In recent years, green finance has become a key policy in developed countries. The term refers to the loans and investments that fund the transition to a low-carbon economy. But one of the main challenges in this area is the gap between environmental claims and realities – so-called “greenwashing”.

Because of this, alternative finance models that emphasise a direct link between capital and actual economic activities have been receiving more attention. The Islamic financial system is one such alternative. In this system, financing (in other words, lending) is legitimate when it is linked to real economic activities that benefit people and society.

Islamic finance, with its core values of fairness and social responsibility, could be a means of enhancing credibility and transparency within green finance. In other words, its principles could be seen as more than just an ideological or faith alternative to the conventional system.

Unlike other models, Islamic finance emphasises a direct link between financing and actual assets or activities. Profits must come from work – simply lending money to make a profit is not permitted. This allows for a clearer definition of green projects, helping to ensure that resources are spent on activities with a specific economic and social purpose.

Ever wondered how to spend or invest your money in ways that actually benefit people and planet? Or are you curious about the connection between insurance and the climate crisis?

Green Your Money is a new series from the business and environment teams at The Conversation exploring how to make money really matter. Practical and accessible insights from financial experts in the know.

The requirement for transparency, the prohibition on excessive uncertainty, speculation, and the emphasis on social responsibility mean that the “green” claim must be linked to observable and measurable financial activities.

Green finance and green sukuk

One of the most tangible links between Islamic finance and green finance is green sukuk (Islamic bonds). Conventional bonds are based on a debt commitment – the investor provides money and receives regular fixed interest payments before the debt is repaid. But sukuk represent real ownership or a real interest in an asset or project.

In simple terms, sukuk’s investors will focus on real economic activities rather than an abstract financial contract. For example, the invested capital could be directed into projects like renewable energy, sustainable infrastructure, solar power plants, wind energy initiatives, water treatment facilities or clean technology. This means earning profit from a tangible work in real financial projects.

Conversely, with a conventional bond, a significant part of the invested capital might go into “non-real” projects. For example, a stakeholder might use the invested capital to buy shares. They might expect the shares to increase in value and they could then sell them for a profit. The earnings here would come from the fluctuations in the share price, not from real economic activities like industries, production or entrepreneurship.

Through green sukuk, assets and economic activities must be environmentally focused – things like solar power plants, wind projects or clean transport initiatives. This makes the project’s greenness an intrinsic part of the financial instrument.

ESG (environmental, social and governance) sukuk is expected to surpass US$70 billion (£52 billion) globally this year. Green sukuk could play a bridging role in the UK – the country is a global hub for both green and Islamic finance.

The UK’s green sukuk market would not have to replace the green bond market. But it could complement it, particularly for investors (both Muslim and non-Muslim) who value transparency and a direct link between capital and environmental impact.

Islamic fintech (financial technology) also has a role. Fintech is not just about digitising financial services; by using technology to make transactions cheaper, more convenient and more secure, it changes how finance products are accessed, monitored and trusted.
Islamic fintech operates in accordance with Islamic finance principles and values.

In green finance, Islamic fintech allows crowdfunding, asset tokenisation (turning real assets into digital currency), and rapid information sharing with investors. This can cut costs and increase transparency, and provide a foundation for individual investors and small institutions such as credit unions to access investment opportunities.

Islamic fintech’s main difference lies in its ethical framework. Conventional fintech mainly focuses on speed, scalability and profitability. But from the outset, Islamic fintech is shaped by ethical limitations – things like avoiding speculation, emphasising transparency and linking crowdfunding to projects that make profits from real economic activities.

The UK has strong fintech infrastructure, flexible and supportive financial regulation and a prominent place in Islamic finance. This environment gives the country a unique opportunity to test ethical finance in a modern and secular context. This in turn could create more opportunities for green finance projects.

Measuring, monitoring and verifying the environmental impact of projects over time are significant challenges. Initially, most green financial commitments are clear, but determining whether a project reduces carbon and improves sustainability is time consuming and costly.

In these situations, AI can also play a role. Ethical AI in this context means that algorithms are used for analysis and accountability within green projects. Machine-learning algorithms, for instance, can continuously analyse the environmental data for projects financed through green sukuk and identify deviations between goals and results. This reduces the risk of greenwashing and can increase investor confidence.

To comply with Islamic finance, the use of AI must serve specific ethical purposes. This means AI decision-making should not compromise transparency, justice or accountability. This view is consistent with emerging UK approaches to AI regulation, which emphasise trustworthy AI aligned with the public interest.

Applying Islamic finance does not have to be an identity or political project. Rather, it can be a practical and ethical framework for financing the green transition. In short, it can complement current financial systems to address some of humanity’s most pressing economic and environmental challenges.

A sullen and defiant Donald Trump lashed out at the nation’s highest court in a hastily-convened press conference at which he slammed two of the three justices he’d appointed as “disloyal” and beholden to “foreign interests” while vowing to use other authorities to force Americans to pay the import taxes on which he has based much of his domestic and foreign policy.

Speaking from the White House briefing room on Friday, Trump called the 6-3 Supreme Court ruling “deeply disappointing” and said he was “absolutely ashamed” of the Republican appointees on the court who’d failed to back his signature policy.

“They’re just being fools and lap dogs for the RINOs and the radical left Democrats … they’re very unpatriotic and disloyal to our Constitution,” Trump said, employing an acronym indicating that the three conservatives who’d ruled against him — Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett — were “Republicans In Name Only.”

Roberts, an appointee of George W. Bush, has been on the court since 2005, while Gorsuch and Coney Barrett were named to the court by Trump during his first term.

Trump and his aides have expected a negative ruling in the case for months and have been preparing other authorities for taxing imports, but those other avenues are far more limited than the broad powers Trump had asserted for himself.

He announced that he will be invoking one of those statutory authorities — Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act — to impose a 10 percent levy on all imports going forward and claimed that his administration is also beginning the process to impose other sector-specific tariffs under Section 301 of the same law “to protect our country from unfair trading practices of other countries and companies.”

“We’re immediately instituting the 10 percent provision, which we’re allowed to do, and in the end, I think we’ll take in more money than we’ve taken in before,” he said.

“Just so you understand, we have tariffs. We just have them in a different way, and now they’ve been confirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States … we’ll be taking in hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Though Trump claimed America’s effective tariff rates could be “potentially higher” under those tariff authorities, Section 122 limits the president’s power to impose a global tariff to just 150 days without Congressional authorization. It also does not permit such a tariff to be higher than 15 percent.

The landmark ruling from the nation’s conservative-majority high court determined that the president’s global levies were unlawfully imposed under the 1977 law, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, because the Carter-era law didn’t explicitly give him the authority to impose import taxes for any reason.

The ruling not impact all of Trump’s tariffs, just those brought under the 1970s law. That includes “reciprocal” tariffs on other countries and tariffs specifically imposed on Canada, China and Mexico to stop the flow of fentanyl.

Tariffs imposed on specific sectors, such as aluminum or steel, can remain in place.

Writing for the court, Chief Justice Roberts said Trump had failed to “identify clear congressional authorization” for the emergency powers he’d claimed.

The president continued his diatribe against the court by opining that the justices had been “swayed by foreign interests and a political movement that is far smaller than people would ever think.”

He also suggested that the justices had been “afraid” of ruling in his favor and “don’t want to do the right thing.”

Asked to explain how the high court had, in his view, been swayed by “foreign interests,” Trump did not offer any evidence for his view but instead suggested that unnamed “people” with “undue influence” have “a lot of influence over the Supreme Court.”

“Whether it’s through fear or respect or friendships, I don’t know, but I know some of the people that were involved on the other side, and I don’t like them. I think they’re real slime balls,” he said.

More follows…

For many people living with psoriasis, the red, scaly skin patches are only part of the story. Another challenge is the uncertainty about whether there is anything they can do themselves to help manage their skin.

Treatments have improved greatly in recent years. Creams, tablets and injectable medicines can all help control symptoms. Even so, many people still ask a straightforward question in clinic: is there anything I can do alongside my medication that might make a difference? Weight often comes up in that discussion. Psoriasis is more common in people who are overweight or living with obesity.

Research now shows that, for people who are overweight, losing weight can improve both the severity of psoriasis and overall quality of life.

Doctors have long suspected that weight loss could help, but earlier research was inconsistent. Many studies were small, short term and did not always measure how people felt in everyday life. As newer weight loss treatments have become more widely available, it has been important to take another look at the evidence.

Body weight and psoriasis severity

To provide a clearer picture, my colleagues and I reviewed the highest quality studies available on weight loss support for people with psoriasis. In these studies, participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups. One group received structured support to help with weight management alongside their usual psoriasis care. The other group continued with usual care alone. Random assignment helps ensure that any differences seen are likely to be due to the support itself, rather than other factors.

The programmes varied. Some focused on reduced calorie diets. Others combined diet with exercise or behavioural support, such as coaching and goal setting to help people stick with changes. A small number included weight loss medicines. In all cases, researchers carefully measured both weight change and changes in the skin.

Across the studies, people who received weight management support lost about seven kilograms more on average than those who did not. Their psoriasis improved more as well. Doctors’ assessments of skin severity showed greater improvement, and participants were more likely to experience a substantial reduction in their plaques, which are the thick, inflamed patches of skin typical of psoriasis. They also reported better day to day wellbeing, suggesting the changes were noticeable in everyday life, not only in clinical measurements.

Two patterns stood out. Greater weight loss was generally linked with greater improvement in psoriasis. People who started with more severe psoriasis often saw larger benefits.

This does not mean weight is the sole cause of psoriasis. Psoriasis is a complex condition involving the immune system, which is the body’s defence against infection, and it is influenced by both genetics and environmental factors. However, body fat is biologically active. It produces chemicals that promote inflammation, which is the body’s response to injury or illness. These chemicals circulate in the bloodstream and can affect many organs, including the skin. Reducing excess weight may lower this background inflammation and help calm the overactive immune response seen in psoriasis.

No single diet emerged as clearly superior. The studies used different approaches, yet the common factor linked with skin improvement was weight loss itself. This suggests there is no single diet that everyone must follow. Instead, supported and sustainable weight loss appears to be the key factor.

For patients, this is important. People with psoriasis were involved in shaping how we interpreted the findings. Some said they had wondered whether changing their diet or losing weight might help, but were unsure whether there was solid evidence. Others said they would feel more motivated knowing that weight management could benefit both their general health and their skin.

À lire aussi :
Five things I wish everyone knew about weight loss – by an expert in nutrition

For clinicians, clearer evidence also helps. Conversations about weight can be sensitive. Without strong data, it can be difficult to raise the topic in a confident and constructive way. Bringing together the available trial evidence provides a stronger basis for these discussions when they are relevant to the person.

Another treatment tool

There are still limits to what we know. Most of the studies lasted only a few months. Psoriasis is a long term condition, and maintaining weight loss over time can be difficult. We cannot yet say with certainty how long the skin improvements last over several years.

Weight management is also shaped by many factors, including access to affordable healthy food, safe places to exercise, mental health and other medical conditions. Support needs to be practical, realistic and free from judgement.

À lire aussi :
Obesity care: why “eat less, move more” advice is failing

Even with these limits, a consistent picture emerges when the trials are considered together. Adding structured weight management support to usual psoriasis treatment is likely to improve skin severity and quality of life for many people who are overweight.

This does not replace medical treatment. It also does not mean that everyone with psoriasis needs to focus on weight. But for those who are interested, there is now clearer evidence that weight loss can form part of overall care.

For someone living with psoriasis, that knowledge can change how much control they feel they have. Alongside prescribed treatments, there may be another tool available that benefits both the skin and overall health.

Controversy over the chatbot Grok escalated rapidly through the early weeks of 2026. The cause was revelations about its alleged ability to generate sexualised images of women and children in response to requests from users on the social media platform X.

This prompted the UK media regulator Ofcom and, subsequently, the European Commission, to launch formal investigations. These developments come at a pivotal moment for digital regulation in the UK and the EU. Governments are moving from aspirational regulatory frameworks to a new phase of active enforcement, particularly with legislation such as the UK’s Online Safety Act.

The central question here is not whether individual failures by social media companies occur, but whether voluntary safeguards – those devised by the social media companies rather than enforced by a regulator – remain sufficient where the risks are foreseeable. These safeguards can include such measures as blocking certain keywords in the user prompts to AI chatbots, for example.

Grok is a test case because of the integration of the AI produced within the X social media platform. X (formerly Twitter) has had longstanding challenges around content moderation, political polarisation and harassment.

Unlike standalone AI tools, Grok operates inside a high velocity social media environment. Controversial responses to user requests can be instantly amplified, stripped of context and repurposed for mass circulation.

In response to the concerns about Grok, X issued a statement saying the company would “continue to have zero tolerance for any forms of child sexual exploitation, non-consensual nudity, and unwanted sexual content”.

The statement added that image creation and the ability to edit images would now only be available to paid subscribers globally. Furthermore, X said it was “working round the clock” to apply additional safeguards and take down problematic and illegal content.

This last assurance – of building in additional safeguards – echoes earlier platform responses to extremist content, sexual abuse material and misinformation. That framing, however, is increasingly being rejected by regulators.

Under the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA), the EU’s AI Act and codes of practice and the EU Digital Services Act (DSA), platforms are legally required to identify, assess and mitigate foreseeable risks arising from the design and operation of their services.

These obligations extend beyond illegal content. They include harms associated with political polarisation, radicalisation, misinformation and sexualised abuse.

Step by step

Research on online radicalisation and persuasive technologies has long emphasised that harm often emerges cumulatively, through repeated validation, normalisation and adaptive engagement rather than through isolated exposure. It is possible that AI systems like Grok could intensify this dynamic.

In the general sense, there is potential for conversational systems to legitimise false premises, reinforce grievances and adapt responses to users’ ideological or emotional cues.

The risk is not simply that misinformation exists, but that AI systems may materially increase its credibility, durability or reach. Regulators must therefore assess not only individual results from AI, but whether the AI system itself enables escalation, reinforcement or the persistence of harmful interactions over time.

Safeguards used on social media with regard to AI-generated content can include the screening of user prompts, blocking certain keywords and moderating posts. Such measures used alone may be insufficient if the overall social media platform continues to amplify false or polarising narratives indirectly.

Generative AI alters the enforcement landscape in important ways. Unlike static feeds, conversational AI systems may engage users privately and repeatedly. This makes harm less visible, harder to find evidence for and more difficult to audit using tools designed for posts, shares or recommendations. This poses new challenges for regulators aiming to measure exposure, reinforcement or escalation over time.

These challenges are compounded by practical enforcement constraints, including limited regulator access to interaction logs.

Grok operates in an environment where AI tools can generate sexualised content and deepfakes without consent. In general, women are disproportionately targeted in terms of sexualised content, and the resulting harms are severe and enduring.

These harms frequently intersect with misogyny, extremist narratives and
coordinated misinformation, illustrating the limits of siloed risk assessments that
separate sexual abuse from radicalisation and information integrity.

Ofcom and the European Commission now have the authority not only to impose fines, but to mandate operational changes and restrict services under the OSA, DSA and AI Act.

Grok has become an early test of whether these powers will be used to address
large-scale risks, rather than simply failures to remove content. narrow content takedown failures.

Enforcement, however, cannot stop at national borders. Platforms such as Grok operate globally, while regulatory standards and oversight mechanisms remain fragmented. OECD guidance has already underscored the need for common approaches, particularly for AI systems with significant societal impact.

Some convergence is now beginning to emerge through industry-led safety frameworks such as the one initiated by Open AI, and Anthropic’s articulated risk tiers for advanced models. It is also emerging through the EU AI Act’s classification of high-risk systems and development of voluntary codes of practice.

Grok is not merely a technical glitch, nor just another chatbot controversy. It raises a fundamental question about whether platforms can credibly self-govern where the risks are foreseeable. It also questions whether governments can meaningfully enforce laws designed to protect users, democratic processes and the integrity of information in a fragmented, cross-border digital ecosystem.

The outcome will indicate whether generative AI will be subject to real accountability in practice, or whether it will repeat the cycle of harm, denial and delayed enforcement that we have seen from other social media platforms.

Jacqueline Lesley Ormes, aged 72, sadly passed away at home at Lyngate Private Rest Home on Wigan Road, Bolton.

Her death, which occurred on February 12, is not being treated as suspicious.

A Greater Manchester Police spokesperson said: “We are appealing for the public’s help to trace family of a woman from Bolton.

“Jacqueline Lesley Ormes, 72, sadly passed away at home at Lyngate Private Rest Home on Wigan Road, Bolton on 12/02/2026.

“There are believed to be no suspicious circumstances surrounding her death.

“Any info? Contact the Police Coroner’s Office in Bolton on 0161 856 4687.”

Police have not been able to identify any next of kin and are appealing to the public for information.

Anyone who may be able to help is asked to contact the Police Coroner’s Office in Bolton on 0161 856 4687.

Police searches at Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor’s former home of Royal Lodge, in Windsor, are continuing, after he was released by police under investigation on Thursday evening.

His arrest came after police said they were assessing a complaint over the alleged sharing of confidential material by the former prince with late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Mountbatten-Windsor has consistently and strenuously denied any wrongdoing.

The BBC’s Helena Wilkinson has been reporting on the arrest from outside the former prince’s home, asking the question of what’s next for the King’s brother?

According to Dr Himender Makker, a consultant physician in respiratory, chest and sleep medicine at Circle Health Group: “A pillow needs to support the head, which weighs approximately 3kg. It must be firm to stop the head from sinking in too far and affecting neck curvature.”

“We all have different heads, necks and shoulders, so there cannot be one perfect pillow to meet the demands of diverse human bodies,” Dr Makker continues. “What we do know is that there is an approximate distance of six inches between the side of the neck and the tip of the shoulder. This is what should determine the height of your pillow.”

One of the most important factors when choosing a pillow is sleep position. Dr Makker says: “Most people sleep on their side (left or right), some on their back and few on their front. Any sleep position can work so long as you wake up feeling refreshed. The right pillow should help you to sleep comfortably with your neck and spine straight or slightly bent backwards (extended).”

The singer, whose real name is Charlotte Aitchison, has had now eight top 40 albums in total, with 2015’s Sucker (15), 2017’s Number 1 Angel (37), 2019’s Charli (14), 2020’s How I’m Feeling Now (33), and 2025 remix record Brat And It’s Completely Different But Also Still Brat (40).

A judge described the injury Said Sadat inflicted as ‘graphic and horrendous’

This is the mug shot of a thug who stabbed a stranger in the neck with a broken bottle in Piccadilly Gardens. Said Sadat was jailed for more than three years this week following the violent attack on July 27 last year.

The 19-year-old was approached by his would-be victim over payment of a debt. He told Sadat he was settling on his cousin’s behalf and handed him a £20 note.

Sadat ripped the note up and hissed: “I don’t need your money, I will sort you out.”

Click here to prioritise Manchester news in Google from the MEN

Manchester Crown Court heard he left, but returned armed with a broken bottle. He slashed at the man, leaving him with a large wound to his neck.

Sadat was arrested as the victim was rushed to hospital, where he received emergency surgery for a 12cm wound to his neck. He was also treated for lacerations to his upper left arm and right hand.

Sadat pleaded guilty to section 20 wounding on a basis that he did not have a knife and instead used a broken bottle, prosecutor Hayley Parkes said.

The court heard Sadat was on bail at the time having been arrested for another attack in the city centre, along with two others who had chased down two pals on a night out in Manchester city centre on June 15, 2024.

Huw Edwards, defending, said he Sadat a difficult upbringing in Afghanistan before moving to the UK when he was 17. He said he was a ‘young man’ and had limited previous convictions.

Jailing him, Recorder Ciaran Rankin said: “I have seen the graphic and horrendous neck injury. It’s only by good luck, not good fortune, you are not facing a more serious offence. You could have killed that man.”

Sadat, of Block Lane, Chadderton, Oldham, was jailed for three years and nine months for theft; assault occasioning actual bodily harm and section 20 wounding. The charges covered both incidents.

Detective Constable Peter Viney of GMP’s City of Manchester CID, who led the investigation, said: “This was a violent and unprovoked attack in one of the busiest areas of the city centre. I would like to commend the quick actions of officers and the bravery of members of the public at the scene who helped the victim who had been severely injured.

“Sadat’s sentencing today reflects the gravity of his actions and our ongoing commitment to tackling knife crime and violence in Manchester.”

A developer has been told they can’t build 27 new affordable homes on the edge of Little Thetford.

Plans to build 27 new homes on the edge of a small village have been blocked after being branded “repetitive and bland”. East Cambridgeshire District Council criticised the design of the proposed development in Little Thetford and the impact it could have on the countryside.

The new homes had been proposed for a field off The Wytches, next to the A10 junction. The developer, Cambridge Housing Society, had proposed to make all of the new homes available as affordable housing, with 23 offered at affordable rent, and four as shared ownership.

The homes were proposed to be a mix of flats, bungalows and houses, ranging in size from one-bedroom flats and bungalows, up to four-bedroom houses. The developer said the plans offered the opportunity to create “high-quality” affordable homes for the area.

They said: “The site represents a sustainable, logical extension to the settlement, providing a sensitive interface between village and countryside while contributing to local housing need.”

The plans faced backlash from people living in the village, with 48 formal objections lodged with the district council against the plans. Several raised concerns about the impact the development could have on congestion and road safety, particularly due to how close the development’s access road would be to the A10 junction.

One objector said: “As a one-way in and one-way out village, adding more housing right next to the village entrance, a known busy area for traffic, is asking for fatal accidents to happen. I’ve lived in the village all my life and I would like to continue to do so, without this increased risk.

“Not only would there be a high chance of collisions, the road is the main pedestrian route that leads to the village bus stop, frequently used by visitors, residents and school children. The additional traffic will result in increased queuing at peak times, backing into the village. Not only increasing the level of fumes for school children, but increasing the risk of queuing motorists taking risks to exit the village.”

Another objector highlighted that Little Thetford had “limited amenities and an intermittent bus service”, which they said would make people more reliant on cars and “placing further pressure on an already unsafe junction”.

Concerns were also raised about the size of the proposed development, with one person arguing that it would be “disproportionate to a village of approximately 320 dwellings”.

Questions were also raised about whether this amount of affordable housing is needed in the village, with one objector highlighting that a separate development of affordable homes was already underway.

Council argues development will ‘harm the countryside’

The district council refused to grant planning permission for the development, citing as one of its reasons that the affordable housing need in the village had already been assessed and met through a separate development.

The authority also highlighted the lack of services and facilities in Little Thetford, which it said would lead to people having to leave the village for the majority of their daily needs.

The district council added that the proposed development would cause “harm to the character and setting of the settlement and surrounding countryside”.

The decision notice said: “The proposal results introduce a large quantum of development projecting beyond the existing build line of the settlement in a very prominent location that would be highly visible on approach from both directions. The proposed layout results in the apartment block introducing an urban feature into the rural edge of the development.

“The design of the dwellings is repetitive and bland, projecting poor quality design into the countryside in a visually prominent location and the apartment blocks would be out of keeping with the existing houses.”

For more planning notices in your area visit publicnoticeportal.uk .