The Dragons CEO has spoken to fans amid uncertainty regarding the WRU’s proposed plan to cut a region

Dragons chief executive Rhys Blumberg has insisted the region has a “solid foundation” and says the Welsh Rugby Union “desperately need us for future plans” amid ongoing uncertainty in Welsh professional rugby.

With the WRU intent on reducing the number of professional sides from four to three, with one team earmarked for east Wales, questions have swirled around the long-term future of the Dragons RFC.

But speaking at a supporters’ meeting this week, Blumberg moved to reassure fans that the region is stable and planning for the future.

Ensure our latest sport headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings

“There is a lot going on with the other teams but we’re still in the background poking the bear around what the next five or 10 years looks like for the Dragons,” he said, per the BBC.

“It’s not panic stations because we have PRA locked in with a five-year term and know our funding for the next two years. We are recruiting and retaining players on a budget we know we have got under PRA25.”

Dragons, along with Cardiff, signed the new Professional Rugby Agreement (PRA25) last year, while Ospreys and Scarlets refused.

Under the agreement, there is a two-year notice period required should the WRU wish to terminate the deal, which would need to be served by 1 June.

Blumberg added: “The Union desperately need us to be stable and involved in the future plans. We have a solid foundation and they don’t want us to go off track.”

The region is also pressing ahead with ambitious off-field developments at Rodney Parade.

Talks are ongoing with Newport Council and the Welsh Government over proposals for a full-size 4G pitch with a 2,000-seat stand, as well as padel courts and a new clubhouse as part of a wider redevelopment of the site.

JOIN OUR WALES RUGBY FACEBOOK PAGE! Latest news, analysis and much more

Meanwhile, Blumberg confirmed Dragons would also work with football neighbours Newport County to ensure they remain at Rodney Parade, even if the Exiles suffer relegation from the Football League.

County, who have played at Rodney Parade since 2012, are currently battling at the foot of League Two.

While there is no clause to reduce rent in the event of relegation, Blumberg said Dragons would look at ways to ease the burden commercially if required.

“Legally Newport County are tied in long-term [but] it would have an impact,” he said.

“They won’t go anywhere, they will still play here, but it would just be about how we operate their games and how it works commercially.”

The video assistant referee will be able to rule on even more decisions next season after football’s lawmakers IFAB controversially decided to increase its remit

VAR’s powers have been extended by football’s lawmakers in moves which are sure to cause yet more controversy. The International Football Association Board (IFAB) have gone all-in on the video assistant referee, despite continued flashpoints and complaints.

Using VAR to check corners will be an option for competitions from this summer, while the core VAR protocol has now been widened to cover second yellow cards and cards awarded to the wrong team.

IFAB have also approved a package of measures to counter tactics designed to disrupt the tempo of matches which come into effect this summer. The successful introduction of the eight-second rule for goalkeepers has encouraged IFAB to go further on efforts to stop players slowing the game.

Referees will be given the power to start a five-second countdown if they feel players are taking too long over throw-ins and dead-ball goal kicks, and substitutions must be completed in no more than 10 seconds, otherwise the substitute must stay off for at least one minute.

JOIN US ON FACEBOOK! Latest news, analysis and much more on Mirror Football’s Facebook page

READ MORE: Richard Keys forced off air as Brits in Middle East warned to ‘take immediate shelter’READ MORE: Man Utd hold Harry Maguire ‘concern’ after £15.6m transfer decision

The IFAB also decided at its annual general meeting in Wales on Saturday to enforce a period of at least one minute off the field for any player whose injury forces a stoppage in play.

The Premier League has been trialling a 30-second period, but some within the IFAB did not feel this was long enough to serve as a deterrent. Other competitions had tested longer periods, with two minutes trialled at last year’s Arab Cup.

The aim with all the measures set to be adopted is to maintain the tempo of the game but also to help reduce time to be added on for stoppages, which is a problem from a player welfare perspective, for supporters and for broadcasters’ schedules.

MAKE THE MIRROR YOUR FIRST CHOICE! Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings

Changes agreed on Saturday will officially become part of the laws of the game from July 1 but will be adopted at this summer’s World Cup which kicks off on June 11. IFAB also agreed trials be conducted to further assess goalkeeper tactical injury delays and to propose options to deter this behaviour.

Lawmakers are adamant VAR checks on corners must not delay the kick being taken and will only be used to spot obvious errors. Corner-kick checks will be an option, rather than a mandatory part of the VAR protocol.

VARs will also only check incorrectly-awarded second yellow cards. They will not advise referees to issue a second yellow card where one was not shown on the field.

The IFAB will also hold consultations to develop measures where players leave the field of play as an act of protest against a referee’s decision or team officials instigating such action and where players cover their mouth when confronting opponents during matches.

The Africa Cup of Nations final was delayed by a walk-off by Senegal, while Benfica midfielder Gianluca Prestianni is alleged to have racially abused Real Madrid winger Vinicius Junior during a Champions League match last week while his mouth was covered by his shirt. UEFA is investigating the incident and Prestianni denies racially abusing Vinicius.

Join our new WhatsApp community and receive your daily dose of Mirror Football content. We also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don’t like our community, you can check out any time you like. If you’re curious, you can read our Privacy Notice.

Sky Sports discounted Premier League and EFL package

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

£49

£35

Sky

Get the deal here

Sky has slashed the price of its Essential TV and Sky Sports bundle for the 2025/26 season, saving £336 and offering more than 1,400 live matches across the Premier League, EFL and more.

Advertisement

Sky shows at least 215 live Premier League games each season, an increase of up to 100, plus Formula 1, darts, golf and more.

Crime is deeply entrenched in Mexico. The Global Organized Crime Index, a tool designed to measure levels of organised crime in a country, places Mexico third out of 193 nations in terms of criminality. At the core of Mexico’s struggle with organised crime is its network of powerful drug cartels.

The Mexican state and society have long been held hostage to the power and influence of these organisations, the most recent manifestation being the anarchy that followed the killing of Jalisco cartel leader, Nemesio “El Mencho” Oseguera Cervantes, by security forces on February 22.

His killing unleashed a wave of violent unrest. Cartel members blockaded roads and torched vehicles across various towns and cities in retaliation. And a number of inmates were sprung from a prison in the coastal city of Puerto Vallarta, prompting the authorities to urge people not to venture out.

Mexico has been following the same rulebook of engagement with the cartels for much of the past two decades, with limited success. The war on drugs that started in 2006 under the then-Mexican president, Felipe Calderón, has seen the authorities go after cartel bosses.

This has resulted in the capture of senior Sinaloa cartel figures like Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán, Ovidio Guzmán López and Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada. It has also led to a number of high-profile killings, including Los Zetas cartel leader Heriberto Lazcano Lazcano in 2010 and now El Mencho.

As I have argued in the past, this is a futile strategy. The killing or arrest of cartel leaders rarely spells the end for an affected organisation. As El Mayo said in an interview with a Mexican news magazine called El Proceso in 2010: “As soon as capos [leaders] are locked up, killed or extradited, their replacements are already around.”

Killings and arrests can also create openings for other cartels or splinter groups to fill the vacuum left behind by the previous leadership. This often results in violent turf wars. The arrest of Sinaloa cartel leader El Chapo in 2016, for example, led to hundreds of killings within the cartel itself as well between rival cartels that continue to this day. The killing of El Mencho is likewise bound to stir the pot of violence.

Explaining cartel violence

There are several interrelated factors that contribute to the power of Mexican cartels, complicating the government’s efforts to tackle crime. Restricting cartel violence in Mexico requires overcoming criminal impunity, youth unemployment and, perhaps the most challenging problem, the complete disregard for life among cartel members.

The Mexican judiciary has long been plagued by impunity, corruption and mismanagement. The rate of impunity for violent crimes in Mexico is estimated to stand at close to 95%, while just 16% of criminal investigations in the country were resolved in 2022. According to Human Rights watch, the violence perpetrated by Mexican criminal groups is directly linked to the impunity they enjoy.

Mexico, like many other countries in Latin America, is also affected by rampant youth unemployment. Figures released by the International Labour Organization suggest the unemployment rate for young people in the region was three times higher than that of adults in 2025. And around 60% of the young people who are employed in Latin America work under informal conditions.

Mexican governments have consistently failed to produce a national strategy to address this, with the perpetually reproducing ecosystem of grinding poverty and government apathy pushing generations of underprivileged young people towards the cartels.

As various studies show in Mexico and elsewhere, those without a social security umbrella or access to opportunities to address their everyday economic needs are more likely to join criminal groups. Now, estimates of cartel membership in Mexico suggest that such groups would rank as the fourth-largest employer in the country.

Meanwhile, the Mexican authorities lack a nationwide strategy aimed at the voluntary demobilisation of cartel members and their reintegration into society. Successive governments have responded to rising violence with policies that favour military force and arrest over rehabilitation.

Weak law enforcement and a void of economic opportunities have undoubtedly contributed to the spread of cartel violence in Mexico. But the complete disregard for life among cartel members is another contributing factor. As UK-based researcher Karina García Reyes, whose work involves speaking to former cartel members, wrote in a recent article in the Spanish-language newspaper El País:

Mexico’s narcos may not blame the state or society for their condition of poverty – each is, after all, his own man – but they don’t feel remorse for their crimes, either. They had the ‘bad luck’ of being born in poverty, they told me, and their victims had the ‘bad luck’ to be in their way.

The Mexican state is taking steps to address youth unemployment and criminal impunity. Through the Plan México initiative, for example, the president, Claudia Sheinbaum, has promised to provide apprenticeships and monthly stipends to young people and boost educational infrastructure. The initiative also involves a pledge to expand university spots by 330,000 places.

However, with Mexico’s sluggish GDP growth of only 1% over the past 12 months, achieving these goals appears more difficult now than when Sheinbaum announced the plan in January 2025. And, even with these efforts, weaning criminals away from their established practice of violence will be a difficult undertaking.

Clearly, countering cartel violence in Mexico through military action has its limitations. In order to achieve greater success in addressing the problem, the government needs to undertake wholesale reforms to tackle the root causes of criminality – poverty, inequality and corruption – rather than relying solely on force to silence criminals.

Until then, Mexico will remain hostage to cycles of violence at the hands of its cartels.

The US and Israel have launched extensive, coordinated attacks on numerous targets across Iran, prompting retaliatory strikes in the region. Donald Trump neither tried to obtain Congressional approval, nor did he pursue a United Nations security council resolution ahead of these actions. And the attack has come in the middle of talks between Tehran and Washington.The facts are clear. This is an illegal war, both in terms of US law and international statutes.

The US president has repeatedly said that Iran can’t be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. The United Nations nuclear watchdog has reported that, because Iran has denied access to key sites hit during last year’s conflict, it cannot verify whether Iran has suspended all uranium enrichment or determine the current size and composition of its enriched uranium stockpile. However, Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, said after the latest round of talks that “good progress” was being made on a deal to limit Iran’s nuclear programme in return for sanctions relief.

Now, from everything that the US president is saying, the goalposts have shifted from a nuclear deal to an attempt to force regime change.

So bombs are falling on various cities in Iran, family members are hiding, tragedies will inevitably happen and the innocent will suffer. This is the endpoint of a longstanding campaign by the US and Israeli right-wing to reshape the Middle East and the wider Muslim world at the barrel of a gun. This is yet another intervention in a long history of disastrous foreign moves that have destabilised the country since Britain and the Soviet Union deposed Reza Shah Pahlavi in 1941 and the CIA and MI6 orchestrated a coup to depose Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953.

The consequences of this attack are likely to be dire for the region and the world. Already, Iran has retaliated by targeting US bases in Kuwait, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and the first reports of casualties are emerging. Iran is unlikely to hold back. It’s clear that the Islamic Republic is viewing this as an existential threat.

Tehran will call on its allies in the region, the Houthis in Yemen, the Popular Mobilisation Forces in Iraq and Hezbollah in Lebanon which – despite being weakened over two years of attacks by Israel aided and abetted by the United States – have the capacity to expand the conflict throughout the region.

Iran has already indicated in recent drills with the Russian Navy that it may be capable of closing off the Strait of Hormuz, through which around one-quarter of the world’s oil and one-third of its liquefied natural gas travel. As a consequence, oil prices will explode and the world economy will suffer.

Clash of civilisations

There is a cultural component to this war, too. Israel and the US are conducting this war during the month of Ramadan. Muslims all over the world are fasting. For billions of them, this is the month of spirituality, peace and solidarity. Images of Iranian Muslims being killed by Israeli and US bombs threaten to further a clash of civilisations narrative which pits the Judeo-Christian world against Islam.

Muslims in European capitals, together with anti-war activists, will see this war as a clear aggression on the part of the US and Israel. Global public opinion will not be easily swayed into the direction Trump and Netanyahu would like.

And it must be asked, what will the leaders in Moscow and Beijing be thinking as they watch this illegal war and what might this mean for Ukraine and Taiwan? Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping are close to the government of Iran and will condemn this war. At the same time, they must feel emboldened to pursue their own agendas with military might.

So Trump and Netanyahu’s attack on Iran has the potential to plunge the world into deep crisis. Expect more refugees, more economic turmoil, more trauma, death and destruction. The only hope now is that cooler heads among world leaders can prevail to contain this conflict and to limit the actions of Trump and Netanyahu.

Diplomacy has to be prioritised. Attempting to force regime change by launching an illegal war is foolhardy. If Iran is further destabilised, the entire Middle East and beyond will be plunged into utter turmoil. From there the outcome for the whole world is dangerously uncertain.

US and Iranian negotiators met in Geneva earlier this week in what mediators described as the most serious and constructive talks in years. Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, spoke publicly of “unprecedented openness,” signalling that both sides were exploring creative formulations rather than repeating entrenched positions. Discussions showed flexibility on nuclear limits and sanctions relief, and mediators indicated that a principles agreement could have been reached within days, with detailed verification mechanisms to follow within months.

These were not hollow gestures. Real diplomatic capital was being spent. Iranian officials floated proposals designed to meet US political realities – including potential access to energy sectors and economic cooperation. These were gestures calibrated to allow Donald Trump to present any deal as tougher and more advantageous than the 2015 agreement he withdrew the US from in May 2018. Tehran appeared to understand the optics Washington required, even if contentious issues such as ballistic missiles and regional proxy networks remained outside the immediate framework. Then, in the middle of these talks, the bridge was shattered.

Sensing how close the negotiations were — and how imminent military escalation had become — Oman’s foreign minister, Badr Albusaidi, made an emergency dash to Washington in a last-ditch effort to preserve the diplomatic track.

In an unusually public move for a mediator, he appeared on CBS to outline just how far the talks had progressed. He described a deal that would eliminate Iranian stockpiles of highly enriched uranium, down-blend existing material inside Iran, and allow full verification by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) — with the possibility of US inspectors participating alongside them. Iran, he suggested, would enrich only for civilian purposes. A principles agreement, he indicated, could be signed within days. It was a remarkable disclosure — effectively revealing the contours of a near-breakthrough in an attempt to prevent imminent war.

But rather than allowing diplomacy to conclude, the US and Israel have launched coordinated strikes across Iran. Explosions were reported in Tehran and other cities. Trump announced “major combat operations,”, framing them as necessary to eliminate nuclear and missile threats while urging Iranians to seize the moment and overthrow their leadership. Iran responded with missile and drone attacks targeting US bases and allied states across the region.

What is most striking is not merely that diplomacy failed, but that it failed amid visible progress. Mediators were openly discussing a viable framework; both sides had demonstrated flexibility – a pathway to constrain nuclear escalation appeared tangible. Choosing military escalation at that moment undermines the premise that negotiation is a genuine alternative to war. It signals that even active diplomacy offers no guarantee of restraint. Peace was not naïve. It was plausible.

Iran’s approach in Geneva was strategic, not submissive. Proposals involving economic incentives – including energy cooperation – were not unilateral concessions but calculated compromises designed to structure a politically survivable agreement in Washington. The core objective was clear: constrain Iran’s nuclear programme through enforceable limits and intrusive verification, thereby addressing the very proliferation risks that sanctions and threats of force were meant to prevent.

Talks had moved beyond rhetorical posturing toward concrete proposals. For the first time in years, there was credible movement toward stabilising the nuclear issue. By attacking during that negotiation window, Washington and its allies have not only derailed a diplomatic opening but have cast doubt on the durability of American commitments to negotiated solutions. The message to Tehran – and to other adversaries weighing diplomacy – is stark: even when talks appear to work, they can be overtaken by force.

Iran is not Iraq or Libya

Advocates of escalation often invoke Iraq in 2003 or Libya in 2011 as precedents for rapid regime collapse under pressure. Those analogies are misleading. Iraq and Libya were highly personalised systems, overly dependent on narrow patronage networks and individual rulers. Remove the centre, and the structure imploded.

Iran is structurally different. It is not a dynastic dictatorship but an ideologically entrenched state with layered institutions, doctrinal legitimacy and a deeply embedded security apparatus, including the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Its authority is intertwined with religious, political and strategic narratives cultivated over decades. It has endured sanctions, regional isolation and sustained external pressure without fracturing.

Even a previous US-Israeli campaign in 2025 that lasted 12 days failed to eliminate Tehran’s retaliatory capacity. Far from collapsing, the state absorbed pressure and responded. Hitting such a system with maximum force does not guarantee implosion; it may instead consolidate internal cohesion and reinforce narratives of external aggression that the leadership has long leveraged.

À lire aussi :
The US and Israel’s attack may have left Iran stronger

The mirage of regime change

Rhetoric surrounding the strikes has already shifted from tactical objectives to the language of regime change. US and Israeli leaders framed military action not solely as neutralising missile or nuclear capabilities, but as an opportunity for Iranians to overthrow their government. That calculus – regime change by force – is historically fraught with risk.

The Iraq invasion should be a cautionary tale. The US spent more than a decade cultivating multiple Iraqi opposition groups – yet dismantling the centralised state apparatus still produced chaos, insurgency and fragmentation. The vacuum gave rise to extremist organisations such as IS, drawing the US into years of renewed conflict.

Approaching Iran with similar assumptions ignores both its institutional resilience and the complexity of regional geopolitics. Sectarian divisions, entrenched alliances and proxy networks mean that destabilisation in Tehran would not remain contained. It could rapidly spill across borders and harden into prolonged confrontation.

A region wired for escalation

Iran has invested heavily in asymmetric capabilities precisely to deter and complicate external intervention. Its missile, drone and naval systems are embedded along the Strait of Hormuz — a chokepoint for global energy — and linked into a network of regional allies and militias.

In the current escalation, Tehran has already launched retaliatory missile and drone strikes against US military bases and allied territories in the Gulf, hitting locations in Iraq, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates (including Abu Dhabi), Kuwait and Qatar in direct response to US and Israeli strikes on Iran’s cities, including Tehran, Qom and Isfahan. Explosions have been reported in Bahrain and the UAE, with at least one confirmed fatality in Abu Dhabi, and several bases housing US personnel have been struck or targeted, underscoring how the conflict has already spread beyond Iran’s borders

A full-scale regional war is now more likely than it was a week ago. Miscalculation could draw multiple states into conflict, inflame sectarian fault lines and disrupt global energy markets. What might have remained a contained nuclear dispute now risks expanding into a wider geopolitical confrontation.

What about Trump’s promise of no more forever wars?

Trump built his political brand opposing “endless wars” and criticising the Iraq invasion. “America First” promised strategic restraint, hard bargaining and an aversion to open-ended intervention. Escalating militarily at the very moment diplomacy was advancing sits uneasily with that doctrine and revives questions about the true objectives of US strategy in the Middle East.

If a workable nuclear framework was genuinely emerging, abandoning it in favour of escalation invites a deeper question: does sustained tension serve certain strategic preferences more comfortably than durable peace?

Trump’s Mar-a-Lago address announcing the strikes carried unmistakable echoes of George W. Bush before the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Military action was framed as reluctant yet necessary – a pre-emptive move to eliminate gathering threats and secure peace through strength. The rhetoric of patience exhausted and danger confronted before it fully materialises closely mirrors the language Bush used to justify the march into Baghdad.

The parallel extends beyond tone. Bush cast the Iraq war as liberation as well as disarmament, promising Iraqis freedom from dictatorship. Trump similarly urged Iranians to reclaim their country, implicitly linking force to regime change. In Iraq, that fusion of shock and salvation produced not swift democratic renewal but prolonged instability. The assumption that military force can reorder political systems from the outside has already been tested – and its costs remain visible.

The central challenge now facing the US is not simply Iran’s military capability. It is credibility. Abandoning negotiations mid-course signals that diplomacy can be overridden by force even when progress is visible. That perception will resonate far beyond Tehran.

Peace was never guaranteed. It was limited and imperfect, focused primarily on nuclear constraints rather than human rights or regional proxy networks. But it was plausible – and closer than many assumed. Breaking the bridge while building it does more than halt a single agreement – it risks convincing both sides that negotiation itself is futile.

In that world, trust erodes, deterrence hardens and aggression – not agreement – becomes the default language of international power. What we are witnessing is yet another clear indication that the rules-based order has been consigned to the history books.

Motorists will not be able to drive, park or wait along a stretch of Micklegate, between its junctions with Priory Street and Bar Lane from 12am on Monday (March 9) until 11.59pm on Monday (March 23).

It comes after City of York Council announced that the street would be closed for sewer works to be carried out safely.

Recommended reading:

The road will be closed for motorists from Monday (March 9) (Image: Newsquest)

A council spokesperson said: “It is envisaged that access will be maintained for cyclists and pedestrians throughout the works period.

“An alternative route for diverted vehicles will be signed during the works period via Nunnery Lane, Bishopgate Street, Skeldergate Bridge, Tower Street, Clifford Street, Nessgate, Low Ousegate, Bridge Street.”

The stretch of road may be re-opened at an earlier date if sewer works are completed before the scheduled finishing time.

Traffic signs and barriers will be in place to re-direct motorists, and residents will maintain access to their homes.

Emergency services will be still able to proceed down Micklegate.

For more information please contact highway.regulation@york.gov.uk.

Bridgerton series 4 has released its four remaining episodes on Netflix, and one major development has puzzled fans.

Penelope Bridgerton (née Featherington), who is played by Nicola Coughlan, had been the individual behind the gossip column persona.

However, in series 4, she decided to put down her pen, but a new anonymous person has seemingly decided to take up the mantle.

In the finale, Penelope and her husband, Colin Bridgerton (Luke Newton), are left shocked as a new column is distributed across Mayfair.

Showrunner Jess Brownell shared she was excited about this new story thread as it wasn’t a part of the Bridgerton books the series is adapted from.

“Penelope was Julia Quinn’s Whistledown, so we knew we couldn’t really play with that reveal for too long because people could just Google it,” she said to Tudum.

“But now, we get to play with audience expectations.”

Who is the new Lady Whistledown?

Fans have brought up a few ideas on the identity of the new Lady Whistledown, with some thinking it will be Hyacinth.

In a post on the r/Bridgerton Reddit page, a user shared: “I wanna know who everybody thinks is the new Lady Whistledown is now that Penelope is retired because I personally think it’s Hyacinth, but who knows.”

Some agreed as one wrote: “She mentioned wanting to find herself before looking for a husband, and now has the idea to sneak into balls.”

Another concurred, adding: “I think it’s Hyacinth too – that or maybe Varley is airing out everyone’s dirty laundry after hearing so much.”

Not everyone was on the same page, as one shared: “Hyacinth seems unlikely to me: she’s too young and too spooked by John Kilmartin’s death.”

Some viewers guessed it might be Alfie, due to the accent change in Lady Whistledown’s voiceover towards the end.

One person theorised: “It’s Alfie, the lady’s accent change to his toward the end. He is an avid reader.”

In reply, another said: “The change in voice at the end was bizarre and startling”.

Meanwhile, one viewer shared: “Alfie might also be a lovely choice.

“A queer(ish) character, a man, a servant: it might continue the theme about inclusion and diversity, right?”

Other characters that were brought up as possible options included Cressida, Varley, Mrs. Mondrich or an entirely new character.

Who do you think the new Lady Whistledown is? Let us know in the comments.

Shop York runs until Sunday (March 22).

Delivered by York BID in partnership with Indie York, the scheme invites shoppers to spend £50 in 50 days across more than 100 of the city’s retailers.

Locals can log their visits through a Shop York Passport to be in with the chance of winning a wide range of prizes from York businesses.

Recommended reading:

With just three weeks still to go, participating businesses are already welcoming a boost in footfall during a traditionally quieter trading period – with shoppers flocking to discover new and previously overlooked spots across the city.  

Businesses are welcoming increased footfall during a traditionally quieter February (Image: Supplied)

Speaking about this, Avorium director, Tom Calvert, said: “Our city is a shopping hotspot for residents and visitors, and Shop York is a brilliant initiative to encourage spending at a time when the high street is typically quieter.

“We’re already experiencing the benefits of the promotion and are excited to push York’s independent shopping scene to new heights with Shop York.”

Bettys in York also features in the scheme (Image: Supplied)

Jenny O’Hara, from York Gin, added that the scheme offered something “genuinely exciting” for customers, with the chance to win some “amazing prizes”.

She added: “It helps keep more spending within the city, and it’s so easy to use in practice – minimum effort, no fuss and a great way to drive February footfall.

“As a business, it’s a win-win.”

The Shop York Passport also unlocks special offers, treats and promotions available only to participants.

More information is available at the Visit York Information Centre in Parliament Street, participating businesses in the city centre and at www.shop-york.co.uk.

What began as childhood anxiety and graphic fears about death soon escalated into relentless, unwanted thoughts that she says ‘changed my life forever’

A young woman says she spent four years believing she was a paedophile before making a discovery that transformed her future.

Molly Lambert, 22, developed intrusive sexual and violent thoughts as a teenager. It left her convinced she was a danger to others.

What began as childhood anxiety and graphic fears about death soon escalated into relentless, unwanted thoughts.

At 15, while revising for exams, Molly, from Manchester, became consumed by the belief that a single intrusive thought meant she was a ‘monster’.

Click here to prioritise Manchester news in Google from the MEN

For six months, she lived in constant fight‑or‑flight mode – barely eating, not sleeping and terrified of being alone. But after seeing a video of a woman talking about paedophile OCD (P-OCD) – a type of OCD in which an individual has unwanted sexual thoughts or images about children – on TikTok, Molly was able to get diagnosed in July 2025.

P-OCD is not paedophilia, and Molly is now speaking out to help others who may be silently suffering with intrusive thoughts. The digital PR worker and mental health advocate, living in Deansgate, said: “I genuinely thought I was a paedophile.

“No matter what you’re worrying about, it’s the same brain process each time, but when it’s that deep, and such a horrid thought, the shame is unbearable.”

Looking back, Molly believes the signs she was actually suffering from a type of obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) were there from childhood. She said: “I always had OCD traits. I had graphic images about death, I was scared of everything.

“I’d obsess over things like Madeleine McCann and worry I would get kidnapped. If there was a Brownie trip coming up, I’d think about every single thing that could go wrong until my mum had to pick me up.”

But the turning point came when she was 15, during a family trip through an airport. “I saw a little girl wearing a crop top and short skirt and thought, ‘That’s weird for a child to wear that,’” Molly said.

“And then I panicked – ‘why would I even notice that? Why would I think about that? She’s a child’.”

Though the thought faded at first, it returned months later while she was revising for exams. She said: “I was 15 and I remember thinking, ‘Oh my gosh, I’m a paedophile – I thought, I’m never going to forget this thought. My life is over’.”

From that moment, Molly says she was trapped in her own mind. “It was fight or flight constantly. Every thought was dark, I wasn’t eating properly, I wasn’t sleeping, I was so scared of being alone and going to bed,” Molly said.

“I was lying to my parents saying I was stressed about exams, but I just couldn’t put it into words.”

The intrusive thoughts expanded beyond one fear, and Molly began to question her past. She said: “I was thinking – ‘what if I’ve hurt someone? What if I’ve raped someone? What if I fancy my friends?’

“I even have a phobia of dogs and I’d think – ‘what if I fancy my dog?’. I knew I didn’t feel anything, but what if I was unsafe to everyone?

“The shame was overwhelming, I felt like a monster. I couldn’t even tell anyone what I was going through.”

Six months after the first thought, Molly started her first job at a café in a swimming pool. She said: “I remember thinking, there are kids here and I honestly thought to myself that I would have to kill myself on my way home.

“That’s how convinced I was that I was dangerous.”

Despite loving children and describing herself as a “kid person,” she began changing her life choices out of fear. Molly said: “I told my parents I wanted to work in retail instead, I was changing my life because I thought I was unsafe.”

For four years, Molly suffered in silence, even studying psychology at university without realising she had OCD. She said: “I thought OCD was cleaning and tidying, that wasn’t me at all. The more controlling forms of OCD like mine are the ones we don’t talk about.”

But after coming across a TikTok video in 2021 she was able to get diagnosed. Molly said: “It was a girl saying people think OCD is about cleaning, but she thought she fancied her niece, and I realised that there were people like me – and that I think I knew the issue.

“The weight that lifted off my shoulders was crazy. I thought only freaks had this.”

She began researching intrusive thoughts and confided in a friend at university, who encouraged her to seek therapy. Eventually, after breaking down to her parents, she started professional treatment, and was officially diagnosed in July 2025.

She said: “I was hysterically crying. I couldn’t even talk about the six months I thought I was going to kill myself.

“My therapist said it is an awful thing to go to but that it is way more common than you would ever expect.

“Getting all of that outside of me was the biggest part of my journey. It felt like I was in a war with myself, but now I knew what I was fighting.”

While Molly still experiences intrusive thoughts daily, her reaction to them has changed. “My brain can still say, ‘You’re a paedophile,’ but now I can tell myself that’s not true,” she said.

“OCD won’t let you move on from intrusive thoughts. Everyone has them, but OCD makes them stick.”

Therapy helped her move from severe to mild on the diagnostic scale, though she admits recovery is ongoing. “I still have days where I feel consumed but now I can recognise it for what it is; an overly obsessive part of my brain,” she said.

Molly now uses her social media platforms to raise awareness and says she receives both support and hate. She said: “I get a lot of hate, but this conversation is so important for the people suffering in silence.”

She believes the stigma around certain intrusive thoughts makes sufferers feel uniquely evil when in reality, OCD often attacks a person’s core values. Molly said: “The scariest part is how many people might not be here anymore because of this. I remember thinking I’d be 50 and never escape these thoughts, or I would be dead.

“Always talk to someone, once you understand what it is, you realise it’s not you. It’s OCD.”

To learn more about Molly’s journey, you can follow her TikTok – @mollambert

Only thirty-six hours ago, Trump’s envoys were meeting with a high-level Iranian delegation in Geneva to discuss a diplomatic solution.

The initial noises were positive. Conversations that I had with figures involved in those negotiations were optimistic that the sides were drawing close to a provisional agreement, although some obvious and significant gaps remained.

Notably, one issue that wasn’t discussed was Iran’s ballistic missile programme – which alarmed the Israelis because of the threat those missiles pose to them.

US and Israel strike Iran – follow latest

On Friday morning, Oman’s foreign minister Badr Albusaidi, who has mediated several rounds of talks, including those in Geneva, flew to Washington at short notice to brief US vice president JD Vance in person.

Albusaidi then gave two extremely rare interviews on US television to explain what was on the table. It was a desperate and honest attempt to keep the sides talking.

But there were already signs that things were unravelling.

Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, sent an email to embassy staff on Friday morning warning them that if they wanted to leave the country they “must do so TODAY”.

Read More:
UK issues travel warning as Middle East crisis worsens
Trump is going for regime change despite positive talks with Iran

It had an air of unplanned urgency, rather than a controlled diplomatic evacuation.

Perhaps they had just learnt something was imminent. Maybe Netanyahu, who has always been deeply sceptical of negotiations, had already decided to attack.

British diplomats were relocated from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as they were during the 12-Day War last June. Western embassies and military outposts around the region were emptied of non-essential staff.

Then late on Friday evening I started to hear word of a possible attack overnight. From my own experience of multiple Middle East wars, it’s very hard to pick out the truth from a wall of noise, but the signs were clearly bleak.

The cork is now out of the bottle.

President Trump, with the help of Israel, is going for regime change. It’s all or nothing.

Iran’s ability to respond might be limited, following the attack on its ballistic missile sites last summer, but already strikes have been reported across the Middle East, not just Israel.

The Iranian regime won’t roll over; they will die fighting and will drag the region into a wider conflict if needs be.