A Colorado man pleaded guilty to state charges including murder on Thursday for a fatal 2025 firebombing attack on a group of Jewish marchers.

The June attack in Boulder targeted a group of elderly activists advocating on behalf of Israeli hostages in Gaza, ultimately leaving one dead and a dozen people injured.

“Guilty,” Mohamed Soliman reportedly told a state court through an Arabic interpreter.

Soliman, 46, still faces federal charges related to the attack, in which he used a makeshift flamethrower and Molotov cocktails to ambush the marchers. Originally from Egypt, Soliman disguised himself as a gardener and shouted “Free Palestine!” during the attack.

He faces life in prison without parole.

About a month after the attack, Karen Diamond, 82, died of injuries she sustained in the firebombing.

Soliman has pleaded not guilty to federal hate crime charges against him.

The 46-year-old came to the U.S. with his family from Kuwait in 2022 and applied for asylum, though federal officials say he was living in the U.S. illegally at the time of the attack.

After his arrest, Soliman told police he had planned the attack for a year and would do it again if could, according to federal officials. He also allegedly told police he wanted to “to kill all Zionist people.”

This is a breaking news story and will be updated with new information.

In a statement, the NIO said: “We welcome the clarity provided today by the Supreme Court, which has confirmed that the ICRIR is fully equipped to deliver human rights-compliant investigations, and reaffirms the Government’s position on the interpretation and application of Article 2 of the Windsor Framework.

Netflix’s The Crown actor Ben Miles has landed a role in an upcoming series on ITV

The Crown’s Ben Miles is to star in ITV‘s “suspenseful” new space thriller about a woman who vanishes during a lunar mission.

The actor, who played British Royal Air Force officer Peter Townsend in the royal drama, joins Adolescence star Ashley Walters in six-part series First Woman.

Ashley plays Ben Reith, who wakes up one morning to discover his wife Claire (Andrea Riseborough) has disappeared. It marks the beginning of an international news story “because Claire is an astronaut crewing the UK’s first moonbase and she’s disappeared into the long lunar night”, according to the broadcaster‘s synopsis.

It adds: “Claire is the first woman to set foot on the moon.

“A biologist taking part in a groundbreaking research project, her disappearance throws suspicion on her fellow astronauts and China’s rival base.

“With hundreds of thousands of miles between them, can Ben uncover the truth behind his wife’s disappearance?”

Advertisement

The cast also includes Pride and Prejudice star Jennifer Ehle and Alex Hassell, who will soon be seen reprising the role of Rupert Campbell-Black in the second series of steamy Disney+ hit Rivals.

Ben, who is also known for conspiracy thriller The Capture, is joining the cast of First Woman alongside The Tower’s Jimmy Akingbola, Fra Fee from Unchosen, You’s Kathryn Gallagher, Nautilus’ Shazad Latif and Neuromancer’s Christian Ochoa Lavernia.

Sharing the cast update on Instagram, ITV teased: “A groundbreaking project. A missing biologist. A mystery that reaches across the stars.”

Polly Hill, ITV’s director of drama, said the series would take viewers on “an incredible journey”, adding: “I wanted ITV to make this the moment I read it.

“The team that has come on board on and off screen is incredible, and a testament to the wonderful and original scripts.”

When the series was announced, creator Lydia Yeoman said: “Set in the exciting (and as-yet-unexplored) world of private space travel, First Woman is a thriller unlike anything else we’ve seen.

“This is the story of a marriage put through the ultimate test. It’s rare that you get given the opportunity to tell a story with such ambition and scope, and we’re eternally grateful to Polly at ITV and Alcon for allowing us to do that.”

A CPR trainer suffered a real heart attack while demonstrating the signs of a cardiac arrest in Canada.

Karl Arps and his students had the fright of their lives when the 72-year-old first aid instructor went into a cardiac arrest during a training session.

Arps was showing his students how to spot the symptoms of one when he suffered a medical emergency in March.

He ended up being rushed to the hospital for an emergency triple bypass surgery following the incident.

Students said they first thought he was pretending before realising it was real.

Arps was feeling dizzy in the moments before the attack, while hearing his students around him saying he didn’t look well.

Next time he came around was in the back of an ambulance.

He told As It Happens: ‘From what I was told, they did everything like we told them to do in CPR class.

‘Thank you does not seem enough. They saved my life, period.’

The students jumped into action when Arp’s hands curled outward, his face contorted and he started to snore, Logan Lehrer, a firefighter learning first aid at the Fox Valley Technical College in Appleton, said.

Another instructor tried to wake up Arps before realising he wasn’t fooling around.

He told CBC: ‘That’s immediately when we started responding to the situation.’

Lehrer alerted the emergency services, while five other students performed CPR and used a defibrillator on the 72-year-old.

Arps said after his bypass surgery that he is lucky to be alive as many heart attack cases he has been involved with end up passing away even after successful CPR.

He CBC: ‘I’ve been in practice for a quarter of a century, and I can count the number of CPR saves that I’ve had on one hand.

‘[Sometimes] we get a pulse back in the ambulance or on scene, but the person ends up passing away two or three days later in the hospital.’

An ambulance chief, Nick Romenesko, said the students’ early recognition and the immediate actions ‘directly contributed to Mr Arp’s positive outcome.’

Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk.

For more stories like this, check our news page.

MORE: Mum shares ‘unreal’ moment she met transplant recipient who received daughter’s hand

MORE: Could deadly hantavirus become the next global pandemic?

MORE: Moment hantavirus captain tells passengers cruise is ‘not infectious’

Graham Norton almost said no to The Neighbourhood, which has proven to be a bit of a miss in terms of viewing figures, before ITV’s brand new game series went to air

Graham Norton almost said no to The Neighbourhood before the series went to air. The presenter, 63, is front and centre on the broadcaster’s new gameshow format in which real-life households have gathered in a purpose-built neighbourhood to be in with a chance of winning a £250,000 cash prize.

There were clearly high hopes for the series as it premiered in between both segments of the explosive I’m A Celebrity…South Africa final on April 24, and has been airing at 9pm on Thursdays and Fridays ever since, where it has managed to pull in just half a million viewers.

Just hours after the sudden schedule change was confirmed, comments made by the talk show host have emerged, where he admitted that he can be “very lazy” with work and only agreed to fully commit to the project once he heard producers explain it in depth to him.

READ MORE: Why has Graham Norton’s show been pulled from ITV primetime slot?READ MORE: Graham Norton’s big budget ITV show The Neighbourhood pulled from prime time and replaced

Advertisement

Speaking before the series launched, Graham told an audience in the Lake District, where the show is filmed: “You are the first people in the world to get a sneak peek at The Neighbourhood, and it’s a show that I’m really excited to be at the helm.

“Anyone that knows me will know that as much as I enjoy my job, I’m also very lazy, so when the brilliant teams from Lifted Entertainment and The Garden asked me in for the pitch, I thought, well I’ll do that but then I’ll say no. And then as I was sitting there, I thought, ‘Oh, this is really good. I have to say yes to this,’ so here I am!”

Despite Graham’s optimistic outlook on the whole thing from the start, the programme will now air at 10.45pm which takes it away from the coveted slot it was initially given, implying that it has not lived up to expectations in terms of viewing figures.

This Thursday, viewers tuning in at 9pm will instead see a repeat of Davina McCall’s Long Lost Family, and an episode of Beat The Chasers: Celebrity Special, which was initially aired in 2021, will be shown instead. A spokesperson for ITV confirmed the schedule shift as they said said: “The full box set of The Neighbourhood is now available to stream on ITVX. Additionally, the show will continue to air in an evening slot on ITV.”

But sources have claimed that whilst the broadcaster pulled out all the stops to make the programme into a hit, it just hasn’t gone that way in the end. An insider told The Sun : “They threw everything at The Neighbourhood to make it a big success, but it’s ended up a bit of a damp squib.”

The six households competing are The Bradons, The Kandolas & Samra, The Lozman-Sturrocks, The Pescuds, The Scouse Haus and The Uni Boys. Challenges put every neighbour to the limit as they try and eliminate one another without becoming unpopular enough to get the axe themselves.

Opening up on his first reaction when he saw the entirety of the set, Graham said: “Arriving in Derbyshire and seeing the set, I’d seen pictures but I didn’t quite understand the scale of it. It really is like being on a movie set, except it’s 360 – everywhere you look, it’s real.

“The art department did an extraordinary job of building up that town square where we do the removals, the pub, the cafe, the interiors of the houses. It really took my breath away!

The Neighbourhood is available to watch on ITVX. Follow Mirror Celebs and TV on TikTok , Snapchat , Instagram , Twitter , Facebook , YouTube and Threads

Until recently, AI’s role in research felt like having a useful assistant. It could summarise a paper, clean up a dataset or draft an abstract. Researchers were still in charge of the thinking.

That changed in late 2025 when cutting-edge “frontier” AI models became capable of reasoning and planning reliably by themselves. A key feature of these models is “tool calling” – the ability to interact with external tools in order to act on the world, not just describe it.

This marks the rise of agentic AI: systems that do not just respond to instructions but can independently plan, execute and iterate. In science as in other fields, chatbots have become coworkers that can autonomously complete real work, end to end.

An example of this is Tokyo-based Sakana AI’s The AI Scientist. Unveiled in mid-2025 and now in its second iteration, the Japanese tech company bills this as “the first comprehensive system for fully automatic scientific discovery”.

The AI Scientist scans existing literature, generates hypotheses, writes and executes code, analyses results and produces a full research paper – largely without human involvement. It reasons, fails and revises, just as a junior scientist would.

The proof? An AI Scientist academic paper describing “a pipeline for automating the entire scientific process end to end” was accepted by the International Conference on Learning Representations and published in the scientific journal Nature in March 2026, following peer review.

This represents something genuinely new: an autonomous AI system passing a milder version of the Turing test by demonstrating scientific quality, if not (yet) machine intelligence.

Other significant achievements include Singapore-based startup Analemma carrying out a live demonstration of its Fully Automated Research System (Fars) in February. It produced 166 complete machine-learning research papers in roughly 417 hours for around US$1,100 (£810). That’s one academic paper every 2.5 hours at a cost that would sustain a research assistant for a couple of weeks.

And Google Cloud AI Research recently unveiled PaperOrchestra, which takes a researcher’s raw experimental logs and rough notes and converts them into a submission-ready manuscript, with figures and verified citations. In blind evaluations by 11 AI researchers, it easily outperformed existing autonomous systems in this area.

Having spent two decades researching disruptive technological innovations, I believe a significant threshold has been crossed. While there is a way to go before AI systems match the very best human-produced work, the era of fully automated research has arrived.

Implications for academia

The arrival of autonomous research systems lands on an academic system under severe strain in many countries. Over the last decade, the number of papers submitted to academic journals has grown much faster than the pool of qualified peer reviewers, leading to suggestions that the science publication system is being “overwhelmed”.

If systems like Fars can produce thousands of papers per year, the publication infrastructure of science faces a volume it was never designed to handle. Some academic reviews have already been identified as using AI-generated content. As submission numbers continue to rise, this may alter the role of a published academic paper as a definitive signal of the quality and skills of human researchers.

An optimistic take is that AI may shift academia away from its strong reliance on quantity-based metrics, in favour of how influential or innovative publications are. This is a reform critics of the current system have long called for.

Less optimistically, as AI research scales up, an academic system designed for coherent, methodologically defensible contributions may inflate the proportion of incremental, rather than radically novel, scientific contributions. Both the quality and originality of research could suffer as a result.

Science has always needed its heretics to advance. Italian astronomer Galileo, the “father of modern science”, was forced to recant his defence of heliocentrism before the Catholic Church’s Inquisition. Hungarian physician Ignaz Semmelweis died in a psychiatric institution having failed to convince his colleagues that handwashing could save lives.

Yet historically, the ability of scientific institutions to encourage radical approaches has also been a mainstaple of how science has progressed. To sustain this, AI systems will need to be trained to maximise novelty and transformation, rather than plausibility and incremental progress.

AI’s impact on creative industries

The transformative effects of this new breeed of AI extend well beyond scientific research. A striking example is The Epstein Files. This fully AI-generated podcast reached number one the UK Apple Podcasts and Spotify charts in early 2026, drawing 700,000 downloads in its first week.

Music is further along and more conflicted. By mid-2025, the fully AI-generated band The Velvet Sundown had amassed over a million monthly Spotify listeners. In 2026, the platform was forced to introduce artist-protection features after AI tracks began displacing human music on popular playlists, while Deezer, facing roughly 50,000 AI-generated uploads daily, began excluding them from curated lists.

Ownership remains the elephant in the room. US courts have ruled that AI-generated works cannot be copyrighted, since human authorship remains a legal requirement. AI can produce at industrial scale, but no one can own the output legally.

This matters far beyond intellectual property law. In creative industries, it threatens the royalty streams, licensing deals and catalogue valuations on which artists, labels and publishers have built their entire business models for generations.

In science, meanwhile, it is destabilising the entire incentive architecture, which rests on the foundational assumption that knowledge is both generated and owned by humans. When that assumption dissolves, so does much of the institutional logic that has governed how we produce, reward and trust expertise.

The question, across all these fields, is no longer whether AI can produce the work. Rather, it is whether sufficient thought has gone into what we will gain and lose when it does.

The developer argued there was a need for affordable housing across East Cambridgeshire

A development of 100 affordable homes which was refused for being “too big” for a village will now go ahead following a successful appeal.

A proposal for 83 homes had already been approved on the land at the edge of Stretham, off the A10 near Ely, but permission was sought for a further 43. East Cambridgeshire District Council refused the application for 126 homes which they said went far above the affordable housing need in Stretham and nearby Little Thetford.

Long Term Land Limited appealed the decision and said there is “an ongoing and acute need for more affordable housing” in both East Cambridgeshire and Stretham. They said half of the homes will be affordable rental properties and the other half will be sold for affordable home ownership.

A range of road improvements are also proposed including street lighting, a puffin crossing, footpath improvements and measures to reduce vehicle speeds.

‘History’ of affordable housing schemes

A hearing was held by the Planning Inspectorate on March 4 and 5 with inspector T Burnham visiting the site on the second day. They noted “a history” of affordable housing schemes being granted outline planning permission on the land.

Initially refused by the council, permission for up to 19 homes was granted on appeal in 2023 and up to 38 were allowed by the council later that year. The need for affordable housing in the area was said to be between 44 and 72 homes, which the council said was “appropriately met” by the approved 83 homes.

The inspector agreed, but said Stretham is linked by buses to Ely and Cambridge which both have a “wide range of services” and “railway stations served by multiple routes”. They added that the “harm and implications” from building too many affordable homes “has not been clearly made out to me”.

Inspector Burnham said the benefits of the homes “should be afforded substantial weight” and approved the appeal.

For months, the Iran war was framed through the language of military success. This was shaped in part by longstanding orientalist assumptions reflected in the rhetoric of leaders such as Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu about the relative weakness and fragility of states such as Iran.

Encouraged by Israeli intelligence capabilities, precision strikes and overwhelming American military superiority, many policymakers appeared to assume Tehran would eventually collapse under pressure. Iran, in this view, was too isolated, internally divided and economically weakened to withstand sustained US-Israeli escalation. Some even suggested American troops would be welcomed by sections of a population frustrated with the regime.

But this hasn’t been the reality of the past two months. The Trump administration now appears to be groping for any settlement it can sell as a “win”. This may be hard if, as has been reported, the US military campaign ends without Iran being forced to make any meaningful concessions over its nuclear programme.

If that transpires, it will suggest that the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, was right when he said that the US has been humiliated by Iran in a lesson about how power really works.

The problem was not simply military miscalculation. It was strategic incoherence rooted in assumption that Iran could not meaningfully endure prolonged confrontation. As the war progressed, the fantasy of decisive victory collapsed under the weight of economic, political and strategic reality.

No clear objective

At the same time, at least in public, America’s leadership appeared regularly to change its mind about what would represent a “win”. Was it destroying Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, neutralising its armed forces, forcing regime change, or ending Tehran’s regional influence? Throughout the conflict, the objectives shifted constantly. That ambiguity was not a minor flaw in strategy. It was the strategy’s central weakness.

Modern wars require a clear objective and a realistic path to achieving it. Throughout this conflict, the US and Israel never convincingly defined either.

If the aim was regime change, there was never serious appetite for the kind of occupation and state reconstruction that had in Iraq and Afghanistan already proved disastrously costly.

If the aim was simply degrading Iran’s military capabilities, that was always going to be a temporary fix – Iran has spent decades building a system designed around resilience, decentralisation and survival under pressure.

And if the aim was to end Iran’s role as a regional power, that has clearly failed. Iran remains intact. Its institutions survived and were able to install a new generation of leadership. And, as we’ve seen over Tehran’s ability to control the Strait of Hormuz, Iran’s strategic relevance survived.

This was never going to be a conventional war about controlling territory. It was a clash between two very different understandings of victory. The US and Israel wanted a decisive and demonstrable victory. Iran wanted to endure. That distinction changed the entire war and handed the strategic advantage to Tehran.

Iran understood something many policymakers in Washington continue to underestimate: weaker states do not necessarily need to defeat stronger powers militarily in order to succeed. They simply need to avoid collapse while imposing sufficient economic, political and strategic costs that the stronger actor eventually recalculates.

This is not a new lesson. It runs through modern history, from Vietnam to Afghanistan. Superior military power does not automatically produce political victory. But more importantly, the conflict also revealed the increasing cost of escalation in an interconnected global economy.

Global battlefield

The war’s consequences spread across the global economy as oil prices surged, shipping routes faced disruption and already fragile supply chains came under renewed pressure. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz – through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s seaborne oil supply passes – was enough to trigger market anxiety. Iran does not need to fully close the strait to create economic shockwaves. In the modern global economy, uncertainty itself is a weapon.

The longer the war continued, the harder it was to remain politically sustainable – not just regionally, but globally. That is why, despite aggressive rhetoric, neither side now appears eager to return to full-scale war.

There is a broader lesson here that western powers repeatedly struggle to absorb: military power can destroy infrastructure and impose suffering, but it cannot easily manufacture legitimacy, political order or strategic clarity. That is why “winning” modern wars has become increasingly elusive even for the most powerful states on earth. Wars without realistic theories of victory tend to end the same way: through exhaustion, recalculation and negotiation. That increasingly appears to be where this conflict is heading.

The limits of power

Perhaps the greatest irony of the Iran war is that all sides now appear to recognise what should have been obvious from the beginning: total victory was never truly achievable. The war became a demonstration – not of the absence of power, but of its limits.

That matters in an increasingly fragmented global order where wars are becoming less about decisive triumph and more about endurance. States shaped by sanctions and prolonged isolation often develop a capacity to absorb pressure beyond what outside powers anticipate. Iran’s resilience was not created during this war. It was built over decades.

Military superiority still matters enormously. But the ability to endure politically, economically and socially matter just as much. Iran is a state with a complex, resilient structure, and depth of legitimacy especially when it comes to conflicts with the US and Israel. Iran understood that from the beginning.

It has taken Iran’s opponents too long to grasp the same facts. But they have now been educated by experience.

An initial request for ways to slow traffic through the village has been met with a comprehensive redraw of the centre including widened pavements, road realignment and regimented parking.

Controversial plans to change the centre of Winchburgh have been backed by West Lothian Council.

Almost 200 people objected to a scheme to slow traffic through the rapidly growing village.

And community groups have turned their backs on plans drawn up by the charity Sustrans, now known as Walk Wheel Cycle Trust (WWCT).

A major redraw of proposals resulted in only four of the 196 objections being withdrawn.

READ MORE: The Centre, Livingston host Meet the Stylist event alongside Style Squad

And despite calls by councillors for further refinements, and promises by the trust to engage more with local people, few in the village seem to want the package.

An initial request for ways to slow traffic through the village has been met with a comprehensive redraw of the centre including widened pavements, road realignment and regimented parking.

Debate at the Development Management Committee this week only produced tweaks including the removal of a planned bus shelter outside of one villager’s house and the promise to look at the relocation of another.

In papers to the DMC, planners explained: “The application site extends from the bridge over the Union Canal to the west of Bennet Wood Terrace, where a traffic calming pinch point is proposed at the access to Fernlea, Nirvana and Easter Cottage.”

Winchburgh Community Development Trust, in partnership with West Lothian Council and Winchburgh Developments Ltd, applied to WWCT for Scotland’s Street Design Programme in 2018. This project is intended to form part of a wider vision for the regeneration of Winchburgh as a whole.

READ MORE: West Lothian industrial estate hotel plans knocked back

Planning officer Gillian Cyphus told the meeting: “There remains a significant body of objections from the residents. Residents are concerned about the impact of work on businesses and on residential amenities.”

She added: “The key issues for determination are the impact on road and pedestrian safety and the impact on amenity.”

Mrs Cyphus told the meeting that controversial proposals for the bus shelters had been changed in planning conditions and plans for bench seats had also been removed as part of conditions because of concerns about householder privacy .

While plans have been formulated since 2023 revision was demanded earlier this year.

The Community Council appeared at the DMC meeting to say that it could not support the revised proposals.

READ MORE: West Lothian youths target wildlife in ‘terrible’ incident as injured duck euthanised

One Main Street resident Sylvia White told the meeting: “I am not opposed in principle but concerned whether the layout choices are correct and proportionate.”

Ms White said proposed changes in the siting of lights and crossings would mean “more stop-start traffic” along the street.

Lars Cook pointed out that 70 to 90 buses stopped outside his house each day. He and his family had to put up with foul language and people urinating against his home as well as general disruption from the existing bus stop. The building of a bus shelter would only exacerbate the disruption and invasion of his family’s privacy.

Jordan Wright who owns a pet supplies shop in the Main Street said that parking changes could take customers away from his shop and surrounding businesses.

Graham Campbell, the chair of Winchburgh Community Council said: “There are matters that are still up in the air for both businesses and residents. This was a community led project until a year ago when the cycle trust took on the community feedback and provided something that was really not what had been asked for.”

READ MORE: Livingston charity secures funding boost from Scotmid

In its defence the engineering firm ARUP which had provided detailed design for the WWCT said: “The proposal creates a more accessible Main Street which prioritises people with additional access needs, including through the provision of additional parking bays (and disabled parking bays in particular) interlinked with improved footways for wheeling.”

Representatives from the charity and Arup said they were prepared to continue discussions with residents over issues raised and make changes where possible.

Details were debated over two hours before councillors reconvened to make a decision.

Councillor Willie Boyle said: “I am delighted at the dialogue this morning. I have to say in some ways I envy Winchburgh. What’s being proposed is positive.”

He pointed to the council’s own plans for decriminalised parking enforcement and 20mph zones coming into communities as part of national road policy changes. “These schemes in themselves are not enough, they can be ignored and can be difficult to enforce but engineering our streets to be safer I think is very positive.”

READ MORE: Supermarket giant calls on West Lothian shoppers to take on Supermarket Sweep

“I think this is the way forward. It has been unfortunate about the issues of communication but I think we have an opportunity to salvage this.”

He said a decision by the council would allow further conversations to take place.

Local ward councillor Tony Boyle said: “I think the best thing today would be take this plan back and get back into a discussion with the communities and come back in with a fully refined plan, But I know because of funding constraints that’s not going to happen. I would support this plan if conditions could be attached regarding the siting of the bus stops”.

Councillor Boyle suggested that the bus stop also be moved from outside Mr Cook’s house but planners suggested this would be difficult to condition as part of the proposals before the committee. It is something which can be considered by another committee.

The committee passed the proposals.

READ MORE: West Lothian town may soon have its own dental practice

Don’t miss the latest news from the West Lothian Courier. Sign up to our free newsletter