The Met Office has forecast a mix of rain, sleet, and possibly snow over the weekend

The Met Office forecast says that show is ‘possible’ in the East of England this weekend. Temperatures will remain low in Cambridgeshire, with lows of 2C forecast.

The Met Office forecast for Saturday (February 14) said: “A cold and frosty start. Partly cloudy, but largely dry and bright. Hazy sunshine into the afternoon. Winds strengthening overnight, becoming cloudy with rain, sleet and some snow possible.”

The maximum temperatures expected for the East of England is reportedly 5C. The outlook for Sunday to Tuesday shows “cloudy with rain, sleet or snow and strong winds early Sunday” with “a band of rain following later.”

Weather site, WX Charts, have suggested that some parts of Cambridgeshire could see snow in the early morning of Sunday, but clearing later on. Areas affected include Cambridge and Ely.

BBC Weather does not indicate any snow on Saturday but states “any overnight snow will soon clear” on Sunday morning. This means that any snow is not expected to settle.

Drivers have been told to avoid the area

The A10 has been closed for more than 12 hours after a ‘serious’ crash in the area. The incident happened between the edge of Ely and Grange Lane in Littleport.

Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service were called to the A10 at 6:43pm on Thursday (February 12). Crews from Ely, Soham, and Chatteris attended.

The road has been closed from the roundabout at Comice Way to Littleport. Drivers have been told to avoid the area.

Cambridgeshire Police has said it will release more information about the incident on Friday (February 13).

A spokesperson for Cambridgeshire Fire and Rescue Service said: “We were called at 6.43pm last night (Thursday 12) to a road traffic collision on the A10 between Littleport and Ely. Crews from Ely, Soham and Chatteris attended.

“Firefighters worked alongside police to make the area safe before returning to their stations.”

You can follow our live blog for the latest updates.

To get more breaking news and top stories delivered directly to your phone, join our new WhatsApp community. Click this link to receive your daily dose of CambridgeshireLive 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.

The search operation involved Larne and Portmuck Coastguard rescue teams, RNLI lifeboats from Larne and Donaghadee, and an HM Coastguard rescue helicopter

A search operation has been stood down after reports of a man overboard from a passenger ferry.

HM Coastguard said crews responded to the incident on the P&O Ferries Stranraer to Larne service at 1.21pm on Thursday.

It said its response had been stood down after “extensive and thorough searches” with “nothing found at this time”.

The search had not begun again on Friday morning.

In a statement, P&O Ferries said: “HM Coastguard has now suspended their search and rescue operation.

“We are continuing to support the authorities with their inquiries.”

The search operation involved Larne and Portmuck Coastguard rescue teams, RNLI lifeboats from Larne and Donaghadee, and an HM Coastguard rescue helicopter.

Crews on other vessels in the area also assisted, the RNLI said.

The ferry company describes the ship as “one of the fastest ferries on the Irish Sea”.

The twin deck vessel operates six daily crossings from Scotland to Larne, which take about two hours and can carry up to 410 passengers, 375 cars and/or 116 commercial vehicles.

For all the latest news, visit the Belfast Live homepage here and sign up to our daily newsletter here

Just over 18 months ago, Keir Starmer said the “fight for trust is the battle that defines our age”. Now a scandal surrounding his former ambassador to Washington, Peter Mandelson, could end his political career, precisely because of the damage it could cause to public trust.

At the heart of the story are documents released by the US government showing that Mandelson continued to be friends with Jeffrey Epstein after his conviction for sex offences. The prime minister insists Mandelson lied about the depth of his friendship with Epstein, though he has acknowledged he knew that it continued after Epstein’s conviction.

Some reporting suggests that there was a view in Downing Street that the “risk” of appointing Mandelson as ambassador to the US – his past political career, his then publicly known relationship with Epstein – was less important than the benefit to the national interest. As Peter Kyle, secretary of state for business and trade, put it in September (before further files were released): “Britain needed someone with outstanding and singular talents”.

This implies a specific view of how politicians should behave. When the national interest is at stake, actions are acceptable that would otherwise be morally questionable. Some politicians seem to think political effectiveness can outweigh standards. Philosophers sometimes agree that politics makes “dirty hands” unavoidable. Machiavelli thought politicians should learn not to be good. To achieve important political ends, it can be necessary to act badly.

It’s striking that Downing Street might have thought that this extended to Mandelson’s alleged relationship with Epstein – and that even this could be traded off against improving the UK’s relationship with the White House.

Similar views appear to have been taken when it came to Boris Johnson. He was a man of whom high standards were not expected in office, but who could effectively deliver important political outcomes (an electoral victory, Brexit).

But a large majority the public believes standards should take priority over delivery in politics – according to research from UCL’s Constitution Unit.

This suggests the public and those in politics lack a common understanding of how the latter should behave. And that poses a problem for rebuilding trust. Philosophical perspectives suggest a common understanding of this kind is central if we are to be able to trust well.

What is trust?

When we talk about trust in politics, we often pass over what trust is. And it is frustratingly difficult to set out a clear definition. Researchers significantly disagree about how to conceptualise trust.

Philosophical views vary. Trust may be a demand to be ethically considered by others or to have a deep-rooted psychological need for attachment to others satisfied. It could be to rely on others acting out of goodwill towards you or your desire to do something overlapping with someone’s desire to do something else.

By failing to define what trust is when we aim to restore it, we may act counterproductively or misdiagnose the problems we face.

A growing family of views in philosophy share a central insight. Trust requires more than just expectations about how a person will behave – it also relates to expectations about how a person ought to behave. Philosophers call these “normative expectations”.

I’m not trusting my partner to make dinner tonight simply because I think that he will. That’s just to rely on him. I trust him only if I think that there is a reason he ought to cook dinner tonight, and I think that he will act in line with this reason. Perhaps, I know he values fairness and that I cooked last night. Maybe he said he’d cook yesterday, and I know that I can take him at his word.

Philosophers debate exactly what these expectations are. Some think trust is concerned with commitments or obligations we should act in line with. Others think it’s that we expect a responsiveness to others counting on us.

All these views suggest a specific environment is required to allow us to trust well. We need some shared understanding of what we should do. If my partner recognises no reasons why he ought to cook me dinner tonight, he most likely won’t. If I come to trust him to do so and he doesn’t, then my normative expectation of him is likely to be wrong. My trust will be broken.

If that discrepancy about how we each think that we should behave grows, trust will be broken more often.

Misaligned politics

If we think about how politicians ought to behave, we can see how there might be a problem of trust.

The same Constitution Unit research shows that the public value standards like honesty and accountability. They think those in public life should behave in line with high standards.

Some politicians look at the same situation and see other reasons that suggest they ought to act differently. Where a relationship essential to Britain’s national security is at stake – or some other element of the national interest – then some politicians think they ought to overlook honesty and integrity.

This mismatch will lead to public trust being repeatedly broken.

Much discussion among politicians focuses on “delivery” as central to establishing trust. Actions will certainly matter. But more work should be done to ensure alignment between what the public expects of politicians and what they actually do. In a volatile world, a public conversation is needed on when – if ever – national need can outweigh these standards. Culture change in government and Downing Street will matter.

This is vital. Falling public trust in politics and distrust in politicians have been linked to voters switching off from politics and turning to protests or populist parties.

We need to align our expectations for high standards in public life. Then we need to require them of everyone, however useful they may be.

Want more politics coverage from academic experts? Every week, we bring you informed analysis of developments in government and fact check the claims being made.

Sign up for our weekly politics newsletter, delivered every Friday.

MUNICH (AP) — An annual gathering of top international security figures that last year set the tone for a growing rift between the United States and Europe opens Friday, bringing together many top European officials with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and others.

The Munich Security Conference opens with a speech by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, one of 15 heads of state or government from European Union countries whom organizers expect to attend.

The many other expected guests at the conference that runs until Sunday include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. In keeping with the conference’s tradition, there will also be a large delegation of members of the U.S. Congress.

“Trans-Atlantic relations have been the backbone of this conference since it was founded in 1963 … and trans-Atlantic relations are currently in a significant crisis of confidence and credibility,” conference chairman Wolfgang Ischinger told reporters earlier this week. “So it is particularly welcome that the American side has such great interest in Munich.”

At last year’s conference, held a few weeks into U.S. President Donald Trump’s second term, Vice President JD Vance stunned European leaders by lecturing them about the state of democracy on the continent.

A series of Trump statements and moves targeting allies followed in the months after that — including, last month, his later-abandoned threat to impose new tariffs on several European countries in a bid to secure U.S. control of Greenland, a semiautonomous territory of NATO ally Denmark.

With Rubio heading the U.S. delegation this year, European leaders can hope for a less contentious approach more focused on traditional global security concerns, though a philosophically similar one. Rubio will face a heavy lift if he wants to calm the waters, however.

“In the end it’s about trust: do we trust each other as partners and can this lack of trust be repaired?” said Claudia Major, a senior vice president at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. “Particularly Greenland has been a fundamental change for Europeans. That one NATO ally threatens another NATO ally has deeply affected European trust in the trans-Atlantic relationship.”

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has bragged about building a political war chest exceeding $1.5 billion — a staggering sum that he can wield at his whim to shape November’s midterms and the 2028 race to succeed him.

Trump’s stockpile — which dwarfs any amounts raised by his predecessors in their second terms — is not easy to precisely calculate given that much of it is being collected by groups that aren’t required to file regular financial disclosures.

Current and former staffers, as well as others in Trump’s orbit, wouldn’t say exactly where his political bank account stands six months after the president announced on social media that he’d raised, just since Election Day 2024, “in various forms and political entities, in excess of 1.5 Billion Dollars.”

But what is not in question is that it represents a mountain of cash that could reshape Republican politics for years to come — if he chooses. He’s been reluctant to spend money on other people’s races in the past, and he’s even found ways to funnel some cash to his own businesses.

The $1.5 billion Trump claimed is roughly equal to what he and outside groups spent on his successful 2024 reelection bid, according to OpenSecrets, a nonpartisan group that tracks political spending.

By comparison, Democratic President Joe Biden’s various super PACs, political groups and nonprofits, as well as the Democratic National Committee, raised roughly $97 million during his first year in office, according to public disclosures. That’s only about 7% of Trump’s total, and Biden was gearing up for a reelection run Trump isn’t allowed to make.

“I think a lot of people are asking, ‘What is it all for?’” said Saurav Ghosh, federal campaign finance reform director at the Washington nonprofit Campaign Legal Center.

It’s enough to shape the midterms and beyond

People close to Trump say the main benefit of all that cash is unmatched influence heading into November. They insist Trump is eager to help Republicans so his political agenda isn’t stymied, like when Democratic victories derailed his first-term agenda after 2018’s midterms. His stockpile has helped the GOP build a sizable cash advantage over Democrats ahead of November, at least so far.

“One of the main reasons a lame-duck president might want to amass this much money is to maintain political relevance,” said Daniel Weiner, a former Federal Election Commission attorney and current director of the Brennan Center’s Elections and Government Program. “Certainly he’s been far more aggressive about this than any of his predecessors.”

Trump on Wednesday vowed political consequences for Republicans opposing his tariff policies, and could spend big to hurt them in GOP primaries. Chief among his targets is Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie, who opposed Trump’s tax and spend package and defied the White House in helping force the release of federal files on Jeffrey Epstein.

Trump has also endorsed a primary opponent of Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., after he voted to convict Trump during his 2021 impeachment trial over the mob attack on the U.S. Capitol. Still, the extent to which Trump will open his pocketbook in congressional races remains to be seen.

“What I’m a little surprised about is that Trump has not leveraged — at least overtly — the money he controls going into that election on his congressional agenda,” said Jason Roe, a Republican strategist in Michigan.

Indeed, Trump has a history of not spending big on races where he isn’t running. In 2018, Trump’s America First Action super PAC spent less than $30 million — a pittance given that super PACs spent about $820 million that cycle, according to OpenSecrets.

He doesn’t always follow through on his threats, either. Despite pledging to travel to Alaska to help defeat Republican Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski in 2022, a Trump-affiliated PAC instead gave $1.5 million to a group opposing her. Murkowski was reelected anyway.

The president also has made no major moves so far to oppose state lawmakers in Indiana who refused to back new congressional maps championed by the White House.

Trump’s campaign bank account also would let him play a decisive role in the next presidential race. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio are the early favorites, with Trump suggesting pairing them on a GOP ticket he says would be formidable.

‘A slush fund’

Much of Trump’s political cash comes from the MAGA Inc. super PAC, which raised $100-plus million in the last six months of 2025 and entered this year with more than $300 million. The Republican National Committee reported raising $172 million last year.

There’s also a constellation of pro-Trump nonprofits, including Securing American Greatness, which are only required to release limited information about their finances. Donations to one Trump entity can be moved through the various nonprofits and super PACs, making it difficult to track what’s spent where.

“Because there are virtually no restrictions on what super PAC money can be used for, it essentially can be operated as a slush fund at the disposal of whoever controls it,” Weiner said.

There are many ways Trump has used political funds to enrich his businesses in the past, including billing his campaign for the use of his own airplane. He could also stage political events at his properties in Florida or New Jersey, or his golf club outside Washington.

At least $26 million has been spent by conservative groups and Republican committees at Trump properties since 2015 — and the actual figure is likely higher since some groups don’t have to offer detailed spending figures.

Though federal rules govern the ways political donations can be spent, they can also be skirted. In 2020, Trump’s campaign paid tens of millions of dollars to limited liability companies controlled by aides, a move that satisfied federal disclosure rules, but masked the ultimate recipient of the money. In 2024, his political operation clawed back millions of dollars in donations it made to a super PAC supporting Trump’s run and used the money to instead pay legal bills that mounted after his indictments in four federal criminal cases while also facing civil trials.

“As with so many things Donald Trump, he is sometimes pushing the envelope on what’s permitted, sometimes blowing right through what are pretty clear legal limits,” said Ghosh, of the Campaign Legal Center.

Who’s helping Trump’s campaign bank account grow?

Trump’s fundraising efforts are tireless. The day after his 2024 election win, he ordered staff to begin fundraising anew, and he’s since attended frequent fundraisers. His allies send out emails seeking donations constantly, often multiple times daily.

“I’m sitting here. Alone. In the war room. Fighting for you,” Trump wrote in one such message last month. In another, a Trump-affiliated group tried to spur on donors to give by asking, “Does ICE need to come and track you down?”

During his first presidential run, Trump relied heavily on small donations. But much of his operation now relies on large checks from uber-wealthy donors and well-connected businesses.

Greg Brockman, co-founder of OpenAI, and his wife, Anna, donated $25 million to MAGA Inc. last year, as Trump talked constantly about helping ensure U.S. companies dominate the artificial intelligence field globally.

Other big donations came from crypto interests that have had federal investigations dropped and big tobacco companies hoping to ease regulations.

The parents of Howard Brodie, Trump’s ambassador to Finland, donated $500,000 to MAGA Inc., while Isabela Herrera gave $3.5 million before her father, Venezuelan banker Julio Herrera Velutini, was pardoned by Trump on bribery charges.

“Each of these wealthy individuals. corporations, they are ponying up for a purpose,” Ghosh said. “What we’re seeing with Trump’s administration is just an unprecedented level of pay-to-play.”

BBC Breakfast star Charlie Stayt shared a heartbreaking story during Friday’s live show

Advertisement

BBC Breakfast star Charlie Stayt shared some emotional news on Friday (February 13) as a guest was left in tears. During today’s show, Charlie and his co-star Naga Munchetty brought viewers up to speed with the day’s top stories from Britain and beyond.

They were supported by meteorologist Matt Taylor, who provided regular weather forecasts, whilst Mike Bushell and Peter Ruddick covered the sports news and Valentine’s Day content, respectively.

During the programme, Charlie disclosed that the Chair of the Commons Health Committee has urged the UK’s medicines regulator to reassess warnings surrounding drugs that may trigger impulsive behaviour as an adverse effect. Naga outlined: “A BBC investigation has found that for some patients, the drugs cause impulsive gambling or sexual behaviour.”

A pre-filmed report by BBC correspondent Noel Titheradge featured Freddie, whose father Bill died three years ago. Bill had been given medication for Parkinson’s disease, which resulted in devastating side effects, reports the Mirror.

READ MORE: BBC Breakfast star shares heartbreaking news after ‘deadly’ Manchester plotREAD MORE: BBC Breakfast host Charlie Stayt shares devastating news minutes into show

“He was an incredibly straight laced, risk averse person,” Freddie recalled. “He worked as a teacher his whole career and then, aged 54, retired early. He’d developed some symptoms around his movement and speech, and went on to medication shortly after.”

Bill received drugs designed to increase dopamine activity for treating Parkinson’s, yet his conduct began to alter dramatically. He started viewing pornography without discretion and driving recklessly, before proceeding to sell the family home – suddenly finding himself in financial difficulty.

Freddie revealed: “He said it’s invested. [I asked], ‘Okay, where?’ [He said it was] in Ghana. My heart just totally sank. These side effects of severe impulse control disorder, hypersexuality made dad the perfect victim for a romance scam.”

Nobody had alerted Freddie to the potential side effects, and when he discovered them in 2017, his father had already lost approximately £300,000. As he recalled the difficulties his father endured, Freddie became visibly emotional in heartbreaking footage.

“The money was of total insignificance to the pain of losing dad,” he said through tears, with reporter Noel encouraging Freddie to “take a minute”.

The journalist continued: “Our investigations heard from scores of families who say these impulsive behaviours have led to huge debts, the break up of families and even criminality. One man stole £600,000 to fund his impulsive behaviour. Another woman lost over £150,000 to gambling.”

Noel added: “Manufacturers of the drugs say they were extensively trialled, continue to be approved by regulators around the world, and side effects are clearly stated.” Three years following his father’s passing, Freddie says the impact will stay with him forever. He concluded: “It is a massive scandal. I dread to think how many people have been impacted.”

Elsewhere on today’s BBC Breakfast, Naga revealed that two men would be sentenced today after planning a “deadly” terrorist attack in Manchester. At the start of the show, the host announced: “Two men will be sentenced later for planning a gun attack on a mass gathering of Jewish people, which detectives say could have been one of the deadliest terror attacks in UK history.”

BBC Breakfast airs daily on BBC One at 6am