KATIE Price and her new husband Lee have insisted they’re the “strongest” and most “beautiful” couple they know as they revealed their plans to return to the UK.
The former glamour model, 47, tied the knot with the businessman in a secret ceremony last month and they’re currently on their honeymoon in Dubai, where he lives full time.
Sign up for the Showbiz newsletter
Thank you!
Katie Price and Lee Andrews have revealed they are both set to return to EnglandCredit: wesleeandrews/InstagramKatie and her new husband have claimed they’re ‘strongest’ and most ‘beautiful’ couple they knowCredit: wesleeandrews/InstagramThe Sun recently revealed Katie had put a deposit down on a pad in the UAECredit: wesleeandrews/Instagram
Lee Andrews was supposed to come to UK a few weeks ago but he claimed he was forced to delay his flight to look at properties for the pair to live in.
While fans of Katie were convinced it was because he wasn’t allowed to leave the country, we revealed Katie has put a deposit down on a pad in the UAE.
The loved-up pair have now revealed their both returning to the UK and it could be very soon.
Katie said: “So yeah we’re still in Dubai and we are coming to England very soon.
After some 150 students walked out of Redlands schools early this month in support of immigrants they were dealt an unexpected consequence: a temporary suspension of school privileges as administrators enforced rules that forbid them from leaving a classroom without permission.
The punishment — the loss of access to sports, dances, performances and other school events — in a school system with a conservative-majority governing board stands in sharp contrast to the positive reception that student activism has received in some other California school systems, including Los Angeles Unified School District.
The disparate actions show how school officials throughout various states and school systems — in blue and red regions — have been dealing with a wave of student walkouts that began in late January as part of national protests over the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement crackdown.
Redlands school officials said the suspension of privileges will remain in place until a student satisfies certain conditions, such as attending a session of Saturday school or performing four hours of community service.
“The superintendent’s message is consistent: We care deeply about our students, and we recognize that many young people are dealing and engaging with issues they see in the news and in their community,” said district Public Information Officer Christine Stephens. “Students have the right to express themselves peacefully. At the same time, the district must uphold its responsibility to maintain a safe, supervised learning environment during the school day.”
Districts that expressed support for students’ free-speech rights included those in San Francisco and Sacramento. In Palo Alto, district officials worked with schools to make sure students could carry out their announced walkout safely.
L.A. Unified officials have not set districtwide penalties for walkouts — and its leaders align with the students’ anti-ICE critique. Supt. Alberto Carvalho, an immigrant himself, has pledged to do all in the district’s power to maintain schools as sanctuaries for children of immigrant families — and activists patrol outside schools to help ensure safe passage to campus for parents and students.
At the same time, LAUSD educators have encouraged students to stay on campus for safety reasons. In L.A. there were reports of physical confrontations between officers and protesters after students walked out on Feb. 5 and on Feb. 13, when three federal agents were injured after some in the crowd threw objects at them.
State and education leaders in Texas and Florida outlined significant consequences for students and educators related to student walkouts. In Texas, state leaders have talked about possible suspension and expulsion for students, dismissal for educators and state takeovers for school districts.
The ACLU of Georgia sent a letter Jan. 29 expressing concerns to the Cobb County School District after it threatened out-of-school suspension, loss of parking and extracurricular privileges and warned of college admissions consequences for participation in walkouts.
The ACLU warned that the school system would be acting illegally if walkout participants were singled out for especially harsh treatment based on their viewpoints.
The young activists
Student high school activists — in Redlands and elsewhere — said they are willing to face consequences, if necessary, to stand up for what they believe by protesting the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“As organizers, it’s expected for us to take the first wave of retaliation,” said Redlands High School senior Jax Hardy. “So while we would be very disappointed in the district for doing such a thing, for us, it’s important to exercise our free speech rights to oppose a government that is encroaching on our human rights.”
Student leaders see their protests as a civics lesson in action.
“It’s necessary to act, because, if we don’t, who knows how things will escalate further,” said Redlands High junior Aya F, who goes by her last initial rather than her full legal name. “So that’s why we feel it’s important for us to stage this walkout.”
Redlands is about 60 miles east of downtown L.A. and enrolls about 20,000 students. In November 2024 a conservative majority was elected to the five-person Redlands Board of Education, aligning the board with key policies of the Trump administration. Redlands joined a handful of ideologically similar California boards in approving policies that would allow parents to challenge library books with sexual content and prohibit display of the rainbow pride flag, which is associated with the LGBTQ+ community.
But the district stated that its actions on the walkouts have no ideology attached.
“The district’s response is not based on the viewpoint, theme or content of a student’s expression,” Stephens said.
Students walk out despite punishment
Some Redlands students organized another walkout Friday and organizers said they expected representation from students at seven middle and high schools. Many showed up from Redlands High School. They carried “Stop ICE” signs and Mexican flags and blew whistles as they made a 15-minute trek to a downtown intersection that some refer to as “Peace Corner.”
“I haven’t seen this many people in Redlands do anything ever,” said sophomore James Bojado, who also said that, for days, administrators had attempted to dissuade students with threats of discipline.
Several Redlands police vehicles patrolled the rally area, slowly rolling by.
A man in a sun hat shouted: “Why don’t you fly the American flag? Are you ashamed of America?”
“Leave us alone!” a chorus responded.
“My mom and my dad are immigrants,” said sophomore Carmen Robles. “Why deport families that care about America back to where they came from?”
At the rally, student demands included an ironclad district commitment that ICE will never be allowed on campus. Students also called for the abolition of ICE and spoke of wanting the school board to rescind what they regard as anti-LGBTQ+ policies. These include the flag ban and the book restriction policy.
During the Friday Redlands rally, there were a few tense minutes when a student in a MAGA hat was pelted by water bottles. The student spoke to police but also said he wasn’t hurt.
A person wearing a MAGA hat gets water and pizza thrown at him during a student walkout and protest in Redlands.
(Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times)
Adult volunteers were on hand with the goal of keeping things safe and positive. Parent Toni Belcher said that students have a right to be heard.
“I’m happy to see all these kids trying to get their voice to matter,” Belcher said. “If it doesn’t now, it will. … They’re starting early.”
What the law says
The right of students to express themselves begins with the U.S. Constitution.
“You do not lose your right to free speech just by walking into school,” according to guidance from the American Civil Liberties Union. “You have the right to speak out, hand out flyers and petitions and wear expressive clothing in school — as long as you don’t disrupt the functioning of the school or violate the school’s content-neutral policies.”
A walkout, however, could be treated as a disruption. But greater punishment cannot be applied based on the nature of the views expressed.
Redlands Unified believes it is complying with that legal standard.
California law offers some additional protection for student protests, but it’s not unlimited.
A California law, which took effect in 2023, allows a middle or high school student to miss one day of school per year as an excused absence for a “civic or political event.” This includes, but is not limited to, “voting, poll-working, strikes, public-commenting, candidate speeches, political or civic forums and town halls.”
The bill’s author, then-state Sen. Connie Leyva, said at the time that the law “emphasizes the importance of getting students more involved in government and their community by prioritizing student opportunities for civic learning and engagement both within and outside their education.”
One caveat is that the law requires that “the pupil notifies the school ahead of the absence.”
Students exercising this right must be allowed to make up missed schoolwork without penalty. There are potential gray areas — such as whether a large-scale school walkout — which organizers intend to be dramatic — would fall outside this protection because students don’t formally check out, for example.
One Redlands parent said he notified the school that his son had permission to take part in an earlier walkout after the walkout. But his son was still penalized because, the parent said, he was not allowed to grant permission for his son retroactively.
State law does require advance notice, but it does not say parental permission is required for that one protected civic activity day per year. The law also stipulates that schools, at their discretion, can allow additional excused absences for civic participation.
The parent, who did not want to be named out of concern for retaliation, said his son was placed on a “No-Go List” for extracurricular activities and events.
IMPERIAL BEACH, Calif. — Mike and Patricia McCoy answered the door of their cozy cottage in Imperial Beach, a short stroll from crashing waves and several blocks from the Tijuana River Estuary, where California meets Mexico and the hiking trails are named for them.
They offered me a seat in a living room filled with awards for their service and with books, some of them about the wonders of the natural world and the threat to its survival. The McCoys are the kind of people who look you in the eye and give you their full attention, and Patricia’s British accent carries an upbeat, birdsong tone.
A sign shows coastal conservationists Mike and Patricia McCoy as young adults “Making a Difference” at the estuary.
(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)
In the long history of conservation in California, few have worked as long or as hard as the McCoys.
Few have achieved as much.
And they’re still at it. Mike at 84, Patricia at 89.
The McCoys settled in Imperial Beach in the early 1970s — Mike was a veterinarian, Patricia a teacher — when the coastal protection movement was spreading across the state amid fears of overdevelopment and privatization. In 1972, voters approved Proposition 20, which essentially laid down a hallmark declaration:
The California coast is a public treasure, not a private playground.
Four years later, the Coastal Act became state law, regulating development in collaboration with local government agencies, guaranteeing public access and protecting marine and coastal habitats.
During that time, the McCoys were locked in a fight worth revisiting now, on the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act. There had been talk for years about turning the underappreciated Tijuana River Estuary, part of which was used as a dumping ground, into something useful.
Mike McCoy knew the roughly 2,500-acre space was already something useful, and vitally important. It was one of the last major undeveloped wetlands in Southern California and a breeding and feeding site for 370 bird species, along with fish, reptiles, rabbits, foxes, coyotes and other animals.
In McCoy’s mind, it needed to be restored, not repurposed. And certainly not as a giant marina, which would have destroyed a habitat that was home to several endangered species. At a 1977 Imperial Beach meeting packed with marina supporters, Mike McCoy drew his line in the sand.
The Tijuana Estuary in Imperial Beach is seen on Friday.
(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)
“I went up there,” McCoy recalled, pausing to say he could still feel the heat of the moment, “and I said, ‘You people, and I don’t care who you are, you’re not going to put a marina in that estuary. That’s sacrosanct. You don’t mess with that. That’s a fantastic system, and it’s more complex than you’d ever believe.’”
The estuary won, but the McCoys weren’t done. As I began talking with them about the years of advocacy that followed, Patricia’s modesty blushed.
“We don’t want to be blowing our own trumpet,” she said.
They don’t have to. I’m doing it for them, with the help of admirers who were happy to join the symphony.
Patricia went on to become a member of the Imperial Beach City Council and served for two years on the Coastal Commission, which oversees implementation of the Coastal Act. She also helped Mike and others take the estuary restoration fight to Sacramento, to Washington, D.C., and to Mexico.
“This is what a real power couple looks like,” said Sarah Christie, legislative director of the Coastal Commission. “They wield the power of nature and the power of the people. You can’t overstate their contribution to coastal protection.”
The McCoys’ signature achievement has been twofold, said Jeff Crooks, a San Diego wetlands expert. They helped establish the estuary as a protected wildlife refuge, and they also helped build the framework for the estuary to serve as a research center to monitor, manage and preserve the habitat and collaborate with other managed estuaries in the U.S.
Sewage and debris flow from Tijuana are an ever-present threat and decades-long source of frustration and anger in Imperial Beach, where beaches have been closed and some residents have planted “Stop the Stink” yard signs. Crooks said there’s been some progress on infrastructure improvements, with a long way to go.
Coastal conservationist Mike McCoy looks at a new interpretive sign at the Tijuana Estuary in Imperial Beach on Friday.
(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)
But “even though we’re beating it up,” Crooks said of the pollution flowing into the estuary, it’s been amazingly resilient in part because of constant monitoring and management.
Chris Peregrin, who manages the Tijuana Estuary for the state park system, said the nonprofit Tijuana Estuary Foundation has been a good partner, and the president of the foundation board is guess who:
Mike McCoy.
The foundation ”fills gaps that the state cannot,” Peregrin said. “As one example, they run the research program at the reserve.”
For all their continued passion about the mission in their own backyard, the McCoys fret about the bigger picture — the alarming increase in greenhouse gases and the biodiversity decline. Through the estuary window, they see a planet in peril.
“They both think big like that,” Crooks said. “Mike especially comes from the mindset that this is a ‘think globally and act locally’ kind of thing.”
“Restoration is the name of the game, not intrusion,” Mike told me, and he wasn’t talking just about the estuary.
On the very week I visited the McCoys, the Trump administration delivered a crushing blow to the environmental movement, repealing a government finding that greenhouse gas pollution is a threat to the planet and public health. He called those claims, backed by overwhelming scientific consensus, “a giant scam.”
It’s easy to throw up your hands at such knuckle-dragging indifference, and Mike told me he has to keep reaching for more stamina.
But Serge Dedina, a former Imperial Beach mayor who was inspired by the McCoys’ activism as a youngster, sees new generations bringing fresh energy to the fight. Many of them work with him at Wildcoast, the international coastal conservation nonprofit he founded, with Patricia McCoy among his earliest collaborators.
“I wouldn’t be a conservationist and coastal activist without having worked with Patricia and Mike and being infused with their passion,” said Dedina. ”I think sometimes they underestimate their legacy. They’ve had a huge impact on a whole generation of scientists and conservationists and people who are doing work all along the coast.”
We can’t underestimate the legacy of the citizen uprising of 1972, along with the creation of an agency dedicated to coastal conservation. But it’s only fair to note, on the 50th anniversary of the Coastal Act, that not everyone will be reaching for a party hat.
The Coastal Act has been aggressively enforced, at times to a fault in the opinion of developers, homeowners, commercial interests and some politicians. Former Gov. Jerry Brown, who signed the act into law, once referred to Coastal Commission agency staffers as “bureaucratic thugs” for tight restrictions on development.
There’s been constant friction, thanks in part to political pressure and the clout of developers, and one of the many future threats to the core mission is the need for more housing throughout the state. The balance between new construction and continued conservation is sure to spark years of skirmishes.
Coastal conservationists Mike and Patricia McCoy on a trail named after them at the Tijuana Estuary Visitor Center in Imperial Beach.
(Hayne Palmour IV / For The Times)
But as the Coastal Commission website puts it in marking the anniversary, the major achievements of the past 50 years include the “wetlands not filled, the sensitive habitats not destroyed, the access trails not blocked, the farms and ranches not converted to urban uses, the freeways and gated communities and industrial facilities not built.”
In the words of the late Peter Douglas, who co-authored Proposition 20 and later served as executive director of the Coastal Commission, the coast is never saved, it’s always being saved.
Saved by the likes of Mike and Patricia McCoy.
I had the pleasure of walking through the estuary with Mike, past the plaque dedicated to him and his wife and “all who cherish wildlife and the Tijuana Estuary.” We also came upon one of the new interpretive signs that were to be dedicated Friday, including one with a photo of Mike and Patricia as young adults “Making a Difference.”
Mike pointed a finger here and there, explaining all the conservation projects through the year. We saw an egret and a rabbit, and when I heard a clacking sound, Mike brightened.
“That’s a clapper rail,” Mike said, an endangered bird that makes its home in the estuary.
The blowing of the trumpet isn’t just for the McCoys.
It’s a rallying call to those who might follow in their footsteps.
WASHINGTON — President Trump’s repeated calls to “nationalize” elections drew swift resistance from California officials this week, who said they are ready to fight should the federal government attempt to assert control over the state’s voting system.
“We would win that on Day One,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta told The Times. “We would go into court and we would get a restraining order within hours, because the U.S. Constitution says that states predominantly determine the time, place and manner of elections, not the president.”
“We’re prepared to do whatever we have to do in California,” said California Secretary of State Shirley Weber, whose office recently fought off a Justice Department lawsuit demanding California’s voter rolls and other sensitive voter information.
Both Bonta and Weber said their offices are closely watching for any federal action that could affect voting in California, including efforts to seize election records, as the FBI recently did in Georgia, or target the counting of mailed ballots, which Trump has baselessly alleged are a major source of fraud.
Weber said California plays an outsized role in the nation and is “the place that people want to beat,” including through illegitimate court challenges to undermine the state’s vote after elections, but California has fought off such challenges in the past and is ready to do it again.
“There’s a cadre of attorneys that are already, that are always prepared during our elections to hit the courts to defend anything that we’re doing,” she said. “Our election teams, they do cross the T’s, dot the I’s. They are on it.”
“We have attorneys ready to be deployed wherever there’s an issue,” Bonta said, noting that his office is in touch with local election officials to ensure a rapid response if necessary.
The standoff reflects an extraordinary deterioration of trust and cooperation in elections that has existed between state and federal officials for generations — and follows a remarkable doubling down by Trump after his initial remarks about taking over the elections raised alarm.
Trump has long alleged, without evidence and despite multiple independent reviews concluding the opposite, that the 2020 election was stolen from him. He has alleged, again without evidence, that millions of fraudulent votes were cast, including by non-citizen voters, and that blue states looked the other way to gain political advantage.
Last week, the Justice Department acted on those claims by raiding the Fulton County, Ga., elections hub and seizing 2020 ballots. The department also has sued states, including California, for their voter rolls, and is defending a Trump executive order purporting to end mail voting and add new proof of citizenship requirements for registering to vote, which California and other states have sued to block.
On Monday, Trump further escalated his pressure campaign by saying on former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino’s podcast that Republicans should “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” alleging that voting irregularities in what he called “crooked states” are hurting his party. “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”
On Tuesday morning, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, appeared to try to walk back Trump’s comments, saying he had been referring to the Save Act, a measure being pushed by Republicans in Congress to codify Trump’s proof-of-citizenship requirements. However, Trump doubled down later that day, telling reporters that if states “can’t count the votes legally and honestly, then somebody else should take over.”
Bonta said Trump’s comments were a serious escalation, not just bluster: “We always knew they were going to come after us on something, so this is just an affirmation of that — and maybe they are getting a step closer.”
Bonta said he will especially be monitoring races in the state’s swing congressional districts, which could play a role in determining control of Congress and therefore be a target of legal challenges.
“The strategy of going after California isn’t rational unless you’re going after a couple of congressional seats that you think will make a difference in the balance of power in the House,” Bonta said.
California Democrats in Congress have stressed that the state’s elections are safe and reliable, but also started to express unease about upcoming election interference by the administration.
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Fremont) said on Meet the Press last week that he believes the administration will try to use “every tool in their toolbox to try and interfere,” but that the American people will “overcome it by having a battalion of lawyers at the polls.”
California Sen. Adam Schiff this week said recent actions by the Trump administration — including the Fulton County raid, where Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard put Trump on the phone with agents — were “wrong” and set off “alarm bells about their willingness to interfere in the next election.”
Democrats have called on their Republican colleagues to help push back against such interference.
“When he says that we should nationalize the elections and Republicans should take over, and you don’t make a peep? What is going on here?” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Tuesday. “This is the path that has ruined many a democracy, and our democracy is deep and strong, but it requires — and allows — resistance to these things. Verbal resistance, electoral resistance. Where are you?”
Some Republicans have voiced their disagreement with Trump. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) said Tuesday that he is “supportive of only citizens voting and showing ID at polling places,” but is “not in favor of federalizing elections,” which he called “a constitutional issue.”
“I’m a big believer in decentralized and distributed power. And I think it’s harder to hack 50 election systems than it is to hack one,” he said.
However, other Republican leaders have commiserated with Trump over his qualms with state-run elections. House Majority Leader Mike Johnson (R-La.), for example, took aim at California’s system for counting mail-in ballots in the days following elections, questioning why such counting led to Republican leads in House races being “magically whittled away until their leads were lost.”
“It looks on its face to be fraudulent. Can I prove that? No, because it happened so far upstream,” Johnson said. “But we need more confidence in the American people in the election system.”
Elections experts expressed dismay over Johnson’s comments, calling them baseless and illogical. The fact that candidates who are leading in votes can fall behind as more votes are counted is not magic but math, they said — with Democrats agreeing.
“Speaker Johnson seems to be confused, so let me break it down. California’s elections are safe and secure. The point of an election is to make sure *every* eligible vote cast is counted, not to count fast,” Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) wrote on X. “We don’t just quit while we’re ahead. It’s called a democracy.”
Democrats have also expressed concern that the administration could use the U.S. Postal Service to interfere with counting mail-in ballots. They have specifically raised questions about a rule issued by the postal service last December that deems mail postmarked on the day it is processed by USPS, rather than the day it is received — which would impact mail-in ballots in places such as California, where ballots must be postmarked by Election Day to be counted.
“Election officials are already concerned and warning that this change could ultimately lead to higher mailed ballots being rejected,” Senate Democrats wrote to U.S. Postal Service Postmaster General David Steiner last month.
Some experts and state officials said voters should make a plan to vote early, and consider dropping their ballots in state ballot drop boxes or delivering them directly to voting centers.
