Every day, my inbox gets clogged by endless marketing, promotional and publicity emails that make it hard to quickly assess which emails are important and which ones aren’t.

When I started noticing the same marketing email addresses land in my inbox each week, I decided to take action. The Federal Trade Commission requires companies to provide an easy way to opt out of email communications and to honour those requests in a timely manner under the CAN-SPAM Act. In reality, opting out can mean hunting for obscured unsubscribe buttons that are barely legible.

But there’s one quick way to clear up a cluttered inbox that doesn’t involve any scrolling: I used a common Gmail hack to review every subscription my email address was subscribed to to see what I could cut. I recommend that you do the same.

Here’s how: Copy and paste this link in your browser and simply replace the word “inbox” in the link https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox with the word “sub.” It should read https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#sub. From there, you can see all your subscriptions and unsubscribe from listservs that no longer serve you. Gmail helpfully lists your subscriptions by the number of emails the subscription has sent you, so you can see your biggest culprits.

When I tried this for myself, I focused on the subscriptions that had sent me over 20 emails recently, and discovered marketing listservs that I had no memory subscribing to on my list. Unsubscribing from all these unwanted mailing lists was quick, easy and satisfying.

And the bonus from doing this is that you will free up valuable storage space. Just know that on this Gmail page, the company states that “it can take senders a few days to stop sending messages” once you unsubscribe.

Going forward, another subscription clutter hack is to stop using the exact same email address to sign up for newsletters. Instead, try using an email address alias that Gmail provides. If you add a plus sign after your email address username, all Gmail will still go to that address.

For example, you can do janesmith+beauty@gmail.com and janesmith+news@gmail.com when you sign up for something, and the emails will still go to janesmith@gmail.com. The difference is that with a specific email address for your beauty subscriptions, like janesmith+beauty@gmail.com, you can create a label and filter rule to clearly sort how certain subscriptions to this email address appear, which inbox they go to, and how these emails get deleted or archived.

Or you can stop using your personal email address when subscribing to newsletters. One way to do this is to use iCloud’s Hide My Email feature, which will generate a random email address when you sign up for services in Apple Mail.

The one Gmail subscription tip I don’t whole-heartedly recommend is using third-party unsubscribe tools because of the potential privacy risks, as seen by a 2019 settlement between email unsubscriber Unroll.me and the FTC over allegations that the company deceived users about how it accessed and used personal emails.

“I’d suggest thinking deeply before granting any third-party tool access to your inbox,” said Thorin Klosowski, a security and privacy activist for the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “Any tool designed to unsubscribe you would likely need full access to your inbox to do its job, and unless you’re going to read the company privacy policy, it’s hard to say what it might do with any information it collects.”

“Instead, I’d recommend sticking to the tools already built into your email provider or email app,” he continued. It’s also potentially safer to do this within Gmail or your email provider over “clicking to unsubscribe” on a spammy email you think is suspicious. Software company DNSFilter actually found in 2025 that one in every 644 “unsubscribe” links went to a malicious site.

Reviewing your current email subscriptions on your own takes a few seconds, but it’s not hard to do, and you won’t risk your digital privacy.

Barry Keoghan has opened up about why we won’t be seeing him in the new season of Peaky Blinders.

Earlier this year, the Oscar nominee played Tommy Shelby’s grown-up son Duke in the stand-alone Peaky Blinders movie The Immortal Man.

However, in the upcoming reboot of Peaky Blinders, set around a decade after the events of the Immortal Man, the character of Duke has been recast for a second time, with Jamie Bell taking over the role in the upcoming episodes.

During a new interview with Variety, Barry explained that he “loved making the movie”, describing the process as an “incredible” one, he confirmed it was his decision not to carry on in the role of Duke, but would not share any more about his reasoning.

“I pick projects quite specifically,” he said. “I carefully, cautiously pick because I just want to enjoy, and I want to heal, I want to tell, I want to find, I want to explore. I want to discover all of those things while I’m making a movie with people who are like-minded.”

Joining Jamie in the new episodes will be Stranger Things star Charlie Heaton will also be joining the line-up in a lead role, along with James Bond star Lashana Lynch and Downton Abbey’s Jessica Brown Findlay.

He is the third actor to play Duke Shelby after Barry, who took it over from Bafta rising star winner Conrad Khan during the show’s original run.

An official synopsis for the new season of Peaky Blinders previously teased: “Britain, 1953. After being heavily bombed in WWII, Birmingham is building a better future out of concrete and steel.

“In a new era of Steven Knight’s Peaky Blinders, the race to own Birmingham’s massive reconstruction project becomes a brutal contest of mythical dimensions.

“This is a city of unprecedented opportunity and danger: with the Shelby family right at its blood-soaked heart.”

Creator Steven Knight also enthused: “I’m thrilled to be announcing this new chapter in the Peaky Blinders story.

“Once again it will be rooted in Birmingham and will tell the story of a city rising from the ashes of the Birmingham blitz. The new generation of Shelbys have taken the wheel and it will be a hell of a ride.”

Sir Ian McKellen has revealed he finally got the chance to watch himself in Cats – and he doesn’t quite understand what all the hate was about.

The six-time Olivier winner was among the star-studded cast of Tom Hooper’s ill-fated adaptation of the classic stage musical, which was savaged by critics upon its release in 2019.

Back in 2024, Sir Ian claimed that he’d still not had the chance to watch Cats all the way through, but during a more recent interview with Magic, he revealed he’d recently been won over by the movie when he caught it by mistake.

“The other day, I did chance upon myself singing in the film of Cats,” he recalled. “And I played through the song and I thought, ‘well, that’s better than what most people thought of the film – what was wrong with that?’.”

When the interviewer pointed out that she “didn’t hate Cats”, he responded: “Who knows – maybe other people will be allowed to discover it.”

“But,” the Oscar nominee continued. “I did make the mistake of reading the comments after.

“I’m my own worst, or best, critic. There are very, very few performances I’ve given that I would give a big tick to.”

During an interview with USA Today, Sir Ian said that he and co-star Dame Judi Dench had a “lovely time” making Cats.

He claimed at the time: “I haven’t actually seen the complete version of the film – I saw it before we had ears and tails put on.

“It probably would’ve been better if they hadn’t had those additions.”

Sir Ian was previously full of praise for Cats when he told his social media followers that he’d watched a “final cut” in December 2019.

The Lord Of The Rings star wrote on Facebook: “A confession: I’ve never been a fan of cats. Dogs for me every time, to look at and be friends with. But I’ve just seen the final cut of the imminent Cats movie and I’m a convert.”

Other members of the Cats cast have been less effusive about the film, with James Corden and Rebel Wilson raising eyebrows at the 2020 Oscars when they appeared on stage dressed as their characters to mock the movie’s special effects – getting on the wrong side the Visual Effects Society in the process.

More than 100 Labour MPs have signed a letter of support for Keir Starmer amid rising calls for him to quit.

It comes after more than 80 MPs called on the prime minister to resign, while three ministers quit and urged Starmer to set out a timetable for his departure.

According to the Guardian, the statement said: “Last week we had a devastatingly tough set of election results. It shows we have a hard job ahead to win back trust from the electorate.

“That job needs to start today – with all of us working together to deliver the change the country needs.

“We must focus on that. This is no time for a leadership contest.”

The party has been in turmoil after voters gave it a beating in the elections in England, Wales and Scotland last week.

Rebellious MPs claim this proves the electorate clearly do not want Starmer to stay in office.

However, the prime minister has insisted he will not walk away from office.

He told his cabinet this morning: “The Labour Party has a process for challenging a leader and that has not been triggered.”

The only way for MPs to trigger a leadership contest is for 20% of the Parliamentary Labour Party to back a clear challenger – that works out to 81 MPs.

No one in parliament has yet challenged the prime minister, even though his expected rivals – including health secretary Wes Streeting – are circling.

Subscribe 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.

Electoral stress, public scandal, news broadcasters in crisis, class tension – no we’re not talking about 2026. The time has come to jump back to 1980s Rutshire and slide between the sheets for another romp with Disney+’s Rivals.

Yes, after a two-year wait that’s left us as full of yearning as Freddie and Lizzie’s slow-burn romance, Jilly Cooper’s iconic bonkbuster is about to hit our screens for a second season – and fortunately, it’s a repeat performance worth shouting about.

To catch you up: when we last left Rutshire, David Tennant’s baddie Tony Baddingham was lying bleeding out after a whack to the head by his ex-mistress Cameron Cook (Nafessa Williams). Meanwhile, the only Tory we’ve ever fancied, Rupert Campbell-Black (Alex Hassell), was confessing his love to Taggie, Freddie Jones and Lizzie (Danny Dyer and Katherine Parkinson) finally took their affair to a much-needed climax and Aidan Turner’s Declan O’Hara won the IBA’s franchise bid, but lost his wife Maud (Victoria Smurfit) in the process.

And after being left on a cliffhanger for two years, I can confidently say that despite the huge build-up, the second season hasn’t lost its stride… or stamina.

Having seen the first three episodes, if season one of Rivals was all about “will they, won’t they”, season two is the aftermath packed full of “holy shit, what happens now?” moments.

The plot continues with the Corinium versus Venturer, with David Tennant returning as a recovering – and out for revenge – Tony Baddingham (hey, it’s not a spoiler if it’s in the trailer). Danny Dyer continues to give the performance of his career as moustached class-climber Freddie Jones, while Alex Hassell’s lothario Rupert finds that his past has well and truly caught up with him as Rutshire goes to the polls.

Aidan Turner delivers another broody performance as Declan O’Hara (you aren’t ready for his shower scene) and there are also inklings of a bigger storyline on the horizon for Luca Pasqualino’s Bas. Plus, of course, there’s a whole lot of white jodhpur-clad polo.

However, it’s the women of Rivals who really take the reins in season two.

Emily Atack is the stand-out of the season – thanks to her character’s much-more-developed story arc and, as a result, screentime, Sarah Stratton is a powerhouse mix of comedy, devastation and drama in season two. We won’t spoil it for you, but there’s a dinner party that’s a real slapstick comedy masterclass.

Claire Rushbrook’s Monica Baddingham finally finds her backbone and get to play the part of a woman scorned (“you make yourself very easy to beat” is a putdown that will have you wincing), while Bella Maclean’s lovesick Taggie continues to be the ensemble’s most consistent moral compass of the entire show.

Cameron Cook, Maud O’Hara and Lizzie Vereker) also all decide that enough is enough in their own ways, making for an amazing “fuck you” to the more misogynistic storylines weaved throughout the series.

As for the rest of the characters (including one truly unexpected cameo that will be an extra treat for Eastenders fans), well we’ve not even touched the surface – you’ll just need to wait patiently for Friday.

And in case you’re worried that Rivals’ libido has begun to wane, please remember this is a Jilly Cooper adaptation. No, it certainly doesn’t take a dip (it takes exactly eight minutes and 23 seconds into the first episode before you see your first willy – two, in fact) and there are plenty of sudden Cooper-tastic sex scenes that will have you feigning shock to mask your utter delight. Just don’t say we didn’t warn you that the phrase “mole in the hole” will make you cringe for weeks.

We’re in the depths of a TV landscape filled with harrowing true crime documentaries, gritty police dramas and news broadcasts that routinely remind us the world is on fire. What Rivals offers is something outrageously needed – FUN.

Do we need to really acknowledge that the characters of Rivals are all morally bankrupt? No. Do we need the absolute chaos of a naked Rupert Campbel- Black getting smacked with a riding crop mid-coitus by a woman he doesn’t actually love, because of course he’s busy lusting after his business partner’s daughter? Absolutely.

Backed by a soundtrack of 80s bangers, the new series delivers exactly what we need in a week of grim headlines: pure, unadulterated escapism.

Its unique blend of utter silliness, seriousness and chaos makes us glad that Rivals is so much more than an illicit affair, it’s a long term relationship we want to keep far beyond the morning after.

Rivals season 2 is available 15 May on Disney+

Samsung has hit back at allegations made by Dua Lipa and her legal team claiming that the brand used her likeness in its packaging without permission.

Last week, the electronics company found itself at the centre of a $15 million (around £11 million) lawsuit filed by Dua, claiming that it had used a copyrighted image of the Grammy winner in the packaging of its TV sets.

The Future Nostalgia singer accused Samsung of using her assumed endorsement as a way of marketing their products, for which she was seeking millions in damages.

Her lawyers also claimed that Dua had previously contacted Samsung to complain about the packaging as far back as June 2025, requesting that they stop, to no avail.

On Tuesday, Samsung issued a statement denying that they did not have permission to feature Dua in the packaging of its products.

“Ms. Lipa’s image was used in 2025 to reflect the content of our third-party partners that are available on Samsung TVs and was originally provided by a content partner for our free streaming service Samsung TV Plus,” they said in a statement (as reported by Deadline).

“The image was used only after receiving explicit assurance from the content partner that permission had been secured, including for the retail boxes. Given this assurance, we deny any allegations of intentional misuse.

“Samsung has great respect for Ms. Lipa and the intellectual property of all artists. We have actively sought and remain open to a constructive resolution with Ms. Lipa’s team.”

The image in question is of Dua backstage at the Austin City Limits musical festival, where she performed live in 2024.

Dua’s team previously claimed that she is the sole owner of the photo and that she had not granted permission for its use.

HuffPost UK has contacted Dua Lipa for additional comment.