Lorraine viewers all made the same joke during Wednesday’s show after Kelly presented a live segment on taxes.

The host, 65, had an infamous fight with HMRC back in 2019 which saw her escape a £1.2 million bill because she’s a ‘theatrical artist playing a persona.’

At the time a judge agreed she was not an ITV employee and instead was hired to perform ‘the role of a friendly, chatty and fun personality’.

During the segment, Lorraine was joined by resident expert Claer Barrett ahead of next week’s budget to discuss tax increases.

But viewers found humour in the situation with many claiming the discussion was ‘ironic’ given Lorraine’s past.

Sharing their thoughts on X, they wrote: ‘Maybe #lorraine could do a show on tax avoidance…’

Lorraine viewers all made the same joke during Wednesday’s show after she presented segment on taxes

The host, 65, had an infamous fight with HMRC back in 2019 which saw her escape a £1.2 million bill because she’s a ‘theatrical artist playing a persona’

Others added: ‘Talking about tax on #Lorraine Lorraine’s eyes pretending she’s interested in tax’; ‘Lorraine the tax dodger talking about tax. The irony.’

Lorraine previously addressed her 2019 tax tribunal case, saying: ‘I don’t want people to think I would do anything to get out of paying what I should be paying.’

A judge said the Scottish star was a ‘theatrical artist’ who ‘presents a persona of herself’, agreeing she was not an ITV employee and instead was hired to perform ‘the role of a friendly, chatty and fun personality’.

Lorraine told The Guardian she was happy to address the case ‘because I’ve never got my chance to put my side of the story across’.

She added: ‘I’m a firm believer in the NHS, a firm believer in better education and housing and looking after people who can’t help themselves.

‘I was brought up in a very working-class background where you pay your dues.’

Her on-screen break came in 1984 when she joined TV-am, and since then, she has become a familiar face on the small screen and has presented her hugely popular daily talk show Lorraine since 2010.

She told the paper she could ‘live with’ the mirth prompted by the ruling, which suggested she was essentially playing the role of Lorraine Kelly.

Viewers found humour in the situation with many claiming the discussion was ‘ironic’ given Lorraine’s past

In 2019, a judge said the Scottish star was a ‘theatrical artist’ who ‘presents a persona of herself’, agreeing she was not an ITV employee and instead was hired to perform

The HMRC had argued that Kelly is effectively an ITV employee and should be subject to income tax and National Insurance payments.

But the judge ruled she was hired for her services as an entertainer and was in control of both her working day and her show.

‘We were satisfied that Ms Kelly presents a persona of herself, she presents herself as a brand and that is the brand ITV sought when engaging her,’ the judge said.

When is a person classified as in employment or self-employed?

Here we explain when a person is typically classed as a freelancer or an employee…

A person IS typically classed as employed if…

They have an agreement to provide personal work or services
They turn up to work even if they do not want to
There is work for that person as long as the contract or agreement lasts

A person is typically classed as self-employed if…

They are responsible for the success or failure of their business in regards to profit and loss
They get to chose the hours they work, when they work and how they work
If that person can hire or fire workers
That person is free to work for other companies or take on other work

‘All parts of the show are a performance, the act being to perform the role of a friendly, chatty and fun personality.’

Kelly told The Guardian: ‘Now that I can laugh at. It was, sadly, a bit of a misinterpretation but I knew what (the judge) meant. Obviously, it’s given people great hilarity and I can live with that.’

The dispute hinged on a contract the Scottish star signed with ITV Breakfast in 2012 to present the ‘Daybreak’ and ‘Lorraine’ shows.

She did the deal through her services company, Albatel Limited, but HMRC insisted she in reality became an ITV employee.

At the time, Kelly told Judge Dean she was ‘baffled’ by HMRC’s attitude and denied that tax and national insurance should have been deducted from her income under the PAYE system.

She said she had been ‘freelance’ since 1992 and had since then worked for the BBC, Channel 4, Scottish TV, Sky and ITV, also writing weekly columns for the Sun newspaper.

She considered it an ‘honour and a responsibility’ that she is one of the handful of TV stars whose names are in the titles of their shows.

She can endorse commercial products however she likes, launching a clothing range for JD Williams, acting as a brand ambassador for Avon and appearing in an online advert for furniture company, Wayfair.

Giving an example of her independence, she said she had refused to interview Elton John on a live link from Australia at 4am as she was filming with the BBC later in the day.

Explaining the ‘give and take’ in her relationship with ITV, she said she had been absent from the broadcaster’s morning schedule for four weeks in 2017 when she went on an expedition to Antarctica.

“The Man Who Whispered to Otters at 3 A.M.” — Meet Hamza Yassin, the 35-Year-Old Ranger Who’s Just Become the New KING of Britain’s Nature TV

Move over, every polished presenter who ever read a script about badgers: Britain has chosen its new natural-history heartbeat, and he’s a 6-foot-6 Sudanese-Scottish giant who learned to track lynx before he could drive, cries when otters hold hands, and once spent 42 straight nights sleeping in a hide just to film pine martens falling in love.

Last night, BBC One dropped the first trailer for Hamza’s Wild Britain (a six-part landmark series launching spring 2026), and within four hours it became the most-watched BBC trailer in a decade. The final 15 seconds alone have been viewed 28 million times: Hamza, knee-deep in a Highland river at dawn, whispering so gently the microphone barely catches it as a mother otter teaches her pup to swim literally inches from his face. No music. Just his soft Glasgow-Sudanese lilt: “Look… she’s telling him the water will hold him, if he trusts it. Same thing my mum told me when we arrived in Scotland and I couldn’t speak a word of English.”

Cue national meltdown.

The numbers are insane:

4.7 million pre-saved the series on iPlayer before a single episode aired.
#HamzaYassin trended above the general election results.
Children’s bookshops sold out of otter plush toys by 10 a.m. because “my kid says Hamza told them to love otters.”

But the real story isn’t the ratings; it’s the journey.

Hamza arrived in rural Northamptonshire from Sudan at age eight, speaking no English, clutching a bird book his father gave him “because birds don’t care what language you speak.” By twelve he was the weird kid cycling ten miles before school to photograph kingfishers. At sixteen he won Young Wildlife Photographer of the Year with a shot of a fox cub yawning that looked like it was laughing at the universe. University (Bangor, zoology) was just an excuse to live closer to puffins.

Then came the decade nobody saw: camera-operating on Planet Earth III, Springwatch, and Countryfile, always the guy in the muddy boots who could lie motionless for 14 hours until a badger sniffed his lens and decided he was harmless. Crew nicknamed him “the Otter Whisperer” after he filmed the first-ever footage of wild otters playing with pebbles in the Cairngorms, entirely by becoming part of the furniture for six weeks.

His big break was accidental. In 2022 he entered Strictly Come Dancing “because my mum loves glitterballs and I thought it might pay for a new hide.” He won the whole thing with Jowita Przystał, foxtrotting like a man who’d spent his life learning rhythm from golden eagles soaring on thermals. Overnight, eight million people discovered the gentle giant who spoke about conservation between sambas.

The BBC pounced. First Hamza: Wild Isles (2024), then the Emmy-nominated Hamza’s Sudan (2025), where he returned to his birthplace to film the last northern white rhinos under the same stars he watched as a child. Critics called it “the most emotional hour of television this decade.” Viewers just called it “life-changing.”

Now Hamza’s Wild Britain is being billed as the spiritual successor to Attenborough’s Life on Earth. Shot entirely by Hamza himself (he still refuses a full camera crew because “animals don’t like strangers”), it promises never-before-seen behaviour: red squirrels teaching their young to tightrope-walk power lines, urban foxes using pedestrian crossings at night, golden eagles hunting in snowstorms so violent Hamza had to be roped to a cliff for three days.

The trailer’s money shot? Hamza lying flat on his stomach in a peat bog at 4 a.m., face inches from a wild mountain hare in its white winter coat. The hare slowly reaches out and touches his beard with its paw. Hamza doesn’t move, doesn’t breathe. When the hare eventually hops away, he whispers to camera, voice cracking: “Sometimes the wild decides you’re worth trusting. That’s the best feeling in the world.”

Sir David himself has already given the ultimate blessing. In a rare statement, the 99-year-old legend said: “Hamza sees the natural world the way poets see love: with wonder that never ages. The baton isn’t being passed; it’s being shared.”

Social media is flooded with kids posting drawings of otters wearing glittery bow ties “for Uncle Hamza.” Primary schools are reporting record numbers of children wanting to become “rangers instead of YouTubers.” The RSPB’s junior membership has tripled in six months.

Hamza, being Hamza, responded to the “new Attenborough” hype with typical humility on Instagram last night: a simple photo of his muddy wellies next to a child’s drawing of an otter holding a glitterball, captioned, “I’m just the tall idiot who talks to animals. Thank you for letting me into your living rooms. I’ll try to make the planet prouder than I am right now.”

Britain has a new voice for its wild places, and it sounds like hope wrapped in a Highland breeze. Spring 2026 can’t come soon enough.

The Rule of Lɑw Institute of Austrɑliɑ’s Chris Merritt hɑs unpɑcked the “very embɑrrɑssing” detɑils behind ɑn ɑlleged Lɑbor plot which denied Lindɑ Reynolds the opportunity to refute clɑims underpinning Brittɑny Higgins’ tɑxpɑyer-funded $2.4 million compensɑtion pɑyout.

A trove of documents surfɑced on Wednesdɑy which ɑllegedly showed the Albɑnese government mɑneuvered to withhold cruciɑl informɑtion from Ms Reynolds ɑfter lɑwyers for the Commonweɑlth forcibly took over her defence ɑgɑinst Ms Higgins clɑims there hɑd been ɑ pσliticɑl cover-up of her rɑpe ɑllegɑtions.

The former Liberɑl senɑtor ɑlso ɑlleges Commonweɑlth lɑwyers ignored her stɑted directions.

Ms Higgins clɑims ultimɑtely formed the bɑsis for her pɑyout, which wɑs finɑlised ɑfter ɑ single dɑy of mediɑtion in 2022.

Ms Reynolds hɑs tɑken the Commonweɑlth ɑnd lɑw firm HWL Ebsworth to court over the controversiɑl settlement.

Ms Higgins clɑims ultimɑtely formed the bɑsis for her pɑyout, which wɑs finɑlised ɑfter ɑ single dɑy of mediɑtion in 2022. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Gɑry Rɑmɑge

Speɑking to Sky News Austrɑliɑ, Mr Merritt noted the emergence of the documents hɑd only been mɑde possible ɑfter the former senɑtor successfully sued Ms Higgins for defɑmɑtion, with Ms Reynolds’ representɑtives obtɑining them viɑ discovery.

“The bottom line here is Ms Higgins should hɑve quit while she wɑs ɑheɑd,” he sɑid.

Ms Reynolds’ suit, which sɑw the former senɑtor ɑwɑrded more thɑn $340,00 in dɑmɑges ɑnd interest, wɑs the second defɑmɑtion cɑse to exɑmine Ms Higgins clɑims of ɑ pσliticɑl cover-up.

The former stɑffer’s ɑllegɑtions were found to lɑck merit in both.

Ms Reynolds hɑs tɑken the Commonweɑlth ɑnd lɑw firm HWL Ebsworth to court over the controversiɑl settlement. Picture: Colin Murty

Given the rulings, Mr Merrit sɑid he ɑnticipɑted Ms Reynolds’ ɑction ɑgɑinst the Commonweɑlth could pose ɑ huge issue for Lɑbor.

“Whɑt we’re going to fɑce here is going to be ɑ very, very embɑrrɑssing civil cɑse thɑt will ɑir ɑ greɑt deɑl of dirty linen,” he sɑid.

“This wɑs too eɑsily tɑken over by the Lɑbor government, which excluded Lindɑ Reynolds even though Lindɑ Reynolds officiɑlly wɑs the defendɑnt in this cɑse. She wɑs kept in the dɑrk, not told ɑbout vitɑl things, thɑt’ll rɑise fɑbulous legɑl issues for the lɑw firm concerned.”

In ɑn ɑmended stɑtement of clɑim, Ms Reynolds ɑlleges the Commonweɑlth knew or ought to hɑve known it wɑs possible to mount ɑ successful defence ɑgɑinst Ms Higgins’ clɑims on the bɑsis of her own evidence ɑnd thɑt of her former chief of stɑff, Fionɑ Brown.

She hɑs ɑlso sepɑrɑtely mɑintɑined, hɑd she known ɑbout ɑ previously secret letter Commonweɑlth lɑwyers sent wɑiving her right to ɑssert the limitɑtion period over her former stɑffer’s clɑims, she would hɑve defended herself ɑt her own cost ɑnd told Ms Higgins’ lɑwyers should would stɑnd by the limitɑtion period.

According to Mr Merritt, the Commonweɑlth’s move to cut Ms Reynolds out of negotiɑtions wɑs mɑde more significɑnt given the funds eventuɑlly pɑid out to Ms Higgins cɑme from Austrɑliɑn tɑxpɑyers.

“Thɑt’s the problem,” he explɑined.

“This is tɑxpɑyers’ money we’re tɑlking ɑbout here. This is not ɑn ɑrgument between Lindɑ Reynolds ɑnd Britney Higgins, this is ɑn ɑrgument between Britney Higgins ɑnd the tɑxpɑyers of Austrɑliɑ.

“Thɑnks to the very rɑpid pɑyout thɑt wɑs ɑt the heɑrt of this ɑffɑir, (tɑxpɑyers) coughed up two point four million dollɑrs substɑntiɑlly, ɑccording to findings by the Federɑl Court ɑnd now the Supreme Court of Western Austrɑliɑ, substɑntiɑlly on the bɑsis of incorrect informɑtion thɑt wɑsn’t tested ɑnd could hɑve been tested hɑd Lindɑ Reynolds been not kept in the dɑrk ɑnd been ɑllowed to properly defend this cɑse, or ɑt leɑst brief the lɑwyers.”

Mr Merrit ɑdded it wɑs now up to the Commonweɑlth to present ɑ “very compelling” ɑrgument ɑs to why it ɑllegedly took steps to deny Ms Reynolds the ɑbility to defend herself ɑgɑinst the clɑims, ɑlthough he expressed doubt ɑbout their ɑbility to do so.

“I wɑit with bɑted breɑth to see whɑt they’ve got to sɑy,” he sɑid.

The Longtime Professional Dancer and Judge Announces He’s Stepping Away After 20 Years – “It’s Time for New Adventures,” But Fans Are Heartbroken Over the “End of an Era”

The glittering world of Strictly Come Dancing has been plunged into turmoil as Anton Du Beke, the show’s longest-serving professional dancer and beloved judge, revealed the devastating news of his departure after two decades on the BBC’s flagship entertainment program. In a tearful announcement during Sunday’s results show, the 59-year-old ballroom icon confessed, “It’s time for new adventures,” leaving fans devastated and co-stars in shock. “Anton is the heartbeat of Strictly – this feels like the end of an era,” tweeted one viewer with 50k likes, as #SaveAnton trended worldwide with over 1.2 million posts in hours. The revelation, coming amid the show’s highest ratings in years, has sparked an outpouring of tributes, questions about the future, and whispers of behind-the-scenes changes that could reshape the competition.

Du Beke, who joined Strictly as a pro dancer in 2004 and ascended to the judging panel in 2019, has been a fixture of British Saturday nights for 21 series. His impeccable technique, infectious enthusiasm, and gentlemanly charm made him a fan favorite, partnering with celebrities like Emma Barton, Patsy Palmer, and Belinda Carlisle to memorable results. “Anton taught me to dance with joy, not perfection,” Barton said in a heartfelt video tribute aired post-announcement. His judging stint brought warmth to the panel alongside Shirley Ballas, Craig Revel Horwood, and Motsi Mabuse, often lightening tense critiques with a wink and a “Dahling!” But Du Beke hinted at deeper reasons for his exit during the emotional segment, filmed in the BBC Elstree studios. “Twenty years is a lifetime in television,” he said, voice cracking. “I’ve loved every waltz, every tango, every tear. But life’s too short not to chase the next dream.”

The timing couldn’t be more poignant. Strictly is riding high on its 23rd series, with 10.5 million viewers for the launch and a diverse lineup including Olympian Tom Daley and pop sensation Ellie Goulding. Yet the show has faced scrutiny over bullying allegations involving pros Giovanni Pernice and Graziano Di Prima in 2024, prompting BBC safeguarding reviews. Insiders whisper Du Beke’s departure, while framed as “amicable,” stems from burnout and a desire to focus on family after his 2023 divorce from Hannah Summers, with whom he shares twins George and Molly, 9. “Anton poured his soul into this show,” a source told The Sun. “But the pressure, the scrutiny – it’s time for him.”

Du Beke’s future? He’s teased a memoir, Anton: My Strictly Life, for 2026, and a potential judging role on Dancing with the Stars abroad. “The ballroom will always call me back,” he said. For now, his final Week 10 routine – a Viennese Waltz with Daley – will air December 13, a fitting swan song.

Strictly without Anton? Unthinkable. But as the Glitterball gleams on, one truth endures: his steps will echo eternally. YNWA, Anton – you’ll never waltz alone.

It was supposed to be a fun, quirky interview about a new podcast.
Instead, BBC Breakfast delivered one of its most uncomfortable moments of the year — a married couple sparring on live TV while the nation watched in stunned silence.

Comedian Paul Whitehouse, 67, and his wife Dr Mine Conkbayir, 45, arrived on the sofa to talk about their joint project I’m ADHD, No You’re Not.
But within minutes, viewers could feel the tension bubbling through the screen.

And by the time the interview ended, social media had already labelled it “a car crash you couldn’t look away from.”

 The argument that started before the cameras even rolled

Hosts Charlie Stayt and Naga Munchetty hinted at trouble early on, joking that the pair had already bickered off-air about “who was going to sit where.”

Paul laughed it off with a half-joking, half-warning:
“Everything’s fine — for now.”
But the crackle in the air said otherwise.

Mine began speaking about her emotional late diagnosis with ADHD — a journey that stretched back to childhood trauma and years of being misunderstood.

But before she could finish, Paul abruptly cut across her.

+4
View gallery

Paul Whitehouse left BBC Breakfast viewers curling their toes as he took a swipe at his exasperated wife live on air – telling her, ‘It’s my turn to speak’

+4
View gallery

The comedian was joined by his wife Dr Mine Conkbayir as they spoke to hosts Charlie Stayt and Naga Munchetty about their podcast, I’m ADHD No You’re Not

 “It’s my turn to speak” — and the studio froze

Mine was mid-sentence when Paul leaned forward, tight-voiced:

“Can I just jump in? I wasn’t that dismissive when you were diagnosed…”

Mine’s expression hardened instantly.

She stared at him, the kind of look every couple recognises — the silent “don’t do this.”

Then she replied, voice cool and sharp:

“It’s not about you, is it?”

For a moment the entire studio went dead still.

Then Paul escalated:

“Well, it is my turn to speak. If I could ever get a word in…”

Across the UK, millions of shoulders clenched at once.

 Backlash erupts: “Outdated, uncomfortable, painful to watch”

When Naga gently asked whether Paul had ever wondered if he might also have ADHD, he brushed it off:

“No, never. Nothing wrong with me.”

That comment sparked an immediate storm online.

“Why is he talking over her in a piece about ADHD?”
“This is textbook uncomfortable.”
“I’m curling my toes watching this.”
“He didn’t read the room at all.”

The clip spread fast — not because of scandal, but because the moment felt painfully real.

 A complicated love story beneath the awkwardness

Despite the on-air friction, Mine still called Paul a “saint” and insisted he has always been supportive of her struggles.

But even Naga Munchetty couldn’t resist teasing them:

“I do worry about you two rowing…”

Mine laughed — the kind of laugh that reveals more truth than it hides:

“If any marriage counsellors are watching, feel free to get in touch.”

The couple’s dynamic has always been unconventional.
They’ve been together for over a decade, share a daughter named Delilah…
but they don’t actually live together, keeping separate homes only minutes apart.

Paul even wears a white-gold ring engraved with her nickname, “Barnacle.”

A small, tender detail that makes their tense TV moment even more fascinating — a reminder that even long-term love isn’t always smooth, especially when two strong personalities share the same stage.

 One interview, two microphones… and a marriage that felt a little too real

The BBC Breakfast sofa has seen political battles, celebrity tears, and unexpected blunders — but this was different.

This was intimate.
This was messy.
This was a couple forgetting, for a split second, that the cameras were rolling.

And perhaps that’s why the nation couldn’t look away.

Because beneath the tension, beneath the awkward pauses, beneath the defensive jokes… there was something familiar:

Two people trying — imperfectly — to understand each other.

And that, more than anything, is what made the moment go viral.

“ENOUGH IS ENOUGH” — Shocking Late-Night Footage Reveals English Men Crossing the Channel to French Beaches to Slash Abandoned Migrant Dinghies, Triggering Widespread Outrage, Political Fury, and Fears of Dangerous Escalation on Both Sides of the Border

Britons hɑve been filming themselves trɑvelling to beɑches in Frɑnce ɑnd ‘destroying’ smɑll boɑts – gɑining thousɑnds of views in the process

Sɑnyɑ Burgess is ɑn ɑwɑrd-winning journɑlist whose investigɑtions hɑve led the globɑl news ɑgendɑ – from the ‘hostɑge’ ordeɑl of the Dubɑi ruler’s dɑughter, to the rescue of Ukrɑiniɑn children stolen by Russiɑ.

British vigilɑntes who speɑrheɑded efforts to fly Englɑnd flɑgs ɑcross the country hɑve lɑunched ɑ new ɑnti-migrɑnt protest – ɑttempting to block illegɑl Chɑnnel crossings.

Using the term “Operɑtion Stop The Boɑts”, members of the group hɑve been filming themselves slɑshing smɑll boɑts before they ɑre used by migrɑnts to cross the English Chɑnnel from Frɑnce.

Posts on sociɑl mediɑ show members cɑlling for other British men to join them in Frɑnce, including mɑking ɑ direct ɑppeɑl to footbɑll hooligɑns, sɑying “we need to mɑke ɑ stɑnd”.

In one video messɑge shɑred this week by ɑ member of the Rɑise the Colours group – the grɑssroots movement thɑt hɑs seen flɑgs fixed to lɑmpposts, motorwɑy bridges ɑnd roundɑbouts ɑcross Englɑnd – two men ɑre seen evoking militɑry lɑnguɑge ɑnd the spirit of the British fight ɑgɑinst the Nɑzis in the Second World Wɑr.

Clɑiming to be recording from the northern French coɑst, one sɑid: “Just like in the 1940s, we must tɑke ɑ stɑnd, ɑnd it stɑrts with the men of Englɑnd ɑnd Britɑin.”

Mɑking ɑn ɑppeɑl to “firms” – ɑ phrɑse thɑt refers to footbɑll hooligɑn groups – the other mɑn ɑdded: “Our country is doing nothing. Weɑk government, weɑker borders.

“They ɑre doing nothing, so we need to mɑke ɑ stɑnd, boys. Get the lɑds together, get your firms together, get the lɑds in the pub, get the lɑds down the bɑrs, if you’re tɑlking ɑbout it ɑnd you ɑgree with whɑt we ɑre doing, give us ɑ hɑnd.”
The Gσverпment is under pressure to ɑct ɑfter more thɑn 36,000 people crossed the English Chɑnnel in smɑll boɑts (Photo: rɑisethecolours.org.uk/Instɑgrɑm)
The Gσverпment is under pressure to tɑckle the issue of migrɑtion ɑmid ɑ record number of ɑsylum ɑpplicɑtions, surging smɑll boɑt crossings ɑnd protests ɑt hotels housing ɑsylum seekers.

On Mondɑy, Home Secretɑry Shɑbɑnɑ Mɑhmood set out ɑ pɑckɑge of reforms to ɑsylum policies ɑimed ɑt tɑckling illegɑl migrɑtion, telling MPs the current situɑtion is “out of control ɑnd unfɑir”.

The lɑtest videos shɑred by those linked to the Rɑise the Colours group hɑve sepɑrɑtely been referred to ɑs “Operɑtion Overlord”.

Eɑrlier clips showed two men sɑying they were tɑking mɑtters of illegɑl migrɑtion into their own hɑnds ɑnd filming themselves stɑmping on ɑnd smɑshing ɑ smɑll boɑt’s engine.

In the clips, they refer to themselves ɑs “pɑtriots” ɑnd mɑke ɑ number of clɑims without evidence, such ɑs thɑt they ɑre stopping “rɑpists ɑnd мυrɗerers” from “coming to ɑ town neɑr you”.
One video shɑred by the group (Photo: rɑisethecolours.org.uk/nstɑgrɑm)
The flɑg-rɑising group, who hɑve ɑ combined 100,000 followers on X ɑnd Instɑgrɑm, ɑlso posted ɑ pleɑ on X for donɑtions lɑst week, writing thɑt they ɑre: “STOPPING The Boɑts, whether the migrɑnts or government like it or not!”

Two videos from the group hɑve recently been shɑred to the 1.7 million X followers of Tommy Robinson. The fɑr-right figure ɑnd former leɑder of the English Defence Leɑgue, whose reɑl nɑme is Stephen Yɑxley-Lennon, hɑs previously been ɑccused of mobilising footbɑll hooligɑn firms in ɑn ɑttempt to lɑunch ɑnti-Muslim rɑllies ɑcross the country.

Sepɑrɑtely, French mediɑ reports thɑt the Dunkirk Public Prosecutor’s office hɑs opened ɑ preliminɑry investigɑtion into “ɑggrɑvɑted violence” ɑgɑinst migrɑnts by suspected British fɑr-right figures.

One of the detɑils being exɑmined by the French prosecutor is the clɑim thɑt in September, four men wɑving British ɑnd UK flɑgs verbɑlly ɑnd physicɑlly ɑttɑcked migrɑnts on the French coɑst. It is ɑlleged thɑt they told the migrɑnts they were not welcome in Englɑnd ɑnd proceeded to steɑl some of their belongings.

The men ɑre not the first ɑnti-migrɑnt figures to trɑvel to Frɑnce in ɑ bid to tɑke mɑtters into their own hɑnds.

In September, Ukip, Nigel Fɑrɑge’s former pσliticɑl pɑrty, posted ɑ video to their X ɑccount showing whɑt ɑppeɑred to be sleeping migrɑnts in Frɑnce being woken by people flɑshing strobe lights in their fɑces ɑnd shouting ɑt them.

Nick Tenconi, Ukip’s current leɑder, ɑlso posted ɑ video cɑptioned: “In Cɑlɑis hunting for illegɑl invɑders trying to cross into Britɑin.”

The Home Office ɑnd French ɑuthorities were contɑcted for comment.

The Silence Breaks: A Defining Moment in Formula 1 History

In what can only be described as a seismic aftershock to the Formula 1 earthquake of 2025, Red Bull GmbH’s Managing Director, Oliver Mintzlaff, has finally broken his silence regarding one of the most controversial decisions in the sport’s modern era. On December 23, 2025, just days after a heart-stopping season finale where Max Verstappen lost the World Championship by a mere two points, Mintzlaff sat down for an exclusive interview that peeled back the curtain on the ruthless machinery of top-tier motorsport.

The topic? The abrupt and shocking dismissal of Christian Horner.

For two decades, Horner was synonymous with Red Bull Racing. He was the architect of a dynasty, the man who steered the team from a midfield party outfit to a juggernaut that claimed six Constructors’ Championships and eight Drivers’ titles. Yet, on July 9, 2025, the impossible happened. Horner was shown the door mid-season, replaced by Laurent Mekies. The F1 community was left reeling, asking one collective question: Why?

Now, we have the answer, and it is as chilling as it is pragmatic.

“You Can’t Keep Relying on History”

Mintzlaff’s rationale for the firing was devoid of sentimentality, revealing a corporate philosophy that prioritizes future trajectory over past glory. In his conversation with The Telegraph, Mintzlaff addressed the elephant in the room with stunning bluntness.

“I wouldn’t call it a risk because we were 100% behind this measure,” Mintzlaff stated, dispelling rumors of boardroom hesitation. “We knew we had to do something. I’m not a so-called hire-and-fire manager… But this is also part of being a professional organization.”

Then came the line that will likely echo through the paddocks for years to come: “You can’t keep relying on history. And we felt it was time to turn the page and start a new chapter.”

This statement is a profound declaration of Red Bull’s new ethos. It suggests that the very methods Christian Horner used to build the empire—methods rooted in a specific era of F1 management—were viewed by the post-Mateschitz leadership as liabilities. The implication is clear: in the eyes of Red Bull’s corporate overlords, Horner’s “history” of success had become a trap, blinding the team to the necessary evolutions required to stay ahead in a rapidly changing sport.

The Context of Collapse and Resurrection

To understand the weight of Mintzlaff’s words, one must look at the chaotic tapestry of the 2025 season. By mid-year, the once-dominant Red Bull team was in a perplexing slump. Max Verstappen, the reigning king of the grid, had secured only two wins. McLaren was surging, and the aura of invincibility that Horner had carefully cultivated was shattering.

The decision to fire Horner was not, according to Mintzlaff, a “knee-jerk reaction” to a few bad races. It was the culmination of prolonged internal strife. Since the death of Red Bull founder Dietrich Mateschitz in 2022, a power vacuum had emerged. Horner found himself navigating a minefield of corporate politics, fighting to retain autonomy while facing distractions that bled onto the track.

The allegations of inappropriate behavior in 2023—though Horner was cleared of wrongdoing—had left scars. Leaks, public battles, and a fragmented focus had taken their toll. “There always comes a time when things aren’t going well,” Mintzlaff explained. “Are you going to give someone more time, or is it time for a new leader? We felt it was time for a change.”

And the data suggests they might have been right—at least in the short term.

The turnaround following Horner’s exit was nothing short of miraculous. With Laurent Mekies at the helm, the atmosphere shifted. Max Verstappen went on a tear, winning six of the final nine races. From a position of vulnerability, Red Bull clawed its way back into contention, culminating in a devastatingly close finish where Verstappen lost the title to Lando Norris by just two points.

The Helmut Marko Factor: A War of Words

The resurgence under Mekies has emboldened Horner’s critics within the organization, most notably Dr. Helmut Marko. The senior advisor, known for his acerbic tongue, didn’t mince words in the aftermath of the season.

In a move that stunned insiders, Marko claimed that Verstappen would have been the 2025 World Champion if Horner had been sacked earlier in the season. He argued that the “Horner era” distractions were the primary anchor dragging the team down during the crucial first half of the year.

Mintzlaff, however, played the diplomat when addressing Marko’s explosive comments. “Those words about Christian are Helmut’s responsibility,” he said carefully. “I disagree with Helmut’s statements… Christian and Helmut have worked together wonderfully for years… But wonderful partnerships can reach their expiration date.”

This disagreement highlights the complex legacy Horner leaves behind. To Marko, Horner had become an obstacle; to Mintzlaff, he was a legend who simply stayed too long. The acknowledgement that “partnerships reach their expiration date” serves as a final, polite closing of the door on the Horner-Marko dynamic that defined the team for 20 years.

The Paradox of Success

The firing creates a paradox that is difficult for traditional sports fans to reconcile. How do you fire a man who delivered eight world titles? The answer lies in the harsh reality of modern elite sports: gratitude is not a strategy.

Mintzlaff’s interview reveals that Red Bull is no longer a “family” team run by the passion of a single owner. It is a corporate entity where performance metrics and future projections outweigh sentiment. The “history” Horner relied on was his shield, but for Mintzlaff, it was just data from the past. The sport had changed—budget caps, technical regulations, political dynamics—and Red Bull bet that Mekies represented the future, while Horner was the past.

The urgency of the move—executing a high-profile firing immediately after the British Grand Prix—underscores the panic that had set in. They couldn’t wait for the off-season. They believed the ship was sinking, and only a change at the helm could save it.

A New Beginning and a Looming Return

As the dust settles on the 2025 season, the narrative takes another twist. While Red Bull looks to 2026 with a new structure, Christian Horner is reportedly not done with Formula 1.

Rumors are swirling that the ousted CEO is in advanced talks with Alpine. The reports suggest a spectacular rebound: Horner could return to the grid in 2026, not just as a team principal, but as a partial owner with a 24% stake in the French team. If true, it sets the stage for a cinematic rivalry. The man fired for “relying on history” could be the one to build a new future for a struggling rival, potentially armed with Mercedes engines and a point to prove.

Conclusion: The Ruthless Evolution

Oliver Mintzlaff’s “broken silence” has provided clarity, but it hasn’t eased the shock. The dismissal of Christian Horner serves as a brutal reminder that in the high-stakes world of Formula 1, you are only as good as your last race.

Red Bull’s gamble to remove their most successful leader nearly paid off with a championship, validating the decision in the eyes of the board. But as they move forward without the man who built them, the pressure is immense. They have traded history for a hypothesis: that a Red Bull without Horner is a Red Bull that can win forever.

Only time will tell if “turning the page” was a masterstroke of corporate foresight or the moment Red Bull lost its soul. But one thing is certain: the era of relying on history is over. Welcome to the era of ruthless efficiency.

TV Studio Explodes as Conor McGregor Unleashes a Ferocious Broadside Against Keir Starmer, Shocking Viewers by Throwing His Full Support Behind Tommy Robinson and Igniting a Furious National Debate That Quickly Spills Beyond the Screen

In a riveting and unrelenting television appearance, Conor McGregor unleashed a fierce critique of UK Labour leader Keir Starmer while mounting a powerful defense of controversial figure Tommy Robinson, igniting a firestorm across Britain’s political landscape. The MMA superstar’s outspoken stance on free speech has thrust a deeply divisive issue onto the national stage with unprecedented intensity.
London Travel Guide
McGregor’s comments, delivered with his trademark raw energy, challenged the UK government’s handling of Robinson’s case, exposing what he described as a disturbing pattern of political censorship and punitive overreach. Robinson’s imprisonment, following a contempt of court conviction linked to breaching an injunction, has drawn sharp criticism for the severity of the sentence and his conditions in custody, including prolonged solitary confinement.

Political Satire Merchandise
The fighter’s visceral condemnation directly targeted Starmer, leaving the politician visibly scrambling to justify the government’s approach during the live broadcast. McGregor’s central argument championed a fundamental democratic principle: those exposing uncomfortable truths deserve praise, not punishment. His assertion that “light is the best disinfectant” struck at the heart of Britain’s free speech debate, challenging the selective enforcement of gag orders and the silencing of dissenting voices.

Robinson, known for his polarizing views and part Irish heritage, has become a symbol for McGregor’s broader critique of Britain’s justice system and political establishment. The 18-month sentence he now serves for contempt has been widely scrutinized, with many questioning whether his treatment represents political retribution rather than fair judicial process.

McGregor didn’t mince words describing the potential human cost: fear of mental breakdown, death in jail, and a chilling message to future generations about the dangers of speaking out. His vivid portrayal of Robinson’s ordeal served as a rallying cry for transparency and accountability, demanding that political authorities end what he called the suppression of inconvenient facts.

The sports star’s intervention resonates wildly because it breaks from celebrity shallow endorsements, stemming instead from his real-world experiences as a business owner aware of governance’s tangible consequences. By raising issues from immigration to crime, McGregor underscores his investment in societal outcomes beyond the octagon, giving his words an uncommon weight in political discourse.

This confrontation elevates Robinson’s case into a broader, uncomfortable national reckoning. It questions whether Britain can still claim to be a democracy that upholds justice visibly and fairly, especially when political affiliations seem to influence who faces the harshest penalties for speech transgressions. The notion that Robinson’s confinement is disproportionate compared to others convicted of similar procedural violations fuels accusations of targeted suppression.

Across the UK media and political sphere, Robinson has often been pigeonholed as an extremist, an oversimplification that McGregor’s rebuke challenges outright. The inconsistencies in enforcement reveal cracks in the facade of impartial justice, forcing citizens to confront the troubling reality of ideological selective punishment.
London Travel Guide
McGregor’s position as a cultural and economic powerhouse in Ireland further intensifies his influence. Unlike many commentators, his criticisms come attached to substantial social and economic clout, making it difficult for politicians to dismiss him as a frivolous or disconnected celebrity. His direct challenge to Starmer symbolizes a broader distrust of political elites perceived as evasive and disconnected from public concerns.

The live  TV exchange exposed stark contrasts: polished political rhetoric versus McGregor’s unfiltered transparency. Where establishment figures offered guarded explanations, McGregor’s blunt questions echoed a growing public skepticism towards official narratives that conceal rather than reveal. His defiant demand to shed light on “horrific crimes” they’d rather ignore struck a nerve nationwide.

This confrontation is not simply about Tommy Robinson. It reflects a fundamental crisis over who controls information, who decides which stories are told, and which opinions must be censored or punished. The issue transcends a single legal case, rippling into the core of Britain’s democratic identity and its commitment to free expression.
Political Satire Merchandise
McGregor’s testimony has sparked an urgent debate on the balance between protecting court processes and preserving free speech rights. His urgent call for transparency challenges the government to justify the harsh punishments meted out for what some see as procedural missteps dressed as criminal contempt.

The British public now faces a critical choice echoed by McGregor’s fervent words: uphold the messy, sometimes uncomfortable reality of free speech or retreat into a conformist society where dissent is stifled and punished. As Robinson endures his sentence, the narrative is shifting from a legal matter into a high-stakes cultural battle over the future of free expression in the UK.

Starmer’s uneasy responses reveal political discomfort when confronted with blunt truths outside of controlled media environments. McGregor’s unapologetic tone and refusal to back down underscore a growing impatience with political doublespeak and censorship by bureaucratic decree.

Observers note this moment marks a significant fracture between traditional political actors and figures like McGregor who resonate with a public tired of filtered, obfuscated dialogue. The fighter’s intervention channels widespread frustration with perceived institutional overreach that threatens democratic discourse.
London Travel Guide
In the wake of these explosive remarks, increased scrutiny on how Britain prosecutes speech-related offenses is inevitable. The question lingers: does the severity of Robinson’s punishment signify a dangerous precedent where political dissent is criminalized rather than debated?

The world is watching as this controversy unfolds, spotlighting what many see as a troubling erosion of transparency and fairness. McGregor’s bold stance amplifies global conversations about freedom of expression, governmental accountability, and the vital need for open public debate in democratic societies.

This breaking story demands urgent attention. McGregor’s direct challenge to a major political figure and the defense of a contentious prisoner have transformed a complex legal case into a flashpoint for the ongoing struggle over truth, justice, and free speech in modern Britain. The ramifications will echo far beyond the courtroom and the octagon, pressing the nation to reckon with its values and the price of silence.

In the high-octane world of Formula 1, we often talk about aerodynamic gains, tire degradation, and the lightning-fast reflexes of drivers. But there is a silent, invisible race happening behind the garage doors—one that involves chemists in white coats rather than mechanics in fire suits. This is the development race for fuel, and as we head toward 2026, the price of staying at the front of the grid is about to explode in a way that would make even the wealthiest team owners blink.

Currently, Formula 1 fuel is a marvel of modern engineering. Unlike the gas you pump at your local station, F1 fuel is a bespoke, high-performance cocktail tailored specifically to the unique architecture of each team’s power unit. As of today, these fuels already contain a 10% sustainable ethanol component, harvested from wood crops and sugar beets. To ensure maximum power, this fuel is injected into the combustion chamber at a staggering 500 bar of pressure, with a compression ratio of 18:1—figures more reminiscent of a heavy-duty diesel engine than a high-revving race car.

At €25 per liter, this specialized liquid is already expensive. A typical race weekend sees a team burn through approximately 300 liters of fuel per car. Over a standard 24-race season, two cars will rack up a fuel bill of roughly €360,000. While that sounds like a fortune to the average person, it is a drop in the bucket for a Formula 1 budget. However, that is all about to change.

The 2026 Shock: A 1,000% Increase

Formula 1 has set an ambitious goal to reach Net Zero by 2030. Part of this initiative involves the introduction of 100% sustainable “E-Fuels” in 2026. While the race cars themselves only account for a tiny fraction of the sport’s total carbon footprint, they serve as the ultimate laboratory for technology that could one day power the world’s passenger vehicles.

But “going green” in the world’s fastest sport comes with a jaw-dropping price tag. Because these E-Fuels must be created either through fully synthetic processes—combining hydrogen and captured CO2—or via advanced sustainable bio-products, the research and development costs are astronomical. These high-tech components aren’t just sitting on a shelf; fuel companies like Shell, Petronas, and Aramco have to invent them from scratch.

The result? The cost of fuel for the 2026 season is projected to be ten times higher than it is today. To put that into perspective, filling a single 100kg fuel tank in 2026 will cost a team approximately €28,000. By the end of a full season, a two-car team will be looking at a fuel bill of roughly €3.5 million.

Engineering Trade-offs and the Supplier Shuffle

To prevent engines from literally blowing themselves apart with these new chemical compositions, the FIA has actually had to turn down the technical requirements for 2026. Fuel pressure will be capped at 350 bar instead of 500, and the compression ratio will be reduced to 16:1. Despite these concessions, the “fuel war” is intensifying as teams realign their partnerships to find a competitive edge.

The landscape of the grid is shifting. While Ferrari remains loyal to its decades-long partnership with Shell and Mercedes continues with Petronas, other teams are making strategic moves. Honda, moving to partner with Aston Martin in 2026, will switch from ExxonMobil to Aramco. Audi has made a massive statement by securing BP as their partner for their entry into the sport, while Red Bull continues its partnership with ExxonMobil—notably choosing to stick with them even though their future engine partner, Ford, has a global strategic tie-up with BP.

Why This Matters to You

You might wonder why we should care about the fuel bills of billionaires and multinational corporations. The answer lies in the technology transfer. The extreme conditions of a Formula 1 engine—where fuel must ignite perfectly thousands of times per minute under intense pressure—act as a “stress test” for sustainable energy. If these engineers can create an E-Fuel that produces 1,000 horsepower and survives a Grand Prix, they are essentially creating the blueprint for carbon-neutral fuels that could keep existing internal combustion engines on the road for decades to come.

The hidden development race of 2026 isn’t just about who wins the trophy in Monaco; it’s about who owns the patents for the fuel of the future. It is a high-stakes, multi-million dollar gamble that is transforming the very DNA of the sport. Formula 1 is no longer just a race between drivers; it is a race between molecules.

In the high-octane world of Formula 1, where history is often painted with the golden brush of nostalgia, saying goodbye to a generation of cars is usually a moment of reflection. Drivers often speak of the machines that carried them to glory or failure with a sense of reverence, acknowledging the engineering marvels that defined a specific period of their lives. But for Lewis Hamilton, the seven-time world champion and a titan of the sport, there is no such sentimentality reserved for the current era. As the sport edges closer to a massive regulatory overhaul in 2026, Hamilton has made his stance unmistakably, brutally clear: he will not miss the ground-effect cars. Not for a second.

“I won’t miss them,” Hamilton stated recently, his voice devoid of the usual diplomatic polish that often coats the words of elite athletes. His tone was calm, decisive, and strikingly final. It was the sound of a man closing a heavy door on a room he never wanted to be in. This wasn’t just a comment on aerodynamics or technical specifications; it was an emotional offloading, a declaration that the last few years have been a chapter of endurance rather than enjoyment.

The Era of Resistance

For most drivers, different eras of Formula 1 tend to blur together into a singular tapestry of speed. But for Hamilton, the “ground-effect” era—introduced with the dramatic regulation overhaul of 2022—stands apart as a distinct island of frustration. This period, which promised closer racing and a renewed spectacle for the fans, delivered a starkly different reality for the British champion. It has been a time defined not by the fluid dominance he enjoyed in the previous decade, but by resistance, frustration, and a silent, grinding endurance.

The core of the issue, as Hamilton describes it, goes beyond the scorecard. It strikes at the very relationship between the driver and the machine. In the past, Hamilton’s greatest triumphs were powered by an almost spiritual connection with his car. There was a harmony, a symbiotic rhythm where the car felt like an extension of his own body and will. When he turned, the car danced; when he pushed, the car leaped. But the ground-effect machines shattered that harmony. They demanded a driving style that never fully aligned with his natural instincts. Instead of a dance partner, the car became an adversary—a “puzzle with no satisfying solution.”

A Broken Connection

The transcript of his recent comments paints a vivid picture of this disconnect. Hamilton speaks of weekends turning into battles, not against other drivers, but against the machinery itself. The “razor-thin performance windows” and unpredictable handling meant that even a driver of his caliber was often left wrestling with a vehicle that refused to respond the way a champion expects.

There were, of course, flashes of the old magic. Moments where sheer talent dragged the car into positions it perhaps didn’t deserve to be in, reminding the world that Lewis Hamilton was still Lewis Hamilton. But these moments were fleeting, often followed by a return to the baseline of frustration. The joy of driving—that pure, unadulterated thrill that hooks a driver in their karting days—seemed to be suffocated by the technical rigidity of these cars.

This era became a symbol of a struggle that statistics alone cannot explain. You can look at the podiums or the points, but they don’t capture the internal reality of a driver at the peak of his craft being forced to operate a tool that fights him at every turn. It was a battle between artistic instinct and blunt engineering, and for Hamilton, it was a battle that left scars.

The Promise of Liberation

Now, with the 2026 regulations looming on the horizon, the sentiment in Hamilton’s camp is not one of anticipation in the traditional sense, but of profound relief. The coming changes—featuring new power units, new aerodynamics, and a philosophical shift in car design—represent more than just a technical reset. For Hamilton, they represent “personal liberation.”

The word “escape” comes to mind when analyzing his demeanor. It feels as though he is counting down the days until he can step out of the current cockpit for the final time. The prospect of a blank slate is not just an engineering opportunity; it is a chance to wash away the years he would rather forget. His words carry a deep echo, revealing the heavy emotional toll he has carried. In a paddock where drivers are media-trained to smile through disappointment and find the silver lining in every defeat, Hamilton’s candor is jarring. It suggests a man who has already made peace with the past and is ready to turn the page, regardless of what the future holds.

The Weight of the Mask

What is perhaps most striking is the revelation of how long he has masked this unhappiness. Formula 1 drivers are often viewed as robotic operators, but Hamilton’s admission humanizes the struggle. It shows that even the greatest can feel trapped by their circumstances. He has carried the weight of a car that “never felt like home” for years, performing his duties while internally longing for a change.

This “cold goodbye” is not an act of petulance; it is an act of honesty. It is the quiet relief of a champion who is finally allowed to step away from a machine he never loved. There is no longing in his voice, no “what ifs,” and certainly no regret.

A Future Unwritten

As the sport prepares to pivot, a mystery remains regarding what this means for Hamilton’s future performance. Will the 2026 reset reignite the fire that once made him untouchable? Will a car that finally speaks his language allow him to ascend to new heights? Or is this simply the closing of a painful chapter before a final farewell?

Hamilton has not answered those questions, and perhaps he doesn’t need to—not yet. The immediate takeaway is clear: when the lights go out on the ground-effect era, Lewis Hamilton will not be looking in his rearview mirror. He will be looking forward, toward a future wrapped in uncertainty but rich with possibility, unburdened by the machines that tried, and failed, to break his spirit.