Right ahead of Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 4’s first beta, EA has made Battlefield 6 free for the same period, as it plugs a Top Gun crossover.

Last year, EA finally scored a win over Activision with Battlefield 6, which was both critically and commercially more successful than Call Of Duty: Black Ops 7, thanks to a combination of smart marketing, continued frustration with Call Of Duty as a whole, and Battlefield 6 simply being a better game.

However, it didn’t take long for the honeymoon period to end, as Battlefield 6 quickly lost favour with significant portions of its player base, prompting a sizable update last month ,that added naval battles and the classic Wake Island map to try to win back favour.

EA clearly still has a lot of confidence in Battlefield 6 though, since while it’s kicked off a free week-long trial to attract new players, it just so happens to coincide with the beta for Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 4.

It can often feel like publishers never bother to check the release schedules of their competitors (unless it’s GTA 6), but there’s no way this isn’t a deliberate effort by EA to undercut Activision’s plans, and keep Call of Duty on a downward trajectory.

This isn’t even the first time it’s done something like this, as Battlefield 6 was made temporarily free to play shortly after the launch of Black Ops 7.

The free trial also arrives as EA adds a Top Gun crossover to Battlefield 6, which consists of cosmetics and character skins based on three of the characters from Top Gun: Maverick – Rooster (Miles Teller), Bob (Lewis Pullman), and Warlock (Charles Parnell) – who are all voiced by their original actors (Tom Cruise’s character of Maverick is notably absent).

If you’re at all interested, the trial runs from today until next Tuesday, on August 25 across consoles and PC, and can be accessed through Battlefield Redsec, the separate free-to-play battle royale mode.

It includes access to the two newest maps – Wake Island and Tsuru Reef – as well as five multiplayer modes for Battlefield 6 and the Battlefield Redsec exclusive Top Gun themed mode, Carrier Strike.

The Modern Warfare 4 beta taking place this weekend is only for those who’ve already pre-ordered the game and runs from Friday, August 21 to Tuesday, August 25.

While there’s nothing stopping you from double dipping and trying both games, the Call Of Duty beta isn’t free to access, at least not until the following weekend from August 28 to September 1. That second beta will also be available on Nintendo Switch 2, unlike the first one.

Activision also appears desperate to encourage people into playing the Modern Warfare 4 beta, since it’s stacked with a lot of multiplayer modes and, for the first time ever, includes a mission from the single-player campaign.

Modern Warfare 4 is facing a lot of pressure to make up for Black Ops 7’s failings, but things aren’t rosy for Battlefield 6 either.

Despite EA acknowledging that Battlefield 6 met ‘all milestones for a high quality launch,’ employees across all four of the game’s development studios were laid off, while CEO Andrew Wilson received a very sizable bonus.

There’s also the matter of EA’s recent acquisition by a group of private investors, which includes Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, and has saddled the company with $20 bill of debt – that it intends to recoup with ‘organisational efficiencies.’

This can only mean even more layoffs and is expected to see EA further prioritise its most financially lucrative games, such as Battlefield 6 and the upcoming EA Sports FC 27.

Email gamecentral@metro.co.uk, leave a comment below, follow us on Twitter.

To submit Inbox letters and Reader’s Features more easily, without the need to send an email, just use our Submit Stuff page here.

For more stories like this, check our Gaming page.

MORE: Star Wars: Galactic Racer preview and interview – the next best thing to F-Zero

MORE: Disastrous Star Citizen stream is the cringiest thing you’ll see today

MORE: Four days off to play GTA 6 used to convince US army soldiers to re-enlist

By KATHERINE LAWTON, SENIOR NEWS REPORTER

Published: 16:44 BST, 18 August 2026 | Updated: 17:19 BST, 18 August 2026

A huge emergency response is underway following reports of four people getting into difficulty in the water at a British seaside town. 

Sussex Police said emergency services were called to the scene near Shoreham Fort, West Sussex, this afternoon. 

Several ambulances from South East Coast Ambulance Service have been dealing with the incident, alongside coastguard helicopters and other search and rescue vehicles.

Road closures have been put in place near the scene while the casualties receive emergency first aid. 

Advertisement

A spokesperson from the RNLI said lifeboat crews were launched at around 2.50pm this afternoon. 

Two other lifeboats were also launched from the Brighton lifeboat station shortly after 3pm. 

Two air ambulances are standing by at Shoreham Lifeboat station to attend an incident this afternoon

Advertisement

Ambulances at the scene following reports of four people getting into difficulty in the water 

South East Coast Ambulance Service has a number of vehicles at the scene 

A large emergency response presence is in the area following reports of four people getting into difficulty in the water 

An ambulance spokesperson said: ‘South East Coast Ambulance Service is currently responding to reports of four people in need of medical attention after getting into difficulty in the water near Shoreham Harbour. 

Advertisement

‘We were called shortly after 3pm and have a number of ambulance resources at the scene. We have no further information to share at this time but will provide updates as soon as possible.’ 

The Coastguard said it ‘responded to an incident reported at Shoreham at about 2.45pm’. 

They added: ‘An HM Coastguard helicopter was sent as well as Littlehampton, Shoreham and Newhaven Coastguard Rescue Teams, and an RNLI lifeboat from Shoreham.’

A spokesman for Sussex Police said: ‘Emergency services are currently responding to reports of four people in difficulty in the water close to Shoreham Fort.

Advertisement

‘A section of the A259 in Shoreham has been closed as the incident remains ongoing, and we’re urging the public to stay clear of the area in the meantime.’

Tom Rutland, Labour MP for East Worthing and Shoreham, also made a similar request – posting on X: ‘Please stay clear of the area around Shoreham Fort and Kingston Beach as emergency services respond to reports of several people in difficulty in the water there.’

This is a breaking news story. More to follow.  

Michael O’Connor has cooked for high-profile guests like Hillary Clinton and Shania Twain

After more than 30 distinguished years in the culinary industry, celebrated Belfast chef Michael O’Connor is officially bringing the flavour and spirit of the famous The Barking Dog back to South Belfast’s BT9 district, joining the newly relaunched restaurant The Avenue Brasserie.

Michael will take the helm as Executive Head Chef at The Avenue Brasserie, located on Eglantine Avenue inside the newly redeveloped property, The Malone Hotel.

The launch follows a major multi-million-pound transformation of the historic South Belfast destination into a luxury boutique spot recently named among the UK’s top new hotel openings.

Michael originally opened The Barking Dog in 2008, running for 15 successful years in the heart of the community. The restaurant was built on consistent, exceptional London-and-gastropub-style dining focused on top-tier local produce.

Over the years, his cooking attracted high-profile guests, including Hillary Clinton, Shania Twain, and members of the Game of Thrones cast. Michael spent extensive time in a variety of other high-end, well-known restaurants and hotels in Belfast, Michael is ready to reignite South Belfast.

Speaking on his return to BT9 and new role, Michael O’Connor said: “I am absolutely thrilled to be bringing the heart and soul of what we achieved at The Barking Dog to The Avenue Brasserie. BT9 has a special energy, and this venue is the perfect home for my next chapter. I’m excited to join the Macklin family and the team at The Avenue Brasserie to bring top-tier local produce, crowd-pleasing small plates, and legendary comfort classics – cooked with the same passion that I always strive to bring to my dishes.”

Gareth Macklin, Director at The Malone Hotel, added: “This project marks the latest chapter in our ongoing journey of change and reimagination. Following our extensive refurbishment, bringing a chef of Michael’s calibre and local legend status into the kitchen at The Avenue Brasserie is a massive moment for us, for BT9, and for south Belfast hospitality scene as a whole.”

Michael’s 31-year career spans high-calibre international experience, including two years working under Marco Pierre White at London’s famed Mirabelle in Mayfair, and senior roles across top gastropubs in Chelsea and at The Gun in London’s Docklands.

His journey also took him to Sydney, Australia for two years, where he earned a prestigious Chef Hat in his first year.

The Avenue Brasserie is a relaxed neighbourhood spot focused on good food, welcoming service, and shared plates. Details on opening events will be posted on the Avenue Brasserie website in the coming weeks.

For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our What’s On newsletter here

​More than 150,000 people are registered users at libraries run and supported by North Yorkshire Council, but the authority has said it does not know how many users have been banned or how many fines have been paid.

​Last year, more than 99,000 individual item fines were issued with 22,423 borrowers linked to those fines, a Freedom of Information (FoI) request has revealed.

​The council – which operates libraries in towns including Harrogate, Scarborough, Malton, Skipton, Northallerton, and Selby – said the lack of information was due to the absence of “consistent storage of data to retrieve”.

​The authority added that there were a “range of banning types and procedures” which include temporary bans issued verbally by local branches and which are recorded only on customer accounts.

​An FoI request submitted by the Local Democracy Reporting Service (LDRS) also sought to establish how many library fines were issued and to how many people since 2021.

​However, the council said it did not have information for 2021-2024 after changing its Library Management System (LMS) in March 2025, and was “unable to access the previous system for data, and information requested is not recorded anywhere prior to loss of system”.

Bedale Community Library. Photo: NYC.

​Between March 19, 2025 and December 31, 2025, the council said it had receipts linked to 40,566 fines, which “may not include all fines paid” and added that it did not hold information on fines paid.

​The changes to the LMS also meant that the authority was unable to say how many of the issued fines had been paid and how much they were worth. Fines for the late return of items are capped at £8.20 for adults.

​Hazel Smith, North Yorkshire Council’s head of library services, said: “Our library service is hugely valued by the tens of thousands of people of all ages who use it every year. It’s very positive that our library visitor numbers are growing, and we run frequent membership initiatives to encourage people to use our services.

​“In recent years, this has included signing up babies to the library as part of the birth registration process, as well as encouraging schoolchildren to become members through a programme of class visits.”

​The number of registered library users in 2021 was 53,631; five years later in 2026, this had increased to 155,112, the FoI request revealed.

​Speaking to the LDRS, she added: “While some library members have outstanding fines, we do as much as possible to try and help them to avoid having to pay charges. We introduced a reminder system two years ago that notifies borrowers before items become overdue. Additional reminders are also sent when items are overdue, encouraging their prompt return. All notifications include guidance on how to renew items.

​“We are one of a small number of local authorities that still charge library fines. Fines collected at the council’s 11 main libraries contribute directly to the library service budget.

​“The county’s 31 community-managed libraries also collect fines, with that income retained locally by each of those libraries to help support their day-to-day running costs.”

​In 2023, Explore York Libraries and Archives announced it would no longer charge late fees or fines for items that were returned after they were due back, as well as cancelling historic charges.

​The organisation was originally part of the City of York Council but is now an independent organisation that operates 15 libraries, including York Explore.

​“We hope removing charges will help remove barriers that may put people off using our libraries. We know that charges are more likely to impact vulnerable people, including those on lower incomes, and we are delighted to offer a little extra help in tough times,” it said at the time.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal district judge said Tuesday that paint tests on a 19th-century historic landmark building next to the White House can go ahead, advancing President Donald Trump’s plans to add a new coat of white paint to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, for now.

Trump has suggested the massive building be painted as part of his push to remake and beautify the nation’s capital. Planners said the paint job would cost at least $7.5 million.

The proposal to paint the building has alarmed preservationists, architects, historians and others who argue that granite is not meant to be painted and that paint would trap moisture and degrade the stone.

U.S. District Judge Dabney L. Friedrich said plaintiffs in an ongoing case had not shown that minimal tests planned for the historic building would cause irreparable harm if those tests go ahead.

The plaintiffs, which include cultural preservationist groups, had sought a restraining order and a temporary injunction to stop the Trump administration from conducting tests and other preparatory work.

At issue was whether that work would get ahead of a larger question before the court over whether the General Services Administration could delegate its authority for such a project to the Executive Office.

“The plaintiffs’ motion rises and falls on irreparable harm,” Friedrich said from the bench. The test areas would include about 8 square feet of the building’s massive exterior and several panels that can’t be seen by the public, she said.

Friedrich said that while she was allowing that test to move ahead, she would not hesitate to step in and rule if the administration moved beyond the limited testing. She asked the parties to provide a status report by next Tuesday and ordered regular reports following that.

Gregory Werkheiser, a lawyer with Cultural Heritage Partners and one of the plaintiffs, said that while he and others challenging the painting plan were disappointed, “the reasons we brought this case are untouched by today’s decision.”

The larger issue, he said, is whether “the president has taken power illegally from the GSA and put it in his office in terms of this project and the implications of that. If that holds true for historic properties around the country, that could be devastating.”

The Australian state of Victoria was due to enforce a legal right to work from home starting September 2026. But just weeks away from its implementation, the new premier, Ben Carroll, has announced a year’s delay in response to fierce business opposition.

Thousands of miles away, in Portugal, parents of young children already have a legal right to work from home without needing their employers’ approval.

All of these developments raise the question: should workers be given a legal right to work from home?

There is an argument that firms should have full discretion over their employees’ working arrangements, including whether they can work remotely.

However, by giving bosses complete control over such decisions, we are in danger of affirming the importance of profitability over wellbeing and ignoring the needs of working parents.

Workers’ wellbeing

One justification for taking remote work policy out of bosses’ hands is to boost workers’ wellbeing. There are plenty of reasons why you might want to work remotely. Maybe you want to avoid a long, sweaty and costly commute. Maybe you like to go on a jog during your lunchbreak. Maybe you need to pick up your child from school. When bosses have full control over their remote work policy, your preferences can be treated as irrelevant to that decision.

Sceptics might push back that if bosses were to bend to workers’ will, this would harm productivity. The pursuit of profit is arguably the best way to guarantee productivity growth. This expands the economic pie, from which we all benefit; a rising tide lifts all boats.

The question of whether remote work is bad for productivity is hotly contested. But let’s suppose that it is. Even so, productivity isn’t the only thing that we care about, surely. Presumably, we also care about people’s wellbeing. And since many people’s wellbeing would be improved by having the option to work remotely, it seems odd to give this consideration no weight.

This is especially so, given that bosses can decide where their employees work based on fairly arbitrary reasons. For example, a recent study found that “narcissistic leaders” often demand their workers return to the office simply to boost their ego.

A cynic might nevertheless protest that workers can always leave: if your firm doesn’t let you work remotely, you can join another one that does.

But how easy is it to leave, really? Moving jobs often requires changing location, retraining, and so on – and landing a new job is no easy feat. In the meantime, a right to work from home would protect workers from being subject to their bosses’ whims.

A further reason to enshrine a right to work from home is to promote gender equality. When women have children, they often move to lower-paid part-time work or drop out of the labour force altogether. This is a major driver of the gender pay gap and can leave women dangerously dependent on their partners for financial support.

Working from home reduces the gender pay gap by enabling mothers in remote-compatible jobs to keep their careers alongside doing the school run. While this primarily helps women with office jobs, it’s still better than nothing.

That said, social scientists have warned that having the option to work from home can harm women by creating a new glass ceiling: mothers self-select into remote work, and remote workers get promoted less. On this basis, the economist Nicholas Bloom has argued that employers should not give their employees any say over which days they work from home.

But this argument rests on a mistake. It is true that the option to work from home may result in a two track trajectory where women are disproportionately set back in their careers. But the likely alternative, where there is no option to work from home, is even worse for these same women.

Another concern is that if women choose to work from home, they could end up doing more housework and childcare. But the solution is not to deny people the option to work remotely, but instead to change outdated gender norms.

Innovative policies are also available: in Portugal, under the work from home policy, parents of young children in remote-compatible jobs must take it in turns to work remotely, so it isn’t always the mother who stays home.

Bosses are clawing workers back with return-to-office mandates. Many don’t care about promoting workers’ wellbeing and gender equality – unless, of course, it impacts their bottom line.

But society should care. And these ideals are better served by at least partially taking the choice out of employers’ hands.

We stand at a fork in the road. Should we continue to let firms roll back the option to work from home, or should governments step in? One thing’s for sure: the case for letting bosses decide isn’t as straightforward as it may initially seem.

By WILL POTTER, US SENIOR NEWS REPORTER

Published: 16:39 BST, 18 August 2026 | Updated: 16:54 BST, 18 August 2026

Hayden Panettiere’s on-off boyfriend Brian Hickerson and his brother were in the South Carolina apartment where the actress suffered a suspected fatal heart attack on Sunday, police say. 

In a newly released report from the Greenville Police Department, officers said Hickerson and his brother Zach were at the scene when the Heroes star tragically died. 

An officer at the scene said Zach was ‘very emotional’, but said Brian did not show any emotion as EMS declared his 36-year-old partner dead. 

Brian Hickerson allegedly then showed police a ‘bag of medication’ that Panettiere had been taking at the time of her death. 

Advertisement

The Greenville County Coroner’s Office has said Panettiere’s cause of death remains under investigation, however audio of the 911 call from her apartment showed a dispatcher described it as a ‘cardiac arrest.’ 

A dispatcher could be heard in the audio saying that Panettiere had suffered a suspected overdose, and sources told TMZ that Narcan – a nasal medication used to treat an opioid overdose – was also found on a mattress at the property. 

An autopsy report completed on Monday found ‘no signs of trauma were discovered that would have contributed to the death.’ 

Panettiere first began dating Hickerson in 2018, however their on-off relationship became tumultuous as he was arrested several times on domestic violence charges. 

Advertisement

Hayden Panettiere’s on-off boyfriend Brian Hickerson and his brother were in the South Carolina apartment where the actress suffered a fatal heart attack on Sunday, police say

Panettiere first began dating Hickerson in 2018, however their on-off relationship became tumultuous as he was arrested several times on domestic violence charges

The Heroes star’s on-off boyfriend Brian Hickerson was in the apartment where she died alongside his brother Zach (seen together)

Advertisement

The man also threatened to ‘smash’ the head in of another woman

A man who threatened to burn his mum’s house down after he “acted out in the heat of the moment” has been handed a suspended sentence. Reece McKay, 27 and of no fixed abode, appeared at Huntingdon Law Courts to face several charges on Tuesday (August 18).

The charges included threatening to burn down his mother’s house in Peterborough on June 6, 2026, as well as assaulting his mother on the same date. He also faced charges for stealing milk bottles from a woman in Peterborough on June 25 and threatening to “smash her head in” through a public communication network.

Prosecutor James Quelch told the court that McKay had left one of his victims “very shaky”. Oliver Barrett, for the defence, told the court that when McKay was first questioned by police after threatening to burn down his mother’s house, he was “very erratic and very volatile”.

However, the defence said McKay found the situation “difficult to talk about”. Mr Barrett said McKay had moved from his home address in Eastern Avenue, Peterborough, where he lived with his mum, and he tried to live with a friend, but this didn’t work out.

He then tried to move back in with his mum, but she would “not let him live in the house and he lived in a tent outside,” said Mr Barrett. The court heard that McKay had to “ask permission” to shower and use the toilet inside the house.

Mr Barrett said McKay felt “belittled” by this. The situation then led to an argument with his mum and he “acted out in the heat of the moment”. McKay had been remanded in custody since June 29.

Mr Barrett told the court that prison was a “shock to the system” for McKay. The court also heard that McKay was a man of “previous good character”.

McKay also faced a charge of being in possession of bladed article in a public place, namely a meat cleaver, on June 28 in an area of Peterborough. Mr Barrett asked the court to consider McKay’s guilty plea for this charge.

The two other charges were for possession of a Class A drug and possession of a Class B drug. McKay also pleaded guilty to these charges.

For the possession of the meat cleaver, Judge Mr Riddington JP handed McKay a 12 month prison sentence, suspended for 24 months. He was also required to undertake 40 days of rehabilitation activities. He was then handed a nine-week prison sentence for the threat to property, to run concurrent with the custodial time he had already served.

McKay was also asked to pay £50 compensation following the assault on his mother, and £100 in compensation to the woman who he stole milk bottles from. He was not ordered to pay any costs or victim surcharges.

A major incident is unfolding in Shoreham, with emergency services at the scene.

Coastguard helicopters and ambulances have been sighted in the coastal town in West Sussex.

The RNLI said lifeboat crews were launched from Shoreham at about 2.50pm on Tuesday afternoon. The exact nature of the incident remains unclear.

Two other lifeboats were also launched from the Brighton lifeboat station shortly after 3pm.

Television network ABC and its parent company The Walt Disney Company have filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Communications Commission, accusing Donald Trump’s administration of launching a “retaliatory campaign” against the network over its news coverage and programming.

Tuesday’s federal lawsuitaccuses the FCC of escalating the administration’s threats to the network with “express demands” that ABC be stripped of its broadcast licenses, which pose an “existential threat” to the network and media outlets.

The lawsuit alsochallenges the FCC’s decision to review broadcast licenses for eight ABC-owned stations after late-night host Jimmy Kimmel’s comments about the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk.

Those licenses were not set to expire until 2028 at the earliest, and the FCC had not required an early review in more than 50 years, according to the lawsuit. Instead, the administration has weaponized those threats to pressure and control what the network covers by “openly coercing ABC into changing its programming,” lawyers argued.

ABC also argues that Trump’s repeated calls to revoke the network’s licenses as well as actions and comments from FCC Chairman Brendan Carr have “left little doubt” that the administration’s goal is to extract “speech-related concessions” from the network and other media outlets.

“Government censorship is deeply un-American,” the lawsuit states. “Again and again, the administration has attacked ABC’s speech — the stories its journalists report and the viewpoints its network programs air.”

The suit specifically cites Carr’s comments about Kimmel.

On September 15, Kimmel said on his show: “We hit some new lows over the weekend, with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and everything they can to score political points from it.”

After his remarks, Carr criticized the host and warned ABC it could “take action” against Kimmel or face “additional work” from the FCC.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said at the time. “These companies can find ways to change conduct, to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Two days later, he was suspended.

Jimmy Kimmel Live! was suspended from the network from September 17 through September 22. Trump celebrated on Truth Social, calling it “Great News for America.”

The show returned to air after Disney said it had “thoughtful conversations” with the host.

ABC also says the FCC has targeted The View over its political content and treatment of candidates. The network argues the scrutiny has affected the show, noting that no political candidates have appeared on The View since the FCC began questioning its exemption from federal equal-opportunity rules following a February appearance from Democratic Texas state Sen. James Talarico.

The lawsuit also challenges an FCC investigation into ABC and Disney’s employment practices. ABC says the agency has made more than 600 requests for information and received more than 13,000 pages of documents while arguing that many of the requests exceed the FCC’s authority.

In a statement to The Independent, the FCC said that “all broadcasters have a legal obligation to operate in the public interest — even Disney.”

“The FCC has been examining claims that Disney engaged in illegal DEI discrimination for over a year,” according to the agency. “Disney is obviously very concerned about the FCC’s proceeding, as evidenced by their ongoing campaign of disinformation as well as their decision to ask a court to stop the FCC from further pursuing matters. The FCC will continue to follow the facts and law wherever they lead.”

The government’s actions have already had a chilling effect on its editorial decisions, ABC claims. The lawsuit points to the network’s handling of Trump’s July 16 address, saying it live-streamed the speech on ABC News Live rather than airing it live on the traditional network, a decision it says it ordinarily would not have made.

“The consequences of the administration’s campaign against free speech reach well beyond ABC,” lawyers for the networks wrote.

“If the administration gets its way, the message to every media company in the country will be unmistakable: tell only the stories the administration deems favorable, or face the coercive machinery of the federal government,” they added. “In such a world, the press could in no way be described as free.”

The lawsuit is urging the court to declare the accelerated license reviews unconstitutional and to block the federal government from threatening or coercing the network over its editorial decisions.

ABC and Disney are also asking for a temporary restraining order to halt the license renewal proceedings while the case moves forward.