verdict

SANTORINI’S latest move to limit numbers of cruise-ship visitors descending on the Greek isle is into its second week – and looks to be easing congestion.

The local authorities have said no more than 8,000 trippers – equivalent to the passengers of two or three ships – can disembark daily over summer.

Previously, as many as 17,000, from seven or eight vessels, had choked the streets of Santorini hotspots Fira and Oia during peak season.

It comes as the island also introduces a controversial 20-euro port tax per passenger, which has led to some cruise lines cancelling visits in protest.

Other new changes, first announced last year, mean a maximum of 30 per cent of a ship’s passengers can now arrive at the island’s Athinios ferry port, which has road access.

The rest must use island capital Fira’s Old Port and head up to the town by cable car (which has long queues on busy days). Or sweat their way up 588 steps.

RHODE TRIP

5 cheapest Greek islands this summer revealed with 7-night holidays from £249

SHELL SHOCKED

Bizarre rule that could see you stranded last-minute on Greek island holiday

The latest change, which came into force on June 1, means tender operations – where passengers are ferried ashore in small boats from ships parked in the 1,200ft- deep waters of the island’s caldera – are now carried out by vessels of the Santorini Boatmen’s Association (SBA) rather than cruise ships’ lifeboats.

The Greeks have also set a 500-passenger limit on numbers waiting for the cable car or a tender at the Old Port – and to keep to that figure, tendering schedules will be controlled by SBA vessels rather by than the ships’ crews.

I visited gorgeous Santorini earlier this week – aboard Tui’s Marella Voyager, one of three ships in the caldera – and was pleasantly surprised by how well things are working, having faced horrendous overcrowding on previous trips.

The SBA tender to Athinos, to catch a tour bus to the south of the island, was on time, the boat was lovely and modern and the crew were friendly.

When I later stopped at Fira for lunch, it was busy but not overcrowded and I could stroll the pretty streets easily and stop for photos with no jostling.

There was no queue for the cable car down, though there was one at the bottom waiting to head up.

My tender back to Voyager was also very easy, with a short queue and swift boarding.

Only time will tell how things pan out this summer, and no doubt the island authorities can make further changes if required, but my visit this week was seamless and Fira was fun, not frightful.

Nearly 17 years after the King of Pop’s death, Michael Jackson is dominating the box office, television ratings and headlines.

“Michael,” the biopic about the star that hit theaters in April, has surpassed $900 million at box offices globally, according to Deadline, making it the second-highest-grossing film of 2026 behind “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie,” which hit $1 billion. Although “Bohemian Rhapsody” is still the highest-grossing musical biopic, “Michael” is a mere $11 million behind and will likely snag the title in coming weeks.

The film, which stars Jackson’s nephew Jaafar Jackson, follows the “Thriller” hitmaker from his early career leading the Jackson Five to reaching pinnacle star status in the late ’80s. The film’s timeline ends before 1993, when Jackson faced sexual abuse allegations brought by 13-year-old Jordan Chandler.

On Tuesday, “Michael” was released to streaming services, and fans at home can rent or buy on-demand from Amazon Prime Video and other platforms.

Also available for streaming is the Netflix docuseries “Michael Jackson: The Verdict,” which became available on June 3 and dominated the streamer’s charts with nearly 18 million views in its first week. The three-part series examines the pop star’s 2005 molestation trial, in which he was acquitted of all charges, and features key players from the trial, including jurors, eyewitnesses and prosecutors.

The lead prosecutor, Ron Zonen, spoke with TMZ on Tuesday and said that, although he wasn’t sure audiences would view the allegations with a different lens 20 years later, he wanted the documentary to be “as accurate as possible” and feature “the perspective of people who were involved in the trial.”

As far as the response from viewers, Zonen told the outlet that he’d received threats via email. “Well, there are people who are fans, who express their displeasure at the position that we took in this documentary, and express their displeasure very clearly to me,” he said, adding that he’s not bothered by the bad blood with mega-fans, and that the threats were more numerous at the time of the trial.

More than 20 years after Michael Jackson was acquitted on charges of child molestation — and two months since the global superstar’s record-breaking biopic skirted any mention of abuse allegations — a new Netflix docuseries brings his trial and the aftermath to the foreground.

“Michael Jackson: The Verdict,” a three-part documentary directed by Nick Green and released Wednesday, chronicles his 2005 trial in Santa Maria that began with a search raid of the pop star’s sprawling Neverland Ranch and ended with a jury finding him not guilty on 10 counts, including four counts of child molestation. At the center of the case was Gavin Arvizo, a then-15-year-old cancer survivor from Los Angeles.

Because recording was not allowed in the courtroom, the documentary relies heavily on archival footage from media surrounding the trial and firsthand accounts of key figures involved, including prosecutor Ron Zonen, Jackson family attorney Brian Oxman, journalist Diane Dimond, two trial jurors, and friends and supporters on both sides of the case.

The episodes also delve into the 2003 documentary “Living With Michael Jackson,” in which the pop star is interviewed by British journalist Martin Bashir, that sparked questions about his behavior, leading to the charges against Jackson. Jackson’s historically questionable relationships with children, the media circus surrounding the trial and the effect it had on fans, the family at its center and Jackson himself are explored, too.

Here are six key takeaways from “The Verdict.”

Jackson allegedly had his personal assistant order child pornography

One of the docuseries’ most revealing interviews came from Vincent Amen, a former Jackson associate who worked at Neverland Ranch from 2002 to 2003. He said he was put in charge of taking care of the Arvizo family during their stay at the property following media backlash from Gavin Arvizo’s appearance in “Living With Michael Jackson.”

At that time, Amen said, he “wholeheartedly” believed in Jackson’s innocence, especially because Jackson’s friend Frank Tyson, also known as Frank Cascio, a member of the family who filed a lawsuit against Jackson’s estate in April detailing alleged sexual abuse, vouched so strongly for him. Cascio, who met Jackson when he was 5 years old and later became his personal assistant, told Amen, “Michael would never do this with a child.”

Amen’s conviction shifted, however, after he discovered a disturbing magazine that apparently belonged to Jackson in Cascio’s possession.

“Frank cleaned out his house of anything that came from the Neverland Ranch. And he hands me a Nike bag,” Amen said in the docuseries. “I took the bag and I’m driving home, and I felt, ‘Something’s a little suspicious.’ And I said, ‘Let me take a look in this bag.’ I start taking videos to document this. I open the bag. I start looking, and I see a magazine.”

The series shows shaky footage of Vincent apparently finding a nudist magazine called “Naturally.” He flips to a video ordering section with titles circled in black marker, including videos called “Nudist Youth Weekend” and “Euro-Nudist Family.”

“I confronted Frank, I said, ‘Frank, what is this magazine? Because, you know, there’s circles around videos with naked children,’” Amen recounted. “He said, ‘That’s just a phase that Michael and I went through. He circled the videos that he wanted, I ordered them, and it was a phase that we went through.’ They watched them together.”

The Arvizo children called Jackson ‘daddy’ and had their own bizarre nicknames

Along with footage of the nudist magazine, Amen held on to other evidence of his time with Jackson and the Arvizo family, including a set of Polaroid pictures featuring Gavin’s mom, Janet, and younger brother, Star.

In one, Star points directly into the lens. It’s captioned, “You my daddy Michael.” Another photo of a smiling Janet and Star includes a handwritten caption from Janet that says, “Dearest loving Michael, we appreciate you being our family. What God brings together, no man can undo. We love you.”

Under a photo of Star with a cross-eyed expression, he wrote, “I love you, my daddy Michael. Your son, Blowhole.”

“These are the nicknames that Michael would give these young boys,” Amen said.

Bashir documentary marked a pivotal shift in the perception of Jackson

Martin Bashir in “Michael Jackson: The Verdict.”

(Netflix)

Though the first allegations of child molestation against Michael Jackson emerged in 1993, it was footage from Bashir’s “Living With Michael Jackson” that ignited public concern about Jackson’s relationship with Gavin.

In a pivotal scene from the 2003 documentary, Jackson brings Gavin in as an example of a child with cancer that he helped. Gavin, 13 at the time, leans his head on Jackson’s shoulder and holds his hand. Jackson tells Bashir that the two often share a bed at the Neverland Ranch, though in another scene he stresses that it’s not sexual.

“I realized that we had something that was hugely significant, but I didn’t realize the extent of the bombshell until the broadcast,” Bashir recalled in “The Verdict.”

“You can see it. You can look at that moment in the Martin Bashir documentary and you can actually pin the end of his life to that very moment,” J. Randy Taraborrelli, Jackson’s childhood friend and biographer, said in the docuseries.

Given Jackson’s stardom, news and tabloid media swarmed the scene of the trial along with droves of dedicated fans (and a much smaller contingent of detractors). And the archival footage from “The Verdict” shows the extent to which fandom and media frenzy influenced the proceedings.

Jackson’s fans stationed themselves throughout the route he’d take to the Santa Maria courthouse with signs showing their support, sometimes standing and shouting and other times driving alongside him and honking. Jackson had his director of security, Kerry Anderson, film these drives while he waved and engaged with supporters.

As many as 1,000 fans showed up on the first day of the trial, and many would line up starting at 5 a.m. for raffle tickets that would allow them to enter the courtroom. One fan interviewed for the docuseries, Sheree Wilkins, said she quit her job as a preschool teacher to move to Santa Maria for the trial. When the “not guilty” verdicts were announced, she fainted and had to receive medical attention.

TV news stations from around the world, including Taiwan, Japan and Mexico, sent crews to cover the trial.

Even inside the courtroom, where cameras were not allowed, enthusiasm for Jackson’s music could not be contained. Attendees recalled everybody, from the jury to the judge and even the prosecution, “swaying in their seats” when songs played as part of an evidence display.

“I remember me moving in time to his music,” prosecutor Ron Zonen said. “At one point Tom [Sneddon, the District Attorney leading the prosecution] jabbed me and said, ‘Would you stop moving your foot?’ ”

Jackson’s mental and physical health deteriorated

Mark Geragos briefly served as Jackson’s defense attorney.

(Netflix)

According to numerous interviews in “The Verdict,” Jackson’s substance use was problematic before and during the trial.

Jackson was not at Neverland during the raid that predated his charges. According to journalist Dimond, her sources said he was in Las Vegas “having wild parties.”

“There were cigarette burns in the leather couches and chairs. There were empty liquor bottles on every table. And this is where Michael Jackson had been for several days, entertaining young teenage boys, who all spoke German,” she said.

Later, Jackson’s well-publicized physical pain became the catalyst for controversy when he was hospitalized overnight, where he was allegedly given enough pain medication “to tranquilize an elephant,” and failed to show up on time for court the next day. The judge threatened to issue a warrant for his arrest if he didn’t make it to the courthouse within the hour, leading Jackson’s team to speed there at 90 mph.

Throughout the trial, stress took an enormous toll on Jackson, defense attorney Mark Geragos said in the docuseries.

“I watched him just disintegrate, literally disintegrate. The ingestion of substances was just astronomical. There was a time when I actually saw him in the fetal position on the floor, and I thought, ‘What do we do?’ I mean, you don’t want his death to be on your hands because you took some inaction,” he said. “We had genuine concerns whether he could even withstand a trial — physically, mentally.”

The prosecution’s case fell apart at the hands of key witnesses

“The Verdict” lays out, step by step, how the trial ended in Jackson’s full acquittal. One major contributor, the docuseries seems to argue, is the downfall of the prosecution at the hands of its own witnesses.

Defense attorney Tom Mesereau was an expert at discrediting witnesses, subjects told the filmmakers, but certain key witnesses, like Janet Arvizo, struggled to connect with the jury on their own.

“I called her Janet from another planet,” admitted juror Melissa Herard. “Sorry, but that’s just how she acted.”

Jackson’s ex-wife Debbie Rowe was meant to take the stand as a smoking gun for the prosecution but instead revealed no new information and came to Jackson’s defense.

The prosecution also partially hinged its case on past allegations of child sexual abuse against Jackson, but conflicting testimony caused these efforts to backfire. A former Neverland employee claimed to witness Jackson molest Wade Robson when he was a child, but Robson took the stand and denied anything happened.

“It’s hard to convince a jury when the subject of the act itself said it didn’t happen,” Zonen said.

In 2013, Robson reversed his stance and filed a lawsuit against the Jackson estate alleging sexual abuse. His allegations, along with those of James Safechuck, were the subject of the 2019 documentary “Leaving Neverland.”

She first appeared in 2017 before returning as an All Star in 2025. Now, Gabby Allen is joining the Mirror for an opening show watch-along.

She’ll be bringing a unique take on all things villa life from someone who knows it better than most.

Who will impress her and who will be an immediate red flag. The Scouse bombshell already has high hopes for her fellow Liverpudlian, Robyn.

Let’s see how this one goes… it’s nearly over to you, Maya!

Opinions are divided on whether dog owners should allow their beloved pets to lick their faces or not – but Springwatch’s Chris Packham has some strong scientific backing for his take

It’s one of those questions that can divide even the closest friends: would you let a dog lick your face? Medical opinions vary.

Professor Graham Roberts, honorary consultant paediatrician in paediatric allergy and respiratory medicine, is quoted in medical journal The Hippocratic Post as saying that that babies brought up in homes with pets are far less likely to suffer from allergies than babies who grow up in pet-free homes. He states: “If you are born into a household where there is a pet, you are less likely to be allergic.”

But others, such as Professor John Oxford, emeritus professor of virology and bacteriology at Queen Mary University of London, is strongly opposed to excessively close contact with dogs.

He points out: “It is not just what is carried in saliva. Dogs spend half of their life with their noses in nasty corners or hovering over dog droppings so their muzzles are full of bacteria, viruses and germs of all sorts.”

But for BBC Springwatch’s Chris Packham, there’s no debate. Speaking on the Oh My Dog podcast, the naturalist told host Jack Dee: “When we cut our finger, what’s the first thing we do? We lick it. And you lick it because there are bacterial fauna in your saliva which have antiseptic and healing properties.”

Similarly, he says, there’s a health benefit to be gained from dogs’ saliva: “In days of old, when they were having medieval battles and doing unspeakable things to one another with swords, there were a lot of wounded people and they would allow the camp dogs to come and lick their wounds. They discovered that if the dog was licking the wound… it would be less less likely to get infected.”

All domestic dogs are ultimately descended from wolves, and Chris says that while a small amount of a dog’s saliva can be good for us, wolves’ saliva has even more healing power: “I’ve been licked by wolves, been kissed by wolves,” he says, “and they have even cleaner, or bacteriologically richer, saliva than than dogs.” They’ve never been treated with antibiotics or other medicines that might compromise their natural state, he says.

Chris adds that when wolves lick each other, it’s part of ensuring the survival of the pack: “When wolves go back to their their den, in order to carry the food which they may have caught many kilometres away, they eat it and swallow it, and partially digest it.

“So when they get back to the den, the pups lick their lips and that stimulates the adult wolves to regurgitate the food.”

“Now obviously,” Chris adds, “dogs have lost that habit – they don’t regurgitate for their young. But that licking is retained into adulthood in dogs because it’s a greeting.”

Similarly, he adds, when dogs eat each other’s poo, there is a valid reason for it. While it might seem disgusting to us – providing support for the opponents of face-licking – this also dates back to wolf behaviour.

“Research has been done recently in California,” Chris explains, “which shows that they will only eat faeces that are between one and two or three days old.”

Chris adds: “It was a relic to wolf behaviour. Because adult wolves will come back and eat all of the faeces in the den area when they’ve got cubs… because it’s a way of reducing parasite load because the eggs of those parasites are in the faeces, and they don’t want their young to get them.

“So that apparently appalling behaviour, because everyone’s nauseated by the fact that their dog eats other dogs’ faeces, that comes from the wolf and it’s about reducing parasites.”

Netflix is dropping a three-part docuseries that revisits Michael Jackson’s 2005 trial in which he was acquitted on charges of child molestation.

“Michael Jackson: The Verdict” drops June 3 and features archival footage and interviews with key players involved in the trial including jurors, figures from both the defense and the prosecution, journalists who were inside the courtroom and other eyewitnesses who saw the events unfold firsthand.

“It has been 20 years since the trial of Michael Jackson in which he was found not guilty. Yet, to this day, controversy still rages,” the filmmakers said. “No cameras were allowed in court, and so the public’s view of the facts at the time were filtered by commentators and presented piecemeal. It was time to take a forensic look at the trial as a whole.

“Anyone interested in the Michael Jackson story should feel this documentary gives them a window into what was largely a closed event and a chance to feel closer to what happened.”

The Santa Barbara Superior Court trial lasted 14 weeks, and the jury, which included eight women and four men, deliberated for more than 30 hours across seven days.

Jackson was acquitted on 10 felony charges: four counts of child molestation, four counts of plying a minor with alcohol in order to molest him, one count of attempted child molestation and one count of conspiracy to hold the boy and his family captive at the Neverland Ranch. He faced more than 20 years in prison.

Produced by Candle True Stories, the production company behind Netflix’s “Untold: The Liver King,” and directed by Nick Green, “Michael Jackson: The Verdict,” comes at a time of renewed interest in the “King of Pop.”

The Jackson-estate-approved biopic “Michael” hit theaters last month, and depicts the origin story of the hitmaker from childhood through his upward trajectory to superstar status in the 1980s. Notably, the movie omitted the slew of allegations that followed Jackson from the ’90s until his death in 2009.

On Monday morning, a jury in Oakland, California, announced its verdict in one of the most-watched tech feuds between billionaire Elon Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman. The nine-member jury handed a decisive victory to Altman, saying Musk had waited too long to bring his claims against the artificial intelligence company and its top executives.

Musk, who cofounded OpenAI as a nonprofit, had filed a $150bn lawsuit against the organisation, Altman and its president, Greg Brockman, accusing them of turning it into a for-profit entity for personal enrichment.

The verdict, however, stopped short of resolving the central question at the heart of the case, whether OpenAI betrayed the nonprofit mission on which it was founded in 2015 as it transformed from a research lab focused on benefitting humanity into one of the world’s most powerful AI companies.

Instead, the case became focused on a procedural issue. After deliberating for less than two hours, the jury unanimously found that the statute of limitations had expired before Musk filed the lawsuit in 2024, meaning jurors concluded he had waited too long to bring his claims under the applicable legal deadline. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accepted the finding and dismissed the case.

The ruling removes a major legal threat for OpenAI at a pivotal moment for the company, which is deepening its commercial partnerships, expanding its relationship with Microsoft and moving towards what could become one of the largest public offerings in Silicon Valley history; while for Musk, the ruling leaves room to argue that the case was lost on timing rather than substance.

Shortly after the verdict, Musk repeated his accusations on X. “Altman & Brockman did in fact enrich themselves by stealing a charity. The only question is WHEN they did it!” Musk wrote on X. “Creating a precedent to loot charities is incredibly destructive to charitable giving in America.”

Musk has decided to appeal, ensuring that the increasingly bitter feud between two of Silicon Valley’s most powerful figures is unlikely to end any time soon.

How did Musk and Altman fall out?

Musk and Altman cofounded OpenAI in 2015 alongside Brockman and other researchers at a time when concerns were growing over how AI could reshape society.

The idea, according to testimony and internal discussions presented during the trial, was that the company could focus on building safe AI systems that benefitted humanity rather than prioritising shareholder returns.

Musk and Altman also believed the nonprofit structure would help OpenAI compete with technology giants such as Google by attracting top researchers and positioning the organisation as a mission-driven alternative.

Musk claims he contributed roughly $38m to OpenAI during its early years, but relations between the founders later deteriorated sharply. He resigned from OpenAI’s board in February 2018, officially citing potential conflicts of interest as Tesla became more focused on AI.

But the split deepened after OpenAI created a for-profit subsidiary and Microsoft invested heavily in the company. Microsoft has since committed tens of billions of dollars to its partnership with OpenAI, helping transform ChatGPT into one of the defining products of the global AI boom.

Musk became increasingly critical of the company, arguing that OpenAI had moved far beyond the nonprofit vision on which it was founded. In 2023, he launched a rival AI company, xAI, the maker of the Grok chatbot, before filing his lawsuit against OpenAI the following year.

Why did the case collapse?

At the centre of the trial was a relatively technical legal question about when Musk became aware that OpenAI was moving towards a profit-driven structure.

Because the lawsuit was filed in 2024, Musk needed to convince jurors that the alleged wrongdoing occurred within the legal time limit for bringing his claims.

Musk argued that his concerns fully crystallised only in 2023, particularly after Microsoft’s big investments into OpenAI’s for-profit arm.

But OpenAI’s lawyers argued that Musk had known for years that the company planned to pursue a commercial structure and raise huge amounts of outside funding.

Evidence presented during the trial showed that discussions about creating a for-profit arm dated back to at least 2017. Jurors also heard testimony that Altman had sent Musk documents in 2018 outlining plans for OpenAI to raise billions of dollars through a for-profit structure.

Ultimately, the jury sided with OpenAI’s argument that Musk could have filed his lawsuit much earlier – and therefore waited too long.

That meant jurors never had to answer the more explosive question at the centre of the case about whether OpenAI had actually betrayed its founding mission.

What did OpenAI argue?

OpenAI maintained throughout the trial that there was never an agreement to remain a nonprofit indefinitely. Its lawyers argued that Musk understood from the beginning that developing cutting-edge artificial intelligence would require extraordinary levels of funding and computing power.

OpenAI also portrayed Musk’s lawsuit as partly motivated by rivalry. By the time the case reached court, Musk’s xAI had emerged as a direct competitor to OpenAI in the race to develop advanced AI systems.

Meanwhile, OpenAI had become one of the most powerful companies in the technology industry, reportedly valued at more than $800bn and moving towards what could eventually become one of the largest public offerings in history.

Lawyers for OpenAI argued that Musk became hostile only after losing influence within the company and watching Altman turn OpenAI into the dominant force in generative AI.

What questions did the trial leave unanswered?

Although the verdict was a clear legal victory for OpenAI, the trial never became the sweeping test case about the future of artificial intelligence that many had expected.

Because the case was resolved on procedural grounds, the court did not answer some of the biggest questions raised by the AI boom: how these systems should be governed, who should benefit economically from them, and whether companies developing increasingly powerful AI tools can still claim to act in the public interest while pursuing enormous commercial growth.

The trial also touched only briefly on broader concerns surrounding AI development, including transparency, labour and the extraction of data used to train AI systems.

Nicole Turner Lee, director of the Centre for Technology Innovation, told Al Jazeera that one of the central problems surrounding AI is that the technology is deeply “extractive”.

“It does undergo theft where people do not consent as to whether or not their information, their image, their voice, their text are actually being extracted,” she said, raising concerns about compensation and consent in AI training systems.

Those issues remained largely outside the scope of the trial due to it ultimately centring on procedural issues.

The ruling, therefore, also removed the possibility of a far more disruptive outcome that could have threatened OpenAI’s corporate structure, its partnership with Microsoft and the wider wave of investment pouring into the AI industry.

But the broader debate over AI’s future is far from settled. With Musk preparing an appeal, the courtroom battle between the two former allies looks set to continue alongside wider questions about how AI should be governed.

Look Mum No Computer will perform in the semi-final on Thursday night, but has already got a place in Saturday’s live grand final

She was parachuted in to take on the role vacated by Scott Mills – now new Eurovision Song Contest presenter Angela Scanlon is backing the UK to do well on Saturday.

The bookies have so far placed our act Look Mum No Computer way down in 18th place, with odds of 250-1 to triumph.

But everything could change after viewers get to see the full staging in Thursday’s semi-final, including some “risky moves” by performer Sam Battle, whose song is a fusion of synths and electronic-bass.

At one point he is rumoured to be standing on a table being carried by a team of four dancers. “There’s something really exciting about an act that feels completely original – and that’s what he brings in spades,” Angela told the Mirror. “Eins, Zwei, Drei has personality, energy, and that slightly unpredictable edge that Eurovision audiences love. If the performance lands the way it promises to, I think it could really connect. And ultimately, that’s what it’s all about – creating a moment people remember.”

The Your Home Made Perfect presenter, 42, is thrilled to be hosting the two semi-finals on BBC1 alongside Rylan Clark this year, describing the event as “the world’s biggest music festival, talent show, and theatrical spectacular all rolled into one.” But she admitted that the complicated voting system, which incorporates votes from national juries as well as viewers at home all over the world, would again “test your emotional resilience”.

One source who has seen the UK’s rehearsal said: “Sam could surprise everyone with his staging. He’s very cool and there are some risky elements with him dancing on top of things. It’s precarious and a bit dangerous.”

On Thursday Look Mum No Computer will take part in the second semi – even though the UK’s place in Saturday’s final is guaranteed. Others performing on the night include former Neighbours star and judge of The Voice Delta Goodrem, for Australia, and ex-Love Islander Antigoni Buxton, who is singing for Cyprus.

Other countries vying to get through the second semi-final include Ukraine, Bulgaria and Denmark.

Rylan, who has been part of the BBC’s Eurovision coverage since 2018, when he took over from Mel Giedroyc, said he loved getting into the commentary box and meeting up with international friends old and new. “There are commentary teams from all over Europe and in that week, you all get to know each other pretty well,” he explained. “After doing it for so long, the commentary box level is one big party, and I love seeing my fellow commentators from other countries.”

Rylan was said to have been “devastated” when Mills lost his job at the BBC in March, because they had become close friends outside of work. Mills was sacked from the BBC Radio 2 Breakfast Show over personal misconduct relating to “serious sexual offences against a teenage boy”. A police probe which ended in 2019 found insufficient evidence to bring charges.

But he was also informed that he will not work for the BBC again.

Despite this Rylan, 37, has vowed to enjoy himself while in Austria for the ESC. “This year we’re heading to Vienna to have some fun.,” he insisted. “Is there anything that’s not been done? We’ve had butter churning, singing in the rain, and even Bonnie Tyler singing on a mechanical lift. It’s unique. And that’s what Eurovision is all about – the unexpected.”

The current favourite to triumph on Saturday is Finland, with Greece, Denmark, France and Australia also looking strong.

The UK has not won for 29 years, but came close in 2022 when Sam Ryder finished in second place with Space Man, drawing 466 points. Last year’s UK entry Remember Monday came 19 ^th with 88 points and the previous year Olly Alexander finished 18th with 46 points.

– Eurovision Song Contest, BBC1, Thursday 8pm and Saturday 8pm

—

NEW YORK — President Trump won’t have to pay an $83-million defamation award to a longtime advice columnist until the U.S. Supreme Court gets a chance to review the case or reject an appeal, according to a court entry Tuesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a request by one of Trump’s lawyers to let the president delay the payment to E. Jean Carroll, though it required that Trump post a $7.4-million bond to cover any additional interest costs, a request Carroll’s attorney had made.

The appeals court late last month refused Trump’s request for a rare meeting of the full 2nd Circuit to hear an appeal of a three-judge panel’s affirmation of the January 2024 verdict.

Afterward, Trump attorney Justin D. Smith asked the 2nd Circuit to stay the effect of its decision upholding the award so that the president would not be forced to pay the judgment before the high court has a chance to consider an appeal.

Smith said last week there was a “fair prospect” that the Supreme Court will find in favor of Trump, who has called Carroll’s claims — first made publicly in 2019 — that she was sexually attacked by Trump in a Manhattan luxury department store dressing room in the spring of 1996, a “made-up scam.”

The $83-million award to Carroll, 82, came from a jury that briefly heard Trump testify and observed his animated behavior for several days.

In upholding the verdict, a 2nd Circuit panel wrote in September 2025 that Trump continued his attacks against Carroll for at least five years, making them “more extreme and frequent as the trial approached.”

“He also continued these same attacks during the trial itself,” the appeals court said. “In one such statement, issued two days into the trial, Trump proclaimed that he would continue to defame Carroll ‘a thousand times.’ ”

The jury had been instructed to accept the findings of a jury that in May 2023 awarded Carroll $5 million after concluding Trump sexually abused her in the department store and then defamed her after she published her account of it in a 2019 memoir.

Trump is challenging the $83-million award on several grounds, asserting “absolute immunity” for comments he made while president as he disavowed knowing Carroll and attacked her motivations, saying they were politically driven or arose from a desire to promote her memoir.

Sisak and Neumeister write for the Associated Press.