Did it make you doubt the veracity of the Rams’ championship claim?
Were you among the dummies who, as Davante Adams put it, were “freaking out”?
“You’re a fool if you think that that’s what it’s going to look like every single week,” a confident Adams said before putting on a cape and a show in the Rams’ 28-6 victory over the New York Giants on Monday at SoFi Stadium.
The 33-year-old receiver was confident because, for one, the Rams are never again going to fly 16 hours, hop off a plane and play NFL football.
Also, the Rams are very good.
And anybody — or “everybody,” per Adams — who doubts these Rams, does so at their own peril.
Because this is a team with so many weapons they seem sometimes to almost forget about one of them — Adams.
Prime-time ’Tae, the six-time Pro Bowler, three-time All-Pro first-teamer and future Hall of Famer.
A 13th-year professional scorer who, on Monday, passed Art Monk (12,721) to enter the top 25 on the NFL’s all-time receiving yards list. Adams also passed Antonio Brown, Calvin Johnson, Brandon Marshall and Jimmy Smith (46) and tied Torry Holt and Michael Irvin (47) for the ninth-most games in NFL history with 100-plus receiving yards.
With star receiver Puka Nacua out nursing a hip injury, all eyes were on Adams — and hopefully you didn’t blink.
In Adams’ best game as a Ram, he caught eight passes for two touchdowns and 195 yards — 13 more than the Giants’ yardage total. And just 11 yards fewer than his career high.
Among his snags Monday was a leaping, two-handed grab off a sidearm sling from quarterback Matthew Stafford on the Rams’ second possession. Adams brought that down and sashayed in for a 31-yard touchdown that opened the scoring.
Then Stafford hit him in stride for a 64-yard monster gain on the Rams’ third drive, which set up Kyren Williams’ 10-yard touchdown reception.
Rams wide receiver Davante Adams, right, celebrates with wide receiver Xavier Smith after catching a touchdown pass in the first quarter Monday against the Giants.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Stafford and Adams also had one of their patented over-the-shoulder touchdown connections in the corner of the end zone, which made it 21-3 in the third quarter.
“We’ve done that quite a few times on that route in particular,” Adams said, with a grin. “They did double-team it, but just tried to hide it a little too much. And if you’re going to double, you better get over there — because we’re going.”
And if you’re someone who thought the Rams play things too cool, well, Monday was too cool: “Our O-line did a great job protecting, to allow Matthew and Davante to have a bunch of cool connections,” coach Sean McVay said. “Anytime you go eight for 195, it’s a pretty special deal.”
Adams made high-degree-of-difficulty catches look elementary, like foregone conclusions. He was clinical, smooth with his body control.
“It’s a blessing, man,” Adams said. “Games like this. … I think you guys know what I’m capable of. I certainly do.”
But maybe Monday’s performance was a reminder not just of the Rams’ super-upside, but for the Rams themselves: As obvious a target as Nacua is, Adams remains a special talent. They ought to feed him more.
“He’s Wide Receiver 1 to me,” McVay said. “He ain’t a 2 … and I’m really happy for him. I thought he made some great plays, but you could see there’s a lot of trust that he and Matthew have. They were able to get a lot of work together this offseason, and it’s only going to continue to build.”
That investment in time and trust might have all been for naught had the Rams traded Adams — who previously was released by the New York Jets in March 2025 — when the Philadelphia Eagles were shopping A.J. Brown in the offseason.
The Rams didn’t hide that fact from Adams, McVay said: “I did want to acknowledge it. He’s a grown man, and I think he understood that this is a part of this business.”
And Adams didn’t take umbrage, he said at the start of training camp: “It’s just the way that this business goes … ultimately I’m still a Ram and I’m here and I’m happy to be here.”
Here, in L.A., still pursuing the elusive, ultimate goal — a Super Bowl title.
Rams wide receiver Davante Adams celebrates after catching a touchdown pass against the Giants.
(Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times)
Last season, Adams lost in the NFC championship for the fifth time when the Rams were ousted 31-27 by the eventual Super Bowl-champion Seahawks.
And now, despite the debacle Down Under, the Rams remain the favorites to win the Super Bowl this year.
Monday’s victory — imperfect but convincing — reinforced those assumptions.
And proved Adams’ point.
“We’ve still got another level we can tap into,” he said. “This team, we got to the confidence level we’re at because of the work we put in. … We’re trying to be great and be a Super Bowl-caliber team, you gotta hold yourself to a high standard.
“This is definitely on track with what we’re capable of.”
In the second week of the college football season, in a clash of titans, the University of Texas scored 21 unanswered points to surge past Ohio State in the fourth quarter and win, 24-23.
The comeback, Gov. Greg Abbott decreed, was the greatest home victory in more than 130 years of Longhorn football.
A screen grab of one celebratory moment showed a group of students ecstatic beyond belief. They were clad in the university’s signature burnt orange. Two wore cowboy hats. One flashed “Hook ‘em Horns,” the university’s proud hand signal.
To see the picture earlier this month was to witness pure, untempered joy.
Most of the students were darkly complected and apparently of South Asian heritage. French posted the photo and wrote on X, “I heard UT graduation this year looked like this. I didn’t believe it. The problem is now obviously far worse than anyone imagined.”
“Like body-cams exposed criminals, social media is exposing how many Americans have been displaced by foreigners,” French spewed. “It’s everywhere and far worse than any of us could imagine.”
In many places, French’s unapologetic, unvarnished bigotry would be disqualifying. But given Texas’ strong Republican leaning he stands a better-than-even chance of being elected in November to the state Railroad Commission, which, despite its name, oversees Texas’ vast oil and gas industry.
The hateful gibe was perfectly in character. “In some ways in Texas this is old news,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, who teaches political science at the University of Houston.
Last year, as chairman of the Tarrant County GOP, French posted an online poll asking, “Who is a bigger threat to America?” The choice on offer: Muslims or Jews.
Speaking in March at a political conference, he urged President Trump to round up and deport every Muslim in the country, calling the Islamic faith subversive and a clear and present danger to America.
“The Republican Party is used to Bo French making these kinds of outrageous statements,” Rottinghaus said.
Still, the response to French’s latest acrid emission was telling, not least for what it says about reflexive partisanship and today’s political reward structure.
As you’d expect, his Democratic opponent, state Rep. Jon Rosenthal, was scathing. “I spent 25 years as an oil and gas engineer,” he wrote on social media. “Bo French spent Sunday morning sorting our student section by skin color … A man who can’t tell a Longhorn from a foreigner has no business regulating anything in TX.”
The state’s outgoing U.S. senator, Republican John Cornyn, was also quick to denounce French. “This is the Republican nominee for statewide office,” Cornyn said in a post. “Are other Republican elected officials going to condemn the intolerance and racism, or look the other way while it becomes normalized.”
“That is not my message,” Abbott said in a written statement, summoning the moral clarity and political courage of a puff pastry. “We all support our college football teams. The way we win the state is the same way we win football games. We unite under the brand of Texas.”
Then, just to have it both ways, Abbott suggested “that doesn’t mean that Texas cannot also lead in having the toughest immigration laws of any state in America and freezing H1B visas at our universities.” (The overwhelming majority of those holding H1B visas are Asian nationals from India and China.)
Paxton responded by attacking his Democratic opponent, state Rep. James Talarico, for saluting Cornyn for taking a stand against French’s prejudice. “I condemn racism in all its forms,” Paxton wrote on X, adding, “Only one person in this race has a history of dividing Texans by race, and it’s James Talarico.”
A simple, straightforward condemnation shouldn’t have been hard. Lacey Hull, a Republican state representative from Houston, was among those in the GOP who showed how.
“Please delete this,” she urged French on X. “This post breaks my heart. I see college kids cheering on their football team. I see Texans.”
Both need a robust GOP turnout to win in November and neither wants to risk alienating too many within the party’s xenophobic, anti-immigrant wing.
“They’re concerned about turnout,” said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University. “Texas is a red state, but one thing that Republicans are concerned about is that the base may not turn out in as large a number as they need.”
Given French’s loathsome history, Abbott and others in the party establishment worked hard to keep him from winning the Republican nomination, Rice noted. But not Paxton. He headlined the kickoff to French’s campaign and has good reason to be glad he won and is now part of the GOP ticket.
His presence means that Paxton is only the second most odious figure seeking statewide office in Texas in November.
This time around, all eyes are on Lizzie Borden who was accused of the brutal murder of her dad and step-mother in the late 19th Century before she was acquitted.
Despite Lizzie being set free, her reputation was never restored and for more than 100 years, a gruesome children’s rhyme has immortalised the crimes.
But even though this is why Lizzie Borden remains a familiar name in criminal history, the chant is far from factually correct.
Lizzie Borden rhyme explained
Watch Jose Mourinho Netflix doc with free Netflix subscription
This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more
Jose Mourinho’s three-part Netflix documentary is available to watch at no extra cost for Sky customers as the provider gives away free subscriptions with each of its Sky Stream TV bundles.
Here is the Lizzie Borden rhyme in full: “Lizzie Borden took an axe, and gave her mother 40 whacks.
“When she saw what she had done, she gave her father 41.”
It states that Lizzie killed her mother and father but the woman was actually her step-mother Abby Borden as her biological mum died when she was just a child.
The rhyme goes on to detail that her parents were “whacked” 40 and 40 times but this is an exaggeration as Abby was killed by 18 or 19 strikes and father Andrew by 10 or 11.
In addition, the rhyme states that the murders were committed with an axe but police and experts believe the weapon was a hatchet, a far smaller and compact tool meant for lighter tasks in comparison to an axe.
There’s also the matter that the children’s song states that Lizzie Borden was the one to commit these crimes.
However, a jury acquitted Lizzie of their murders in 1893, so legally, she didn’t kill Abby and Andrew Jackson Borden.
Despite this verdict, public suspicion remained throughout her life and to this day, especially since it was an all-male jury that didn’t think an upper-class woman could commit such a “feral” crime.
Monster: The Lizzie Borden Story is available to watch on Netflix
He became the youngest debutant and goalscorer in Ecuadorian top-flight history at the age of 15 before making his debut in the Copa Libertadores, South America’s equivalent of the Champions League, later that same season.
Later in 2023, aged 16 years and 131 days, he made his second appearance for Ecuador, becoming the second-youngest South American international to feature in World Cup qualifying after Diego Maradona.
A month later, he became the youngest South American to score in a World Cup qualifier in a 2-1 win away to Bolivia.
It was understandable, therefore, that Chelsea believed the attacker, who had two international goals and 18 caps when they agreed to sign him, was destined for big things.
Chelsea allowed him to train regularly with the first team before he was officially eligible to join the club following his 18th birthday.
They also provided security for Paez, his family and the family of international team-mate Moises Caicedo after violence broke out in Ecuador in early 2024.
A few months later, Paez was filmed in a New York strip club while away on international duty.
He initially impressed on loan at Chelsea‘s sister club Strasbourg by winning September’s Young Player of the Month award in the French top flight, but then came in for criticism from then-manager Liam Rosenior.
“We expect more, clearly,” Rosenior said later that season. “I’m tired of using the excuse of the player’s youth.”
Despite Strasbourg’s links to Chelsea through their shared ownership, the loan was cut short after one goal in 21 appearances. Instead, he joined Argentine giants River Plate on a two-year loan spell.
Sources in Argentina expressed similar concerns about his attitude when asked by BBC Sport. They point to a disappointing display in the 1-0 Superclasico defeat by fierce rivals Boca Juniors at the Monumental in April.
Shortly afterwards, Paez was named by club president Stefano Di Carlo as one of 15 players training away from River Plate’s first team, although other sources felt he could have been given more opportunities.
His loan ended by mutual consent after Paez scored once in 14 appearances in 461 minutes for River Plate.
Ahead of the international break, concern has been expressed in Ecuador, having built him up as the country’s next great attacking talent.
Michel Deller, the owner of Independiente, told Hincha Amarillo: “He’s like a son to us. We care about him deeply.
“He’s a good kid who’s had a tough time and has made decisions that have complicated his life.
“We are always hopeful he’ll show his exceptional talent one again but right now, it’s up to him to decide what to do with his life.”
These concerns are not dismissed completely by Chelsea or Paez’s environment. However, there is a belief they are grossly overstated, highlighting he is owed time to grow as a player and person.
On Sept. 26, 1983 the Soviet Union’s Oko early warning system reported that the US had launched five intercontinental ballistic missiles.
Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov, the duty officer at the Serpukhov-15 bunker, broke protocol and refused to report the alert as a confirmed strike. He reasoned that a real US first strike would involve hundreds or thousands of missiles, not five. The system, it turned out, had mistaken sunlight reflecting off clouds for missile launches.
Petrov’s decision to defy protocol prevented an erroneous retaliatory nuclear strike and its incalculable consequences.
“I had all the data (to suggest there was an ongoing missile attack),” he told the BBC’s Russian Service 30 years later.
“If I had sent my report up the chain of command, nobody would have said a word against it. They were lucky it was me on shift that night.”
That Cold War lesson resonates loudly amid growing fear over how AI is being deployed in warfare. A recent appeal has put automation in war back in the spotlight, raising a question that leaves many uneasy: What would happen if a computer — an AI system — were the one calling the shots and it got the response to an attack wrong?
A mockup of a Soviet AN-602 hydrogen bomb (Tsar Bomb) is displayed at the exhibition devoted to the 70th anniversary of Russia’s nuclear industry in Moscow. AFP/File
In an essay published over the weekend, Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called for AI model development to slow down and face closer scrutiny. The appeal was not unprecedented but this time it drew rare public agreement from two rivals: Sam Altman of OpenAI and Elon Musk of xAI.
“Over the last few months I have become convinced that fully addressing the risks requires even more prudence — not just investing in risk prevention but pacing the rate of capabilities advancement so that risk prevention has time to keep up,” Amodei said.
A threat-intelligence report published by Anthropic found that a cell based in northern Yemen tried to use Claude (its AI tool) to build guided rockets and missiles, including a ballistic missile with a claimed 2,000 km range and a separate program incorporating a hypersonic glide vehicle.
Anthropic said that it banned the accounts after detecting the activity, although there was no evidence that the group successfully fielded an operational weapon.
War offers no shortage of similar examples, where AI streamlines battlefield decisions or powers surveillance. The Middle East, given its strategic weight and the range of actors involved, has become a testing ground for the technology.
Dario Amodei, CEO and Co-Founder of Anthropic attends the 55th annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland. REUTERS/File
Israel has long used AI in its military. Over three years of war in Gaza its forces have reportedly deployed several machine-learning systems — Habsora (“Gospel”), Lavender, Fire Factory and Where’s Daddy — to automate large parts of target generation and strike planning.
The systems mine surveillance feeds, communications data and existing databases to propose targets and recommend munitions and strike schedules. Analysts reportedly went from producing about 50 targets a year to as many as 100 a day.
Concerns over AI-supported targeting resurfaced during the Iran war, after a US strike hit the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ school in Minab, southern Iran, killing at least 168 people, most of them children.
The US has not disclosed whether AI was used in that strike but Adm. Brad Cooper, the US commander leading the campaign, has confirmed the use of “a variety of advanced AI tools” to process large volumes of data, without naming specific systems. He said that the tools let commanders make “smarter decisions faster than the enemy can react,” cutting processes that once took hours or days down to seconds.
“Humans will always make final decisions on what to shoot and what not to shoot, and when to shoot,” he said.
Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of the US Central Command (CENTCOM), salutes during the funeral of American-Israeli hostage Captain Omer Neutra. REUTERS/File
The US military has run AI-enabled war programs since at least 2017. Its Maven Smart System, built by Palantir, helps fuse battlefield data, identify targets and accelerate decisions. NATO acquired its own version in 2025. OpenAI and Anthropic are also competing for military contracts, reflecting the growing reliance of defense operations on commercial AI and the increasingly close ties between the two sectors.
In Ukraine, both sides use AI for data processing and target selection. Ukraine’s former Deputy Defense Minister Yuriy Myronenko told the BBC that AI analyzed more than 50,000 front-line video streams each month, helping “quickly process this massive data, identify targets and put them on a map.”
But as war spills beyond the traditional battlefield into a hybrid, multi-faceted front, AI adoption follows.
In April YouTube banned Explosive Media, a Gen Z Iranian channel that used AI-generated Lego-style animations mocking Western figures — including Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu — while pushing pro-Iranian, anti-US and anti-Israel narratives.
More recently separate media investigations found that Israel had funded multimillion-dollar PR campaigns to shape how AI chatbots, including ChatGPT, answer questions about Gaza and the Israeli military. By setting up fake think tanks and publishing AI-generated papers with no real authors, the investigators said, Israel built a sophisticated operation to manipulate search results and shape public understanding — a shift in propaganda tactics that is harder to detect because it disguises advocacy as neutral expertise.
Throughout history militaries have sought tools that offer an edge over adversaries. But deploying AI in high-stakes environments like armed conflict carries risks distinct from any previous technology.
Part of the concern lies in the technology itself. An AI model trained on faulty or unrepresentative data can generate inaccurate results or malfunction once deployed in conditions that differ from its training environment.
Iran’s Explosive Media propaganda lego videos. Explosive Media/File
AI-supported targeting is a case in point. Where such tools generate targets at scale with minimal human oversight, errors are not difficult to imagine.
That risk grows more acute as AI development moves from decision support to agents that can pursue complex goals with little human supervision. The next step, recursive self-improvement, would involve systems upgrading themselves with decreasing human input in a potentially open-ended loop.
As Jean-Marc Rickli and Tobias Knappe of the Geneva Centre for Security Policy note in a recent paper, agentic AI “is shifting the AI landscape from being a passive, supportive tool towards an active executor that can increasingly define and take courses of action on behalf of a human user” — a shift that, they added, “also raises significant societal, security, legal and ethical risks.”
In this sense, the proliferation of AI, on and off the battlefield, has introduced unprecedented challenges, prompting scrutiny of its impact on moral agency and accountability.
In June the UN held its first Informal Exchange on Artificial Intelligence in the Military Domain. Discussions centered on human rights and international humanitarian law, with nongovernmental organizations pushing for a moratorium on AI systems used in lethal decision-making — such as automated targeting — until robust global safeguards are in place.
The meeting followed a December 2025 UN General Assembly resolution on “Artificial intelligence in the military domain and its implications for international peace and security.” Experts welcomed it as a step forward, despite notable absences — including the US, which voted against the resolution.
Momentum is now shifting to New York, where a factual summary of the Geneva talks is due to reach the UN First Committee during its October session.
The UN General Assembly established the Independent International Scientific Panel on Artificial Intelligence and the Global Dialogue on Artificial Intelligence Governance in Resolution A/RES/79/325, following intergovernmental negotiations and broad consultations with diverse stakeholders. AFP/File
Despite these efforts, battlefield AI remains governed largely by existing legal frameworks.
Existing international humanitarian law applies to AI-enabled weapons through the principles of distinction, proportionality, military necessity and precaution. Responsibility remains with states and human actors, while Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions also requires states party to the protocol to review new weapons, means and methods of warfare for legal compliance. US Directive 3000.09 similarly requires “appropriate levels of human judgment” but stops short of mandating real-time human control or creating binding international accountability.
In early September a UN disarmament forum in Geneva concluded three years of work on autonomous weapons, colloquially known as “killer robots.” A total of 128 states reached a non-binding consensus text after last-minute objections from the US and Russia, backing a proposed two-tier framework: prohibiting autonomous weapons whose effects are unpredictable or designed to target humans directly and restricting all others through mandatory human supervision rules.
An ELTA’s BlueWhale autonomous submarine is presented to the media at the IAI’ ELTA Division in Ashdod, Israel. REUTERS/File
Human Rights Watch said that the final text was considerably watered down and the US and Russia remain opposed to binding negotiations. But with 76 states now backing a legally binding instrument, the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons’ November Review Conference looms as the decisive test of whether formal talks begin.
“AI systems will not change that the human is responsible for mistakes but it will obscure that humans feel responsible for mistakes and that can lead to a greater willingness to use force,” Elke Schwarz, professor of political theory at London’s Queen Mary University and author of “Death Machines: The Ethics of Violent Technologies,” told Arab News.
“There is a plausible deniability implicit in the use of AI enabled systems because they are essentially operating in a zone of invisibility.”
Israel offers the clearest example to date. When Israeli outlet +972 reported on the Lavender system it caused uproar by showing AI used not merely to assist analysts but to generate vast target lists — reportedly with only cursory human checks. The system’s scale, its claimed 90 percent accuracy and its use against people in their homes raised fears that human control was slipping and that AI could make large-scale violence faster, more impersonal and harder to attribute.
This handout satellite image by Planet Labs PBC shows the Shajareh Tayyebeh primary school in Minab in Iran’s Hormozgan province on March 4, 2026 after it was hit in the US-Israeli strikes. AFP/File
This marks a paradigm shift unseen in the history of conflict, which, as Schwarz argued, reshapes humanity’s relationship with violence and challenges conventional notions of ethical conduct in war.
She maintains that AI-enabled weapons systems facilitate the objectification of human targets, raising tolerance for collateral damage, while automation bias and technological mediation weaken operators’ moral agency and diminish their capacity for ethical judgment.
“Machines cannot be better at war than humans because machines don’t understand what war is, what it entails and what suffering it produces,” she said.
“They can only contribute to the actions humans decide on in better or worse ways. In my view AI-enabled systems make humans less restraint in using force, not more.
“Humans decide on the parameters. If they want to design a system that is less restraint, they will, if it is perceived to be more effective. A system cannot be a ‘better’ moral actor than the human because it has no concept of meaning for moral decisions. So, humans will not disappear from war with AI systems, but AI systems will change the relationship we humans have to violence. And that will make war worse.”
As a growing number of whistleblowers and experts warn, the risk is that an unchecked race toward superintelligent AI carries real risks to the very humans who built it.
An Iranian drone is displayed at the IRGC Aerospace Force Museum in Tehran, Iran. REUTERS/File
For Schwarz, an AI “doomsday” is no longer far-fetched science fiction.
“I think we have already witnessed a horrendous human cost on account of AI enabled weapon systems,” she said.
“The introduction of AI systems into war has, at the very least, not lead to more restraint, more global stability, less conflict, fewer civilians killed or harmed. Quite the contrary. Children are dying due to war at a staggering rate. This is quite doomsday-ish in my books.”
As comparisons between the AI and nuclear arms races grow sharper by the day, the argument circles back to Petrov and to an ominous question: Would an algorithm have shown the same restraint?
“We can of course conjure up all kinds of awful scenarios, for example if someone decides to put an AI agent in charge of nuclear decision making (which would be ludicrous but you never know) and a data glitch leads to a nuclear threat spiral. But I think things are already quite awful because the technology and dehumanization seem to go hand in hand.”
Anthropic’s Claude offers a similar note of caution.
“What’s not really disputed is that today’s actual military AI risks are the boring-sounding ones: bad targeting data, automation bias, escalation happening faster than diplomacy can respond, systems proliferating to actors with no safety culture at all. The ‘robots decide to turn on us’ framing, if anything, can be a distraction from those.”
NHS GP Dr Amir Khan says a common method for dealing with nosebleeds is not correct
Dr Amir Khan has explained how a common method for treating nosebleeds is not right(Image: No Appointment Necessary)
Dr Amir Khan has offered guidance on how to properly treat a nosebleed, revealing that many people have been receiving incorrect advice. The well-known TV doctor and NHS GP, recognised for his regular slots on ITV’s This Morning and Lorraine, discussed the matter with his followers on the latest instalment of his podcast, No Appointment Necessary.
His explanation may come as a surprise to some who have been instructed to do something entirely different when dealing with a nosebleed. Co-host Cherry Healey appeared to be among them, as she questioned him about the advice people have given her for managing a nosebleed.
She said: “You know when someone gets a nosebleed, they always get told to put their head back. It’s so awful when you get a nosebleed and someone tells you that because it’s what you don’t want to do. Is that true?”
The doctor responded: “No. It used to be that, but it’s not head back. It’s head forward. Yeah, because if you go back, you could swallow the blood and then cause all sorts of issues.”
He then outlined what you should do instead, saying: “First of all, you want to pinch the soft bit of your nose just underneath the bone. I’m talking like this now because I’m doing it. So pinch that bit as tight, as tight as you can and then lean forward.
“So head between your knees or lean as far forward as you can for, you’ve guessed it, 15 minutes. 15 to 20 minutes is when anything is bleeding.
“That’s how long you need to put pressure on it.” Cherry then replied: “Because that’s how long it takes to clot.”
His advice is important because many people have been given incorrect advice. McGill University in Canada says the tilt-the-head-back method is a ‘common misconception’.
Its website states: “First aid standards have changed throughout the years, making it difficult to keep up with the right practice. Tilting your head backwards is common misconception. Currently, Red Cross standards and most clinicians inform us to sit neutral, tilt head slightly forward, pinch the bridge of the nose, and wait for 10-15 minutes.”
NHS advice on what to do if you have a nosebleed
The NHS website advises that if you experience a nosebleed, you should sit down and lean forward, with your head tilted forward and your mouth open; pinch your nose just above your nostrils for 10 to 15 minutes; and breathe through your mouth. It adds: “Holding an icepack (or a bag of frozen peas wrapped in a tea towel) on the top of the nose may help reduce the blood flow. But the evidence to show it works is not very strong.”
Content cannot be displayed without consent
It also provides guidance on what to do for the 24 hours following a nosebleed. To reduce the likelihood of another nosebleed, for 24 hours afterwards, it recommends you should try not to pick your nose, blow it, or pick any scabs.
It also suggests avoiding lying down flat, doing any heavy lifting or strenuous exercise, or consuming hot drinks or alcohol.
Dr Amir Khan tells patients what not to say in his practice
The doctor’s guidance comes a day after he shared with Instagram followers a list of things he does not want to hear from his patients. The reassuring post, which we reported about on Friday, stated people should not apologise for their weight, their toenails, or their hairy legs.
He said: “Please, you’re having a medical examination, I am not bothered about anything else. “He also said people should not apologise if they feel the need to cry, or if they cannot remember the name of their tablets. And he said: “Please don’t say things like I’m sorry to waste your time.
“If something is worrying you enough that you’ve come to make an appointment to come and see me, that’s what I’m here for.” He concluded by noting: “The only thing that I care about is that you feel able to tell me what’s really going on.
“Because the thing you might be embarrassed about might actually be really important, and I can’t help something you feel ashamed to tell me. So, come as you are, cry if you need to, don’t shave anything on my account, and please stop apologising for just being a patient. You’re not an inconvenience, you’re literally the reason why I’m here.”
Find episodes of the podcast on YouTube, Apple or other platforms.
“It’s terrible for Israel and for Israel’s future, it’s not what Judaism teaches and it’s deeply wrong”, he added.
Supported by other Rabbis in the liberal and progressive UK Jewish communities, Rabbi Wittenberg believes that it is possible to support Israel, be concerned for the safety of British Jews, and that it is right for the UK government to take action to protect Israelis and Palestinians.
However, he also said he was “extremely sad that it’s come to this” and that he shared the “concerns of the Jewish community leadership that people will use this for antisemitism and for demonising Israel even further”.
Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis, who represents the Orthodox community, previously said the sanctions marked a “truly dark day” and placed British Jews at greater risk of attacks.
In Golders Green – where ambulances run by a Jewish medical charity were set on fire and two visibly Jewish men were stabbed in what police called a terror attack earlier this year – there was concern the government’s actions against Israel would increase attacks against British Jews.
“It’s so tricky because, in principle, I agree with opposing these new settlements,” Michael Cohen, who works for a Jewish charity, told the BBC.
But he added: “The timing of it, I think, was completely… just self interest for the Labour Party, signalling before a by-election, before the party conference.”
He said the practical impact of the move would be “almost zero”.
One woman, who runs a jewellery shop that was was twice cordoned off due to incidents in Golders Green, was very critical of the sanctions and said she would “make it my mission” to continue to buy Israeli goods whenever she could.
“We have to [support] our own because no one else is going to”, Deborah Miller told the BBC.
At the end of the week, Jewish congregations will celebrate Rosh Hashana, the Jewish New Year.
Police are already increasing security around Jewish areas to protect communities who have faced multiple attacks this year and are fearful of more.
The number of antisemitic incidents recorded across the UK since the start of the year is up by a fifth compared to last year, figures show.
The Community Security Trust (CST), an organisation that provides security support to the Jewish community, recorded 1,926 incidents of anti-Jewish hate across the UK in the first six months of 2026.
Jerusalem: Israel’s President Isaac Herzog warned against British sanctions on settlements in the occupied West Bank, expected to be announced on Tuesday, saying the decision would “fall on the wrong side of history”.
“Later today, we expect to see headlines announcing certain British trade sanctions on Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria,” Herzog said, using the biblical term for the West Bank.
“If this happens – and other nations may join – I believe it will prove to be a grave miscalculation, a decision that will fall on the wrong side of history,” he added.
The expected UK move follows weeks of increasing settler attacks against Palestinians in the occupied territory.
It also comes as the right-wing government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ramps up settlement construction in the West Bank, which some western governments fear threatens a two-state solution.
British government minister Pat McFadden said Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband would make a statement to parliament laying out “measures specifically targeted at the expansion of these settlements, which are illegal under international law, in the West Bank”.
He told Sky News that the changes, on which he provided no further detail, would be motivated by “the idea of keeping alive this possibility of seeing a Palestinian state alongside Israel”.
“I think it’s also important to say that Israel is an important trading partner for the UK. This isn’t intended to be a boycott of all Israeli goods.”
UK government ministers have suggested recently that goods coming out of settlements could be subject to trade restrictions as part of the changes.
Herzog on Tuesday said: “Sanctions are not a solution. Dialogue is.”
“I say to all foreign governments: Stop! Step away from the dead-end of sanctions and boycotts. And turn toward constructive dialogue and toward cooperation,” he added.
Israel has since 1967 occupied the West Bank, where more than 500,000 Israelis live in settlements among some three million Palestinians.
With Israel headed to the polls next month, Herzog said the UK move, if announced, “would be a gross interference in the democratic elections of a sovereign nation”.
“It will serve no one. It will directly harm – unfortunately – Palestinians, robbing them of business and employment,” he added.
The now widely used Mercator map was created in 1569 by Flemish cartographer Gerardus Mercator.
Its main purpose was to help European sailors navigate the oceans, as cartography Professor James Cheshire at University London College explained.
“He wanted a straight line to be drawn on a map to look like a straight line in reality if you followed a compass bearing,” he told the BBC. “That was what it was intended to do, and that’s what it does brilliantly well.”
To keep those angles correct on a flat map, Mercator had to stretch the grid lines wider as they moved away from the equator toward the poles.
His map accommodates for the curvature of the Earth by making countries near the equator seem much smaller than they are, with countries nearer the poles appearing stretched.
The distortion is a result of it being impossible to accurately represent the surface of a globe on a two-dimensional chart.
More than 450 years on, Mercator’s creation is still the basis for many of the maps we see in classrooms, on TV and online, including Google Maps.
But critics of the Mercator map say there is a psychological effect to viewing some places as smaller than they actually are and others as larger, as we instinctively view bigger things as more important.
For Kenyan geographer Kioko Muendo, this has implicitly downplayed Africa’s vast resources, population and investment opportunities.
“Maps are more than just guides for travellers – they shape how regions are perceived politically and economically,” he told the BBC.
