The influencer was tasked with making traybakes, tart tatin and childhood toys in biscuits

Molly-Mae Hague has taken to her Instagram to share her experience of competing in the Great British Bakeoff as she declares it an ‘insane’ experience’.

The influencer has starred in the latest episode Great Celebrity Bake Off for Stand Up To Cancer (SUTC), in which she was declared star baker.

The 26-year old appeared on the Channel 4 programme on Sunday night where she faced dancer JoJo Siwa, writer Richard Herring and comedian Babatunde Aleshe in a bid to impress the judges, TV cook Paul Hollywood and pastry chef Cherish Finden.

Get MEN Premium now for just £1 HERE – or get involved in our WhatsApp group by clicking HERE. And don’t miss out on our brilliant selection of newsletters HERE.

The four stars were tasked with making traybakes, tarte tatin and childhood toys in biscuits. For the latter, the influencer whipped up an edible version of Ellie Belly, her beloved stuffed elephant teddy which she famously took into the Love Island villa.

After being declared the winner of the episode and receiving her star baker apron, Hague took to Instagram and said: “Still trying to process that this even happened.

“Taking part in Bake Off for Stand Up To Cancer was honestly one of the most insane experiences of my life.

“Just so grateful to have been part of something so special for such an incredible cause. I’ll truly never get over it.”

The emotional caption came under a slideshow of photos from the show, including Hague posing with her fellow contestants as well as presenter Alison Hammond.

The comment section included messages of support from her friend and fellow Love Island star Maura Higgins as well as from her partner, boxer Tommy Fury who commented “Proud”.

Hague starred on the reality dating show in 2019 and met Higgins as well as Fury.

The couple had their first child together, a daughter called Bambi, in January 2023 with Hague announcing in February that the two are expecting a second child.

It comes months after she confirmed the two were back in a relationship together following a split in 2024 while they were engaged.

Stand Up To Cancer is a joint national fundraising campaign from Cancer Research UK and Channel 4. Other stars competing in the national baking show include Radio DJ Scott Mills, One Day actress Ambika Mod and comedian Joe Wilkinson.

The Great Celebrity Bake Off for Stand Up To Cancer will return on Channel 4 on Sunday April 5.

But Labour MP Stella Creasy, chairwoman of the Labour Movement for Europe, said there should be less concern on the number of people involved in the scheme: “This is a deal that will bring back freedoms young Brits from all backgrounds lost with Brexit, as well as boosting growth.”

For successful couples, separation is rarely just about who keeps the house. It often involves businesses, shareholdings, professional practices, pensions, property portfolios and inherited wealth. In many cases, it is the careful unwinding of a commercial partnership as much as a personal one.

And like any business matter, it requires strategy.

One of the most common misconceptions I encounter is the belief that, “my business is separate.” In reality, if a company was built, expanded or sustained during a marriage, it will almost certainly form part of the overall financial landscape. That does not mean it will be divided in half or forced into sale — but it does mean it must be properly valued and understood. Share structures, director loans, retained profits and future income streams all require careful analysis.

The same applies to pensions. For many professional couples, pensions are among the most valuable assets in the marriage, sometimes exceeding the equity in the family home. Yet they are frequently overlooked in early discussions because they feel distant or intangible. Proper actuarial input can significantly alter the picture of fairness.

Inherited wealth presents its own challenges. Yorkshire families often hold assets across generations — land, farms, investment properties, or long-established family homes. While inheritance can sometimes be treated differently from assets built up during the marriage, it is not automatically protected. The court’s guiding principle remains fairness, particularly where needs must be met.

Farming cases illustrate this more starkly than almost any other. A working farm is rarely just a business; it is a home, a livelihood and often a legacy stretching back decades, sometimes centuries. Ownership structures can be layered — land held by parents, farming partnerships, limited companies, diversification ventures, and tenancy arrangements intertwined.

In these situations, the question is not simply “Who gets what?” but “How does the farm survive?” A forced sale can affect not just a couple, but an entire family ecosystem. I have seen how poor early advice can place the viability of a family enterprise at real risk. Equally, I have seen how careful negotiation, realistic valuation and a calm, strategic approach can protect both fairness and continuity.

Over three decades, I have learned that the greatest risk in financially complex divorces is not conflict — it is assumption. Assumptions about what is untouchable. Assumptions about what the court will or will not do. Assumptions that informal agreements will somehow hold. When substantial assets are involved, clarity at the outset is invaluable.

Encouragingly, the way these cases are resolved continues to evolve. Increasingly, successful couples wish to avoid the spectacle, delay, and cost of contested court proceedings. They value privacy, control, and dignity.

Mediation and arbitration provide structured, confidential routes to a fair resolution. These are not soft options; they require transparency and realism from both parties. But when managed properly, they preserve not only wealth, but working relationships — particularly where children, shared business interests or extended family ties remain.

After 30 years in practice, I remain convinced that divorce at this level is not about winning or losing. It is about managing risk, preserving stability, and protecting the next chapter of life.

Divorce may be deeply personal. But where significant assets are involved, it is also undeniably a business matter. And like any important business decision, it deserves experienced guidance, measured judgment, and calm leadership.

If you are facing separation and significant assets are involved — whether a business, professional practice, farm, or long-held family wealth — taking early, experienced advice can make a profound difference. A considered conversation at the outset often prevents costly missteps later.

For those who value clarity, discretion and strategic thinking, the right guidance at the right time is an investment in stability. James Thornton Family Law offers clear, fixed-fee consultations designed to provide strategic direction from the outset, allowing clients to move forward with confidence and control.

Two appeared before York Magistrates Court.

Callum Paul Senior, 31, of Bramham Avenue, Chapelfields, pleaded guilty to failure to provide a breath sample while suspected of drink driving.

He was given a 12-month community order with 200 hours’ hours and was banned from driving for three years. He was ordered to pay £85 prosecution costs and a £114 statutory surcharge.

Rui Maea-Nunes, 50, of Brook Street, Selby, pleaded guilty to cocaine driving in Brotherton, cocaine driving in Selby and failure to provide a sample of blood when suspected of being in charge of a vehicle after drinking or taking drugs.

She was banned from driving for three years, given a 12-month community order with 100 hours’ unpaid work and ordered to pay £85 prosecution costs and a £114 statutory surcharge.

Two were sentenced at Harrogate Magistrates Court.

John Atkinson, 34, of Market Court, Pickering, was convicted of driving a vehicle with a tyre with insufficient tread.

He was banned from driving for six months, fined £184 and ordered to pay £90 prosecution costs and a £74 statutory surcharge.

Sally Steadman, 49, of St Nicholas Street, Norton, was convicted of speeding on the A64 at Whitwell Hill.

She was banned from driving for six months, fined £256 and ordered to pay £120 prosecution costs and a £102 statutory surcharge.