spaces

SPAIN is set to implement stricter rules when it comes to smoking and vaping – and it will affect all holidaymakers.

The list of smoke-free places that already exists could be expanded to beaches and national parks under new law.

This week, Spain approved a draft law to extend the list of smoke-free places.

It will be forbidden to smoke or vape on the terraces of bars and restaurants as well as on beaches, riverside beaches, national parks and swimming pools.

Health Minister Mónica García said: “Anyone who wants to have a coffee or enjoy their leisure time freely on a terrace should be able to do so without the smoke from nearby tables becoming part of the menu.”

Also affected are outdoor performance spaces, university campuses and work vehicles such as delivery vans.

COAST EFFECTIVE

Best UK family theme & waterparks with cheap stays from just £3pp a night

DIVE IN

Mega waterpark hotels with EVERYTHING you ever wanted & all inclusive from £189pp

It’s not just a ban directly in these areas – Spain is also hoping to introduce ‘enhanced protection zones’

This is where smoking and vaping will be banned within a 15-metre perimeter around them in certain places like museums and children’s parks and playgrounds.

The amount people can be fined could also change.

According to local media, those breaking these rules could be be fined between €200-€600 (£170-£511).

The law will also ban the use of tobacco-related products by those under the age of 18.

Until now, the law only prohibited the sale and supply to under 18s.

For minors who break the ban on consuming tobacco or vapes, fines for minor offences will start at €200 (£170).

Athough this could be replaced by community service.

These rules aren’t in effect yet as the changes will only be made if the bill is approved by Spanish parliament.

It’s not the only rule that could see you fined in Spain – some areas ban sunlounger hogging, with £216 fines.

So we’ve rounded up all of the Spain travel rules you need to know about.

And don’t try and drink at these French beaches either – that’s banned too.

Research has named the best place in the UK to raise a child, thanks to a number of factors from the variety of countryside spaces to lower than average house prices

Raising a child in the modern world is a demanding task, and there are lots of big decisions parents-to-be need to make to give their offspring the best chance in life.

One of the most important factors is where to live, and parents will be seeking somewhere with a balance between safety, education quality, childcare costs, plus outdoor spaces to raise free-range kids.

To give parents a hand when making this life-changing choice, Outdoor Toys has created an index of the best places to raise a child in the UK for 2026, and its research looked at a huge number of factors. These included the number of child-friendly attractions, crime rates, and the percentage of schools with a good or outstanding OFSTED rating. This gave each town and city a child raise-ability score out of ten, and the overall winner scored an impressive 7.32.

Sheffield in South Yorkshire took the top spot thanks to offering double the average amount of green space per person . It also has relatively affordable childcare costs of £918.33 per month, which is below the UK average of £1,128 per child without government support.

Housing is also a major factor for growing families, and according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS), the average house price in Sheffield stands at £222,000. This is below the UK wide average of £270,080, and far below areas such as the south east at £379,000.

Green spaces that can be enjoyed around the city include the Sheffield Botanical Gardens, which includes colourful flowers and plants from around the world, some of them kept in huge Victorian greenhouses. Outside, kids can wander the endless trails, spotting statues, fountains, and other pretty features.

Graves Park is another spot that’s much-loved by families. It has two playgrounds, woodlands, lakes, and much more to explore, while Kelham Island Museum is a fun day out where kids can learn all about the area’s industrial heritage in an interactive environment.

Second place in the rankings was Milton Keynes, its score boosted by the fact it offered the widest range of child-friendly attractions. MK residents enjoy 31 kid-friendly attractions per 100,000 people, 11 more than the study’s average, meaning families who live in the city certainly won’t get bored.

While Milton Keynes lost some ground due to its costly childcare – an average of £1,416 per month – it offered large amounts of green space per person as well as a high percentage of schools OFSTED graded as good or outstanding.

Swindon came in third place, in part due to having the lowest crime rate in the study at 68 per 1,000 people. It also offered average childcare costs of £900, below the UK average, while two-thirds of its schools had good or higher OFSTED ratings.

Have a story you want to share? Email us at webtravel@reachplc.com

HumAngle Media, a Pan-African publication covering conflict, humanitarian, and development issues, held an X Spaces on Saturday, May 9, to discuss ethical dilemmas surrounding financial assistance to vulnerable sources, especially for journalists reporting from conflict zones and areas affected by humanitarian crises. 

The conversation was inspired by a recent HumAngle analysis examining the issue. Ahmad Salkida, HumAngle’s Editor-in-Chief and a veteran journalist who authored the article, argued that “in theory, [journalism] is expected to observe some emotional distance from its sources and the stories they tell. However, that model is inoperable in conflict-affected regions of northern Nigeria and the Sahel.” 

The article sparked widespread debate, particularly among journalists and media educators. While some argued that reporters should remain strictly bound by professional ethics, others contended that it is difficult not to extend a helping hand, especially when the source is struggling with basic needs like food and water. 

Hauwa Shaffii Nuhu, HumAngle’s Managing Editor, who moderated the X Spaces, opened the conversation with the story of Kevin Carter, a South African journalist who died by suicide three and a half months after being awarded the Pulitzer Prize for feature photography. The award-winning image showed a visibly malnourished child in Sudan who collapsed to the ground while a vulture lurked in the background. 

In his suicide note, Kevin said, “I am haunted by the vivid memories … of starving or wounded children”. Hauwa noted that Kevin’s experience shows that the conversation about offering support to vulnerable sources in conflict-affected or humanitarian crisis-hit regions has serious emotional and ethical real-world consequences. 

The conversation was enriched with insights from other speakers, including Lami Sadiq, a data and investigative journalist; Daniel Ojukwu, an investigative journalist with Foundation for Investigative Journalism; and Ibrahim Adeyemi, HumAngle’s Investigations Editor. 

The speakers shared instances in which they felt compelled to offer bags of water, food, and sometimes money to people who were evidently struggling. They agreed that being a journalist does not excuse one from basic human decency and empathy.

Lami stressed that it is important to distinguish between support offered out of humanity and responsibilities carried out in a professional journalistic capacity. She emphasised that when the source outrightly demands payment at the start of an interview, journalists should not only not pay the source but also seek other sources to replace them, to maintain credibility.

“It makes everything transactional, and that affects the credibility of the journalists and the report in question,” she said. 

While it is sometimes difficult to deal with sources who are used to getting humanitarian aid in exchange for information, Lami said journalists must stand their ground and use other sources, especially if the issues to be reported are not exclusive.

Hauwa emphasised that helping vulnerable sources to understand that telling their story is in their best interest will help address issues such as financial compensation, especially when dealing with sources who can be very demanding. 

While speaking on the risks of financially supporting sources, Daniel urged journalists to be mindful of directly supporting sources, as doing so might incriminate them if the sources are later engaged or are linked to criminal networks. 

“If a source you once offered money to is later linked with criminal activity, it could look really bad on you. In Nigeria, you might even be dubbed a terrorist financier when all you are doing is your job as a journalist. We have seen this happen many times in Nigeria,” he said. 

Daniel added, “When I interact with sources or with fixers, I have to profile everyone I’m interacting with. Sometimes, I have to withdraw from sources or fixers because of the manner in which they approach matters.”

While paying for information remains unethical in principle, there are distinct instances in which journalists say they must step in to provide financial aid. 

Drawing on his field experience, Ibrahim recounted a time when he had to assist a source in taking her child to the hospital due to a medical emergency. He paid for the medical bills, and when the doctor said the child might have died if they had shown up an hour later, Ibrahim said he was glad he had helped. 

“Acting first as a human is at the core of humanitarian journalism,” Ibrahim stated. 

However, he stressed that moments requiring urgent humanitarian intervention should not blur ethical boundaries in reporting. Ibrahim further called on editors to educate reporters on the challenges they might face when dealing with sources who require monetary compensation for information. 

“They [reporters] should always look for ethical alternatives rather than compromising their standards just to get the stories,” he said. 

The speakers also urged journalists to be mindful when dealing with displaced persons or vulnerable communities, as they may exaggerate their situation to generate sympathy, believing it might lead to aid. For journalists, this makes verification especially important, even in highly emotional reporting environments.

That same need to maintain professional boundaries also came up in discussions about interviewing experts. Daniel, when asked whether experts should be paid for granting interviews, stated: “Never do so.” Instead, he stressed that building rapport with experts before they are needed helps address such issues.