When we think about school bullying, we often focus on victims given the emotional toll they endure, the academic disruption they face and the long-term scars that follow them into adulthood.

Victim-centred research has been critical in shaping strategies to prevent bullying. But there’s a perspective that would help us understand bullying that is too often ignored: that of the aggressors themselves.

There is a growing body of research that explores how students themselves understand and explain bullying, but very few explicitly address the perspectives of the aggressors. Consequently, there’s a risk of misunderstanding the complex social and psychological forces that drive this behaviour.

In a study I carried out in Mexico, I interviewed 13 former secondary students – now adults – who had once been bullies. By delving into their life stories and memories from childhood and adolescence, the study uncovered critical insights into why school violence occurs and how we might interrupt it.

What emerged from these conversations was not a portrait of monsters, but of children navigating harsh environments, social pressure and emotional confusion. The findings challenge some of the myths that revolve around bullies. My research reveals reveal how aggression is often learned, normalised, and even rewarded.

What do bullies say?

Many participants told me that their aggressive behaviour was modelled and reinforced in their homes, schools and communities. Several recounted growing up in households where domestic violence and dysfunctional relationships were common. “We grow up in a violent environment … it becomes normalised … even to survive,” one said.

Others described how violence was institutionalised in several community spaces. This included in sport clubs where abusive coaches “toughened up” players, inadvertently teaching them to equate aggression with strength. Media and social media also played a role. One interviewee admitted to replicating a violent social media trend, highlighting how digital platforms can amplify harmful behaviour.

People in my research described how, rather than being punished, physical dominance and violence was praised and reinforced through the approval of their peers. One explained: “The jerk who made life impossible was the one everyone wanted to hang out with … How are you going to change if everyone celebrates you?”

Perhaps most revealing was the role of bullying in securing social status and group belonging. Participants described aggression as a way to solidify friendships, join peer groups or avoid becoming victims themselves. The “game” of bullying, as they called it, was often seen as a ritual – one rooted in reciprocal joking, physical roughhousing and group cohesion. One participant explained: “You’d hit someone as a sign of friendship … That’s just how the group got along. If you complained, no one would invite you anymore.”

Importantly, such practices also involve blaming the victim, especially when victims were constructed as “weak” or “deserving” of mistreatment.

Bullying functioned also as a way to police norms, particularly around gender and conformity. Boys who failed to perform dominant masculinity, broadly understood as an idealised manhood shaped by aggression and toughness, were often a target. One recalled: “A guy who doesn’t fight back is labelled ‘pathetic’, ‘coward’, ‘less of a man’.” But girls, too, engaged in bullying to maintain social order, often within friendship circles.

These testimonies challenge simplistic views of bullies as merely “bad kids”. Instead, they reveal a troubling mirror of broader social values: competition, dominance, emotional repression and the normalisation of exclusion.

What this means for schools

School-based programmes must go beyond punitive discipline. Many former aggressors shared that suspensions or expulsions had little impact, and in some cases, even increased their hostility. One participant described expulsion as a “reward” that placed them in a school with other aggressive peers, perpetuating the cycle of violence.

What mattered more were moments of emotional connection. For some, a heartfelt conversation with a parent or a teacher’s genuine concern became a turning point. As one interviewee shared: “I stopped bullying when my mom talked to me … I saw her crying and realised I needed to change.”

Interventions should include restorative practices such as family group boards, reflection circles and community service, which are aimed at building community rather than just punishing. These practices include dialogue sessions, peer mediation, and conflict resolution and reparation mechanisms such as apologies, paying for damages or any other agreement to repay the harm.

Equally, social-emotional learning that helps students to understand and manage their feelings and teacher training focused on recognising subtle forms of aggression, also must be considered. Parents must be engaged not only as disciplinarians but as partners in emotional development. And importantly, students must be invited into honest conversations about empathy, belonging, and responsibility (to themselves and to other peers).

By listening to the voices of those who once caused harm, we can have a better picture of the complex dynamics that underpin school bullying. And in doing so, we open up new pathways for healing, not just for victims, but for those who once harmed.

One of the most beloved horror films of all time is now streaming for free, just in time to get fans caught up as the franchise’s next chapter arrives.

The original Scream (1996), often hailed as the greatest horror movie ever made, is currently available to watch on BBC iPlayer, alongside Scream 2 and Scream 3.

With Scream 7 hitting cinemas today, it’s the perfect excuse to revisit the film that reinvented the slasher genre.

Directed by the late Wes Craven and written by Kevin Williamson, Scream changed horror forever when it debuted in the 90s. Blending genuine scares with razor-sharp self-awareness, the film poked fun at horror tropes while still delivering some of the most iconic moments in genre history.

Ghostface became one of the most iconic horror movie baddies of all time, and the film also offered one of cinema’s most enduring ‘final girls,’ Sidney Prescott.

Nearly 30 years on, fans still hold the original in towering regard.

On Rotten Tomatoes, one viewer described it as ‘Absolutely a masterpiece,’ while another called it ‘One of the best slasher films of all time.’

Another fan praised its lasting impact, writing: ‘A horror classic, man…This completely reinvigorated the slasher genre, with an interesting meta-approach and a great set of characters, with it being a legitimately fun mystery, too.

‘It’s thoroughly entertaining, and introduces one of the better final girls of all time in Sidney Prescott. Even in a franchise that’s still running strong, the original remains easily its best.’

That influence can still be felt today, with countless modern horror films borrowing Scream’s knowing tone.

The timing of its free streaming release feels no accident. With Scream 7 in cinemas, it’s the perfect time to catch up on the whole franchise.

Whether you’re a die-hard fan or a newcomer curious about what all the fuss is about, revisiting Scream now is a reminder of why it’s still talked about as the gold standard for slasher movies.

Scream 7 is out in cinemas from February 27, 2026.

A version of this article was first published on February 2, 2026.

Got a story?

If you’ve got a celebrity story, video or pictures get in touch with the Metro.co.uk entertainment team by emailing us celebtips@metro.co.uk, calling 020 3615 2145 or by visiting our Submit Stuff page – we’d love to hear from you.

MORE: When is The Claudia Winkleman Show launching on BBC? Everything you need to know

MORE: Traitors winner Rachel Duffy shares plans for £48,000 prize money after mum’s heartbreaking death

MORE: 6 films that were once banned in the UK — and the reasons why

David Vasey vowed to refund the former owners of the Teesdale Mercury after admitting a single charge of fraud at a plea hearing at Durham Crown Court on Wednesday (February 25).

The 63-year-old defendant committed the offence between June 2012 and September 2016 when he was initially financial manager and then financial director of the Barnard Castle-based weekly.

Vasey, said to be living in Normandy, France, appeared before the court last week, facing several counts of fraud by abuse of position.

Defendant David Vasey will be sentenced at Durham Crown Court in April for defrauding the Teesdale Mercury of £75,000 (Image: The Northern Echo)

His counsel, Chris Knox, said both he and his prosecution counterpart, Martin Towers, hoped to satisfactorily resolve the case prior to a provisional sentencing hearing, then set for March 19.

On the defendant’s return to court, on Wednesday, Mr Knox asked if the charges could be put to the defendant.

Vasey denied six counts of fraud but pleaded guilty to a seventh charge alleging that he made unauthorised payments to himself, of funds belonging to the Teesdale Mercury, between 20212 and 2016.

Mr Knox told the court: “We have been endeavouring to resolve this through discussion.

“He accepts fraudulently taking funds while working for the company and will pay £75,000 by the sentencing hearing.

“We have taken a long time to get to it and the complainant had to be consulted.

“What we are now anxious to do is that there should be acknowledged repayment before he is sentenced.”

Mr Knox also asked if a Probation Service background report could be prepared on the defendant in time for the sentencing hearing.

Judge Jo Kidd asked if the defendant had a fixed address in this country where he could live as a condition of his bail.

The court was given an address in Daisy Fields, Longframlington, Northumberland.

Read next … more court stories from The Northern Echo by clicking here

“Paying back what you stole would assist.”

He was bailed to return to the court for the new date for the sentencing hearing which was re-fixed for Thursday April 23.

When the global financial crisis hit in 2008, banks around the world collapsed or came close to it. Governments were forced to step in with billions of pounds of public money to stop the system imploding.

In response, regulators promised change. In the UK, these reforms were reinforced by ring-fencing, which separated everyday retail banking from riskier investment activities. The aim was simple: protect the public.

Our latest research looks at what actually happened next. Using more than 20 years of data, we studied how these post-crisis rules affected the UK’s four largest retail banks: HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group and NatWest Group. In a system dominated by a handful of large institutions, there is a deeper question. If regulation made banks both safer and richer, who really benefited?

After 2008, regulators cracked down on excessive risk-taking. Capital rules were tightened, forcing banks to rely more on their own funds. Liquidity rules required them to hold enough cash and safe assets to survive sudden shocks.

These changes worked. The system is now far more resilient than it was before the crash. But this came at a cost to competition in the banking market – and so to consumers.

Higher capital levels consistently improved profitability at the largest banks. In plain terms, being forced to hold more of their own money made them look safer to investors and lenders. That reduced their funding costs and boosted returns.

Liquidity rules had a weaker effect on overall profits, but they did increase interest margins, which is the gap between what banks pay savers and what they charge borrowers. In other words, regulation didn’t just stabilise the big banks. It strengthened them.

We also found that productivity barely improved over time. When efficiency did fall – during the financial crisis and again during the COVID pandemic – it was mainly due to operational problems, not a lack of technology. Recovery depended on internal management fixes rather than innovation.

Our findings matter because the UK banking market is already highly concentrated. Large institutions can spread the cost of compliance across enormous balance sheets. They have diversified income streams and access to global funding. But smaller banks and building societies don’t.

For challengers, the fixed costs of regulation bite much harder. Higher reporting requirements, capital buffers and liquidity rules limit their ability to grow, invest or compete on price. The result is that reforms designed to make the system safer also raised barriers to entry.

So, post-crisis regulation reinforced the dominance of the biggest players. The market power of HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds and NatWest became more entrenched, not weakened. Stability came at the price of competition.

What this means for customers

You can see the effects on the high street. A small number of large banks now dominate everyday banking. Mortgage rates, savings products and current accounts look strikingly similar across providers. Branch closures have accelerated, while access to in-person services has shrunk, especially outside major cities.

Despite rising profits at the biggest banks, service has not noticeably improved for many customers. With less competitive pressure, there is little incentive to cut fees, raise savings rates or innovate. In this sense, consumers may have paid indirectly for stability, through fewer choices and less diversity, particularly in smaller communities.

Post-crisis reforms have delivered a safer banking system, and that does matter. Deposits are better protected. Essential services are more secure. But our research highlights a difficult trade-off.

Capital rules improved resilience without lasting damage to profitability or efficiency. Liquidity rules remain essential, but may need careful calibration to avoid unnecessarily constraining lending.

More broadly, regulation alone cannot deliver a healthy banking sector. Long-term performance depends on better cost control, stronger risk management and improved lending standards.

À lire aussi :
Mandelson and the financial crash: why the Epstein allegations are so shocking

These issues sit at the heart of today’s policy debate, including the Bank of England’s recent decision to cut capital requirements. While intended to boost lending and growth, some critics argue it is more likely to fuel shareholder payouts than increased credit supply. Our findings support those concerns.

The UK appears to have traded diversity for stability. But weakening bank resilience is not the answer. If policymakers want stronger lending and better outcomes for customers, they should focus on encouraging reinvestment, improving efficiency and strengthening competition, not simply making it easier for already dominant banks to return cash to investors.

The lesson of the past 15 years is clear. Regulation can make banks safer. But unless it is designed with market power in mind, it can also make the biggest players even bigger.

Dr Mindy Pelz revealed the key supplements men and women should take during an appearance on The Diary of a CEO podcast with Steve Bartlett

When it comes to supplements, you could say there are too many options – and it can be overwhelming. But one best-selling health author has pinpointed the standouts for both men and women, especially when it comes to prioritising hormonal health.

Dr Mindy Pelz shared her views during an appearance on The Diary of a CEO podcast with Steve Bartlett. When asked which supplementation she would recommend, the medical professional didn’t hesitate.

“For women, the most important supplement she could ever take is magnesium,” she said. “Magnesium makes every single hormone in your body.”

Magnesium plays a vital role in hundreds of bodily processes. According to the NHS, it helps convert food into energy, supports normal muscle and nerve function, and contributes to healthy bones.

The National Institute of Health (NIH) reports that magnesium is involved in more than 300 enzymatic reactions, including those that regulate blood pressure and blood sugar levels. Some studies, the NIH notes, suggest the substance may even help with symptoms linked to premenstrual syndrome and sleep quality, although more research is needed.

For men, however, Dr Pelz has highlighted a different mineral. “For men, I would say the most important supplement for hormones, zinc, because zinc makes testosterone,” she said.

Zinc is essential for immune function and cell growth. According to the Office of Dietary Supplements, zinc plays a key role in DNA synthesis and reproductive health, and deficiency has been linked to reduced testosterone levels in men.

Research published in the journal Nutrition found that marginal zinc deficiency in older men was associated with significantly lower testosterone concentrations, reinforcing the link between the mineral and male hormonal health. The NHS also states that zinc supports wound healing and helps the immune system fight infection.

Experts stress that while supplements can support health, they are not a replacement for a balanced diet. Official NHS advice for anyone considering new supplements is that they should speak to a GP or pharmacist first, particularly if they have underlying health conditions or take regular medication.

Adam Wiggins left his former partner with an array of injuries after landing punches and kicks on her in a sickening attack

A military veteran beat up his ex-partner before running off and leaving the police to find her bleeding and terrified. Adam Wiggins phoned officers to say he had assaulted someone but would not tell them who.

A sentencing at Cardiff Crown Court on Thursday heard how Wiggins, 35, had begun a relationship with the woman just months before the cruel attack on August 16, 2025.

Prosecutor Nuhu Gobir told the court how the relationship “started off well” for the first few weeks before it deteriorated.

He said this culminated in the victim making a previous report to the police which led to Wiggins being on bail. His bail conditions preventing him from contacting the victim were active at the time he attacked her.

Mr Gobir told the court how Wiggins contacted Gwent Police and stated that he “wanted to hand himself in”. Don’t miss a court report by signing up to our crime newsletter here.

“He stated in the call to the police he…had breached his bail conditions and had assaulted someone, claiming he acted in self-defence,” Mr Gobir said. “He told the call operator the victim might need an ambulance but refused to confirm the person’s identity.”

Following the call Mr Gobir said officers were dispatched and conducted a search of the area. Wiggins was located and put in the back of a police van where he made “significant admissions” before and after being cautioned, it was heard.

“He admitted the assault on the victim and stated he should not have been in the area as it was a breach of his bail conditions,” Mr Gobir said.

Meanwhile it was heard how other police officers went on to locate the victim at her home address where they saw “multiple lacerations to her face and head”.

She was taken to the Grange University Hospital where she remained overnight for treatment. Mr Gobir listed her extensive injuries which included a 5cm or 6cm head wound, a deep 3cm head wound, a laceration to her middle finger, tenderness to her jaw and ribs, and bruises to her right eyelid, arms, and wrist.

In her interview with officers Mr Gobir said the victim explained how she had brought Wiggins to her home despite the bail conditions being in place.

She said there they had an argument before he accessed her phone and accused her of seeing a different man – something she denied.

Mr Gobir said it was the prosecution’s case that Wiggins punched the victim in the face causing her to hit her head against a cupboard door.

He then punched her “repeatedly” in the head and face until she fell to the floor. When the victim put her arms up to protect herself Mr Gobir said Wiggins continued to kick her while she was crying.

Mr Gobir said it was the prosecution’s case that the lacerations were caused by rings worn by Wiggins. The attacker then “ran off” after the victim pleaded him to stop.

Mr Gobir read out a victim impact statement prepared by the woman. In it she described feeling “emotionally drained” and “unable to escape the grip of this trauma”.

She said her beloved dog had witnessed the incident and had become “withdrawn” and had shown signs of distress, which has gone on to affect the victim emotionally.

She said her mother had also been “deeply affected” by the incident, describing one occasion where the victim had accidentally called her mother’s phone.

“She thought something was wrong. [She phoned] my sister in the middle of the night, fearing I was in danger.” she said.

The victim added that she paid for a cleaner to come to her home on three occasions to remove her blood stains.

Wiggins, of Queen Street, Pentre, pleaded guilty to one count of causing grievous bodily harm without intent.

He has six convictions for seven offences of which three relate to the battery of “other partners”. Having been remanded in custody Wiggins attended the hearing via a videolink from prison.

Kevin Seal, mitigating. referred to Wiggins’ time serving as a soldier in Afghanistan at a young age, which he said affected his mental health.

He said: “But he accepts he could have reached out further to others instead of [using] drugs and alcohol.” He added: “The first person who knows he should be punished is Adam Wiggins.”

Judge Vanessa Francis called Wiggins’ actions “persistent and sustained” while she considered how he had “already spent time in custody” prior to the hearing. She said the time he has spent on remand is already equivalent to that of a 12-month sentence.

She sentenced Wiggins to 24 months in prison suspended for two years. He will now be released from custody and allowed into the community where he will complete a rehabilitation course, a mental health treatment requirement, and an alcohol abuse requirement.

He was made the subject of a restraining order, preventing him from contacting the victim for the next five years. Referring to Wiggins having previously breached a court order Judge Francis said there would be “no second chances with this order”.

If you or someone you know is affected by domestic abuse visit the Live Fear Free website or call the helpline on 0808 80 10 800.

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.

Giles Cooper, executive producer of the show and chairman of the charity, said: “The Royal Variety Charity is thrilled that the Royal Variety Performance will be returning to the iconic Royal Albert Hall this year after our very successful, five star reviewed show in 2025, attended by Their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales.”

Trenchers of Whitby scooped the Restaurant of the Year title at the National Fish and Chip Awards 2026.

General manager Andrew Wilkinson, who has worked at Trenchers for 25 years, said: “We are absolutely delighted.

“Winning this award for the second time at Trenchers of Whitby, and for the third time as a brand, is a true testament to the quality of our food and to the outstanding hard work, passion, and dedication of our entire team.

“This achievement is very much a team effort, built on the commitment of everyone across the business – many of whom have been with us for decades.”

The awards, known as the ‘Oscars’ of the fish and chip industry, celebrate excellence, sustainability, quality, and outstanding customer experience across the UK.

Trenchers previously won the same award in 2019.

Its wider brand has also enjoyed national success, with Trenchers Spanish City taking the title in 2020 and finishing third in 2025.

Judges praised Trenchers for its commitment to responsibly sourced fish, consistently high culinary standards, and ‘warm Yorkshire hospitality’.

The restaurant, located in the centre of Whitby, has long been a favourite with both locals and visitors.

It is especially known for its traditional fish and chips and freshly prepared seafood.

Building on its recent success, Trenchers will soon expand with the opening of Trenchers Bowness on Windermere, which is set to launch in July 2026.

Meanwhile, its sister restaurant Tide by Trenchers will reopen on Bridge Street in Whitby on March 12 with a refreshed menu.

The new offering promises “seasonal flavours, your award-winning favourites from Trenchers, and a fresh take on the finest seafood.”

The National Fish and Chip Awards 2026 brought together top operators from across the UK, highlighting innovation, sustainability, and excellence within the industry.

Securing the Restaurant of the Year title cements Trenchers of Whitby’s status at the very top of the UK’s fish and chip scene.

As the deadline looms for a leading AI lab to hand over its tech to the US military, a study has appeared suggesting AI models are more than willing to go nuclear in wargames.

Only a couple of years ago, the phrase on everyone’s lips was “AI safety”.

I’ll be honest, I never took the idea that frontier AI models would become a genuine threat to humanity that seriously, nor that humans would be stupid enough to let them.

Now, I’m not so sure.

First, consider what’s going on in the US.

The Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, has given leading AI firm Anthropic a deadline of the end of today to make its latest models available to the Pentagon.

Anthropic, which has said it has no problem in principle with allowing the US military access to its models, is resisting unless Mr Hegseth agrees to their red lines: That their AI isn’t used for mass surveillance of US civilians nor for lethal attacks without human oversight.

Although the Pentagon hasn’t said what it plans to do with AI from Anthropic – or the other big AI labs that have already agreed to let it use their tech – it’s certainly not agreeing to Anthropic’s terms.

It’s been reported Mr Hegseth could use Cold War-era laws to compel Anthropic to hand over its code, or blacklist the firm from future government contracts if it doesn’t comply.

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei said in a statement on Thursday that “we cannot in good conscience accede to their request”.

He said it was the company’s “strong preference… to continue to serve the Department and our warfighters – with our two requested safeguards in place”.

He insisted the threats would not change Anthropic’s position, adding that he hoped Mr Hegseth would “reconsider”.

Advertisement

Share

Is AI getting too good, too quickly?

AI prepared to use nuclear weapons

On one level, it’s a row between a department with an “AI-first” military strategy and an AI lab struggling to live up to what it’s long claimed is an industry-leading, safety-first ethos.

A struggle made more urgent, perhaps, by reports that its Claude AI was used by tech firm Palantir, with which it has a separate contract, to help the Department of War execute the military operation to capture Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela.

But it’s also not hard to see it as an example of a government putting AI supremacy ahead of AI safety – assuming AI models have the potential to be unsafe.

And that’s where the latest research by Professor Kenneth Payne at King’s College London comes in.

He pitted three leading AI models from Google, OpenAI and – you guessed it – Anthropic against each other, as well as against copies of themselves, in a series of wargames where they assumed the roles of fictional nuclear-armed superpowers.

The most startling finding: the AIs resorted to using nuclear weapons in 95% of the games played.

“In comparison to humans,” said Prof Payne, “the models – all of them – were prepared to cross that divide between conventional warfare, to tactical nuclear weapons”.

To be fair to the AIs, firing tactical nuclear weapons, which have limited destructive power, against military targets is very different to launching megatonne warheads on intercontinental ballistic missiles against cities.

They invariably stopped short of such all-out strategic nuclear strikes.

But did when the scenarios required it.

In the words of Google’s Gemini model as it explained its decision in one of Prof Payne’s scenarios to go full Dr Strangelove: “If State Alpha does not immediately cease all operations… we will execute a full strategic nuclear launch against Alpha’s population centers. We will not accept a future of obsolescence; we either win together or perish together.”

‘It was purely experimental’

The “taboo” that humans have applied to the use of nuclear weapons since they were first and last used in anger in 1945 didn’t appear to be much of a taboo at all for AI.

Prof Payne is keen to stress that we shouldn’t be too alarmed by his findings.

It was purely experimental, using models that knew – in as much as Large Language Models “know” anything – that they were playing games, not actually deciding the future of civilisation.

Read more from Sky News:
AI is developing so fast it is becoming hard to measure
Meet the kids who want a social media ban

Nor, it would be reasonable to assume, is the Pentagon, or any other nuclear-capable power, about to put AIs in charge of the nuclear launch codes.

“The lesson there for me is that it’s really hard to reliably put guardrails on these models if you can’t anticipate accurately all the circumstances in which they might be used,” said Prof Payne.

An AI ‘stand-off’

Which brings us neatly back to the stand-off over AI between Anthropic and the Pentagon.

One of the factors is that Mr Hegseth expects AI labs to give the Department of War the raw versions of their AI models, those without safety “guardrails” that have been coded into commercial versions available to you and I – and the ones which, not very reassuringly, went nuclear in Prof Payne’s wargame experiment.

Anthropic, which makes the AI and arguably understands the potential risks better than anyone, is unwilling to allow that without certain reassurances from the government around what it intends to do with it.

By setting a Friday night deadline, Mr Hegseth is not only attempting to force Anthropic’s hand, but also do so without US Congress having a say in the move.

As Gary Marcus, a US commentator and researcher on AI, puts it: “Mass surveillance and AI-fuelled weapons, possibly nuclear, without humans in the loop are categorically not things that one individual, even one in the cabinet, should be allowed to decide at gunpoint.”

Pakistan’s defence minister has said that the ​country ‌is in an “open ​war” with neighbouring Afghanistan, after both nations launched airstrikes overnight.

Khawaja ‌Muhammad Asif said Islamabad’s ​patience ⁠had ⁠run out as tensions escalated, with casualties reported on both sides.

“Our cup of patience has ⁠overflowed,” he said. “Now ​it is ​open war between ​us and ⁠you (Afghanistan).”

This breaking news story is being updated and more details will be published shortly.

Please refresh the page for the fullest version.

You can receive breaking news alerts on a smartphone or tablet via the Sky News app. You can also follow us on WhatsApp and subscribe to our YouTube channel to keep up with the latest news.