The tireless efforts of human rights campaigners in Bangladesh have finally paid off: children born in the brothels and streets there are now able to hold a birth certificate. Undocumented children, many born in the sprawling Daulatdia brothel, had previously been denied a birth certificate, and all the rights that come with it. Without official documentation, children cannot attend school and are vulnerable to trafficking. 

This week it was revealed that more than 700 children have now received a birth certificate, thanks to organisations such as anti-slavery organisation Freedom Fund, which identified an ‘overlooked stipulation in the law’. Since 2018, it has in fact been permitted for a birth to be registered, even in the absence of information on the parents. Government officials, however, were not recognising this.  

“When I first came to know about [this stipulation], we massively disseminated this information with our partners,” Khaleda Akhter, Bangladesh programme manager for Freedom Fund, told the Guardian. Akhter has seen firsthand how a birth certificate can be life-changing for children there. “These documents are not just a tool,” she said, “it’s about survival.”

Image: Shafin Ashraf

Mananchaya Wanitthanawet, 42, is currently serving a nine year jail sentence for exploiting her two victims in the sex trade.

A woman who trafficked her fellow Thai countrywomen to Scotland to work as prostitutes was today ordered to hand over £3815 to settle a proceeds of crime action brought against her.

Mananchaya Wanitthanawet, 42, is currently serving a nine-year jail sentence for exploiting her two victims in the sex trade. Prosecutors raised an action to strip her of crime profits and a judge at the High Court in Edinburgh was told that a settlement has now been reached in the case.

Advocate depute Bryan Heaney said that it was agreed under the settlement that Wanitthanawet’s benefit from criminal conduct amounted to £123,000, but the available amount for a confiscation order was £3815.

Wanitthanawet offered to help the women find work in the UK but forced them to provide massage and sexual services to repay alleged debts. Victims worked from addresses in Dundee, Edinburgh, Aberdeen and Inverness dealing with up to 15 men a day to pay off the debt.

Advertisement

One victim said she felt like her “hands were tied”. She said: “In my heart, I wanted to escape from that situation, but I had no money, no passport and spoke no English, so then I cry.”

Wanitthanawet was convicted of recruiting and transporting the women, featuring them in adverts for sexual services and forcing them into prostitution between July 2019 and July 2022, following a trial at the High Court in Dundee.

The trial judge, Lord Scott, told her: “This involved the deliberate degrading of fellow human beings. What you put them through was dehumanising.”

“It deprived them of the ability to act as they wished or in their own interests. They were valued only as a source of profit,” said the judge.

Lord Scott told Wanitthanawet: “You are clearly an intelligent person, as evidenced by your degree in business and economics.”

“Unfortunately, you have chosen to use your intelligence and business skills in the exploitation of two vulnerable young women who found themselves trapped into prostitution in a foreign country thousands of miles from their homes and families.”

Get more Daily Record exclusives by signing up for free to Google’s preferred sources. Click HERE.

In many democracies today, trust in politics is either very low or in decline.

This is a noteworthy development in its own right, but it may be especially important because trust is associated with several other important outcomes, for example, whether we vote and whether we comply with the law. The latter became particularly apparent during the pandemic, when it turned out that people who trusted politicians more were more likely to comply with lockdown rules.

Political scientists often think about trust as a dynamic concept. When politicians perform poorly, our trust falls. And there is plenty of evidence for this. When the economy performs badly or when politicians are embroiled in scandals, trust tends to be lower.

This way of thinking about trust is obviously helpful, but one problem is that it is hard to explain why people’s levels of political trust tend to be stable. Once people reach a level of trust in early adulthood, they don’t tend to change it very much afterwards. And people don’t always have as strong a reaction to events like political scandals as we might think – so it’s not a given that current performance is the only cause of low trust.

One explanation for this apparent contradiction is that trust might also be affected by our formative experiences. Of course, this doesn’t mean that trust never changes later, it obviously does. But on this view, each person would have a stable, base level of trust informed by their early experiences with the political system.

How our parents talked about politics when we were growing up, or how governments performed when we started paying attention to politics, might affect our base level of trust. We know that these experiences affect other aspects of our relationship with politics, for example, our voting behaviour, and our political values.

However, these ideas are difficult to prove. Academics generally study political attitudes by surveying a random sample of the population. These surveys ask about our opinions, and about things that might be influencing them (for example, our household income). But they rarely ask about our formative experiences. That’s partly because people can’t be expected to accurately remember experiences from many years ago. It’s also difficult to know which experiences to ask about. We obviously can’t ask about everything (that would be expensive and tedious), but that means we might miss things.

One way around this problem is to look at twins and siblings, because we know they largely share their formative experiences and traits formed early in life. That way, we can study those factors without having to directly measure them.

By comparing non-identical twins and siblings (who share lots of traits and experiences) with identical twins (who share almost all traits and experiences) we can estimate how important these are for our political attitudes. That’s what I’ve been doing in my own work, which suggests that a substantial proportion of our trust is explained by our early experiences – perhaps as much as 40%.

Early life and political trust

One possible explanation for this is that important traits formed early in life, like our personalities, might affect our ability to trust the political system. Some people are naturally more agreeable, for example, and it seems likely that they would also be more trusting.

This is one line of argument I’ve discussed in some of my own work, but the evidence for this is less clear. Instead, it seems likely that people who share similar personality profiles are similarly trusting because they grew up in environments which predisposed them toward those personality traits and also toward having more or less trust in the system.

Another, perhaps more plausible scenario is that the environmental conditions we experience early in life might affect whether we go on to have more or less trust in politics. For example, experiencing economic hardship early in life is associated with our ability to trust the system in the long run, especially if we think the government is to blame for our hardship. We might also expect that our educational experiences affect trust, for example, by giving us the knowledge about the system that can help us make more reasoned judgements about its trustworthiness.

The relationship between trust and voting might, therefore, not be due to trust causing voting, but instead due to our formative experiences affecting both. My work with colleagues suggests that this is likely to be the case. We tested whether differences in political trust within twin pairs predicted differences in how often they voted. That way, we know we’ve accounted for all relevant formative experiences shared by the twins. When we did that, we found that the relationship between how much we trust and how often we vote is much weaker.

Another reason that trust being partly caused by our formative experiences matters is because long-run changes in trust might be generational in nature, and difficult to reverse. In the UK, for example, gen Z tends to be particularly distrusting of institutions, including political ones.

If political trust is socialised when we are young, this has the concerning implication that it might stay that way, even if performance improves. We might then expect younger voters who grow up in a low-trust environment to remain distrusting in the long run.

Adding the cheap and healthy food to your diet may help tackle tiredness and reduce your risk of serious diseases

Advertisement

Research has demonstrated that adding just one food item to your breakfast can provide significant health advantages. Making this nutritious ingredient a regular part of your morning routine could help tackle afternoon tiredness, while also potentially reducing your risk of diabetes and bowel cancer.

Aldi is currently selling a 1kg bag of porridge oats for only 85p, equating to approximately 9p per 100g. Whether you mix oats into yoghurt with berries and nuts, or simply heat them with milk for a traditional morning dish, just avoid adding sugar.

Oats are regarded as an outstanding source of energy owing to their complex carbohydrate composition. A portion of whole grains, such as cooked porridge, slowly releases energy that’s steadily absorbed throughout your day.

This can help prevent afternoon lethargy and tiredness whilst keeping you fuller for longer. In addition to sustained energy, oats also provide valuable quantities of thiamine, phosphorus, magnesium, and B vitamins, including niacin and folate, which together help your body process energy efficiently.

Oats have also been demonstrated to assist with blood sugar control, a vital factor in diabetes management. Since your body digests minimally processed oats more slowly than refined grains, this helps avoid dramatic rises in blood sugar following meals, reports the Mirror.

Losing excess weight and maintaining a healthy body mass can help prevent or even reverse type 2 diabetes. The Diabetes Association recommends losing up to 15% of your body weight upon diagnosis.

Adopting a diet rich in fibre and protein, but low in calories, sugar, and fat, can initiate weight loss – making porridge (without any added sugars like syrup) a beneficial breakfast option. Oats are exceptionally low in sugar, with less than a gram of sugar found in 100g of oats.

A review conducted in 2018 discovered that oats may aid in reducing cholesterol levels. This is vital as diabetes can increase your risk of heart disease. Oats are categorised as low-GI foods, with a GI rating below 55.

More recently, according to new research from the University of Bonn published in Nature Communications in January 2026, consuming a large amount of oats for a short period-about 300 grams of oatmeal each day for only two days-can lower LDL (the ‘bad’) cholesterol levels by around 10%.

Further studies suggest that oats can decrease your risk of developing bowel cancer. This is largely due to their high fibre content, as stated by Cancer Research UK.

Fibre increases the size of your stools, dilutes them, and assists in their quick passage through your system. This reduces the time harmful chemicals stay in contact with the bowel, potentially reducing cell damage.

Fibre might also help gut bacteria produce beneficial chemicals that alter conditions within the bowel. Fibre-rich foods have been associated with a decreased risk of bowel cancer.

Cancer Research UK says: “A high-fibre diet, including plenty of wholegrains, can lower the risk of bowel cancer. Not all cases of bowel cancer can be prevented. A person’s risk of cancer depends on many different things. But eating a high-fibre diet can help reduce the risk of bowel cancer.”

Oats also contain many phenolic acids and compounds called avenanthramides. These have antioxidant and anti-inflammatory benefits.

Adding more high-fibre wholegrains and fewer refined grains to your diet can help maintain a healthy weight by keeping you fuller for longer. This not only cuts the risk of bowel cancer but also reduces the likelihood of several other types of cancer.

A major study from January 2025 discovered that consuming plenty of fibre may reduce the risk of various types of cancers in the digestive, reproductive, and urinary systems. The research revealed that total dietary fibre (TDF) lowers the risk of colon cancer by 26% and colorectal cancer by 12%. It also helps protect against Barrett’s oesophagus and stomach cancers. It might also help protect against breast, ovarian, endometrial, prostate, kidney, and bladder cancers.

Reform UK has announced a range of policies to crack down immigration, including mass deportations and increased surveillance to complement its radical overhaul of the indefinite leave to remain (ILR) system.

The plans could see hundreds of thousands of legal migrants deported from the UK, and rules severely tightened for people looking to migrate to the country.

The party’s home affairs spokesperson, Zia Yusuf, delivered a speech on Monday on its plans to create a new ‘Trump inspired’ deportation agency with the capacity to detain 24,000 migrants at a time. This will come alongside automatic home searches for anyone referred to Prevent counter-terrorism, and a ban on the conversion of churches into mosques.

In 2025, the party shared disputed figures that its ILR policy alone would save more than £200bn. This is the main route by which migrants are able to settle in the UK and is open to people who have worked and lived in the UK legally for five years.

open image in gallery

Reform leader Nigel Farage claimed the plans would undo the “Boris wave” of migrants ushered in by the former Conservative prime minister. This refers to around 800,000 migrants who came to the UK under “relaxed” post-Brexit migration rules introduced by Boris Johnson’s government, and who will soon begin to qualify for permanent residence. He added that this group were “going to be a huge burden on the state”.

Mr Farage also claimed the policy would save £234bn, a figure drawn from a Centre for Policy Studies report that has been withdrawn due to a dispute over the numbers. The think tank said the cost estimate should “no longer be used”.

The plans have been widely criticised by politicians, campaigners and experts, who have said the proposals are “morally wrong” and will “tear families apart”.

Here’s what you need to know about the policy:

How does indefinite leave to remain currently work?

Indefinite leave to remain is how most migrants settle in the UK, wherever they come from. It gives them the right to live, work and study in the country permanently, as well as access benefits where eligible.

It also enables their family to migrate to the UK under certain conditions.

In most cases, ILR can be applied for after five years of living and working in the UK. Depending on visa type, the applicant may also need to meet certain salary or financial requirements.

open image in gallery

For most workers, this will be at least £41,700 per year, or the “standard going rate” for the type of work you’ll be doing, which could be higher. After securing ILR, a person can generally apply for British citizenship after 12 months.

Last May, Labour pledged to introduce tough new restrictions on ILR, meaning most applicants will need to be in the UK for 10 years before they can apply, as well as shortening the list of eligible jobs.

What would change under the plans?

Under Reform’s plans, this settled status would be scrapped – even for those currently residing in the UK on it.

Instead, a new visa with far stricter requirements would need to be successfully applied for and renewed every five years.

The policy would reportedly also see the salary threshold to apply increased to around £60,000, nearly double the median UK salary (£31,602).

The plans would throw the lives of the estimated 430,000 people holding ILR into uncertainty, despite many having lived in the UK for decades. They would be forced to reapply and would face deportation if they do not qualify under the new rules.

open image in gallery

It would also see the rights and freedoms they enjoy restricted, as access to NHS services or benefits would be rescinded. The new visas would require advanced English, with strict new limits on partners and family members being able to join.

Reform is expected to confirm that the policy would be enforced by a newly-created ‘UK Deportation Command’, modelled on America’s controversial ICE agency. Mr Yusuf told The Times last year this will be like “Trump mark two”.

The party has also previously pledged to leave the European Convention on Human Rights and replace the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights. This would enable its government to carry out its pledged mass deportations of asylum seekers – plans which have also had their claimed economic benefit called into question.

Do the plans and numbers add up?

The alleged £234bn in savings would be “over the lifetime of the average migrant”. There is no further breakdown, but the average lifespan in the UK is currently around 80 years old. In this case, then the proposed savings would be less than £3bn a year (£2.9bn) on average — a far more modest number than what Reform is brandishing.

Even over a 50-year lifespan in the UK, the alleged savings could be £4.7bn a year on average – and that’s without considering the economic benefits of the migrant workforce.

It is also unclear where these savings will come from and how they have been calculated. Reform has said that almost £9bn a year in universal credit is claimed by foreign nationals. But getting rid of ILR would not stop most foreign universal credit claimants from being eligible, since the majority are from the EU Settlement Scheme, agreed under Brexit, and would still be entitled to benefits.

As of July 2025, there were 213,666 people with indefinite leave to remain claiming universal credit. This makes up just 2.8 per cent of all claimants. This small fraction would mean that the government spend around £1.7bn this year on universal credit for people with indefinite leave to remain – far off from the £234bn savings, even if extended over a 50 or 80 year timeline.

And even if 800,000 more people will be granted ILR from the “Boris wave” – as Reform claims – there is nothing to suggest that these people will go on to claim universal credit. There is also no clear figure on how many foreign nationals in the UK have indefinite leave to remain. So, as it stands, the evidence behind Reform’s £234bn savings is murky at best.

Asked about Reform’s claim that they could save £234bn over several decades last year, chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “The numbers that Reform have come out with overnight have already begun to disassemble.”

She added: “It is a difficult challenge, I think everybody can see that, but simple gimmicks like those put forward by Reform that have no basis in reality and where the numbers just fall apart – that’s not the way to tackle a very serious issue, and this Labour government are getting on and doing that.”

The Trump administration has highlighted tackling substance abuse as one of its priorities, promising to “respond to a crisis of this scale with the attention it deserves”.

The president has previously imposed tariffs on Canada, China and Mexico – citing the need to stop the flow of fentanyl into the US.

Now, with US intelligence support, Mexico’s military has killed “El Mencho” – the leader of one of the country’s biggest cartels behind the trafficking of drugs such as fentanyl.

Fentanyl causes tens of thousands of deaths in the US each year. But what is the drug, and what makes it so dangerous?

What is fentanyl?

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid that is 50 times more powerful than heroin.

As a prescription drug, it is used to treat severe pain, similarly to morphine.

The fentanyl that is used illegally is most often made in labs and sold as a powder or pill.

What makes it so dangerous?

Its strength, for starters. Because it is so potent, the difference between a dose that can kill and one that won’t is thin.

Fentanyl suppresses breathing at a much lower dose than other opioids.

Drug dealers also mix fentanyl – a cheaper drug – with heroin, cocaine, MDMA and methamphetamine to increase their profits.

Without knowing their drug has been cut with fentanyl, a person might accidentally take too much.

Advertisement

Share

Fentanyl: The story behind America’s deadliest drug

What are the effects of fentanyl?

Fentanyl can provide pain relief and create feelings of extreme happiness.

It can also cause nausea, confusion and sleepiness, problems breathing and unconsciousness.

What happens when someone overdoses?

Overdosing on fentanyl causes a person’s breathing to slow or stop, limiting the amount of oxygen that reaches the brain.

This can lead to a coma, permanent brain damage, or even death.

An overdose can be treated with naloxone, a medicated nasal spray, which restores normal breathing.

Read more:
Coolio died from fentanyl and other drugs
The flesh-rotting drug emerging in America

How many people die of fentanyl overdoses?

In 2021, more than 70,000 Americans died from a fentanyl overdose, and almost 58,000 in 2020, according to the Centres for Disease Control (CDC).

At times, more than 150 people a day in the US were dying from overdoses related to synthetic opioids like fentanyl.

However, overdose fatalities in the US now appear to be falling.

Overdose fatalities for all drugs in the 12 months ending 31 October 2024 fell 25% to 84,000 compared to the same period a year earlier, according to CDC data.

The drop in deaths was even sharper for synthetic opioids, the vast majority due to fentanyl overdoses.

Over the same period, synthetic opioid fatalities fell by 33% to 52,400. Something

Fentanyl is less prevalent in the UK, and that’s reflected in the numbers: 58 people died from known fentanyl poisoning in 2021. The highest number of known fentanyl deaths was recorded in 2017, when 75 people died from the drug.

However, there were 4,859 deaths related to drug poisoning overall in 2021, a 6.4% increase from 2020, and half of those involved an opiate.

The appointment comes after a landmark year for the business, which reports a 94 per cent year-on-year increase in revenue and the opening of its second bricks-and-mortar store in Southampton.

Kevin brings more than 15 years’ experience in finance, project management and leadership roles.

He joins Jorvik Tricycles from global food retailer McDonald’s, where he was part of the Assistant Business Manager team across Yorkshire.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Jorvik Tricycles says in his new role, Kevin will play a pivotal part in supporting the company’s growth, including developing relationships with stockists and retailers to expand Jorvik’s B2B and in-store presence, strengthening internal workflows, and improving integrated systems to streamline processes and support a high-performing team.

Kevin said: “I’m delighted to have joined Jorvik Tricycles at such an exciting time for the business and the wider industry.

“I’m looking forward to working closely with the senior team to support sustainable, long-term growth and to strengthen operations across sales, technical and dispatch functions.”

Kevin’s appointment brings the total number of full-time employees at Jorvik Tricycles to eight, operating across its York and Southampton sites.

James Walker, Founder and MD of Jorvik Tricycles says of Kevin’s appointment: “We’re really happy to welcome Kevin as we bolster our leadership team.

“Kevin will act as the central point for sales, customer services, technical and dispatch teams to ensure smooth running of day to day activities, his role will be vital in supporting sustained growth and expansion across the UK.”

Founded in 2014 by James Walker, Jorvik Tricycles has grown from humble beginnings — with its first tricycles built in James’ living room in York — to a multi-million-pound retailer that has supported more than 30,000 customers worldwide.

More than a decade on, the company says its mission remains unchanged: to support people of all abilities to enjoy the freedom and joy of cycling.

Customer service, it says, continues to sit at the heart of the business, with more than 60 per cent of sales delivered through one-to-one consultations.

This customer focused approach underpins the retailer’s plans for 2026 and beyond, Jorvik Tricycles added.

To find out more about Jorvik Tricycles and explore the full range, please visit: https://jorviktricycles.com/

One of Mexico’s most notorious drug lords “El Mencho” was killed in a military operation on Sunday in Tapalpa, sparking widespread retaliatory violence.

The 59-year-old, whose real name was Nemesio Ruben Oseguera Cervantes, was originally from the western state of Michoacan and had been heavily involved in drug trafficking since the 1990s.

He previously spent almost three years in a US prison after being convicted in 1994 of conspiracy to distribute heroin by a court in California.

After his release, Oseguera Cervantes returned to Mexico, where he continued drug trafficking and was indicted several times by US courts since 2017.

At the time of his death, he was one of Washington’s most wanted fugitives.

His killing is a major win for US President Donald Trump, whose administration provided intelligence support for the operation.

Read the latest from Sky News

In January, the president claimed that “cartels are running Mexico” and promised action.

The president has repeatedly said that tackling the flow of drugs, specifically fentanyl, into the US is a priority for his administration.

Mr Trump previously introduced tariffs against Mexico, China and Canada, citing the trafficking of fentanyl into the US as the emergency justification for the move.

Cartel’s innovative use of bombs and drones

In 2009, Oseguera Cervantes founded the Jalisco New Generation Cartel (CJNG), which became Mexico’s fastest-growing criminal organisation.

Jalisco is a western Mexican state which borders the Pacific Ocean.

Oseguera Cervantes’ organisation has a presence in at least 21 of Mexico’s 32 states and is active in almost all of the US, according to the country’s Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

The group’s rapid rise was fuelled by moving cocaine, methamphetamines, fentanyl and people to the US.

The gang recruited aggressively, including online, and was innovative in its use of drones, improvised explosive devices and violence – including brazen attacks against authorities.

In 2015, the group made headlines after downing a military helicopter in Jalisco, killing some of those on board.

According to the US Department of State: “Through extreme violence, corruption and extortion, CJNG has increased its presence in Mexico, engaging in turf battles throughout the country and steadily expanding their territory and control.

“Oseguera Cervantes has rapidly grown CJNG from a regionally based drug trafficking organisation into an international organised crime power, involved with the production and distribution of narcotics throughout the world.”

The CJNG attempted a spectacular, but unsuccessful, assassination of Mexico City Police Chief Omar García Harfuch, who is now Mexico’s federal security secretary.

Two of Mr Harfuch’s bodyguards were killed in the attack, with the then police chief being taken to hospital with gun wounds.

Mr Trump’s administration designated the cartel and others as foreign terrorist organisations a year ago.

A $15m (£11m) reward had been offered by the US State Department for information that led to Oseguera Cervantes’ arrest.

His death will have created a power vacuum, and it is unclear if any one successor will emerge to take his place as the boss of the clan he founded more than 16 years ago.

His absence could limit the gang’s rapid expansion and leave it more at risk from other groups, particularly their main rival – the feared Sinaloa cartel.

However, Sinaloa is locked in its own internal power struggle since its leader, “El Mayo” Zambada, was transferred to the US in 2024.

The operation and its aftermath

The Mexican army claimed that during an operation aimed at capturing Oseguera Cervantes, troops came under fire.

In the subsequent shootout, federal forces killed four members of the criminal group and wounded three others, including its leader, who later died during transfer by air to Mexico City, according to a statement.

Three soldiers were also injured, and two suspects were arrested by government forces.

Rocket launchers capable of shooting down aircraft and destroying armoured vehicles were seized at the scene.

The removal of cartel heads has previously led to an explosion of violence as power struggles emerged.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has criticised this “kingpin” strategy of previous administrations that often led to the gangs splintering into warring factions.

Read more from Sky News:
Iran’s regime may be ready to strike a deal with Trump
How have four years of war changed Zelenskyy

Following Oseguera Cervantes’ death, gunmen unleashed violence across the country, with cars torched by cartel members in 20 Mexican states, often blocking roads.

Residents locked themselves in their homes in Guadalajara, Mexico’s second-largest city and Jalisco’s capital, and school was cancelled on Monday in several states as security forces were placed on alert all over the country.

Neighbouring countries, including Guatemala, reinforced security on the border with Mexico.

The violence led to a wave of airlines cancelling flights and the UK government urging Britons in parts of Jalisco state, including Puerto Vallarta, to stay inside and to only travel during daylight.

Liverpool breathed new life into their push for a Champions League place with Alexis Mac Allister’s late strike seeing off Nottingham Forest but the Argentine has been slammed since

Alexis Mac Allister has been told he played the ‘worst game’ of his Liverpool career against Nottingham Forest despite his late goal. The Argentine midfielder was the hero for the Reds at Anfield, scoring in stoppage time.

His goal came only minutes after he had seen another goal chalked off by VAR. And while Mac Allister proved to be decisive for Liverpool, he has been criticised by former Chelsea star Frank Leboeuf for his performance.

Speaking to ESPN, he said: “Sometimes life is not fair and when you see how horrendous some players have been. I highly rank the player I’m going to mention, Mac Allister.

“I think he is a world-class player and a World Cup champion. Since he has been at Liverpool, he has been a very influential player but [Sunday] was the worst game I’ve ever seen Mac Allister[play]. But he scored the goal and that, for me, is what football is not fair.”

MAKE THE MIRROR YOUR FIRST CHOICE! Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings

READ MORE: Thomas Tuchel told to ‘discard’ Trent Alexander-Arnold after ‘bizarre’ commentsREAD MORE: Jamie Carragher calls out Mohamed Salah and Liverpool teammate to make Rio Ngumoha point

Mac Allister’s strike against Forest was his first goal in the Premier League this season, albeit he has managed to score three others in Europe. Asked about the midfielder’s form, Liverpool boss Arne Slot said: “I think what he needed is what he showed in the last six, seven or eight games – a run of games where he’s getting back to his usual level that he showed so many times last season.

“And he had that level also in the first half of the season but it went a bit with ups and downs, as the team went in terms of performances with ups and downs.

“But I see much more consistency recently – not only in Macca’s performance but in the team performance and many individual performances. But I think it’s always nice for a player to score, especially if it’s in extra time of extra time.”

FOLLOW OUR LIVERPOOL FB PAGE! Latest Reds news and more on our dedicated Facebook page

Mac Allister spoke out after his winning goal against Forest. Asked if the ball had touched his arm ahead of the disallowed goal, he replied: “It did, but it’s harsh. Because it hit my back as well. I understand the rules but it’s football, it’s very harsh.”

On his eventual winner, the Argentine midfielder added: “I knew I would get another one [chance]. Before the throw-in, I told Hugo [Ekitike] it would be our situation. But I had another opportunity and I am glad it went in.”

Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us – and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.