Tablets and computers have become crucial school supplies for many students. But the same devices children use to read text, write essays, solve math problems or research history projects can also offer distractions in the form of games, social media and web browsing.

It can be a challenge for parents to figure out how to help children stay focused when using these devices. That can be especially complicated with school-managed devices, where parents may have limited control over settings and restrictions.

Helpful options can include using built-in tools and settings on devices, creating routines and introducing time-management techniques.

Here are some tips for parents to help children stay on task.

School-issued devices vs. personal devices

The strategies parents choose may depend on whether their children are working on their own devices or ones issued and managed by schools.

Parents have more control over personal tablets or computers, and are able to restrict pop-up notifications from programs, block websites or remove apps entirely. But school-issued devices often come with preloaded software and apps, and schools might manage those devices’ settings.

Parents can talk with school administrators about what controls and restrictions are already in place and what options may be available to families concerned about screen time. Parents can also ask whether assignments or homework can be completed on paper. But reducing students’ use of technology entirely can also involve tradeoffs, particularly when some tools offer individualized instruction or help students develop technology skills increasingly expected in the workforce.

In some cases, schools are giving parents additional tools to monitor and manage devices outside of school hours. Battle Ground Public Schools in Washington, for example, introduced overnight login restrictions last year for elementary and middle school students on school-issued Chromebooks, while also allowing exemptions for some families. The restrictions were put in place as a result of parent concerns about device usage late at night and possible interruptions to sleep.

Make devices less distracting

Students can be distracted by notifications that pop up from apps, messages and other services. One simple way to quiet those interruptions is to put up a digital Do Not Disturb sign.

Apple devices, including MacBooks, have focus modes that let users silence some or all notifications, calls and texts. Do Not Disturb is one of the preset modes, and users can also set up their own. On Android devices, a standalone Do Not Disturb feature does the same thing while a separate focus mode, available through Digital Wellbeing in settings, can pause selected apps and gray out their icons so they are harder to open.

Parents can also use built-in controls on Apple and Android devices to regulate screen time, either on their own phone or on a child’s linked device. Depending on the device and how it is set up, parents can restrict access to categories of apps, such as games or entertainment, or set a daily time limit for an individual app.

Google users can use Family Link to manage settings and screen-time limits on a child’s Android device or Chromebook. Apple users can manage these controls for a child’s iPhone, iPad or Mac through Family Sharing.

Keep in mind that screen-time limits aren’t foolproof. Depending on the device and settings, children may be able to request additional time or override some restrictions.

If a setting is unavailable, parents may need to check the school’s device policy or ask the school or district’s technology department what controls are available.

There’s also a decidedly low-tech solution to a distracting app: Delete it. If a particular app is consistently pulling a child away from schoolwork, removing it from the device eliminates the temptation to open it in the first place.

Help kids manage their attention

Device settings can remove some distractions, but experts say parents should also help children learn how to manage their own attention and technology use.

“Everybody has individual rhythms of attention,” said Gloria Mark, professor emerita at the University of California, Irvine, and author of “Attention Span.”

Experts recommend paying attention to when students are most alert, and scheduling work that requires the most concentration during those periods. Those rhythms can vary throughout the day and depend partly on whether someone naturally functions better earlier or later in the day. A quiet or dedicated workspace can also help, as can avoiding multiple devices at once, such as texting while reading or switching to another screen during homework.

To learn and retain information, Mark said, students need to actively engage with material and avoid frequent distractions: “So quick attention shifts are not conducive for learning and retaining information.”

“When people become more conscious of what they’re doing, they can also become more intentional. And when you’re more intentional, you can form a plan,” she said, adding that setting goals and rewarding accomplishment helps people focus on their tasks.

Children should also start homework as early as possible after taking time to decompress from the school day, experts say. Waiting until late at night can interfere with sleep.

The goal isn’t necessarily to eliminate every distraction or monitor every move, Mark said. Parents can instead help children understand when and how they focus best and develop strategies for staying with one task. They don’t need to “helicopter” their children, she said, but should help them understand the importance of focusing and staying with one thing.

___

AP Business Writer Kelvin Chan contributed to this report from London.

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Renowned contemporary artist Yayoi Kusama has died at age 97 in a Tokyo hospital. Kusama’s work was shown in museums around the world. Repetitive motifs in various shapes were her trademark, especially dots that danced on canvases or sparkled as balls or dots of light in her installations.

____

This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.

After five weeks of grueling testimony, the judge in Lindsay Clancy’s murder trial has allowed jurors to consider a manslaughter charge as they weigh the mother’s fate.

Clancy, 36, is accused of intentionally strangling her three children, Cora, five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, with exercise bands at their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023.

She then slit her wrists and cut her neck before jumping from a second-story window in a suicide attempt, leaving her paralyzed from the waist down.

With all the evidence now presented and the final witness off the stand, the judge held a charging conference Wednesday to determine which lesser homicide charges jurors can consider in their deliberations. 

Judge William Sullivan put manslaughter in jurors’ hands, giving them a potential lesser conviction instead of murder, which carries a life sentence.

Clancy’s parents walked out of court grinning from ear to ear, appearing visibly relieved after the proceeding. 

Three charges are now on the table: first-degree murder, second-degree murder and manslaughter – though it was not specified which form of manslaughter. Her defense had previously sought an involuntary manslaughter charge.

The charging conference marked a critical moment for Clancy, with her defense arguing that postpartum psychosis and her heavily medicated state should give jurors a path to a lesser conviction than murder. 

Clancy’s parents walked out of court Wednesday grinning from ear to ear, appearing visibly relieved after the proceeding

Clancy, 36, is accused of intentionally strangling her three children – Cora, 5, Dawson, 3, and eight-month-old Callan – with exercise bands at their Duxbury, Massachusetts, home in January 2023

Advertisement

Clancy slit her wrists and cut her neck before jumping from a second-story window in a suicide attempt, leaving her paralyzed from the waist down

Judge William Sullivan put manslaughter in jurors’ hands, giving them a potential lesser conviction instead of murder, which carries a life sentence 

The one key question still remains: Is Clancy criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children? 

Prosecutors, however, argue that she deliberately killed her children as part of a plan that involved sending her husband, Patrick Clancy, out on errands while she strangled the children in the basement before attempting to take her own life. 

The labor and delivery nurse has already admitted to killing her children but pleaded not guilty to murder by reason of insanity. Her goal is to be committed to a state mental health facility rather than sent to prison.

But the one key question still remains: Is she criminally responsible for the deaths of her three children?

‘It’s going to be basically an up or down vote from the jury on whether she had the mental capacity to understand that what she did was wrong and the mental capacity to avoid doing what she knew was wrong,’ David Rossman, director of the Criminal Law Clinical Program at Boston University, told CT Insider.

The stakes are enormous for Clancy, with each of the three charges carrying vastly different consequences. 

First-degree murder  

Prosecutors have pushed for jurors to be instructed on first-degree murder, the most serious option before the jury 

Prosecutors argue that she killed her children as part of a plan that involved sending her husband, Patrick Clancy, out on errands while she strangled the children in the basement 

If convicted on all three counts of first-degree murder, Clancy would face life behind bars without the possibility of parole

During opening statements, prosecutors argued that Clancy ‘deliberately and meticulously’ killed her children and ‘acted intentionally, rationally and swiftly to accomplish a very specific goal.’

Boiling the case down to its most fundamental question, they asked: ‘Did Clancy know what she was doing, and could she control her actions?’

Prosecutors have pushed for jurors to be instructed on first-degree murder, the most serious option before the jury.

If convicted on all three counts, Clancy would face the harshest possible punishment: life behind bars without the possibility of parole. 

In Massachusetts, prosecutors bear the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Clancy was criminally responsible at the time of the killings.

They can argue either that she was not suffering from a mental disease or defect, or that, despite any such condition, she understood her actions and could control her behavior. 

Under state law, first-degree murder requires prosecutors to prove deliberate premeditation, meaning the defendant formed an intent to kill and had time to think about it before carrying out the act. 

A killing can also constitute first-degree murder if it was committed with extreme atrocity or cruelty, or while the defendant was committing or attempting to commit certain felonies. 

But even if jurors conclude Clancy intentionally killed her children, they must still decide whether severe postpartum mental illness and depression left her not criminally responsible for the killings. 

If jurors reject her defense and find her guilty of first-degree murder, Clancy would automatically face life in prison with no possibility of parole. 

Second-degree murder  

Prosecutors have also pressed for second-degree murder to be put on the table

Second-degree murder does not necessarily mean a less intentional killing, but rather one that fails to meet the legal requirements for first degree

If jurors convict Clancy of second-degree murder, she would still face life behind bars, but unlike a first-degree conviction, she could eventually be eligible for parole 

Advertisement

Prosecutors have also pressed for second-degree murder to be put on the table – still a murder conviction, but less severe than first degree. 

That distinction is important: second-degree murder does not necessarily mean a less intentional killing, but rather one that fails to meet the legal requirements for first degree.

If jurors convict Clancy of second-degree murder, she would still face life behind bars, but unlike a first-degree conviction, she could eventually be eligible for parole. 

Another possible, but unlikely, outcome is that jurors could find Clancy not guilty of murder because prosecutors failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she killed the children.

Still, the defense has never disputed that the children died at Clancy’s hands. 

‘Since she’s conceded that she in fact committed the crime, in terms of the physical act that caused the death of the children, I don’t think the judge is going to instruct them on the basic not guilty verdict,’ Rossman said, according to CT Insider.

A conviction for either first- or second-degree murder would send Clancy to prison, though she would likely still have access to psychiatric and medical treatment behind bars. 

Involuntary manslaughter 

Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington sought to put involuntary manslaughter on the table for jurors, arguing Clancy was suffering from a ‘toxic soup’ of over-prescribed medications

Advertisement

Reddington argued that Clancy’s heavily medicated state amounted to involuntary intoxication, severely impairing her ability to control her behavior or act with deliberate clarity

If the judge puts the charge before the jury and Clancy is convicted, she could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in state prison

Clancy’s attorney Kevin Reddington opened the trial with a starkly different question: ‘The issue for consideration is what was going on in that woman’s mind?’

He sought to put involuntary manslaughter on the table for jurors, arguing Clancy was suffering from a ‘toxic soup’ of over-prescribed medications. 

Under Massachusetts’ 2026 model jury instructions, a lesser offense can be put before jurors when the evidence gives them a rational basis to reject the greater charge but still convict on the lesser one. 

As part of the proposed jury instructions, Reddington argued that Clancy’s heavily medicated state amounted to involuntary intoxication, severely impairing her ability to control her behavior or act with deliberate clarity.

The charge is substantially less serious than first-degree murder, but prosecutors have pushed back, arguing there is insufficient evidence to warrant giving jurors the option. 

Involuntary manslaughter applies when someone causes another person’s death without intending to kill them, but does so through sufficiently reckless or unlawful conduct.

Prosecutors generally must prove that reckless conduct by the defendant caused the death – a dramatically different standard from first-degree murder.

The distinction is crucial: first-degree murder requires proof of deliberate intent to kill, while involuntary manslaughter involves an unintended death caused by criminally reckless conduct.

If the judge puts the charge before the jury and Clancy is convicted, she could face a maximum sentence of 20 years in state prison. 

Voluntary manslaughter  

While it is unclear whether Reddington also sought voluntary manslaughter, it too is a lesser charge

Advertisement

A conviction could still land Clancy in state prison for up to 20 years under Massachusetts law

Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing, but one committed under circumstances that make the defendant less culpable than a murderer

While it is unclear whether Reddington also sought voluntary manslaughter, it too is a lesser charge – though vastly different from involuntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing, but one committed under circumstances that make the defendant less culpable than a murderer. 

A classic example is a killing in the heat of passion after a triggering act causes a sudden loss of self-control, though Massachusetts law sets its own specific requirements. 

It appears Reddington specifically sought an involuntary manslaughter instruction, tying the lesser charge to his argument that Clancy was severely intoxicated and over-medicated when her children died. 

Even so, a conviction could still land her in state prison for up to 20 years under Massachusetts law. 

Not criminally responsible  

Jurors could also find Clancy not criminally responsible, or ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ – the outcome her defense spent weeks fighting for 

Advertisement

A finding of not criminally responsible would not mean Clancy simply walks free and returns to life as usual

The finding means Clancy could potentially spend the rest of her life in a psychiatric hospital unless a judge determines she is no longer a danger to herself or others

Jurors could also find Clancy not criminally responsible, or ‘not guilty by reason of insanity’ – the outcome her defense has spent the past several weeks fighting for. 

In Massachusetts, a person is not criminally responsible if a ‘mental disease or defect’ left them unable to understand that their actions were wrong or unable to follow the law. 

But a finding of not criminally responsible would not mean Clancy simply walks free and returns to life as usual.

Under state law, Clancy could be hospitalized for up to 40 days for ‘observation and examination,’ with prosecutors or hospital officials then able to seek her involuntary commitment to a psychiatric facility. 

A judge could order Clancy confined to a psychiatric facility if she is found to be mentally ill and her release would ‘create a likelihood of serious harm,’ under state law. 

A psychiatric commitment typically begins with six months and can be renewed in one-year increments. 

That means Clancy could potentially spend the rest of her life in a psychiatric hospital unless a judge determines she is no longer a danger to herself or others. 

Since the killings, she has been confined within the clinical corridors of Tewksbury State Hospital, behind the doors of the pre-Civil War psychiatric facility. 

There, confined to a wheelchair, she receives round-the-clock care for her physical and mental health.

Hung jury

Should jurors fail to reach a unanimous verdict, Clancy could face a hung jury, leaving them deadlocked over whether she is guilty

Advertisement

Clancy’s panel includes 12 women and six men, but only 12 will ultimately decide her fate, with the remaining six serving as alternates and dismissed before deliberations begin. 

In Massachusetts, a jury verdict must be unanimous. 

Should jurors fail to reach a unanimous verdict, Clancy could face a hung jury, leaving them deadlocked over whether she is guilty.

If jurors become stuck, the judge can order them to continue deliberating and give additional instructions encouraging them to reconsider their positions and work toward a unanimous verdict. 

‘But if in the end they can’t, then it’s a mistrial and the prosecution would be free again to try with a different jury,’ Rossman told CT Insider. 

If you or someone you know needs help, please call or text the confidential 24/7 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline in the US on 988. There is also an online chat available at 988lifeline.org. 

SAUGATUCK, Mich. (AP) — When Democrats gathered this week in a West Michigan congressional district they’re trying to flip blue, they wanted to talk about the cost of living under President Donald Trump. But it didn’t take long for the conversation to turn to a controversy dividing their party.

One attendee chided U.S. Rep. Hillary Scholten for failing to support Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed.

“Your inflammatory rhetoric has nothing to do with creating a better economic future for the people of West Michigan, and everything to do with protecting the pipeline of our tax dollars to Israel,” the woman said.

The exchange captured a problem confronting Democrats as they head toward November. Party leaders believe concerns about the economy have given them an opening to win control of Congress, but internal divisions are making it harder to keep the focus there.

Nowhere is that tension more pronounced than Michigan, where Democrats are trying to regroup after a bruising Senate primary that El-Sayed won over U.S. Rep. Haley Stevens earlier this month. Disputes over Israel, antisemitism and El-Sayed’s association with controversial online commentator Hasan Piker have complicated the party’s effort to turn its attention to Republican Mike Rogers.

With the election fast approaching, Scholten and some other Democrats have withheld their support for El-Sayed for now.

“I think it’s up to the top of the ticket to unify the top of the ticket,” Scholten said Tuesday.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Democratic divisions haven’t disappeared

El-Sayed, who would be the country’s first Muslim senator, has denounced antisemitism while fiercely criticizing Israel for its military operations in Gaza.

Some members of his party have balked at his rhetoric.

Michigan state Rep. Jeremy Moss, the Democratic nominee for a House seat outside Detroit, has also withheld his support. In an interview with The Atlantic’s David Frum released Wednesday, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who is Jewish, said El-Sayed should not “make excuses” for domestic terrorism.

She was referencing a video statement he put out in March following an attack on Temple Israel synagogue outside Detroit when he said “hurt people hurt people.”

Some Democrats outside Michigan have gone further in criticizing El-Sayed.

Jeju Island is South Korea’s idyllic honeymoon destination.

Its dramatic volcanic landscapes, maze-like cave systems and stunning waterfalls offer so much for lovers to explore – but then the bodies started appearing.

In just three days, four people who had been reported missing on Jeju turned up dead, police said.

Authorities have not linked the deaths or found evidence of widespread foul play.

But the discoveries followed revelations that one police officer allegedly faked speaking to the missing person and prematurely closed their case.

Hundreds of people have vanished on the island, prompting questions about how many bodies are out there.

Jang Mi-ran’s boyfriend reported the 37-year-old missing after she vanished from Jeju City, early on May 13.

He was allegedly told by a police detective named Bu that she had told him she was leaving and didn’t want to see him anymore.

The case was quickly closed amid an attitude that no real crimes happen on the 700sq mile rocky island.

But investigators found no phone records supporting his claim that the officer had spoken to her – and nearby CCTV had been reportedly deleted.

The officer reported to the police emergency call center that Jang had refused to meet him and requested her location not be disclosed to the person who reported her missing.

More than 100 days passed, her weary parents launched another missing persons probe and Jang was found hanging from a palm tree less than a 10-minute walk from where she was last seen.

Officers told her family that she had killed herself based on the position and location of the body, but her boyfriend remains sceptical.

Jang’s boyfriend told local TV station Chosun he could not make sense of the discovery. ‘She said she found that place frightening whenever she passed by, so I can’t understand why she was found there,’ he said.

A Jeju local said the farm was densely planted with Canary Island date palms, which are covered in sharp, hard spines.

‘Even for a man, it would be nearly impossible to hang a rope from one of those trees – they don’t have branches like ordinary trees, and you’d get stabbed just getting close,’ they added.

Investigators found no phone records supporting Bu’s claim that he had spoken with Jang before closing her case, while nearby surveillance footage had already been deleted.

Police also allege Bu similarly closed the case of a man in his 60s, who was later found dead.

The same day Jang’s remains were discovered, another person previously reported missing was discovered dead near a valley in Aewol-eup.

The following day, a fisherman spotted the body of a man in his 70s floating in the waves loved by surfers.

Bu, whose full identity has not been released, was perp-walked to a court hearing where Jang’s family attacked him on live television.

He has denied any wrongdoing and insists he did contact the missing people.

But nearly 300 missing persons cases are to be reviewed with ten being examined for possible improper closure.

Whether the case truly involved no crime, as the police currently believe, but have said they will forensically reconstruct the scene to assess if there had been any third party involvement.

The suspected botched investigations and lack of official explanations has created a feeling of mystery over the volcanic island.

Now people are cancelling their trips to Jeju after unfounded claims a serial killer could be on the loose with online sleuths drawing up maps where the bodies are being found.

A recent Instagram post by Hong Hye-geol, a television personality who has lived on the island for seven years, read, ‘When I cycle around Jeju, I often come across deserted roads in villages without even venturing deep into Hallasan.

‘Stray just a little from a trail, and you can find yourself somewhere no one would hear you scream.

‘I wouldn’t recommend either women or men going around here alone, even in broad daylight or on paved roads.’

Jeju, one of South Korea’s most popular tourist destinations, drew 1.2 million foreign visitors in the first half of 2026, according to the Jeju Tourism Association.

More than ⁠70,000 such ​reports have been filed annually since 2022, though the vast majority were solved ​within 30 days, police say.

MORE: What’s going on with Trump and Kim Jong-un?

MORE: TikTok influencer, 26, takes her own life on livestream after ‘harassment’

EXCLUSIVE: New figures show the Home Office has not accommodated any asylum seekers in seven council areas, while Glasgow is home to over 3,000.

The Home Office is still not housing asylum seekers in major council areas, fuelling fears Glasgow is being used as a “dumping ground”.

Areas as vast as the Highlands are recorded as not housing anyone fleeing persecution as part of a national dispersal programme.

Private firm Mears is paid by the Home Office to find accommodation for asylum seekers across the UK.

Solutions include providing housing in the community and putting people up in hotels, the latter of which is being phased out.

Glasgow was for years the only council area north of the border to house asylum seekers, but dispersal has been extended amid concerns about the burden placed on one city.

However, official figures for the end of March show that no asylum seekers are housed in Argyll and Bute, Highland, Moray, Na h-Eileanan Siar, Orkney, East Renfrewshire and Shetland.

The number of asylum seekers in “dispered” (community] accommodation in Glasgow stood at 3,489 while for the Edinburgh council area it was 49 and in Dundee 38.

Dumfries and Galloway was listed as having no asylum seekers as part of the dispersal programme, but there is a hotel used in the region.

The numbers also show how many asylum seekers are housed by the Home Office for every 10,000 people in each council area.

In Glasgow, the figure was 57.3, while in the Capital it was 2.6 and 2.5 in Dundee.

The number per 10,000 people is fewer than 10 in over twenty nine local authority areas.

The figure for Scotland overall is 11.4, lower than the 25.9 in the North East of England, 24.7 in the North West and 18.8 in the West Midlands.

Critics have also said liberal SNP Government homeless laws have created additional pressures for Glasgow, which has seen a wave of racist protests.

The abolition of the ‘priority need’ test means male asylum seekers in Glasgow who become refugees can access homeless assistance in the city.

A row broke out earlier this year over plans to house up to 300 male asylum seekers at Cameron Barracks in Inverness, but after an outcry it was reported that the proposal was dropped.

Susan Aitken, the outgoing SNP leader of Glasgow council, said: “Full dispersal has been UK Government policy for a number of years now – but, in Scotland, there has been relatively little progress made on extending provision beyond Glasgow.

“The council has called on both governments to work with CoSLA to develop a national dispersal strategy, so that responsibility for asylum and refugee support is shared across the country.”

Scottish Labour MP Joani Reid, who is a member of Westminster’s Home Affairs committee, criticised the SNP Government: “Glasgow has a proud history of welcoming people fleeing persecution. Generosity towards those who need sanctuary is part of the city’s character.

“But the SNP are abusing that goodwill and Home Office attempts at getting to grips with the issue are too slow. These figures show Glasgow being used as a dumping ground, with more than 3,000 asylum seekers in the city while whole parts of Scotland take none.

“That is deeply unfair on Glasgow and reckless at a time when Reform is looking for grievances to exploit. Keep loading pressure onto the same communities and resentment will grow. The SNP are putting at risk the very tradition of welcome they are so quick to celebrate.

“Asylum seekers are being failed too. Many have fled war, persecution or serious trauma. They need to be housed responsibly, with access to proper support, rather than concentrated in communities already under pressure.

“Glasgow’s generosity should never have been treated as limitless. If we want to protect what makes the city proud, the responsibility has to be shared across Scotland.”

Advertisement

Tory MSP Meghan Gallacher said: “Scotland’s major cities are buckling under housing pressure, yet Glasgow is being left to shoulder a hugely disproportionate share of asylum accommodation.

“With more than 3,000 asylum seekers in dispersed accommodation in Glasgow, this uneven distribution is putting further strain on already stretched housing services.

“Years of SNP failure, from scrapping the local connection rule to removing priority need, have only made matters worse.

“The SNP must get a grip, ensure the pressure is shared fairly and put local people first.”

A spokesperson for Mears said: “Mears provides accommodation for asylum seekers in the majority of local authority areas across Scotland and works to ensure that dispersal is as fair and equitable as possible.

“We prioritise procuring suitable accommodation that meets Home Office contract requirements, including access to key public services and welfare support, along with considerations around value for money for the taxpayer, which does make procurement more complex in some rural or remote areas.”

SNP Equalities Minister Simita Kumar said: “The Scottish Government firmly believes the UK Government must deliver a more effective and humane asylum system that treats people fleeing conflict and persecution with dignity and respect.

“The Home Office is responsible for the provision of asylum accommodation. All local authorities in Scotland have committed to receiving and supporting people seeking asylum but decisions about asylum dispersal are made by the Home Office. This includes plans to reduce the number of people seeking asylum that are accommodated in Glasgow.

“Cost of living increases and successive UK Governments’ mismanagement of the asylum system are creating serious pressures for local authorities, especially Glasgow.”

By RICHARD MARSDEN and JOHN KELLY

Published: 17:26 BST, 26 August 2026 | Updated: 04:31 BST, 27 August 2026

A former girlfriend of soap actor David Kennedy escaped a prison sentence after a bizarre campaign of abuse against him.

Lindsay Cullen, 45, repeatedly threatened to ‘expose’ the star by forwarding sexual pictures and private messages to friends, colleagues and even a newspaper, a court heard.

She was already on bail for harassment when she committed even more offences which left former Hollyoaks and EastEnders actor Mr Kennedy, 62, fearing for his career if she went ahead with her threats.

Sarah McInerney, prosecuting, told Liverpool Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday afternoon that the actor and Cullen had been in an on-off relationship for several years.

Advertisement

Ms McInerney said: ‘She was jealous of other women in his life, people he worked with and knew, and that is why she threatened to expose sexual information about him.’

She said she made repeated phone calls and left voicemails for the actor including one that lasted 47 minutes and one day alone she rang him 61 times.

Ms McInerney added: ‘Many of them were drunken ramblings where she threatened to expose private messages and pictures.

‘The victim faced a barrage of abuse in which she said she would make his life hell while she also threatened to kill herself.

Advertisement

Lindsay Cullen, 45, left actor David Kennedy with ‘stress and anxiety’ about what she would do

David Kennedy pictured in character as Dirk Savage in soap Hollyoaks in 2014

‘Although he says he is not frightened of her physically she has left him suffering from stress and anxiety and living in fear of what she might do next.’

Advertisement

In a personal statement Mr Kennedy – who played the Hollyoaks character Dirk Savage between 2011 and 2018 and was not in court – said: ‘She has caused me unimaginable stress thinking my career was at risk because of her.

‘I need something in place that will ensure she will not be able to continue.’

Mr Kennedy also appeared briefly in BBC soap EastEnders as Dave Roberts in 2002 and was also in a string of television shows including Ashes to Ashes, Trial & Retribution, The Bill, London’s Burning and Holby City.

Cullen, of Liverpool, pleaded guilty to two breaches of a non-molestation order, two charges of stalking and one charge of harassment.

Advertisement

All the offences took place in April and May this year, the court was told.

Katie Bennett, defending, said her client had spent the last three weeks in prison on remand for abusing bail conditions set after her first appearance on harassment charges.

Ms Bennett said: ‘She realises in hindsight her behaviour was wrong but they were empty threats and caused by alcohol which she had been using as a coping mechanism.

‘Her three weeks in custody have been a massive wake-up call. 

Advertisement

‘Custody has given her a chance to reflect and she wants to put this behind her and move on with her life.’

Judge James Clarke said Cullen’s offences would have justified a prison sentence.

Imposing an 18-month community order, he told her: ‘These were particularly nasty and rambling messages.’

Cullen was also given a nine-month alcohol treatment order, a five-year restraining order which included banning her from anywhere near his home, a three-month tagging order to monitor her movements. She must also pay £199 costs.

Advertisement

SEOUL, South Korea (AP) — South Korea’s police said Thursday they were seeking indictments of seven transport ministry officials over the 2024 Jeju Air crash that killed all but two of the 181 people on board.

The Boeing 737-800 operated by Jeju Air skidded off the runaway at Muan International Airport in southern South Korea after its landing gear failed to deploy, slamming into a concrete structure and bursting into flames.

Authorities have found traces of bird strike in the plane’s engines and the plane’s two black boxes stopped recording about four minutes before the crash. Many experts say the concrete structure, which housed a set of antennas called a localizer that guides aircraft during landings, must be blamed for the crash as well, as they should have been built with more easily breakable materials.

Police said Thursday the seven officials were involved in the production of media statements that stated the localizers were installed in accordance with relevant domestic and international regulations, though that was not true.

Police said they referred the cases to prosecutors, asking for the seven officials to be indicted on a criminal charge of falsifying official documents. The penalty upon conviction could be up to seven years in prison. The Transport Ministry said it had no comment on the police announcement.

Police said they were investigating nearly 70 other people, including those involved in installation of the localizers or operations of the Muan airport.

The crash was South Korea’s deadliest aviation disaster since 1997. But no exact, formal cause of the crash has been announced and no one has been legally prosecuted yet.

Last year, the Aviation and Railway Accident Investigation Board had planned to announce initial investigation results showing both of the plane’s engines sustained bird strikes and the pilots turned off the less-damaged one just before the crash-landing. The initial finding, which implied human errors, drew vehement protests from bereaved families and fellow pilots who accused authorities of trying to shift responsibility to the dead pilots. The investigation board later canceled the announcement.

The first time I encountered Harry Potter was around the turn of the millennium. I was on an aeroplane and couldn’t believe my eyes when a grown woman beside me pulled out what appeared to be a children’s book and barely looked up from its pages for the rest of the transatlantic flight.

After that, each new title was greeted by great queues of both adults and children snaking around bookshops overnight, followed by huge containers of the charming volumes in supermarkets.

Three decades, 600 million sales, eight blockbuster films, seven flagship shops, four theme parks and a multi-billion-dollar franchise later, the boy wizard from Little Whinging has played a major role in my life, mainly through my children.

My oldest daughter grew up as much in the Potterverse as she did in the real world, reading the entire collection – about 4,000 pages in all – seven times, and saving the films until she completed each one. She had the cloak, the hat, the wand and even a book of spells.

Her siblings were also keen. So under normal circumstances, my family would be as delighted as the rest of Britain at the brand-new HBO TV adaptation, due to be released on Christmas Day. The plan is to completely reshoot the series with a new cast over the coming years.

Only we can no longer bring ourselves to watch it. To understand how the magic was ruined, one need look no further than Nicholas Hoult withdrawing from the part of the flamboyant fraud Gilderoy Lockhart, ostensibly owing to a scheduling clash. Happily, he has been replaced by the excellent Kit Harington (Jon Snow in Game Of Thrones).

Nick Frost who plays Hagrid declared that his views and those of the author ‘don’t align in any way’

Hoult’s departure came after a major online backlash from the actor’s fans over his decision to take the role. Typical was a comment by a fan account named Hoult-Daily, which said on X: ‘Nicholas Hoult do better, so many of your fans are hurt.’ Another declared that his decision to join the production was ‘disappointing’ and ‘anti-LGBT’.

The furore is over JK Rowling’s controversial views, which include – shock horror – that the only humans with penises are men, and that those born male who say they are female should be prevented from sharing single- sex bathrooms, prisons and refuges with biological women.

That’s right: what used to be called common sense – and a view still held by most Britons – is now so toxic to the luvvie class that they are trashing a much-loved literary creation with their own cultural politics.

Did the gender row drive Hoult’s decision to withdraw? He would hardly be the first industry figure to distance themselves from the series for which JK Rowling is an executive producer. When Black Mirror director Ally Pankiw was asked if she’d be interested in working on the series, she responded: ‘Absolutely f*****g not!’ She added later that ‘it simply is this easy to say no to funding transphobia’.

Director Kate Herron bragged that she’d been approached ‘twice’ and ‘had to explain my answer is never going to change from a “no” ‘. The two shared these messages in public and engaged in a sort of love-in online.

Clearly, they feel that getting involved with Harry Potter comes with a personal and professional cost, while trumpeting your opposition to the fantasy franchise in public wins huge adulation among the denizens of la-la land.

Indeed, the pro-trans mob – which can muster eye-popping levels of intolerance in the name of tolerance – is orchestrating a campaign against the upcoming series. In January, radical group Defund Transphobes protested outside a performance of Harry Potter and the Cursed Child at London’s Palace Theatre, while pro-trans Reddit message boards are saturated with activists pledging to boycott the new series.

What I find extraordinary is that actors and actresses who have taken leading roles have still chosen to speak out against the woman who created Harry Potter.

John Lithgow, who is Hogwarts headmaster Albus Dumbledore in the series, has agonised publicly over taking the part. ‘I find it ironic and somewhat inexplicable that Rowling has expressed such views,’ he declared loftily, adding that the backlash to his decision to join the series ‘upsets me’.

Other actors, including Bel Powley (due to play the Muggle Petunia Dursley), Nick Frost (half-giant Hagrid) and Paapa Essiedu (complex baddie Snape), have assumed the bizarre position of publicly distancing themselves from JK Rowling’s stance on gender while continuing to bring her fictional world alive.

‘I think that the trans community deserve safety and dignity and respect,’ preened Powley this month. Frost declared that ‘she [JK Rowling] is allowed her opinion, and I’m allowed mine. They just don’t align in any way’. Essiedu signed an open letter declaring he stood ‘in solidarity with the trans, non-binary and intersex communities…’

 Paapa Essiedu who plays Snape signed an open letter declaring he stood ‘in solidarity with the trans, non-binary and intersex communities’

The author has responded with generosity. ‘I don’t have the power to sack an actor from the series, and I wouldn’t exercise it if I did,’ she has said of Essiedu. ‘I don’t believe in taking away people’s jobs or livelihoods because they hold legally protected beliefs that differ from mine.’ But then, Rowling has become accustomed to her own actors biting the hand that feeds them.

The stars of the original films, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter), Emma Watson (Hermione Granger) and Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley), who were gifted global fame and fortune through the power of Rowling’s imagination, repaid her with a venomous campaign against her good sense.

In 2022, Watson made a dig at Rowling during a Bafta ceremony – ‘I’m here for all the witches’, she famously declared, a remark universally interpreted as a statement of support for the trans community – while the author was, by her own account, receiving death and rape threats.

Radcliffe responded to JK’s stance on transgender by saying: ‘Transgender women are women. Any statement to the contrary erases transgender people and goes against all advice given by professional healthcare associations who have far more expertise on this subject matter than either Jo [Rowling] or I.’

Grint, set to reprise his role as Ron Weasley on stage in New York next year, also made clear his position in a statement that he ‘firmly stands with the transgender community’. He later wrote supportively of JK Rowling: ‘I don’t necessarily agree with everything my “auntie” says but she’s still my “auntie”.’

At least the original trio had signed up for the roles before the controversy erupted, I suppose. For the new crop, there can be no such excuse. But such is the bubble in which these people exist that they are unlikely ever to see their own posturing for what it is.

What is most remarkable about the arts these days is its drab uniformity of opinion. Almost everybody seems to support the latest trendy causes, from Gaza to trans rights. Do none of them think for themselves? If they do, they seem to keep quiet.

Small wonder, perhaps: last month, when Boy George released We Will Dance Again, a song supportive of the Middle East’s only democracy in its war against jihadism, he was roundly condemned and forced to withdraw from his role in Jesus Christ Superstar at The London Palladium. How many performers have the courage to face such a backlash?

With so much online bile poured on to JK Rowling, how many would even dare pull out a Harry Potter book on an aeroplane today for fear of social opprobrium?

As for the new TV series, populated by stars who felt they just had to tell us their views on transgender rights, well, I think my family will stick to the books.