EXCLUSIVE: Polling reveals 52% of voters believe Nigel Farage decided to fight a by-election in Clacton in order to divert attention away from a standards probe into a £5million ‘gift’ he accepted

Nigel Farage is quarreling with a bin in order to avoid scrutiny about his finances, most voters believe.

Damning polling seen by The Mirror reveals 52% think he decided to fight a by-election in Clacton to divert attention away from a standards probe into a £5million ‘gift’ from a crypto tycoon. Just a quarter do not believe he is trying to avoid scrutiny, polling firm Survation found.

Even among current Reform voters, a third think Mr Farage is attempting to swerve questions about his finances. The Reform leader faces a humiliating battle after all the main parties refused to take part in the “circus” contest, clearing the way for parody candidate Count Binface to be his main rival.

Veronica Hawking, Campaigns Director at 38 Degrees, said: “The British public don’t suffer fools gladly. They see this by-election for what it is: an attempt by Nigel Farage to avoid scrutiny and accountability that all our politicians should be held to. Farage says he represents the people but not many people get £5m gifts from billionaire friends. It’s time to clean up politics for good.”

Mr Farage was being investigated by Parliament’s standards committee after it emerged he had accepted a large sum from Thailand-based Christopher Harborne shortly before the 2024 general election. He did not declare the money, which he insists was an unconditional personal gift.

Parliamentary rules say gifts and donations in the 12 months before becoming an MP. If he is found to have broken rules, Mr Farage could potentially face a suspension and a possible by-election. The investigation is expected to resume if he returns to Parliament after the August 13 contest.

Mr Farage could face a second standards probe over allegations that convicted fraudster George Cottrell – an ally of the party leader – provided benefits including security, drivers, staff and accommodation. The Lib Dems last week called on the commissioner, Daniel Greenberg, to investigate following reports in The Times.

Mr Cottrell’s lawyers said they dispute reports of financial assistance to Mr Farage. On top of that it was reported last week that two £250,000 donations by Mr Cottrell’s mum Fiona are being investigated by the Met Police to determine the original source of the funds.

Two people have been interviewed under caution but no arrests have been made since it was referred to police by the Electoral Commission last Thursday. Damian Lyons Lowe, founder of Survation, said: “The public may be split on whether Farage should re-stand, but they are not split on why he is doing it. Twice as many voters see this as an escape from scrutiny than a genuine appeal to Clacton, and even among Leave voters he fails to win the benefit of the doubt.”

Advertisement

The Survation polling, of 2,058 adults, found 50% of people who intend to vote for Reform thought Mr Farage was not trying to dodge scrutiny. Worryingly for the right-wing party, 31% of his parties believe he was.

On Tuesday last week Mr Farage announced he was stepping down as an MP to contest a by-election in his Clacton constituency. He claimed to be the victim of an establishment stitch-up and said voters could decide his fate – despite the standards probe being ongoing.

Labour branded it a circus and Tory leader Kemi Badenoch accused the Reform leader of having a “hissy fit”. Count Binface is expected to be the main challenger to Mr Farage.

Polling by Ipsos last week found 33% of Brits want the parody candidate – real name Jonathan Harvey – to win, compared with 21% for Mr Farage. Nearly a third said neither deserve to win, and 13% are undecided.

Mr Farage’s finances have come under increased finances in recent weeks. Desmog has calculated he has earned £2.3million on top of his £98,599 salary since entering Parliament. ,Reform UK has been contacted for comment.

A woman who held the legs of her husband as he was nearly sucked head-first out of a Ryanair cabin window on Friday said “half of his body was sticking out of the plane”.

Svetlana Grković, who was travelling with her husband Ljubisa Karović from Greece’s Thessaloniki to Germany’s Memmingen, told Greek public broadcaster ERT he was “outside up to his chest” for two minutes.

“I immediately reacted and grabbed his legs. I thought: ‘If we die, we die together,’” Grković told Serbian outlet Nova.

With the help of two other passengers, Grković said she was able to pull her husband – who she said lost consciousness three times – back inside.

“The girl who was sitting next to him was holding him by the hand,” Grković told ERT. “Three of us were pulling him back inside. The oxygen masks dropped and chaos broke out.”

“They put a suitcase against the window but it was sucked out,” she added.

Grković said it seemed like part of the plane’s engine had broken off, smashing the window next to her husband and causing decompression in the cabin. Other passengers also reported hearing what sounded like an explosion.

A technical adviser appointed by the family believes the incident began with a failure in the aircraft’s right engine, causing debris to strike and shatter the cabin window before the rapid loss of cabin pressure. That assessment has not been confirmed by investigators.

Passengers earlier told local media that Karović had kept his seatbelt on, helping those on board keep hold of him while his head and shoulders were outside.

Svetlana Grković said her 61-year-old husband is “seriously injured and in shock”.

“It’s important to me that he’s alive… his hand is particularly badly injured, and he’s got burns. He’s not able to communicate, he doesn’t remember the whole event,” she said.

She told ERT that “whenever he hears about aeroplanes he starts shaking”, adding: “I am also in a very bad psychological state… I feared for our lives. I was afraid the plane was going to crash.”

Administrators have revealed a series of last-ditch attempts to save the historic high street firm and added that creditors now face losing £3m.

The April closure of the last 154 Claire’s Accessories UK and Ireland stores led to 1,300 redundancies.

The retailer had branches including at York Designer Outlet, Parliament Street, Monks Cross, Scarborough, Northallerton and Harrogate.

RECOMMENDED READING:

Concessions, such as those in larger ASDA outlets, were unaffected.

The closure came after Philip Dakin, Benjamin Wiles and Janet Burt of Kroll were appointed administrators of the company by the directors in January.

That move did not affect the company’s 356 concessions and its head office.

The administrators’ report outlines the steps taken to try to save the fashion and accessories retail estate.

Claire’s Accessories in Parliament Street, York (Image: NQ)

The brand originated in the United States, when it was headquartered in Chicago, and dated back to 1961. Claire’s expanded into the UK in 1995, when it acquired Bow Bangles, a British chain with 71 stores.

The US-based entity, Claire’s Holdings LLC, commenced proceedings in the US Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in 2025.

In August 2025, Claire’s Accessories UK entered administration with Christopher Pole and William Wright of Interpath being appointed as administrators.

Most of the business and assets to Modella Capital for a total consideration of £3.6m.

The administrators said that, in an effort to improve the viability of the company’s business, the directors “implemented a number of revenue generation and cost reduction measures including attempts to negotiate rent reductions with landlords, exiting where possible and seeking new concession partners”.

154 stores closed following the administration (Image: PA)

The administrators said: “Notwithstanding the above financial and operational turnaround measures, ultimately the cashflow and profitability of the company had been significantly impacted by the inability to secure negotiated rent reductions with the bulk of the company’s landlords, resulting in the trading positions of those sites needing to be re-assessed.”

They also said that one of the company’s major concession partners had signalled an “imminent termination of the concession agreement” which resulted in a significant reduction in projected cash flow.

It was also hit by poor trading performance in the last quarter of 2025 and “weak consumer confidence following budgetary measures impacting business rates, employee costs and taxes”.

They said events leading to the administration included “lower than anticipated trading performance, largely attributable to a combination of macroeconomic factors and changing market trends with low-cost and overseas online retailers gaining market share in the jewellery and accessories sector”.

The story of the decimation of a major high street presence is a familiar one. The administrators speak of increased inflationary headwinds and a general increase in overhead costs that pushed stores into a loss-making position.

Key factors around business rates, rising employee costs and taxes cannot be ignored. Attempts were made time and again to keep operators like LK Bennett, Russell & Bromley and Glasgow-founded Quiz afloat.

In this case, a secured creditor is listed as being owed £5.5m, preferential creditors £2.3m and unsecured creditors £10.5m.

At that stage, the administrators had received total claims from unsecured creditors totalling £2.9m.

The administrators said: “Based on the current information available to the administrators it is anticipated that there will be insufficient realisations to enable a distribution to the unsecured creditors of the company other than by virtue of the prescribed part.

“This is dependent on the quantum of consideration achieved in any sale of the company’s business and assets, if any, and the realisations achieved from other assets.”

Harry Kane has accused ITV of ‘trying to create division’ with his line of questioning in a viral interview with Jude Bellingham after England beat Norway. 

Interviewer Gabriel Clarke asked Three Lions Bellingham to respond to a heated interview which manager Thomas Tuchel had given just moments earlier. 

The German branded his players ‘lucky’ in the wake of the 2-1 win in Miami, arguing it was merely the team’s mentality which pulled them through against Erling Haaland, Martin Odegaard and Co. 

It drew a strong response from Bellingham, who questioned whether Tuchel’s comments and then whether he ‘knows what it’s like’ to play in top-level matches in temperatures soaring beyond 40C in a later mixed zone interview with Sky Sports.

The Real Madrid man’s comments went viral, sparking suggestions of a rift between him and Tuchel as England gear up for Wednesday’s quarter-final against Argentina. 

Now, however, Kane appears to have turned the blame on to the media, dismissing the idea of a rift and arguing ‘it’s an English mentality’ to try and create division during major tournaments. 

Bellingham appeared to question whether Thomas Tuchel ‘knows what it’s like’ to play in big games

The Three Lions skipper told the BBC: ‘When you are playing in a game like that and to be asked a question five minutes after the final whistle, and he didn’t really know what the manager has said, what do you want Jude to say? 

‘We had just been through a battle. It was really tough out there. It is easy to try and create this division. It seems like an English mentality, an English thing to do at these major tournaments. 

‘But it is the complete opposite. The group is where we are because of our togetherness – not just the players, the coach and the staff. Things sometimes get made out to be more than they are.’

Clarke has interviewed Kane in the same round of Monday’s media interviews and appears to remain on good terms with England’s players.

Tuchel had also accused his players of ‘making life very, very difficult for themselves’ during the clash, which went to extra-time after Andres Shjelderup put the Vikings 1-0 up in the first half. 

He said: ‘The commitment is there but we made life very, very difficult for ourselves in the way we played, how we played: sloppy, a lot of technical mistakes, not fast enough, not repetitive enough.’

Responding to those comments, Kane said he and the players ‘understand’ their manager’s criticisms and ‘know more than anyone’ when they haven’t played well.

The 32-year-old added: ‘We understand what the boss meant. He has been so complimentary of the group. He said the mentality of the group, which is sometimes the hardest part, has been at the highest, high level and we have been for some time now. 

‘He wears his heart on his sleeve and people appreciate that. When he talks, it is never scripted. This is what makes him who he is. 

It came after Tuchel criticised the performance of his players, branding them ‘lucky’ to win

Piers Morgan took to X today to point out that Gabriel Clarke was merely doing his job

Advertisement

‘When it just comes naturally, you believe in that, you believe in what he is saying, you believe in his approach.

‘He is one of the best managers in the world for a reason. We understand it. Over the past two years we have got to know him and know what makes him happy.’

Piers Morgan, however, takes a different view. The broadcaster took to X earlier today to point out that Clarke was merely a ‘proper journalist’ doing his job. 

‘Love Harry Kane, but it wasn’t Gabriel Clarke who said England’s performance was poor, it was Thomas Tuchel,’ he wrote. ‘If managers show raw honesty like that – which I loved – of course any proper journalist is going to ask the players what they think of what he said!’ 

Bellingham was England’s saviour once again during the game against Norway, scoring twice to book the Three Lions’ place in the semi-finals.  

The first, which put England level after the Vikings broke the deadlock, saw the Birmingham-born star latch onto an Anthony Gordon pass, drive into the box and rifle an effort past Orjan Nyland into the back of the net.

Later, Bellingham secured the victory when he followed in a Morgan Rogers effort from distance and capitalised on a Nyland spill.

The Galactico was in an unsurprisingly bullish mood after the final whistle when he was asked what he thought of Tuchel’s comments. 

He responded: ‘Maybe he doesn’t know what it’s like to play in those kind of conditions against Erling Haaland, (Martin) Odegaard, (Antonio) Nusa, (Alexander) Sorloth. That’s not an easy team to play against. 

‘I think we’ve tried to create a positive environment and we should continue that going into the final four. I couldn’t speak highly enough of the lads. You’re not going to win every game popping the ball and making a thousand passes, sometimes you have to win dirty and we did that again tonight.’

Bellingham and Co will face Lionel Messi’s Argentina tomorrow night in Atlanta for a place in what would be England’s first World Cup final in 60 years. 

The game will mark the first time England and the Argentinians have faced each other in some 21 years – and will see Messi play England for the first time in his career.

A host of pundits have backed the Three Lions to beat the South Americans, with Joe Cole claiming the English defence will put Messi ‘to sleep’, while Ian Wright insisted that he ‘doesn’t fear’ Argentina. 

Such confidence has, however, sparked fury in Buenos Aires, where the Argentinian media has accused the British press of ‘downplaying’ Lionel Scaloni’s side.

The front page of Ole, a publication based in the country’s capital, read: ‘England is downplaying us – respect the pecking order. 

‘There is a sense of triumphalism among the English press and former players, who downplay the Argentinian powerhouse, all while their star Bellingham and manager Tuchel are feuding in public.’

Argentina have, indeed, lifted the World Cup three times since the Three Lions last triumphed in 1966 – and have twice knocked England out.

Tuchel’s side are gearing up to face Lionel Messi and Argentina in Atlanta tomorrow 

In a quarter-final which has become infamous for Diego Maradona’s ‘Hand of God’, the ex-Barcelona star fired his country to a 2-1 victory at the Azteca Stadium 40 years ago, while in 1998 England suffered heartbreak on penalties against the Argentinians in St Etienne.

Yet, speaking on Stick to Football, ex-England striker Ian Wright insisted that Tuchel’s side are ‘going to beat’ the Argentinians to reach their first World Cup final in 60 years.

‘If we get to a France or a Spain, I think the level goes to another place entirely,’ he said. ‘It’s gotta be difficult – it’s the final, isn’t it? But I don’t fear Argentina like I’d fear France or Spain, because I think there are a lot of fallacies with them.’

The Argentinians, who lifted the trophy four years ago in Qatar, have appeared vulnerable defensively, and had to rely on the brilliance of Messi to overcome both Cape Verde and Egypt in the Round of 32 and Round of 16 stages.

On the same show, Neville pointed out that the country’s centre-back pairing of Premier League stars Lisandro Martinez and Cristian Romero could be exposed.

He said: ‘They seem to give a goal away between them every single game, and the full-backs aren’t great either – but then you watch them and they’re scoring goals, heading the ball, and something happens for them every time they put that shirt on.

‘I call them the best, worst centre-half pairing in the world, because at times they can be unbelievable.’

How much is David Beckham set to pocket from his World Cup brand deals? Take on our quiz in our newsletter HERE. 

Meghan Markle’s judging spot on MasterChef Australia will be broadcast later this month, with chefs challenged to create a dish fit for a Duchess.

The former actress filmed the slot when she visited Australia with husband Prince Harry during their pseudo-royal tour three months ago.

She has said her love of good food and Australia were the two reasons she chose to be a guest judge on the country’s biggest TV show.

The Duchess, 44, a keen cook and founder of the As Ever lifestyle brand, left Harry flying solo when she spent a day filming a segment at MasterChef Australia’s Melbourne set for the latest series of the cooking competition.

Her involvement was revealed hours later when Channel Ten released a promo video showing Meghan striding onto the MasterChef set in a chic black outfit to meet Poh Ling Yeow and fellow judges Jean-Christophe Novelli and Sofia Levin.

Today it was revealed the episode will be broadcast on Sunday, July 26, at 7pm on Channel 10, with Mediaweek reporting: ‘Meghan will ask the contestants to create a dish fit for a Duchess.’

The Duchess of Sussex, who was claimed to have been ‘very frustrated’ when co-stars called her ‘royalty’ on camera, is said to set a challenge using seasonal ingredients including Brussels sprouts, celeriac and Australia’s famous macadamia nuts.

Quince, lemons, apples, mandarins and strawberries were also available to chefs, along with Australian honey to sweeten the dishes – rather than her own As Ever-branded honey.

‘What attracted me to the MasterChef Australia kitchen? Two things: my love of food and my love of Australia. It was an easy yes,’ Meghan said in a press release announcing the broadcast date.

‘It’s such a great show. I’m just really honoured that I was asked to be here with you and to be able to judge some of these meals.’

She told the contestants: ‘I’d love it if there’s a connection that you can find when, as you’re cooking something, what is the story behind it?… What is something from your family or from a memory… something sentimental that we can also taste as we taste your dish?’

‘These are all things that, for me, feel really nostalgic,’ she added.

Meghan’s sensitivities over claims that her Australian tour with Harry was cashing in on their royal links led to a row over her MasterChef appearance, it was claimed at the time.

The Duchess of Sussex was reportedly ‘very frustrated’ with producers when she was described as ‘royalty’ in the promo for Australia’s most popular reality TV show.

Meghan and her team had ‘specifically’ made clear they did not want the word ‘royal’ used, a source said.

‘We’ve had MasterChef royalty in the kitchen before but no one like this,’ fellow judge Poh said.

But a report in Australia claimed Meghan was unhappy about being described as royalty, despite the fact that, through her marriage to Harry, the term is technically correct.

Foodie Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, serves frittata at McAuley Community Services for Women, a women’s homeless and family violence shelter, on April 14 in Melbourne

Advertisement

Meghan Markle was reportedly left disappointed after the Irwin family opted not to meet her and Prince Harry during their current Australian tour (pictured together at Swinburne University of Technology on Thursday)

The Sussexes had been under fire after they see-sawed between royal-style charity events and money-spinning commercial appearances and speaking engagements. 

They were accused of using Australia as a personal ‘ATM’ to ‘fund that 16-bedroom house they have in Montecito’ by one of the country’s top business leaders.

There was also a row over whether Australian taxpayers should pick up the bill for any police security on the tour given the couple’s own spokesman repeatedly said their four-day visit was ‘private’ – not a royal visit.

So when Meghan was called ‘royalty’ by MasterChef’s own stars, she and her team were reportedly frustrated when it was said on camera.

‘They were outside the doors when it was filmed, so didn’t know what had been said’, a source explained to news.com.au.

The Australia tour led to a series of rows. 

Guests paid thousands to attend Meghan Markle‘s Her Best Life retreat in Sydney where they were treated to Champagne, selfies with the duchess and plush hotel rooms.

But the budget gift bags they left with raised a few eyebrows. 

Tickets for the retreat cost $2,699 for standard entry or up to $3,199 for VIP premium packages which offered more direct access to Meghan. 

But the total value of the gift bag was just under $200. 

Meghan spent just two hours with host Gemma O’Neill and female fans who paid to ask her questions and pose for pictures at a money-spinning ‘ultimate girls’ weekend where she bemoaned her ‘very hard’ life

Advertisement

Meghan spent just two hours with female fans who paid to ask her questions and pose for pictures at a money-spinning ‘ultimate girls’ weekend where she bemoaned her ‘very hard’ life.

After 120 minutes at the gala, Meghan departed the InterContinental Coogee with her husband Prince Harry shortly after 7pm, in the back of a luxury Range Rover.

Excited paying guests had started turning up at the five-star beachside hotel in Sydney’s eastern suburbs from 3pm due to the strict security arrangements, with the official event kicking off at 5pm.

On stage at the gala dinner, where paying guests ate kingfish, beef tenderloin and coconut crumble, Meghan bemoaned her ‘very hard’ life in the public eye, claiming she has been ‘attacked’ ever since marrying Prince Harry.

The development would deliver local facilities including cafes and schools

Plans have been submitted to build over 4,000 homes on the edge of a Cambridgeshire town. In July 2024, Lands Improvement (LIH) announced it would propose plans for a new development of 4,400 homes called Little Barford Garden Community, near St Neots.

At the end of June 2026, an outline planning application was submitted by LIH Little Barford Limited (LIH) to Bedford Borough Council proposing to build up to 4,400 homes.

The site, extending to 324.76 hectares, would see other community and local facilities including cafes, pubs, a nursery, two primary schools and one secondary school built and two bridges over the East Coast Main Line (ECML) in the development alongside thousands of new homes.

Additionally, it would see the renovation and restoration of existing historic assets, including the former Manor House and offer safeguarded land for the delivery of East West Rail.

It has been revealed that of the 4,400 homes, five per cent will be for specialist elderly accommodation together with a mix of market and affordable homes.

To facilitate the redevelopment, the planning application seeks permission to demolish buildings including: Top Farm barns, Dower House, an unlisted attachment to the listed barn, a small building to the south of the barn, and adjacent to Lower Farmhouse.

The applicant said the development would contribute to 16 per cent of the net housing need over the period until 2040 and create 3,495 direct full-time jobs on-site.

LIH added that the schools will “meet locally generated needs” and two new bridges over the ECML would “enhance local connectivity and support sustainable movement across the area”.

A planning statement reads: “The Site represents an opportunity to create a ‘Garden Community’ style of settlement which will prioritise the provision of high-quality landscaping and seek to minimise vehicular movements, with a capacity of up to 4,400 dwellings, approximately 5 per cent of specialist elderly accommodation alongside supporting commercial development and social infrastructure, in close proximity to existing services in St Neots contributing to a local network of villages, transport links and community facilities reducing the need to travel.”

President Donald Trump announced on Monday a sweeping reduction to the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante national monuments in Utah, slashing the size of each protected area by an additional one million acres.

The move revisits contentious environmental rollbacks from his first term that were subsequently reversed by the Biden administration. It directly challenges proclamations by his predecessors, who deemed these sites worthy of preservation under the 1906 Antiquities Act, a law granting presidents power to protect areas of cultural, historic or scientific interest.

The ongoing dispute over these protected lands reflects how national monuments have become a central battleground in the management of public lands.

While Trump made similar reductions during his first term, which were subsequently undone by his successor, he is not the first president to reduce the size of such monuments.

Here’s a look at U.S. national monuments and presidents who have created or reshaped them:

How many national monuments have Biden and Trump acted on?

Trump made only a handful of Antiquities Act proclamations during his first term, including two that reduced the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante monuments. The sprawling Utah monuments include stunning natural features and sites sacred to some Native American tribes. Grand Staircase-Escalante also holds large coal reserves, while the Bears Ears area has uranium.

Trump also dedicated the 340-acre (138-hectare) Camp Nelson National Monument in Kentucky — a Union Army hospital and recruiting center for African American troops during the Civil War.

Biden’s first use of the act was to restore the size of Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante. He cited their spiritual, cultural and prehistoric legacy.

Biden established 10 new monuments, among them the site of a 1908 race riot in Springfield, Illinois, and a monument honoring Mamie Till-Mobley and her son, Emmett, a Black teenager from Chicago who was tortured and killed in 1955 after he was accused of whistling at a white woman in Mississippi. He also established monuments in the mountains of California and on a sacred Native American site near the Grand Canyon.

State officials, conservationists and tribes react

Proponents of the reductions say the protective boundaries stretch too far and hinder mining for essential minerals. Trump framed the move as giving back land to the people during a signing event at the White House on Monday.

The order was applauded by Utah officials, who have long argued that the state should be in charge of managing its own lands.

“The question has never been whether to protect them, but how to protect them best,” said Gov. Spencer Cox, a Republican. His office assured the lands left out of the modified boundaries “remain protected under existing federal and state law.”

But some conservationists and citizens of local tribal nations warned the order opens the door to mining interests while disrespecting tribal co-stewardship. Bears Ears is jointly managed by an agreement between tribal nations and federal agencies.

“Our connection to this place cannot be erased by the stroke of a pen,” said Davina Smith-Idjesa, a citizen of the Navajo Nation and co-chair of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition.

Is it legal to shrink or eliminate monuments?

Environmental groups have argued the Antiquities Act is a one-way road that allows presidents to create but not undo monuments. But there’s a history of presidents taking actions similar to Trump’s.

Since 1912, presidents have issued more than a dozen proclamations that diminished monuments, according to a National Park Service database.

In Washington state, Woodrow Wilson reduced the acreage of Mount Olympus National Park — now Olympic National Park — by roughly half. Harry Truman did the same for Santa Rosa Island National Monument.

Dwight Eisenhower was most active in undoing proclamations of his predecessors as he diminished six monuments, including Arches in Utah, Great Sand Dunes in Colorado and Glacier Bay in Alaska, which have all since become national parks.

How is a national monument different from a national park or forest?

Unlike national parks, which are established by Congress, most of the more than 100 national monuments were created by presidents.

They’re governed by one or more agencies such as the National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

A designation provides sweeping protections not just for significant geological features or artifacts but also for the surrounding landscape, banning drilling, mining and new construction. Backers downsizing the Utah monuments said the protective boundaries stretched too far and hindered mining for critical minerals.

The U.S. Forest Service was established in 1905 and has jurisdiction over some 300,000 square miles (775,000 square kilometers) of land, including 154 national forests and 20 national grasslands in 43 states.

Under federal law, the forest lands are managed for renewable resources — including timber, clean water, wildlife habitat, forage for livestock and recreation. But many forests overlay valuable minerals and parcels can be leased by private companies for the extraction of nonrenewable resources such as oil, gas and coal.

Some forests contain specially designated wilderness areas where human activities are curtailed. Even bicycles and hang gliders aren’t allowed because they are mechanical.

National parks have some of the most stringent rules against development under a 1916 law known as the Organic Act. The law says the fundamental purpose of the parks is to conserve their scenery, nature, history and wildlife.

How long have presidents been creating monuments?

President Theodore Roosevelt signed the Antiquities Act after a generation of lobbying by educators and scientists who wanted to protect sites from commercial artifact looting and haphazard collecting by individuals. It was the first law in the U.S. to establish legal protections for cultural and natural resources of historic or scientific interest on federal lands.

On Sept. 24, 1906, Roosevelt used it to designate a national monument at Devils Tower — a giant rock butte in eastern Wyoming that later gained fame as the focus of the movie “Close Encounters of the Third Kind.”

For Roosevelt and others, science was behind safeguarding Devils Tower. Scientists have long theorized about how once-molten lava cooled and formed the massive columns that make up the geologic wonder. Narratives among Native American tribes, who still conduct ceremonies there, detail its formation.

All but three presidents have used the act to protect unique landscapes and cultural resources.

Sunderland could be getting a 24,500sq ft Foodhall on Silksworth Lane as plans for the megastore go before Sunderland City Council’s Planning and Highways Committee on Monday, July 20.

The development is part of a wider £15 million retail scheme set to create more than 150 jobs and transform the underused site into a retail destination.

Residents are being urged to submit any final comments ahead of the meeting next week.

Philip Barker-Thomson, regional manager at M&S, said: “We’re excited by the opportunity to create a fantastic new store for Silksworth residents and bring them the very best of M&S Food.

“Customers would be able to shop the full M&S Food range, from everyday essentials to new viral products and easily collect online M&S fashion, home & beauty orders via click and collect.

“We are keen to keep growing our store footprint across the North East, where we work with over 300 select farm partners and employ around 2,000 colleagues.”

The proposed M&S Foodhall in Middlesbrough. (Image: Marks and Spencer)

The modern, market-style food hall would feature an in-store bakery, M&S select farm fresh produce, and dedicated flower and wine sections.

The full M&S range will be available, which includes the ‘Nutrient Dense’ and ‘Only… Ingredients’ lines, as well as the full ‘Remarkable Value’ range with more than 100 everyday essentials price-benchmarked against competitors.

As part of the wider retail development, plans include a new signalised pedestrian crossing on Silksworth Lane and improved walkways throughout the site to enhance accessibility and safety.

Mr Barker-Thomson welcomed ongoing community feedback and encouraged more residents to show their support ahead of the planning decision.

He said: “A massive thank you to everyone who has shared their views on the plans so far – the response has been great, and there is still time to show your support.

“If approved, our focus will be on delivering trusted value and exceptional quality for all customers, and of course that touch of M&S magic.”

M&S is urging residents to submit letters of support via the project website to ensure their views are formally considered as part of the planning process.

The planning application (reference 26/00144/FU4) will be determined by the committee on Monday, July 20.

If approved, the Silksworth Lane Foodhall would be one of the most modern M&S stores in the UK and could represent a key investment in the retailer’s national expansion plans.