Afghanistan’s new penal codes set harsher punishments for mistreating animals than for violence against women, according to the UN’s high commissioner for human rights.

Volker Turk told the Human Rights Council in Geneva that the decree “defines several crimes and punishments that contravene Afghanistan’s international legal obligations”.

The decree, shared in an unofficial English translation by the Afghanistan Analysts Network (AAN), says that a man who beats his wife enough to cause a visible wound faces 15 days in prison – if she can first prove her case to a judge.

Meanwhile, the punishment for anyone having animals or birds fight is five months in prison.

For a woman who goes and stays at her father’s house without her husband’s permission, the sentence is three months.

Pakistan war latest: ‘Open war’ breaks out

Urging Afghan authorities to rescind the decree, signed by Supreme Leader Hibatullah Akhundzada in January, Mr Turk said: “It provides for the use of corporal punishment for numerous offences, including in the home, legitimising violence against women and children.

“And it criminalises criticism of the de facto leadership and their policies, in violation of freedom of expression and assembly.”

Mr Turk also said in Geneva: “Women and girls are the present and the future, and the country cannot thrive without them.”

The penal code also lays out different treatment for the same crime depending on social class, ranging from simple warnings for clerics to corporal punishment for those deemed to be at the lowest rungs of society.

It states that scholars and “high-ranking people” face a warning from a judge, while “average people of society” face imprisonment, and “the lower classes” are subject to physical beatings.

Read more from Sky News:
AI willing to ‘go nuclear’ in wargames
Replacing Starmer ‘won’t solve problem’, says Harman
‘I’m not the best father,’ admits ​Zelenskyy

AAN co-director and senior analyst Kate Clarke said on the watchdog’s website that the penal code has not yet been published in the country’s official gazette, but has been circulated to its courts.

She added on the website that the code appeared to have been leaked by someone in Afghanistan’s government, “prompted perhaps by its casual mention of slaves, the permission it gives to husbands to beat their wives and teachers their pupils, and its class-based discrimination”.

The decree is the first full penal code issued by the Taliban since they took control of Afghanistan in 2021, following Western military withdrawals.

In the years since, authorities have issued various prohibitions, including bans on education for girls beyond primary school.

Advertisement

Share

1,607 days since girls were banned from school in Afghanistan

Advertisement

It comes after Pakistan bombed several Taliban targets in neighbouring Afghanistan overnight, leading the country’s defence minister to declare “open war” between the two countries.

Security sources in Pakistan said air and ground strikes hit Taliban posts, headquarters and ammunition depots, while Taliban spokesperson Zabihullah Mujahid said air strikes hit parts of Kabul, Kandahar and Paktia.

Advertisement

Share

Pakistan in ‘open war’ with Afghanistan

Islamabad has long accused Afghanistan of harbouring militants carrying out attacks inside Pakistan.

The Taliban says Pakistan’s security is an internal problem.

The show sees contestants answer a series of questions to win counters, which they then drop into a machine, similar to a slot machine at an arcade.

The aim is for each counter to nudge more off the edge, resulting in winning money and sometimes even surprises for contestants.

While fans of the show can see how it plays out for contestants while they compete, they very rarely receive an update on how they’ve spent their money or what they did next after their appearance on the show.

So if you saw #tippingpoint @ITV today you might have seen Jamie talk about using any winnings for IVF with Hayley to give Otis their son a little bro or sis. Well they hit the jackpot with our first Tipping Point Triplets Nova Jasper and Billy ❤️🥹 Not sure it gets much better pic.twitter.com/l4RMvsFVSO

— Ben Shephard (@benshephard) February 26, 2026

However, on X, Shephard, who also presents ITV’s This Morning with Cat Deeley, shared an update about one of the contestants who played in yesterday’s show (February 26).

Jamie was a contestant who said if he won money on the show, he would use any winnings to pay for IVF so that he and his partner Hayley could give their son Otis a sibling.

Ben shared that not only did they give their son a sibling, but they gave him three as the couple welcomed triplets – Nova, Jasper and Billy.

In the emotional update, Ben said: “Not sure it gets much better”.

The full update on the social media platform, which includes photos of Jamie and his family, including the tiny triplets, reads: “So if you saw #tippingpoint @ITV today you might have seen Jamie talk about using any winnings for IVF with Hayley to give Otis their son a little bro or sis.

“Well they hit the jackpot with our first Tipping Point Triplets Nova Jasper and Billy

“Not sure it gets much better”.

The news was met with heartwarming messages from Ben’s followers, including this one, who said: “What a lovely ending, love this!”.

Recommended reading:

This person said: “Just seen this on FB. How lovely is this that man not only won on the show he also won at life. What a beautiful family xx”.

Another commented: “Absolutely amazing. Was praying he’d win”.

Someone joked: “Such an amazing story…surely one of the boys has Ben as a middle name though?”

What’s your favourite game show on TV? Let us know in the comments below.

The victory of the Greens in the Gorton and Denton parliamentary byelection is a landmark for the party. But our new research reveals the Greens have received limited airtime over the last year despite almost doubling their support in the polls and in party membership.

While Reform UK has seen a spike in media coverage since it took a commanding lead in the polls, our research shows the Greens have not received more airtime in recognition of their growing popularity.

Broadcasters have to abide by due impartiality rules, but they have the editorial freedom to balance the airtime of political parties. They consider factors such as a party’s vote share at the last UK general election or a party’s electoral performance at the most recent devolved, regional and local election. Other factors to consider include the latest trends in opinion polls tracking voting intention, and whether what a party is saying the news organisation considers significant or, as the BBC says, whether they are “making the political weather” by setting the agenda.

After winning the byelection, this raises the question: should the Greens now be given more airtime?

Limited coverage of Greens

Our Impartiality project team has been tracking coverage of UK opposition parties on BBC News at Ten and ITV News at Ten, the UK’s most-watched nightly TV news bulletins.

In 2025, we found the Greens were the sixth most covered opposition party, being referenced in just 32 items, behind the Conservatives (375), Reform UK (213), the Liberal Democrats (116), the Scottish National Party or SNP (46) and ahead of Plaid Cymru (10).

We also tracked how often a party was the leading focus of a broadcaster’s report. The Greens led four items – three on BBC and one on ITV. These stories related to the Greens’ May local election campaign, Zack Polanski winning the party leadership in September and the party conference in October. But neither BBC News at Ten and ITV News at Ten covered the announcement or build-up to the leadership contest.

In contrast, Reform UK led 69 items, Conservatives led 45 items, the Liberal Democrats led 14 items and the SNP led 13 items.

The Greens also appeared on only four episodes of BBC Question Time during 2025. That was about a third as often as the Liberal Democrats and Reform UK.
Despite the leadership change, the subsequent surge in membership and the sustained rise in poll ratings (from 11% in August 2025 to 17% in December 2025), broadcast coverage of Greens did not increase at the end of 2025.

This shows a potential inequality in the treatment of the rising left and right parties. The BBC cited improvements in opinion polling as one of the factors behind the increased coverage of Reform UK, but the Green party’s popularity has not received anywhere near the same recognition.

À lire aussi :
What Hannah Spencer’s historic win means for the Green party’s future

In May 2025, news coverage of Reform UK increased substantially following its victories in local and mayoral elections, which broadcasters considered a sign that the party was now a major player in UK electoral politics. Our research even showed in September 2025 Reform UK was referenced on TV news more than the Conservatives, the party that is supposed to be the UK’s parliamentary official opposition.

The question now is whether broadcasters will take the Green party’s victory in Gorton and Denton as a similar sign of its electoral significance and increase media coverage of the party.

While broadcasters have not broken any of the UK’s rules on due impartiality, our new research raises questions about how they have been interpreting impartiality in a new multi-party system.

Traditionally they have relied on allocating airtime according to parties with the largest number of MPs and total vote at the last general election. They have also factored in performances at the latest local, regional or devolved elections. But they now appear to making more subjective judgements about allocating airtime according to the opinion polls or the newsworthiness of parties.

Given the Greens’ growing popularity, their distinctive set of policies, charismatic leader and byelection victory, they might now look set to receive more media attention and scrutiny over the coming months.

I attended both Kaytranada and Fred Again’s concerts, both at Ally Pally, and the difference was remarkable. While there was still a smattering of pesky screens held aloft at any given moment, it was also very common to look ahead and see nothing but heads, arms, and moving bodies. The atmosphere was palpable: more people were chatting, dancing while facing each other (it always amazes me how dancing towards the DJ booth has become so commonplace, something which is also partially result of phone-forward experiences) and locked into the moment. I even spied a few punters with their eyes closed, fully transported.

The UK government has issued a travel warning for Israel and Palestine and withdrawn its diplomatic staff from Iran, as the US advises embassy officials in Jerusalem they can leave.

The Foreign Office warned Britons against “all but essential” travel to Israel and Palestine on Friday due to the deteriorating security situation in the Middle East.

It also moved some staff from Tel Aviv to “another location within Israel”, amid concerns the security situation “could escalate quickly” and international borders might close with little notice.

The alert was issued shortly after Britain pulled its staff out of it embassy in Iran as a “temporary” precautionary measure.

“We have temporarily closed the British Embassy in Tehran, this will now operate remotely,” a government spokesperson said.

Meanwhile, US ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee told embassy employees in an email that a decision had been made to authorise departures for non-essential personnel and their families who wished to leave.

Mr Huckabee said in the email that staff who wish to leave should do so that day, adding “there may be outbound flights over the coming days, there may not be”.

“Persons may wish to consider leaving Israel while commercial flights are available,” the US embassy said.

The travel warnings are one of the strongest indications yet that a regional conflict could be imminent, as the threat of US military strikes on Iran looms.

They come just a day after talks between the US and Iran over its nuclear programme ended without an agreement.

The US State Department revealed on Friday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio will travel to Israel early next week to “discuss a range of regional priorities including Iran, Lebanon, and ongoing efforts to implement President Trump’s 20-Point Peace Plan for Gaza”.

The announcement suggested a longer timeframe for US any military action.

👉 Tap here to follow The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim wherever you get your podcasts 👈

Donald Trump set ​out his case for a possible attack on ​Iran in ⁠his State ⁠of the Union speech on Tuesday.

Read more:
‘Significant progress’ in US-Iran talks – but no deal
‘It’s tense here’: Jerusalem braces for prospect of war

The US president said while he preferred a diplomatic ‌solution, he would not allow Tehran to obtain a nuclear weapon.

Mr Trump has previously threatened to take military action against Iran if a deal is not reached.

The US has spent the last month amassing a fleet of aircraft and warships in the region.

Iran has in turn threatened to attack Israel, raising the risk that military action could trigger another regional war.

A confidential report from the UN nuclear watchdog confirmed that Iran has not offered inspectors access to sensitive nuclear sites since they were bombed during the 12-day war launched by Israel last June.

Iran insists it has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes and denies pursuing a nuclear weapon.

​Almost a dozen objections have been made against a proposal by ​National Car Parks Ltd to turn former hotel parking into a public car park for up to three years in Scarborough’s North Bay.

​The site, at 143 – 147, North Marine Road, would have capacity for 21 cars.

​One neighbour, Wayne Thompson, said: “As the owner of one of the adjoining properties, I must object to the proposal on multiple grounds.

​“It does not bring any opportunities or support to the local area or economy. It also seems to actively avoid mentioning the building associated with the site, which has been derelict for a very long time, with no plans being submitted by the current owner regarding any short-term or long-term plans for the site.”

​The planning application states the car park would be temporary while the landowners consider the building’s future.

​The applicant said that vehicles would enter and leave the site over the course of a day “as they would do currently, and as there are no material changes to the site, there is no visual impact on the street scene”.

​​“The site has always been considered acceptable for the parking of cars,” the applicant added.

​However, resident Roger Jones said that “consenting to this application is incompatible with the area’s conservation status and the planning conditions which the council rightly imposes on property owners to maintain the integrity of the conservation area.”

​The applicant said the change of use of the site would be “less harmful” than if it were used for development.

​​“Operating as a public car park will provide opportunities to help support the local economy,” the application concludes,” they added.

​Kenneth Fixter also submitted an objection “on behalf of all the residents and property owners in the apartment block 149, North Marine Road and 149, Queens Parade”.

​Mr Fixter said: “There is no need for another commercially operated public car park in this area. All the buildings in Queens Parade have their own car parking in keeping with their intended purpose.”

​He added: “The massive, brightly coloured advertising and charges information signs erected in May 2025 are totally inappropriate for the site.

“They are incompatible with the nature of the conservation area and significantly detract from the ambience of the area for its residents.”

​However, the Highway Authority has not objected, stating that “no changes are proposed to the junction with the highway”.

​It has recommended conditions if the scheme is approved and noted that “there are no dedicated disabled bays. Inclusive mobility states car parks should be 2 per cent of the total car park capacity, with a minimum of one space”.

​North Yorkshire Council has not set a date for deciding on the proposal which is currently open to representations.

Stone Roses Mani, who died last November, to be honoured by Charlatans frontman Tim Burgess , who was a close friend of the star

BRIT Awards bosses are set to honour Stone Roses bassist Mani at Saturday night’s show – led by Charlatans legend Tim Burgess. Gary ‘Mani’ Mounfield died suddenly aged 63 last November, and close pal Tim will be on hand to deliver an emotional speech.

A source said: “Tim is set to present the In Memoriam section, but before he does so, he is primed to talk about Mani who was both a dear friend and mentor. The fact that Mani was from Manchester too – and the awards is being held there for the first time – means it will be a really special moment. Mani will then feature heavily in the section, as will other greats we have lost including Ozzy Osbourne.”

Tim has previously spoken of his love for the Stones Roses legend. He said: “I looked up to him so much. He was a pathfinder for so many of us, like an older brother who had blazed a trail.” The Stone Roses broke up in 1996 citing musical differences and Mani joined rock band Primal Scream, who he stayed with for 15 years.

He would go on to record four more albums with the band before leaving in 2011 to reform The Stone Roses. The ceremony will also see Happy Mondays duo Bez and Shaun Ryder reunite as guest presenters to present an award, at Manchester’s Co-op Live arena.

The pair, who previously performed at the Brits in 1991, were top of the wish-list for organisers. A source says: “They will hopefully bring some old-school Madchester energy to proceedings…..organisers can’t wait to see them in action. They want the show to be a love letter to Manchester as it’s being held in the city for the first time, and want to channel the city’s brilliant energy.”

As well as featuring in the In Memoriam section, Osbourne will be honoured with a posthumous Brit Awards lifetime achievement award. The singer, known as the Prince of Darkness, died aged 76 in July last year just over two weeks after his Back To The Beginning farewell concert where he was reunited with his bandmates.

There will be a tribute performance, fronted by pop star Robbie Williams, in celebration of his “inimitable impact and influence on music worldwide”. The tribute performance, curated by Ozzy’s wife Sharon Osbourne, will consist of a special arrangement of Black Sabbath’s 1991 song No More Tears, with Williams joined on stage by musicians who have previously played as part of Ozzy’s band, including keyboardist Adam Wakeman, Metallica’s Robert Trujillo, drummer Tommy Clufetos and guitarist Zakk Wylde.

Stacey Tang, chairwoman of the 2026 Brit Awards committee, said: “Ozzy Osbourne has been a mighty force in modern music. “Possessing an unmistakable voice and unique presence, he reshaped the sound and spirit of rock, inspiring generations of artists who followed. This lifetime achievement award recognises a remarkable legacy built on originality and enduring influence that continues to connect with fans worldwide.”

The music star died of a reported heart attack on July 22 after suffering a string of health issues over the years, including multiple surgeries following a fall in February 2019 and being diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. The show, which is presented by Jack Whitehall, will see former One Direction star Harry Styles will return to the Brits stage, where he is expected to open the show with his new song Aperture. Olivia Dean and Lola Young are topping the nominations this year with five nods apiece, whilst Sam Fender trails closely behind with four. Continuing the Manchester theme, Noel Gallagher is the recipient of this year’s Songwriter of the Year award.

Organisers say that his “songwriting has permeated the fabric of British culture for over 30 years, from his seminal work with Oasis to his ambitious and acclaimed solo albums with Noel Gallagher’s High Flying Birds..” They added: “His songs span generations and have continued to resonate with audiences around the world like no other.”

The sentencing of Hong Kong media mogul Jimmy Lai to 20 years in prison on February 8 on charges of sedition and collusion with foreign forces prompted international outrage.

Lai founded the now shuttered pro-democracy Apple Daily newspaper – and supporters of press freedom around the world pointed to the chilling effect the sentence would have on the media, in a city once vaunted as a beacon for press freedom in Asia.

The reaction was more muted in Hong Kong, where dissent has been stifled since Beijing imposed the draconian National Security Law in 2020, following months of protests in 2019. A local security law enacted in 2024 further expanded the scope of the city’s national security legislation.

Privately, some local journalists say Lai’s conviction will have limited impact on their work. They have already felt heavily constrained by the security laws and what they’re calling the “new normal” – an overarching national security apparatus and culture. Although saddened, they were not altogether surprised at the severity of Lai’s sentence.

One journalist told me they were more shaken by the sentences of up to ten years that were meted out to six senior Apple Daily editors and writers for “just doing their jobs”.

Since the national security law, Hong Kong journalists’ jobs have involved a great deal of dancing around shifting boundaries as to what can and can’t be reported. Inevitably, this has meant exercising greater self-censorship.

In an editorial on the sentencing, the Ming Pao newspaper, which has long positioned itself as a neutral paper of record, suggested the Lai ruling has brought these boundaries into sharper focus, concluding: “Collusion with foreign forces cannot readily be dressed up as journalism.”

The newspaper said that as Hong Kong now operates within the framework of the national security legislation: “The media must operate within this legal framework while continuing to report facts and hold power to account, a balance essential to preserving the city’s pluralism and openness.”

But it hoped “the Lai case will prove a watershed, allowing space for press freedom to widen step by step, so the media can fulfil its responsibilities more effectively”.

However, local journalists I spoke to described this position as naïve and wishful thinking, and said the red lines are no clearer now than before. Selina Cheng, chair of the Hong Kong Journalists Association (HKJA), believes the constraints on free expression in Hong Kong go far beyond a legal framework.

“If we call it a legal framework, it’s giving the system some kind of legitimacy,” Cheng told me. “In reality, the way it operates is there is a lot of destruction of due process, creating an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in those working in industries of expression.”

Apart from being arrested and jailed, Cheng says journalists and their family members have been doxed, with their personal details posted online, and harassed. Both individual journalists and news outlets have been targeted by unusual tax audits.

Tai Po tragedy

Cheng was one of several journalists I spoke to who pointed to the November 2025 fire which killed 168 people in Tai Po’s Wang Fuk Court Estate as a potent symbol of the current state of press freedom and freedom of speech in Hong Kong.

In the immediate aftermath, local and international journalists interviewed victims and reported extensively on suspected corruption and lack of oversight of building works on the site. But residents and other potential interviewees soon became reluctant to speak to reporters following the arrests of people who had posted comments online.

A student who started a petition for an independent inquiry was arrested – and then recently expelled from his university just weeks from graduation, even though he hasn’t been charged.

For one veteran journalist, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of bringing trouble to their organisation, what led to the Tai Po tragedy highlights a “media failure”. The news outlets which had most doggedly pursued stories about building maintenance, bid-rigging and corruption were the investigative site Factwire and Apple Daily, so “when these outlets disappeared, a lot of the reports also petered out”.

“In the past, you’d have lots of commentary in the media after an incident like this,” they explained. “There’d be legal scholars, experts, people from all different sectors. But now, the universities don’t allow people to comment and articles are spiked or censored, so it’s hard to raise and maintain public concern.”

Snitch culture

The journalist spoke of a system that extends beyond the legal framework of the national security law that restricts speech, through the control of public opinion and a “snitch culture” that weaponises complaints.

A Hong Kong police national security hotline was launched in November 2020; by June 2025, the city’s security chief said it had received more than 920,000 reports. Public bodies and funding organisations also regularly receive complaints about platforming of funding groups or individuals perceived to be pro-democracy or supportive of the 2019 protests.

Last October, a public venue cancelled a play written by Candace Chong, a leading playwright who was been vocal about censorship. The body that manages the Xiqu Centre, part of the West Kowloon Cultural District, said it had received complaints that the show – which depicts a love triangle between three men – defamed Hong Kong.

There are signs the “media failure” is already affecting governance. In January, the government introduced a controversial seat belt law requiring all bus passengers to buckle up while seated, only to shelve it five days later. The bill had received little scrutiny in Hong Kong’s now opposition-free legislature.

“It’s really unthinkable for a government to push out a bill, get it rubber-stamped by the legislature, and then withdraw it because they suddenly realise people are unhappy or the legislative details haven’t been thought through,” the HKJA’s Cheng told me. “It shows how the government misjudged public sentiment. This can be attributed to how the media isn’t free any more.”