During the ceremony, there was an extended “in memoriam” tributes section, specifically remembering screen legends Rob Reiner, Catherine O’Hara and Diane Keaton.

However, Jane Fonda has now admitted that she thinks she should have been invited to take part in the segment to help pay homage to Robert Redford too.

At an Oscars after-party, Jane was asked by Entertainment Tonight how she felt about Rachel McAdams’ on-stage tribute to Diane Keaton.

“Oh I didn’t see that!” she admitted. “But oh god, her passing really hit me hard. We lost a lot of talented people [in the last year].”

She then added: “I wanna know, how come Streisand was up there doing that for Redford? She only made one movie with him – I made four! I have more to say!”

The host then prompted Jane to “say it now”, to which she quipped: “I was always in love with him! [He was] the most gorgeous human being, and such great values, and he did a lot for movies, he really changed movies, and lifted up independent movies.”

The pair appeared together in 1966’s The Chase, 1967’s Barefoot In The Park, 1979’s The Electric Horseman and, more recently, 2017’s Our Souls At Night.

He also made an uncredited small appearance in 1960’s Tall Story, in which Jane shared the screen with Anthony Perkins.

Following his death in September of last year, Jane said: ““It hit me hard this morning when I read that Bob was gone. I can’t stop crying.

“He meant a lot to me and was a beautiful person in every way. He stood for an America we have to keep fighting for.”

Teyana Taylor has responded to criticism aimed her way following this year’s Oscars.

On Sunday night, the singer and actor attended the Academy Awards, where she had been nominated for the Best Supporting Actress title off the back of her performance in One Battle After Another.

At the beginning of the ceremony, this award was the first to be announced, with Teyana visibly jumping to her feet when the winner was revealed as Weapons star Amy Madigan.

Later in the night, when One Battle After Another was announced as the recipient of the Best Picture prize, Teyana was seen celebrating with director Paul Thomas Anderson, even jokingly putting him in a headlock on their way up to the stage.

Following the ceremony, one critic on X questioned “WTF” was “going on with Teyana”, accusing her of “wildin’ at the Oscars”, while another claimed that they “knew from the first hour something was off” with her.

Teyana reacted on Monday night, lamenting to her X followers: “The world holds so much misery that miserable hearts forget the face of happiness. They grow comfortable being sore losers, so when they see real sportsmanship it unsettles them! Like holy water touching a demon.

“Because clapping for someone else’s victory requires something many people never learned… how to win with grace and pure joy, and how to lose with grace, chin up and dignity.”

Asked about the headlock moment by Variety, Teyana also claimed: “What’s crazy is we kind of took it back to [the] Critics’ Choice [awards] when I told him, ‘listen, if you get that Best Picture, I’m telling you now, we’re going to get you a helmet’. Because I’m such a sports girl, so I’m just like ‘yeeeeeeeah!’.

“It’s our little inside joke – so he already knew the headlock was coming. He knew the headlock was coming.”

Back in January, Teyana won a Golden Globe for her work in One Battle After Another, and was also nominated for a Bafta, an Actor Award (previously known as a SAG Award) and Critics’ Choice Award.

One Battle After Another was the big winner at this year’s Oscars, triumphing in six categories overall, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay and the inaugural Best Casting prize.

Sean Penn also scooped Best Supporting Actor, marking his third Oscar win, but he did not attend the ceremony to accept it.

A BBC foreign affairs expert has delivered a reality check to Donald Trump over his call for other countries to send warships to help open up the Strait of Hormuz.

Frank Gardner, the corporation’s security correspondent, said “no amount of navies” will help to release the “chokehold” Iran has on the vital waterway.

Around one-fifth of the global oil supply passes through the Strait, meaning its effective closure is having a devastating effect on the world economy.

Trump has repeatedly called on countries from around the world – including the UK – to send ships to ward off Iranian drone and missile attacks on tankers.

But speaking on Radio 4′s Today programme, Gardner said that would effectively be a waste of time, even if America’s allies wanted to help.

He said: “Nobody’s particularly keen on this, in fact they’re kind of annoyed about it because this was a war of choice that Israel and the United States chose to do. It’s not one that was backed either by Gulf states in this part of the world, nor by America’s Nato partners.

“There’s a kind of collective heavy sigh ‘OK, clearly you didn’t plan for this, it’s got unintended consequences that maybe you should have thought of when you started this, now you’re asking us to help clear up the mess’ and people are not particularly keen to put their navies in harm’s way.”

Garner added: “Iran has really got a chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz at the moment, and that’s only going to stop by negotiation. No amount of navies are going to stop that.

“The real problem is simply that Iran controls the coast between the north of the gulf and the Strait of Hormuz and they can attack whatever shipping they want, unless they agree not to.”

Conversations around social media (and how kids use it) are only going to heat up in the coming months.

Just this week, MPs voted against a social media ban for under-16s in the UK.

The ban, which would’ve been similar to one implemented in Australia at the start of this year, had originally been backed by the House of Lords, but was later defeated in the Commons.

That said, it could still technically happen. The government is currently looking at children’s digital wellbeing (and how social media plays into that) as part of a consultation running until May.

While we all know the myriad arguments for banning social media (addictive design; disruption to sleep, attention and mental health; exposure to harmful or distressing content; and opening kids up to bullying or abuse), campaigners and charities have warned a social media ban could drive teens to murkier, less regulated parts of the internet.

It could also leave them “unprepared” for navigating the online world when they do eventually reach adulthood.

Nova Eden, founder of One Power Collective and a children’s digital wellbeing expert, believes a ban would have offered children much-needed, urgent protection.

“Ministers are already floating half-measures such as time limits and curfews [in their consultation], yet voting for the ban would have been immediate action,” she told HuffPost UK.

“We cannot afford to waste any more time, children need protection now.”

Similarly Dr John Allan, head of impact and breakthrough learning, at PGL Beyond, believes the latest vote against a social media ban is a “missed opportunity to reset children’s relationships with screens”.

Well, there are a few ideas.

Rather than adopting a blanket ban, Lee Chambers, founder of Male Allies UK, is of the belief that tech giants should be facing more pressure to make the internet safer for children,

He also wants the government to “take accountability for the ever-escalating risk and bad behaviour that is infiltrating our, and our children’s, phones”.

“We need to invest in digital literacy, and we need to make the companies that are letting harm seep across social platforms accountable for their negligence,” he told HuffPost UK.

“We need to tackle the root cause, not just switch the lights off.”

For Geoffrey Williams and Jenny Garrett, co-founders of Rocking Ur Teens, a UK social enterprise supporting teenagers, there’s a lot more work that needs to be done.

Geoffrey wants to see more education on ethical usage [of social media] and creation of spaces that reinforce positive messages, “rather than the negative content that currently dominates most platforms”.

Jenny added that while a ban “would have been a wise move”, it’s “possibly too little, too late”.

While regulation has an important role to play, both experts say real-world exposure, mentorship, and hands-on experiences are what help teenagers navigate social media pressures, develop confidence, and build resilience.

Jenny’s daughter Leah struggled with low self-esteem as a teenager, which inspired the mum to create Rocking Ur Teens.

Leah now runs Dawn Intelligence, which helps schools, workplaces and local authorities track and prevent gender-based violence using AI insights and real-time data.

She thinks a social media ban alone wouldn’t solve the problem. Instead, stronger boundaries surrounding social media use are key.

“We have been running a live experiment on children with platforms that were never designed with their psychological safety in mind,” she said.

“I work in AI now. I understand how systems are built. Most of these systems are not built to protect the most vulnerable user in the room. They are built to retain attention.”

Leah thinks a ban on its own is a “blunt instrument” and it should instead sit alongside education about how algorithms shape perception, amplify extremes, and how online identity can distort self image.

“Otherwise we simply delay exposure rather than prepare young people for it,” she added.

Wider context around social class is also often missing from the debate, she noted, and this needs to be addressed. “Some young people are parented through their devices because families are stretched, underfunded and exhausted,” she said.

“We cannot moralise individual parenting decisions while ignoring structural pressure. If we want healthier digital environments for teenagers, we need investment in youth spaces, extracurricular access, community programmes and safe physical spaces to belong.

“Technology is not going away. The real work is governance, literacy and accountability.”

Noting that parents “have lost trust in tech firms’ ability to keep their children safe”, Ofcom recently announced it’s cracking down on major sites and apps that kids use the most.

The regulator has given a number of major social media sites one month to implement effective minimum-age policies, strict grooming protections, safer feeds for children, and put an end to “product testing” new features on children.

I was at Disneyland with my three-year-old and her baby sister when I told our eldest: “If you can’t find us, head to the carousel and we’ll come find you.”

I wasn’t expecting her to get lost – my baby was snoozing in a carrier so all eyes were firmly on our eldest, with one of us gripping her hand tightly wherever we went – but I wanted to make sure that if, for whatever reason, she did lose sight of us, she’d know exactly what to do.

Thankfully we didn’t lose her on that trip. But if we had, it turns out the advice I gave her might’ve ended in disaster.

According to paediatrician Dr Joel Warsh (known as Dr Gator on social media), most parents teach their kids: “If you get lost, come find me” – and while it sounds pretty logical, it’s the wrong advice to give.

“When children realise they’re separated, they do three things almost automatically: They panic. They wander. They try to find you. Every step makes them harder to locate,” he explained on Substack.

“Search works best when movement stops,” added the expert.

His advice, then? Teach your kids to “stop, stay, yell”.

It’s important to have ongoing conversations with kids, in an age-appropriate manner, to ensure you can locate them if they do become separated from you.

Leanne Mcleish, development and quality manager at NSPCC, told HuffPost UK that for pre-schoolers, “these conversations are unlikely to be appropriate” as the children are “too young to clearly understand how to keep themselves safe”.

Instead, she advises parents to continually monitor where they are and put steps in place, such as using harnesses, prams or holding hands when out in public, to keep them safe.

“It can also be helpful for young children to wear bright clothing or reflective clothing so that they can be clearly seen when it is dark or late at night,” she added.

For those of primary school age, “children should be encouraged to stay where they are, where possible, and not walk to a new area – this is to make sure that the parents can retrace their steps”, said Mcleish.

You could also encourage them to shout your name, rather than “mum” or “dad”.

“Children should be encouraged to not talk to any strangers, unless they are in uniform – such as a police officer, security guard or employee of the establishment,” added Mcleish.

You can also teach children to memorise phone numbers – Dr Warsh said even young kids can memorise a number with repetition. His advice is to practice it like a song: “Sing it in the car. Chant it at bedtime. Turn it into rhythm.”

For children who have their own mobile phone, parents should regularly check that the phone has battery power and that they have telephone numbers to allow them to contact a trusted adult to share where they are.

“The child should try to share any key identifying information such as road name, shop details or landmarks to help them be located,” added Mcleish.

“If they are in a place where they feel unsafe, they should ring the police immediately whilst trying to get into an open space with lighting.”

If you’re heading to a busy place, it might be helpful to take a photo of your child before you go (so you can remember what they’re wearing) and also to pop your phone number on a sticker and attach it to them.

And if you do happen to lose your child in a public space, the ‘looking loudly’ method could help reunite you quickly: shout a description of what your child looks like and what they’re wearing, rather than their name.

The idea is that rather than relying on a young child to respond to their name, you’re putting dozens, if not hundreds, of adults on high alert to find the child.

As the US war with Iran drags on, much of the focus has been on a crucial waterway: the Strait of Hormuz.

The Strait is a narrow channel that links the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman. It’s bordered by Iran from the north and Oman from the south, and it spans roughly 21 miles at its tightest point.

Due to its location, a major portion of the world’s oil produced by Persian Gulf countries – including Kuwait, Qatar and Iraq – must pass through the Strait in order to reach other destinations.

In the wake of US and Israeli attacks, Iran has effectively shut down the Strait by threatening to target ships that pass through it. In doing so, it’s driven up oil prices worldwide – and ramped up economic pressure on the US.

Now, the Trump administration is grappling with how to navigate the closure of the Strait as its operation in Iran enters its third week.

Roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil and one-fifth of the world’s liquefied natural gas are transported via the Strait, making it one of the most important shipping lanes on the planet.

Many of these supplies typically go to countries in Asia, including China, India, Japan and South Korea.

Because the Strait has been largely closed since the start of the US war on Iran, oil supplies from the Persian Gulf have been broadly stuck. Per CBS News, roughly 400 oil tankers carrying 200 million barrels of oil are among the vessels that have been stalled.

Iran has significant power over the Strait due to its proximity to the waterway. As The Guardian noted, segments of the Strait’s transit lanes are located only three to four miles from Iran’s shores, so it can swiftly deploy drones and missiles to target boats passing through them.

Shortly after the US began its strikes on Iran, Iranian officials issued threats related to the Strait.

“The Strait (of Hormuz) is closed. If anyone tries to pass, the heroes of the Revolutionary Guards and the regular navy will set those ships ablaze,” Ebrahim Jabari, a senior adviser to the Guards’ commander-in-chief, said on March 2, according to Reuters, which cited Iranian state media. Iran has also appeared to follow through on its threats, claiming responsibility for attacks on multiple ships that have tried to enter the Strait.

According to CNN, Iran has reportedly placed a few dozen mines in the Strait, further heightening safety concerns.

Because of these threats, shipping traffic in the Strait has slowed significantly. Typically, more than 100 ships pass through the Strait each day, according to CBS News, but that figure has dwindled to just a handful.

In recent days, Iran has signalled that it may be open to allowing non-American ships to move through the waterway.

Over the weekend, Iranian foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said that Iran had been approached by “a number of countries” about ensuring safe passage of their vessels, and noted that the decision to allow them through would be up to its military.

Trump is searching for ways to neutralise Iran’s broader threats so that shipping traffic can resume to prior levels. Although US airstrikes have already hit multiple Iranian mine-laying vessels, any wholesale effort to combat Iranian attacks will be challenging, The Guardian noted. That’s due to Iran’s access to small, swift boats that it can use to lay mines, and its proximity to the waterway.

Trump has also implored other countries to send ships that could help reopen the Strait; however, so far, their response has been tepid.

If the Strait remains closed, pressure will continue to build on oil and gas markets worldwide. Trump’s threats about attacking Kharg Island again, which is home to an Iranian oil export hub, could add to these pressures.

Iran has leveraged its access to the Strait in past conflicts, though this type of closure is unprecedented, Erik Broekhuizen, a tanker researcher, told NPR. In the 1980s, Iran laid mines in the Strait during a “Tanker War” with Iraq, and damaged a supertanker, according to Bloomberg. Iranian lawmakers have also weighed closing the Strait before, including after the U.S. struck three Iranian nuclear sites last year.

According to a Wall Street Journal report published last week, Trump’s top military adviser, General Dan Caine, had warned him that Iran could shut down the Strait in retaliation for US attacks. Trump reportedly suggested that Tehran would surrender first and that the US would be able to combat efforts to close the shipping route if the Iranians took that path.

“The Pentagon has been planning for Iran’s desperate and reckless closure of the Strait of Hormuz for decades, and it has been part of the Trump administration’s planning well before ‘Operation Epic Fury’ was ever launched,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt claimed in a statement to the publication.

President Donald Trump may be learning the hard way that berating, insulting and threatening America’s traditional allies for years makes persuading them to bail you out of a jam more difficult.

Nato countries have been cool to Trump’s demand they send warships to help the US Navy safeguard the Strait of Hormuz, the narrow opening to the Persian Gulf that oil tankers are currently unwilling to transit because of the threat posed by Iran, which Trump and Israel began attacking two weeks ago.

During a question-and-answer session with reporters on Monday at the White House, Trump continued complaining that other nations — none of whom was consulted prior to the start of the air attacks — were not “enthusiastically” responding to Trump’s request.

“They should be in here very happily helping us,” he said. “They should be jumping to help us because we’ve helped them for years.”

Trump has spent many years, from even before his first term, calling other Nato members freeloaders and mischaracterising the alliance as a form of protection scheme in which other nations were supposed to pay “dues” to the United States.

“Trump doesn’t understand how alliances work. He wants what he wants when he wants it. It’s just that simple,” said John Bolton, one of Trump’s national security advisers in his first term who disclosed that Trump had planned to withdraw from Nato had he won re-election in 2020.

After he returned to office last year, Trump disparaged Nato member Canada and said it should be the 51st state while also threatening a military seizure of Greenland from Denmark, another Nato ally.

The Greenland threats, even as they were largely mocked as unserious in the United States, provoked a months-long crisis in Europe.

Now, after attacking Iran without first seeking any input from those and other allies, he is expressing dismay that they are not eagerly sending ships and service members to ease the global energy calamity he himself created, which has caused domestic gasoline prices to jump more than 70 cents a gallon.

Trump on Monday again repeated his false claim that Nato would not stand by the United States: “I always said when in need they won’t protect us.”

In fact, the alliance’s mutual defence clause, spelled out in Article 5 of the charter and which states that an attack on one nation is treated as an attack on all, has only been invoked once: following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the US.

Trump, however, speaks as if Article 5 language requires its members to join with the United States in an offensive war of choice, which it does not.

“He’s so confused. He never did understand Nato,” said Jim Townsend, a former staffer at the Defence Department and Nato and now with the Centre for a New American Strategy, a centre-left think tank.

Jan Techau, with the Centre for European Policy Analysis in Berlin, said he’s not sure Trump much cares about the treaty’s actual language. “He looks at dependencies, power relationships. If he thinks he can put pressure on Nato members that way, he does it,” he said.

Thus far, that effort seems to be falling short.

“What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful US Navy cannot do? This is not our war, we have not started it,” German defence minister Boris Pistorius said in Berlin on Monday.

British prime minister Keir Starmer, while saying he supports a plan to reopen traffic through Hormuz, said the United Kingdom would not be “drawn into the wider Iran war”.

One of the least oppositional voices, ironically, came from Denmark, the nation Trump was directly threatening just months ago but which is home to a large commercial shipping fleet. “We must face the world as it is, not as we want it to be,” foreign minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen told reporters as he headed into a European Commission meeting to discuss a response to the Hormuz Strait situation.

Trump claimed Monday that “numerous” nations were going to send warships to the Strait to help get tanker traffic moving through again but refused to say which ones.

He then continued a pattern of contradictory statements that call into question his understanding of his own war. He demanded help with his Iran war and its global consequences while simultaneously claiming he didn’t need any such help. He claimed he had “obliterated” all of Iran’s military, including its fleet of mine-laying boats, but then said he understood why ship owners still do not wish to send their vessels through.

“Every one of them is gone,” he said of the mine-laying boats, “but it only takes one.”

Trump also revealed yet more evidence that he had not fully appreciated the risks he was taking when he began the largest US war in two decades. “They weren’t supposed to go after all these other countries in the Middle East,” he said of Iran’s decision to attack its neighbours that host US military facilities. “So they hit Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Kuwait. Nobody expected that. We were shocked.”