It’s been described as the most famous front door in the country. But the glistening black entrance of No 10 Downing Street is not a portal to the wellspring of power in modern Britain.

That honour lies with the front door of a much grander building round the corner on Horse Guards Road: the HM Treasury headquarters.

Power-hungry prime ministers through the ages have attempted to break the Treasury’s stranglehold over decision-making.

Now, Andy Burnham is plotting his own escape from the dead hand of its mandarins by shifting some of his executive power from London to Manchester, with the creation of a ‘national growth unit’ that he has christened ‘No 10 North’.

When he becomes PM later this month, it is said Burnham will spend one or two days a week in his northern fastness, with one report suggesting that – depending on parliamentary calls on his time – he might base himself there on Mondays and Thursdays, while presumably spending the weekend at his gated home in the town of Golborne, 14 miles west of Manchester.

This move, coupled with his plan to devolve certain powers to elected mayors and local authorities, is calculated to discombobulate the Treasury.

But wresting authority from its Sir Humphreys could prove to be easier said than done, as Keir Starmer and so many of his predecessors can testify.

The level of administrative support and bureaucratic heft surrounding the Prime Minister is no match for the might of the money men in His Majesty’s Treasury, with its serried ranks of number-crunchers and veto power over any legislation that may spook the markets.

The current Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has proved particularly ill-equipped to counter the influence of her civil servants, writes Alex Brummer 

It is a measure of the imbalance between the two government offices that while 300 civil servants and special advisers work at No 10, there are more than 1,600 in the Edwardian Baroque Revival building that houses Britain’s finance ministry.

A senior Treasury mandarin once explained to me that nothing goes on in Whitehall, the Cabinet or No 10 that escapes Treasury scrutiny.

Every decision which requires taxpayers’ money, from authorising a review to making a change to the pension and welfare system, passes through the Treasury.

Gordon Brown was so suspicious of Treasury snooping during his ten years as Chancellor that he and his top aide, Ed Balls, would retreat to a box room in a quiet corridor to avoid being overheard by civil servants.

Their thinking was that if anyone was going to leak details of future government policy it was going to be them, not some Machiavellian permanent secretary.

Indeed, when he attended financial gatherings overseas, Brown refused to stay in the local British embassy for fear of intrusive civil servants.

And it would appear that not much has changed since. Two years ago, a study by the Institute of Government found that the Treasury demonstrates ‘a worrying imbalance of power in government that leads to bad outcomes in spending’.

This, it argued, ‘egregiously’ leads to a lopsided centre of power, meaning the PM ‘lacks the firepower, intellectual support or control of the levers to set and drive strategy, leaving the Treasury to fill the resulting vacuum’.

The current Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, has proved particularly ill-equipped to counter the influence of her civil servants, who regularly use blood-curdling warnings of a run on the pound or spiralling bond yields to keep their ministers in line.

The fingerprints of officials in thrall to the Treasury’s tin-eared economic orthodoxy have been all over her decision-making. It is no accident that Ms Reeves made the biggest political error of her tenure when she sought to address an alleged £20billion black hole in the government finances in July 2024 by cancelling – without consultation – winter fuel payments for ten million elderly people, a decision which provoked such a furious reaction that it had to be reversed 11 months later.

This was a prelude to the imposition of a disastrous succession of taxes on business which have crushed investment, employment and consumer confidence.

As power switches from one big spending socialist to another, the market for British government bonds – the financial instruments used to fund borrowing – has rarely been more jumpy.

The merest hint that the budget to fund Burnham municipal ambitions is in danger of spiralling out of Treasury control would be highly dangerous.

Britain, along with other members of the G7 group of the world’s wealthiest nations, is still counting the cost of the Great Financial Crisis of 2008, the Covid-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Even finding the cash for Burnham’s presumably splendid ‘No 10 North’ will be a street fight.

One thing that Burnham does have in his favour, however, is the Treasury’s growing lack of intellectual firepower.

It has long considered itself primus inter pares among government departments, thanks to a long tradition of recruiting only the most brilliant minds from the finest universities.

But I am hearing more and more complaints from veteran mandarins that there has been a qualitative decline in Treasury recruitment, with a knock-on effect on decision-making.

The problem, they say, is the insidious rise of political correctness. A recent Freedom of Information request made by The Spectator magazine found that the Treasury had stopped using numerical reasoning tests in its recruitment process – tests once considered vital in assessing applicants’ ability to understand often complex financial and economic policies – because too many ethnic minority candidates were failing them. Or, as the Treasury put it in its response to The Spectator, it was dropped ‘due to evidence of the test having adverse impact on candidate diversity.’

Prime ministers more robust than Burnham is ever likely to be, have been defeated by the obstinacy and obstruction of the people on Horse Guards Road, says Brummer

To make matters worse, the Treasury’s board has since removed verbal reasoning tests, too.

The lowering of standards around numeracy and reasoning inevitably has a detrimental impact on the standard of financial analysis provided by its recruits

It also puts the Treasury at an intellectual disadvantage when it comes to dealing with high-flying employees of blue-chip banks such as Goldman Sachs.

Recruits in the private sector are expected to have advanced mathematical skills or a qualification from a top business school, where candidates are required to pass lengthy mathematical and reasoning tests, before they are granted the privilege of an interview.

Andy Burnham may think he has the answers to the nation’s problems with his decade-long strategic plan, as well as the political nous to pull it off by undermining the Treasury.

But prime ministers more robust than Burnham is ever likely to be, have been defeated by the obstinacy and obstruction of the people on Horse Guards Road.

Take the fate of Harold Wilson’s reforms, the PM who made perhaps the boldest efforts to subvert Treasury power. In 1964 he created two powerful new government departments: the Ministry of Economic Affairs, which – like Burnham’s ‘No 10 North’ – was charged with bolstering growth; and the Ministry of Technology, which had a brief to embrace the ‘white heat’ of the ‘scientific revolution’.

Within six years, both had been abolished and the Treasury’s hegemony was more unquestioned than ever.

An inspection identified that “not all people had always received safe care and support”

A Cambridgeshire homecare service with concerns that had put people “at risk of potential harm”, has been rated as ‘requires improvement’. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) carried out an inspection at Regional Care Peterborough in Bakewell Road between March 9, 2026 to May 12, 2026.

Inspectors followed up on previous breaches of regulation in relation to governance and safe care. After the inspection, CQC inspectors said “improvements were not found” and the provider “remained in breach of these regulations”.

The inspection identified that “not all people had always received safe care and support”. It identified issues with medicines management, risk assessment and quality assurance.

While CQC inspectors found no evidence that anyone had come to harm, issues were identified that “had put some people at risk of potential harm”.

Murphy Cole, the owner and director for Regional Care said: “Regional Care Peterborough welcomes the publication of the latest CQC inspection report and is pleased to see the significant progress recognised since the previous inspection.

“Our last inspection identified five areas requiring improvement. Through the hard work and dedication of our management team and staff, this has now been reduced to three areas being rated as Good, demonstrating the substantial improvements made across the service.

“We are particularly pleased that the rapid response of our team in addressing issues was acknowledged and praised by both local authority partners and CQC inspectors.”

People’s care records reviewed were said to either not fully assess or clearly plan for how to mitigate risks. The assessment found there were “multiple areas” where key risk assessments or detailed guidance in people’s care plans were missing or incomplete, including for skin integrity risks and risks associated with people’s health conditions.

CQC claimed the provider had not always taken sufficient timely action to drive improvement in all areas of the service. Governance arrangements remained inconsistent and had not been fully effective in identifying or addressing ongoing risks.

As a result, the manager updated the governance systems but CQC recognised there had not been time for the new system to be embedded during the assessment.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to people being treated with dignity and responding to complaints. Improvements were found at this assessment, and the provider was no longer in breach of these regulations.

Mr Cole added: “While we are encouraged by the positive progress reflected in this report, we fully recognise that there are still areas where further improvements are required.

“The safety, wellbeing and quality of care provided to our clients remains our absolute priority, and we are committed to continuous improvement in every aspect of our service.”

The report said: “People and relatives told us they felt safe with staff. People and relatives said they were involved in developing care plans and that staff responded when people’s needs changed, including contacting GPs or district nurses when required.”

People said they are “very pleased with the carers” and they “are generally on time”. Another told CQC they “always [treat them] with dignity and respect”, however, they have “to tell them every time what to do”.

Overall, the home service was rated as ‘requires improvement’ in the safe and well-led categories. Other categories were rated as ‘good’.

Regional Care offers services and specialises in personal care, caring for adults over 65 and under 65, dementia, learning disabilities, mental health conditions and physical disabilities.

The spokesperson added: “Since the inspection, we have continued to work closely with local authorities and other partner agencies to strengthen our service. A comprehensive three-month service improvement programme is already underway, and we have proactively invited the CQC to revisit the service to review the progress being made.

“It is important to note that we raised concerns regarding the way in which the inspection was conducted. We also raised concerns that vital information submitted during the inspection process had been lost by the CQC.

“As a result, a formal complaint has been submitted, and we are currently awaiting their response. While this process is ongoing, we remain focused on delivering high-quality care and working constructively with all regulatory and partner organisations.

“We are proud of the progress our staff have achieved and thank them for their continued professionalism, dedication and commitment to improving outcomes for the people we support.

“We will continue to build on this progress and remain committed to providing safe, compassionate and person-centred care.”

It was, in the words of one insider, ‘the day the King’s patience snapped’.

After weeks of dithering and flip-flopping, not to mention the repeated leaks and briefings by Team Sussex, His Majesty was pushed to breaking point. Enough was enough.

What prompted him to slap down his younger son wasn’t the embarrassment it was causing him personally to see their family difficulties being played out in such a public arena.

It was, as one source described to me yesterday, the ‘disruption and disrespect’ to his staff.

Buckingham Palace, you see, isn’t quite ready for visitors at the moment, let alone ones as high-profile as the boss’s son.

It’s still largely a building site (and will be until next year) and unsuitable for guests.

Nevertheless the royal household was still willing to prepare rooms for Prince Harry when he was due to arrive in the UK last night and to change existing staffing arrangements to have a team on standby to cater to his every whim.

But the constant to-ing and fro-ing had left the King’s patience worn extremely thin.

Having stood the staff team down again on Saturday morning after receiving yet another rejection from his son, His Majesty was astonished to receive a request just hours later to ask ‘Pa’ if he could have the rooms after all.

And the answer – which I understand was given directly to Harry – was a firm, ‘No. Sorry but you are too late.’ Certainly not at just 48 hours’ notice.

It was, as one source described yesterday, the ‘disruption and disrespect’ to his staff that prompted the King to slap down his younger son

Harry with his children Lilibet and Archie, who he hopes to bring to the UK for a visit

The Palace has highlighted another element in the situation. It was by no means the deciding factor but did add a ‘further degree of complexity’ to things and, it was apparently felt, could have compromised the King’s constitutional position.

Today, judgment will be handed down in the claim at the High Court by the Duke of Sussex against Associated Newspapers, publishers of the Daily Mail, of alleged unlawful information gathering. This has been strongly denied and contested by the Mail.

So why, do you ask, did Harry’s team suddenly issue a dramatic statement yesterday morning announcing he had accepted his father’s offer?

Those in royal circles say there are only two possible theories. First, that Harry hadn’t clearly communicated his father’s response back down to his staff (unlikely given that he was due to arrive in the UK only hours later, surely?). Or second, that it was a clear attempt to try to ‘bounce’ his father into reversing his decision.

But perhaps, there is a third possibility. That the furious prince simply doesn’t care any more and wants to cause his family maximum embarrassment.

Either way, Harry’s arrival last night was once again mired in the same smorgasbord of chaos, confusion, claim and counter-claim that has characterised all of his dealings with Buckingham Palace in recent years.

Hopes among courtiers that the Duke of Sussex could, for once, enjoy a low-key and ‘peaceful’ reconciliation with his father – perhaps with his two beautiful children in tow – are now as much of a pipe dream as ever.

And there are many – even those in royal circles who openly acknowledge the institution hasn’t always handled the ‘Sussex issue’ perfectly – who firmly believe it is a mess entirely of Harry’s own making.

Team Sussex argue that because the duke was thrown an 11th hour curve ball by the Home Office security committee RAVEC, which has declined to reinstate his full-time security while he and his family are in Britain, he has been busy trying to put his own plans in place.

A spokesman said it was ‘disappointing that the offer has been withdrawn . . . at the last moment’.

But it’s also worth noting that the prince’s trip this week to his country of birth has been more than a year in the planning, with a week of official engagements built around a major event in the Midlands on Friday to mark the 12-month countdown to his admirable Invictus Games for injured service personnel.

His team began organising the visit knowing full well that he had conclusively lost a High Court battle against His Majesty’s Government over the Home Office’s decision to strip him of his round-the-clock taxpayer-funded police protection when he chose to leave the UK and relinquish his royal duties.

A decision, it should be noted, that he railed against, accusing the courts, who administer justice in his father’s name, of colluding in an ‘Establishment stitch-up’ and claiming they had made it impossible for him to envisage a time he could ever bring his wife and children back safely.

It simply doesn’t make sense, his critics argue.

My understanding is that Buckingham Palace’s offer of royal lodgings was a genuine one.

However, despite repeated requests for clarity, no formal response to the offer of accommodation at a royal residence to Harry and his family had been received by the ‘necessary deadline’ at the end of last week.

While every effort had been made to facilitate his stay, as a courtesy to staff and others involved, the household does require a minimum level of notice to ensure he could be ‘hosted appropriately’ at a royal residence.

Since this offer was first made, every indication from the duke and his senior team remained that the accommodation was deemed ‘unsuitable’ – despite it being one of the most heavily guarded buildings in the country with men brandishing machine guns on every corner.

There comes a point, sources say, that Charles simply can’t indulge the ‘constant chaos’ that comes hand-in-hand with his younger son

This was a concern which was repeated as late as Saturday morning, in which the prince formally declined the King’s offer once again. A ‘belated request’ was subsequently received later in the day to accept the accommodation offered for Tuesday evening, but by then the appropriate hospitality and staffing provision was no longer available.

Following consultation with the King personally, the decision to turn this down was communicated to Harry ‘through the appropriate channels’.

Asked whether there could be any doubt in Harry’s mind of this decision, a source said they couldn’t comment on the details but that they ‘could confirm the duke was aware’.

Which certainly accounts for the frustration emanating from the Palace yesterday following the unexpected announcement by Team Sussex that the Duke of Sussex would be staying at his father’s official London residence after all.

The Palace’s own pithy rejoinder – with definite shades of ‘recollections may vary’ – came just minutes later, a sign if ever needed of their immense displeasure.

It was clear that the King’s patience had been piqued. There comes a point, sources say, that Charles simply can’t indulge the ‘constant chaos’ that comes hand-in-hand with his younger son.

While some commentators suggested yesterday that the decision was a sign of bad faith – and bad parenting – by the King, who has hundreds of rooms at his disposal, this is a gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding of how both he and the royal household work. The King – who let us not forget is a man still receiving treatment for cancer and has worked throughout his diagnosis – is the last person who wants to pour petrol on the flames of a very fragile familial relationship.

Indeed, I would go so far to as suggest he appears somewhat saddened, although perhaps not surprised, by recent events. But what’s done, is done. So where does all this leave father and son?

Well, I am told that His Majesty still hasn’t ruled out seeing his son at some point over the next few days despite recent provocation, although clearly yesterday’s events have made that all the more difficult.

King Charles has an extremely busy working week with a heavy load of engagements each and every day.

As for meeting the grandchildren, he has barely seen since they were born – and who haven’t even been in the country for four years – that looks more tricky since Harry apparently hasn’t decided yet whether it ‘safe’ to bring them over from their holiday home in Europe.

The prince has, however, made clear that he still wishes to find a way to bring them to Britain towards the end of the week, when his work takes him to the Midlands and beyond.

As far as Buckingham Palace is concerned, it can only be hoped that the next few days go more smoothly than the last, and that such a meeting could be possible.

However, in the words of one insider yesterday: ‘Experience doesn’t lend itself to great confidence in this regard.’

It is hard to believe that a woman who has sold more than 120 million records – and boasts 16 Grammys and an Oscar to her name – might still be troubled by a few unkind words spoken more than a decade ago.

Yet, according to friends, one particularly cutting verdict on Adele’s music has never entirely faded from her mind.

The singer has spent the past month quietly slipping back into Britain, making a series of under-the-radar appearances that, at first glance, seem entirely unconnected – but which, I shall explain, are linked by one key theme.

An evening at Lola Young’s concert in Brixton was followed by a euphoric night at Bad Bunny’s London stadium show, then a surprise visit to McLaren’s Formula One headquarters ahead of the British Grand Prix.

Now sources close to the star have explained to the Daily Mail what’s behind it all.

After a long spell out of the spotlight and almost two years into her self-imposed musical hiatus, Adele is, I’m told, rediscovering the things that first made her fall in love with music – and trying to find the confidence to record it again.

The mission, say those close to her, has been fuelled in no small part by one man: Noel Gallagher.

The former Oasis star has spent the better part of a decade dismissing Adele’s work in the crudest terms, suggesting it’s ‘music for f***ing grannies’ and ‘bland’. His withering verdict, say those close to the singer, stung far more than many realised.

After Lola Young’s concert in Brixton, Adele was pictured with the young singer-songwriter

‘Adele was so hurt by Noel’s comments,’ one friend tells me. ‘They really left a mark on her. She is going back to her young Tottenham roots and has been immersing herself in “young, trendy” music. She’s going back to her own youth to write something that she hopes people will love.’

All of which might explain why the notoriously private singer has quietly been popping up at gigs all over London – seemingly happy to be spotted there.

Brixton’s O2 Academy has long been a proving ground for the capital’s most exciting new talent – so it was telling that Adele chose to go there first to support local star Lola Young.

At Bad Bunny’s sold-out concert, meanwhile, she appeared to have abandoned her usual anonymity by wearing an England football shirt and a straw pava hat. The star was filmed throwing her hands in the air and singing along with the crowd – while alongside her was Rob Stringer, 63, the chairman of Sony Music Group and one of the most influential executives in the business.

Their choice to attend together inevitably reignited speculation that new music from the star may finally be on the horizon.

Adele’s fiancé, the sports agent Rich Paul, 45, has also been by her side during the trip, with the couple making one of their rare appearances together in Britain.

Friends of the singer tell me that these sightings are about more than Adele simply enjoying a few nights out.

Instead, they’re part of her attempt to reconnect with music after years of privately being wounded by Noel’s brutal verdict.

The Oasis rocker first turned his sights on Adele in 2015, declaring: ‘If someone wants to know what I think of Adele, I’ll f***ing tell them… I just don’t see what all the fuss is about. I don’t like her music. I think it’s music for f***ing grannies.’

Asked whether he enjoyed listening to the London songstress, he branded her music as a ‘sea of cheese’ and lamented that industry had ‘nosedived into f***ing blandness’.

Eight years later, he was still at it. Asked by the podcaster Matt Morgan in 2023 whether he liked any of Adele’s songs, Noel replied: ‘F**k off, f****ng hell. Name one.’

He later revealed that his irritation had been sparked by Adele asking to meet him – but sending an intermediary to make the introduction rather than doing it herself.

‘She sent someone over to f***ing ask, “Did I want to meet her?” That’s what riled me,’ Gallagher told Morgan. ‘I’m not one for causing a scene, I just stick it in the vault and just think revenge is a dish best served cold.’

If those comments did indeed hurt, then Adele’s quiet return to Britain’s music scene suddenly feels all the more significant.

Noel Gallagher has spent the better part of a decade dismissing Adele’s work in the crudest terms, suggesting it’s ‘music for f***ing grannies’ and ‘bland’

Since stepping away from music, Adele has devoted herself to life with her fiancé, the sports agent Rich Paul, and her 13-year-old son, Angelo

The Hello singer famously said goodbye at the end of her Las Vegas residency in 2024, telling her audience through tears: ‘I have spent the last seven years building a new life for myself and I want to live it now. I want to live my life that I’ve been building and I will miss you terribly.’

She warned fans that they would not see her again for ‘an incredibly long time’.

Since stepping away from music, Adele has devoted herself to life with Rich and her 13-year-old son, Angelo, whom she shares with former husband Simon Konecki.

But there are signs that the creative itch is beginning to return.

In April, reports emerged that the singer had quietly returned to the recording studio, almost five years after the release of her last album, 30.

And over the weekend, Adele – looking almost unrecognisable from the fresh-faced singer who burst onto the charts with 19 almost two decades ago – offered another glimpse into the life she has built away from the stage as she made a surprise appearance at Silverstone.

Dressed in a T-shirt paying tribute to Formula One world champion Lando Norris and wearing a necklace spelling out ‘Mummy,’ she spoke candidly about the unlikely obsession that now dominates her household.

‘My son is really into karting,’ she revealed.

‘I don’t know many teenagers who have a passion so I’m really trying to encourage it. He’s obsessed but I’m also obsessed.’

It was a rare candid moment from a woman who has spent much of her adult life wrestling with the burden of fame.

Asked by 2025 F1 World Champion Lando whether she still enjoyed singing, she replied: ‘I don’t sing very often any more’ and later opened up about her ‘struggles with fame’.

Now, friends say, she is stepping into the limelight again – listening to new music, revisiting old influences and reconnecting with the London that shaped her.

Whether that process ultimately leads to a new album remains to be seen.

But after two long years, it seems Adele, however hurt she remains by Gallagher’s unkind comments, may be prepared to sing again – and fans will be thrilled that her self-imposed exile from the music industry may soon be over.

The campaign targets have been high profile.

St Petersburg was hit with drones ahead of Putin’s showpiece economic forum in June. Then there were strikes on Moscow itself, creating explosion videos that went viral.

Now there’s a confirmed hit on an oil refinery in Omsk, Siberia, 2,500 km from Ukraine’s border. The drone must have flown undetected for many hours, which shows how stretched Russia’s own air defences actually are.

Ukraine’s “influence” efforts also include Crimea, the peninsula which Putin seized in 2014 and which is deeply important to him personally.

Ukrainian drones are now hitting military logistics, oil refineries and power plants there almost every day, causing power cuts, fuel and food shortages and an official state of emergency.

A local resident told the BBC the situation was “catastrophic”, reminiscent of the turbulent 1990s after the USSR collapsed.

One of Putin’s great claims is that he “saved” the country from that chaos, raising Russia “from its knees”.

Now his all-out war is bringing danger even to Moscow in the form of drone strikes, and widespread fuel rationing.

So Zelensky will tell Nato, and try to persuade Trump, that Ukraine has turned the tide in this war, and that its campaign of pressure can, with help, compel Russia to engage in proper negotiations for peace.

Trump has seemed impressed by Ukraine lately, although he spoke to Putin for 90 minutes by phone this week, giving the Russian leader a chance to get his war story in first.

Above all, Kyiv wants to end this war fast, through “strength or diplomacy”, before another gruelling winter kicks in.

But to have any chance of that, Zelensky will argue, Ukraine needs more interceptor missiles to protect its cities and civilians.

Think about how many people you know who suffer with their gut. The bloating, the cramping, the urgent dashes to the loo, the miserable mornings spent doubled over in pain.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) alone affects around one in five people in the UK, yet for most the reason they suffer remains frustratingly out of reach.

They have been scoped and scanned, poked and prodded. They have cut out gluten, dairy and everything else a well-meaning friend once read might help. And still nobody has ever thought to ask them about their childhood. Yet new research suggests that this might be exactly the right place to start.

As a psychiatrist, I have seen this pattern more times than I can count. Patients with IBS are often referred to specialists like me because they’ve developed depression, anxiety or disordered eating as a consequence of their gut problems. They arrive with a long and fruitless medical history – years of gut problems that nobody has been able to explain – and we go through it together.

And then, almost as an aside, a different kind of story starts to emerge: a difficult start; a parent who struggled; a home that felt, for a young child, unsafe or unpredictable; parents who argued a lot; abuse; neglect.

Most people with IBS know that stress makes their symptoms worse – but what medicine has paid far less attention to is not the stress of today, but the stress of 30 or 40 years ago. It turns out there may be good scientific reasons why that early history matters so much.

A new study from New York University, published in the journal Gastroenterology, has findings that should stop every gastroenterologist in their tracks.

We know that stress in early life can raise the chances of anxiety and depression in adulthood.

But what this latest research showed is the effects of childhood stress reach beyond the brain.

The researchers found that stress in early life – from birth to the first years of school – may fundamentally alter the way the gut and the brain communicate with each other, increasing the risk of digestive problems that can persist for decades. And we’re not talking about minor tummy troubles. We are talking about chronic abdominal pain, constipation and IBS.

To understand why, you need to know that the gut and the brain are in constant, two-way conversation, known as the ‘gut-brain axis’.

The two are talking to each other every hour of every day (via a complex system of receptors and nerve signals, and even our gut microbiome, the vast community of bacteria, viruses and fungi).

When something disturbs that relationship early in life, the consequences can be profound.

Digestion slows or speeds up erratically. Pain signals are amplified. Research also suggests that early stress alters the gut microbiome – another pathway through which a difficult childhood can leave its mark. The gut becomes in effect exquisitely, miserably sensitive.

To test this, the New York University team separated young mice from their mothers for periods every day, mimicking the kind of disruption and insecurity that early adversity can produce.

By the time these animals reached adulthood, they displayed heightened anxiety and were significantly more prone to gut pain and disordered bowel function than young mice that hadn’t been subjected to the same stress.

The way that disruption expressed itself differed between the sexes too, with females more likely to develop looser stools and males more prone to constipation – a pattern that will feel familiar to any clinician who sees a lot of patients with gut problems.

The researchers also found that different symptoms appeared to be driven by different biological pathways. Gut pain and motility problems, it seems, are not simply two sides of the same coin – as is often assumed.

This matters enormously, suggesting that the same drug or intervention is unlikely to help everyone with a gut-brain disorder, and that we will need more personalised approaches.

The mice findings were then supported by two large studies of children, carried out by the same research group. The first tracked more than 40,000 Danish children over 15 years, comparing those born to mothers whose depression during or after pregnancy went untreated with those born to mothers who had no depression at all, or whose depression had been treated.

The children whose mothers had depression yet received no treatment were considerably more likely to be diagnosed with digestive disorders, such as constipation, colic and IBS. The worse the mother’s mental health, the greater the risk to the child’s gut.

A second study, involving children aged nine and ten in the US, looked at the full range of adverse childhood experiences, from neglect and abuse to having a parent with mental illness.

Any form of early stress was linked to a greater likelihood of gastrointestinal problems. It did not matter what kind of stress.

The lead researcher, Professor Kara Margolis, a paediatric gasteroenterologist, put it plainly.

When a patient comes in with gut problems, she said, doctors should not only be asking about their current stress levels – what happened in childhood is equally important, and something medicine needs to take far more seriously.

Professor Kara Margolis, a paediatric gasteroenterologist, says when a patient comes in with gut problems, doctors should be asking them what happened in childhood

Advertisement

And yet, IBS is still all too often dismissed as a neurotic complaint, as though being partly psychological makes it somehow less deserving of proper care. Patients are handed a leaflet and sent away.

I’ve seen too many of them spiral into serious depression, or starve themselves to a dangerous weight after years of cutting out food groups in desperation, simply because nobody took their symptoms seriously enough to offer proper support.

Just because something has a psychological component does not make it any less of an illness. This is what stigma around mental health looks like when it is hiding in a gastroenterology clinic.

None of this means that gut problems are inevitable for anyone who had a difficult start in life, or that they cannot be helped.

Psychological interventions, such as CBT, can have dramatic and lasting benefits for people with IBS, for example.

But this new research raises the possibility that for those whose gut problems are rooted in early adversity, more targeted approaches may prove more effective, ones that address the original trauma directly.

What this means is that the next time a patient sits down across from a doctor and describes years of unexplained gut problems, the most important question might not be about what they are eating, but what happened to them, a very long time ago.

A former charity shop employee at a large chain has shared the reasons why she thinks so many stores are forced to close down and what she believes needs to change

A former charity shop worker believes ‘the end is near’ for thrift stores. In a brutally honest post, she detailed a number of issues she believes have to change to keep customers engaged.

While you may think charity shops are busier than ever during the cost of living crisis, it isn’t that simple. Existing on the high street comes with challenges such as rising rents, utility bills, and other obstacles that customers do not see.

For that reason, Meg wanted to highlight some of the struggles. The ex-employee, who used to work in an unnamed chain charity shop, listed four reasons the thrift stores could be in serious trouble.

“Charity shops are dying,” Meg boldly stated at the start of her video. “I worked in a big chain charity shop and here’s why I think the charity shops aren’t gonna last much longer.”

She also reminded viewers that her views were her own. They are based on her personal experiences working in a chain charity shop and do not reflect all stores.

1. ‘Out of touch’ head office

For her first point, Meg explained that some charity shops would go for a “more expensive, high-end boutiquey feel”, which she thought was a mistake.

While some chain charity shops have become ‘incredibly corporate’, they offer a ‘mid-range retail experience’ that does not leave customers wanting to come back for more.

Meg claimed that, in her experience, they often ‘wasted money’ on campaigns and new goods to compare with a high street store.

“They had shops open in central London that made no money, but they kept them open for brand awareness when it was dragging the rest of us down,” Meg argued.

2. Overworked staff members

For her second point, Meg went on to claim that volunteers and staff in some charity shops she worked in were ‘completely overworked’ and faced poor working conditions, mould, and dirty donations they had to sort through.

She also claimed that theft and aggression were common occurrences in the stores, as she spoke from her personal experience. She added: “Just for someone from head office who’s paid 10 times more than you, to tell you that you’re not selling enough f***ing lottery tickets.”

3. Pricing

“This is a touchy subject and it’s a difficult one. I stand on the fact that charity shops exist to raise money for the charity, not to give you a bargain,” Meg said. “However, something’s got to give.”

She found some charity shop chains consistently more expensive due to stores raising prices, which sometimes has nothing to do with the shop floor employees.

“Head office will send a price guide in and you have to follow it,” she explained, revealing she often couldn’t afford the items in the store she was working at. “And at the end of the day, charity shops cannot compete with vintage.”

4. Fast fashion donations

Lastly, Meg claimed that the vast majority of donations she received were from fast fashion brands and did not attract much money.

“Charity shops need to make money to stay open, and they can’t make that kind of money on Primark and Shein,” Meg argued. “The overconsumption these days is actually insane. People buy and buy and buy and then just give it to the charity shop.”

After wrapping up her list, Meg had a recommendation for those who want to go thrifting without encountering all of these issues. Her top tip is to try out some different stores to see which suits you best. After all, every shop is different!

“I don’t know what the future holds. I think the future of the high street is already kind of in jeopardy,” Meg said. “And I, as a consumer, I much prefer shopping in a small independent charity shop. They’re always so much better.”

• Unlock more of the best of our journalism with a DailyMail+ subscription – brilliant exclusives, in-depth insight and the writers you love every day 
• See more Daily Mail on Google – save us as a Preferred Source

By IAN HERBERT, DEPUTY CHIEF SPORTS WRITER

Published: 02:00 BST, 7 July 2026 | Updated: 03:33 BST, 7 July 2026

As one of the foundation stones of a fully functioning and successful Manchester United team, there was a time when Rio Ferdinand could call himself an analyst. 

Advertisement

Ferdinand saw Declan Rice as a box-to-box midfielder before many others did and once offered as good a technical assessment as any of how central defenders might handle pressing.

But his nauseating celebration of FIFA rescinding USA striker Folarin Balogun’s red card — three clapping-hands emojis — put him in a minority of one beyond the US’s own cheerleaders, sent his name across the world as a Gianni Infantino shill and ate away at what professional integrity he imagines he has as a dispenser of wisdom at this World Cup.

Trilling a penny whistle for FIFA amid the World Cup’s moment of gravest reputational damage for years looked a hell of a lot like reciprocation from Ferdinand, for getting to host that that atrocious World Cup draw at Washington’s Kennedy Centre, last December.

Advertisement

Rio Ferdinand’s reaction to FIFA’s scandalous decision to overturn Folarin Balogun’s suspension has eaten away at what professional integrity he imagines he has left

Ferdinand co-hosted FIFA’s atrocious World Cup draw last December – and he has gone into bat for his old pal Gianni Infantino

You might remember how that one played out for him. Ferdinand suffered a sense of humour failure when a questioner asked him about his heading ability. He tends to wobble on FIFA duty when stuff pops up that’s not in the script he’s been told to read out. 

Advertisement

In 2022, no one seemed to have informed him that the deaths of workers on Qatar stadium building sites might get a mention. Or the fundamental lack of credibility of the reptilian Infantino. Awkward. Having sold out to FIFA, he presumes to think that everyone would be going along with their happy-clappy fluff.

He doesn’t seem to need media work so much, given the huge wealth that his vast footprint as an influencer and lifestyle guru has raked in. 

Yet Sunday night was a serious blow to his reputation and studio presence, given the robust and articulate responses of Roy Keane and Jamie Carragher, who were responding in real time to the scandal of FIFA kow-towing to Trump. Keane, you might remember, was also impressive in his uncompromising discussion of Qatar human rights. Ferdinand was an apologist.

The brief spat which ensued in the social media space between Ferdinand and Piers Morgan over the red card on Sunday night was not the height of sophistication — with its basis residing in Ferdinand managing to get #PiersHasMoobs trending years ago — but Morgan can be confident that he’s on the right side of the argument.

Advertisement

That became increasingly clear on Monday when Trump waded deeper into the episode, delighted to insinuate himself into ‘the soccer’ by confirming that he’d pulled levers with ‘Janni’ — as he described Infantino — to get the USA’s best striker back into the tournament.

Trump dragged the World Cup down into his usual mode of trash talk, throwing a vial of poison out at the Brazilian referee who sent Balogun off. 

‘The referee, who is a little bit suspect — if you check his past. I don’t want to say that because I don’t like to create controversy, but very suspect. If you’d like, I’ll provide you with his past.’ Raphael Claus testified at the Brazilian FA’s inquiry on match-fixing in 2024. He was found not guilty of any wrongdoing.

Former Man United and England star Ferdinand is now based in Dubai with his wife Kate

Advertisement

Trump’s public admission that he’d pulled levers with Infantino to overturn Balogun’s suspension was a humiliation for the FIFA chief

For Infantino, every word spewing out of Trump’s mouth deepened the personal humiliation. The FIFA chief insisted that the Balogun decision had nothing to do with the President’s call – yet before that intervention FIFA sources were insisting that the referee’s decision was final and there would be no appeal. 

This episode has stained a tournament which for a long time had been flying with neither sight nor sound of Trump.

A Pandora’s Box has been opened now. France want Michael Olise’s yellow card overturned. Brazil are infuriated by the slight on their nation’s referee. 

Advertisement

Ferdinand was steadfastly avoiding the subject yesterday, reserving his tweets to posts about England, a ‘Rio Reacts’ video of him watching one of their goals, sponsored by Airbnb, and a post trashing the British press. A day in the life of Ferdinand the analyst.