silence

SCOTT Mills’ “work wife” Tina Daheley has revealed the “real reason” she was missing from Radio 2 this week.

It was revealed this week that fan-favourite host Scott had been fired from his Radio 2 Breakfast Show over allegations surrounding his “personal conduct.”

The Sun understands that his contract was terminated within five days of the complaint being made.

It then came to light how Scott’s sacking was linked to a complaint about a 2016 police probe into historic “serious sexual offences” against a teenage boy, with the timeline of proceedings showing the BBC took seven years to act.

Scott’s co-presenter Tina took to social media on Wednesday to admit that it’s been an “awful week” after she went “missing”.

She shared a photo of herself in bed with a cup of tea and wrote: “Good morning! Just about recovered from this awful cold/flu.

POLL OF THE DAY

Should BBC reveal what they know about Scott Mills ‘sex probe’? VOTE NOW

no trace

Scott Mills’ podcast disappears as he’s dropped by charity after Radio 2 sacking

“I’ve had for the past week (being parent to a primary school aged child is like having a subscription service to viruses!).”

Tina then revealed when she would be returning to her hosting duties.

“Good news is I’m over the worst of it and looking forward to spending two weeks with my family over the Easter hols from tomorrow after what’s been an incredibly difficult past week,” she said.

“I’ll be back on the radio Tuesday 21st April.”

It comes after Scott’s podcast was pulled by the BBC.

His Mercedes-Benz Vans Under the Bonnet: On the Road podcast has also been taken off Spotify.

The four part series created in 2025 with the Under the Bonnet report, shone the spotlight on varying issues for van drivers including everything from road conditions to mental health.

Scott has previously opened up on his own mental health battles and the podcast saw him reveal how 65 per cent of drivers had also struggled.

Yet when users search for it on Spotify, from a Google link that previously worked, a caption now states: “Couldn’t find that podcast.

“Search for something else?”

The BBC have also removed him from a Race Across The World podcast and pulled scenes he filmed for EastEnders.

Yesterday, we exclusively reported how charity Neuroblastoma UK dropped him as a patron.

Recently, we reported how Scott had been wiped from the BBC’s social media.

It comes after it was confirmed the Scott Mills Bridge at the M3 service station was now set to be re-named.

Additionally, The Sun was first to report how his Eurovision replacement is his fellow BBC Radio 2 DJ, Sara Cox.

Since 2011, he has commentated on the semi-finals, which air on BBC One on Tuesday and Thursday in the week leading up to the grand final.

• Scott Mills has been sensationally sacked by the BBC in a “tense” meeting with bosses
• The sudden axing is understood to be linked to a 2016 police probe into historical sex offences involving a teen boy
• Mills was questioned by police under caution in 2018 but the case was dropped in full due to a lack of evidence it is understood
• The race is now on to find a replacement for Mills, with fellow BBC DJ Gary Davies standing in
• And uncertainty now surrounds his future projects

In recent years, he has been joined by Rylan Clark to commentate on the shows, as well as the final live on Radio 2.

It comes after it transpired the broadcaster was questioned by police under caution in 2018 – when he was in his 40s, the Mirror reports.

The interview was related to alleged offences which took place between 1997 and 2000.

The case was dropped in full due to a lack of evidence.

A Metropolitan Police spokesperson told The Mirror: “In December 2016, the Met began an investigation following a referral from another police force.

“The investigation related to allegations of serious sexual offences against a teenage boy.”

The spokesperson said a man, who was in his 40s at the time of the interview, was questioned by police under caution in July 2018.

“A full file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, who determined the evidential threshold had not been met to bring charges,” the Met said.

“Following this advice, the investigation was closed in May 2019.”

The allegations, which did not result in any charges, were reported to have taken place between 1997 and 2000.

Scott began at Radio 1 in 1998 presenting the early morning slot before earning his own breakfast show The Scott Mills Show.

Scott’s pals have also claimed they “can’t reach him” amid the “teen boy sex probe”.

A BBC spokesperson told The Sun: “While we do not comment on matters relating to individuals, we can confirm Scott Mills is no longer contracted to work with the BBC.”

Malcolm in the Middle star Justin Berfield spent years playing older brother Reese in the beloved American sitcom and he has now given his first interview in almost 20 years ahead of its reboot

The actor who famously played Reese in Malcolm in the Middle has broken his silence after 20 years — and revealed the real reason he quit Hollywood.

Justin Berfield is back on our screens next month with the four-episode revival of the popular show that ended two decades ago. And he has now revealed why he has remained so quiet since then.

Speaking on The Joe Vulpis Podcast, Justin, now aged 40, was asked whether he had done any other podcast or interview since the sitcom ended.

He replied: “No, like podcasts weren’t a thing and I’ve always just said no because like I wasn’t working on anything. I’m just like a stay-at-home dad! So, why am I going to do a podcast?

“Because I’m just chilling at home with my kid. So unless I had something to talk about, I’m like, I don’t want to go on a podcast.”

He then explained that he has remained in the industry by working behind the camera as an onset producer and writer on various projects.

And he added: “I was just like, I don’t care (about going on podcasts). I’m enjoying my life. Unless I have something to talk about current. I don’t want to go back in time and talk Malcolm.”

However, he is now more than happy to talk about the beloved sitcom, given Hulu’s Malcolm in the Middle: Life’s Still Unfair is set to land on Disney+ in April.

The final episode of Malcolm aired in May 2006 and Justin revealed in the rare interview why he quit Hollywood soon after.

He said he moved to Colorado with his wife, Liza, after filming because he just wanted a change of scenery.

Giving an insight, he said: “Lots of fly fishing. I still miss it. I love it because I just loved being somewhere so secluded. I was still living in Denver so I was like in the city because I still like access to sports teams and good restaurants and things like that. So I wasn’t living in the mountains or anything like that, even though I went to visit them quite often.

“But I kind of separated from Hollywood and I just got to live somewhere else for once because I grew up here and I just wanted to live somewhere else.

“At that time I had no kids, so I was like, this is the perfect time to do this. So we lived there for three years and then we moved back to LA.”

He also revealed that he quit acting and was never “in demand” after the show.

However, he said he never had the intention of becoming the next Leonardo DiCaprio and that he has loved being a stay-at-home dad to his two children in recent years.

The new series of Malcolm in the Middle will see Justin return as the older brother of Malcolm, played by Frankie Muniz.

Malcolm’s other brother, Francis, played by Christopher Masterson, is also set to return, as are Bryan Cranston and Jane Kaczmarek who play parents Hal and Lois.

And asked what it was like being back on set with his old colleagues, Justin said it felt like no time had passed at all.

He added: “It felt like a really, just a really long hiatus. When we were filming the show, you’d film for like eight months and then you’d take like two, three months off, and then kind of go back and do some things again and start seeing everyone, and that was like your year for seven years straight.

“And then we did this, it was obviously like 20 years since we’d seen each other for most of us. And you just kind of, it felt like time stopped, like we just got right back into it.”

The synopsis to the upcoming revival reads: “After shielding himself and his daughter from his family for over a decade, Malcolm is dragged back into their orbit when Hal and Lois demand his presence at their 40th anniversary party.”

Malcolm in the Middle: Life’s Not Fair arrives on Disney+ on April 10

Security guard Pascal Duvier, most recently infamous for allegedly scolding 11-year-old Ada Law at a hotel in São Paulo, is clearing the air.

Duvier issued a statement on Instagram on Wednesday night following four days of back-and-forth social media claims from soccer star Jorginho, his wife, Catherine Harding (singer-songwriter Cat Cavelli), and pop star Chappell Roan, who denied involvement in an incident that left Ada (the biological daughter of Jude Law and Harding) in tears ahead of her birthday celebration.

As a result of the controversy, speculation around Roan’s treatment of her fans has flooded social media for days. The “Hot to Go!” hitmaker has been vocal in the past about setting boundaries with fans and paparazzi, as well as her complicated relationship with fame.

Duvier, who insists he was not working for Roan at the time of the incident, began his statement saying that he does not normally address online rumors, “but the accusations currently circulating are false and constitute defamation.”

“I take full responsibility for the interactions on March 21st,” he wrote. “I was at the hotel on behalf of another individual, and I was not part of the personal security team of Chappell Roan.

“The actions I took were not on behalf of Chappell Roan, her personal security team, her management, or any other individuals. I made a judgment call based on information we obtained from the hotel, events I had witnessed in the days prior and the heightened overall security risk of our location. My sole interaction with the mother was calm and with good intentions, and the outcome of the encounter is regretful.”

Roan headlined Lollapalooza Brazil over the weekend, and Jorginho was in attendance along with his wife and stepchild. While there, the footballer said the 11-year-old (whom he did not name) thought she spotted the pop star at their São Paulo hotel.

The girl passed by Roan’s table “to confirm it was her, smiled, and went back to sit with her mum. She didn’t say anything, didn’t ask for anything,” he wrote.

Jorginho alleged that, after the girl sat down, a “large security guard” interrupted their breakfast to scold them. The guard allegedly told Harding “she shouldn’t allow [her] daughter to ‘disrespect’ or ‘harass’ other people.”

The girl was “extremely shaken and cried a lot,” said Jorginho, a player for the Brazilian club Flamengo whose legal name is Jorge Luiz Frello Filho.

On Sunday, Roan responded on Instagram, seemingly baffled by the swirling controversy. She insisted the guard was not her personal security and that no one had approached her.

“I did not ask the security guard to go up and talk to this mother and child. … They did not come up to me. They weren’t doing anything.

“I do not hate people who are fans of my music. I do not hate children.”

Three days ago Harding also responded to the brouhaha, posting her own video on Instagram in an attempt to bring some clarity following Roan’s statement. “So 100% this security guard was not a security guard of the hotel, that’s what I can say,” she said. “He looks after artists.

“So I don’t know if it was her personal security guard, but he was with her. So that is all I know. Did she send him to do it? Again, I don’t know.”

Duvier, a “protection specialist” and martial artist, according to his Instagram bio, worked for Kim Kardashian in 2016.

Times Deputy Editor Amy Hubbard contributed to this report.

As the United States-Israeli war on Iran rages on, schools across Israel have been closed, cultural venues shuttered and large gatherings cancelled under police orders.

Dissent against the war, if there is much at all, has little chance of being aired.

A few demonstrations against the war, such as those staged by the Israeli-Arab activist group Zazim, still flicker through central cities, but they do so under heavy supervision, with officers warning crowds to disperse when sirens sound or when assemblies grow beyond what commanders deem safe.

The effect is a public sphere constrained less by decree than by the constant threat hanging overhead.

“Kids aren’t going to school, while employers are insisting their parents go to work,” Zazim’s co-founder and executive director, Raluca Ganea, says. Everyone is too overwhelmed by the daily grind to voice any dissatisfaction, she adds.

“We’re enduring multiple missile attacks daily, which means people aren’t sleeping. It’s like a manual for tyrants. It’s how you suppress protest or opposition and it’s working so far,” she added.

“We’ve attempted a couple of protests, but people are just too tired to engage,” Ganea says of Zazim’s efforts to resist the war. “It’s not so much that people are telling you that you can’t so much as protesting becomes impossible when a missile attack could happen at any time.”

Support for the war on Iran has remained strong in Israel, a fact borne out by polls. But as exhaustion grows and resentment builds over having their fates decided by often distant leaders such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, who have shown little investment in their welfare, the societal fractures that came to define the war on Gaza are almost inevitable, she warns.

“It’s depressing,” she says. “The only response people have is to feel helpless when their fate is in the hands of people like Trump and Netanyahu, who really don’t care about them.”

Those who have put their heads above the parapet to object openly to the war are shunned anyway, as 19-year-old Itamar Greenberg knows only too well. People spit at him in the street.

“It comes in waves,” he says of the criticism he faces for his opposition to the war on Iran on the streets of his hometown, near Tel Aviv. “Sometimes they follow me, shouting ‘traitor’ or ‘terrorist’.”

Itamar is clear enough that he isn’t a terrorist, though he seems ready to accept the label of traitor if it means halting the war on Iran.

“At my university, everywhere, they say my opposition to the war on Iran is somehow crossing a red line. For instance, because of the [danger to the Israeli] hostages, some people could understand opposition to the genocide on Gaza, but opposing the war on Iran, the great evil, is somehow too much,” he says.

Rising censorship

Across Israel, journalists and activists like Itamar describe a pervasive atmosphere of self-policing and censorship that, they say, has left people less informed about the consequences of the war than the citizens in Iran, whom many in their media encourage them to pity.

In a country largely unified against a threat that, for generations, politicians have told them is existential, criticism, dissent or opposition is, for the majority, beyond the pale.

This way of thinking is baked into Israeli society. The systems employed by the country’s military censor today to curtail media reporting predate the establishment of Israel in 1948.

Furthermore, new wartime restrictions on what can and cannot be broadcast of the Iranian missile barrages targeting Israel, where they land and what damage they have done – introduced on March 5 – mean these largely go entirely unreported, Israeli journalists say.

Reporting on the new media restrictions in mid-March, the Israeli magazine +972 documented one instance when journalists were permitted to report on debris that had hit an educational facility, but did not mention the actual strike by an Iranian missile, which had successfully hit its intended target nearby. Nor were they allowed to examine the site.

In another case reported by +972, journalists photographing damage to a residential block said they were approached by a man they believed to be linked to a security agency. He asked police to stop reporters from recording the real target of the attack, which was located behind them. The police officer replied that the journalists would not have noticed that site at all had it not been pointed out, since the visible destruction was concentrated on the civilian building.

The censorship, which had been growing more relaxed in recent years, had been tightened once more during the current war, Meron Rapoport, an editor at +972’s sister paper, Hebrew language Local Call, told Al Jazeera, “We don’t really know what is being or with what explosives,” he said, “The IDF [Israeli army] announcements always refer to strikes being on ‘uninhabited areas,’ which is peculiar, because there aren’t that many uninhabited areas in Tel Aviv. It’s a very compact city.”

Indeed, Iran has launched multiple missiles at Tel Aviv, some of which have resulted in damage and injuries – either by the missiles themselves or by debris falling following interception. Most recently, on Tuesday, missiles triggered air raid sirens in the city, where gaping holes were ripped through a multistorey apartment building.

Israel’s Magen David Adom emergency medical service said: “Six people were lightly injured at four different sites.”

“It’s curious,” Rapoport says. “Israeli commentators are always saying how the Iranian public has no real idea how badly they’re being hit. The irony is that they probably have a better idea of how hard Israel is being hit than most Israelis.”

MEL Schilling’s “heartbroken” MAFS co-star John Aiken has admitted he is “struggling to breathe”, as he broke his silence on her death.

The Australian relationship expert, 55, revealed his immense grief after Mel tragically died aged 54 following a brave battle with colon cancer.

The much-loved dating coach was known for her work on both the Married At First Sight Australia and UK versions of the show.

Today her MAFS Aus co-star John shared a picture of him with his pal from 2016 and one from the recent series, and penned an emotional message which read: “It’s with great sadness and heavy heart that today I lost my dear friend and fellow MAFS expert Mel Schilling.

“I am heartbroken, devastated and finding it hard to breathe.

“It was a privilege and an honour to sit beside her on the MAFS couch and watch her shine. She was warm, supportive and honest, and she deeply cared about all our participants. I had a front row seat to her remarkable skills and she truly believed in the experiment. At her core she loved love.”

Read more on mel shilling

FEARLESS MEL

How Mel Schilling hid cancer hell from legion of fans despite pain off camera

LAST OUTING

Final pictures of late Mel Schilling four months before tragic death

John also talked about their relationship off screen, and the “fun” they would have when the cameras weren’t rolling.

“And when her illness struck she never complained. She kept her challenges to herself and continued to deliver time and time again. She was an inspiration, a fighter, a leader,” the grief stricken star said.

“It’s not fair that my partner in crime is gone. She was one of the good ones. I am unravelling just thinking about it. I wanted to sit on our couch together forever. She knew my rhythms and I knew hers. But it’s simply not to be.

John admitted he was “distraught” that he had to accept she was now gone, and ended the heartfelt message with: “I love you and I miss you gorgeous.. xx”.

Mel and John were incredibly close having worked on MAFS Australia together for ten years, including the latest series which is airing right now on E4.

Mel’s MAFS UK co-star Charlene Douglas also paid an emotional tribute, where she reflected on their close bond.

Taking to Instagram, she wrote: “I’m both devastated and heartbroken to hear of the passing of my MAFS queen and friend Mel.

“I had the pleasure of spending time with Mel in her last days and will forever treasure the laughter, the memories and love we had for each other.

“Mel’s love for life, jokes and of course dancing will forever stay in my heart. What I wouldn’t give to be dancing to Beyoncé with you right now.

“Sleep in perfect peace Mel. Love you ♥️”

Mel was previously diagnosed with colon cancer in 2023, which later spread to her lungs and brain.

Her husband Gareth Brisbane announced the heartbreaking news today in an emotional Instagram post.

Alongside touching pictures of Mel, he said: “Melanie Jane Brisbane-Schilling passed away peacefully today, surrounded by love.

“In her final moments, when I thought cancer had taken away her ability to speak, she ushered me closer and whispered a message for Maddie and me that will sustain me for the rest of my life.

“It took all of her remaining strength, and that gesture summed up our wee Melsie perfectly. Even then, her only thought was for Maddie and me.”

He continued: “This is a woman who became a new mum and a TV star at 42 — and nailed both.

“This is a woman who, through two years of chemotherapy, when she could barely lift her head from the pillow, never complained and never stopped showing courage, grace, compassion and empathy, and never missed a day of filming.

“To most of you, she was Mel Schilling — matriarch of MAFS and queen of reality TV. To Maddie and me, she was our wee Melsie: an incredible mum, role model, and soulmate.”

Channel 4 hailed Mel as a friend who “radiated joy, warmth and optimism”.

Issuing a statement, it said: “Our thoughts and condolences are, first and foremost, with her family and loved ones.

“We’re privileged to be the channel that is home to Mel’s work, which was at the heart of Married At First Sight‘s phenomenal success, both in the UK and Australia.

“It reflected so much about her – her fierce advocacy for other women, her passion for healthy relationships and her mission to unite people in love.

“For many who work for Channel 4, Mel was not just a colleague but a friend, someone who radiated joy, warmth and optimism, who energized every room she walked into, with humour and positivity.

“Everyone who knew her will miss all this about her and much more. We share in the sorrow that we’re sure many viewers will now feel at this terrible loss.”

At 95, labor icon Dolores Huerta made a shocking and heartbreaking revelation Wednesday, in the wake of a New York Times investigation into sexual abuse allegations against her fellow icon, Cesar Chavez.

She was raped by Chavez, she said. Twice — both times resulting in pregnancies.

“I have never identified myself as a victim, but I now understand that I am a survivor — of violence, of sexual abuse, of domineering men who saw me, and other women, as property, or things to control,” Huerta wrote in a statement Wednesday. “I have kept this secret long enough. My silence ends here.”

Like so many women who have carried the burden of their own attacks behind an iron curtain of guilt and shame, Huerta now finds herself in the difficult, painful position of having not only to relive this trauma as it becomes public, but explain it to the rest of us.

Like the brave women of the Epstein files; like our First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom and the courageous women who spoke out against Harvey Weinstein; like Cassie Ventura; like E. Jean Carroll; like Christine Blasey Ford, Huerta joins the ranks of women forced to justify their response to abuse by powerful men.

Huerta shouldn’t have to engage in this rite of self-flagellation, of course, but she and Chavez are linked by their legacies as two of the greatest civil rights fighters in our history. Now, this hidden truth rewrites not just his story, not just hers — but the entire legend of a workers’ movement that grew from the grape fields of California into a defining story of Golden State fortitude and hope.

If Chavez was a predator, where do we even go from here? What do we believe in when even our heroes are ghosts, as Pink Floyd long ago warned?

“It’s just a very heavy day,” said Huerta’s spokesperson, Erik Olvera. “It is incredibly overwhelming for her.”

And for all of us, really.

Reports of abuse

The New York Times investigation detailed the molestation and abuse by Chavez of two women who were teens at the time the events took place. Huerta, the sharpest 95-year-old I’ve even seen, also told the reporters that Chavez had forced sex on her when she was in her 30s, once by manipulation and once by force.

“The first time I was manipulated and pressured into having sex with him, and I didn’t feel I could say no because he was someone that I admired, my boss and the leader of the movement I had already devoted years of my life to,” she wrote in her statement. “The second time I was forced, against my will, and in an environment where I felt trapped.”

Huerta had two daughters from these encounters and gave them to other families to be raised, though she is close to both of them, Olvera, the spokesman, said.

Olvera said that Huerta was unaware of the allegations of the two other women interviewed by the New York Times until the reporters contacted her several weeks ago.

“She literally thought she was the only one,” Olvera said. “The guilt is really heavy for her.”

As the news broke this week, shock — but not disbelief — rippled through the political and union worlds where Chavez remains revered (he died in 1993) and Huerta remains active. Despite her age, she speaks at multiple events each week and is a fixture at the state Capitol advocating for workers’ rights.

While Huerta has never spoken before about Chavez’s attacks on her, his infidelities and autocratic leadership style — and rumors of misconduct — have been documented for years. In her 2014 biography, journalist Miriam Pawel detailed some of these complaints as well as Chavez’s troubled relationship with his wife.

In a statement, the United Farm Workers union called the allegations “profoundly shocking.”

It canceled all events celebrating the upcoming Cesar Chavez Day — a state holiday — and is working on a survivor-centered response with outside experts to help ensure a fair and inclusive pathway for other people to tell their stories.

Sen. Alex Padilla, who has worked for years with Huerta but who was a child when Chavez was organizing, called for “zero tolerance for abuse, exploitation, and the silencing of victims, no matter who is involved.”

“Confronting painful truths and ensuring accountability is essential to honoring the very values the greater farmworker movement stands for — values rooted in dignity and justice for all,” Padilla said.

Changing times

If there is the slightest bit of solace to be found in this tragedy, it is in the response. So far, we have been spared the usual attacks on victims — though almost certainly they are happening outside the public eye.

Though Huerta may carry guilt, as all survivors so unfairly do, coming forward now has quickly and forcefully changed the narrative. I suspect there are few people who would dare call Huerta a liar, or challenge her motives. I suspect without her revelations, the other women coming forward would be treated differently.

I imagine that had she spoken out back then, as a young mother in the 1970s, a Latina woman in the male-dominated culture of the Central Valley, she would likely have found little relief.

What must it have been like for her all these years to know the man we idolized had this monstrous side?

But after 60 years of hard work, Huerta is now powerful in her own right. And after 60 years of silence, Huerta wanted to use that power to support the other women speaking out. Olvera said Huerta came to that decision reading the New York Times piece, and for the first time understanding that these other survivors were children when their abuse happened.

“When she learned that, that’s when she was like, I need to come out and tell my story,” he said. “She didn’t want them to stand alone.”

In the end, every survivor stands alone because what needs to heal is a soul shattered by the trivial evil of carnal greed, a pain so personal and unique even another survivor can’t fully understand it. It is daring and noble in the crucible of that personal destruction, which lasts years if not decades, to demand accountability. Not all of our heroes are ghosts.

“Your courage and your voices matter,” Siebel Newsom said. “They open the door for so many others to follow suit and tell their stories so that one day soon, we will break this horrific cycle of repetitive abuse by powerful men.”

These women have now made it clear: Chavez was a predator — a powerful man who used his authority to manipulate and force women and girls into sexual encounters.

In the end, all the good Chavez did, the strength and dignity he brought not just to farmworkers but to immigrants across the country, will forever be bound up with this ugly truth — though the movement is far more than one man.

Chavez earned this ending. Hopefully, for Huerta and the other survivors, speaking out is the beginning of healing.

What else you should be reading

The must-read: Cesar Chavez, a Civil Rights Icon, Is Accused of Abusing Girls for Years
The deep dive: ‘Profoundly shocking’ allegations against Cesar Chavez spark soul-searching in movement
The L.A. Times Special: Democrats face the possibility of a historic upset in California governor’s race, poll finds

Stay Golden,
Anita Chabria
—
Was this newsletter forwarded to you? Sign up here to get it in your inbox.

Ellis has been a hit for Channel 5 and one star has opened up about returning for a potential third series

Channel 5’s Ellis has been a huge hit with viewers and as series two of the gripping drama comes to an end, fans have been left wondering if it will return for another series.

Season 1 first appeared on our TV screens back in 2024 and at the time it became a hit with detective drama fans, who couldn’t get enough of the drama.

It was a hit after featuring the UK’s first black solo female-led as award-winning actress Sharon D Clarke led the cast. After the success of Series 1, Channel 5 viewers were treated to another season that aired last week.

Fan once again saw DCI Ellis (Sharon D Clarke) and DS Harper (Andrew Gower) investigate the disappearance of a local boy, a murder that brought up a lot of old grudges and the death of a student who was found crushed underneath scaffolding. As the show came to an end tonight, everyone has been left wondering if Ellis and Harper make a return to our screens again.

As of now, Channel 5 are yet to confirm whether the show will continue, however, the good news as Andrew Gower, who plays DS Harper, is very keen to return to his role and the show.

When speaking to Radio Times on the idea of him filming the show again, he said: “Oh yeah, that’s a very easy ‘yes’. To work with Sharon and to keep giving life to Harper and Ellis.”

He continued: “I’ll keep reiterating this but it’s the audience, they always say it’s all about the audience, right? If we can keep entertaining audiences and they keep wanting more, then that’s what we’ll do with Ellis.

“I think the more series we have or the more episodes we have – films, whatever people call them – then that means that we’re doing something right and that means that this relationship can grow.”

The star added: “At some point maybe grow apart to come together, whatever. That’s the exciting thing about British detective shows, there’s scope where you can build from one series to however many. Long may it continue.”

Talking about the legacy of the detective drama, co-star Sharon D Clarke previously said: “The thing I love the most about Ellis is that she is on our screens! I love playing Ellis because I didn’t grow up seeing anybody like her on my television screen.

“So that is my joy, that this is a first, and I am getting to lead that brigade and hopefully pass that baton on to people coming behind me. We’ve waited a long time, but we’re here, and we’re here to stay.”

Channel 5 has since confirmed what show will be replacing Ellis next week in the 9pm slot on Tuesday night. On Tuesday, (March 24) the network will air Power: The Downfall of Huw Edwards, a feature-length drama starring Martin Clunes, Osian Morgan, Sian Reese Williams, and Jason Hughes.

Channel 5 said: “Power: The Downfall of Huw Edwards is a major, feature-length factual drama exploring the story of how a vulnerable 17-year-old boy was groomed by one of the most powerful figures in television – Huw Edwards.

“Starring Martin Clunes (Doc Martin, Wuthering Heights, Manhunt) as Edwards, the drama explores the newsreader’s double life as it spirals out of control, leading to his total exit from public life following his conviction for making indecent images of children.”

Ellis is available to stream on Channel 5

Amber Davies has broken her silence on an alleged feud with her Legally Blonde co-star Hannah Lowther amid rumours of ‘backstage tension’

Amber Davies has broken her silence on her alleged feud with her Legally Blonde co-star Hannah Lowther. The former Love Island star has been forced to pull out of her starring role as Elle Woods.

Giving an update to fans about her ill health, she wrote on Instagram earlier today: “Ok update: after talking to my DR, being on antibiotics and trying to recover whilst doing shows is getting me and my health NOWHERE. Been working on this lingering illness for a month now so I’ll be off again from my beautiful Elle Woods.

“This is the last thing I want but there’s no other way. I fear if I keep “pushing through” I will be battling with this for longer than I need to be. I can’t wait to be back on stage and feel like me again!!!”

However, there have been rumours about a feud between Amber and her co-star Hannah Lowther. Hannah found fame on TikTok in the pandemic and is a successful musical theatre star.

Insiders have said to the Daily Mail that “tension” had developed backstage after audiences seemed to be preferring Hannah’s portrayal of Elle over Amber’s. A source said: “When Hannah goes on, the energy is completely different.

“She gives it ten times more energy than Amber ever has, and just has that sparkle that Amber lacks. Everyone backstage is professional, but it would be fair to say the atmosphere between the two girls can be a bit tense at times.”

Now, Amber has appeared to address the feud head on. Taking to Instagram to comment on Hannah taking on the role, she also shared a personal message to Hannah, writing: “An extra special appreciate message to @hannahlowther who has given me all the grace and space to be poorly and recover. The show is in safe hands ALWAYS.”

Amber previously spoke out to defend herself, given her hectic schedule in the recent months. She added: “Also I keep having to remind myself I went from Gatsby, to a last min Strictly, then to Elle so my body’s evidently fighting for its life.

“I also keep reminding myself that it’s ok to be poorly, we are human. Just a reminder there’s absolutely never a right time to be poorly in a musical theatre schedule so you must, for your own sanity, go with the flow!”

At the time of writing, Hannah has not responded to the post but confirmed she would be playing Elle this evening.

Like this s tory? F or more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads .

The international community has a structural problem in reading conflicts: it treats silence as neutrality, when in fact silence is a manufactured condition. When international monitors report the absence of civil protests or testimonies from conflict zones, they are not documenting consensus; they are documenting the success of propaganda operations. This article argues that conflicting parties are now actively exploiting the spiral of silence as a strategic weapon, and the international community’s failure to recognize this results in a structurally flawed diplomatic response even before analysis begins. This argument will be constructed in three layers: how the spiral is engineered, how Sudan proves it, and why the international interpretive framework must be updated immediately.

Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (1974), in her theory Spiral of Silence, describes how individuals suppress their minority opinions to avoid social isolation. This theory is built on the assumption of a free society, where silence is an organic social choice. In conflict zones, this assumption collapses completely. Silence is not chosen; it is engineered. Propaganda actors flood information channels with dominant narratives not to convince audiences that these narratives are true, but to signal which voices are safe and which are not. The result appears to be consensus. But it is not.

Social media has transformed this architecture of silence into something almost invisible. Platforms give users real-time visibility into how much public response a particular view receives. When opposing content is systematically silenced through algorithmic deprioritization and coordinated mass reporting campaigns, people conclude that speaking out is pointless, or worse, dangerous. Jowett and O’Donnell (2019) note that bandwagon propaganda does not require audiences to believe in the dominant narrative, only to believe that others already believe it. At that point, the spiral becomes self-sustaining: it no longer needs external enforcement because the target population has internalized it themselves.

The agenda-setting theory proposed by McCombs and Shaw (1972) adds another layer to this problem and makes it much more difficult to detect. The media and information channels do not merely reflect reality; they determine what is considered worthy of discussion from the outset. When warring parties dominate the information space, they not only shape international perceptions. They also determine which testimonies are considered safe for local residents to give and which silences are necessary for survival. This is not a side effect of conflict. It is a deliberate targeting of the information environment itself, and the international community has been consistently slow to recognize this as such.

Two technical mechanisms make all this work, and neither requires direct violence to be effective. First, bandwagon propaganda floods channels with coordinated content until dissent appears marginal and irrelevant. Second, fear appeals work without needing to be explicitly stated. In conflict environments, people have witnessed what happens to those who oppose the dominant narrative, so self-censorship becomes a rational choice, not a sign of weakness. The combination of the two is the most dangerous: the spiral no longer requires external enforcement because its targets are already silencing themselves. This is not the moral failure of individuals who choose to remain silent; it is a system designed to work exactly as intended.

The case of Sudan illustrates this most clearly. Both the SAF and the RSF launched coordinated information operations from the early days of the conflict. RSF channels spread a narrative of civilian protection, while the SAF network framed the war solely as a counter-terrorism operation. These two narratives, although contradictory, both served to narrow the space for independent civilian testimony. Civilians in Khartoum and Darfur faced an information environment that made disclosure a risk calculation rather than a right. The internet blackouts recorded at various periods of the conflict were not merely technical obstacles; they were a very clear signal of the price to be paid for speaking out.

Zeitzoff (2017) shows that users in environments close to conflict significantly alter their disclosure behavior under perceived surveillance, even without direct threats. In Sudan, the threat is anything but hypothetical. The diplomatic consequences are immediately apparent: the UN’s initial assessment of the Sudanese conflict has been repeatedly criticized by humanitarian organizations for underestimating civilian casualties and displacement figures. This is not a methodological failure. It is the intended result of a deliberate information architecture, a condition in which the most relevant data is already missing before the verification process even begins.

What makes this a diplomatic crisis, not merely an information crisis, is that the international response is built on what is reported. When open-source assessments treat civilian silence as a neutral baseline, they are not accessing the truth on the ground. They are accessing whatever has made it through the spiral. This pattern repeats itself in various conflicts because it consistently works in Syria, in Myanmar, and in Ethiopia. In each case, the international community finds itself working with records that have been curated by the parties most interested in concealing crimes.

The solution is not more monitoring infrastructure. What is needed is a different interpretative framework. Silence must be treated as a data point that requires explanation, not as a default condition that requires nothing. When there are no reports from conflict zones, it does not mean that nothing is happening; rather, it means that the conditions for speaking out have been destroyed first. Protected witness pathways, verification networks from the diaspora, and analysis of anomalies in information flows are all useful, but only after a fundamental recognition that the problem is not a lack of information, but rather that engineered silence is constantly misinterpreted as the absence of anything worth investigating.

The Spiral of Silence was originally a theory about how even free societies can slowly and unconsciously silence themselves. In the hands of modern propaganda architects, the theory has been repurposed as a method to ensure that the most credible witnesses to crimes never speak out and that their silence is interpreted by the international community as proof that there are no crimes to investigate. The arguments in this article, from the mechanisms of spiral engineering to the role of social media to the case of Sudan, all point to the same conclusion: as long as silence is interpreted as absence, the international community is not conducting independent analysis. They are confirming the narrative of those most interested in concealing the truth. The loudest voices are not the most honest; they are simply the ones allowed to speak.

March 5 (UPI) — Argentina’s main business organizations issued an unusual public warning to President Javier Milei’s government, calling for “respect” for the private sector and warning about the difficult situation facing the country’s industrial base.

The statements followed remarks by Milei during the opening of the legislative year in Congress, when the president sharply criticized industrial business leaders and accused them of benefiting for years from a protectionist and corrupt economic system.

The reactions came mainly from the Argentine Industrial Union, known by its Spanish acronym UIA, and the Argentine Business Association, or AEA, two of the most influential groups representing the country’s private sector.

Under the premise that “without industry there is no nation,” the UIA defended the productive sector in a statement responding to the president’s comments and expressed concern about the situation of factories across several provinces.

“In this stage of transformation, we want to be clear: respect is a basic condition for development. Respect for those who produce, invest and create jobs across the country. Respect is the starting point to rebuild the confidence Argentina needs, both domestically and internationally,” the organization said, according to a report by Argentine newspaper Perfil.

The UIA also said business leaders should not be blamed for economic distortions accumulated over decades and called for clear rules to guide the transition toward a more open economic model.

Industrial representatives warned that many companies, especially small and medium-sized firms, are facing a difficult period marked by falling consumer demand, heavy tax pressure and financial constraints.

The group said Argentina’s industrial sector produces about 19% of the country’s gross domestic product and contributes 27% of national tax revenue. It also generates 19% of formal employment, with about 1.2 million workers, and supports another 2.4 million indirect formal jobs throughout the production chain.

The AEA, which represents owners of some of the country’s largest companies, adopted a more moderate tone.

The organization acknowledged progress by Milei’s administration in stabilizing the economy, but said relations between the state and the private sector must be based on respect and cooperation to facilitate new investment.

Despite the critical tone, the business statements avoided a direct confrontation with the government and stressed the need for cooperation, digital outlet Infobae reported. Both organizations said economic stabilization must be accompanied by policies that encourage productive investment and support the industrial sector.

Although much of Argentina’s business community initially supported Milei’s economic reforms, the episode marks one of the first public criticisms by major companies since he took office.

A growing number of factory closures and a slowdown in industrial activity have begun to trigger concerns within the private sector.

The Iranian team arrived in Australia well before the air strikes on their country by the US and Israel began last Saturday.

More than 1,100 Iranian civilians are estimated to have been killed according to the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency, external (HRNA).

“No-one likes what’s happening, no-one wants war,” said head coach Marziyeh Jafari.

In the same news conference however, she insisted Iran have “come here to play football”.

A 4-0 defeat by Australia on Thursday means they now must beat Philippines on Sunday to have a chance of progressing to the knockout stages.

Their approach to the national anthem has matched that taken by the men’s team at the 2022 World Cup in Qatar, where they were silent before their first game against England and then sang along before their next match against Wales.

That campaign came against the backdrop of significant domestic protests in Iran over the death of 22-year-old woman Mahsa Amini while in police custody.

Before this game, dozens of Iranian-Australians gathered outside the stadium in Gold Coast waving Israeli, Australian and pre-revolution Iranian flags.

Israel is no longer concealing its intention to forcibly displace Palestinians from their homeland, as it now announces this plan more openly than ever before through official rhetoric at the highest levels, said Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor in a report issued today.

Through actions on the ground and institutional measures designed to reframe the crime as “voluntary migration”, explained Euro-Med Monitor, Israel has attempted to implement its displacement campaign by exploiting the international community’s near-total silence, which has enabled the continuation of the crime and Israeli impunity despite the unprecedented nature of humanity’s first livestreamed genocide.

“Israel is now attempting to carry out the final phase of its crime, and its original goal: the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Palestine, specifically from the Gaza Strip. For a year and a half, Israel has carried out acts of genocide, killing and injuring hundreds of thousands of people, erasing entire cities, dismantling the Strip’s infrastructure, and systematically displacing its population within the enclave. These actions aim to eliminate the Palestinian people as a community and as a collective presence.”

The current plans for forced displacement, said the Geneva-based rights group, are a direct extension of Israel’s long-standing, settler-colonial project, aimed at erasing Palestinian existence and seizing land. What distinguishes this stage, it added, is its unprecedented scale and brutality.

“Israel is targeting over two million people who have endured a full-scale genocide and have been stripped of even the most basic human rights, under coercive, inhumane conditions that make living any sort of a normal life impossible. Israel’s deliberate objective is to pressure Palestinians into leaving by making it their only means of survival.”

Having succeeded in revealing the weak principles of international law, such as protections for civilians based on their perceived racial superiority or lack thereof, Israel is now reshaping the narrative once again.

READ: Gaza reaches WHO’s most critical malnutrition level amid Israeli blockade

“Armed with overwhelming force and emboldened by the international community’s abandonment of legal and moral responsibilities, Israel seeks to portray the mass expulsion of Palestinians as ‘voluntary migration’,” said the group. “This is a blatant attempt to rebrand ethnic cleansing and forced displacement using dishonest language — like ‘humanitarian considerations’ and ‘individual choice’ — and is a direct contradiction of legal facts and the reality on the ground.”

Euro-Med Monitor emphasised that forced displacement is a standalone crime under international law, because it involves the removal of individuals from areas where they legally reside, using force, threats, or other forms of coercion, without valid legal justification.

“Coercion, in the context of Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip, goes beyond military force. It includes the creation of unbearable conditions that render remaining in one’s home practically impossible or life-threatening.” A coercive environment includes fear of violence, persecution, arrest, intimidation, starvation or other forms of hardship that strip individuals of free will and force them to flee.

“Israel has already committed the crime of forced displacement against Gaza’s population, having driven them into internal displacement without legal grounds and in conditions that violate international legal exceptions, which only permit evacuation temporarily and under imperative military necessity, while ensuring safe areas with minimum standards of human dignity,” said Lima Bustami, Director of Euro-Med Monitor’s Legal Department.

“None of these standards have been met. In fact, Israel has used this widespread and repeated pattern of displacement as a tool of genocide, aimed at destroying and subjecting the population to deadly living conditions.”

Bustami added that although the legal elements of the crime are already fulfilled, Israel is further escalating it to a more lethal level against the Palestinian people, manifesting its settler-colonial vision of expulsion and replacement. “Now it is attempting to market the second phase of forced displacement — beyond Gaza’s borders — as ‘voluntary migration’: a transparent deception that only a complicit international community — one that chooses silence over accountability — would accept.”

Today, the people of the Gaza Strip endure catastrophic conditions that are unprecedented in recent history, said Euro-Med Monitor. “Israel has obliterated all forms of normal life; there is no electricity or infrastructure, and there are no homes, no essential services, no functioning healthcare or education systems, and no clean water services.”

Indeed, the group’s report notes that around 2.3 million Palestinians are confined to less than 34 per cent of the Strip’s 365 square kilometres. Approximately 66 per cent of the territory has been turned into so-called “buffer zones”, or areas that are completely off-limits to Palestinians and/or that have been forcibly depopulated through Israeli bombings and displacement orders. “Most of the population is now living in tattered tents amid the spread of famine, disease and epidemics and an accumulation of waste, conditions symptomatic of the near-complete collapse of the humanitarian system.”

Moreover, Israel continues to systematically block the entry of food, medicine and fuel; destroy all remaining means of survival; and obstruct any efforts aimed at reconstruction or restoring even the minimum conditions for a healthy life.

“These conditions in place are not the result of a natural disaster,” the Euro-Med report says pointedly. “They have been deliberately engineered by Israel as a coercive tool to pressure the population into leaving the Gaza Strip. The absence of any genuine, voluntary alternative for Palestinians in the enclave renders this situation a textbook case of forcible transfer, as defined under international law and affirmed by relevant jurisprudence.”

READ: Israel advocate says, ‘I’m OK with as many dead kids as it takes’

According to Bustami, “While population transfers may be permitted in certain humanitarian contexts under international law, any such justification collapses if the humanitarian crisis is the direct consequence of unlawful acts committed by the same party enforcing the transfer. It is impermissible to use forced displacement as a response to a disaster one has created, a principle clearly upheld by international tribunals, particularly the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.”

Framing this imposed reality as a “voluntary” migration and an option not only constitutes a gross distortion of truth, said Euro-Med Monitor, but also undermines the legal foundations of the international system, erodes the principle of accountability, and transforms impunity from a failure of justice into a deliberate mechanism for perpetuating grave crimes and entrenching the outcomes of such crimes.

“Repeated public statements from the highest levels of Israel’s political and security leadership have escalated in intensity over the past year and a half, and expose a clear, coordinated intent to displace the population of the Gaza Strip. In a blatant bid to enforce a demographic transformation serving Israel’s colonial-settler agenda, senior Israeli officials — including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — have publicly called for the expulsion of Palestinians from the Strip and for the settlement of Jewish Israelis in their place.”

Netanyahu expressed full support in February 2025 for US President Donald Trump’s plan to resettle Palestinians outside of the Gaza Strip, describing it as “the only viable solution for enabling a different future” for the region. Likewise, Smotrich announced in March that the Israeli government would back the establishment of a new “migration authority” to coordinate what he termed a “massive logistical operation” to remove Palestinians from the Strip.

Ben-Gvir, meanwhile, has openly advocated for the encouragement of “voluntary migration” coupled with calls to resettle Jewish Israelis in the territory.

The human rights organisation referred to the 23 March decision of the Israeli Security Cabinet to establish a dedicated directorate within the Ministry of Defence, to manage what it calls the “voluntary relocation” of the Gaza Strip’s residents to third countries. “This is evidence that this displacement is not a by-product of destruction or political rhetoric, but an official policy,” it noted. “This policy is being implemented through institutional mechanisms, directed from within Israel’s own security apparatus, with full operational powers, executive structures, and strategic goals.”

READ: Israel bombing kills 4-year-old twin girls as they slept in Gaza

Furthermore, current Defence Minister Israel Katz’s statement on the new directorate confirmed that it would “prepare for and enable safe and controlled passage of Gaza residents for their voluntary departure to third countries, including securing movement, establishing movement routes, checking pedestrians at designated crossings in the Gaza Strip, as well as coordinating the provision of infrastructure that will enable passage by land, sea and air to the destination countries.”

The true danger of establishing such a directorate, said Euro-Med Monitor, lies not only in its institutionalisation of forced transfer, but in the new legal and political reality it seeks to impose. “It rebrands displacement as an ‘optional’ administrative service while stripping civilians of their ability to make free, informed decisions, therefore cloaking a war crime in a veneer of bureaucratic legitimacy.”

Any departure from the Gaza Strip under current circumstances cannot be considered “voluntary”, it added, but rather constitutes, in legal terms, forcible transfer, which is strictly prohibited under international law. “All individuals compelled to leave the Strip retain their inalienable right to return to their land and property immediately and unconditionally. They also have the full right to seek compensation for all damages and losses incurred as a result of Israeli crimes and rights violations, including the destruction of homes and property, physical and psychological harm, the assault on human dignity, and the denial of livelihood and basic rights.”

Under its obligations as an occupying power responsible for the protection of the civilian population, Israel is prohibited from forcibly transferring Palestinians and bears full legal responsibility to ensure their protection from this crime.

The rules of international law, particularly customary international law and the Geneva Conventions, require all states not to recognise any situation arising from the crime of forcible transfer and to treat it as null and void. States are also obligated to withhold all material, political and diplomatic support that would contribute to the entrenchment of such a situation.

“International responsibility goes beyond mere non-recognition,” said the rights group. “It includes a legal duty for states to take urgent effective steps to halt the crime, hold perpetrators accountable, and provide redress to victims. This includes ensuring the safe, voluntary return of all displaced persons from the Gaza Strip, and providing full reparations for the harm and violations they have suffered. Any failure to act in this regard constitutes a direct breach of international law and complicity that could subject states to legal accountability.”

READ: Israeli air strike hits Gaza children’s hospital

Euro-Med Monitor said that the international community must move beyond deafening silence and abandon paltry rhetorical condemnations, which have come to represent the maximum response it dares to make in the face of the livestreamed genocide unfolding before its eyes. “It must act swiftly and effectively to halt Israel’s ongoing project of mass displacement in the Gaza Strip and prevent it from becoming an entrenched reality. This action must be based on international legal norms, a commitment to justice and accountability, and an honest reckoning with the root structural cause of the crimes: Israel’s unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 1967.”

Endorsing or remaining silent about Israeli plans to forcibly transfer Palestinians out of the Gaza Strip not only exonerates Israel but rewards it for its illegal conduct by granting it gains secured through mass killing, destruction, blockade, and starvation, said the organisation. “This is not just a series of war crimes or crimes against humanity, it embodies the legal definition of genocide, as established by the 1948 Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.”

All states, individually and collectively, must uphold their legal obligations and take all necessary measures to halt Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip.

This includes taking immediate, effective steps to protect Palestinian civilians and to prevent the implementation of the US-Israeli crime of forcible transfer that is openly threatening the Strip’s population.

“The international community must impose economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions on Israel for its systematic and grave violations of international law. This includes halting arms imports and exports; ending all forms of political, financial and military support; freezing the financial assets of officials involved in crimes against Palestinians; imposing travel bans; and suspending trade privileges and bilateral agreements that offer Israel economic advantages that sustain its capacity to commit further crimes.”

The rights group insisted that states must also hold complicit governments accountable — chief among them the United States — for their role in enabling Israeli crimes through various forms of support, including military and intelligence cooperation, financial aid and political or legal backing.

“The ethnic cleansing and genocide taking place right now in the Gaza Strip would not be possible without Israel’s decades-long unlawful colonial presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This is the root structural cause of the violence, oppression, and destruction in the besieged enclave,” concluded Euro-Med Monitor. “Any meaningful response to the escalating crisis in the Strip must begin with dismantling this colonial reality, recognising the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and securing their freedom and sovereignty over their national territory.

“As Israel and its allies must be compelled to abide by the law, international intervention is the only path to ending the genocide, halting all forms of individual and collective forcible transfer, dismantling the apartheid regime, and establishing a credible framework for justice, accountability, and the preservation of human dignity.”

OPINION: Palestinian voices are throttled by the promotion of foreign agendas

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.