It’s not every day that you see viewers left devastated after a series that ‘made them want to vomit’ gets cancelled.

But for Virdee on the BBC, the show’s fiercely loyal fans have described the decision to axe it after just one decision as ‘madness’.

Adapted from A A Dhand’s best-selling crime novel series, the 2025 six-part thriller failed to attract sufficient viewing numbers to for a second series.

The Bradford-based show, which raked in an average of 743,000 viewers on its Monday slot on BBC One, saw DCI Harry Virdee (Game of Thrones star Staz Nair) hunt down a killer targeting the West Yorkshire city’s Asian community.

Throughout the rest of the series, it also explores the outrage of the detective’s Sikh family after Harry decides to marry Saima (Aysha Kala), who is Muslim.

According to an insider for The Sun newspaper’s TVBiz column: ‘There was a lot of hope that Virdee would work because it was a deviation for a crime series, and it did gain its own following.’

However, despite the second series getting cancelled, the BBC is said to be keen to cast Staz in future programmes.

A BBC spokesperson added: ‘We’d like to thank Amit Dhand and the Virdee team for a brilliant series, we are really proud of the show, and we are talking to Amit about future projects.’

Reacting to the news of the show’s cancellation, Steve on X complained that it ‘wasn’t promoted that much’ by the BBC.

Ian also wrote: ‘Madness, Virdee was brilliant and had so much potential the BBC should re show it prime time and see. Even only fools and horses didn’t hit the mark in its first series.’

Meanwhile, Lee added: ‘Really gutted by this. The first season wasn’t wrapped up too well, so I think everyone originally planned for S2. Was a real good drama.

‘Was a lot darker than most prime time shows, which made it stand out. Think the BBC have made a mistake with this decision.’

This comes after viewers previously claimed that the camerawork of Virdee ‘made them want to be sick’.

As fans tuned into the show, they struggled to adjust to the camera angles which many found to be ‘choppy’ and even ‘nauseating.’

X user @PeanutLC86 wrote: ‘I still feel sick from the camera work it was so jumpy I could actually be sick! #virdee’

Parking up at Tesco to do her weekly shop, Nat stops for a second to snap a picture. She realises that the space she’s parked next to has a new sign in tow – and it’s designed to punish people who park incorrectly.

‘Parent and child only,’ the red sign reads, prompting a ‘well done’ from Nat in her TikTok video.

‘Misuse of these bays may result in a parking charge.’

While the supermarket has long been fining people who misuse parking bays, the increased signage is part of a new trial.

It’s intended to remind people of the rules, which ask people to show their valid Blue Badge when using disabled bays, and to make sure that parent-and-child bays are only used when a child is in the car, too.

Tesco doesn’t outline exactly how high the fine is for parking in a space the driver isn’t eligible for, but the current charge for overstaying is £100.

Nat isn’t the only one with strong opinions about people who use and abuse spaces intended for parents and children.

‘I’ve just committed a crime,’ a mum named Chloe Clayton admitted to her TikTok followers earlier this year. Her offence? Parking in a parent and child spot outside B&M when shopping without her kids. 

‘It’s a crime against all mothers and I am quite frankly ashamed of myself,’ she stated, adding that her actions were ‘despicable’ and ‘disgusting’ and she’s ‘mortified’ – especially as two other mums had given her dirty looks as she returned to her car. 

Fellow mums and dads have shared that they’ve been getting revenge on those who have been doing so at the supermarket and leisure centres.

A user named @twokidsnosleep shared her ‘petty’ response to a shopper outside Tesco, showing how she had placed a trolley directly behind the car in question and left it there for them to either deal with or reverse into.

While @thebabyfostersharer revealed they had snitched on a man who was hogging the parent parking spaces at a gym.

Advertisement

In a comment on the video sharing app, they wrote: ‘I went inside the gym, gave them the registration and asked them to call him ASAP as he left a child unattended – he went quiet explaining he didn’t have a child with him. The manager told him he was now on strike/warning as their T&Cs are clear on this.’

Others admitted to ‘confronting’ strangers over the issue in car parks, with some ‘yelling’ at the drivers about their lack of children, while a few also said they had started reported the number plates to store security.

@twokidsnosleep

Might not be the bigger person but I am the pettiest. EDIT: to save anymore pointless comments about blue badge holders or pregnant women. No it wasn’t a blue badge holder who parked there because all the disabled bays were full. All those empty spaces to the left are disabled spaces. No HE wasn’t a heavily pregnant woman. Not sure how this became disabled vs parents with small children. I’m aware those with a blue badge can park there IF all the disabled ones are taken but that’s not the case here so can everyone chill out and stop bringing it up coz it’s boring now reading the same comment over and over again 🤣 I’m just going to delete anymore comments about ‘what if it was a disabled person’ because it wasn’t. I’d never do it so someone who physically needed extra space to get out. Could have a passenger with a broken leg and no blue badge and I’d happily give up the space and park further away. It’s about being able to open the doors fully not because we’re ’lazy entitled mothers’ And yes I’m sure there was no child. Stop assuming I made assumptions because of no car seat or whatever. He was alone. I stand by putting the trolley there and I’ll continue to live my petty life because by the sound of it in these comments it is just people wanting their car not to be damaged or lazy people wanting to be closer. Thanks for the views tho. Stay bothered 🤣✌️ #petty #pettyaf #parentandchild #mumsoftiktok #mumlife

♬ Montagem Rave Eterno – Dj Samir & Fyex

Why are the spaces so important for parents?

The RAC explains that parent and child parking spots are bigger than standard parking bays.

Advertisement

Their website says: ‘The typical car parking space measures around 2.4 metres wide and 4.8 metres long, however, these dimensions were first introduced around 50 years ago – when vehicle sizes were considerably smaller.

‘Since then, there has also been a rise in the use of larger vehicles, such as SUVs, estate cars, vans, and even traditionally smaller models are now larger than previous editions.

‘Disabled and parent/child parking spaces are wider and longer to accommodate wheelchair and pushchair access. They are also located closer to the front door of shops or certain destinations.’

The additional space allows parents room to get their children out of the car safely and into pushchairs or to manoeuvre car seats. And the proximity to the stores also allows parents a safer and more accessible route as they are often near ramps and wider paths.

Advertisement

Metro asked parents to share why having designated parking spots was so important to them and why it was so frustrating when people without children parked there.

Laura Guckian, a mum-of-three and the founder of Mind Mommy Coaching said: ‘I wish there was more awareness that those “parent and child” spaces aren’t just for people with small babies. They’re also for parents of children of older children who may have additional needs but not eligible for a disabled parking permit.

‘My children are 4, 5 and 9 and I need to be closer to the shop to make it safer and easier to get in and out with them so I always park in the mother and baby spaces when they are with me.

‘Being out and about with kids can be really tricky and overwhelming. Those spaces aren’t a luxury. They can be the difference between being able to manage a quick shop or not.

Advertisement

‘I just wish, as a society, it was an unwritten rule that these spaces were respected and reserved for mothers, fathers, guardians and children without judgement or entitlement.

‘Why can’t we just have one thing that’s ours? One small thing that makes it a little bit easier.’

Why do people without children park in these spaces?

For some it’s a matter of convenience, as the spaces are right near the shop entrance, meaning it’s an ideal place to park when you want to dash in and out of a store.

A few people with health conditions pointed out their need to be closer to the shop too, as @emarich50 said: ‘I have Crohn’s Disease and if I need the toilet in a hurry I am parking in a parent and child space.’

It’s also becoming increasingly common for those with larger cars to nab the bigger spaces, as their cars take up so much room. TikToker @travelling.up.close confessed: ‘I do it all the time because I’ve got a big car and I can’t get out of it in a normal space.’

Advertisement

Some people also just don’t see an issue with doing it as it’s ‘not illegal’ to park in the parent spaces.

@alecallen1 shared: ‘I deliberately park in these spots because of you entitled parents.’

What should you do if you see someone misusing one of these spaces?

Experts at RAC have shared advice for how to handle the frustrating situation and they recommend speaking to a member of staff or the store manager, instead of confronting drivers.

RAC head of policy Simon Williams told Metro: ‘While it isn’t illegal to park in a parent and child bay without children in tow, drivers could be issued with a Parking Charge Notice.

Advertisement

‘These wider spaces are intended to make it easier for parents to get their children in and out of cars. 

‘In the event you spot someone misusing a parent and child bay, it’s best to report it to a store manager or member of staff.’

This article was first published on October 10, 2025.

Do you have a story to share?

Advertisement

Get in touch by emailing MetroLifestyleTeam@Metro.co.uk.

MORE: I used to love cooking – then I became a parent

MORE: I don’t care what people say – I’ll never stop using my controversial buffet hack

MORE: Tesco supermarket cafés have gone fancy with ‘unreal’ new menu items

Advertisement

Comments


Add as preferred source

Degrees of Separation

Join us each week as hear from the people going through familial estrangement, for worse and for better.

Advertisement

The White Horse Inn, now operating as GH Events and formerly known as The White Horse pub in Kearsley, on Bolton Road in Bolton, was attacked on three separate occasions earlier this year, with bricks being thrown through its windows.

The incidents took place on January 21, February 3, and February 5.

Greater Manchester Police have confirmed they are treating the incidents as suspected hate crimes and are appealing for information.

The windows have been smashed on three seperate occasions (Image: Public)

A spokesperson for Bolton Police said: “We are appealing for information following reports of three suspected hate crimes at The White Horse Inn on Bolton Road, Bolton.

“Officers have attended the address on three separate occasions, 21 January 2026, 3 February 2026, and 5 February 2026, after it was reported that a brick had been thrown through the windows.

“Anyone who may have information on this incident, including video footage, is urged to come forward and report.

“Our officers take robust action when dealing with any hate related crimes.”

Police urge anyone with information to come forward (Image: Public)

The venue, which now operates as an events space for those aged 21 and over, has previously attracted attention following a change in management.

Last October, The Bolton News reported that the pub was up for lease and advertised as being suitable for “a variety of uses.”

It was subsequently taken over by The New Gatehouse.

The venue’s website describes it as fully inclusive and a safe space for members of the LGBTQ+ community.

It explicitly states it welcomes people “regardless of age, ethnicity, sexual orientation or body size.”

Anyone who may have seen anything suspicious in the area or who has relevant video footage is asked to contact police on 101 quoting log 665 of February 5.

Information can also be passed on anonymously via Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111.

Police enquiries are ongoing.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court struck down President Donald Trump’s far-reaching global tariffs on Friday, handing him a significant loss on an issue crucial to his economic agenda.

The 6-3 decision centers on tariffs imposed under an emergency powers law, including the sweeping “reciprocal” tariffs he levied on nearly every other country.

It’s the first major piece of Trump’s broad agenda to come squarely before the nation’s highest court, which he helped shape with the appointments of three conservative jurists in his first term.

The majority found that the Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress the power to impose taxes, which include tariffs. “The Framers did not vest any part of the taxing power in the Executive Branch,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote.

Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.

“The tariffs at issue here may or may not be wise policy. But as a matter of text, history, and precedent, they are clearly lawful,” Kavanaugh wrote.

The majority did not address whether companies could get refunded for the billions they have collectively paid in tariffs. Many companies, including the big-box warehouse chain Costco, have already lined up to demand refunds in lower courts. Kavanaugh noted the process could be complicated.

“The Court says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers. But that process is likely to be a ‘mess,’ as was acknowledged at oral argument,” he wrote.

The Treasury had collected more than $133 billion from the import taxes the president has imposed under the emergency powers law as of December, federal data shows.

The tariffs decision doesn’t stop Trump from imposing duties under other laws. While those have more limitations on the speed and severity of Trump’s actions, top administration officials have said they expect to keep the tariff framework in place under other authorities.

The Supreme Court ruling comes despite a series of short-term wins on the court’s emergency docket that have allowed Trump to push ahead with extraordinary flexes of executive power on issues ranging from high-profile firings to major federal funding cuts.

The Republican president has been vocal about the case, calling it one of the most important in U.S. history and saying a ruling against him would be an economic body blow to the country. But legal opposition crossed the political spectrum, including libertarian and pro-business groups that are typically aligned with the GOP. Polling has found tariffs aren’t broadly popular with the public, amid wider voter concern about affordability.

The Constitution gives Congress the power to levy tariffs. But the Trump administration argued that a 1977 law allowing the president to regulate importation during emergencies also allows him to set tariffs. Other presidents have used the law dozens of times, often to impose sanctions, but Trump was the first president to invoke it for import taxes.

Trump set what he called “reciprocal” tariffs on most countries in April 2025 to address trade deficits that he declared a national emergency. Those came after he imposed duties on Canada, China and Mexico, ostensibly to address a drug trafficking emergency.

A series of lawsuits followed, including a case from a dozen largely Democratic-leaning states and others from small businesses selling everything from plumbing supplies to educational toys to women’s cycling apparel.

The challengers argued the emergency powers law doesn’t even mention tariffs and Trump’s use of it fails several legal tests, including one that doomed then-President Joe Biden’s $500 billion student loan forgiveness program.

The economic impact of Trump’s tariffs has been estimated at some $3 trillion over the next decade, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

___

Associated Press writer Mark Sherman contributed to this report.

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Greggs was one of the many businesses to be hit by the severity of Storm Claudia in Monmouth

A popular high street chain has announced it’s permanent closure, in the heart of a small Welsh town. Greggs has confirmed that it will not be be reopening it’s Monnow Street bakery in Monmouth after it was forced to close following severe flooding caused by Storm Claudia.

The bakery, known for its range of savoury and sweet treats, was among many businesses hit hard when Wales experienced its most severe flooding in years in November 2025. Many believed Monmouth would escape the worst of the storm – but it did not.

Five inches of rain fell in just five hours on Friday, November 14, an extraordinary deluge that overwhelmed flood defences and turned familiar streets into fast-flowing channels.

You can see pictures here, as the river reached water levels not seen before.

In the aftermath, businesses along the high street were forced to shut as they dealt with extensive damage.

Some independent retailers were able to reopen relatively quickly, while others are still yet to welcome customers back.

National chains including Marks & Spencer, Boots and The Works were among those that managed to resume trading sooner.

M&S staff worked around the clock and cancelled leave to help get the store reopen for customers.

However, the doors of Greggs remained closed, with Google initially listing the branch as “temporary”.

The company has now confirmed that the Monmouth store will close permanently as part of what it described as a “continuous review” of its shop estate. For the biggest stories in Wales first sign up to our daily newsletter here

WalesOnline understands that Greggs is working to reassign employees from the Monmouth branch to nearby locations, including Ross-on-Wye and Lydney, and that it will continue exploring opportunities to expand elsewhere.

A spokesperson for Greggs, said: “Our shop in Monmouth will be closing as part of our continuous review of our shop estate, which includes relocating shops and expanding into new locations.

“We would like to thank local customers and the community for shopping with us, and we hope to see them at our nearby shops in Ross on Wye, Lydney and Greggs at the Euro garage on the A40 soon.”

Ensure our latest news and sport headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings

Asked by media at Parliament Buildings on Friday about the proposals, Ms O’Neill said she acknowledges there is a cost-of-living crisis

The reaction to a proposed £14,000 salary hike for MLAs is “understandable”, First Minister Michelle O’Neill has said.

The Independent Remuneration Board has proposed an uplift in salaries for MLAs from £53,000 to £67,200 per year – a rise of 26.8%, from April 1.

It also recommended “significant financial sanctions” if an Executive is not formed following an election, or if at any time the offices of first minister and deputy first minister become vacant following recent political turbulence.

These include a reduction of 10% to MLA salaries after six weeks – and again at weeks 12 and 18 – if a government had not been formed in line with the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which allows six months for its formation.

Board chairman Alan Lowry said they aim to ensure public money is spent with accountability. The proposals are currently out to public consultation.

MLA salaries are lower than those received by Members of the Scottish Parliament (£74,507), Assembly Members at the Welsh Assembly (£76,380), MPs (£93,904) and Members of the Irish Parliament (117,113 euros/£102,369).

Asked by media at Parliament Buildings on Friday about the proposals, Ms O’Neill said she acknowledges there is a cost-of-living crisis.

“It is a recommendation that has been made by an independent board in which we have had no part to play in terms of any determination,” she said.

“It’s just been published in the last 24 hours, obviously we need to work our way through the detail of it, but I absolutely acknowledge there is a cost-of-living crisis, people are struggling, people are feeling the pinch right now, so I think it is understandable in terms of how people would feel about it.

“But we will take our time to look at it, and we will respond to the consultation in due course.”

Deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly added: “We will take time to go through the recommendations in detail.

“It was an independent pay body that assessed similar remuneration situations elsewhere across the UK and Ireland.

“This is their recommendation, it is now out to consultation, so we will take at a look at that in detail and I have no doubt we’ll come back to this issue after the consultation has completed.”

Want to see more of the stories you love from Belfast Live? Making us your preferred source on Google means you’ll get more of our exclusives, top stories and must-read content straight away. To add Belfast Live as a preferred source, simply click here.