Blog

Forget the fairytale gowns and towering heels – a radical new bridal trend is sweeping the nation, leaving traditionalists aghast and comfort-seekers cheering! A model and former Made in Chelsea star has gone viral after ditching the conventional white wedding dress for her ceremony, opting instead for a comfortable tracksuit! The groom joined in the casual vibe, and the bride, Aanthy Rose, explained her choice simply: she wanted to be “comfy and chilled.”

This sartorial rebellion sparked an immediate and passionate debate on Loose Women, with the panel weighing in on whether this is a refreshing step forward for modern matrimony or a bridge too far.

One panelist, who confessed she’d been “thinking about it for 32 years now” without tying the knot, enthusiastically endorsed the tracksuit idea. “I love the tracksuit idea, I would go for that 100%!” she declared, adding a crucial caveat: “I don’t think I’d do the heels! I think if I was going to go tracksuit, I would do the full thing.” Her reasoning was simple: “I think she’s comfy.” She then delivered a hilarious, self-deprecating punchline about her own wedding dress from a past marriage: “My dress took longer to make than the wedding lasted, than the marriage lasted, really! Not joking!”

The conversation quickly transcended mere fashion, delving into the deeper implications of wedding traditions. “There’s so many things that we’ve inherited from tradition,” a panelist mused, listing common practices like “the white dress and the diaries and the handing over the… dad handing over the woman like ownership to the man and the name change.” She argued that while many modern women have discarded outdated vows, “the one last vestige is the wedding dress, the white wedding dress.”

Her message was clear and empowering: “If you want to wear a tracksuit, if you want to be you, you know, I think wear whatever it is you want to wear, because it isn’t about the wedding… it’s about the marriage afterwards.“

The panel praised Aanthy Rose’s choice for embodying a “very modern kind of union,” free from external pressures. “How many people go, ‘Oh my auntie would want that and my granny said this, my mom would…’ and they do everything for everyone else?” one panelist questioned. “But actually, she did something for herself. So whether you agree with it or not, it’s not about you, it’s about them.”

However, the discussion acknowledged the enduring allure of the white dress for many women. It was suggested that the tracksuit ceremony might have been a civil ceremony, with a larger, more traditional celebration potentially planned abroad – a growing trend where couples handle the legal paperwork in the UK before a grander, symbolic ceremony overseas.

The panelists then shared their own wedding dress stories, or lack thereof! One Loose Woman confessed to leaving her dress entirely to her husband, Gary, who “did everything.” When asked if her own dress was a big deal, she humorously admitted, “I forgot to buy a dress!” She recounted a mad dash to an old department store two weeks before her wedding, where she managed to secure a dress only because the sales assistant recognized her from Loose Women. “I literally just ran up and went, ‘That will do!’”

Another panelist shared a more personal, meaningful dress experience. “Mine was really nice actually. I mean, I was pregnant so I was never going to look great because I was that in between stage before you’re starting to bloom.” She proudly displayed a photo, joking, “I look like Maddie there… you see how I got, I was getting fatter so you see how the strap, I’ve got the double bump there.” Her dress, made by a friend who was a theatre designer, held “real meaning” as they chose the fabric together from Berwick Street Market.

The ultimate takeaway from the candid discussion was a unanimous endorsement of personal choice. “It’s like everything in life, just do what you want to do. We’ve got so much of this ‘you should, you should.’ You just do what makes you happy, it’s cool.“

The segment concluded with lighthearted banter about where the panelists’ own dresses are now. One is “in a black bin liner” in a cupboard, while another’s is in a special tissue-lined box to prevent rotting. Intriguingly, her daughters have tried it on and it looked great, leading to plans to “dye it” so they can wear it again. The final, knowing silence from a third panelist suggested her dress’s whereabouts were best left unsaid.

The tracksuit bride has ignited a crucial conversation: are we finally breaking free from the shackles of wedding traditions that no longer serve us? Or is the desire for comfort in casual wear simply another fleeting trend? One thing is for sure: the boundaries of bridal wear have been irrevocably stretched, and the future of weddings looks set to be as diverse and individual as the couples themselves.

Cast your minds back to late 2023, when the world’s media was abuzz with images of Lauren Sanchez, fiancée to the planet’s second richest man, Jeff Bezos, reveling in a “star-studded” hen party that reportedly set her back a jaw-dropping half a million quid! While Sanchez’s immense wealth makes such extravagance a mere drop in the ocean, this opulent display ignited a fierce debate, reverberating all the way to the Loose Women panel, about the spiraling costs and escalating demands of modern hen and stag dos. The shocking truth? For the average Brit, attending these pre-wedding extravaganzas now costs a staggering £779 PER GUEST!

The Loose Women, never ones to shy away from a heated discussion, tore into the phenomenon, questioning whether these celebratory rites of passage have morphed into wallet-draining, obligation-filled nightmares.

“Half a million now!” one panelist exclaimed, eyes wide with disbelief at Sanchez’s lavish affair. But the real shocker came with the average UK cost. “What?! Yeah, that’s the average because they’ve gone crazy!” another chimed in, highlighting how these events have ballooned from a single night out to “a week away… a week’s holiday!”

The panel contrasted Sanchez’s 12-person entourage with more modest, and frankly, more traditional, celebrations. One Loose Woman recounted her own pre-wedding gathering: “I didn’t have many friends, and so I had like four girlfriends that I’d invited.” She then delivered a mic-drop moment, revealing her firm belief: “I’ve invited you, so I’m paying!” This refreshing stance, based on the principle of the inviter bearing the cost, stands in stark contrast to the modern trend of guests footing exorbitant bills. She even revealed that two of her four invited guests didn’t show up, leaving her with just two friends – a far cry from the multi-day, international jamborees now commonplace.

“I don’t agree with going to this and then you pay £700-£800 and then you can’t get it and then they’ve got to pay to go to the wedding as well!” she declared, articulating the financial strain many guests now face. Another panelist shared her own sensible approach: “I organized my own hen do. It was just dinner with friends, we had kind of cocktails, dinner, and I paid for all the dinner because that’s what I invited you and that’s what I want to do.”

However, the reality of the “destination hen do” loomed large. “But when they’re saying ‘Oh come to Italy and stay here, we’re all here for a week.’ Yeah, I do think that’s a bit much,” a panelist admitted. One Loose Woman recently attended her future daughter-in-law’s hen do, which she praised as “a real traditional Hendu” staying locally. “It just felt lovely, it was just a lovely day going into tonight, that was it, we had the best day.” But she quickly contrasted this with a less enjoyable experience: “I’ve equally been on one where I had to go away for a whole week, it cost an absolute fortune as well as then the wedding, and I was thinking I don’t want to be away from home for a week really like it’s really become like a girl’s holiday!”

The culprit for this escalation? Social media. “It’s social media though because it’s everybody’s living in their own movie, so you know, they all compare and despair,” one panelist shrewdly observed. The pressure to showcase a lavish, Instagrammable “hendo” has replaced the charming simplicity of yesteryear. “It used to be the night before the wedding… I had a pajama party!” one Loose Woman reminisced, fondly recalling a comfortable, joyous gathering with “just all family and close girlfriends.”

The conversation also touched upon the etiquette of second weddings, with one panelist admitting to a more relaxed approach. While she had a “hen night” for a later marriage – a lovely spa day in Yorkshire – it was “not remotely” the “pay £1,000 to go scenario.” This highlights a perceived generational shift, with older generations opting for more intimate, less financially burdensome celebrations.

A collective sigh of exasperation filled the studio as panelists discussed the widespread “hen-do fatigue” among young people. “It seems so many young people I know and they don’t say it with joy, they go, ‘Ugh, I’ve got another Hendu this weekend, we’re going to Paris. I’ve got to pay this, I’ve got to get help with the…’” The immense pressure to say “yes” to these costly trips, even when unaffordable, was a major concern. “The thing is it’s hard to say no, isn’t it? If it’s your friend to say ‘Actually no, I can’t afford it or I don’t want to go away for the weekend,’ then you can fall out with the bride, and so you’re in that situation.”

The solution for some? Eloping! “I eloped the first time so there was no hender. It was good plan!” confessed one panelist, while another admitted to having a hen do for her second marriage, but clearly not one of the current excessive variety.

A telling statistic from a Loose Women poll hammered home the severity of the problem: 71% of viewers have had to turn down an expensive hen do. This overwhelming majority underscores that the expectation for guests to splurge hundreds, even thousands, of pounds on these events is simply unsustainable for most households.

The ultimate takeaway from the panel was a direct plea for empathy and understanding. “I think it can be quite selfish… People should be offended if you can’t make a hendu for whatever reason.” The immediate retort from the panel was unequivocal: “No, you shouldn’t be offended! Don’t be offended!“

In a world where mega-rich celebrities flash their half-million-pound pre-wedding parties, the average Brit is silently struggling to keep up. The Loose Women have sounded the alarm: it’s time to rein in the hen and stag do madness. Let’s bring back the focus to friendship, celebration, and affordability, rather than allowing social media and societal pressure to turn these joyous occasions into financial burdens and fractured friendships. For those planning a “hendo” – please, keep it reasonable, keep it real, and for goodness sake, keep it affordable!

The glittering career of broadcasting icon Gary Lineker at the BBC is drawing to a controversial close this weekend, his final Match of the Day appearance overshadowed by a firestorm ignited by a single, ill-fated retweet. After stepping down from his long-held BBC role amidst the controversy, Lineker issued a public apology for reposting a video on Instagram that contained an anti-Semitic symbol, claiming he “did not see the emoji” and would “never, ever have shared it” if he had. This incident has sparked a furious nationwide debate, and the Loose Women panel wasted no time in diving into the thorny questions of public figures, social media responsibility, and the perilous tightrope walk between personal conviction and professional contract.

The panel was immediately divided on whether Lineker, a beloved sports pundit, should have stayed out of politics. Katy, ever the voice of nuanced reason, offered a sympathetic perspective: “It’s very difficult because I don’t think he would see it as being political. I think he’d see it as being human.” She suggested that Lineker’s retweet likely stemmed from “a moment of compelling passion,” where he wasn’t “sat there thinking about his job and thinking about his contract and what he can and can’t do.” This speaks to the impulsive nature of social media, where a quick tap can have unforeseen, seismic consequences.

However, Katy quickly pivoted to the undeniable responsibility that comes with such a vast platform. “Sometimes that’s what happens when you’ve got 1.5 million followers and you repost something that has an anti-Semitic symbol on it, perhaps you should be thinking more.” She concluded with a logical, rational assessment that resonated with the panel: while most people’s phones are at their “fingertips on the move,” a public figure “carries a responsibility.”

The discussion then delved into Lineker’s apology. “He said, ‘I got it wrong and I’m sorry’,” one panelist noted. While acknowledging his passion and human fallibility – “we’re all flawed as humans” – the insistence on the anti-Semitic symbol being unseen was met with a degree of skepticism. “I just cannot believe that he wouldn’t know what the emoji [was],” one panelist interjected, though quickly conceding, “but he said we can, we have to believe what it is that he said and he said that he didn’t know.”

The crux of the matter, however, lay in the inherent responsibility of public figures. A panelist, drawing on her own experience in journalism, emphasized the stringent rules she adheres to. “When you have a weight of responsibility, when you are a public figure, not just somebody who has a large following, but somebody who is a public figure, you do have to take responsibility for the things that you tweet.” She laid out her own professional constraints: “In the job that I have in my other job working on the news, I have to be exceptionally careful about anything that I post on social media because if I take one foot wrong, there’s a chance that I could lose my job. And I love what I do, and I have bills to pay, and I have a family to look after.” Her point was clear: if a journalist must exercise such caution, why should a prominent public figure like Lineker be held to a different standard, regardless of their specific profession?

This led to a sharp retort: “But the problem with Gary Lineker, he didn’t work in journalism, he was a brilliant football expert.” This ignited the core tension of the debate: should celebrities “stick to their day job”? One panelist echoed a sentiment likely shared by many football fans: “If my dad was alive today, he’d be saying, ‘Why does Gary Lineker feel compelled to spew out all his views on political issues, on every, you know, human rights and every injustice going on in the world?’… I think a lot of football fans would surely feel just stick to football because that’s why we love you and that’s why we were all following.”

However, not everyone agreed with the “stick to sport” argument. Another panelist passionately defended Lineker’s right to express himself: “I don’t necessarily think that he should stick to sport. I think he’s an individual and he can talk about the things that he wants.” She argued that celebrities are “damned if he doesn’t, damned if he does.” If they remain silent, they’re “slammed for it… ‘Oh, you don’t care and it’s all about you and why aren’t you sticking up for this, that and the other?’ And then if you do, you’re slammed for why don’t you just stick to being a celebrity? Like, you can’t win.”

This poignant observation highlights the impossible bind many public figures find themselves in, caught between the expectation to use their platform for good and the backlash for venturing outside their perceived professional lane. The panel agreed that Lineker was “passionate about what he said” and “did make a mistake,” and that his apology was commendable.

The conversation then broadened to the fundamental principle of freedom of speech, a concept increasingly under scrutiny in the age of social media and “cancel culture.” “We’re all human beings and we’re all entitled to our own opinions,” one panelist asserted. “And that’s what social media is for, you know, we have as everyone keeps saying, you know, freedom of speech, but it seems that we haven’t nowadays because you can be cancelled with one emoji.”

However, this was immediately tempered by the crucial caveat: “But with freedom of speech comes responsibility, especially if you’ve got more than millions of [followers].” The consensus emerged that when commenting on “contentious issues like war in the Middle East,” a public figure must “double and triple check before you send a reaction or a retweet.” The phrase “with great numbers of followers comes great responsibility” was invoked, particularly when one works for a “public service broadcaster” like the BBC.

The Gary Lineker saga is more than just a football pundit’s misstep; it’s a microcosm of a larger societal struggle to define the boundaries of free speech, the responsibilities of public figures, and the ever-present pitfalls of a digital world where a single emoji can bring down an empire. As Lineker steps away from Match of the Day, the questions raised by his actions will undoubtedly continue to echo across the airwaves and beyond.

---

What do you believe is the appropriate level of scrutiny for public figures’ social media activity, especially when they work for public service broadcasters?

A staggering 84% of women in a recent UK government survey reported feeling unheard by healthcare professionals, a damning statistic that resonated powerfully with a Loose Women poll revealing a similar sentiment among their audience – 77% have felt dismissed by a doctor. This alarming consensus paints a grim picture of a healthcare system where women’s voices, symptoms, and concerns are routinely overlooked, leading to potentially dangerous misdiagnoses and prolonged suffering. The panel’s discussion exposed a systemic failure to listen, ranging from superficial assessments to a shocking lack of empathy in dealing with complex female health issues.

The conversation kicked off with a panelist sharing her own terrifying experience from last year. After suffering an “awful reaction around my eyes,” her GP prescribed a strong steroid cream, which, she later learned, should not be used heavily around the eyes. The cream “burnt all around my eyes,” forcing her to seek a specialist. The specialist revealed the external reaction was merely a symptom of a deeper, systemic issue: “Essentially, my body was shutting down. I was so tired and not getting much sleep, I was low in loads of vitamins.” The specialist warned that without intervention, she “would have collapsed in a couple of years and I wouldn’t have known the reason why.”

The initial GP appointment, she lamented, failed to consider the internal factors. “They’d been looking at the external rather than the internal and didn’t really ask any other questions about it whatsoever.” It was only through seeking specialized help, driven by the severity of her symptoms (her skin was weeping so much she couldn’t wear makeup), that the root cause was identified. “It turned out that my it was a sign of my body slowly but surely shutting down.” This personal account underscored the critical need for doctors to look beyond surface symptoms and engage in thorough, holistic questioning.

Another panelist, admitting to pushing herself “really hard” for her age, echoed the sentiment of feeling “washed out” but unable to pinpoint the cause through conventional GP visits. She emphasized the critical importance of patient advocacy: “You have to own your own health, and my message today to viewers would be: own your own health, don’t be afraid to ask questions and keep pushing.” She also advised recording consultations with specialists, citing a cautionary tale of her mother who, years ago, was incorrectly told by an eye specialist that she didn’t have a tumour, a miscommunication that could have been avoided with a recording.

The conversation then took a powerful turn towards mental health, particularly postnatal depression (PND). One panelist recounted a deeply traumatic experience after the birth of her son, Matty, when she was severely ill with PND. Her mother took her to the doctor, describing her as “almost catatonic” and “on the verge of a purple psychosis.” The GP, an older woman, responded with astonishing insensitivity: “Well, I had five children, dear, and I just didn’t have time to get depressed.“

This shocking dismissal not only invalidated the panelist’s profound suffering but perpetuated a dangerous myth about PND – that it’s a choice or a weakness, rather than a severe medical condition often rooted in hormonal or chemical imbalances. “I have spent all of the time over my life trying to convince people that this doesn’t this comes on of its own accord, it doesn’t always have a reason,” she passionately asserted.

The discussion then pivoted to Bella Hadid’s recent controversial comments in Vogue, where the supermodel, who lives with endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), suggested it should be “illegal to model while on her period” and advocated for women getting time off during menstruation. This sparked a nuanced debate on the fine line between acknowledging genuine suffering and inadvertently playing into misogynistic narratives that deem women “uncapable” due to their menstrual cycles.

While acknowledging the risk of such narratives pushing women “back” and feeding into misogyny, the panel made a crucial distinction. For women with “normal periods,” advocating for time off might be seen as excessive. However, for those suffering from debilitating conditions like endometriosis and PCOS, the reality is vastly different. One panelist shared her sister’s harrowing journey with high-grade endometriosis, involving “multiple surgeries” and “many years of push back of… doctors not taking her seriously.” These chronic conditions, she stressed, profoundly affect a woman’s “ability to work.”

The conversation highlighted the government’s belated efforts, with the Labour government reportedly “bringing in various different things into the system to try and improve the outcomes for women when it comes to things like heavy periods and things like polycystic ovaries and endometriosis.” However, the question remains: is it “too late” for the many women who have suffered for “many, many years without all this extra help”?

The shocking realities faced by women were further underscored by an anecdote about a hairdresser with severe bleeding being turned away from A&E because they “haven’t got any pads here.” This highlights a profound lack of basic care and understanding within the healthcare system.

The grim statistics further illustrate the crisis: despite claims of progress and investment in maternity units, waiting lists for gynaecology appointments across the UK have more than doubled in the last five years. Problems range from endometriosis to incontinence, a condition affecting approximately 3 million women in the UK, yet remains largely shrouded in embarrassment and silence.

Denise Welch, with characteristic bravery, shared her own candid experience with incontinence, referring to it as “giggle dribble.” She emphasized using her platform to normalize the conversation, revealing how countless women have approached her, grateful for her openness. Incontinence, she stressed, is not exclusively linked to childbirth and affects women of all ages, including teenagers.

The panel introduced the concept of Kegel exercises (or pelvic floor exercises), with one panelist admitting she had never heard of them until her gynaecologist, during a routine check, advised her to start immediately if she intended to have children. This highlights a significant gap in public health education. The discussion also touched upon how diet and drinks can affect bladder health, further underscoring the need for open dialogue and education.

The call to action was clear: for those experiencing incontinence, seeking professional help is paramount. While some cases are manageable with simple solutions like pads, for others, it is “totally debilitating for their life.” In such cases, a proper consultation with a gynaecologist is crucial, as surgery can offer significant improvement.

The overwhelming message from the Loose Women panel was a powerful plea for women to be persistent, demand to be heard, and advocate fiercely for their own health. In a system where 84% feel dismissed, the onus, sadly, falls too often on the individual to navigate a complex and frequently unresponsive healthcare landscape.

What steps do you think individuals can take to ensure their health concerns are taken seriously by medical professionals?

Michael Schumacher won the 2005 US Grand Prix which was incredibly controversial for reasons concerning tyres

Michael Schumacher’s legendary F1 career saw him win seven World Championships. But it was in a season in which he finished third that one of the most controversial moments in Formula One history occurred.

As it stands, Lewis Hamilton is the only other driver in F1 history to have as many championship wins as Schumacher.

Throughout his legendary career, the German driver secured 91 wins, which was the most for anyone in F1 before Hamilton broke the record in 2020.

Schumacher has had many iconic wins and close finishes which left fans amazed by his performances. However, the 2005 US Grand Prix was not a win even Schumacher spent too much time celebrating due to its controversial nature of the race.

Schumacher won the event – but he only had six other drivers to compete against him due to a huge boycott of the race that took place 20 years ago today (19 June).

Crossing the finishing line in 2005 (STAN HONDA/AFP via Getty Images)

Why was the 2005 United States Grand Prix so controversial?

Two days before the race day, Schumacher’s brother Ralf Schumacher crashed in practice which flagged to the tyre manufacturers, Michelin, of an important detail.

The company had supplied tyres that could not withstand the high speed on turns.

They asked FIA for permission to provide another batch of tyres, which was refused citing rules set by the body.

Michelin also asked FIA to build a chicane, or series of turns, designed to slow down cars before the 13th turn where issues were being encountered.

This request was also denied and 14 cars across seven teams decided they were not going to race. The six cars that were on the grid used Bridgestone tyres and had no problems on the grid, hence their decision to continue racing.

20 years ago today, one of the most controversial ‘races’ in F1 history took place in Indianapolis as only six cars lined up on the grid for the US Grand Prix… Safety concerns with Michelin’s tyres caused seven teams to withdraw their cars after the formation lap, leading to

Who withdrew from the US Grand Prix?

US Grand Prix was the ninth race and a lot of excitement was building up among fans to see the drivers.

While Schumacher was the defending champion in 2004 with Ferrari, drivers like Fernando Alonso – the eventual 2005 champion – and Kimi Raikkonen were also exciting prospects.

Going into the US Grand Prix, both were leading the grid at the first and second position respectively.

However, after no agreement was reached between FIA and the teams, they decided to drop out of the race, leading to a win for Schumacher.

Only Ferrari, Minardi and Jordan were the team’s that participated in the race.

Schumacher after winning the US Grand Prix 2005 STAN HONDA/AFP via Getty Images

What happened after the tyres controversy?

Schumacher did not celebrate the win like his others.

There were no signature champagne celebrations as the crowd was not pleased with the outcome of the race.

Michelin’s image took a significant dip after the controversy and the company decided to provide compensation to all the race fans.

After 2006, Michelin’s tyres were no more used in F1 as Bridgestone became the official manufacturer.

Crash and Culture: The Drama Unfolding in Formula 1’s 2025 Season

The 2025 Formula 1 season is shaping up to be a fascinating blend of on-track battles and behind-the-scenes intrigue. Two recent storylines perfectly illustrate the intensity and complexity of modern F1 — Lando Norris’s dramatic crash in Montreal and Lewis Hamilton’s uphill struggle in his first season with Ferrari.

The Montreal Mayhem: Norris vs Pastri

On lap 67 of the Canadian Grand Prix, what began as a thrilling intra-team duel between McLaren teammates quickly turned into a heartbreaking collision. Lando Norris, known for his aggressive but calculated racing style, went all-in for a crucial overtaking move on Oscar Pastri. With fresher tires and DRS assistance, Norris was closing the gap, eyeing a podium that seemed within reach.

As Norris darted up the inside at the hairpin, the move was bold and clean — for a moment. But the fight was far from over. Pastri defended hard into the final chicane, forcing a drag race down the main straight. Norris got the better launch but misjudged the space available. The inevitable happened: his front wing clipped Pastri’s rear tire, sending the McLaren sideways into the pit wall and ending his race in a spectacular crash.

Immediately, Norris took full responsibility. “Totally my fault, that one’s on me,” he said to the media before Pastri could even reach the scene. No drama, no blame game — just a clear acknowledgment of error.

Yet, while the paddock seemed ready to move on, the FIA stewards weren’t done. Hours later, both McLaren drivers were summoned for a formal investigation into the incident. Norris was found 100% at fault for causing a collision by trying to squeeze into a space that simply didn’t exist. The stewards handed down a symbolic five-second time penalty — it didn’t alter his race result since he was already out, nor did it carry over to future grid penalties — but the message was clear: even in intra-team battles, reckless moves come with consequences.

The Bigger Picture: What This Means for McLaren

This crash highlighted a fundamental tension for McLaren. On one hand, they have two hungry young talents in Norris and Pastri pushing each other to the limit. On the other, they need to balance internal rivalry with team harmony and results. The stewards’ decision serves as a reminder that, despite the friendships or team dynamics, safety and clean racing are non-negotiable.

For Norris, the incident is a tough learning moment — a rare misstep in a season where he’s consistently demonstrated pace and skill. For Pastri, it’s a test of composure and resilience, proving he can stand his ground under pressure. And for McLaren, managing this dynamic will be critical as the championship fight heats up.

Meanwhile, Across the Garage: Lewis Hamilton’s Ferrari Conundrum

While McLaren’s internal drama unfolded in Montreal, another story quietly simmered in the background — Lewis Hamilton’s rocky adaptation to Ferrari. When Hamilton swapped Mercedes’ silver for Ferrari’s iconic red in 2025, expectations soared. The seven-time world champion joining the legendary Scuderia was a blockbuster move, promising a new era of Ferrari dominance.

Yet, ten races into the season, the reality looks less like a Hollywood script and more like a slow-burning mystery. Hamilton is still chasing his first Grand Prix podium in Ferrari colors. His best race finish? Fourth place at Emilia Romagna — a respectable but far-from-dominant result. Meanwhile, teammate Charles Leclerc has three podiums and leads Hamilton in the points and head-to-head battles.

What’s behind the scenes is a complex chess match between driver and team. Hamilton isn’t simply accepting the status quo. He’s challenging Ferrari’s engineers, questioning long-standing approaches, and pushing for innovation — but progress has been incremental at best. Since Monaco, qualifying setups have improved slightly, but the car itself, the SF25, remains largely unchanged with no significant upgrades for weeks.

This stagnation frustrates Hamilton, who is used to competing in cars that evolve rapidly throughout the season. Ferrari, while sitting second in the constructors’ championship, has been outpaced by a surging McLaren — the very team Norris and Pastri drive for. “Being best of the rest is not on the radar,” Hamilton has made clear.

The Pressure of Transition: 2025’s Unique Challenges

It’s important to remember that 2025 is the final year for the current generation of F1 cars before new regulations take effect in 2026. Performance gains are harder to find as teams conserve resources and shift focus to next year’s designs. But Hamilton isn’t content to wait. He wants results now and is vocal about it: “I want a car that can win next year. That’s the priority.”

This tension — balancing short-term performance with long-term planning — adds pressure within Ferrari’s garage. Hamilton’s push for change sometimes clashes with the team’s entrenched habits and culture, leading to what he describes as “constant battles” to shake things up. He signed with Ferrari to write a golden final chapter in his career, but so far, the story feels more like a drama in progress.

Alonso’s Warning: A Familiar Tale

Adding fuel to the fire is Fernando Alonso, a two-time world champion and Ferrari veteran who knows the team’s inner workings intimately. Alonso’s candid observations highlight the uncertainty swirling around Hamilton’s situation. “What’s wrong with him? I have no idea,” Alonso admitted bluntly. But he also pointed out a pattern — reminiscent of Hamilton’s struggles at Mercedes in 2024, when teammate George Russell frequently outperformed him.

Alonso’s warning is clear: the challenges Hamilton faces may stem from a combination of car dynamics, adaptation issues, and internal team culture. But he remains optimistic, confident that Hamilton’s talent and resilience mean a turnaround is possible — and perhaps inevitable.

The Road Ahead: Conflict, Growth, and Redemption

Formula 1 is more than just a race on Sundays. It’s a complex ecosystem where driver skill, team dynamics, technical innovation, and psychological resilience intertwine. The Norris-Pastri collision and Hamilton’s Ferrari journey are emblematic of this multilayered reality.

For Norris and McLaren, the focus will be on rebuilding momentum while managing competitive fire within the team. For Hamilton and Ferrari, it’s about navigating cultural shifts and engineering challenges to rediscover the winning edge.

One thing is certain: both stories are far from over. Norris is learning what it means to balance risk and reward at the highest level. Hamilton is fighting not just rivals on the track, but the inertia of tradition and expectation.

As the 2025 season unfolds, fans can expect more drama, more battles — both visible and hidden — and the relentless pursuit of victory that defines Formula 1.

Full Video:

Rishi Sunak’s government has pledged to “renew Britain” with ambitious spending plans, including a colossal £29 billion per year extra for the NHS in England and increased cash for defense and housing. However, a recent segment on Loose Women laid bare a stark and deeply troubling reality: the £4 billion earmarked for adult social care is not just inadequate, it’s a “complete drop in the ocean” when juxtaposed with the true annual cost of care in the UK, estimated at a staggering £184 billion.

The revelation ignited a furious debate among the Loose Women panelists, highlighting a systemic failure to support the millions of unpaid carers who form the backbone of Britain’s social care system. Their selflessness, often at immense personal cost, saves the state “an absolute fortune,” yet they remain woefully underfunded and largely invisible.

One panelist immediately voiced the outrage felt by many: “It’s a complete drop in the ocean, isn’t it?” She further argued that while the NHS undoubtedly needs money, “we need reform before that, otherwise it just gets poured into this sort of black hole of inefficiency.” But the real indignation was reserved for the pittance allocated to carers. “Four billion for carers, for unpaid carers, it’s just nothing, is it really?“

The discussion quickly honed in on a truly shocking aspect of the UK’s care crisis: the existence of child carers. “The absolute scandal I still think of this country is that we still have child carers,” a panelist declared, emphasizing that if the £4 billion were to go anywhere, “it needs to be specifically targeted at children who are having to care for a parent.”

The harrowing reality of child carers was brought home by a powerful personal testimony from a Loose Women panelist, who recounted her own experience at just 16 years old. When her mother fell ill, she took on significant responsibility for her younger siblings. “I’d miss morning lessons in the morning so I could take them to school and to nursery, and I was doing parents evenings and I was doing a lot of the discipline and I was helping with the cooking when I would come home from school,” she revealed. “All of that stuff to sort of muck in and help within the family because we needed to ’cause there was no other help available.” Her story painted a stark picture of the immense burden placed on young shoulders, underscoring that “no child should have to really go through that.”

The debate then shifted to the role of adult children in caring for elderly relatives, a sensitive topic where some argue it should be a “family’s responsibility.” While one panelist shared the blessing of having relatively independent elderly parents living next door, she acknowledged the immense pressure felt by many of her friends, including fellow Loose Woman Kaye Adams, and her colleague who cares for her mother. “It’s a lot, and imagine people doing that with no support and no money on top, it’s just too much.“

The discussion turned to the plight of Kate Garraway, who has spoken openly about the immense sacrifices she has made caring for her husband Derek Draper. The panel lambasted “unpleasant people” who dismiss Garraway’s struggles due to her public profile and income. “It makes no difference what you earn if you have to care for somebody 24/7, it has a drain, it has an effect on you,” one panelist asserted.

A particularly disturbing anecdote from Garraway’s experience brought the systemic failures into sharp relief. Garraway reportedly called a helpline at her wit’s end, only for an unofficial response from a woman who suggested: “Just take him to A&E and leave him there.” This horrifying advice, born of desperation within a failing system, left the panelists aghast. “What sort of a system is that?” they demanded, highlighting that for many, this is the only perceived route to crisis support.

The long-term consequences of inadequate carer support were also emphasized. The physical and mental strain can lead to carers becoming ill themselves, potentially losing their jobs, and even requiring hospitalization. “Surely that doesn’t make financial sense, because people are going to get ill and they’re going to have to lose their job, or then maybe end up in hospital themselves,” a panelist argued, advocating for robust home support for carers.

The innate selflessness of carers, who rarely “go to the front of the queue and say ‘I need help’,” was identified as a tragic vulnerability that the state inadvertently exploits. “The state takes advantage of that because if you’re not making a noise, they’re not going to give you anything.“

Personal stories continued to illustrate the profound challenges. One panelist shared her experience caring for her mother who developed dementia after losing her partner. Her mother’s eventual move into a Marie Curie home and then back home required constant, round-the-clock care from her and her two sisters. Another panelist recounted the “nightmare” of trying to care for her own mother with dementia at home, describing it as “hellish” and a constant “fight like cat and dog.” Her mother eventually moved into a care home, which, despite the difficult decision, allowed for a “normal relationship” to resume, free from the constant strain of caregiving. This was only possible because her mother could “self-fund,” a privilege not afforded to all.

The crucial issue of financial planning for old age and illness was raised, with the panelists lamenting that “not a lot of people think far enough ahead.” However, they also acknowledged the harsh reality that for those in low-paying jobs, saving simply isn’t an option. “Not everybody can save, and those are the people that that we need this money to be targeted towards.“

The conversation concluded with a powerful call for greater awareness and preparedness, particularly regarding Power of Attorney for health decisions, a critical tool for ensuring a person’s wishes are respected if they become unable to communicate them. An emotional message from a viewer named Yvonne, who cares for her husband Neil while battling her own health issues, underscored the immense love and dedication present within the caring community, despite the overwhelming challenges.

The Loose Women panel ended with a heartfelt round of applause for all unpaid carers, recognizing their immense, often invisible, contributions. The segment served as a stark reminder that while government spending plans may paint a picture of national renewal, the true measure of a society lies in how it supports its most vulnerable citizens – and on that front, Britain has a long, long way to go.

What more can be done to truly recognize and support the invaluable work of unpaid carers in the UK?

Lewis Hamilton’s Canadian GP Frustration Reveals Bigger Ferrari Crisis

Lewis Hamilton looked like he had something going in Canada—a clean start, calm tire management, and that signature composure behind the wheel that’s become his hallmark over a legendary Formula 1 career. The early laps of the Canadian Grand Prix seemed to promise a strong finish, maybe even a surprise result if strategy or weather chaos played into his hands. But what followed wasn’t just a dip in performance—it was something Hamilton himself would later describe as “devastating.” And as it turns out, it wasn’t just about a broken car. It was about broken confidence in a Ferrari project that’s starting to show some worrying cracks.

A Strong Start Undone by Mystery

From the green light, Hamilton was dialed in. Running near the front of the midfield pack, he kept pace in a Ferrari SF-25 that, while not dominant, appeared competitive enough for a top-five finish. Tire wear was under control. His radio exchanges with race engineer Riccardo Adami were calm and focused. All signs pointed toward a solid result.

But then, something changed. Gradually, Hamilton began losing time—not in dramatic, obvious chunks, but in subtle tenths and hundredths that quickly became a red flag in a hyper-competitive field. When you’re racing McLarens, Red Bulls, and even the surging Aston Martins, small drops in pace quickly become big problems.

Eventually, Hamilton was told he had sustained some kind of car damage. The problem? Neither he nor the Ferrari engineers had any idea how or when it happened. There were no obvious impacts, no excursions over high curbs, no contact with other cars—just an unexplained loss of performance.

The Groundhog Incident

Post-race, the truth emerged: Hamilton had hit a groundhog.

Yes, a groundhog.

Circuit Gilles Villeneuve is famous for its picturesque island setting and, less glamorously, its frequent run-ins with wildlife. Groundhogs have become an unfortunate hallmark of the Canadian GP, often darting across the track during sessions. This time, one wasn’t so lucky.

Unseen by Hamilton, the animal ran in front of his car during the race. The resulting impact tore a chunk out of the floor on the right-hand side, destroying crucial aerodynamic elements. That loss of downforce explained the pace drop. But for Hamilton, the revelation stung far more than a technical diagnosis.

“I love animals,” he said. “That’s horrible. That’s devastating.”

It wasn’t just the floor damage, either. Hamilton reported developing brake issues later in the race and suffered from poor track positioning after a strategy misstep left him stuck in traffic. He still managed to finish sixth, salvaging points from a race that quickly became a nightmare. But the bigger story was what happened off the track—and what it revealed.

Cracks in the Ferrari Dream

Hamilton’s tone in post-race interviews was subdued, frustrated, and—unusually—candid. He acknowledged the team’s efforts but made clear that more needs to change. The SF-25 isn’t fast enough. The upgrades aren’t coming quickly enough. And crucially, the way the team operates behind the scenes appears to be part of the problem.

“There’s a lot that needs to change before we’re back at the front,” Hamilton said. “So many things I wish I could tell you.”

It was a loaded comment—cryptic, but pointed. For a driver renowned for his professionalism and carefully measured public remarks, it was an unmistakable shot across the bow. The implication? Ferrari’s issues aren’t just technical—they’re systemic.

This isn’t just about ride height or rear-end stability. It’s about culture. Leadership. Cohesion. A team that, in Hamilton’s view, still doesn’t have the internal alignment required to return to championship contention.

Backing Fred Vasseur—and Sending a Message

As rumors swirled during the Canadian GP weekend about the possible dismissal of team principal Fred Vasseur, many expected Hamilton to dodge the speculation. Instead, he did the opposite.

“Fred’s the main reason I’m in this team,” Hamilton said. “I want Fred here.”

This was more than a vote of confidence. It was a statement. Hamilton didn’t just back Vasseur—he attached his own future to him. In a paddock where politics often outweigh performance, Hamilton’s public support for Vasseur was a not-so-subtle warning to Ferrari’s upper management: make rash decisions, and you might lose more than just a team boss.

It’s a clear sign that Hamilton’s vision for Ferrari extends beyond this season. He isn’t just here to race—he’s here to build. But he can’t do that alone.

Silverstone: Ferrari’s Last Stand?

Hamilton’s frustrations are shared by many. Former teammate and rival Nico Rosberg recently remarked that Hamilton’s patience is “hanging by a thread,” and that Ferrari’s upcoming upgrade at Silverstone could be the last chance to salvage momentum before the team shifts focus to its 2026 car.

According to reports, Ferrari is preparing to bring its final major update of the season to the British Grand Prix—a rear suspension fix aimed at resolving balance and consistency issues. Beyond that, the focus may turn fully to Project 678, the internal code name for Ferrari’s 2026 car built to new regulations.

But that’s a dangerous gamble.

Hamilton didn’t join Ferrari to be a placeholder for the future. He joined to compete now. If Silverstone’s upgrade doesn’t deliver meaningful gains, the narrative inside Maranello could quickly turn toxic. And Hamilton, who has been remarkably diplomatic so far, may not hold back much longer.

What’s Next?

It’s not the first time Ferrari has been in crisis. But what makes this situation different is the presence of a seven-time world champion who knows what it takes to win—not just behind the wheel, but inside an organization.

Hamilton’s post-race comments weren’t just about heartbreak over hitting an animal or frustration with a flawed car. They were a call to action. A signal that he’s willing to do the hard work—but expects Ferrari to meet him with the same intensity.

As the season approaches its midpoint, Ferrari’s choices will become clear: either align with Hamilton’s vision and begin a genuine rebuild—or risk losing the most high-profile driver the team has had since Michael Schumacher.

One thing is certain: Hamilton didn’t join Ferrari to fight for P6. And if things don’t change soon, the world will stop asking whether he can save Ferrari—and start asking whether Ferrari is even capable of being saved.

Full Video:

In a storyline that has gripped the nation and sent shivers down the spines of Coronation Street fans, the formidable Debbie Webster has been battling a devastating secret: an early onset dementia diagnosis. For months, viewers have watched, helpless, as Debbie’s increasingly erratic behaviour and moments of confusion hinted at a deeper, more insidious struggle. But last night’s explosive episode, previewed exclusively on Loose Women, saw the truth finally rupture into the open, with Debbie starkly admitting: “I’ve got dementia.”

Actress Sue Devaney, who portrays the vibrant and often outrageous Debbie, joined the Loose Women panel today to discuss the immense impact of this powerful storyline. What she revealed has sent fresh shockwaves through the fandom: Debbie Webster’s journey with dementia is not a short-term arc, but a deeply researched, long-form narrative set to unfold on the cobbles well into 2027.

“What a storyline!” exclaimed a Loose Women panelist, acknowledging the typical Coronation Street “slow burn” approach. “We’ve watched her just, you know, strange behaviour, everyone round about her like, ‘what’s going on here?’” Devaney confirmed that this gradual reveal was intentional. “When I first met the producer, she said it’s going to be Debbie’s going to be doing certain things and you don’t actually know what it is.” However, with the press eventually getting wind of the dementia plot, the production team decided to expedite the diagnosis itself to focus on the complex reality of living with the illness.

“We wanted to do the diagnosis and get that sorted and then do the journey of living with dementia, rather than, you know, ‘oh, she’s suffering from dementia,’ because we don’t like to say that,” Devaney explained, highlighting the show’s commitment to sensitive and accurate portrayal. “So it’s like, how do you see Debbie just going about her life with this diagnosis?”

The revelation last night (tonight, as per the show’s broadcast schedule) marks a pivotal moment. Debbie’s fierce independence means she initially “wants to keep it to herself for as long as possible” due to the varying “perceptions” people hold about the illness. Devaney stressed the real-life resonance of this decision: “It’s reflecting real life and true life and this does happen to people and there is still, you know, a lot of misunderstanding around the illness, isn’t there?“

One panelist drew a poignant parallel to her own family’s experience with illness, recalling how her mother initially shielded the family from her father’s terminal cancer diagnosis, choosing to “protect her brood.” This desire to cope privately before sharing the devastating news is a sentiment Debbie echoes. “She’s going, ‘Okay, I’ve got this, I’ve been diagnosed with this, so how am I going to cope with it and I’ll find out how I cope with it and then I’ll tell my family.’”

The power of Coronation Street lies in its ability to spark vital conversations, and this storyline is no exception. “It will help other people to start that conversation apart from anything else,” the panelist noted. Early speculation that Debbie’s diagnosis would lead to her swift exit from the show has been firmly quashed by Devaney, much to the relief of fans and the panel alike. “She’s not going anywhere yet!” Devaney emphatically stated. “I know the story is going to go on well into 2027, so you know, Debbie’s not going anywhere.“

This commitment to a long-term narrative underscores the complexity of young-onset dementia, emphasizing that a diagnosis is not an immediate end but the beginning of a challenging, often fluctuating, journey. “It’s young-onset dementia and it’s how she she deals with that,” Devaney elaborated. “People are dealing with that all of the time, people are living with dementia, trying to get through and it has an effect on absolutely everyone.“

Devaney admitted that taking on the role has been an education for her personally. “I didn’t know a lot about it… it’s only now that it’s brought it to me what you know the young-onset dementia, what it’s what it’s about and stuff and and also all the different kinds of dementia you can have and and how many things there are out there to help people with dementia.”

The discussion then veered into the profound impact of music on individuals living with dementia, particularly how familiar songs can trigger moments of profound recognition and joy. “Music is an amazing thing isn’t it when people have dementia… you’ll put a song on from maybe when they were younger and they light up.” Stories of a ballerina in a wheelchair moving to “Swan Lake” and an opera singer’s voice coming alive with “Ave Maria” illustrated the enduring power of artistic expression to transcend the illness. “It shows that there’s still hope there,” a panelist reflected, emphasizing that Debbie’s storyline will similarly “show yes, she’s living with this terrible thing but actually you can still have a life, you can still have a quality of life.”

Devaney also shared a deeply personal connection to the storyline, revealing that her husband’s father has Alzheimer’s. This experience brought to light lesser-known, yet crucial, challenges faced by families, such as the struggle to access funds when a loved one with dementia forgets how to manage their finances. “You don’t think about stuff like that and that’s really important,” she stressed.

The return of Debbie Webster to the cobbles, after an initial stint 16 years ago, was celebrated by the panel. “I loved her, she was feisty and she was like she was she was really was a breath of fresh air,” a panelist reminisced. Devaney clearly relishes playing her. “She’s outrageous!” she agreed. The dementia diagnosis, ironically, might even amplify Debbie’s signature forthrightness. “Especially with the dementia now she’s just coming out, my goodness me, you’ve been diagnosed with something like this, you go, ‘Oh well, life’s short.’“

Debbie’s distinctive, flamboyant fashion sense, too, was a topic of delight. “She’s a bit of a fashion, she does her own thing, she paddles her own canoe,” a panelist observed. Devaney revealed the surprising inspiration for Debbie’s bold wardrobe: her 91-year-old friend, Morin. “I used to do Tap and Ballet with her and she was very glamorous, you know, she had a Ford Cortina turquoise and pink and then she had like a pink leather skirt, pink earrings and all that and everything matched!”

The segment concluded on a note of warmth and admiration for Devaney, who recently married her husband Jim after meeting on a plane five years ago. Photos of the couple’s special day, with Devaney looking radiant in a stunning red wedding dress made by a friend, highlighted the personal joys in her life, even as she prepares to embody such a challenging and important role on screen.

As Coronation Street continues tomorrow night, viewers can anticipate a powerful and authentic portrayal of young-onset dementia, a storyline that promises not only to entertain but to educate, raise awareness, and foster empathy for the many families navigating this challenging condition. Sue Devaney’s commitment to Debbie’s journey ensures that this will be a storyline that leaves an indelible mark on the landscape of British television.

In a culinary bombshell that has sent ripples through the domestic sphere and sparked a lively, no-holds-barred discussion on the set of Loose Women, Gwyneth Paltrow has once again captured headlines, not for a new wellness trend, but for her rather unconventional approach to weekend brunch. The Oscar-winning actress regularly whips up what she calls a “boyfriend breakfast” for her husband, a seemingly wholesome act made decidedly more risqué by her occasional penchant for cooking with “nothing on top.”

The image of Paltrow confidently flipping eggs in the nude immediately ignited a national conversation: Is cooking for your partner now a slightly old-fashioned notion? In an age striving for gender equality and the dismantling of traditional roles, does the act of preparing meals or packing lunchboxes for a significant other still hold a place, or does it reek of outdated domestic servitude?

The Loose Women panel, known for their candid and often hilarious insights into modern life, tackled this thorny issue head-on, delivering a masterclass in diverse perspectives on love, labour, and liberation in the kitchen.

Olivia Attwood, known for her bold pronouncements, was the first to weigh in, her response punctuated by laughter. When playfully accused of not being the “homemaker” type, she retorted, “Are you joking? A little Freddo frog in there, little juice box!” However, Attwood quickly clarified her stance on the Paltrow method: “One thing’s for sure is I won’t be standing next to an open flame with a silicone chest, that would definitely be a health and safety hazard, so there’s definitely no topless cooking!“

Beyond the immediate safety concerns, Attwood delved into the heart of the matter: the perceived link between domestic duties and modern feminism. “I’m not the cook in my family,” she admitted. “I don’t enjoy cooking. I could eat the same thing every day and it wouldn’t bother me. My husband can cook, he’s a brilliant cook.” Crucially, Attwood firmly rejected the idea that performing acts of service for a partner somehow undermines feminist principles. “I don’t think there’s any correlation between feminism and doing acts of service to your partner. Like, I will regularly do more of the laundry or I’ll offer him to make him a cup of tea… I don’t think there’s any any correlation, I think people have gone a bit mad with all this stuff.” For Attwood, it’s about mutual respect and willingness to contribute, not rigid adherence to gendered tasks. “It’s nice to do things for your partner if you want to, you shouldn’t be have to do them, but yeah, he cooks and I do other things.”

The conversation then shifted to a more personal and passionate defense of cooking as an act of love. Another panelist, whose identity wasn’t specified but whose conviction shone through, countered Attwood’s pragmatic view with a heartfelt declaration. “I think if you’re enslaved and you’ve got to do it, you’ve got some horrible person that is being horrible to you and not doing anything, that’s a very different thing. But I mean I think being a feminist is about doing the things that you want to do and I love to cook so it’s my way of showing love.“

This panelist embraced cooking not as a chore, but as a genuine expression of affection and care. “I come home and I say ‘What does everyone want?’ And then I cook what everyone wants separately.” She even joked, “I should have had a restaurant really, I shouldn’t be in the studio, that’s what I should have done!” Her recent Instagram post of perfectly poached eggs, affectionately dubbed her “poached eggs” by another panelist, was met with surprise when it was revealed she was eating them alone. “Did you eat all of that yourself?” joked her producer, highlighting the cultural expectation that elaborate meals are for sharing. But for this passionate cook, even solo meals are a moment of culinary joy. “I love eggs, I’ve got an egg poacher you see that’s got four little slots, I nearly had four eggs but I was like, ‘No that’s maybe pushing it a bit too far.’ But I love to cook and actually I think it’s very nice to cook for other people.“

The discussion then touched upon a relatable phenomenon: the stark contrast between cooking for loved ones and cooking for oneself. While the aforementioned panelist loves to cook for others, she admitted, “I never cook for myself.” She elaborated, “If Jeremy goes away for a couple of days, he’ll come back and I’m just like just this really feral person that’s just lived on hummus and like carrot sticks for days.” This revelation resonated with many, highlighting the emotional and social components that often make cooking a joyous act. “I just get joy like cooking for like people and and everyone else.“

This distinction led to a humorous and widely recognized modern trend: “Girl Dinner.” When asked to define it, the panel explained, “Girl dinner is basically girls, come on, you know girl dinner! It’s just stuff in the cupboard, whatever you call it, it’s normally cold. So it’ll be like cold cuts, a bit of salami on there, some gherkins, some crisps. I just pile it on a plate.” The accompanying male perspective was equally amusing: “Brad would be like ‘That’s not a meal.’ And I’m like ‘It is, it’s girl dinner, you wouldn’t get, you’re not a girl.’” It’s “picky bits,” a pragmatic and often solitary meal born from the desire to avoid “get the oven on and make a mess just for myself.”

The Loose Women debate perfectly encapsulated the nuanced and evolving landscape of modern relationships and domesticity. While Gwyneth Paltrow’s topless breakfast may grab headlines, the underlying question of who cooks for whom, and why, remains a deeply personal one. There’s no universal rule, no feminist handbook dictating kitchen duties. Instead, it boils down to individual preference, mutual understanding, and the varied ways in which partners choose to express care and contribute to their shared lives.

Whether it’s a gourmet “boyfriend breakfast” (clothed or unclothed), a meticulously packed lunchbox, or the delightful chaos of a “girl dinner,” the consensus from the Loose Women is clear: authenticity and choice are paramount. As Olivia Attwood wisely concluded, “It’s nice to do things for your partner if you want to, you shouldn’t be have to do them.” In a world increasingly valuing individuality, perhaps the sexiest meal of all is the one cooked with genuine intention and shared with love, regardless of who’s wearing the apron (or lack thereof).