Former RuPaul’s Drag Race UK champion Danny Beard has been unveiled as the lead in a new play about the late Paul O’Grady.

On Monday morning, it was announced that Danny would be starring as Paul in Savage, named after the late TV personality’s drag alter-ego, Lily Savage.

The play was penned by screenwriter and playwright Jonathan Harvey, whose biggest credits have included Beautiful To Heaven, Closer To Heaven and the award-winning TV comedy Gimme Gimme Gimme.

Jonathan had briefly worked with Paul on the play, prior to the Bafta winner’s death in 2023 at the age of 67.

Advertisement

Paul had previously said of the project: “I’m delighted Jonathan has agreed to write the script, I really am, as he’s perfect for this and he’s such a great writer.”

An official synopsis teases: “The show follows Paul’s journey from the streets of Merseyside to the heart of London’s club scene, where, armed with little more than his wits and a wig, he began carving out a place for himself.

“From humble roots and an unassuming start emerged Lily Savage: the fearless, foul-mouthed alter ego who would defy convention and win the hearts of millions.”

Speaking in a promotional video, recorded at London’s Royal Vauxhall Tavern, where Paul previously performed as Lily, Danny called the role a “dream come true”.

Jonathan enthused: “I was so thrilled when Paul gave me the opportunity to turn his life story into a stage show. I first saw Lily in a scuzzy gay bar in West London in the late 80s and laughed ’til I hurt, so it’s an honour indeed to bring his story and the colourful escapades of the blonde bombsite herself to life.

Advertisement

“This is one of those few shows that I’m involved in where I can go ‘You need to come. It’s really good’… because the zinging one-liners are all his.”

Fremantle Media/Shutterstock

“It’s so sad he’s not here to see it, but hopefully this will be a fitting testament to everything he achieved, and a cracking night out full of humour and heart,” he added.

Savage will premiere at Leicester’s Curve theatre in February 2027, before touring the UK and arriving in London’s West End.

Source link

The Court of Appeal has ruled in favour of home secretary Shabana Mahmood’s appeal against the High Court’s ruling that the ‘terrorism’ ban on Palestine Action was unlawful. The appeals court decided that the ban was a proportionate infringement on UK human rights and did not exceed the government’s powers.

Palestine Action

The judge reading out the decision based this judgment on the home secretary being better placed than the courts to decide what was needed – an anti-judicial coup carried out by judges, effectively. The interference of pro-Israel groups in the decision to ban the direct action group was ignored. The judge also denied that Palestine Action is comparable to the suffragettes because it used secrecy and carried out serious damage.

The suffragettes threw bombs and sent letter bombs. The dismissal of the point that the suffragettes used worse tactics and are now lauded goes a long way to illustrating today’s judgement.

Palestine Action remains a banned organisation. UK free speech and protest rights have been slashed by a corrupt government to protect Israel and the appeal court has, unsurprisingly, colluded in it.

Featured image via Getty/Carl Court

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Source link

Ryan Bridge, the co-founder of Operation Raise the Colours, has been arested and bailed on suspicion of assault.

Bridge, alongside hundreds of others, attended a ‘Stop the Boats’ protest in Brighton on Saturday 14 June where there were counter-protestors supporting Carnival Against Fascism.

Birmingham Live shared a statement from Sussex Police confirming:

A 44-year-old man from Worcestershire was arrested on suspicion of common assault. He has been conditionally bailed until 14 July.

The newspaper also published that Ryan Bridge had shared he was arrested in a video circulating online. In it, he’s wearing a t-shirt with blood on it.

Speaking on the event last weekend, chief superintendent, Adam Hays, said:

Over 4,000 people gathered today to protest in Brighton City Centre.

We understand that there was some disruption because of this, however, we had a large policing presence because of this and worked with partners to keep everyone safe.

Public order policing is complex, and while we understand this can be frustrating, we balance the rights of all protest groups and the wider community.

We have made a number of arrests today ranging from public order offences to assaults on emergency workers.

Advertisement

Featured image via Sussex Police

By Willem Moore

Source link

Steven Spielberg has clarified his stance on AI in cinema after Emily Blunt′ recent comments about their new film, Disclosure Day.

In Spielberg’s new sci-fi blockbuster, Emily plays a local weatherwoman who begins speaking in an unusual, clicking alien language mid-broadcast, for reasons that become apparent over the course of the film.

During a recent interview with Entertainment Weekly, the British star opened up about the origins of these noises, claiming that Spielberg had told her: “You know, we could do it with AI, or you could do it.”

“I was like, ‘I feel confident I can make some weird noises’,” she then quipped.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, she also revealed to Hot Ones host Sean Evans that AI was something she was “a bit terrified of” when it was apparently presented to her as an option for her Disclosure Day character’s alien language.

Since then, Spielberg sat down with ITV News to discuss the film, during which Emily’s comments about him supposedly offering to create these sounds with generative AI were brought up.

“I would never have used AI,” he insisted. “I would have gone the old-fashioned way, you get a dolphin, an elephant, you slow it down, you speed it up, you play it backwards.”

He added that his Oscar-winning sound designer, Gary Rydstrom, would have found an organic way to make the sounds had Emily not been able to do them herself.

Spielberg has put his foot down on using generative AI during the filmmaking process in the past.

Advertisement

“I’m not willing to substitute, because I don’t really believe in sentience,” he said on the IMO podcast in March. “I don’t believe there is any substitute for the soul. I don’t think that is an algorithm that is inventible.”

He claimed: “Use AI as a tool, but do not use AI as the final word on anything creative. That’s where I draw the line.”

Explaining how she settled on the sounds that eventually made it into Disclosure Day, she told Entertainment Weekly that she had sent the iconic filmmaker voice notes of herself “clicking, humming, doing weird Barry White low singing mixed with clicking mixed with Morse code sounds”.

“I just tried everything,” she added. “We sort of threw the kitchen sink at it, and I think he wanted it to sound mathematical and not too terrifying.”

Advertisement

The Devil Wears Prada actor shared that the final version audiences hear in Disclosure Day is a mix of layered noises she recorded in a sound booth.

Emily also expanded on Hot Ones about how she and the sound team for Disclosure Day ultimately created the chilling sounds that get broadcast across America in the film without AI.

She explained that the sound engineer had one microphone by her mouth and another by her throat to “capture it in a really weird way”.

“And then the sound designer went away and created that weird sound,” she continued. “Even kind of leading up to that moment where she starts speaking in this non-human language, it’s a four-minute oner that we shot that leads up to that moment where she’s gradually sort of disintegrating.”

Advertisement

Disclosure Day is out now in cinemas.

Source link

Source link

PM Keir Starmer has announced a social media ban for under-16s which will prevent access to apps like Snapchat, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Facebook, and X.

Taking inspiration from Australia, the UK will introduce a similar ban to take effect from Spring 2027. However, the government will go further by restricting livestream and ‘stranger communication’ for children including on gaming sites.

In his address, Starmer stated:

All I’ve ever wanted for my own children, hand on heart, is for them to be happy and for them to be safe, I think that’s what any parent wants.

BREAKING: Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has announced a social media ban for under-16s.

Live updates: https://t.co/Jxi67uC5Qk pic.twitter.com/VnIFMyjAhs

— Sky News (@SkyNews) June 15, 2026

However, this follows a pretty clear refusal from tech giants to make platforms safe and age appropriate. Instead, Starmer is simply kicking a dangerous can up the hill that will then hit young people further down the line.

After all, the problem is unregulated, unyielding tech companies and unfettered capitalism – and the government appears to have chosen to go after an easier target in young people instead of holding billionaires accountable.

Starmer: ‘social media is making children unhappy’

Starmer has insisted the ban is essential as the use of social media is making children miserable. As the PM says, it has increased access for bullies and intimidating behaviour, whilst also making it easier for strangers to contact young people through gaming platforms and other social media.

Therefore, some parents have welcomed the ban, with the bereaved mother of Esther Ghey stating:

I’m so glad now that this announcement has been made.

Adding:

Another thing that I’m really happy about it the government is investing in after-school clubs, because we can’t just take things away from children.

At a time when many children have too few opportunities to build friendships and develop social skills, increased funding for after-school clubs is a welcome development. Giving young people more places to connect, learn and belong can only be a good thing.

Nonetheless, this policy wouldn’t be necessary if we didn’t have capitalistic, self-interested tech bros profiting from the misery which social media fosters and breeds.

Isaac, a young boy from Wythenshaw who will be affected by the ban, seems to get it far more than the corrupted politicians in Westminster, telling the BBC:

Annoyed and disappointed in this decision, because they’re not trying to make it better or safer – instead they are gonna wipe it out completely.

I think there should be more restriction and parental guidance on the accounts, but not a ban.

Advertisement

Risky strategy

Meanwhile, Jim Gamble, founding chief exec of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Center, believes the policy won’t even work and will just push children to “darker corners” of the internet:

Many (Australians) bypassed restrictions using virtual private networks. They circumvented them by submitting fake IDs or altering their appearance to trick AI (artificial intelligence) age estimation.

.. If you actually look at the statistics, it’s a double-edged sword because the internet does as much good.

For isolated, alienated children, for children with neurodiversity, with children exploring different aspects of their young lives, it’s a space and place where they can build positive networks.

But this ban is merely addressing a symptom of a far greater threat facing our society and going further, it may even provide a backdoor for pushing through digital IDs on the general public.

So, what appears to be a protection measure for young people could in practice increase the access to private data for tech companies through age verification checks which are reported to include bank checks and email surveillance. 

Fourth, other age checks cited like bank checks and email surveillance are literally insane

Far from “reining in Big Tech”, this is a gift to them – a huge transfer of power and data from the public to the tech companies, wrapped in child safety branding.

— Silkie Carlo (@silkiecarlo) June 14, 2026

Advertisement

Labour chooses to ban the children, not the business model

Don’t get me wrong: stronger restrictions on social media use by young people have become increasingly necessary given how toxic, abusive, and harmful many platforms have proven to be. But the repeated failure of tech companies to address these problems meaningfully means the dangers will not simply disappear because a ban is introduced.

Harmful content, disinformation, and online radicalisation will continue to exist, and young people will often find ways around restrictions. It is important to note, this policy has not been successful in Australia – a whopping 70% of parents in Australia have reported that their children are still on banned platforms – which hardly suggests this will have any impact on children’s safety.

More importantly, we have already seen how algorithms amplify division, anger, and extremism across the UK, influencing adults as well as children. The challenge is therefore not just who uses social media, but how these platforms are designed, regulated, and incentivised. If we fail to address the business models that reward outrage and hate, we risk treating the symptoms while leaving the underlying causes untouched.

After all, we’ve seen these platforms profit from some of the most harmful and abusive content imaginable, and when every click is a source of revenue, even material that exploits children can become part of the business model.

That isn’t just a moderation failure. It’s the predictable and futile result of putting obscene profit ahead of public safety.

Even more concerning is the fact that this ban will drive users ‘underground’ which will work to reduce transparency for adults. If children respond to social media bans with VPN workarounds, the result may be the worst of both worlds: the risks remain, while parental oversight and awareness vanish.

Rather than treating children as the problem, we should be forcing tech giants to make their platforms safer. If we change the business model, introduce real safeguards, the internet becomes safer for everyone – not just young people.

What are they really after?

There is every chance this amounts to little more than virtue-signalling: a tokenistic gesture to “protect children” while changing sweet naff all about the very systems causing great harm in the first place.

After all, this crisis should really be a watershed moment to finally confront the cynical, corrosive influence that social media platforms and their billionaire owners exert over society. Tackling the business models, algorithms, and incentives that drive abuse would create a safer environment not just for children, but for adults too.

Nevertheless, that is not what the government is pursuing. Instead, critics have argued that this is a manipulative way of pushing through digital ID across the country, ramping up digital surveillance of British citizens and reducing our right to privacy.

In practice, horrifyingly, this could actually wind up handing the already immensely powerful tech giants more access and control over our data, creating an even more oppressive environment for adults – whilst leaving young people unprepared for the fallout when they ‘regain access’.

Featured image via Getty/Carlos Jasso

By Maddison Wheeldon

Source link

Germany’s opening match at the 2026 World Cup was not merely a resounding 7-1 victory over Curaçao; it turned into a historic night that rewrote a number of major records in World Cup history.

Thanks to the seven goals the ‘Mannschaft’ rained down on their opponents, Germany has taken the top spot as the highest-scoring team in World Cup history. It overtakes Brazil, who had held that record for many years.

According to FIFA’s latest statistics, before the start of the current tournament, Brazil topped the all-time list with 237 goals, compared to Germany’s 232.

However, Brazil’s 1-1 draw with Morocco added just one more goal to the Samba team’s tally, bringing their total to 238. However, Germany jumped from 232 to 239 goals following their win against Curaçao.

Germany is now the highest-scoring team in World Cup history.

Germany’s Bayern Munich scoop the lead 

Germany’s successes did not stop at the national team.

According to Opta, Bayern Munich took sole possession of the top spot among clubs with the most goals scored at the World Cup by their players, taking its tally to 80 goals.

Real Madrid came second with 79 goals, after the two clubs had been trading the top spot in recent years.

Bayern’s goals in the first World Cup round gave the Bavarian giants a one-goal lead.

Not the biggest but the most symbolic

Aside from the goal tally, the 7-1 result brought to the fore, Germany’s 7-1 victory over Brazil at the 2014 World Cup.

Despite the hype of its 2026 match, that was not Germany’s biggest World Cup win.

That record is still held by its the 8-0 thrashing of Saudi Arabia at the 2002 World Cup, which remains Germany’s biggest win in the tournament’s history.

However, what makes the victory against Curaçao so special is that it achieved more than one historic feat in a single night.

• It became the highest-scoring national team in World Cup history
• Saw Bayern Munich overtake Real Madrid in the club rankings
• Re-enacted the 7-1 scoreline associated with one of the most famous World Cup matches

Germany looks set to add to its historic record, whilst Brazil will aim to reclaim the title it lost by a single goal. I hope this showdown continues until the final stages of the tournament.

Featured image via Alexander Hassenstein/Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

4 min read36 min

If we get these reforms right, the impact could be transformational.

Advertisement

The NHS is at its best when you don’t notice the gaps. When you have no sense of delay, no concerns you’ve been misunderstood, misdirected or forgotten.

When a clinician already knows your history, when you don’t have to repeat the same story over and over again, and when test results, medications and treatment plans are available, whenever and wherever you receive care, that’s when you know the health system is working.

Yet for too many patients, that still isn’t the reality.

Despite huge advances in technology over recent decades, records sit in different systems, medical teams do not always have access to the information they need, and patients are left carrying the unreasonable burden of joining the dots themselves.

Advertisement

I know personally how important joined-up care can be.

Eighteen years ago, the NHS came to my rescue when I was diagnosed with a serious and rare neurological condition that threatened my ability to run, write and speak. Thanks to the extraordinary care I received from my consultant and his team at the National Hospital for Neurology and Neurosurgery in Queen Square, I am now symptom-free.

My experiences of multi-disciplinary care and support left me with immense gratitude for our health service. It also reinforced a simple truth: the best care depends on clinicians having the fullest possible understanding of the person in front of them.

Advertisement

That is why the Health Bill, recently introduced to Parliament, provides for a Single Patient Record. All your medical records in one place.

At its heart, the Single Patient Record is not about technology. It is about patients and the power of clinicians to collaborate and deliver seamless care.

It will facilitate health and care information being brought together so that authorised professionals involved in a person’s care have access to all the information they need, when they need it. Rather than replacing existing GP or hospital records, it will connect them, helping create a clearer and more complete picture of a patient’s needs.

The benefits for patients are enormous.

Advertisement

For a pregnant woman attending appointments across different services, it could mean midwives and clinicians having immediate access to relevant medical history, reducing duplication, and supporting safer decisions.

For a frail older person living with long-term conditions, it could mean GPs, hospitals, community teams and social care services working from the same information, spotting problems earlier and intervening before a crisis develops.

The benefits for clinicians are just as significant.

Today, doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals often have to waste considerable, precious time locating information that already exists elsewhere.

Advertisement

By bringing this information together, the Single Patient Record is expected to save around 500,000 hours of doctors’ time each year. Estimates suggest the programme could also help prevent up to 20,000 A&E attendances and 6,000 hospital admissions annually by supporting earlier intervention and better coordinated care.

Of course, none of this can happen without public confidence. People are right to expect their medical information to be protected.

That is why strong safeguards, rigorous cybersecurity and strict controls over access to patient information are fundamental to the design of the Single Patient Record. 

The Single Patient Record will be delivered through contracts with multiple suppliers, with no single supplier dominating. Joining up data across the system. Patients will also have greater visibility of their own information through the NHS App, helping them play a more active role in managing their health.

Advertisement

If we get this right, patients will spend less time repeating their stories, clinicians will spend less time chasing information, and the NHS will be better equipped to provide the joined-up care people deserve.

This is not simply a technological upgrade; this is patient care reform for the generations.

 

James Murray is the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care

Advertisement

Source link

Source link