NEW YORK (AP) — Shoppers unexpectedly paused their spending in December from November, closing out the holiday shopping season and the year on a lackluster tone.

The report, issued by the Commerce Department on Tuesday, surprised economists who were looking for growth despite mounting concerns about slowing job growth, uncertainty about President Donald Trump’s tariffs and other economic headwinds. And it raised questions about shoppers’ ability to spend after they have remained resilient for months despite souring consumer confidence, economists said.

Retail sales were flat in December from November, when business was up 0.6%, according to the Commerce Department. Economists were expecting a 0.4% increase for December.

The report was delayed because of the 43-day government shutdown.

Sales in October fell 0.1%, rose 0.1% in September, but jumped 0.6% in July and August and 1% in June, according to the Commerce Department.

The retail sales figures, which are not adjusted for inflation, showed that many types of businesses posted declines including furniture and home furnishings stores and electronics and appliance retailers.

Among the few bright spots: building materials and garden stores, which posted a solid sales increase. Gas stations and food and beverage stores saw small sales gains.

The snapshot offers only a partial look at consumer spending and doesn’t include many services, including travel and hotel lodges. But the lone services category – restaurants – registered a dip of 0.1%.

The data comes as U.S. consumer confidence has been souring for months. In fact, confidence declined sharply in January, hitting the lowest level since 2014 as Americans grow increasingly concerned about their financial prospects.

“Consumer spending has finally caught up with consumer sentiment, and not in a good way,” Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer for Northlight Asset Management in Charlotte, North Carolina, wrote in a report published Tuesday.

He noted that consumer confidence numbers have been disappointing for months, and shoppers have been complaining about the cost of everything – and yet they kept spending.

But he added, “This month’s data show that consumers are no longer relentlessly increasing their level of spending.”

Thomas Ryan, North America economist at Capital Economics, also noted the report was worrisome, but given expected stimulus from the bigger tax refund checks, he thinks that consumption at the end of the first quarter of this year “may turn out to be a lot stronger than it currently looks at the start.”

Economists will be closely monitoring a slew of economic reports on jobs and prices due out later this week.

But the economy is in a confusing place.

Growth is robust: Gross domestic product — the nation’s output of goods and services — advanced from July through September at the fastest pace in two years. But the job market is lackluster: Employers have added just 28,000 jobs a month since December.

In the 2021-2023 hiring boom that followed COVID-19 lockdowns, by contrast, they were creating 400,000 jobs a month.

When the agency releases hiring and unemployment numbers for January on Wednesday, they are expected to show that businesses, government agencies and nonprofits added about 80,000 jobs last month — modest but up from 50,000 in December.

Analysts will also be studying consumer price report, to be released Friday. In December, consumer prices matched the 0.3% increase in November. If inflation cools in the coming months, it could increase the likelihood the Federal Reserve will reduce its key interest rate later this year, economists say.

Against this backdrop, some chains like Walmart, whose everyday low prices have pulled in shoppers from rivals, are thriving but others struggle.

A growing number of retailers are closing stores as companies reorganize under bankruptcy protection or pare down their operations to focus on profitable operations.

On Monday, the operator of roughly 180 Eddie Bauer stores across the U.S. and Canada filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, blaming declining sales and a litany of other industry headwinds.

Last month, the parent company of Saks Fifth Avenue said it was seeking bankruptcy protection, buffeted by rising competition and the massive debt it took on to buy its rival in the luxury sector, Neiman Marcus, just over a year ago. A few days later, the parent company said it was closing most of its Saks Off 5th stores.

Amazon said earlier this month that it was closing almost all of its Amazon Go and Amazon Fresh locations within days as it narrows its focus on food delivery and its grocery chain, Whole Foods Market.

Suggestions that Peter Mandelson may have shared government information with Jeffrey Epstein amid the fallout of the global financial crisis are being investigated by police.

Emails between Mandelson and the disgraced financier, released by the US Department of Justice, are said to include market-sensitive details. This was at a time when Mandelson was in government and ministers around him were scrambling to keep the UK economy afloat.

Now, the 2008 global financial crisis belongs to a different political generation, with almost all of the leading players having left the world stage. But the ripple effect of the credit crunch can still be felt in our politics and in our pockets.

This surely makes the allegations against Mandelson, some of which date to his time as UK business secretary, even more awful. The anaemic UK economy, its weakened public finances and the divisive nature of UK politics can all trace their ways back to the crisis.

This catastrophic event, where developed economies were brought to the brink of collapse, came at the end of a long period of prosperity. It put paid to a belief, embraced by Gordon Brown when he was chancellor, that the UK had achieved a “Goldilocks economy” – not too hot and not too cold. This was supposedly a triumphant end to the boom and bust of the past.

For a time it worked. Britain experienced 16 years of quarter-on-quarter economic growth, emerging from the aftermath of “Black Wednesday” in 1992 when sterling fell out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism.

The cracks first started to appear in 2007 as US lenders specialising in sub-prime mortgages (typically sold to high-risk borrowers) started to collapse. This was at the heart of what would become a global catastrophe. To meet market demand, lenders bundled together thousands of everyday home loans into “mortgage-backed securities”. These were then sold as low-risk debt to investors.

You can see the attraction: safe and steady repayments over the long term, underpinned by bricks and mortar. Only it was a deception, because that debt was not all safe. As house prices kept rising, banks increasingly agreed loans with customers who did not have the capacity to repay them. And the loans were made against property that had been overvalued.

Then the housing market weakened. Credit markets seized up, since holders of securitised debt found they couldn’t unwind their positions (put simply, they were unable to sell them on) – it was impossible to tell which parts of their holdings were sound and which were toxic. The result was that institutions stopped lending, interest rates on corporate borrowing jumped, investment ground to a near halt and stock markets plummeted.

Banks, big as well as small, started to fail. While the collapse of US giant Lehman Brothers in September 2008 marked the start of the global crisis, in the UK it was the liquidity emergency of Northern Rock that brought things into focus. Savers, having lost confidence, queued up outside branches in September 2007 to withdraw their money, marking the first run on a UK bank since the 19th century. But worse still, banks had lost trust in each other.

Banks are not just any business; they are the arteries of a functioning economy. Policymakers around the world judged that these banks were simply too big to fail. Governments responded with unprecedented interventions, including bank rescues, capital injections, fiscal stimulus and major regulatory reforms.

In Britain, this included nationalising Northern Rock in February 2008, recapitalising Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds, and launching wide-ranging guarantee and liquidity schemes. It meant containing the crisis, recapitalising the system, and restructuring the sector – all paid for by government borrowing.

In December 2008, Brown – by now prime minister – claimed he had “saved the world”. But what followed was the longest and deepest recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s. And that sharp downturn, in contrast to the previous decade, hit the young and the unskilled hardest as unemployment rose. For those in work, pay growth stalled.

It was during this period that Mandelson is suspected of sharing sensitive government information with Epstein. In June 2009, an email appears to show the then-business secretary forwarding details of proposals to sell off UK government assets to raise money for the public purse.

The crisis had blown a hole in the UK’s public finances as the Treasury grappled with falling tax receipts and increased demands on spending on public services and welfare. Added to this, bank rescues had of course piled up public debt.

Meanwhile, other emails in late 2009 appear to show Mandelson and Epstein discussing ways to push back against UK government plans for a “supertax” on bankers’ bonuses. These proposals were a bid to recoup some of the public money pumped into the sector.

For all the successes, perhaps the “Goldilocks economy” wasn’t entirely built on responsible policymaking. While inflation targets were hit, Bank of England experts had all but failed to notice the massive asset bubble. And then there were the “light-touch” banking controls, which even the regulator blamed for its failure to spot the storm brewing.

The long tail of the crisis

While economies eventually stabilised, not least because of Brown’s leadership and that of the subsequent coalition government, the consequences of the crisis play out to this day. In contrast to the optimism of the previous period, the years since the financial crisis have seen weak economic output, derisory productivity growth as well as slow improvements in pay.

Those were the years of austerity policies, with increasing distrust of institutions and a backlash against “elites”. All of this fuelled populism on the left and right.

Many felt left behind by the globalisation that had driven the economy from the mid-1990s, or were hit hard as low-skilled work became more precarious and public services squeezed, or felt taken for granted by the political class. When it came to their vote, Brexit was an opportunity to express their frustration and disrupt a system that they no longer believed worked for them.

And so it is impossible to understand the fractious nature of politics today, or the relatively feeble state of the UK economy, without understanding the huge challenge that the financial crisis posed to a generation of politicians. Although Mandelson is understood to deny any criminality, his alleged betrayal came at the peak of this jeopardy. We are all still paying the cost of bringing the global economy back from the brink.

Have you heard of the writer Brandon Sanderson? If you’ve not, you’re sure to soon as a major deal with AppleTV signals that his writing could be a big new fantasy franchise that everyone will be talking about.

Sanderson is best known for his expansive literary universe, the Cosmere, with books set on various planets that manifest different but interconnected forms of magic. What’s so significant about this AppleTV deal is that Sanderson will possess remarkable control over the production of adaptations of his entire back catalogue. Crucially, it has been reported that he will have approval over any decisions, enabling him to oversee projects as writer, consultant and producer.

It’s a level of creative control over the adaptation process from page to screen which has been described as unprecedented for an author.

Writers are often wheeled out when promoting an adaptation to reassure audiences of how “faithful” it is or to show support for any changes to the source material. But it’s not particularly common for an author to wield significant creative authority over the production process itself, especially for big-budget franchises.

In my book on the Harry Potter franchise I explore, for example, how JK Rowling’s approval (and supposed influence) was frequently invoked in promotion for Harry Potter films to build prestige for the franchise. But, it wasn’t until the Fantastic Beasts series (2016-22) that she actually received a production credit as screenwriter.

There are some exceptions. George RR Martin contributed to script-writing, casting and production in the first few seasons of the Game of Thrones TV show, an adaptation of his novel series A Song of Ice and Fire. Martin has since acknowledged, however, that he had “less and less influence” over the TV show as it progressed, with similar breakdowns in communication during the adaptation of prequel series House of the Dragon.

Authors also sometimes write their own adapted screenplays. Gillian Flynn, for example, wrote both the novel Gone Girl and the screenplay for its film adaptation. Emma Donoghue won a best adapted screenplay Oscar for her work adapting her novel Room.

This process, called “self-adaptation”, has a long history in media and entertainment, even going back to Charles Dickens who adapted his works into stage plays. But authors may, of course, have strong opinions about how their work is adapted or have differing priorities to studio executives. Right now, when big-budget franchise instalments are expected to make hundreds of millions and hopefully attain long-term popularity, it’s a risky strategy to give creative control of a budding franchise to an author.

But that is exactly what’s happened with Sanderson. His literary properties are no doubt attractive to studio heads, having sold more than 50 million copies worldwide and slotting into the science fiction and fantasy niche carved out by mega-franchises like the MCU (Marvel Comic Universe), Game of Thrones and Harry Potter.

He’s also famously productive – publishing more than 50 novels in the last 20 years – which reduces the risk of acquiring a literary property whose overall narrative will never been concluded, something HBO had to navigate with the Game of Thrones TV show. The appeal for AppleTV is also clear, given its strategy to adapt genre fiction such as Foundation, Silo and Murderbot.

But how and why has Sanderson managed to retain so much creative control? I think the key lies in his commercial approach.

Sanderson established his own publishing and entertainment company, Dragonsteel Books, in 2012. As an online storefront it sells merchandise from special-edition books to board games to t-shirts. In 2020, it was reported he raised a record-breaking £30 million through Dragonsteel Books, using Kickstarter to self-publish four “secret projects” he had written during the COVID pandemic.

Since 2021, Dragonsteel Books organises a yearly Brandon Sanderson fan convention. And, in 2024, Sanderson announced that his company had purchased land to build “Dragonsteel Plaza”, which is expected to contain a bookstore, creative hub and company headquarters.

Sanderson challenges our cultural idea of the author as a creative genius who shuns commercial activity: he actively embraces it. He demonstrates the kind of attitude that aligns with the priorities of a global megacorporation such as AppleTV that is looking for ambitious large-scale franchises to launch.

With his Mistborn series touted for film and Stormlight Archive for television, it remains to be seen what Sanderson’s creative direction will look like. But what’s clear is the benefit of Sanderson’s collaboration for AppleTV: a creative figurehead and a commercially strategic ally for a fledgling franchise that has incredible potential for longevity.

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.

The story behind Steve Borthwick’s selection for Calcutta Cup match in Edinburgh on Saturday, is not the two changes he has made, with Luke Cowan-Dickie starting at hooker and Maro Itoje returning to captain the side at lock. Nor is it the decision to retain Henry Arundell on the wing despite the return to fitness of Ollie Lawrence, or the dropping of Marcus Smith from the 23-man squad following the victory over Wales.

No, the biggest take-away is from what Borthwick did not do, and that was switch Tommy Freeman, a wing for his club Northampton Saints and the British and Irish Lions, from outside centre, where he started against Wales.

It is something Borthwick must have considered when Immanuel Feyi-Waboso was forced to pull out with a hamstring injury at the 11th hour ahead of the Wales game, but instead the England head coach opted to bring in Tom Roebuck, who had only just recovered from a broken toe.

Again, with Lawrence fully fit this week having recovered from a knee injury, the Bath centre would have come under consideration for midfield berth, which would have allowed Borthwick to switch Freeman out to the wing, a move that could have led to Arundell’s relegation, despite his first-half hat-trick of tries against Wales.

Instead, the picture is becoming clear. Borthwick clearly sees Freeman’s best position for England at 13, and seems intent on giving him enough game time in the position to allow him to fully flourish at the World Cup in Australia next year.

Next season the midfield competition will intensify, when Joe Marchant joins Sale Sharks from Stade Français and Benhard Janse van Rensburg, the Pretoria-born Bristol centre, qualifies for England after completing the five-year residency rule. Seb Atkinson and Max Ojomoh are also strongly in the mix.

But Freeman looks to be in pole position for the 13 shirt, with the inside view that it brings the best out of his athletic ability, heft, and finishing power. Starting him at 13 also bakes-in versatility to allow Borthwick to persist with a six-two bench. With Ben Earl able to switch to the midfield, and Freeman finishing the game on the wing.

England also see him with the aerial skills to cover full-back if required, which in part explains why a fit-again Fin Smith is preferred on the bench to his namesake Marcus. The Northampton play-maker is now seen as a player who can also cover inside centre, and his more structured game suits England’s style, which now focuses on kicking to compete in the air.

A huge band of snow is set to hit the UK on Sunday morning (February 15)

A huge 860km wall of snow is set to hit the UK this weekend, with Met Office weather maps now showing exactly what time and which areas will be affected.

It comes after the UK is seeing record-breaking levels of rain, with forecasters warning that there are ‘no signs’ of a prolonged dry spell for at least seven to 10 days.

As of Tuesday afternoon (February 10) there are 97 ‘act now’ flood warnings in force across the UK as well as 154 ‘flooding is possible’ alerts.

And now, Met Office maps show a huge band of snow heading towards the UK on Sunday (February 15), spanning a whopping 860km.

At 9am on Sunday, Met Office maps reveal a wall of snow which stretches all the way from Brighton in the south of England to the village of Durness in Scotland.

Before then though, at 6am, the band is snow is slightly smaller, stretching from the Midlands all the way up to Scotland.

By 12pm on Sunday, it looks as though most of the snow has passed over the UK, leaving rain and some dry patches in its wake.

The Met Office has not issued any severe weather warnings for the weekend, however forecasters urge people to stay up to date with the latest weather forecast in your area.

Met Office’s UK-wide forecast for Thursday to Saturday reads: “Unsettled at first with further outbreaks of rain. Turning colder from Friday with a chance of snow showers, particularly in the north. Dry, cold and sunny for many on Saturday.”

Looking at the long-range weather forecast which covers the time between February 15 and 24, the Met Office says: “Showers or longer spells of rain are expected as Atlantic low pressure systems dominate in the vicinity of the UK.

“Some heavy rain is likely in places, probably focussed on western hills, with some snow at times in the north, mainly on high ground. Strong winds are possible at times, especially around coasts.

“Temperatures will probably be near normal. Later in the period, there is a chance that drier, more settled conditions may begin to develop.”

And looking even further ahead at the period between February 25 and March 11, the Met Office forecast reads: “Low confidence in the dominant weather patterns during this period.

“There are signals for both changeable, unsettled conditions, bringing a risk of some heavy rain, and also periods of drier, more settled weather, which may mean colder conditions.”

The forecast concludes: “The latter, more settled pattern is looking slightly more probable at this stage.”

Heraskevych previously said he will respect Olympic rules while still raising awareness about the war in Ukraine at the Games.

“We have over 90 countries competing here, thousands of athletes, there are a range of things people want to commemorate,” Adams added.

“We want in the Olympics a safe space to compete away from that, while allowing them to express themselves.

“He can wear an armband with no text. However much we agree with an expression, we have to keep a fine balance.”

Adams said people will always “push rules to their limit” and the IOC will assess each case on an individual basis.

“Our rule is that we have to protect the field of play, it is difficult and there will be people who try to game the system, that’s where we have to ban slogans,” Adams said.

“Where there is good reason, black armbands will also be allowed for other athletes.”

He said Toshio Tsurunaga, the IOC representative in charge of communications between athletes, national Olympic committees and the IOC, had been to the athletes’ village to tell him.

“The IOC has banned the use of my helmet at official training sessions and competitions,” Heraskevych, who was a Ukraine flagbearer in Friday’s opening ceremony, had said on Instagram on Monday., external

“A decision that simply breaks my heart. The feeling that the IOC is betraying those athletes who were part of the Olympic movement, not allowing them to be honoured on the sports arena where these athletes will never be able to step again.

“Despite precedents in modern times and in the past when the IOC allowed such tributes, this time they decided to set special rules just for Ukraine.”

Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky thanked Heraskevych “for reminding the world of the price of our struggle” in a post on X., external

Heraskevych, Ukraine’s first skeleton athlete, held up a ‘No War in Ukraine’ sign at the 2022 Beijing Olympics, days before Russia’s invasion of the country.

Following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022 athletes from Russia and Belarus were largely banned from international sport, but there has since been a gradual return to competition, although not under their national flags.

The IOC cleared 13 athletes from Russia and seven from Belarus, external to compete as Individual Neutral Athletes (AINs) in Milan-Cortina.

More than 24.4 million sertraline prescriptions were dispensed in England in 2024, making it the most commonly used antidepressant – but patients should be aware of a rare but serious side effect

Millions of people are prescribed sertraline every year. Latest figures show that in 2024 there were more than 24.4 million items of the drug dispensed in England, making it the most common antidepressant used to treat patients.

The medication is used to treat depression and other mental health conditions and is only available with a prescription. Beyond depression, it can also be prescribed for obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and social anxiety disorder.

It is believed to work by boosting the level of serotonin (a brain chemical that regulates mood). When serotonin levels are balanced, you feel calmer and happier.

And while like most medicines it can have some side effects, the majority of these are mild. According to the NHS, not everyone will experience them.

However, it adds that if you do, they should clear quickly, saying: “Most side effects should ease after a couple of weeks as your body gets used to the medicine, but some can last longer.”

And there are some which are serious that warrant urgent medical help, reports the Mirror. One of these is a rare but potentially severe condition called serotonin syndrome.

This has five symptoms and if you spot them you should dial 111. These include a fast heartbeat, sweating, shaking, twitching muscles, and feeling confused or agitated.

Common side effects

There are several common side effects and they also come with a warning: “If you feel dizzy or drowsy after taking sertraline, do not drive, ride a bike or use machinery until you no longer have these symptoms.”

Other common side effects include:

• headaches
• feeling sick (nausea) and being sick (vomiting)
• dizziness or drowsiness
• dry mouth
• diarrhoea
• problems sleeping
• sexual problems, such as low sex drive (loss of libido)
• putting on weight

Serious side effects

The NHS explains: “Sertraline can sometimes cause more serious side effects, although most of them are rare.”

Possible serious side effects of sertraline include:

• an allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) – causing symptoms such as a swollen throat or tongue, a raised, itchy rash and difficulty breathing
• serotonin syndrome – a rare but serious condition that causes a fast heartbeat, sweating, shaking, twitching muscles and feeling confused or agitated
• feeling very low and having suicidal thoughts

It advises you should call NHS 111 if:

• you’re taking sertraline and think you might be having serious side effects
• you’re having thoughts about harming yourself

What is serotonin syndrome

According to the Mayo Clinic, serotonin syndrome is a serious drug reaction which is caused by medications that build up high levels of serotonin in the body. Serotonin is a chemical that the body produces naturally, which it needs for the nerve cells and brain to function.

But too much serotonin causes signs and symptoms that can range from mild (shivering and diarrhoea) to severe (muscle rigidity, fever and seizures). Severe serotonin syndrome can cause death if not treated.

Serotonin syndrome can occur when you increase the dose of certain medications or start taking a new drug. It’s most often caused by combining medications that contain serotonin, such as a migraine medication and an antidepressant.

Some illicit drugs and dietary supplements are associated with serotonin syndrome. Milder forms of serotonin syndrome may go away within a day or two of stopping the medications that cause symptoms and, sometimes, after taking drugs that block serotonin.

Other potential issues

“There are some medicines, remedies and supplements that may not mix well with sertraline,” cautions the NHS.

This includes certain types of:

• anticoagulants, such as warfarin and apixaban
• non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), such as aspirin and ibuprofen
• antidepressants called monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), such as moclobemide and selegiline

The NHS further advises: “You should also not use the herbal supplement St John’s wort when taking sertraline. Do not drink grapefruit juice while taking sertraline. It’s also best to avoid drinking alcohol while taking sertraline because it can stop the medicine working properly.”

Good afternoon and welcome to our live coverage of the Winter Olympics, as Britain’s mixed curling team Bruce Mouat and Jen Dodds bid for bronze – and Team GB’s first medal of the Games. 

After dominating the curling round-robin competition for five long days, Team GB faltered when it mattered most just as the Winter Olympics moved into the decisive knockout action.

A catastrophic sixth end finished with Bruce Mouat and Jennifer Dodds losing all five shots and going from drawing 3-3 into an impossible 8-3 deficit against their Swedish opponents. They had made three errors in successive ends before falling to a meek 9-3 defeat.

With that, their chances of the gold they had looked well capable of winning have gone and they must now make do with a bronze-medal match on Tuesday against hosts Italy, who themselves won gold in Beijing four years ago.

Dodds, a previous world champion and part of the women’s team who won gold in Beijing, accepted that they were ultimately beaten by the better team. “We are just both disappointed we didn’t play like we had played all week,” she said. “In an Olympic semi-final, you can’t do that and the Swedes capitalised on our mistakes. We got punished for it. They played great; they capitalised on all of our mistakes.”

They face hosts Italy in this afternoon’s bronze medal match.

The former England international has defended her stance on male pundits in women’s football after Laura Woods criticised her comments as “dragging women’s punditry backwards”

Advertisement

Eni Aluko has levelled accusations of gaslighting at Laura Woods, following the ITV and TNT Sports presenter’s suggestion that her recent comments are “dragging women’s punditry backwards”.

The ex-England player found herself back in the spotlight this weekend after she reiterated her belief that women’s football needs to be “gatekept”, arguing that male pundits, including former Arsenal forward Ian Wright, are restricting opportunities for women in the sport.

Aluko, who scored 33 goals in 105 appearances for England, initially sparked controversy last April when she criticised Wright, suggesting he should reflect on “how much he’s doing in the women’s game”. She implied that Wright’s involvement was making it difficult for female pundits trying to carve out a niche in the industry.

She later apologised, but Wright refused to accept her apology, expressing his “disappointment” at her remarks.

After Aluko restated her stance on male pundits, Woods took to Twitter on Monday morning to criticise her ITV colleague through several posts. Woods cautioned that Aluko’s statements could “not only drag women’s sport backwards, it will drag women’s punditry in all forms of the game backwards”, reports the Irish Mirror.

Aluko responded to Woods’ recent comments, admitting she felt “gaslit”. Speaking on Tuesday morning’s talkSPORT broadcast, Aluko said: “I respect Laura’s opinion and always have done. I think it’s helpful for her to outline the attributes that go into what you consider a brilliant pundit.

“[Number of] Caps is obviously part of that, as I explained. Caps isn’t the decider but it’s an objective way to say that a person has enough experience to talk about this specific game.”

She continued: “It’s interesting because Laura was one of the people I would consistently go to. We got on like a house on fire and I would go and ask her how she thought things went.

“Laura, consistently… and I had to look at the messages yesterday and thought ‘hold on, I feel a bit gaslit here’… Laura consistently said to me ‘I think you’re a brilliant broadcaster and pundit’.

“So I think there’s a little bit of serving her argument at this point. Which I respect, she doesn’t agree and that’s fine. But I think there’s an insinuation in there that you don’t meet the standard. I’ve worked too hard for people just to conclude that because you’re not seeing me on screen, you’re not good enough. That’s not true.”

When talkSPORT host Jim White pointed out the “gaslit” comment, Aluko quickly clarified her stance, replying: “Not gaslit, I don’t want to say that because she has a view and I appreciate her view.

“She mentioned about little boys being important for the women’s game now and I agree.

“When I see little boys coming to women’s games now, they have the women on the back of their shirts, they don’t have the names of male pundits.”

Click here to sign up to our sport newsletter, bringing you the top stories and biggest headlines from Ireland and beyond

It is tempting to treat the fallout between Brooklyn Beckham and his A-list parents as mere celebrity gossip. But this story has struck a chord with many families because it disrupts a comforting assumption: that strong bonds, shared history and success protect families from fracture.

The breakdown of even highly visible, seemingly close families raises an uncomfortable question. Why do family relationships, often our longest lasting and most emotionally charged connections, sometimes become so strained that contact is reduced or cut off entirely?

Answering that requires a look at the relational dynamics that shape many families. Family rupture is not an anomaly confined to extreme circumstances or public families under scrutiny. It is part of everyday life for many people.

Large population surveys suggest that around one in four adults are estranged from at least one family member at any given point in time. This may involve a parent, sibling, child or other close relative.

When research focuses specifically on parent–child relationships, roughly one in ten adults report estrangement from a parent or child, with some differences between mothers and fathers. Across studies, estrangement from parents tends to begin in early adulthood, often during the early to mid-20s.

Conflict with family members can often feel more painful and enduring than other relationship breakdowns. The reason why has to do with identity and belonging. From early childhood, family relationships shape how we understand ourselves. In Brooklyn Beckham’s case, his public statements hint at this tension.

Growing up in a highly visible family meant that, for him, roles, expectations and identities were formed under constant public scrutiny. As adulthood brings new partnerships and a desire for autonomy, those early roles can become harder to inhabit, particularly when private family dynamics are played out in public.

Roles, expectations and emotional patterns become deeply embedded over time. When conflict emerges, it rarely challenges behaviour alone. It threatens how we see ourselves in relation to people who have known us longest.

When conflict becomes estrangement

Conflict escalation often follows predictable psychological patterns. Minor disagreements take on symbolic meaning. Old grievances resurface. People move from addressing an issue to defending their identity, values or sense of worth. Once this shift occurs, emotional responses intensify, positions harden and resolution becomes much harder to achieve.

Estrangement, then, is rarely about a single argument. It reflects accumulated disconnection, unmet expectations and unresolved emotional histories that have built up over years.

Research in psychology and family studies consistently highlights a few recurring and interacting dynamics. Over time, people can find themselves locked into family roles that no longer fit, particularly if they feel persistently misunderstood or undervalued. What once felt like shared history can begin to feel restrictive rather than supportive.

At the same time, criticism or dismissal within families is often experienced as an attack on core self-beliefs, not simply a disagreement. When repeated attempts to explain or resolve these tensions fail, many people turn to avoidance or emotional distance as a form of self-protection. Silence, while painful, can feel safer than continued conflict.

None of these dynamics are unique to celebrity families. Seeing them play out publicly simply makes visible what many families manage quietly behind closed doors.

How to cope

Popular advice about family conflict tends to emphasise openness and communication. While well-intentioned, suggestions to “just talk it out” often fail because they ignore emotional safety, timing and boundaries. Conversations entered without shared readiness or clear intent can easily reopen old wounds.

Psychological research points to more realistic approaches.

1. Separate repair from reconciliation

Repair may involve greater understanding or boundary setting rather than restoring closeness. Reconciliation is not always possible or healthy.

2. Manage expectations

Accepting that some conflicts reflect fundamental value differences rather than misunderstandings can reduce guilt and self-blame.

3. Protect wellbeing

Prolonged family conflict is associated with stress, anxiety and poorer mental health. Seeking external support is not a sign of disloyalty but of self-care.

Estrangement is also rarely static. Many relationships fluctuate over time. Some reconnect after years or decades, while others remain distant but emotionally resolved.

Family rifts feel particularly unsettling because they collide with powerful cultural myths. In many western cultures, family life is still framed through powerful ideals of unconditional love, permanence and harmony. These narratives are reinforced through media, popular psychology and social expectations, leaving little room to acknowledge conflict, distance or estrangement as ordinary parts of relational life. When reality fails to match that ideal, people often carry shame alongside grief.

Recognising how common family estrangement is, and understanding the psychological dynamics behind it, helps shift the conversation away from blame. It allows space for compassion, boundaries and healthier coping.

The Beckhams’ situation serves as a reminder of something deeply ordinary. Families are complex systems shaped by history, identity and meaning. Sometimes that complexity holds. Sometimes it fractures. And when it does, the experience is painful, but far from unique.