop a temporary International Stabilization Force (ISF) to immediately deploy in Gaza. The ISF will train and provide support to vetted Palestinian police forces in Gaza, and will consult with Jordan and Egypt who have extensive experience in this field. This force will be the long-term internal security solution. The ISF will work with Israel and Egypt to help secure border areas, along with newly trained Palestinian police forces. It is critical to prevent munitions from entering Gaza and to facilitate the rapid and secure flow of goods to rebuild and revitalize Gaza. A deconfliction mechanism will be agreed upon by the parties.
16. Israel will not occupy or annex Gaza. As the ISF establishes control and stability, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will withdraw based on standards, milestones, and timeframes linked to demilitarization that will be agreed upon between the IDF, ISF, the guarantors, and the Unites States, with the objective of a secure Gaza that no longer poses a threat to Israel, Egypt, or its citizens. Practically, the IDF will progressively hand over the Gaza territory it occupies to the ISF according to an agreement they will make with the transitional authority until they are withdrawn completely from Gaza, save for a security perimeter presence that will remain until Gaza is properly secure from any resurgent terror threat.
17. In the event Hamas delays or rejects this proposal, the above, including the scaled-up aid operation, will proceed in the terror-free areas handed over from the IDF to the ISF.
18. An interfaith dialogue process will be established based on the values of tolerance and peaceful co-existence to try and change mindsets and narratives of Palestinians and Israelis by emphasizing the benefits that can be derived from peace.
19. While Gaza re-development advances and when the PA reform program is faithfully carried out, the conditions may finally be in place for a credible pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood, which we recognize as the aspiration of the Palestinian people.
20. The United States will establish a dialogue between Israel and the Palestinians to agree on a political horizon for peaceful and prosperous co-existence.
WASHINGTON — Washington is barreling toward a government shutdown Tuesday night, with few signs of an off-ramp as Democrats and Republicans dig in for a fight over government spending.
Democratic leadership on Capitol Hill is insisting on an extension of Affordable Care Act tax credits as part of a package to fund the government. At least seven Democratic votes are needed in the Senate to pass a seven-week stopgap bill that cleared the House last week.
But Republican lawmakers and the White House have dismissed the proposal, with senior officials in the Trump administration threatening to use unique legal authorities granted during a government shutdown to conduct yet more mass firings of federal workers.
Bipartisan congressional leadership met with President Trump at the White House on Monday afternoon in a last-minute effort to avert the crisis. But neither side exited the meeting with expectations of a breakthrough. On the contrary, Republican leaders in the House told the GOP caucus to plan to return to work next week and said they would hold a news conference on Wednesday anticipating the government’s closure.
“We are not going to support a partisan Republican spending bill that continues to gut the healthcare of everyday Americans, period, full stop,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Monday.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer talk to reporters outside the White House.
(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)
Vice President JD Vance said he thought the country was “headed to a shutdown,” labeling Democratic calls for healthcare tax credits an “absurd” demand that amounts to an “excuse for shutting down the people’s government.”
“You don’t use your policy disagreements as leverage to not pay our troops,” Vance said. “That’s exactly what they’re proposing out there.”
When the government shuts down, the law requires all nonessential government services to cease, requiring most federal workers to go on furlough or work without pay. Essential services — such as national security functions and air traffic control — are not affected.
Ahead of the meeting, Trump told reporters he hoped Democrats would agree to “keeping our country open,” before proceeding to criticize their proposals.
“They’re going to have to do some things, because their ideas are not very good ones,” Trump said. “They’re very bad for our country. So we’ll see how that works out.”
But Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he thought his message was beginning to resonate with the president after their meeting Monday afternoon.
“We have very large differences, on healthcare, and on their ability to undo whatever budget we agree to, through rescissions and through impoundment,” Schumer said. “I think for the first time, the president heard our objections and heard why we needed a bipartisan bill. Their bill has not one iota of Democratic input. That is never how we’ve done this before.”
“We’ve made to the president some proposals,” Schumer added. “Ultimately, he’s a decision-maker.”
Schumer faced widespread ridicule from within his party in March after reversing course during the last showdown, choosing then to support the Trump administration’s continuing resolution to fund the government at the height of an aggressive purge of the federal workforce.
At that point, Schumer feared a shutdown could accelerate the firings. But Schumer is now defiant, despite the renewed threat of layoffs, after the White House Office of Management and Budget circulated a memo last week directing federal agencies to relieve workers on discretionary projects that lose funding after Oct. 1.
“This is an attempt at intimidation,” Schumer said in response to the memo. “Donald Trump has been firing federal workers since day one — not to govern, but to scare. This is nothing new and has nothing to do with funding the government.”
Vice President JD Vance talks to reporters as House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune listen.
(Alex Brandon / Associated Press)
Still, Schumer began gauging his caucus Monday afternoon on the prospects of a continuing resolution that would in effect delay a shutdown by a week, briefly extending government funding in order to continue negotiations.
Betting markets had chances of a shutdown soaring above 70% by the end of the day on Monday.
Speaking to Fox News on Monday, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the president’s position was “the reasonable and commonsense thing to do,” calling on Democrats to continue funding to the military and its veterans.
“All we are asking for is a commonsense, clean funding resolution — a continuing resolution — to keep the government open,” Leavitt said. “This is a bill that keeps the government funded at the exact same levels as today, just adjusted for inflation.”
“So there is zero good reason for the Democrats to vote against this,” she added. “The president is giving Democrat leadership one last chance to be reasonable.”
But Jeffries dismissed Leavitt as “divorced from reality” in a podcast interview.
“In what world will any rational American conclude, after we’ve been lectured throughout the year about this so-called mandate that the Republican Party has in this country, and their complete control of government in Washington, that because Democrats are unwilling to gut the healthcare of the American people as part of the Republican healthcare crisis, that it’s us shutting the government down?” Jeffries said.
“Nobody’s buying that,” he continued, “outside of the parts of the MAGA base who basically, seemingly, will buy anything that Donald Trump has to peddle.”
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said he would call a vote on funding the government Tuesday afternoon.
“This is purely and simply hostage-taking,” Thune said Monday. Whether it passes or fails, he said, is “up to the Democrats.”
JoJo Siwa has taken a savage swipe at Chris Hughes’ ex Olivia AttwoodCredit: Splash
6
JoJo said there are ‘two sides to every story’Credit: Splash
6
JoJo and Chris have been inseperable after meeting this yearCredit: Instagram
6
Chris and Olivia haven’t seen eye to eye since their splitCredit: PA:Press Association
While it’s been seven years since the pair dated, according to a pal, Chris feels especially slighted by several comments Olivia made about him while he was in the CelebrityBig Brother house – particularly concerning his relationship with JoJo Siwa.
Chris hasn’t spoken out about Olivia’s claims, despite her also suggesting he was being fake for the cameras.
She added: “[Some] people, they go on reality TV, they are one person and when you experience them off camera… It’s like shapeshifters.”
And when asked directly on the social media platform what she thought of Chris’s romance with JoJo once they left the house, Olivia hinted Chris was leveraging the relationship for publicity, simply saying “she’s really famous”.
Now, Chris’ girlfriend JoJo, who he met in the Celeb Big Brother house, has appeared to take aim at Love Island star Olivia, while appearing on Radio Andy’s Smith Sisters Live.
The conversation on the podcast heard JoJo heaping praise onto her beau Chris, and adding: “Honestly he is such a good guy that his mouth has stayed shut.
“Always know that there are two sides to every single story – I don’t even know every side to every single story.
JoJo Siwa looks incredible in gold mini dress after hinting at MARRIAGE plans with Chris Hughes
“I love him to death but I met him a few months ago, I don’t know every single thing about his past.”
JoJo went on: “There’s a lot to be said about the good guy in the story who keeps his mouth shut.
“And Chris is a simple guy who loves his family, his golf, his horses and his sports.
“And one thing we have in common is that we’ve got wrath from our past online and I could easily shut every single person that has said any single thing down with text proof, and he could do the same, but it’s not worth it.”
Olivia Attwood’s Career History
From Monster grid girl and Love Island star to daytime telly panellist and respected documentary maker, Olivia Attwood has made a huge career pivot in recent years…
Olivia first started as a Monster grid girl at motorsport events in 2012 when she was 19-years-old, and did it right up until she went into Love Island in 2017.
After placing third in the reality show with then-boyfriend Chris Hughes, she starred in their own spin-off series, Chris & Olivia: Crackin’ On, in 2018.
Later that year, she appeared on Celebs Go Dating and then joined the cast of The Only Way Is Essex in 2019, where she had a number of fiery on-screen rows.
In 2020, the reality TV veteran began starring in her own reality series on ITVBe titled Olivia Meets Her Match, which followed her wedding preparations with footballer Bradley Dack.
In 2021, the tide started to turn.
Olivia made appearances on household shows Lorraine, Tipping Point: Lucky Stars and Loose Women.
Then, in 2022, ITV commissioned her for her first ever documentary series.
She presented Olivia Attwood: Getting Filthy Rich, which explored women selling sexual content online.
In June 2023, ITV commissioned Olivia Marries Her Match and made her a regular guest panellist on Loose Women.
Her most recent docu-series, Olivia Attwood: The Price of Perfection, aired in January this year where she sensitively explored the cosmetic industry.
She added: “By doing that you’re just feeding that beast, you’re feeding that monster and you don’t need to. It’s your past, and what is beautiful about Christopher is that he’s not living in that past.”
During the chat, JoJo also said that Chris had made her a nicer person, as she detailed the way he greets people when he walks into a room.
Olivia and Chris’ ‘toxic’ split
Their split in March 2018, just seven months after falling in love the previous summer, is the stuff of Love Island lore.
The pair had filmed a spin-off reality show, Chris and Olivia: Crackin’ On, which was intended to document their romance in the real world.
But instead, filming was dogged with rows; they split during the production and the number of planned episodes was slashed.
Indeed, Olivia even admitted she “hated” Chris once they were out of the villa bubble.
She said at the time: “I moved him into my own home, I mean like a week after leaving the villa. And we weren’t even getting on.
“So he moved in with a bag and was like, ‘I hate you.’ And I was like, ’I f***ing hate you.”
She later called the relationship “toxic” and admitted they were “horrible together”.
6
The couple met on Celeb Big BrotherCredit: Instagram / chrishughesofficial
6
Chris hasn’t spoken out about Olivia’s claimsCredit: Rex
The 2025-26 Champions League has just begun and the two Belgium teams in the competition have already made their mark.
On Tuesday, Union Saint-Gilloise enjoyed a dream Champions League debut as they stunned PSV Eindhoven with a 3-1 away win.
A youthful Club Brugge side then grabbed a commanding 4-1 victory over Monaco on Thursday – scoring three goals in the space of 10 first-half minutes to set them on their way.
The two Belgian sides have had recent resurgences.
Club Brugge have raced up Uefa’s club coefficient rankings over the past five seasons – going from 44th to 20th.
Union have made an even bigger jump, rising 38 places to 45th as they have reaped the benefits of a 2018 takeover by Brighton chairman Tony Bloom.
As recently as four years ago, Union were playing in the Belgian second tier.
They then narrowly missed out on the Pro League title for three years running, but last term they won the trophy for the first time in 90 years to guarantee Champions League football.
Club Brugge, meanwhile, have proved they are not to be underestimated on Europe’s biggest stage.
Last season they beat both Aston Villa and Sporting, and drew against Juventus and Celtic in the league phase before their campaign came to an end when they fell to Villa in the last 16.
And the club – European Cup runners-up in 1978 – came agonisingly close to reaching the Europa Conference League final in 2024 when they were narrowly beaten by Fiorentina in the semis.
Already this season, Club Brugge have beaten Red Bull Salzburg and thrashed Rangers 9-1 over two qualifying legs to reach the Champions League proper.
Their success has helped Belgian football, moving the association up to eighth in Europe in Uefa’s co-efficient rankings after dropping to 13th just a couple of seasons ago.
Over the past 10 seasons, six Belgian clubs have reached the knockout rounds of a European competition on at least one occasion – the same as their neighbours the Netherlands.
New director of rugby Dave Reddin, chief executive Abi Tierney and chair Richard Collier-Keywood have been involved in the plan.
It remains unclear whether the two future sides being proposed will be new entities or existing teams.
The WRU has, though, proposed that there will be two organisations which will each have a men’s and women’s team.
There could be 50 players in each men’s squad with a budget of £7.8m each, while the women’s squads will have 40 players apiece.
The WRU says there will be significantly elevated funding for each men’s squad, which would facilitate a radically different profile of talent and support.
The Union says the two squads would feature predominantly Welsh-qualified players, while there would be a rethink on non-Welsh qualified players.
The WRU would fund the two men’s and two women’s teams, all of which would be operated under licences, with the governing body giving any owners or investors responsibility for all commercial operations.
Phase one would involve the move of the two sides, men’s and women’s, operating on two sites.
There will also be a transition to contracting of players and staff within central national academies.
Phase two would involve the clubs moving to training at one site which will be known as a national campus.
This will be home to 400 people, including men’s and women’s national staff, professional and clubs staff and national academies. The men’s and women’s academies will be centralised.
The proposals include improving the standard of the Super Rygbi Cymru competition, which is the current level below the men’s fully professional game.
There is also a pledge to establish a senior women’s domestic competition, with an acceptance there is a current lack of high-quality club rugby below the Celtic Challenge, where Gwalia Lightning and Brython Thunder compete.
The clashes in March included murder, torture and other ‘inhumane acts’ that UN investigators say amount to war crimes.
War crimes were likely committed by members of interim government forces and fighters aligned with former President Bashar al-Assad during an outbreak of sectarian violence in Syria’s coastal areas in March, according to a United Nations report.
Some 1,400 people, mainly civilians, were reported killed during the violence that primarily targeted Alawite communities, and reports of violations have continued, according to the report released on Thursday by the UN Syria Commission of Inquiry.
“The scale and brutality of the violence documented in our report is deeply disturbing,” said Paulo Sergio Pinheiro, chair of the commission, in a statement.
Torture, killings and inhumane acts related to the treatment of the dead were documented by the UN team, which based its research on more than 200 interviews with victims and witnesses, as well as visits to mass grave sites.
“The violations included acts that likely amount to war crimes,” the UN investigators said.
Alawite men were separated from women and children, then led away and killed, the report found.
“Bodies were left in the streets for days, with families prevented from conducting burials in accordance with religious rites, while others were buried in mass graves without proper documentation,” the commission said.
Hospitals became overwhelmed as a result of the killings.
The commission found that even while the interim government’s forces sought to stop violations and protect civilians, certain members “extrajudicially executed, tortured and ill-treated civilians in multiple [Alawite] majority villages and neighbourhoods in a manner that was both widespread and systematic”.
However, the report said the commission “found no evidence of a governmental policy or plan to carry out such attacks”. It also found that pro-Assad armed groups had committed “acts that likely amount to crimes, including war crimes” during the violence.
“We call on the interim authorities to continue to pursue accountability for all perpetrators, regardless of affiliation or rank,” Pinheiro said.
“While dozens of alleged perpetrators of violations have reportedly since been arrested, the scale of the violence documented in our report warrants expanding such efforts.”
The incidents in the coastal region were the worst violence in Syria since al-Assad was toppled last December, prompting the interim government to name a fact-finding committee.
The committee in July said it had identified 298 suspects implicated in serious violations during the violence in the country’s Alawite heartland.
The committee’s report then stated there was no evidence that Syria’s military leadership ordered attacks on the Alawite community.
Syrian authorities have accused gunmen loyal to al-Assad of instigating the violence, launching deadly attacks that killed dozens of security personnel.
According to the commission, the deadly attacks by pro-former government fighters began after Syrian interim authorities launched an arrest operation on March 6.
The government committee said 238 members of the army and security forces were killed in the attacks in the provinces of Tartous, Latakia and Hama.
When it comes to the Lucy Letby case, there are two parallel universes. In one, the question of her guilt is settled. She is a monster who murdered seven babies and attempted to murder seven more while she was a nurse at the Countess of Chester Hospital between 2015 and 2016.
In the other universe, Letby is the victim of a flawed criminal justice system in which unreliable medical evidence was used to condemn and imprison an innocent woman.
This is what Letby’s barrister Mark McDonald argues. He says he has the backing of a panel of the best experts in the world who say there is no evidence any babies were deliberately harmed.
These extremes are both disturbing and bewildering. One of them is wrong – but which? Who should we believe?
An alternative version of events
The families of the infants say there is no doubt. Letby was convicted after a 10-month trial by a jury that had considered a vast range of evidence. They say Letby’s defenders are picking on small bits of evidence out of context and that the constant questioning of her guilt is deeply distressing.
I have spent almost three years investigating the Letby case – in that time I have made three Panorama documentaries and cowritten a book on the subject. Yet, if true, the new evidence, presented by Mark McDonald in a series of high-profile press conferences and media releases, is shocking.
According to his experts, the prosecution expert medical case is unreliable.
Mark McDonald has not released the panel’s full reports, which are currently with the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), the body he needs to persuade to reopen Letby’s case, but he has released summaries of the panel’s findings.
Panorama
Barrister Mark McDonald says his panel of leading experts found no evidence that any babies were deliberately harmed
Letby was found guilty of 15 counts of murder and attempted murder, and the jury in her original trial reached unanimous verdicts on three of those cases. That is a good indication of where the strongest medical evidence might lie.
To get a sense of the imperfections woven through both the prosecution and the defence arguments, it’s worth looking at one of those cases in which the guilty verdict was unanimous: that of Baby O.
What really happened to Baby O?
Baby O was born in June 2016, one of triplet brothers. At Letby’s trial, the jury was told that his death was in part the result of liver injuries, which the prosecution pathologist described as impact-type injuries – similar to those in a car accident.
As in other cases for which Letby was convicted, the prosecution said circumstantial evidence also tied her to the crime.
However, a paediatric pathologist who was not involved in the case but has seen Baby O’s post-mortem report, says it was “unlikely” Baby O’s liver injuries were caused by impact – as the prosecution claims.
“You can’t completely rule out the possibility,” says the pathologist, who does not want to be identified. “But in my view, the location of the injuries and the condition of the liver tissue itself don’t fit with that explanation.”
Which raises the obvious question – if the prosecution were wrong about Baby O’s liver injuries, then why did he die?
Questions around air embolism
Letby was accused of injecting air into the blood of Baby O as well as that of other babies. This, the prosecution said, caused an air bubble and a blockage in the circulation known as air embolism.
During the trial the prosecution pointed to several pieces of evidence to make their case, including a 1989 academic study of air embolism in pre-term babies, which noted skin discolouration as one possible feature of it.
Prosecutors argued that these same skin colour changes were observed in several babies in the Letby case.
Reuters
In many aspects of the Letby case, the answer is not clear-cut
However, Dr Shoo Lee, a Canadian neonatologist and one of the authors of that 1989 study, is now part of Letby’s team of defence experts working with Mark McDonald. He argues that his study was misused.
He says skin discolouration has not featured in any reported cases of air embolism in babies where the air has entered the circulation via a vein – which is what the prosecution alleged happened in the Letby case.
In other words, the prosecution was wrong to use skin discolouration as evidence of air embolism.
It sounds significant. But is it enough to defeat the air embolism allegations?
As with many aspects of the Letby case, the answer is not clear-cut.
The prosecution did not rely on skin discolouration alone to make their case for air embolism. And although there have not been any reported cases of skin discolouration in babies where air has entered the circulation via a vein, some critics have argued that the number of reported air embolism cases is small and that the theory is still possible.
Andy Rain/ EPA – EFE/REX/Shutterstock
Professor Neena Modi believes there is some postmortem evidence of air embolism but this is likely to have occurred during resuscitation (pictured far left, with Professor Shoo Lee far right)
To muddy the waters further, another of Mark McDonald’s panel of experts has said that in fact there was post-mortem evidence of air embolism in the babies.
“We know these babies suffered air embolism because of the post-mortem imaging in some of them,” says Neena Modi, a professor of neonatal medicine.
She believes this is highly likely to have occurred during resuscitation, and that there are much more plausible explanations for the collapses and deaths of the babies in the Letby case than air embolism.
The air embolism theory, she said, was “highly speculative”. But her remarks show the debate is far from settled.
The needle theory: another explanation?
There has been another explanation for Baby O’s death.
In December 2024, Mark McDonald called a press conference in which one of his experts, Dr Richard Taylor, claimed that a doctor had accidentally pierced the baby’s liver with a needle during resuscitation. This, he argued, had led to the baby’s death.
Dr Taylor added: “I think the doctor knows who they are. I have to say from a personal point of view that if this had happened to me, I’d be unable to sleep at night knowing that what I had done had led to the death of a baby, and now there is a nurse in jail, convicted of murder.”
The doctor accused of causing the baby’s death was subsequently identified as Stephen Brearey – one of Letby’s principal accusers at the Countess of Chester Hospital.
Mr Brearey says: “Given the ongoing investigations and inquiries, and to respect the confidentiality of those involved, I will not be making any further comment at this time.”
Julia Quenzler / BBC
The needle theory was examined at length during Lucy Letby’s trial
It was a bombshell claim. But does the evidence support it?
One indication that the needle theory might be shaky was that Dr Taylor, by his own admission, had not seen Baby O’s medical notes and was relying on a report that had been written by two other experts.
Another obvious problem with the needle theory is that it had already been examined at length during Letby’s trial.
The prosecution pathologist concluded that there was no evidence that a needle had pierced Baby O’s liver while he was alive and the paediatric pathologist we spoke to agrees.
They told us: “These injuries weren’t caused by a needle. They were in different parts of the liver and there was no sign of any needle injury on the liver.”
Even if the needle had penetrated the baby’s liver, it cannot explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place or why he died – the needle was inserted after the baby’s final and fatal collapse towards the end of the resuscitation.
When asked if he still stood by his comments about the doctor’s needle, Dr Taylor told us that while the needle may not have been the primary cause of death, his “opinion has not substantially changed”.
He said the “needle probably penetrated the liver” of Baby O, and “probably accelerated his demise”.
Lack of consensus among the experts
The question of where this leaves the case presented by Mark McDonald’s panel of experts when it comes to the needle theory is a difficult one to answer.
It would appear that among Letby’s defenders, there is not consensus.
Consultant neonatologist Dr Neil Aiton is one of the authors of the original report on which Dr Taylor based his comments. Dr Aiton says that he has examined the evidence independently and has concluded that Baby O’s liver injuries were caused by inappropriate resuscitation attempts, including hyperinflation of the baby’s lungs.
However, he also says it was “pretty clear” a needle had punctured the liver during resuscitation.
When Dr Aiton was told that other experts, including the paediatric pathologist who spoke to the BBC, have examined the case of Baby O and said that it is implausible to conclude this happened, he said that there were two possibilities. Either the liver ruptured because of a needle or it ruptured spontaneously.
Dr Aiton’s position appears to be that poor resuscitation caused the baby’s liver injuries and whether it was a needle or not is “not important”.
That is a contrast from what Dr Taylor said in that December press conference. And critics say Dr Aiton’s account still does not explain why Baby O collapsed in the first place and why he needed such desperate resuscitation.
A summary report from Letby’s expert panel appears to back further away from the needle theory. It says a needle “may have” punctured the liver.
Other experts, including the paediatric pathologist, said that Dr Aiton’s observation of hyper-inflated lungs would not explain Baby O’s liver injuries.
Once again, the case illustrates how difficult it is to distinguish between plausible and implausible claims.
The debate around birth trauma
Since that press conference, other experts working for Letby’s defence team have put forward another theory for Baby O’s death. They say his liver injuries were the result of traumatic delivery at the time of birth.
Professor Modi says this was a “highly plausible cause”.
But that has been contested from a surprising direction. Dr Mike Hall, a neonatologist, was Lucy Letby’s original defence expert and attended court throughout her trial.
He has been a staunch critic of her conviction, arguing her trial wasn’t fair and that there is no definitive medical evidence that babies were deliberately harmed.
Panorama
Dr Mike Hall, Letby’s original defence expert, says there is no record of a traumatic delivery in Baby O’s medical notes
However, Dr Hall’s view is that evidence for the birth trauma theory is simply not there. He notes that Baby O was born in good condition by caesarean section and there is no record of a traumatic delivery in the baby’s medical notes.
“There’s still no evidence that anyone did anything deliberately to harm Baby O,” he adds. “However, something was going on with Baby O, which we haven’t explained.
“We don’t know what the cause of this is. But that doesn’t mean that we therefore have to pretend that we know.”
The insulin evidence
For the jury, Baby O was one of the clearest cases that proved Letby was a killer. And yet there appears to be flawed expert evidence on both sides.
There were two other cases where the jury returned unanimous verdicts – the cases of Babies F and L.
The prosecution argued that both babies had been poisoned with insulin and highlighted blood tests that it said were clear evidence of this. For the prosecution, the insulin cases proved that someone at the Countess of Chester Hospital was harming babies.
Letby’s defence have, meanwhile, marshalled numerous arguments against the insulin theory. One is that the blood test used – an immunoassay – is inaccurate and should have been verified. But even Letby’s experts accept the test is accurate around 98% of the time.
Another argument is that premature babies can process insulin differently and that the blood test results are “within the expected range for pre-term infants”. But the medical specialists we’ve spoken to are baffled by this claim and say it goes against mainstream scientific understanding.
PA
For the jury, Baby O was one of the clearest cases that proved Letby was a killer
Of course, mainstream opinion can be wrong. But it is difficult to tell because Letby’s defence team have not shared the scientific evidence.
One of the experts behind the report – a mechanical engineer who carries out biomedical research – clarified that his analysis says the blood test results were “not uncommon”. However, Letby’s defence declined to show the BBC the published studies that support this claim.
Once again, the claims of both the prosecution and defence are not clear-cut.
Ultimately, the question of whether Letby’s case should be re-examined by the Court of Appeal now lies with CCRC. They have the task of studying Mark McDonald’s expert reports.
If he is successful and Lucy Letby’s case is referred back to the Court of Appeal – that is ultimately where the expert evidence on both sides will face a true reckoning.
Lead image credit: Cheshire Constabulary, PA
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
The California Supreme Court sided with environmental groups in a Thursday ruling, saying that state lawyers were wrong in their claim that the Public Utilities Commission’s decision to slash rooftop solar incentives could not be challenged.
The unanimous decision sends the case brought by the three groups back to the appeals court.
The groups argue the utilities commission violated state law in 2022 when it cut the value of the credits that panel owners receive for sending their unused power to the electric grid by as much as 80%. The rules apply to Californians installing the panels after April 14, 2023.
The Supreme Court justices said the appeals court erred in January 2024 when it ruled against the environmental groups. In that decision, the appeals court said that courts must defer to how the commission interpreted the law because it had more expertise in utility matters.
“This deferential standard of review leaves no basis for faulting the Commission’s work,” the appeals court had concluded then in its opinion.
The environmental groups argued the appeals court ignored a 1998 law that said the commission’s decisions should be held to the same standard of court review as those by other state agencies.
“The California Supreme Court has ruled in our favor that the CPUC is not above the law,” said Bernadette Del Chiaro, senior vice president at the Environmental Working Group, after Thursday’s decision was published. The other groups filing the case are the Center for Biological Diversity and The Protect Our Communities Foundation.
The utilities commission did not immediately respond to a request for comment about the ruling.
More than 2 million solar systems sit on the roofs of homes, businesses and schools in California — more than any other state. Environmentalists say that number must increase if the state is to meet its goal, set by a 2018 law, of using only carbon-free energy by 2045.
The utilities commission has said that the credits given to the rooftop panel owners on their electric bill have become so valuable that they were resulting in “a cost shift” of billions of dollars to those who do not own the panels. This has raised electric bills, especially hurting low-income electric customers, the commission says.
The credits for energy sent by the rooftop systems to the grid had been valued at the retail rate for electricity, which has risen fast as the commission has voted in recent years to approve rate increases the utilities have requested.
The state’s three big for-profit electric utilities — Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric — have sided with commission in the case.
The utilities have long complained that electric bills have been rising because owners of the rooftop solar panels are not paying their fair share of the fixed costs required to maintain the electric grid.
For decades, the utilities have worked to reduce the energy credits aimed at incentivizing Californians to invest in the solar panel systems. The rooftop systems have cut into the utilities’ sale of electricity.
British and Irish Lions: 15 Hugo Keenan, 14 Tommy Freeman, 13 Huw Jones, 12 Sione Tuipulotu, 11 James Lowe, 10 Finn Russell, 9 Jamison Gibson-Park; 1 Ellis Genge, 2 Dan Sheehan, 3 Tadhg Furlong, 4 Maro Itoje (c), 5 Joe McCarthy, 6 Tadhg Beirne, 7 Tom Curry, 8 Jack Conan.
Replacements: 16 Ronan Kelleher, 17 Andrew Porter, 18 Will Stuart, 19 Ollie Chessum, 20 Ben Earl, 21 Alex Mitchell, 22 Marcus Smith, 23 Bundee Aki.
Australia: 15 Tom Wright, 14 Max Jorgensen, 13 Joseph Suaalii, 12 Len Ikitau, 11 Harry Potter, 10 Tom Lynagh, 9 Jake Gordon; 1 James Slipper, 2 Matt Faessler, 3 Allan Alaalatoa, 4 Nick Frost, 5 Jeremy Williams, 6 Nick Champion de Crespigny, 7 Fraser McReight, 8 Harry Wilson (c).
Replacements: 16 Billy Pollard, 17 Angus Bell, 18 Tom Robertson, 19 Tom Hooper 20 Carlo Tizzano, 21 Tate McDermott, 22 Ben Donaldson, 23 Andrew Kellaway.
Jac Morgan unlucky to not feature after a great tour and Will Skelton and Rob Valetini will be out for the first test through injury.
West Indies have been battling with “systemic issues” for 25 years that have left them with players “ill-equipped” to deal with the challenges they faced against Australia, according to Trinidadian commentator Fazeer Mohammed.
“It was almost the perfect storm,” he told BBC Sport.
“You’ve got Mitchell Starc, a world class bowler, deadly in any sort of situation and even deadlier with the pink ball, coming up against players really ill-equipped to deal with those sorts of challenges.
“Everything was set up for something like this to happen. You never really factor in 27 all out but, in the general context of West Indies cricket, this was an accident waiting to happen.”
While Lara has been drafted in to help find a solution to the problems facing the current side, Mohammed believes the iconic left-hander’s heroics were part of the reason a lot of the issues were masked for so long.
“What lies behind it is the failure to address the fundamental challenges in our domestic game – in our regional game,” he added.
“We have many different challenges. Fundamental to those would be costs because we have many different territories – it’s very costly to travel around the Caribbean, to host tournaments.
“There’s an air of resignation about it. People will this morning be arguing amongst themselves and debating about how this can happen, who needs to be fired, who needs to be dropped, who needs to be got rid of.
“It’s the same sort of knee-jerk reaction and then they’ll shrug their shoulders and say ‘well this is how it is now’.”
It is almost two and a half years since West Indies last won a Test series – 1-0 in Zimbabwe – and three years since their last home series victory, 2-0 against Bangladesh.
“I don’t think all is lost by any stretch of the imagination,” Mohammed said.
“It requires at a very fundamental level at the schools, at the under-19, under-23 levels a serious financial investment in growing the quality of the game – male and female.
“But also there has to be, first and foremost, that recognition that Test cricket still means something to us in the Caribbean.”
Remaining fixtures (all times BST): France v Wales (9 July, 20:00) England v Wales & Netherlands v France (both 13 July, 20:00)
England, who won the tournament in 2022, will advance if they beat tournament debutants Wales no matter the result in the Netherlands’ match with France.
If the Lionesses fail to beat Wales, they may still reach the quarter-finals if other results go their way.
Wales will reach the knockouts if they beat France on Wednesday and England on Friday.
But, if they were to lose to France on Wednesday, they’re as good as out. That’s because they’d need to beat England by at least seven goals because of their unfavourable head-to-head goal difference in matches involving themselves, the defending champions and the Netherlands.
France will reach the quarter-finals if they beat Wales and avoid defeat against the Netherlands.
The Netherlands will advance if they beat France on Sunday and England don’t beat Wales.
If England, France and the Netherlands all finish on six points, the Netherlands are likely to be the side that misses out on head-to-head results because of their heavy defeat by England.
At this tournament, teams level on points are separated by head-to-head record. And if three teams are level on points, their head-to-head record is calculated as if they were in a mini-league.
VATICAN CITY — Pope Leo XIV urged the warring sides in the Israel-Iran war to “reject the logic of bullying and revenge” and choose a path of dialogue and diplomacy to reach peace as he expressed solidarity with all Christians in the Middle East.
Speaking at his weekly Wednesday general audience, the American pope said he was following “with attention and hope” recent developments in the war. He cited the biblical exhortation: “A nation shall not raise the sword against another nation.”
A ceasefire is holding in the 12-day Iran-Israel conflict, which involved Israel targeting Iranian nuclear and military sites and the U.S. intervening by dropping bunker-buster bombs on Iranian nuclear sites. Iran has long maintained that its nuclear program is peaceful.
“Let us listen to this voice that comes from on High,” Leo said. “Heal the lacerations caused by the bloody actions of recent days, reject all logic of bullying and revenge, and resolutely take the path of dialogue, diplomacy and peace.”
The Chicago-born Leo also expressed solidarity with the victims of Sunday’s attack on a Greek Orthodox church in Damascus, Syria, and urged the international community to keep supporting Syrian reconciliation. Syria’s Interior Ministry has said a sleeper cell belonging to the Islamic State group was behind the attack at the Church of the Holy Cross, which killed at least 25 people.
“To the Christians in the Middle East, I am near you. All the church is close to you,” he said. “This tragic event is a reminder of the profound fragility that still marks Syria after years of conflict and instability, and therefore it is crucial that the international community doesn’t look away from this country, but continues to offer it support through gestures of solidarity and with a renewed commitment to peace and reconciliation.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decided Thursday to leave troops in Los Angeles in the hands of the Trump administration while California’s objections are litigated in federal court, finding the president had broad — though not “unreviewable” — authority to deploy the military in American cities.
“We disagree with Defendants’ primary argument that the President’s decision to federalize members of the California National Guard … is completely insulated from judicial review,” Judge Mark J. Bennett of Honolulu, a Trump appointee, wrote for the appellate panel. “Nonetheless, we are persuaded that, under longstanding precedent interpreting the statutory predecessor … our review of that decision must be highly deferential.”
Legal scholars said the decision was expected — particularly as the 9th Circuit has moved from the country’s most liberal to one of its most “balanced” since the start of Trump’s first term.
“It’s critically important for the people to understand just how much power Congress has given the president through these statutes,” said Eric Merriam, a professor of legal studies at Central Florida University and an appellate military judge.
“Judges for hundreds of years now have given extreme deference to the president in national security decisions, [including] use of the military,” the expert went on. “There is no other area of law where the president or executive gets that level of deference.”
The appellate panel sharply questioned both sides during Tuesday’s hearing, appearing to reject the federal government’s assertion that courts had no right to review the president’s actions, while also undercutting California’s claim that President Trump had overstepped his authority in sending troops to L.A. to quell a “rebellion against the authority of the United States.”
“All three judges seemed skeptical of the arguments that each party was making in its most extreme form,” said Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice.
“I was impressed with the questions,” she went on. “I think they were fair questions, I think they were hard questions. I think the judges were wrestling with the right issues.”
The ruling Thursday largely returns the issue to U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Unlike Breyer, whose temporary restraining order on June 12 would have returned control of the National Guard to California, the appellate court largely avoided the question of whether the facts on the ground in Los Angeles amounted to a “rebellion.”
Instead, the ruling focused on the limits of presidential power.
Bennett’s opinion directly refuted the argument — made by Assistant Atty. Gen. Brett Shumate in Tuesday’s hearing — that the decision to federalize National Guard troops was “unreviewable.”
“Defendants argue that this language precludes review,” the judge wrote. “[But Supreme Court precedent] does not compel us to accept the federal government’s position that the President could federalize the National Guard based on no evidence whatsoever, and that courts would be unable to review a decision that was obviously absurd or made in bad faith.”
He also quoted at length from the 1932 Supreme Court decision in Sterling vs. Constantin, writing “[t]he nature of the [president’s] power also necessarily implies that there is a permitted range of honest judgment as to the measures to be taken in meeting force with force, in suppressing violence and restoring order.”
Shumate told the judge he didn’t know the case when Bennett asked him about it early in Tuesday’s hearing.
“That is a key case in that line of cases, and the fact he was not aware of it is extraordinary,” Goitein said.
Merriam agreed — to a point.
“That’s a nightmare we have in law school — it’s a nightmare I’ve had as an appellate judge,” the scholar said.
However, “it’s actually a good thing that the attorney representing the U.S. was not planning to talk about martial law in front of the 9th Circuit,” Merriam said.
One thing Thursday’s ruling did not touch is whether the administration violated the Posse Comitatus Act by deputizing the military to act as civilian law enforcement — an allegation California leveled in its original complaint, but which Breyer effectively tabled last week.
“The Posse Comitatus Act claim has not been resolved because it was essentially not ripe last Thursday,” when troops had just arrived, Goitein said. “It is ripe now.”
“Even if the 9th Circuit agrees with the federal government on everything, we could see a ruling from the district court next week that could limit what troops can do on the ground,” she said.
In the meantime, residents of an increasingly quiet Los Angeles will have to live with the growing number of federal troops.
“[Congress] didn’t limit rebellion to specific types of facts,” Merriam said. “As much as [Angelenos] might say, ‘This is crazy! There’s not a rebellion going on in L.A. right now,’ this is where we are with the law.”
Spencer joined Bath in 2020 after nine years with Saracens where he won seven major trophies – including four Premiership titles – through the London club’s era of dominance.
The 32-year-old was made captain in 2022-23 as head of rugby Johann van Graan’s tenure at Bath began, just months after the club had finished bottom of the league the season before.
“The amount of hard work this has taken to turn the ship around… we were bottom three years ago,” added Spencer.
“I can’t credit [Van Graan] enough, he’s been absolutely brilliant. If we [understand] there’s always an opportunity to get better then I’m really excited for the next couple of years.”
Bath narrowly lost to Northampton in the Twickenham showpiece last June but were overwhelming favourites this time around.
They ended the regular league campaign 11 points clear at the top of the table and wrapped up top spot and a home semi-final in the play-offs with three rounds of games still to play.
Scrum-half Spencer said he mainly felt “relief” at the final whistle because of the prolonged build-up.
“To get the mindset right when you qualify early as we did is quite tough,” he said.
“I played that semi-final in my head hundreds of times. Day in, day out it was, ‘who are we going to get?’ It’s a hard place to be mentally.
“It’s relief for me, the players, staff and fans.”
