NASA is planning to send astronauts to the moon next month for the first time in more than half a century. 

The Artemis ⁠II mission, which aims to send four crew members to orbit around the moon and then return home, could launch as early as 6 March, it was announced on Friday.

Jared Isaacman, an administrator at the space agency, said it would be “a big step toward America’s return to the lunar environment”.

However, the planned launch, from Florida’s Kennedy Space Center, could be pushed back depending on final checks.

The crew would become the first astronauts to fly to the moon since Apollo 17 in 1972, but there are no plans for them to land on its surface.

A first rehearsal for the launch earlier this month was disrupted after a hydrogen leak was discovered.

But a second test was completed on Thursday without any leaks identified after technicians replaced two seals.

Advertisement

Share

From earlier this month: Artemis II mission delayed

The 50-hour rehearsal involved fuelling the rocket ​with some 730,000 ​gallons of propellant.

The Artemis missions are part of NASA’s long-term plans to build a space station – called the Lunar Gateway – where astronauts would be able to live and work, and prepare for missions to Mars.

All truckers and pass drivers will have to take their commercial driver’s license tests in English as the Trump administration expands its aggressive campaign to improve safety in the industry and get unqualified drivers off the road.

Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy announced the latest effort Friday to ensure that drivers understand English well enough to read road signs and communicate with law enforcement officers. Florida already started administering its tests in English.

Currently, many states allow drivers to take their license tests in other languages even though they are required to demonstrate English proficiency. California offered tests in 20 other languages. And Duffy said that a number of states have hired other companies to administer commercial driver’s licenses tests, and those companies aren’t enforcing the standards that drivers are supposed to meet.

“And the third party tester is participating in the scam because they are not adequately testing the people who went through a sham school,” Duffy said.

He said every American wants drivers who get behind the wheel of a big rig to be well-qualified to handle those vehicles.

The campaign will also now expand to go prevent fraudulent trucking companies from getting into the business while continuing to go after questionable schools and ensure states are complying with all the regulations for handing out commercial licenses.

Earlier this week, the Transportation Department said 557 driving schools should close because they failed to meet basic safety standards. And the department has been aggressively going after states that handed out commercial driver’s licenses to immigrants who shouldn’t have qualified for them ever since a fatal crash in August.

A truck driver who Duffy says wasn’t authorized to be in the U.S. made an illegal U-turn and caused a crash in Florida that killed three people. Other fatal crashes since then, including one in Indiana that killed four earlier this month, have only heightened concerns.

Duffy said that the registration system and requirements for trucking companies will be strengthened while Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration inspectors conduct more spot checks of trucks and commercial driver’s license schools.

Currently, companies only have to pay a few hundred dollars and show proof of insurance to get registered to operate, and then they might not be audited until a year or more later.

That has made it easy for fraudulent companies that are known in the industry as chameleon carriers to register multiple times under different names and then simply switch names and registration numbers to avoid any consequences after crashes or other violations.

Officials are also trying to make sure that the electronic logging devices drivers use are accurate, and that states are following all the regulations to ensure drivers are qualified to get commercial licenses.

After that Indiana crash, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration knocked the company that employed the driver out of service and pulled the DOT numbers assigned to two other companies that were linked to AJ Partners. Tutash Express and Sam Express in the Chicago area were also disqualified, and the Aydana driving school that the trucker involved in the crash attended lost its certification.

Immigration authorities arrested that driver, Bekzhan Beishekeev from Kyrgystan because the 30-year old entered the country illegally. Authorities say he pulled out and tried to go around a truck that had slowed in front of him and his truck slammed into an oncoming van.

In December, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration took action to decertify up to 7,500 of the 16,000 schools nationwide but that included many defunct operations.

Duffy said the companies involved in that Indiana crash were all registered at the same apartment. In other cases there might be hundreds of companies registered at a single address.

Norovirus cases in NHS hospitals have risen to their highest level so far this winter, with an average of 1,012 patients in hospital beds each day.

NHS bosses have called on the public to do everything possible to prevent a “second surge” of the widespread norovirus that can prove to be “very unpleasant”. Cases are already occupying more than 1,000 hospital beds across England.

A spokesperson for NHS England said: “Norovirus cases in NHS hospitals have risen to their highest level so far this winter, with an average of 1,012 patients in hospital each day. These numbers have more than doubled since early January and have risen for the second week in a row.”

The health service is preparing for what has been described as a “second surge” of norovirus, commonly referred to as the vomiting bug. Figures released this week reveal that the average daily number of patients hospitalised with norovirus climbed above 1,000 for the first time this winter (1,012).

NHS national medical director Dr Claire Fuller said: “It’s vital that we do all we can to avoid a second surge in norovirus at a time when the NHS remains flat out coping with winter pressures. The public has a huge role to play in stopping the spread of this bug by taking some simple precautions, like good hand hygiene with regular handwashing with soap and water.

“If you have symptoms, stay home, rest and drink fluids, and please don’t go to places like schools, workplaces, hospitals, and care homes until you have been symptom-free for at least two days. If you have any concerns about norovirus symptoms, local pharmacies can provide support and advice and remedies, or please contact 111 or use 111 online.”

What are the warning signs of norovirus?

Norovirus is an extremely contagious illness that causes vomiting and diarrhoea. While anybody can contract norovirus, children under the age of five, elderly adults, and those with compromised immune systems are at greater risk of developing severe infections, reports the Mirror.

The principal symptoms of norovirus typically come on suddenly and may include nausea or vomiting and diarrhoea. Additional symptoms can include a high temperature, headache, and aching limbs and stomach. Health experts note that, although it is unpleasant, the majority of sufferers tend to recover within around two days.

How to treat norovirus

In most instances, norovirus does not necessitate hospital treatment and can ordinarily be managed from home. The NHS recommends:

• Stay at home and get plenty of rest
• Drink lots of fluids, such as water or squash – take small sips if you feel sick
• Carry on breast or bottle feeding your baby – if they’re being sick, try giving small feeds more often than usual
• Give babies on formula or solid foods small sips of water between feeds
• Eat when you feel able to. It may help to avoid foods that are fatty or spicy
• Take paracetamol if you are in discomfort. Check the leaflet before giving it to your child.

Should symptoms persist beyond three days, or if there are indications of severe dehydration, such as dizziness, confusion, little or no urine output, or a reduced level of consciousness, medical attention should be sought quickly.

In the first instance, call 111 where an operator will advise you on the appropriate course of action. If necessary, they are able to arrange a call back from a nurse or doctor.

The British government may have been backed into a corner over US demands to launch attack on Iran from UK bases – and it may cause a dramatic split with President Donald Trump, says Mirror Defence and Security Editor Chris Hughes

Britain has apparently flat-out refused permission for the US to launch attacks on Iran from UK military bases, causing tension with Washington.

Not that US President Donald Trump seems to care about international law and convention but the UK tends, these days, to give it more consideration.

Whilst we play host to tens of thousands of US troops on bases throughout the UK, It has for decades been the UK’s prerogative to green-light offensive actions from its shores by those military personnel. This stems from the 1951 NATO Status of Forces Agreement of 1951, which was followed a year later by the Visiting Forces Act.

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

READ MORE: Israel on high-alert over US – Iran flare-up fears as country braces for conflictREAD MORE: Ukraine’s deadly deep-strike covert missions behind enemy lines

But tension has really mounted, according to the mentality of the US President, as Trump appears to be annoyed with the UK for its police having arrested Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor. Perhaps it puts more pressure on America to look at pushing for the FBI to act on the naming of him and others in the Epstein Files.

But the lack of permission for bombers to launch operations from UK bases, although not at all essential to a mission against Iran, could cause a serious rift between Keir Starmer and Trump. The ban likely comes from the fact that an attack on Iran may be deemed illegal since Tehran has not attacked the US.

Advertisement

The 1951 rules define a combat mission as when US aircraft are armed and ready to strike another country. And as such any bomber taking from, say, RAF Fairford, in Gloucestershire, or Diego Garcia, in the Indian Ocean, and heading for Iran would be considered part of a combat mission.

International law rules there is no difference between a state carrying out an attack and one which has supported that state if its government has prior knowledge “of the circumstances of the internationally wrongful act”. In 1986 the UK gave the green light to the US to launch 18 F-111’s to bomb late Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s Libya after a terrorist bombing in Berlin.

Operation El Dorado Canyon was launched in reaction for the death of a US serviceman in that bombing after the US found what it called “exact, precise, and irrefutable” evidence of Libyan involvement. But this time is different and the UK government is likely simply sticking to legality- it can allow the US to refuel etc but just not launch the attack.

So on that occasion the attack was deemed legal. The United States is pressuring Iran to pull back both its nuclear and ballistic weapons programme, stop funding proxy forces such as Hezbollah and ease ill-treatment of opposition protesters.

And as Geneva were underway this week a huge US war-machine armada was building in the Persian Gulf, under the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln. This, and its three guided missile destroyers, will be joined by the aircraft carrier USS Gerald R Ford, the biggest warship in the world by the end of the weekend.

Advertisement

Trump has threatened strikes on Iran if it does not reach an agreement. He said Iran will find out “over the next probably ten days” if an agreement can be reached and whether strikes will be launched.

But the UK being seen to impede any aspect of threat towards Iran will have started a rift with Washington and may take a mammoth diplomatic intervention to heal.

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?