Around 15 caravans and vehicles were reported on the car park off Spinning Jenny Way on today, September 25.

Pictures taken at the site show a number of caravans, vans and cars gathered together across part of the car park.

It is the latest group of Travellers to set up camp in the region, with a Travellers camp currently in Astley Bridge, where the council are working to evict them.

An eye witness at the car park said: “There are several, around 15 caravans and vans parked up.”

The group is understood to have arrived today although it is not yet known how long they intend to remain at the site.

The car park is in a busy part of Leigh, close to shops and other businesses and a short distance from the town centre.

It is not currently clear whether the group has been asked to leave or whether any action is being taken in relation to the encampment.

The arrival of travellers at temporary sites such as car parks is not uncommon, with groups sometimes staying for a short period before moving on.

More information to follow.

President Donald Trump appeared to be dissatisfied with the return of CNN and MS NOW to the White House press corps as reporters shouted questions to him in a flurry as he stood alongside Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Reporters yelled questions as the two heads of state and their wives stood Friday in front of the South Lawn of the White House, the morning after Trump hosted Xi for a lavish state dinner.

The president’s facial expression gave away that he was annoyed to have the press back shouting questions during their exchange, as the bulk of this state visit has been undertaken without pool coverage as a result of the ban, which was overturned by a DC judge on Thursday.

“Mr. President, did you call on President Xi to stop buying oil from Iran?” one reporter shouted. Another yelled, “Why are you banning media outlets?” None of the parties responded.

Another reporter asked, “Should U.S. taxpayers pay for ads about you, Mr. President?” in response to a campaign-style ad that the U.S. government released that played on Fox News earlier this week, which promoted how his administration would “defeat communism, socialism and Marxism.”

Last week, Trump attempted to ban CNN, MS NOW and Politico from the White House, “as a result of their constant ‘reporting’ FAKE NEWS.”

“Media Outlets shouldn’t be able to constantly write or report FICTION and LIES when they’re covering the President of the United States, the Trump Administration, or the United States of America. Other Fake News Media Outlets to follow,” he said at the time.

Trump would later verbally attack CNN White House reporter Kaitlan Collins when she tried to ask him a question when he visited the United Nations. The decision to ban journalists led to major television networks to halt their coverage of the White House.

The White House would respond by creating Trump TV, but the feed received low ratings. US District Judge Tim Kelly later ordered the White House to lift its ban on the outlets.

The Trump administration would later reluctantly reinstate the credentials for the three outlets. But reporters said they were blocked from covering Xi’s arrival at the state dinner.

Still, despite all of the criticism of media coverage, president would praise coverage from the press during a tea meeting with first lady Melania Trump, Xi and Chinese first lady Peng Liyuan.

“We’ve made great strides very positive for both countries,” he said. “So thank you very much. And we appreciate the fair coverage. It’s been very fair. We appreciate it.”

The president had hosted Xi for a summit to discuss AI. The president has attempted to rebrand AI as “super intelligence,” saying that there need not be any major guardrails for it. On Friday, he posted on Truth Social that Xi agreed with him.

“Tremendous things will be happening. Like almost everyone else, he seemed to like calling the poorly and inaccurately named Artificial Intelligence to a far more accurate and important name, SUPER INTELLIGENCE. That would be ‘SUPER!’”

By PERKIN AMALARAJ, FOREIGN NEWS REPORTER and WILL HALLOWELL, NEWS REPORTER

Published: 12:48 BST, 25 September 2026 | Updated: 17:30 BST, 25 September 2026

Below is a full list of the charges City are alleged to have breached…

1. In respect of each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those seasons that required provision by a member club to the Premier League, in the utmost good faith, of accurate financial information that gives a true and fair view of the club’s financial position, in particular with respect to its revenue (including sponsorship revenue), its related parties and its operating costs, namely:(a) for Season 2009/10, Premier League Rules B.13, C.71, C.72, C.75 (amended to C.79 from 10 September 2009 for the remainder of Season 2009/10) and C.80;(b) for Season 2010/11, Premier League Rules B.13, C.78, C.79, C.86 and C.87;(c) for Season 2011/12, Premier League Rules B.13, E.3, 4, E.11 and E.12;(d) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11 and E.12;(e) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rules 15, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.49;(f) for Season 2014/15, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;(g) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules 16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.50;(h) for Season 2016/17, Premier League Rules16, E.3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51; and(i) for Season 2017/18, Premier League Rules B.16, 3, E.4, E.11, E.12 and E.51.

2. In respect of:(a) each of Seasons 2009/10 to 2012/13 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of manager remuneration in its relevant contracts with its manager, namely:(1) for Seasons 2009/10 to 2011/12 inclusive, Premier League Rules Q.7 and Q.8; and(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules P.7 and P.8; and(b) each of Seasons 2010/11 to 2015/16 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to include full details of player remuneration in its relevant contracts with its players, namely:(1) for Seasons 2010/11 and 2011/12, Premier League Rules K.12 and K.20;(2) for Season 2012/13, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.20;(3) for Seasons 2013/14 and 2014/15, Premier League Rules T.12 and T.19; and(4) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules T.13 and T.20.

3. In respect of each of Seasons 2013/14 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons requiring a member club to comply with UEFA’s regulations, including UEFA’s Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations, namely:(a) for Season 2013/14, Premier League Rule B.14.6; and(b) for Seasons 2014/15 to 2017/18 inclusive, Premier League Rule B.15.6.

4. In respect of each of the Seasons 2015/16 to 2017/18 inclusive, the Premier League Rules applicable in those Seasons on Profitability and Sustainability, namely:(a) for Season 2015/16, Premier League Rules E.52 to E.60; and(b) for Seasons 2016/17 and 2017/18, Premier League Rules E.53 to E.60.

5. In respect of the period from December 2018 to date, the Premier League Rules applicable in the relevant Seasons requiring a member club to cooperate with, and assist, the Premier League in its investigations, including by providing documents and information to the Premier League in the utmost good faith, namely:(a) for Season 2018/19, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;(b) for Season 2019/20, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;(c) for Season 2020/21, Premier League Rules B.16, B.19, W.1, W.2, W.12 and W.13;(d) for Season 2021/22, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16; and(e) for Season 2022/23, Premier League Rules B.15, B.18, W.1, W.2, W.15 and W.16. Commissions are independent of the Premier League and member clubs. The members of the Commission will be appointed by the independent Chair of the Premier League Judicial Panel, in accordance with Premier League Rules W.19, W.20 and W.26.

The proceedings before the Commission will, in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82, be confidential and heard in private. Under Premier League Rule W.82.2, the Commission’s final award will be published on the Premier League’s website.

This confirmation is made in accordance with Premier League Rule W.82.1. The Premier League will be making no further comment in respect of this matter until further notice.

What is the Dyson Purifier Cool PC1?

The Dyson Purifier Cool PC1 is one of the brand’s more straightforward fans. There’s no humidifying or heating here, just a focus on cooling and air purification.

True to Dyson’s design ethos, the Purifier Cool PC1 is bladeless, which makes it safe around kids and pets, and easy to clean. The tower fan uses the company’s renowned technology to project a smooth stream of air, with 10 speed settings and a 350-degree oscillation range that circulates air evenly throughout the room. It’s relatively compact and lightweight, too. 

The remote control magnetically attaches to the top of the fan but you can also control the device using the MyDyson companion app.

While it doesn’t offer all the extras of Dyson’s more expensive air purifiers, it’s a solid option if you want reliable cooling without any fuss, which is why it’s our Best Buy Dyson fan.

JUMP TO:

I’ve been testing the Dyson Purifier Cool PC1 in my home office, a small-to-medium-sized room that felt more like a sauna than a workplace during the recent heatwaves. While I wasn’t precisely measuring its air purification qualities (you can find that review on our best Dyson fan round-up), the windows open onto a main road so I was able to test out its ability to handle a steady stream of traffic fumes, dust and general pollution drifting in.

I used the fan over several weeks to see how it performs on a day-to-day basis, assessing all of the usual metrics: how well it cools the room, how quiet it is during use, how intuitive the controls are and whether the design fits into a regular living or working space. And finally, as Dyson is known for its premium pricing, is the Purifier Cool PC1 worth the outlay?

Why you can trust Telegraph Recommended

Our thorough, real-world tests will always help you find the best product. No manufacturer ever sees Telegraph Recommended reviews before publication and we don’t accept payment in exchange for favourable reviews, nor do we allow brands to pay for placement in our articles.

All reviews are based on independent expert opinion and our hands-on testing. Visit our Who We Are page to learn more.

Score: 9/10

Need to know

Manchester City have been found guilty of 114 charges relating to Premier League financial regulation breaches

Manchester City’s relegation odds after 115 charges verdict:

1. Guilty charges – Manchester City have been found guilty on 114 of the 115 charges that the Premier League levied against them. The verdict comes three-and-a-half years after City first learned they were accused of the breaches of the top-flight’s financial regulations.
2. Relegation odds – Betfair have slashed City’s odds of 11/1 to be relegated in the current campaign to 9/2 after news of the verdict broke. The drastic change in odds now leaves Enzo Maresca’s side with an 18% chance of dropping to the Championship.
3. Title odds fade – The Premier League giants had odds of 6/5 to win the Premier League after enjoying a stunning start with five wins in five games, leaving them top of the table. However, news of the guilty charges has shortened their title-winning odds to 5/2.
4. Potential sanctions – While punishments have yet to be decided, the league leaders could face a fine, be handed a points deduction or even face expulsion from the Premier League. The shocking news has come just three months into Enzo Maresca’s reign as boss.
5. Sixth favourites for the drop: City are now the sixth favourites to be relegated from the Premier League this season behind Coventry, Hull, Ipswich, Crystal Palace and Fulham.

Premier League relegation odds via Betfair

Coventry – 8/15

Hull – 10/11

Ipswich – 6/4

Crystal Palace – 12/5

Fulham – 3/1

Man City – 7/2

Sunderland – 9/2

Nottingham Forest – 9/1

Tottenham – 9/1

Aston Villa – 15/1

Newcastle – 15/1

Bournemouth – 15/1

READ MORE: Man City GUILTY on 114 of 115 charges as club prepare appeal against verdict

A huge explosion, believed to have been caused by a suspected gas leak, has caused a two-storey building to collapse close to the Acropolis in Athens

Five individuals, including three tourists, are feared missing in Athens following a massive explosion that brought down a two-storey structure near the Acropolis. The blast tore through the area amid suspicions of a gas leak, causing the frontage of a 20th century property to crumble.

Emergency services, including police, paramedics and firefighters, rushed to Lysicratous Street – mere minutes from the Acropolis – shortly after 7.30am local time this morning, approximately 5.30am BST, with the vicinity swiftly sealed off. The explosion reportedly triggered a blaze, according to eKathimerini.

The Greek fire service confirmed five individuals are unaccounted for, the Mirror reports. Shocked witnesses observed debris scattered across the narrow thoroughfares.

Meanwhile, plumes of smoke billowed from the scene, while shattered windows and damaged vehicles littered the area surrounding the stricken building. The fire brigade revealed it had pulled two women from the structure in Plaka, amongst the Greek capital’s most ancient districts.

Advertisement

Both casualties were transported to hospital. The fire service stated 24 firefighters were deployed to the incident, though stopped short of confirming what triggered the explosion.

The blast is thought to have resulted from a suspected gas leak, ERT reports. Neighbouring properties close to the explosion site also sustained damage, fire service sources indicated.

Ensure our latest stories 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.

On the latest Palace Confidential, Diary Editor Richard Eden and a panel of royal experts discuss reports Prince Harry and Meghan Markle are already considering a move back to California if they are denied taxpayer funded security.

At the weekend, the Mail’s Editor at Large Alison Boshoff reported that friends say the Sussexes could leave the UK if a Home Office review refuses them automatic police protection.

Speaking to columnist Sarah Vine and royal biographer Robert Hardman, Eden said he views the couple’s reported ultimatum, so soon after their arrival, as ‘akin to blackmail’, an attempt to pile pressure on the review.

He added it would be ‘outrageous’ to give the couple, who the King recently restated are effectively private citizens, the same protection as working royals.

Harry lost automatic taxpayer funded security in 2020 after the couple stepped back from official duties and moved overseas, and failed to overturn the decision in the courts. Their return has now triggered a fresh review.

‘My goodness, that makes the whole thing seem like… some sort of blackmail,’ Eden argued, as though the couple were saying: ‘We’ll move to Britain in an attempt to get the taxpayers to pay for security.’

At the weekend, the Mail’s Editor at Large Alison Boshoff reported that friends say the Sussexes could leave the UK if a Home Office review refuses them automatic police protection

He continued: ‘The implications of this are massive because if they get it, what that then means is Harry and Meghan can come and go, and they’ll still be getting police protection, and also they can say that they want it in America.

‘So those hard pressed taxpayers in the US might find that they’re having to pay for security too. So it could ease any money worries that they have.

‘Harry and Meghan would be absolutely thrilled. They’d have these huge costs paid for by someone else.’

If the review were to go the Sussexes’ way, the panel questioned whether they could be regarded as internationally protected persons.

This status, the same as that given to diplomats, would mean other countries would also have to protect them when they travel overseas.

The couple argue that as the King’s son, who also served his country in Afghanistan, Harry is as much a target and as deserving of protection as any other senior royal.

However, Eden pointed out that the King’s own siblings do not get such protection, only receiving it while carrying out official royal duties.

Vine predicted it was an ‘inevitability’ that Harry will return to official duties in some way, as the price of being awarded security.

‘They will say you can have the protection, but you need to start doing some royal duties,’ she said.

‘Maybe not Meghan, just Harry. He’s good at that stuff and if he does it on his own, then she doesn’t need to be involved. She can’t get upset about it. It sort of makes sense.’

The couple argue that as the King’s son, who also served his country in Afghanistan, Harry is as much a target and as deserving of protection as any other senior royal

Advertisement

Hardman, however, argued that security decisions are made on the threat alone, not on a transactional basis.

He said: ‘I don’t think it can be on the basis of, you get an extra copper with an earpiece if you cut a few ribbons. It doesn’t really work like that.

‘The people judging security are not interested in plaque unveilings, ribbon cuttings and hospital openings. They’re just interested in the threat, and I think that’s how it’ll be decided.’

Watch the full episode, including more analysis of the fallout from Earl Spencer’s explosive memoir, on Palace Confidential’s YouTube channel and subscribe so you never miss an episode.