Viewers took to social media to share their frustration after an ITV scheduling shake-up.

I’m A Celebrity… South Africa viewers were left fuming just seconds into the ITV programme’s timeslot tonight, after they realised it would be airing 10 minutes later than usual.

The Ant and Dec-fronted series has returned with another batch of celebrities returning to take on some stomach-churning bushtucker trials.

This year, the likes of Ashley Roberts and Gemma Collins are joining Adam Thomas, Harry Redknapp, Scarlett Moffatt, David Haye, Beverley Callard and Sir Mo Farah.

Seann Walsh, Sinitta, Craig Charles, Jimmy Bullard and Adam Thomas complete the line-up for the highly anticipated series.

The series is well underway, but tonight’s show sparked outrage from fans when they realised it would be airing at the slightly later time of 9.10pm rather than 9pm.

READ MORE: BBC star hints at Celebrity Race Across The World stint after filming admissionREAD MORE: BBC drops first look at ‘poignant’ new drama based on best-selling book

The weeknightly show, which has been pre-recorded, was pushed back due to ITV’s coverage of the Women’s World Cup Qualifiers.

Taking to X to share their frustration before the episode even properly began, one viewer fumed: “Why the f*** is football on I’m crying.” Another slammed: “F off pointless football,” while someone else wrote: “It’s #ImACeleb 0’clock.”

Someone else shared an eye-rolling meme, writing: “Omg Im a celeb being delayed by football.” Another person shared an image of the pundits on ITV, saying: “Can these people talk faster? Wrap it up… #ImACeleb.”

Yet another echoed: “The only people watching b****y football are waiting for #ImACeleb.”

Someone else saw the brighter side of things, writing: “People moaning about a match which delayed it by 10 minutes yet it started 2 mins earlier than the delayed time.”

As the programme returned tonight, several others took to social media to bemoan David Haye’s comments from a previous episode. The boxer sparked outrage over a rant about “ugly birds”, while talking about his partner Sian.

He had first called her “lovely”, but then horrified his campmates when he carried on: “She’s got the personality of a proper ugly bird.”

He went on: “She has, honestly. Most ugly girls realise they’ve gotta have a personality and the banter to tell jokes and s**t, so people overlook the fact that they’re not aesthetically amazing straight away.” He didn’t stop there, going on: “It’s called ugly duckling syndrome.”

As his campmates listened in shock, he went on: “Where girls are ugly when they start off, then they get pretty as they get older, but they’ve still got the personality of when they were ugly.”

“You get a girl who was pretty from day one, everyone tells her she’s amazing, so she grows up thinking ‘I’m amazing, everyone loves me, I can open up any door, I can go anywhere I want’. They don’t have to have a personality because most super pretty girls are idiots.

“But their ugly friend, they’ve got to work a bit harder. They’ve got to be more personable, they’ve got to be nicer to everyone.”

David’s shocking comments sparked outrage from fans and celebrities alike, with Susanna Reid on Good Morning Britain dismissing them, as she said: “I just don’t think it bears scrutiny.”

I’m A Celebrity… South Africa airs weeknights at 9pm on ITV1 and ITVX.

Councillors in County Durham warned the local authority is “lining millionaires’ pockets” by using services provided by private companies due to increased demand. 

Private companies operate four-fifths of children’s homes across the country, as the price of adults’ and children’s social care continues to rise. 

Councillor James Pickard, Reform member for Sacriston and Witton Gilbert, said the council should resist using homes linked to external providers. 

He added: “We are essentially lining millionaires pockets at the expense of our children. 

“Private firms are good at fleecing councils, that’s always going to happen, but when children are concerned, we need to move away from that and do better.

“It will have a positive impact on the children if you put more emphasis on your own homes, instead of paying private firms.”

Members of Durham County Council’s children and young people scrutiny committee were told that the local authority is having to balance an increasing demand but limited supply of accommodation. 

The number of beds in local authority-run children’s homes is set to double from 26 to 52 through the development of new homes across the region. 

And Cllr Rob Crute said that should be the priority going forward. 

“I understand the private sector can sometimes fill in gaps, but we need to look at what we can do to bring more services in-house,” he told the committee. 

The Labour member for Blackhalls and Hesledens added: “Providers have us over a barrel and they are taking every penny they can get. If we can take more of that capacity in-house, it can reduce costs. There will be savings in the long run. 

“We need to look at what we can do as an authority to cut the private sector out as much as we can.”

Last October, the Reform-led local authority moved to reduce the number of children in care and improve accommodation by agreeing a new sufficiency strategy to tackle the issue. 

It comes as the council revealed that the cost of children’s care placements has increased by £58 million over four years due to rising demand. 

Lindsey Herring, commissioning project manager, said: “We have a really ambitious programme with new homes being developed, and they are more specialist for children with more complex needs, with a higher cost of care. 

“There is also a lot of work taking place nationally by Ofsted on private providers who charge an arm and a leg for children’s care provision.”

Liverpool were, of course, in action at the weekend, breezing past an uninspired Fulham side to secure a 2-0 win and continue in their quest to qualify for next season’s competition. The 17-year-old wonderkid Rio Ngumoha produced another superb performance in that match and Slot had nothing but good things to say about him after the fact, suggesting his star power could be called upon tonight.

Heavily-tattooed Jason Hoganson was photographed raising a thumb as he was released early from the city’s jail in September 2024, in a bid to cut prison overcrowding.

He had served half of an 18-month jail sentence for assaulting his ex-partner and breaching a restraining order.

Jordan Hoganson (Image: PA)

The following day he was arrested in Newcastle’s West End after going to his ex-partner’s flat and slapping her.

Hoganson had a leading role in the 1987 cult film Empire State, starring as a drifter called Pete, but he became caught up in drink, drugs and crime.

Former film actor turned prisoner who once starred Hollywood film Jason Hoganson has died suddenly aged 55. (Image: PA)

A notice by funeral directors RW Barrett and Son said Mr Hoganson, a father of five, died “unexpectedly” on April 4.

A funeral service will be held at West Road Crematorium, Newcastle, on April 28.

The incident happened at JD Gyms on George Street, with police, fire crews and paramedics all attending the scene.

What happened

According to Greater Manchester Police, officers were called at around 4.45pm following reports that a car had driven through the wall of the gym.

A spokesman for GMP said: “Officers responded to an incident at 4.45pm today at JD Gym on George Street, Bury, with the assistance of NWAS and the Greater Manchester Fire Service.

“It was reported that a car had driven through the wall of JD Gym, resulting in structural damage of the building.

“In the incident a man in his 60s has been struck by the car whilst inside the gym and has sustained non-life changing injuries.

“A woman in her 40s has been arrested on suspicion of causing injury by dangerous driving, she remains in hospital at this time.

“If you have any information, please contact officers on 101 or LiveChat quoting log 2424 of 14/04/2026.”

The vehicle appears to have driven directly through the brick wall. (Image: Phil Taylor)

Emergency response

Greater Manchester Fire and Rescue Service confirmed crews were called just before 5pm.

A spokesperson said: “Just before 5pm on Tuesday (April 14), fire crews were called to reports of a road traffic collision on George Street, Bury.

“Two fire engines from Bury and Whitefield stations, as well as the technical rescue unit from Ashton, were quickly mobilised to the incident, which involved a car colliding with a commercial building.

“Firefighters extricated a woman from the car, while another man inside the building was also injured in the collision.

“They were treated at the scene by paramedics and then taken to hospital by North West Ambulance Service.

“Firefighters helped make the area safe before handing the scene over to Greater Manchester Police.

“Our crews were in attendance for about an hour and a half.”

Bury town centre was brought to a halt this evening (Image: Phil Taylor)

Inside the scene

Footage shared online showed the aftermath inside the gym, with debris scattered across the floor and part of the vehicle visible through the damaged wall.

Gymgoers were escorted out of the building, while emergency services surrounded the scene. An air ambulance was also seen circling overhead.

The vehicle appears to have driven directly through the brick wall, leaving its rear protruding from the building beneath the gym’s signage.

Crime scene investigators were later seen examining the car, which remained embedded in the wall.

Injuries and arrests

A man in his 60s who was inside the gym was struck by the vehicle and suffered injuries described as non-life changing.

The driver, a woman in her 40s, has been arrested on suspicion of causing injury by dangerous driving and remains in hospital.

CSI on scene (Image: Phil Taylor)

Road closures and travel disruption

Road closures were put in place around the busy junction following the crash, causing disruption in the area.

A spokesman for Bury Council said: “Emergency services are currently dealing with an incident at Rochdale Road in Bury town centre.

“Rochdale Road, at its junction with Derby Way, and Clarke Street at its junction with Angouleme Way, are closed in both directions with diversions in place.”

Motorists were warned to expect delays throughout the evening.

Recovery teams are en route as the response continues.

Motorists were redirected (Image: Phil Taylor)

Gym statement

In a statement, the gym said: “Earlier today an incident occurred at JD Gyms involving a vehicle making contact with the exterior of the building, which resulted in damage to part of the gym.

“As a precaution and in the interest of everyone’s safety, the gym will remain closed until further notice.

“Our team are on it straight away and building surveyors are due to attend in the morning.

“We will know more following their visit and will update here.

“If you are a member, you have automatically been granted multi-site access.

“Your JD Gyms app will now scan you in at a neighbouring JD Gyms location of your choice.

“We will be back open ASAP. Thank you for your patience.”

We will continue to bring you updates as this breaking incident unfolds.

Holly Cairns, the leader of the Social Democrats, said her party did not support blockades, but said: “People have watched while you’ve wasted countless billions, failed to deliver critical public services, housing and infrastructure, all while giving sermons about the importance of fiscal prudence – that is the backdrop to these protests.”

Diego Simeone masterminded the unlikeliest of victories last week, although his side were aided by a sending off for Pau Cubarsi, who was dismissed for a pull on Simeone’s son Giuliano, who was deemed to have been clean through on goal. Now, it means that Hansi Flick will be without one of his first-choice central defenders this evening, and instead he will likely have to plump for Ronald Araujo or shift Eric Garcia, the former Man City man, back into his natural berth having been playing in midfield.

Imagine a stark choice. You can save one person who is likely to live another 30 years. Or you can save several people who may each live another ten years.

Should we prioritise saving more lives – or more years of life? This kind of trade-off sits at the heart of how health systems make decisions.

Yet do people actually agree with that principle? A new international study – based on what people told us during the COVID pandemic – suggests the answer is more complicated than this simple trade-off suggests.

Across many countries, decisions about healthcare spending are guided by a concept known as the quality-adjusted life year, or Qaly. In simple terms, this approach aims to maximise the total number of years of healthy life generated by a healthcare system.

That often means prioritising treatments that deliver more life-years overall. Saving someone with more years ahead of them is typically seen as creating more value than saving someone with fewer remaining years. In practice, this can mean prioritising younger patients over older ones.

This kind of reasoning is used by Nice in the UK – and other healthchare advisory agencies, globally – to decide which medicines should be funded. But it rests on an implicit ethical assumption: that maximising total life-years is the right goal.

Our research asked a simple question: do ordinary people actually agree?

To find out, we conducted a large survey experiment with more than 14,000 people across 12 countries, including the UK, US, China, Brazil and Uganda.

Participants were asked to imagine a life-saving vaccine that could only be given to one group. They had to choose between vaccinating a 55-year-old person (with about 30 years left to live) or one or more 75-year-olds (with about ten years left each).

The scenarios were framed around COVID, but the underlying question was broader: how should we trade off saving lives versus saving life-years?

By varying the number of older people, we could estimate how many lives participants were willing to “trade” to save one younger person.

The results reveal a clear pattern – and one not entirely consistent with the Qaly-based values that underpin many healthcare funding decisions.

People don’t think in purely mathematical terms

Most people did favour saving the younger person. Around two-thirds of respondents chose to vaccinate the 55-year-old rather than a single 75-year-old.

However, when forced to make tougher trade-offs, people did not behave as if they were trying to maximise life-years. If they were, they would have been willing to sacrifice about three 75-year-olds to save one 55-year-old (since 30 years versus ten years is a 3:1 ratio). In practice, they were willing to trade fewer.

On average, across countries, people were willing to trade about two and a half older lives to save one younger life. In other words, public preferences sit somewhere between treating all lives as equal, and strictly maximising total life-years. They don’t fully align with either.

The story becomes even more interesting when we look beyond age. In some versions of the experiment, we also varied whether the hypothetical people were working. This turned out to matter a lot. When both people had the same employment status, one 55-year-old was considered roughly equivalent to just over two 75-year-olds.

Yet when the younger person was working and the older person was not, the trade-off shifted dramatically – people were willing to sacrifice more than three older lives to save the younger worker. And when the situation was reversed – the older person working and the younger not – many respondents preferred saving the older person.

This suggests that people are not just thinking about life expectancy. They are also considering broader social factors, such as contribution, perceived need or fairness.

A gap between policy and public values

These findings raise an uncomfortable question. If health systems are designed to maximise life-years, but the public values something more nuanced, is there a mismatch between policy and societal preferences?

Our results suggest there is. People do care about life expectancy – younger lives are generally prioritised. However, they also place weight on fairness, context and social roles. Their preferences are more nuanced than the strict “maximise life-years” rule embedded in many healthcare decision frameworks.

This doesn’t mean that healthcare decisions should simply follow public opinion. These are complex ethical choices, and expert judgment remains essential.

Nevertheless, ignoring public values entirely may also be problematic. Policies that feel intuitively unfair can undermine trust, which is essential for the sustainability of policies and institutions.

Rather than abandon existing approaches like Qalys, one option may be to complement them. Decision-makers could more clearly include the public’s views by using things like discussion groups, citizen panels or other methods that balance efficiency with fairness.

Another possibility is to recognise that there is no single correct answer. Different societies may reasonably draw the line in different places – and even within countries, views vary by age, politics and experience.

Our study shows that people do not see these decisions in simple mathematical terms. When faced with real trade-offs, they weigh lives, years and social context together. Ultimately, that may be a more realistic reflection of the ethical complexity at the heart of healthcare.

If you are looking for a spot for some great Thai food, you might want to try out these three restaurants recommended by locals.

In recent years, Thai food has become an incredibly popular cuisine globally with restaurants popping up across the UK to enjoy. Thai food is a well-loved cuisine thanks to its often reasonable price, large portions, and mix of vibrant flavours.

Cambridgeshire is also known for having a few standout Thai restaurants that can often be found in the most unlikely of places. From traditional British pubs serving Thai dishes to a cosy village restaurant where you can dine in domes, you should be able to find a good Thai spot in the county easily.

If you are new to Thai food or have just moved to the area and are looking for recommendations, these three food spots might be a good place to start. You can find the Thai restaurants that topped our poll below.

3. Sala Thong

Location: 35 Newnham Rd, Cambridge CB3 9EY

Found close to the River Cam in the suburb of Newnham, Sala Thong promises to offer customers “a place where you can relax and enjoy yourself in comfort”. The restaurant has been owned and managed by Aranya for over 15 years and has become a popular spot for Cambridge residents.

The menu is packed with dishes that “have been passed down through the generations” and hopes to show people “how good Thai food can really be”. Sala Thong has plenty of choices in terms of its starters with a sharing platter on offer if you want to try a few different dishes and offers soups, noodles, and rice options for mains.

2. Bamboo Sky

Location: 29 High St, Bourn, Cambridge CB23 2SQ

Bamboo Sky offers a slightly different dining experience thanks to its heated domes covered in fairy lights you can find in its garden. The Thai spot could be a good choice for a special occasion but if you just want to go for its food, you can also sit inside the brightly-coloured restaurant.

In the day, the restaurant serves lighter dishes such as small plates and dim sum as well as its signature specials and more filling options for the evening. Bamboo Sky even serves a Sunday roast where you can try its roast Thai honey red pork with all of the trimmings.

1. The Wrestlers

Location: 337 Newmarket Rd, Cambridge CB5 8JE

It might come as no surprise to those living in Cambridge that the Wrestlers topped our poll. The Wrestlers might look like a very traditional English pub from the outside but the inside holds a menu of popular Thai dishes that are loved by pubgoers.

The pub is known for its large portions and affordable price making it a good spot for those wanting to hang out with friends and enjoy some good food. If you are unable to make it into Cambridge but are desperate to try out the food, Pattaya Kitchen at the Shed in Lode is owned by the same family behind the Wrestlers.

Aldi originally introduced their dedicated Free From section as a trial in January 2025 and it was reported to have been stocked in 300 of around 1,000 UK stores.

However the supermarket has now confirmed that the trial has ended as shoppers found their favourite products reduced or gone entirely from shops.

Gluten-free shoppers and coeliacs, those with an autoimmune condition that means they cannot eat gluten, lashed out at the brand online.

The History of Aldi

Some said they were “devastated” at the news while one even suggested it should be “compulsory” for supermarkets to sell gluten-free products.

However, the budget giant claim they are “committed” to ensuring customers with dietary requirements will still be able to buy what they need and that they engage with key allergy charities.

An Aldi spokesperson said: “Last year we introduced dedicated Free From sections in selected stores as a trial.

“Whilst this trial has now come to an end, we are still committed to ensuring customers can get everything they need at Aldi and shoppers can still find products suited to speciality diets on our shelves.

“We continue to engage with key allergy charities to ensure that we’re supportive of speciality diets wherever we can.”

Gluten-free shoppers and coeliacs – those with an autoimmune condition that means they cannot eat gluten – lashed out at the brand online (Image: Kennedy News and Media)

Commenters have taken to TikTok to share their concerns with some branding the end of the trial as ‘absolutely absurd’.

One said: “This is messed up. Some people need this to live. They can’t do that I swear.”

A second complained: “Nooo it was the only bread I had liked and could stomach.”

A third added: “Absolutely absurd, that really sucks if they’re getting rid of it.”

A fourth agreed and said: “This is a disgrace! It’s so limited in most stores for basics like pasta, bread etc without taking away options.”

However, one said: “It is a shame, but as a business they probably weren’t making any profit.

“I don’t think they gave it long enough though because hardly any of my gluten-free friends knew Aldi had gluten-free food.”