I used to work as a midwife, now I’m a medical negligence solicitor specialising in maternity care – so, it’s fair to say I was heavily invested in the outcome of this week’s report from the National Maternity and Neonatal Investigation.

The 174-page report on the state of England’s maternity care reiterated what many have known for years: too many women and their babies are being failed by a system that is, as Baroness Valerie Amos described it, “not fit for the now” and “not fit for the future”.

I am of course disappointed, but not surprised, by the findings.

My experience closely reflects many of the concerns identified in the Amos report. I agree that the maternity service is in desperate need of an overhaul and that it is time to send in the cavalry. But is there a cavalry to send in?

The report highlighted numerous themes that have impacted women and their families time and time again – themes which I come across repeatedly in my work as a solicitor.

One extremely prevalent issue is that women are not being listened to, heard or believed when they flag issues.

This is one of the most common issues that maternity clients complain to me about. Many a time maternity care practitioners exhibit the “we know best” attitude, that they know more about the woman’s body than she does.

I have spoken to women whose genuine concerns were dismissed outright by midwives and/or doctors. When I have asked the women and their partners if they genuinely voiced their concerns to those caring for them, the answers common to all are, to quote, “we tried but we ended up feeling stupid as we were made to feel that we were making an unnecessary fuss”.

Invariably, such attitudes have resulted in poor maternity care experiences and equally poor outcomes, as well as serious harm to both mothers and babies.

This is another key issue within the NHS – one that I’ve witnessed with my own eyes when I was a midwife, but also from personal experience as a patient.

The problem generally starts with the woman or family’s first experience of accessing the maternity service. There is often an assumption that people of a certain colour or racial/religious group lack understanding of pregnancy, childbirth and healthcare related issues.

The result is that the information provided to them is sometimes watered down or given in a way that one might give information to a young child – what I call “Mickey Mouse information”.

With such limited information, the women and families are then disabled from asking the right questions or to advocate for themselves right from the outset.

The question is who discriminates and why? In my view, the answer lies in training. This should be a core subject in the training of midwives, nurses and doctors and in continual development courses.

The maternity service has also been designed in a way that does not ensure promised outcomes.

Women now enjoy much more choice in terms of the mode of delivery, including being able to opt to have a caesarean section without the need to show a medical indication for it.

However, my experience is that the system has not been designed to cater for that choice in practice.

I have been approached by women who had chosen an elective caesarean section and had a date scheduled for the procedure, but who attended hospital after their waters had broken and were shelved away on a ward.

They subsequently went into labour and were left to progress until they were told that their labour was too advanced to attempt a caesarean section. Some of these women ended up with birth injuries as a result. Just this week The Guardian reported that the risk of serious birth injuries for women in England is rising – and is actually at its highest level since records began.

The system still does not seem to accept that women can have a caesarean section just because they want it. The lesson to be learned here is that if you injure a mother psychologically or physically, you indirectly injure the baby.

In the majority of the cases that I have seen, mothers have struggled to bond with their babies following traumatic deliveries, both in the short and long term.

A change in attitude is needed. Once again, the answer lies in training.

This is another very common aspect of care which women and their families approach me about, particularly during labour when a woman is at her most vulnerable and should be able to rely on midwives to advocate for them.

Most women inform me that they are coerced into certain modes of delivery with their consent having been “purportedly obtained” (where consent appears to have been given, but wasn’t) and feel disempowered.

Naturally, all women want a safe delivery and a healthy baby. Indeed, as the Amos report says, there’s evidence of poor communication, including the failure to provide sufficient information to enable women to make informed choices.

Such a choice could be right or wrong, but women tell me that it is their right to exercise their choice – good or bad. The psychological impact of such failures on women is profound and long-lasting. Women usually tell me that the outcome of their pregnancy was good for the midwives and doctors, but not for them.

I don’t want to overlook the great work carried out by dedicated and caring midwives, doctors and affiliated care providers within the maternity service.

The Amos findings suggest that many of these dedicated practitioners have been let down by an archaic system and sometimes non-supportive working environment, with low morale affecting the quality of care they can give.

There is clearly a lot of work to be done to improve the system, yet one of the immediate solutions to so many of these commonly recurring problems is that healthcare professionals need to start really listening to the women they care for, and not being dismissive, even in the most urgent of situations.

Women and their babies’ lives depend on it.

Gwyneth Munjoma is a medical negligence solicitor at Tees Law, who specialises in maternity care.

Robert Jenrick is on course to lose his Newark seat to the Conservatives in a great twist of irony, according to a new poll.

Jenrick defected to Reform UK in January, claiming the Tories were “over” and that Nigel Farage’s party was “uniting the right”.

The former Conservative minister and shadow justice secretary was soon appointed to be the Treasury spokesperson for Nigel Farage’s party.

But, in a significant blow to Jenrick, UK Polling Report predicted the ex-Tory frontbencher could be on track to lose his Nottinghamshire constituency to his old party.

It predicted that the Tories would win the seat in the next general election with 36% of the vote while Jenrick and Reform would come in second place, on 27%.

Jenrick was sacked from Kemi Badenoch’s shadow cabinet earlier this year when she discovered his plans to defect.

It came just over a year after he lost the Tory leadership contest to Badenoch.

Hours after Jenrick’s dramatic sacking, Farage announced that he would be joining his party ranks.

He has been regularly mocked by his former colleagues since switching to their right-wing rivals.

Shadow cabinet minister Claire Coutinho last week slammed Jenrick’s time as immigration minister by claiming he “freelanced on policy and claimed credit for ideas that weren’t always his own”.

MPs also openly laughed at Jenrick in the Commons for his defection in May when he tried to call out the “shambles” in the current government.

But many in the Conservatives are still disappointed about his decision to change sides.

Jenrick had a very tense on air reunion with Conservative shadow environment secretary Victoria Atkins in May when they sat next to each other on a BBC panel.

She said: “Rob has not spoken to me since he left the Conservative Party in the way that he did. And I considered us to be very good friends.

“It’s been a great personal loss to me, as well as a professional one. The reason I raise this is because Rob is the economic spokesperson for Reform.

“And I think how one conducts themselves is important. I think that this is a message that will continue until the general election. If people are asking voters for trust, then it has to be genuine.”

Asked for his response to Atkins’ comment about trust, he just said: “I don’t personalise things!”

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Village People performer Victor Willis has died at the age of 74.

On Wednesday morning, a post on the band’s official Facebook page announced that Victor had died on Monday, a day before what would have been his 75th birthday, following what was described as a “short but aggressive illness”.

“We are profoundly sad to announce the death of, Victor Willis lead singer of Village People,” the band’s statement said.

“Victor passed on Monday 30 June 2026 of a short but aggressive illness. Privacy is requested.”

The Village People formed in the 1970s, with Victor among its seven founding members.

He performed on some of the band’s signature hits, including disco staples In The Navy, Go West, Macho Man and the chart-topping YMCA. He was also listed as a co-writer on all of these songs.

During their time in the spotlight, the band were also known for their use of costumes, with Victor most notably performing as a police officer and naval officer.

Following an extended break from the band, Victor returned to Village People in the mid-2010s, contributing to the festive album A Village People Christmas.

Outside of his work in Village People, Victor recorded one solo album, Solo Man, in 1979, which was finally released in 2015.

He also enjoyed success as a stage performer, and was part of the original Broadway production of the Wizard Of Oz re-imagining The Wiz.

In recent history, Village People’s biggest hit YMCA has become synonymous with Donald Trump, after the US leader repeatedly played the song at his rallies and other political events.

While Victor and his bandmates initially opposed Trump’s use of YMCA, the singer later backtracked on this, and in 2025, the group performed at the the divisive conservative group Turning Point USA’s celebration ball in honour of the president’s second inauguration.

The iconic Legally Blonde character Elle Woods is officially back on our screens in a new TV show depicting her life long before law school.

Launching on Wednesday on Amazon Prime, Elle follows a 16-year-old version of our beloved pink-wearing lawyer-in-training, the character made famous by Reese Witherspoon in the early 2000s.

While Reese is still involved in this new project as an executive producer, the Oscar winner, understandably, couldn’t play a teenager, which is why newcomer Lexi Minetree, whose spot-on audition went viral, was cast as the young heroine Elle.

Set years before the events of Legally Blonde, Elle follows the title character as she moves from her shiny, pastel world in Los Angeles to a grungy Seattle.

Unfortunately, critics are not exactly enamoured with Elle, with many disagreeing with the direction the character was taken in this new TV spin-off.

While some have praised Lexi’s leading performance – and the show’s nostalgic 1990s setting – others felt that the show paled in comparison to the 2001 classic, and felt more like a cynical cash-in than a deserving prequel.

Here is what critics are saying about Elle so far…

“Legally Blonde 3 has been stuck in development hell since 2018, cycling through different scripts, and aborted release dates. Elle is a quick fix. And presumably a cheaper one, at that.

“It pleases shareholders, fills an ‘if you liked this, why not watch…’ tile on the Prime Video landing page, and helps line the pockets of everyone involved – even if its curiously unfunny writing and nonsensical premise will likely leave many watching unsatisfied.”

“[If you] think of Elle Woods as an endlessly rebootable franchise IP à la James Bond or Superman, and this latest adventure as a loose re-adaptation of Laura Brown’s source novel rather than an expansion of it, Elle makes perfect sense from a business standpoint – though still only somewhat from a creative one.

“Amiable enough but nowhere near as charming as its cinematic predecessor, the new series does as much to highlight the limits of the Legally Blonde concept as its adaptability.”

“It should be a lot of peppy fun and in the odd moment it is, but the scripts seem to be deliberately half-baked, as if the show isn’t expecting your full attention: the supporting characters are generic and whenever a scene throws up an opportunity to deliver a killer gag, it habitually chooses something only gently amusing instead.”

“Having established its brand of comedy as largely aesthetic, Elle moves on to plots focused on tired teen drama, a pathetic love triangle, and a lazy mystery (that, technically, includes a death, so if you wanted to call Elle a murder-mystery – as ridiculous as that sounds – you wouldn’t be off base).

“None of it hits, including the forced film tie-ins, and Minetree’s admirable performance – adding sharpness and texture to futile dialogue and lifeless dilemmas – gets lost in perspective-less content destined to be, at most, second-screen entertainment.”

“Each episode seems needlessly tedious, running between 45-60 minutes long when they should be a quick and fun 30. Beats that are telegraphed from episode one drag out endlessly and even fun bits, like the back-and-forth banter between Elle and her mum [are] marred by an almost comical amount of product placement.”

“Here’s the logic problem. Legally Blonde rested on the culture shock of Elle going to Harvard. Wouldn’t she have mentioned, and been altered by, a similarly drastic life-change a few years earlier?”

“Unlike the original film, it’s not really a comedy, whether that’s by design or because writer Laura Kittrell can’t come up with the jokes.”

“It is surely too saccharine for today’s teenagers, and too teenage for adults who lived through the 1990s and have The Craft poster to prove it. This prequel, legally bland, is stifled by its own niceness and nostalgia.”

“The main characters are arguably even more developed in the show than they were in the original movie 25 years ago, which perhaps isn’t a shock given we have eight episodes to delve into, rather than just two hours.

But while I wanted to love Elle, it didn’t hit the sweet spot I hoped it would. Her character arc was too similar to the film, and it was lacking in uniqueness to justify being a prequel.”

“Elle succeeds where other unnecessary prequels and spinoffs fail because it understands what made Legally Blonde work: Elle is at her best when she’s an underdog and a fish out of water, forcing her to prove herself to everyone around her.”

“Ultimately, those who can get past the pilot and the canon problems will be rewarded with a lighthearted, bingeable series. When I got to the season finale, I whispered an Elle Woods-esque ‘yes!’ that Elle has already been renewed for season two.”

“The series avoids taking any real chances that might rock the boat. At the end of the day, Elle is funny, Minetree’s costumes are delightfully pink (though the show itself lacks any visual vibrancy), and it’s a relatively light series to binge over a weekend. Perhaps with a second season coming, the show might course-correct. However, as a prequel, don’t expect something new: Elle trades almost exclusively in nostalgia, and that’s just a shame.”

“Despite the clumsy stereotyping, there is plenty to love about Elle. People looking for more Legally Blonde can rest easy: the series boasts much the same premise as the original film (the fish out of water trope is present here throughout) but it’s been gently massaged for a modern day audience.”

“I’ll be honest, the series (which tilts towards a second one at the end) is all a bit young for a fogey like me, but it is a nice, slick nostalgia fix – a throwback to simpler, happier times – and as a prequel, it definitely works.”

“The mere fact that Elle’s rewritten history suggests that this inspiration came much earlier in her life doesn’t completely sit with what we know of her adult life. It’s clearly supposed to be a seedling for what’s to come, but perhaps is a little overplayed. Even so, I had such a good time watching Elle that I don’t even care.

“The ebbs and flows of high school drama are deliciously played, the script is genuinely hilarious, and the overarching narrative plot is addictively compelling.”

“It’s so difficult to capture the magic of something as beloved as Legally Blonde. But believe me when I say, this is a gorgeous honouring of the original story, wrapped in so much nostalgia and warmth.

“It’s been a long time since something has pulled at my heart strings quite so much – not least with familiar faces like the late James Van Der Beek adding to that wave of recognition for older views.”

Elle is currently streaming on Amazon Prime.

Last week, fans said goodbye to Carmy, Syd and the rest of The Bear’s central family, as Disney+ dropped the final season of the culinary drama in one go.

Speaking to The Hollywood Reporter about The Bear’s ending, its lead, Jeremy Allen White, admitted it was “hard to say goodbye” to the show that propelled him to international stardom, despite knowing it was coming to an end for two years beforehand.

“We’re really lucky in that we had a build-up [to the conclusion],” the Emmy winner said. “I knew for about two years when it was going to end and how it was going to end, so there was a lot of time to prepare.”

He continued: “I’m going to miss these people so much, I’m going to miss the set. The Bear set is so specific – it’s incredibly detail-oriented and exacting, but also flexible and freeing. It’s a hard thing to say goodbye to anything you love.”

On the red carpet of the series finale, he told People how difficult it was to make the last episodes of the Emmy-winning show.

“It was hard,” he recalled. “I mean, it was hard to read. It was hard to shoot. It all makes sense.

“To me, this season, the end of the show is like – for Carmy at least – is about this sort of, like, ultimate surrender and acceptance of, kind of, like, an honesty with himself. So that all makes sense to me.”

Meanwhile, Jeremy has admitted that the very first season of The Bear will forever hold a “special” place in his heart.

“There were no expectations for the show, which was wonderful. We felt like we were really in our own world,” he said in his Hollywood Reporter interview. “We could feel it was special, but it felt like it was still ours. Then, going to the Emmys and being with everybody a year and a half later for season one, that night when the show won, I won and Ayo [Edebiri] won. It was unreal.”

Ayo Edebiri, who plays chef Syd in the series, said in the same piece that her favourite memory came when the series felt “bigger than any of us” and was renewed for a second series.

She explained that she was in New York with Jeremy on the set of a photoshoot when she heard the news of the renewal.

“I remember we were both intermittently checking our phones and being like, ‘Something is happening. What’s going on?’ It felt like people were being like, ‘Wait, no, this is really cool’,” she said.

The final season of The Bear picks up the morning that Carmy’s friends and family discover he has quit the food industry and left the restaurant to them.

Overall, the new run of episodes were met with critical acclaim, with The Telegraph praising it as a “classic recipe done very, very well”.

All five seasons of The Bear are now streaming on Disney+.

Queen Camilla has found herself at the centre of debate after sharing that she recently spent time with JK Rowling.

On Tuesday afternoon, the monarch posted a picture of herself and Rowling on the Royal Family’s official social media channels, sharing that she and the Harry Potter author had met to discuss the importance of young people having access to books.

“With a shared passion for books and a deep commitment to children reading for pleasure, The Queen and author JK Rowling have met at the Palace of Holyroodhouse in Edinburgh,” the post read.

“Her Majesty and Ms Rowling discussed the importance of ensuring that young people have access to books and the vital part reading plays in opening doors for future generations.”

As the post became more widespread, it sparked a wave of backlash on social media, due to Rowling having become such a controversial figure in recent history due to her staunch views and commentary on issues relating to transgender people.

Over the last few years, Rowling has faced criticism for deliberately and repeatedly misgendering transgender public figures.

The Wizarding World creator also donated tens of thousands of pounds to the campaign group which raised the initial legal challenge that led to the UK Supreme Court’s ruling last year that the legal definition of a woman should include only those who were assigned female at birth.

When the decision was made, she shared a celebratory social media post alongside the message: “I love it when a plan comes together.”

Given her views, many were unhappy at seeing the Royal Family welcoming Rowling into one of their properties on X (the site formerly known as Twitter):

Meanwhile, over on Instagram, comments on the same picture have been restricted, after users made their feelings clear, responding with a sea of transgender pride flags and messages of support for the LGBTQ+ community.

“All young people? Or only some young people?” one critic also replied, while another suggested: “During pride month, [this] is a statement.”

“As an admirer of the Queen and her Reading Room I’m deeply disappointed in her giving a platform to JKR, any month but especially during Pride Month,” another wrote.

“There are many other admirable individuals to spotlight who champion reading for children and young people.”