Shoppers who purchased the item have been urged to stop using it ‘immediately’ and return it to any branch for a full refund as it could pose health risks

Primark has urgently recalled a fashion accessory after it was found to contain a chemical that could pose health risks.

Shoppers who purchased the item have been urged to stop using it “immediately” and return it to any branch for a full refund – without the need for a receipt.

Primark‘s 101 Dalmatians Zip Purse, part of its Disney collection, “has been found to contain phthalates above permitted levels,” a recall notice reads. “This may cause harm to health and the environment.”

Phthalates, synthetic chemicals used to make plastics softer and more flexible, can pose health risks to children as well as potentially damaging the reproductive system if present in excessive quantities.

Advertisement

The faux leather purse was therefore found not to meet the retailer’s usual high safety standards. The product was sold in UK stores between March 2026 and June 2026.

Primark has also asked the public to spread the word about the recall, “especially if you know that the recalled product was offered, borrowed or sold to someone else.”

The recall notice reads: “We are recalling our product pictured above due to a safety issue. Model: 101 Dalmatians Faux Leather Coin Purse (Kimball no. 2595301).

“This was sold in Primark stores in the UK between March 2026 and June 2026.

“We’ve learned the product does not meet our usual high safety standards. The product has been found to contain phthalates above permitted levels, and this may cause harm to health and the environment.

“Please stop using the product immediately. Please return the product to any of our Primark stores. It is not necessary to show proof of purchase. The returned product will be fully refunded.

“We apologise for any inconvenience and concerns this may cause.”

Customers seeking more information about the recall have been asked to email help.uk@help.primark.com.

The 25-year-old became a familiar face on Channel 5 while appearing on the show about her family’s remote North Yorkshire farm, but chose science over full-time farming.

She regularly shares snaps on her Instagram page of holidays, enjoying drinks with friends, riding horses, and exploring the countryside.

But between all the fun, she has an impressive career and educational background.

Raven studied biomedical science at York St John University, graduating with first-class honours in 2022 before completing a master’s degree in the same field.

Her academic achievements were celebrated by proud mum Amanda, who has often spoken about her daughter’s hard work and determination.

The Yorkshire Shepherdess expressed her pride on Instagram, writing: “Result! A first! Her dedication & determination has paid off.

“Always in the library, a laboratory or a catering van. She works so hard. The sky is the limit – massively proud of Raven.”

According to her professional profile, Raven’s research focused on oncology and ways of improving chemotherapy treatments.

She has previously stated ambitions of progressing even further academically, with hopes of eventually studying for a PhD.

Since leaving university, Raven has established herself in the scientific sector.

Wolfsong Media lists her as an assistant scientist, while a more recent professional profile says she works in analytical chemistry and chemical residue analysis.

The profile says her work includes mass spectrometry and laboratory testing.

Raven’s scientific career has taken her away from daily farm work, but she has not forgotten her roots.

She still returns to Ravenseat to help her family and has appeared with Amanda, Clive and her siblings on More4’s Our Farm Next Door: Amanda, Clive and Kids.

Her journey marks a striking contrast to the life many viewers expected after watching her grow up on screen in one of Britain’s best-known farming families.

Raven has built a career in laboratory science rather than staying on the farm, while maintaining strong links to her North Yorkshire home.

Britain should ensure aid money is earmarked specifically for overseas food assistance to protect its security interests, the report, which was commissioned by the organisation United Against Hunger and Malnutrition, argues.

The UK’s overseas development budget (ODA) has been drastically reduced in the last six years, falling from 0.7 per cent to 0.3 per cent of GDP.

Defence spending is up but largely earmarked for the military – and is not designed to address the root causes of global instability. 

The drop in aid – which equates to roughly £6.5 billion in real terms – has hit food assistance programmes particularly hard. 

The UN’s World Food Programme (WFP), the largest provider of food relief globally, received £448 million of British aid money in 2024, a figure cut to £322 million last year. 

The organisation has had to drastically scale down operations, including giving emergency food packages to pregnant women and young children, in places like Somalia, Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and Haiti. 

“[Britain] needs to protect and prioritise spending on proven nutrition interventions, including supplementary and emergency therapeutic foods such as [….], breastfeeding support and ready-to-use therapeutic food. 

“There isn’t really a choice between spending money and saving money. It’s between spending modestly before a crisis and paying far more for it afterwards,” Prof Gordon said. 

Protect yourself and your family by learning more about Global Health Security

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina (AP) — A long-lost Italian portrait looted from a prominent Jewish art dealer during World War II was set to be returned to his heir after an Argentine court on Friday approved a deal under which the daughter of a fugitive Nazi official agreed to give up her claim rather than face trial.

The agreement paves the way for the long-sought return of “ Portrait of a Lady ” to Marei von Saher, the sole surviving heir of Dutch-Jewish art dealer Jacques Goudstikker, whose celebrated collection was sold under duress to Nazi officials after Adolf Hitler’s Germany invaded the Netherlands in 1940.

Patricia Kadgien, the daughter of the late high-ranking Nazi official Friedrich Kadgien, and her husband, Juan Carlos Cortegoso, were charged with aggravated cover-up last year after authorities said they hid the 18th-century painting despite knowing it was being sought by Argentine and international investigators.

Under the agreement, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, the couple agreed to give up any claim to the work and consent to its return to von Saher in exchange for avoiding a criminal trial and spending two years under court supervision. During that time, they must make payments to a hospital in Argentina’s coastal city of Mar del Plata, where they live, and keep authorities informed of their whereabouts.

The deal ends a generations-long search for the missing portrait and a yearlong legal saga that began in August 2025. Dutch reporters investigating Friedrich Kadgien, a fugitive Nazi financial official who fled to Argentina after World War II, spotted “Portrait of a Lady” hanging above a green velvet couch in an online real estate listing for his daughter’s rustic home in Mar del Plata.

The listing disappeared within hours of the Rotterdam-based newspaper Algemeen Dagblad publishing its findings. Police raided the home several times but failed to find the painting. More than a week later, Kadgien’s lawyer turned it over to authorities.

For decades, the portrait had been identified as a work by the Italian Baroque painter Giuseppe Vittore Ghislandi. It appeared under that attribution in Goudstikker’s collection records and was exhibited as a Ghislandi in Amsterdam before the war. But a court-ordered examination by Argentina’s National Academy of Fine Arts reached a different conclusion, attributing the work to the Italian artist Giacomo Antonio Melchiorre Ceruti.

Experts authenticated the painting as part of Goudstikker’s collection and estimated its value at about 250,000 euros ($290,000).

24 Hours in Police Custody fans have been left furious by Channel 4’s scheduling of the true crime series, with many taking to social media to demand the broadcaster never split episodes again

Devotees of 24 Hours in Police Custody have expressed their annoyance at Channel 4 following the broadcaster’s latest announcement regarding the popular true crime programme.

Loyal viewers have endured a wait spanning several months for fresh episodes to broadcast, being served numerous repeats instead. Nevertheless, last weekend, audiences were at last given new material with a two-episode special.

The opening instalment of 24 Hours in Police Custody: The Ambush was shown on Sunday, 30 August, documenting the investigation into a 17-year-old lad left in a coma following a severe attack. Officers were depicted piecing together the circumstances that preceded his catastrophic injuries, relying substantially on CCTV footage to assist them in constructing their case.

The concluding instalment, still to be broadcast, will pick up from where the opening episode finished. Yet, numerous viewers were left baffled about when they’d be able to watch the second part of the special, with many presuming it would be screened the following night.

Advertisement

Due to the extent of bewilderment among audiences, Channel 4 has subsequently released a playful scheduling update, clarifying that the concluding half would be transmitted on Sunday, September 6 at 9pm on Channel 4 alongside screenshots of puzzled fan messages, reports Glasgow Live.

The post read: “POV you’re the Social Media Manager reading the comments on the new 24 Hours in Police Custody.” However, rather than being satisfied, numerous fans seized upon the update to voice their frustration at the week-long gap – and to insist Channel 4 reconsider its strategy going forward.

One viewer fumed: “Please listen to the feedback and NEVER again make us wait a week for part two!”

“Why make us wait a week?” questioned another devotee of the programme. They continued: “Deeply unfair and frustrating. You can only tease us so far, social media manager take note.”

Meanwhile, a third enthusiast, posting on X, observed: “I absolutely LOVE #24HoursInPoliceCustody, but the programming really does test my patience. We get about 3 new cases every 117 years while #Channel4 get u excited putting out episodes, only to find they are repeats.

“Then they FINALLY give us a new one that’s apparently an absolute belter and part 2 isn’t tomorrow. IT’S NEXT SUNDAY? ! A WHOLE WEEK? ! It’s called 24 Hours in Police Custody, not 168 Hours Waiting for Part Two.”

The long-running documentary programme has built up a dedicated fanbase since its debut in 2014, offering a raw look at law enforcement throughout the UK and the work officers undertake to achieve criminal prosecutions.

24 Hours in Police Custody: The Ambush returns to Channel 4 on Sunday, September 6 at 9pm.

Although Clancy does not deny killing her three children, she pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder

The trial of Lindsay Clancy, a mother accused of strangling her three children before throwing herself from a second-floor window, has been declared a mistrial after jurors were unable to reach a unanimous verdict.

Thirty-six-year-old Clancy was charged over the deaths of her children, Cora, aged five, Dawson, three, and eight-month-old Callan, who were found dead at the family’s home in Duxbury, Massachusetts, in January 2023.

The former labour and delivery nurse, who was paralysed after her fall and appeared in court in a wheelchair throughout the trial, allegedly sent her husband, Patrick Clancy, on a series of errands before the children were killed. He later returned home to discover their bodies in the basement, The Mirror reports.

Jurors deliberated for more than 38 hours but repeatedly told the court they could not agree on a verdict. After a third deadlock warning, the judge formally declared a mistrial.

“At this point, I’m going to declare that the jury is deadlocked, and I’m going to declare a mistrial,” Judge William Sullivan told the jury, before discharging them.

The sticking point of the trial focused on the mother’s mental state at the time of the killings. Clancy’s defence team argued that the former nurse was suffering from postpartum psychosis, making her not criminally responsible for her children’s deaths. Prosecutors dispute this point, alleging that she had deliberately killed the three youngsters.

Although Clancy does not deny killing her three children, she pleaded not guilty to three counts of first-degree murder. The indecisive jury heard evidence from more than 80 witnesses during the trial, observing roughly 300 exhibits. Clancy’s attorneys, while defending her, had never rejected her role in the killings, instead putting forth a defence of insanity; they argued that Clancy had hallucinations and delusions after giving birth to her youngest child.

Treatment for mental health issues, and Clancy’s decision to check herself into a psychiatric hospital just days before the deaths, were highlighted by the defence.

Countering this, prosecutors contended Clancy made a calculated decision to kill her children intentionally, alleging that she sent her husband out on errands so that he would not be home and she could carry out the killings.

Patrick, who has since remarried, told the court about Lindsay’s declining mental health following the birth of their youngest son, with the “big spiral” starting around a month before the killings.

“She started to lose a lot of weight, and she became very depressed, and she was having a really hard time,” he said. It was also revealed that Clancy had previously sought help from doctors and had been taking various medications.

Patrick added that he could recall her admitting to having suicidal thoughts. The jury had previously told Judge William Sullivan it was struggling to reach a unanimous decision before returning without a verdict for a third time.

Judge Sullivan said: “I’m going to declare a mistrial at this point,” before Clancy’s defence asked for the declaration to be temporarily stayed while it sought emergency relief from a higher court.

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