The NHS has warned that taking too much vitamin D over a long period can damage the body

The NHS has issued a warning for anyone consuming vitamin D, stating that excessive intake over extended periods could lead to a potentially fatal condition. UK health authorities recommend taking vitamin D supplements, especially during the winter.

The health service has stated: “From October to March we can’t make enough vitamin D from sunlight. To keep bones and muscles healthy, it’s best to take a daily 10 microgram supplement of vitamin D. You can get vitamin D from most pharmacies and retailers.”

Vitamin D supplements are affordable with 400 tablets available for under £8 online, equating to less than 2p daily. Vitamin D has also been linked to a reduced risk of dementia.

Research conducted in France found that individuals with vitamin D levels below 50 nmol/L were almost three times more likely to develop Alzheimer’s disease. Those at increased risk of vitamin D deficiency, all children aged between 1 and 4, and all babies (unless they’re consuming more than 500ml of infant formula daily) should take a daily supplement throughout the year.

However, both pharmacists and the NHS have issued warnings about the dangers of overdosing on vitamin D through excessive consumption over extended periods. The NHS has highlighted that this can lead to a condition damaging the kidneys and heart: “Taking too many vitamin D supplements over a long period of time can cause too much calcium to build up in the body (hypercalcaemia). This can weaken the bones and damage the kidneys and the heart.”

The NHS advises: “If you choose to take vitamin D supplements, 10 micrograms a day will be enough for most people. Do not take more than 100 micrograms (4,000 IU) of vitamin D a day as it could be harmful. This applies to adults, including pregnant and breastfeeding women and the elderly, and children aged 11 to 17 years.”

For younger children, the guidelines are different: “Youngsters aged 1 to 10 years shouldn’t have more than 50 micrograms (2,000 IU) daily. Babies under 12 months shouldn’t have more than 25 micrograms (1,000 IU) daily.”

The NHS further clarified: “Some people have medical conditions that mean they may not be able to safely take as much. If in doubt, you should consult your doctor.

If your doctor has recommended you take a different amount of vitamin D, you should follow their advice.

“You cannot overdose on vitamin D through exposure to sunlight. But always remember to cover up or protect your skin if you’re out in the sun for long periods to reduce the risk of skin damage and skin cancer.”

The NHS explains: “Vitamin D helps regulate the amount of calcium and phosphate in the body. These nutrients are needed to keep bones, teeth and muscles healthy. A lack of vitamin D can lead to bone deformities such as rickets in children, and bone pain caused by a condition called osteomalacia in adults.

“Government advice is that everyone should consider taking a daily vitamin D supplement during the autumn and winter. People at high risk of not getting enough vitamin D, all children aged 1 to 4, and all babies (unless they’re having more than 500ml of infant formula a day) should take a daily supplement throughout the year.”

The late health expert Dr Michael Mosley, who died in 2024, was a strong advocate for vitamin D supplementation, reports the Mirror. He said: “I take 25 mcg (1,000 IU), which is within the limits of what’s considered safe (anything under 100 mcg a day for adults or 50 mcg for children, according to the NHS) but closer to the sort of doses studies show you need to take to ward off infections, cancers, and maybe even dementia.”

These true crime documentaries are much better than Netflix’s latest

Documentaries can offer substantial insight into the lives, crimes and untold stories behind some of the biggest headlines worldwide, whether they’re examining the past or exploring current affairs. The market has become saturated with stories, particularly when it comes to true crime.

Netflix’s Kidnapped: Elizabeth Smart is no exception to this rule. The streaming platform continues to captivate viewers with almost unbelievable stories and a stereotypical, predictable twist that leaves people craving more.

That’s how they draw you in each time they promote a new, never before told story. Elizabeth’s story concerns a teenage girl snatched from her bedroom at knifepoint in Salt Lake City, Utah, back in 2002.

The case is described by Netflix as “one of the most intense and widely covered missing-persons cases America has ever seen”, and whilst that may hold true across the Atlantic, it doesn’t quite resonate in the same way over here.

It’s a story told in her own words; the ending being spoiled across the numerous adverts plastered on the streets of London. The first half of the documentary would have you believe the worst had happened, but the revelation of a middle-aged Elizabeth recounting her experience living off-grid in captivity makes the entire story even more unbelievable, though not in a mind-blowing way.

In truth, once the twist was unveiled, the documentary never really gained momentum or suspense. Instead, it followed the same pattern as many other Netflix documentaries. The case of Elizabeth Smart will, regrettably, be consigned to the pile of documentaries that caused a ripple, not a wave.

This isn’t the case for all documentaries, as some continue to leave a lasting impression on me years later. Documentaries need to stir you, to provoke you, to make you question the very fabric of society.

They don’t need to be packed with twists and turns purely for the sake of shock value.

Unknown Number: The High School Catfish (2025)

One recent Netflix documentary that hits the mark is Unknown Number: The High School Catfish, which focuses on a teenage couple terrorised by a troll at the end of a phone line. It all started with a text message.

The relentless torment of Michigan high school students Lauryn Licari and her ex-boyfriend, Owen, led to an investigation that pointed to a multitude of potential suspects. Classmates, friends, even family members are drawn into the spotlight.

For this small town, it was a real-life whodunnit. The abuse hurled at the teenagers goes beyond simple bullying, with death threats, sexually explicit messages and horrific rumours lurking around every corner. The youngsters’ lives were deeply affected, as they recount the events as 18 year olds.

The most shocking part? The identity of the person behind those messages. I won’t ruin the surprise, but be prepared for your eyes to bulge and your jaw to drop.

You’ll never view an anonymous text message in the same light again.

The Keepers (2017)

In a similar vein to Netflix’s Making a Murderer, The Keepers delves into the unsolved murder of nun Catherine Cesnik in 1969.

Her former pupils suggest there was a cover-up by authorities after Sister Cathy suspected a priest had sexually abused students at Baltimore’s all-girls Archbishop Keough High School.

Now adults, the former students share their experiences at the Catholic school with those in positions of power there and within the local church, including sexual abuse, intimidation, and one student even witnessing the body of a deceased nun.

The Keepers transitions from the disappearance and murder of the nun to the concealment of abuse perpetrated by prominent members of the Catholic church, and the survivors’ ongoing battle for justice decades after the crimes. For true crime enthusiasts, sadly, there is no definitive answer as to what happened to Sister Cathy, but perhaps one day there will be.

Blackfish (2013)

There’s an old adage about not interfering with nature, and that extends to the animal kingdom. Blackfish examines the captivity of Tilikum, an orca implicated in three fatalities, including that of SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau, and explores the ramifications of confining orcas in such environments.

The film reveals the circumstances surrounding Tilikum’s capture back in 1983, the treatment marine creatures endured at various marine parks, and the orca’s interactions with trainers and other orcas. It’s essential viewing, though not suitable for those easily disturbed.

This documentary will make you reconsider ever visiting or financially supporting SeaWorld again.

When Louis Met… (2000) & Louis Theroux, Savile (2016)

Having established himself as a familiar face over the decades, Louis Theroux launched his documentary career with his Weird Weekends, immersing himself in the lives of others. He explored an array of unconventional and controversial subcultures, crime and the justice system, and celebrities.

Louis’ awkwardness is also his charm, something audiences have grown accustomed to witnessing over the years. Brits will appreciate his idiosyncrasies and intellect.

His most notorious work involves his encounters with former “childhood hero” Jimmy Savile, a story he revisits 16 years after his initial documentary with him.

The first documentary examined Savile’s ascent to stardom as a TV and radio presenter, alongside his domestic life. Whilst Theroux briefly touches upon the allegations of paedophilia and sexual abuse, Savile dismisses them with laughter.

It wasn’t until 2012 that the world was made aware of the true scale of Savile’s offences, exposing a host of predatory individuals in the aftermath of Operation Yewtree. In his 2016 film, Louis revisits his past association with Savile and converses with some of Savile’s victims and those who worked closely alongside him.

Given our current knowledge, it’s challenging to look back and not see the rumours as glaringly evident. How? Who? Why? For how long?

One is almost at a loss for words contemplating how a public figure, swamped with these types of allegations, was permitted to continue, and who was shielding him. The 2016 documentary prompts not only Louis but an entire generation to question what they believed they knew.

If you want ideas and inspiration to plan your next UK adventure plus selected offers and competitions, sign up for our 2Chill weekly newsletter here

New FBI files show Andrew and Fergie stayed in contact with Epstein longer than they had admitted.

Stripped of their royal titles, ousted from official residences and thrust into the public eye through leaked private communications, Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor and Sarah Ferguson are facing unprecedented scrutiny. The former prince and his ex-wife have seen their lives unravel following revelations linking them to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein.

The latest release of FBI files has mentioned Andrew and Fergie multiple times, reigniting speculation over the trio’s unusual relationship. While the mere appearance of a name does not indicate wrongdoing, the documents suggest both stayed in contact with Epstein longer than previously admitted, Mirror reports.

Attention has turned to the alleged psychosexual and financial connections between Epstein and the former Duchess of York. Reports indicate Fergie was once “madly in love” with Epstein and may have “slept together” with him.

Newly emerged correspondence paints a picture of her desperation, with emails and texts pleading for Epstein to “marry” her, and expressing anger he “disappeared” and “used her”.

One email from September 2011 shows Fergie congratulating Epstein on the birth of a son, moments later sending a furious follow-up: “You have disappeared. I did not even know you were having a baby. It was sooooo crystal clear to me that you were only friends with me to get to Andrew. And that really hurt me deeeply. More than you will know.”

Another exchange from 2009 revealed Fergie writing, “You are a legend. I really don’t have the words to describe, my love, gratitude for your generosity and kindness…Xx I am at your service. Just marry me.”

Sarah previously admitted to borrowing £15,000 from Epstein, calling it a “gigantic error in judgement”, but new claims suggest the financier may have supported her lavish lifestyle for years. Emails indicate she requested between $50,000 and $100,000 to cover “small bills” in 2010, with reports suggesting Epstein “bankrolled” her for 15 years.

The fallout has been swift. When a 2011 email surfaced in which Fergie referred to Epstein as a “supreme friend” and apologised for negative media comments, she was dropped from several charities.

Her spokesperson stated the email was sent out of fear for her safety, following alleged threats from Epstein and a former aide claiming he had promised to “destroy” her and her family.

Royal author Andrew Lownie discussed the tangled relationships on his Substack podcast, the Lownie Report: “Andrew was sleeping with Ghislaine, Ghislaine was sleeping with Epstein … I’ve heard that Epstein and Sarah were sleeping together. It doesn’t surprise me.”

He further told the Mirror, “Sarah Ferguson was madly in love with Epstein and apparently spent several nights with him.” Ghislaine Maxwell herself reportedly claimed in a July 2025 interview Fergie “put the moves on Jeffrey”.

Files also show Epstein was warned by advisers to distance himself from Andrew and Fergie.

Following public allegations by Virginia Giuffre against Andrew, a reputational management team cautioned that the couple’s only interest in Epstein and Ghislaine was to attack Andrew and Sarah.

Andrew is alleged to have had an on-off affair with Epstein’s girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, a relationship he resumed in 1999 after first meeting her in the 1980s at Oxford.

Epstein admitted in 2007 that he and Andrew “have shared the same women” and visited royal residences including Balmoral and Windsor Castle.

Lownie claimed that as Epstein descended into paranoia before his death in 2019, he even explored hiring a hitman to eliminate the former duke and duchess to protect his secrets.

“He spoke to a hitman who was a former member of the British SAS and said he wanted the Yorks dead,” Lownie said, citing two sources.

He added, “Epstein said all sorts of things, and you can’t always believe what he said,” leaving the extent of the alleged plot unclear.

Countless love stories throughout the ages hinge on the idea of love at first sight. Immediate, unwavering infatuation the moment eyes meet. Two people finding each other across a crowded, glittering ballroom or perhaps bumping into each other accidentally. But what if your true love is hidden behind a disguise? And flees before you have a chance to learn their name?

Such is the challenge facing Benedict Bridgerton (Luke Thompson) in the most recent season of Bridgerton. The first episode of season four centres around a truly spectacular masquerade ball at Bridgerton House and sets up a re-imagining of the Cinderella story, with Regency flare.

Sparkling in silver from head to toe, servant Sophie Baek (Yerin Ha) manages to sneak into the lavish elite entertainment unnoticed. It is there she finds herself in the company of Benedict, one of the most sought-after bachelors in London and a notorious rake. Sparks fly as their gazes lock and the world fades away into a night of enchantment until the resounding chimes of the midnight hour cause Sophie to flee, leaving Benedict with no more than a fast farewell and sole silver glove.

Even without the concealment of a mask, Prince Charming had a hard enough time finding Cinderella – so what chance would mere mortals have had at finding missed connections, let alone true love at the masquerade?

In the case of real Regency woman Elizabeth Chudleigh, it was more like lust at first sight. Chudleigh, whose clandestine marriage was falling apart before her eyes, was an ageing maid of honour in the court of the Princess of Wales. One whisper of her despair, about her marriage or her age, would endanger her post in court, for, as attendants to the princess, maids of honour were expected to be young, unmarried ladies of repute.

As Chudleigh biographer Catherine Ostler explains, she needed to do something to grab the attention of eligible elite bachelors and the masquerade was the perfect place to do so. The masquerade offered the fashionable elite an exclusive space where they could flaunt their status, wealth, and taste through character, comic, or fancy dress.

Wearing a bold and breathtaking costume that exposed her breasts – or at the very least gave the illusion of nudity – Chudleigh took an enormous risk when she arrived at the King’s Theatre in 1749. Disguised as the mythical character Iphigenia, this daring decision boldly put Chudleigh’s sexuality, charms and body on display for all to see.

The author and politician Horace Walpole, who witnessed the dress, recalled in his correspondence that she was “so naked that you would have taken her for Andromeda”.

Luckily for Chudleigh, she became an overnight sensation and managed to catch the eye of one of the most powerful men in the country: His Royal Majesty, King George II. The king was besotted. Walpole himself saw George II fall head over heels, writing “our gracious Monarch has a mind to believe himself in love” with Chudleigh, which was most clearly made evident when he kissed her in front of his advisors.

Depictions of Chudleigh’s scandalous dress, or rather, undress, appeared in print shop windows across the country while reports of the risque costume circulated through correspondence and newspapers, such as the General Advertiser, across the country. Chudleigh herself appeared regularly at the king’s side. Though her position as mistress to His Majesty was relatively short-lived, lasting no more than a few years, her gamble at the masquerade not only aided her in climbing the social ladder and expanding her social circles, it inextricably linked her to the masquerade and transformed her from a maid of honour into a cultural phenomenon.

Smitten at first sight

James Hamilton, the sixth duke of Hamilton, had not imagined he would find himself utterly and completely intoxicated at the evening’s masquerade from anything other than copious amounts of wine, as was his tendency. He was 28 and still unmarried, despite his wealth and not unattractive features.

As he moved among the domino cloaks, harlequins and fancy dresses he spotted her, the rumoured beauty from Ireland, Elizabeth Gunning. She was striking. He was smitten – and he must marry her.

The thought, though impulsive, was not uncharacteristic of Hamilton who was known to follow his fancies – not unlike Benedict Bridgerton. The duke could not keep Gunning from his thoughts. Their paths crossed two weeks later at Lord Chesterfield’s where Hamilton was distracted beyond repair, making “violent love [with his attentions] at one end of the room while he was playing at pharaoh (cards) at the other end”. He subsequently lost £1,000.

In early February their met once again at a masquerade. Hamilton could no longer restrain himself and proposed that evening. Dressed as a demure Quaker, the flattered, and likely overwhelmed, Gunning accepted. Without a dowry to her name, Gunning had to rely on beauty, behaviour and a little luck to break the barriers of rank and marry significantly above her station.

The pair married in secret at a chapel two nights later, on Valentine’s Day nonetheless, before Hamilton’s family could interfere in this inferior match. The clandestine union was sealed at midnight with a bed-curtain ring, for Hamilton had forgotten to bring the proper one. The marriage, though rushed, was a small sort of happily ever after for Gunning, now the Duchess of Hamilton, who became a fashionable leading lady of the Georgian elite.

Not all Regency encounters had fairy tale, or even fanciful endings. Newspapers occasionally advertised missed connections at masquerades with clues including costume descriptions, initials and conversation topics.

In 1778, one eager gentleman addressed his note in The Morning Post to “A Lady in a light blue dress, and mask of the same colour, who was at the Pantheon Masquerade, and danced two or three dances” with him. She claimed she knew the gentleman she was keeping company with, having seen “him almost every day walking in Bond-street, or St. James’s-street, but would not tell who she was”. He requests that she “send a line to Stewart’s Coffee-house, Broad-street, informing him where is to be met with, it will be the means of quieting an anxious mind”.

Unlike Bridgerton’s Cinderella story, it is impossible to know whether or not this real pair found each other beyond the walls of the ball. One thing is for certain, however. True love at first sight–or true lust–is not the stuff of fairytales alone, though it may be harder to find when its wearing a mask.

Looking for something good? Cut through the noise with a carefully curated selection of the latest releases, live events and exhibitions, straight to your inbox every fortnight, on Fridays. Sign up here.

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats have begun tentative talks with the White House on their demands for “dramatic” new restrictions on President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, discussing a possible agreement just days before funding for the Department of Homeland Security is set to expire.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer said Monday that Democrats had sent the White House their list of demands for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal law enforcement agencies. The White House said Monday evening it had responded with a counterproposal.

Neither side released their specific proposals publicly, but Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said there is “forward progress.”

“The Dems and the White House are trading papers, which is a good sign,” Thune said as he left the Capitol. “Hopefully they can find some common ground here, and both sides at this point I think are trying to do that.”

Time is running short, with another partial government shutdown threatening to begin Saturday. Among the Democrats’ demands are a requirement for judicial warrants, better identification of DHS officers, new use-of-force standards and a stop to racial profiling. They say such changes are necessary after two protesters were fatally shot by federal agents in Minneapolis last month.

“Republicans, the clock is ticking,” Schumer said on the Senate floor. “We have sent you our proposals and they are exceedingly reasonable.”

Still, despite the bipartisan talks, it was unclear if the two sides could find agreement on the charged issue of immigration enforcement, especially as rank-and-file lawmakers in both parties were skeptical about finding common ground.

Republicans have balked at the Democrats’ requests and some have demands of their own, including the addition of legislation that would require proof of citizenship before Americans register to vote and restrictions on cities that they say do not do enough to crack down on illegal immigration.

And many Democrats who are furious about ICE’s aggressive crackdown have said they won’t vote for another penny of Homeland Security funding until enforcement is radically scaled back.

“Dramatic changes are needed at the Department of Homeland Security before a DHS funding bill moves forward,” House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries said Monday. “Period. Full stop.”

Trump deals with Democrats

Congress is trying to renegotiate the DHS spending bill after President Donald Trump agreed to a Democratic request that it be separated out from a larger spending measure that became law last week. That package extended Homeland Security funding at current levels only through Feb. 13, creating a brief window for action as the two parties discuss new restrictions on ICE and other federal officers.

The funding issue came to a head after ICU nurse Alex Pretti was shot and killed by a U.S. Border Patrol officer in Minneapolis on Jan. 24, and some Republicans suggested that new restrictions were necessary. Renee Good was shot by ICE agents on Jan. 7.

While he agreed to separate the funding, Trump has not publicly responded to the Democrats’ specific demands.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said late last week that the Trump administration is willing to discuss some items on the Democrats’ list, but “others don’t seem like they are grounded in any common sense, and they are nonstarters for this administration.”

Democratic demands

Schumer and Jeffries have said they want immigration officers to remove their masks, to show identification and to better coordinate with local authorities. They have also demanded a stricter use-of-force policy for the federal officers, legal safeguards at detention centers and a prohibition on tracking protesters with body-worn cameras.

The Democrats say Congress should end indiscriminate arrests, “improve warrant procedures and standards,” ensure the law is clear that officers cannot enter private property without a judicial warrant and require that before a person can be detained, it’s verified that the person is not a U.S. citizen.

Republicans have said they support the requirement for DHS officers to have body-worn cameras — language that was in the original DHS bill — but have balked at many of the other Democratic asks.

“Taking the masks off ICE officers and agents, the reason we can’t do that is that it would subject them to great harm, their families at great risk because people are doxing them and targeting them,” said House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., on Monday. “We’ve got to talk about things that are reasonable and achievable.”

Tennessee Sen. Bill Hagerty said on “Fox News Sunday” that Democrats are ”trying to motivate a radical left base.”

“The left has gone completely overboard, and they’re threatening the safety and security of our agents so they cannot do their job,” Hagerty said.

Consequences of a shutdown

In addition to ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the homeland security bill includes funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Transportation Security Administration. If DHS shuts down, Thune said last week, “there’s a very good chance we could see more travel problems” similar to the 43-day government closure last year.

Lawmakers in both parties have suggested they could separate out funding for ICE and Border Patrol and pass the rest of it by Friday. But Thune has been cool to that idea, saying instead that Congress should pass another short-term extension for all of DHS while they negotiate the possible new restrictions.

“If there’s additional time that’s needed, then hopefully Democrats would be amenable to another extension,” Thune said.

Many Democrats are unlikely to vote for another extension. But Republicans could potentially win enough votes in both chambers from Democrats if they feel hopeful about negotiations.

“The ball is in the Republicans’ court,” Jeffries said Monday.

___

Associated Press writers Joey Cappelletti and Lisa Mascaro contributed to this report.

The teenager killed her father on Christmas Day in an act of self defence on the BBC soap

EastEnders spoilers have revealed that Jasmine is set to be arrested for Anthony Trueman’s murder as Chrissie Watts returns to the BBC soap.

After returning in August last year for the first time in over a decade, Anthony began to focus on his former fiancé Zoe Slater. It revealed that he and his wife had a restraining order against him and he kept lots of photos of Zoe on his laptop.

On top of this, when Anthony learned that not only was he the father of Zoe’s twins, but their daughter was the mysterious Jasmine, he decided to keep the information to himself. After getting into a fight with Zoe on December 25, over the information he withheld, where he hit his head, Anthony was discovered dead by Kat Slater.

However, with Zoe’s rival Chrissie showing up that evening, fans were convinced that Zoe didn’t kill him. It turned out that neither Zoe nor Chissie killed him, with Jasmine having fatally hit him with a firm object in an act of self defence.

While Jasmine later fled from Walford after failing to convince her boyfriend Oscar Branning, the latest batch of EastEnders spoilers have revealed just how and when she will return.

Monday, February 16, marks the day of Anthony’s funeral and his dad Patrick Trueman is disappointed that Jasmine isn’t there. Having been given a lead by Chrissie, Kat tracks Jasmine down and eventually convinces her to come back for Patrick’s sake.

Meanwhile, Oscar heads upstairs at The Vic and finds Chrissie and Jake Moon waiting for Kat to bring Jasmine to them. Later, Jasmine is horrified to realise that Kat has trapped her when she is confronted by Chrissie.

Over at Peacock Palace, the atmosphere between Max Branning, Linda Carter and Elaine Peacock remains frosty as he tries to make amends by promising to put a stop to Ian Beale’s vendetta against Elaine.

During a conversation with his daughter Lauren, Max explains that he has real feelings for Linda and wants a serious relationship with her. Later, Max brings Louie Beale to apologise to Linda’s son Ollie for bullying him. Linda later invites him for a drink to get their co-parenting relationship back on track

On Tuesday, February 17, Kat fears that Jasmine has made a run for it when she disappears, but later she returns with the murder weapon and suggests they frame Chrissie.

However, the police soon arrive and Jasmine is hauled away moments after she begs Oscar to find her phone and evidence.

Elsewhere, George Knight and Nicola Mitchell gather their families at Harry’s Barn to reveal the gender of their baby. But the happy mood takes a turn when Kojo Asare tells his brother George and best friend Harry that he’s missing his independence and intends to move back into his old flat.

On Wednesday, February 18, Zoe is horrified to discover that Jasmine has been arrested for murder, with Patrick also struggling to comprehend the news. George continues to worry about Kojo’s decision to move back to the flat, but Harry decides to put Kojo’s feelings before his own and move back in too.

Tim Walton makes a return as he requests a meeting with Johnny Carter and a reluctant Callum Highway. Johnny explains he’s struggling to keep his business afloat and needs Tim to invest more, so Callum agrees to go too.

However, when they meet up, Callum is horrified when Tim asks for an illegal favour and refuses before storming out. Later, Johnny finds Callum with divorce papers from Ben Mitchell, and they row again, leading Callum to ask Johnny to leave.

The final episode of the week on Thursday, February 19, sees Callum and Johnny remaining at odds over Tim’s request. The tension is broken when Callum makes a kind gesture to help Johnny find new investors, but the latter fears his business is doomed. Later, they are left shaken when a friend of Ben’s arrives with a troubling request.

On top of this, Sam Mitchell prepares to leave Walford and return to Spain, but not before she supports Lily Slater as they mark the anniversary of Martin Fowler’s death. After a heart-to-heart with Lily, Sam realises how much she needs her family.

A federal judge has temporarily halted a California law that sought to prohibit federal immigration agents from concealing their faces while on duty. Despite the block, agents will still be mandated to display clear identification, including their agency and badge number.

California became the first state to enact such a ban on facial coverings for most law enforcement officers, a measure signed into law in September following a summer marked by high-profile Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids in Los Angeles.

The Trump administration subsequently filed a lawsuit in November, contending that the legislation jeopardised officer safety by exposing them to harassment, doxing and violence, and unconstitutionally regulated the federal government.

Judge Christina Snyder issued the preliminary ruling, explaining that the mask ban, as implemented, did not extend to state law enforcement authorities, thereby discriminating against federal agencies. This decision could carry significant national implications as other states grapple with how to manage federal agents enforcing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

It left open the possibility to future legislation banning federal agents from wearing masks if it applied to all law enforcement agencies, with Snyder writing “the Court finds that federal officers can perform their federal functions without wearing masks.” The ruling will go into effect Feb. 19.

Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the bill in September banning some law enforcement officers from wearing masks, neck gaiters, and other facial coverings. It was slated to go into effect Jan. 1 but was put on hold due to the lawsuit.

In addition to exempting state law enforcement officers, it made exceptions for undercover agents, protective equipment like N95 respirators or tactical gear, and other situations where not wearing a mask would jeopardize an operation. Snyder sided with the federal government, which argued this exemption was discriminatory against federal agents.

Newsom also signed into law a measure requiring law enforcement to wear clear identification showing their agency and badge number while on the job, which was challenged by the federal government but upheld by the judge.

California State Sen. Scott Weiner, who proposed the original bill to ban facial coverings, said Monday he would immediately introduce new legislation to include state police in the law.

“ICE and Border Patrol are covering their faces to maximize their terror campaign and to insulate themselves from accountability,” Weiner said in a news release. “We will ensure our mask ban can be enforced.”

At a Jan. 14 hearing, Snyder repeatedly asked the government’s lawyer, Tiberius Davis, to explain why banning masks would impede the federal law enforcement in carrying out their duties, if officers rarely wore masks prior to 2025.

Davis cited claims by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that there has been a multifold increase in assaults and threats against federal officers. He also brought up an incident in Los Angeles where three women are being accused of livestreaming while following an ICE agent home and posting the address on Instagram.

“There is real deterrence on the officer’s safety and ability to perform their duties,” Davis said.

Cameron Bell, California Department of Justice attorney, challenged his claims, saying there was no concrete evidence that federal agents can’t perform their duties without facial coverings.

Bell referenced declarations from U.S citizens who have been detained by federal agents but thought they were being kidnapped.

“It’s obvious why these laws are in the public interest,” Bell said.

The federal government also argued in legal briefs that allowing California’s legislation could lead other states to be “emboldened to impose similar unconstitutional restraints.”

Davis cited a statement from Newsom in July 2025 during an interview posted online where he discussed the mask ban bill, saying, “It appears that we don’t have the legal authority for federal agents but we do for other law enforcement authorities.”

Los Angeles County supervisors voted in December to enact a local ordinance banning law enforcement from wearing masks that went into effect Jan. 8. However, the sheriff’s department said it would not enforce the ordinance until after the court ruled on the statewide mask ban. The Los Angeles Police Department had also said it wouldn’t enforce the mask ban.

The man was caught standing naked and masturbating while staring at a children’s playground

Advertisement

A 55‑year‑old man has been jailed after being caught on camera committing an indecent act while overlooking a children’s playground in South Wales.

Andrew Lewis exposed himself on two separate occasions last summer in Oakdale, Caerphilly county borough. On 1 June 2025, he was filmed by two children, aged 11 and 12, as he stood on the decking of his garden masturbating while facing a nearby play area, reports The Mirror.

At Newport Crown Court, Judge Carl Harrison said the footage “showed you masturbating while looking towards the play area” near Auckland Close in the Penmaen area of Oakdale, Wales.

“You were masturbating in an elevated position where there was a gap with a direct view of the playground,” the judge added. More than a month later, on the afternoon of July 23, 2025, two 12-year-olds reported seeing Lewis in his back garden, exposing and touching himself while looking at them, Wales Online reports.

Judge Harrison described how Lewis “intentionally exposed [his] penis for it to be seen” before masturbating in front of the children.

Lewis, of Auckland Close, was convicted of one count of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child under 13 and one count of exposure following a trial in September last year. The 55-year-old was sentenced to a total of 25 months in prison, with 20 months for the sexual activity charge and five months for the exposure charge.

Lewis was also ordered to pay a £228 victim surcharge and made subject to a notification requirement and sexual harm prevention order (SHPO), both for a period of 10 years.

Lewis is barred from staying in any home where a child under 16 is present, and he is forbidden from allowing anyone under 16 into his property unless they are accompanied by a parent or guardian.

He must also ensure he is dressed in ordinary clothing while in his garden and is prohibited from any contact with children under 16, save for situations where consent has been granted or where such contact is unavoidable in everyday life.

The order further warns that entering a play park or play area would amount to a breach.

Love Island fans have hit out at Belle Hassan for being a ‘hypocrite’ after last night’s Heart Rate challenge heated up when Belle took a chance and made a move on Scott

The Heart Rate challenge returned to last night’s episode of Love Island and things quickly heated up.

Last night, viewers watched Belle confess to Whitney and Helena that she fancied Scott van der Sluis, with Whitney saying she was “doing a Lucinda”. It comes after Belle hit out at Lucinda for not being a “girl’s girl” when she stole Sean from her while she was in the US villa.

Millie got a text which read: “Islanders, tonight it’s boys vs girls in a challenge designed to turn up the heat and send pulses racing!” The Islanders all put on a great show but all eyes were on Belle and Scott and their steamy kiss.

READ MORE: Rock star dead at 56 as heartbroken bandmates pay tribute to ‘immense’ talent

READ MORE: Kim Kardashian and Lewis Hamilton take their ‘secret romance’ public at Super Bowl 2026

The boys went first and Scott brought out a bottle of champagne and had two whispered confessions. One for Belle and one for Leane. When it was the girls’ turn Belle took her chance and snogged Scott van der Sluis in the challenge. Blushing, he said: ”I’m in the hurricane!”

But Love Island fans have hit out at Belle Hassan for being a ‘hypocrite’. Some fans thought Belle was in the wrong for making a move on Scott. One took to social media to say: “Belle made a big deal about Lucinda going for Sean, but she’s doing exactly the same with Leanne.”

Another said: “Belle out here preaching feminine energy while moving like a professional side quest. Girl he ain’t yours!” While some backed their chemistry saying: “Might be an unpopular opinion but I actually really like Belle and Scott together.”

Like this story? For more of the latest showbiz news and gossip, follow Mirror Celebs on TikTok, Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Barry Laker, head of the Childline service at the NSPCC, said: “AI is becoming a regular part of children’s online experiences. When used safely and responsibly, it can offer opportunities, but it also brings risks, especially if children aren’t sure what’s real, or how AI works.