Donald Trump has falsely accused the BBC of using AI to fake his comments in a Panorama programme about January 6.

The US president has a multi-billion dollar lawsuit out against the corporation after it spliced together different sections of a speech he gave on the day of the 2021 Capitol riot.

Trump is suing for defamation, claiming the edits suggest he had directly encouraged his supporters to storm the government building.

The lawsuit, filed in the US, already accuses the BBC of “intentionally, maliciously and deceptively doctoring” the president’s speech.

Trump has now insisted AI was used to alter his words altogether.

“The BBC has me – actually AI.” he told CBS’s 60 Minutes. “They have me saying a horrible statement. I said, ‘I never said that.’

“It turns out they gave me an AI. They had my lips speaking words of hate, tremendous hate, which I never said.

“They don’t know what to do. They’ve admitted they’re wrong, they just don’t know what to do.

“They actually had me making a major statement, and it wasn’t me. It was my face, it was my lips. My lips were perfectly in sync with the words.

“I said, ‘I can’t believe it, I can’t believe it.’”

The Panorama clip showed the president as saying: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol… and I’ll be there with you. And we fight. We fight like hell.”

Trump did say those words during his speech – but in two separate segments.

He told the crowd: “We’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women.”

More than 50 minutes later, he said: “And we fight. We fight like hell.”

The BBC has been approached for comment.

The corporation has previously apologised to the White House over the edit but rejected calls for compensation.

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Gen V star Jaz Sinclair has spoken out following the news that the show has been dropped by Prime Video.

Jaz played Marie Moreau in both seasons of the The Boys spin-off, sharing the screen with the likes of Lizze Broadway, London Thor, Derek Luhn and the late Chance Perdomo.

However, over the weekend it was announced that, despite glowing reviews for both seasons of Gen V, the satirical superhero series would not be getting a third outing.

Reacting to the news on Sunday night, Jaz told her Instagram followers: “There’s so much I wanna (and will) say, but for today I just want to say thank you from the bottom of my heart.

“I’m so happy you’re here and I’m so grateful for this incredible experience.”

Although Gen V will not be moving forward, executive producers Eric Kripke and Evan Goldberg have said in a statement that its central characters will be back in action in the ongoing fifth season of The Boys, as well as other projects set in the same universe.

“While we wish we could keep the party going another season at Godolkin, we’re committed to continuing the Gen V characters’ stories in The Boys season five and other VCU projects on the horizon,” they insisted.

“You’ll see them again.”

Season five of The Boys is currently airing on Prime Video.

Like previous seasons, The Boys’ latest run has once again been a hit with critics, receiving a coveted score in the high 90s on the reviews aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes.

It was previously reported that this fifth season would be the last outing of The Boys, although more spin-offs are still in the works.

Most notably, a new off-shoot of The Boys titled Vought Rising is expected to arrive on Prime Video in 2027.

Aya Cash and Jensen Ackles will take the lead as Stormfront and Soldier Boy, respectively, having both previously played the characters in early seasons of The Boys.

Keir Starmer is facing yet another bruising week over the Peter Mandelson vetting scandal.

Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee will continue its probe into the affair, with the prime minister’s former chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, giving evidence on Tuesday.

But it is the possibility of Starmer being investigated by the cross-party Privileges Committee for misleading parliament which is causing most concern inside 10 Downing Street.

Commons Speaker Lindsay Hoyle is expected to announce on Monday afternoon if MPs will be given a vote tomorrow on whether the PM should be referred to the powerful committee.

Here, HuffPost UK explains the background to the latest controversy to hit Starmer and assesses the damage it could do to the beleaguered PM.

There are two strands to the accusations against the PM.

His critics say he misled the Commons by previously insisting that “due process” was followed when Mandelson was vetted for the role of UK ambassador to Washington.

It has subsequently emerged that UK Security Vetting had recommended the then Labour peer be denied clearance to take up the role.

However, the Foreign Office decided that the risks highlighted over his business links to Russia and China could be mitigated, and he was given the highest security clearance, known as “developed vetting”.

The second accusation centres around comments Starmer made at prime minister’s questions last week.

He said that “no pressure existed whatsoever” in getting the Foreign Office to give Mandelson security clearance.

But that had been contradicted the previous day by Sir Olly Robbins, who was sacked by Starmer for not telling him about UK Security Vetting’s concerns.

Giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, Sir Olly said there was “constant pressure” on his department from No.10 and there was an “atmosphere of constant chasing”.

In a Sunday Times interview, the PM insisted there was no inconsistency between his comments and Sir Olly’s.

He said there was “different types of pressure” in government.

“There’s pressure – ’Can we get this done quickly?’ – which is not an unusual pressure. That is the everyday pressure of government,” he said.

Starmer said a pressure “essentially, to disregard the security vetting element and give clearance” would be something different, and that Sir Olly “was really clear in his mind that wasn’t pressure that was put on him”.

Even if Hoyle grants MPs a vote on referring the PM to the Privileges Committee, it would require a huge Labour rebellion for it to pass.

According to The Times, No.10 is planning to whip Labour MPs to vote against a probe, making it a major test of the under-fire prime minister’s authority.

One Labour MP told HuffPost UK the issue was a “complete waste of time” and insisted there was no comparison with the Privileges Committee investigation Boris Johnson faced over partygate.

He said: “Boris Johnson’s parties in breach of lockdown rules were of a wholly different magnitude of severity. Besides, the PM has been truthful about due process throughout.”

Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP who chairs the Foreign Affairs Committee, accused the Tories of playing political games ahead of the elections on May 7.

She said: “It may be that at some stage in the future some of the questions haven’t been answered and it is decided that they are of sufficient importance that the Privileges Committee should be involved but I don’t really see why we are doing it at the moment apart from potentially people trying to score points in advance of the local elections.

“I’m sorry to say that and I’m not supposed to be partisan on this but it is plain as the nose on my face what’s going on here.”

Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Though people with dementia tend to face sleep disruptions, it’s a bit of a “chicken and egg” link: “Does poor sleep increase dementia risk, or does dementia lead to poor sleep?” Alzheimer’s Society said.

“Some researchers believe that both of these theories could be true, and the relationship could be circular.”

Whatever the direction of the link, though, one paper found that those who got fewer than six hours of sleep in midlife were less likely to develop dementia.

And a new paper published in PLOS One, which involved data from dozens of other studies, says there may be a “sweet spot” for reducing dementia risk.

The data the researchers used came from millions of people aged 35 and over across decades of research. It looked at day-to-day habits, like rest and movement, and compared those to the rate of dementia among participants.

Parmis Mirzadeh, who helped to write the study, said these studies “provided an opportunity to better understand how daily habits like physical activity, sedentary time and sleep collectively shape brain health over time”.

They found that seven to eight hours’ sleep was linked to a lower dementia risk, while both more and less sleep were associated with an increased likelihood of developing the condition.

The longer sleep pattern (regularly getting more than eight hours’ sleep) was most associated with higher dementia risk.

Previous research has shown that people who sleep more than nine hours a night are more likely to develop dementia 10 years later.

Yes. These researchers also looked at how physical activity and sedentary behaviours seemed to be linked to people’s dementia risk.

They found that people who stuck to the recommended 150 minutes of physical activity a week were 25% less likely to face dementia.

“One of the more surprising findings was how sparse the data remains for sedentary behaviour, despite it being recognised as a distinct health risk for more than a decade,” Mirzadeh stated.

Nonetheless, researchers think sitting for more than eight hours a day may increase dementia risk.

“We hope this work helps raise awareness that everyday behaviours such as physical activity, sedentary time and sleep are associated with brain health,” Mirzadeh added. “Because these are modifiable, they represent practical targets for interventions aimed at reducing dementia risk at the population level.”

It’s worth noting, however, that this paper only looked at associations and did not prove a causal link.

The BBC has issued an apology for inadvertently broadcasting a racial slur twice in one day on Radio 1.

Earlier this month, Radio 1 producers put together a Newsbeat package about the new Super Mario movie, which was soundtracked by a song from the rapper Childish Gambino.

However, the clip of the song, which aired at 12.45pm, contained an uncensored use of the N-word, which went undetected before it was aired again five hours later.

A BBC spokesperson told The Sun: “We are very sorry this was broadcast. We should not have included this clip in this news report, and we removed the clip from Sounds when we realised the error.”

This latest controversy comes just months after the BBC faced widespread condemnation for including another uncensored utterance of the N-word in its coverage of the 2026 Baftas.

During the Baftas ceremony in February, Tourette’s campaigner John Davidson – attending the event alongside the cast and crew of I Swear, which was inspired by his life – experienced an involuntary tic while Sinners actors Delroy Lindo and Michael B Jordan were presenting on stage, resulting in him shouting the slur from his seat.

After a clip of this was included in the BBC’s broadcast of the event, despite it airing on a two-hour time delay, an investigation was “fast-tracked” by outgoing director-general Tim Davie.

Earlier this month, the BBC’s executive complaints unit concluded that “the inclusion of the N-word in the broadcast (which was also streamed live on iPlayer) was highly offensive, had no editorial justification and represented a breach of the BBC’s editorial standards”, even if the breach in question “was unintentional”.

The morning after the Baftas, chief content officer Kate Phillips sent an internal memo to BBC employees, which read: “The edit team removed another racial slur from the broadcast. This one was aired in error and we would never have knowingly allowed this to be broadcast.

“We take full responsibility for what happened.”