Politics
Save 25% Off LEGO Duplo Sets At NextL Including Bluey And Peppa Pig
Christmas might be months away still, but if there’s one thing you can bet on for sure it’s that kids will want toys for a present.
While older kids might be easier to buy for (as in, they’ll tell you straight up what they want) younger toddlers can be tricker.
If you’re after a toy that blends learning with creative play and, most importantly, fun, there’s no better brand than LEGO’s Duplo.
Designed specifically for little fingers, the Duplo keeps in mind that smaller children will still be developing motor skills and building confidence with play, so the blocks are bigger.
But that doesn’t mean they’re not just as fun; this year it has a ton of sets to choose from, from Bluey to Peppa Pig, and even Spider Man.
In even better news, there’s 25% off LEGO Duplo sets at Next from now until 16 September. So if you want to get a head start of your Christmas shopping, run, don’t walk!
Activists from ‘Pause AI’ and ‘Pull The Plug’ march from OpenAI’s London offices to Google and Meta, London, February 2026 (Ron Fassbender/Alamy Live News)
4 min read
Andy Burnham won Makerfield with the slogan “For Us”. With claims that AI will destroy the “Us” bit and a summer of tech shambles behind me, I am wondering – how is tech working For Us?
The shambles started when my Google Pixel 10 Pro developed the green screen of death while I was visiting family in the United States. My under-warranty taxpayer-funded smartphone became less useful than an actual brick.
Google is so, so global but their warranties are not valid outside the UK. My (UK-headquartered fintech darling) Revolut credit card only worked with my phone. My (UK-headquartered, co-operative, value-driven) John Lewis credit card decided my attempt to buy a cheap interim phone at a US store must be fraudulent, and suspended the card.
Without my phone, Revolut would not recognise me or my uploaded driving licence ID, and I found no effective customer service beyond intermittent and unhelpful responses from their X account.
John Lewis offered phone-only support, but when I used an unrecognised phone number to call them their fraud algorithm decided the card had been compromised and issued a new one – to my UK address, of course.
I am a tech evangelist. I became an engineer 40 years ago because I believed technology is what makes the world work for people. But I had to admit, tech was not working for me.
Ironically, half my summer reading was about the great changes AI will bring in productivity, human knowledge and flourishing, and half was about the US political techlash, the end of the tech optimisation trend and the economic and social fallout of an AI boom or bust.
Fortunately, family and friends were able to lend me the funds that the failures of Google, Revolut and John Lewis’ systems had made inaccessible.
Big Tech is simply not incentivised to devote the engineering resources needed to make tech work for us – and the consequences will be felt most acutely by the less well-off, the less tech-educated, those who are offline and those who do not represent opportunities for current or future profit.
Then there is the impact of social media on the mental health of children in particular, the growing flood of misinformation, the surveillance capture of our everyday lives, and of course the one in 10 chance we are all going to die thanks to AI.
We have come a long way from Harold Wilson’s “white heat of technology” speech of 1963 and his aspiration to “replace the cloth cap [with] the white laboratory coat as the symbol of British labour”.
Among the many consequences of the 40 years of neoliberalism repeatedly called out by Andy Burnham is a libertarian attitude to technology, best exemplified in the reluctance to regulate the internet: leave it to the market – governments are too slow and too stupid. The market, it was assumed, would deliver the best, most innovative products and services to those who needed them.
I believe it is important to be clear: that has not worked. Technology’s performance does not match its potential when it comes to making things work for us, and exceeds its potential when it comes to harming us. That is why my constituents don’t trust tech.
This matters now because we are in danger of repeating the same mistake with AI, at a time when tech vested interests are more powerful than ever. Twenty years ago, when global internet penetration was about 17 per cent, Facebook was a baby, only recently launched in the UK, and Google had just listed. Today, three quarters of the world uses the internet, and Meta and Alphabet are worth $6tn. Meanwhile, the enormous sums being invested in AI infrastructure – like all these data centres – are creating new pressures to generate returns, with companies such as Anthropic and OpenAI expected to go public in the pursuit of larger sources of capital.
How many years will it take for this technology to be optimised in all our interests? And how much value will be extracted to be concentrated in the hands of the few while popular distrust and dissatisfaction grows?
Our new government must legislate – with governments around the world if possible but alone if not – to ensure the AI revolution delivers for us all. It must see through the hype and restore responsibility and accountability to both tech bros and governments.
Let us make the tech we have work for us now, and shape the tech to come to work for us in the future.
Chi Onwurah is Labour MP for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West and chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee
Public concern over artificial intelligence (AI) scams is rapidly rising – and it’s really no wonder.
According to Europe-wide research from CRIF, three quarters (75%) of Brits are worried about AI-powered fraud, while two in five (40%) believe banks and insurers aren’t doing enough to protect them.
Just a year ago, CRIF found just 24% of UK consumers were worried about the risks that the rise in AI use posed. Fast forward to 2026 and two thirds (66%) believe fraud and cybercrime are becoming a bigger personal threat to them.
They’ve got good reason to be concerned. In June this year, the BBC reported that more than four million fraud cases were reported in 2025 – amounting to an eye-watering total of £1.3bn stolen by scammers.
Which types of scam are on the rise?
The good news is there has been a drop in impersonation fraud, where criminals pose as a bank, the police or an organisation and convince victims to transfer money to a “safe account”, according to UK Finance.
But, unfortunately, AI is enabling criminals to come up with more sophisticated and convincing scams, leading to people losing their hard-earned money.
AI can now mimic the voices of celebrities or even loved ones. Romance scams are on the rise, where criminals use a fake profile to forge a relationship with victims, gaining their trust and then asking for money.
Investment fraud, where criminals persuade victims to put money into a fake or misleading investment opportunity, was also up 40% year-on-year in 2025.
How to protect yourself and your loved ones from being scammed
The key thing to remember is to stop and “take five” if someone unexpectedly asks for your money or personal information.
As part of a new campaign, Strictly Come Dancing judge Craig Revel Horwood is urging people to “master the art of impoliteness” to prevent fraud, saying “when it comes to fraud, being a bit rude is exactly the right thing to do”.
Here are some ways to keep you (and your loved ones) safe from scams in 2026:
1. Put the phone down
If someone you don’t know phones you and asks for personal info, security details or even money, hang up. You can then contact the organisation they’re claiming to be from directly to ensure the request is legit.
If you receive a phone call from someone close to you demanding something, be aware that it might not actually be them as AI can now clone people’s voices using clips from social media.
Red flags to watch out for, according to Central Bank, include: your ‘loved one’ pressuring you to act quickly to wire money or send personal details; unusual requests which seem out of the ordinary; and not letting you ring off so you can verify who’s calling.
The advice here is to stop, hang up, and contact your loved one directly via their phone number or another trusted platform.
It can also be useful to come up with an obscure ‘code word’ that only you and your family members know so that if a situation does arise where they need you to send them money or information, you can ask them for the code word to verify it’s really them.
2. Close that email or advert, and do your research
If you receive an email or see an advert that pressures you to act quickly – whether that’s regarding an investment opportunity or buying sold-out concert tickets – close it and act with caution.
The Take Five campaign urges: “Do your research and independently verify the company using the Financial Conduct Authority’s Firm Checker before you share any personal details or send money.”
3. Be wary of who you let into your world
With romance scams on the rise, fraudsters are gaining people’s trust by asking them lots about themselves, showering them with compliments, claiming they’ve fallen in love with them, and then asking for money.
The Neighbourhood Watch Network advises a few steps to take to steer clear of these scams, including: not accepting friend requests from people you don’t know, doing a reverse image search on people’s profile images if you’ve not met them, avoiding giving away too many personal details online; and never sending or receiving money to someone you’ve met online.
4. Shut the door to tradespeople and check their company
If someone knocks on your door offering to clean your drive, clear your gutters, or offer another service, don’t agree to anything straight away.
Take Five warns that fraudsters can pose as tradespeople and pressure you into a quick decision or ask for money upfront.
“Shut the door, take time to check the company or trader is genuine, and speak to someone you trust before making any payment,” the campaign advises.
5. Protect yourself
And lastly, if you think you’ve been scammed, don’t be embarrassed or try to brush it under the carpet.
Contact your bank immediately and tell the police at reportfraud.police.uk or on 0300 123 2040.
Shocked? Concerned? Don’t worry; there’s an easy way to ensure you’re protected from the more nefarious interests looking to take advantage of your online presence: Bitdefender. Bitdefender takes care of the boring security bits for you, so you can carry on using the internet just as it suits you, without worrying about hackers, scammers, malware, and all that nasty stuff.
Last night, I was halfway through making my usual cheesy pasta (technically not macaroni as I used mixed pasta shells) when I realised that I had NO mustard in the cupboard. Nothing, not even a little slither.
I had already showered and got into my pyjamas so popping to the shop was obviously out of the question but I really still needed something to give my dinner that familiar ‘punch’.
That’s when my partner, who is admittedly far more adventurous in the kitchen than I am, suggested adding a dollop of horseradish.
Horseradish is, dare I say it, better than mustard in cheesy pasta
I thought he’d lost his mind. I hate horseradish – I can’t even handle the smell of it. But thanks to hanger getting dangerously close to kicking in and a desperate need to have dinner and watch Battlestar Galactica, I trusted him.
Once we had created the roux using flour, milk and double cream as we were a little low on milk, we stirred in around half a tablespoon of horseradish, some garlic seasoning, italian herbs and grated cheese.
I tasted it and outwardly groaned. It was unreal. Nutty, tangy, cheesy, ugh.
I honestly could have eaten it there and then but we chose to crisp up the dish by baking it for 10 minutes at 180°C. To add extra crunch, we topped the pasta with breadcrumbs, cripsy onions and for a little more flavour, dashes of Worcestershire sauce.
Then it was time to dig in, finally.
I can’t believe I’m saying this but the horseradish really brought this to life. I actually think even once we do have mustard back in our cupboard, I’ll still opt for horseradish over it. Every single bite was heavenly.
I couldn’t recommend this more, please let me know if you try it.
Brb, I’m off to eat my leftovers.
Zack Polanski will be the Green Party’s candidate in next month’s crucial Holborn and St Pancras by-election.
The party confirmed on Friday morning that he will go up against Labour’s Sagal Abdi-Wali to succeed Keir Starmer as the constituency’s MP.
The former prime minister stunned Westminster by announcing he was quitting parliament earlier this month.
Polanski beat off the challenge of local Green councillor Hamza Chowdhury for the party’s nomination.
Starmer retained the seat for Labour with a majority of 11,572 votes at the 2024 general election.
But the Greens have seen a surge in support since Polanski was elected the party’s leader a year ago.
The by-election is seen as a straight fight between Labour, who have held the seat ever since it was created in 1983, and the Greens.
A victory for Abdi-Wali would be further proof that Labour is winning back voters who had switched to the Greens now that Starmer has been replaced as leader by Andy Burnham.
It would also be a huge blow to the Greens, and the political ambitions of Polanski.
But a victory for Polanski would give the Greens their first London MP and be a massive boost for the party as it fights Labour for the support of progressive voters across the country.
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.
Politics
Allison Gardner MP: ‘You don’t have to oppose assisted dying to know that this bill isn’t right’
Like many MPs, I have spent a great deal of time over the past few years deeply considering the assisted dying debate. I have not drawn a firm conclusion on the principle of the matter itself. Like many, I have personal experience of losing loved ones, and I have seen difficult deaths. I understand why people want parliament to consider changing the law.
But the question before parliament is not about whether we think introducing assisted death is ethical in the abstract. The question is if this bill, in this societal moment, is the right way to do it. Having looked closely at the evidence, experiences of other jurisdictions, views from healthcare and disability organisations, and the practical implications of what is proposed, my first conclusion is clear: it can’t be this bill.
My greatest concern with the text before us is the inadequacy of the safeguards provided. We know that systems designed to protect vulnerable people can fail, and in this legislation, the consequences of a failure could be fatal.
The safeguards on paper that are meant to prevent patients from being coerced to die cannot truly account for all the pressures of life. Doctors will be asked to adjudicate whether someone is being forced to participate against their will. Take, for example, victims of domestic abuse. Coercive control does not always involve an explicit threat. However, years of manipulation, financial abuse and psychological pressure, leaving someone feeling that they are a burden on those around them, are no less real. A terminal diagnosis, increasing dependency and the prospect of expensive or exhausting care could make those pressures more significant, leading someone to “choose” to die when they may not otherwise have done so.
MDU warns Chancellor clinical negligence system ‘not fit for purpose’
Northern Ireland RE curriculum is ‘indoctrination’ – Supreme Court
The government’s own equality impact assessment of the bill acknowledges that disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to experience domestic abuse, including coercive behaviour. While the bill may insist on doctors being satisfied that a patient’s decision is voluntary, the sheer volume of likely applicants (as many as 10,428 or more by Year 10) increases the likelihood that coercion will be missed. A flawed assessment of a situation can unintentionally lead to a tragic death. Notably, not a single organisation which supports victims of domestic abuse backs this bill.
At the core of our party’s DNA is a commitment to uphold the vulnerable and fight for equality in the face of structural discrimination. It seems to me that this bill, then, given its detailed risks, is at odds with a central tenet of who we are and what we stand for as a party.
That brings me to my second conclusion: not now.
As Andy Burnham has identified and settled on as a priority issue at the very start of his tenure as prime minister, Britain is in the middle of a crisis in palliative and end-of-life care. Three quarters of hospices in England are running a deficit, two in five are planning further clinical cuts, and 380 hospice beds are currently out of use because of funding pressures.
I support and uphold the principles of free choice and bodily autonomy. But it isn’t fair to act like this assisted dying regime would offer a “free choice” in our current climate if the alternative to a premature death is a lengthy wait for a failing care system to come to one’s aid.
The risks within this context will be particularly acute to those who already face structural discrimination. The government’s new equality impact assessment warns that people from ethnic minorities will be disproportionately likely to opt for an early death under the bill due to the influences of poorer access to healthcare, lower-quality care and poverty. If someone is struggling to obtain hospice care, social care, adequate pain relief or support for their family, we should be asking how we provide those things, rather than assuming that the existence of a legal option to die resolves the underlying problem.
Given the high stakes involved, it seems particularly unwise that the vehicle for this attempt to legalise assisted dying was a private members’ bill, and that a threat now looms large that the same bill will be shoehorned into law via the Parliament Acts if need be. The sponsors of the bill seem likely to reject any attempts to amend the text, leaving many significant flaws in the bill highlighted by the House of Lords in the previous session unaddressed by MPs, in order to leave this option on the table. Assisted dying was always going to be a complex issue that required time and dedicated attention to avoid the bear traps inherent in legislation of this kind. Unfortunately, the means being used to bludgeon this clearly flawed bill into law feel recklessly inconsiderate of the importance of getting the content right.
While I remain open-minded on the wider issue of assisted dying, I am equally resolute that this bill, and this timing, falls short of what is safe and fair for our public services and our vulnerable groups. If and when parliament offers a new choice for terminally ill patients at the end of life, we must ensure that they have the care, protection and support to make that choice genuinely free.
If you missed out on getting tickets for Oasis on tour last year, the group has some news you’re probably going to want to hear.
For weeks, there’ve been whisperings suggesting that Liam and Noel Gallagher are planning to hit the road again in 2027, which finally appear to have been confirmed.
And given just how massive the brothers’ last string of shows was – their latest announcement was a pretty epic one.
On Thursday night, the Manchester sky was lit up with a drone show spelling out Oasis’ name using the group’s iconic emblem – as well as a date and time pointing to Monday 14 September at 4pm, which is seemingly when more news of the group’s return will be revealed.
The graphic design company Microdot – who have collaborated with Oasis numerous times over the years – later shared footage of the teaser on their official social media.
If rumours are to be believed, the Gallaghers’ next jaunt will include a residency at Manchester City’s grounds, the Etihad Stadium, which happened to be where the drone display took place.
Reports have also claimed that Oasis will be returning to Knebworth in 2027, 30 years after their record-breaking shows there in the mid-90s.
Meanwhile, Oasis have also been posting footage of cities like Glasgow, Paris, Amsterdam and Rome on their socials, suggesting that they’ll be playing there live next year.
HuffPost UK has contacted Oasis’ reps for comment.
Before any more live shows from Oasis, fans have the tour documentary Don’t Look Back In Anger to look forward to.
Directed by Will Lovelace and Dylan Southern, and written by Peaky Blinders creator Steven Knight, the movie chronicles the brothers’ reunion and features their first joint interview after more than 15 years of estrangement.
Oasis: Don’t Look Back In Anger is in cinemas now.
A close ally of Nigel Farage has been criticised after he complained about the lack of white people working at Heathrow Airport.
Arron Banks was branded “shocking and disgraceful” after he spoke out in a now-deleted post on X.
Banks, who was Reform UK candidate to become the West of England mayor last year, said: “Going through Heathrow today, there wasn’t one white face in security or airport services.
“The Home Office is staffed by the type of people we are trying to keep out! What hope?”
His comments sparked a wave of criticism online.
Tory chairman Kevin Hollinrake said: “What does this say to every non-white adult or child in this country? Born here? Raised here? No matter. Told by a Reform supporter, donor and mayoral candidate Arron Banks that they’re not welcome. Shocking and disgraceful.”
Political commentator Dan Hodges accused Banks of “outright racism”.
The row comes just a week after Zia Yusuf, Reform’s home affairs spokesman, was accused of racism after attacking a Labour council leader born in Somalia.
Sagal Abdi-Wali, who on Wednesday was chosen as her party’s candidate in the upcoming Holborn and St Pancras by-election, came to the UK as a child refugee with her family more than 30 years ago.
She became a Labour councillor in 2022, and has been leader of Camden Council in north London since May.
In a post on X, Yusuf said: “The front runner being foisted on the people of Holborn by Labour to replace the former Prime Minister Keir Starmer in our Parliament was born in Somalia. Do you understand what’s happening?”
It is not the first time that Yusuf’s social media posts have landed him in hot water.
Last month he was slapped down by Nigel Farage after he said Ben Wallace, the former Tory defence secretary who served in the Scots Guards, was “a traitor to Britain”.
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.
ASTIK
7 min read
There were once good arguments for the whips’ silence but Sebastian Whale argues it’s now in their own interests to find their voice
Why don’t whips speak in public? Is there, perhaps, a helium leak in their lairs just off Members’ Lobby? It would, after all, hardly help instil fear if when they spoke it was not in a menacing growl but a squeak.
Nonsense of course, but no less silly than some of the myths about them churned out by the Westminster rumour mill that go largely unanswered as whips stick to their omertà.
Now that Andy Burnham has vowed to reform the whipping system as Prime Minister, they are about to find their roles under intense scrutiny. And this time they should answer for themselves – in public.
Keir Starmer’s relationship with the bulk of his MPs went from bad to worse and his successor wants the whips’ office to act as more of an HR department than a disciplinary organisation.
Among his arguments is that he doesn’t believe the whip should be used to punish people on matters of conscience. “I didn’t see that done in the Blair and Brown years,” Andy Burnham told LBC.
A laudable point, but it does beg the question: when were Labour MPs punished on matters of conscience?
Such issues – think abortion reform, the death penalty, or assisted dying – are typically left well alone insofar as whipping is concerned. There was a bit of a commotion earlier this parliament when a Labour MP complained to the office about the issuing of a three-line whip ahead of a division on decriminalising abortion – but the line of the whip refers to attendance, not how MPs are expected to vote. In this instance, backbenchers were issued with a three-line whip to attend, but a free vote on the matter at hand.
This is a subtle difference unknown to some Westminster dwellers – even the odd MP. But can they really be blamed when the institution at hand remains so quiet on how it works, what it does, and why it exists?
Traditionalists shy from the light. The likes of Gyles Brandreth and former chiefs Tim Renton and Simon Hart – all one-time Tory whips who wrote about life in the office – are still persona non grata to certain diehards.
“Chief whips should never write memoirs nor give detailed interviews about their work or their flock,” argued a former Tory chief whip. During his tenure, the ex-chief handled “one coming out, three marriage problems, and other personal difficulties”. But he would rather go to jail for contempt of court than “reveal any secret of the office or what colleagues said”.
This omertà may seem extreme but his argument is simple and compelling: “If Conservative MPs thought that whips would be writing books or giving detailed interviews then no one would talk to us again.”
Such an outcome would be disastrous. The whips’ pastoral support for colleagues has, on occasion, been life-saving. Were top whips of all political colours to publish what they witnessed in the office, “then we could outsell Nadine Dorries, Jilly Cooper, and God knows how many Shades of Grey”, the ex-chief said, “but we don’t and should never do so.”
Undoubtedly, however, the code of silence has waned – 64 politicians who served in the whips’ office spoke to me for my book – with many now happy to rebut untrue rumours and half-truths, all within clearly defined parameters that don’t dwell on the personal.
So much the better. Where once it made sense for the whips to remain aloof, thereby inculcating respect and fear among new arrivals to Westminster, now the fog has partially lifted. It is time for full disinfecting sunshine.
Some would argue that the whips’ office is already scrutinised and held accountable through the leader of the House, who takes questions in the Chamber related to the Commons and legislation. The office also issues statements and context in response to journalists’ queries or reporting.
It’s not completely unheard of, either, for whips to appear in the media. Labour chiefs in particular have typically been more comfortable speaking to journalists.
There is, too, a degree of accountability in Parliament. Whips from rival parties are constantly negotiating in the ‘usual channels’, through which agreements (and disagreements) are hashed out. These lines of communication have long been a key thread of parliamentary life, and there are consequences for skulduggery – over the decades, opposition whips have refused to co-operate in the wake of perceived wrongdoing or double-crosses by the governing party.
“We could outsell Nadine Dorries, Jilly Cooper, and God knows how many Shades of Grey”
Chiefs have even spoken from the despatch box. In 1975, government chief whip Bob Mellish addressed the House after a prank by his legendary deputy Walter Harrison, who asked Labour MPs to vote twice, once in each lobby, while wearing disguises (the Tories, in an attritional opposition measure, had taken to calling divisions but not voting). Mellish defused accusations of cheating (the vote was never going to stand, as there weren’t enough people to constitute a quorum) by saying: “I spend all my time trying to get as many MPs as I can to go in one lobby. I’m overwhelmed at the enthusiasm of those who voted in two.”
A more sombre example came in late March 1979, when Mellish’s successor, Michael Cocks, announced to the Chamber that an unidentified person had been seriously hurt in an explosion on the parliamentary estate. The person in question was Conservative MP Airey Neave, who died from injuries sustained after a car bomb detonated under his Vauxhall Cavalier.
But I believe it’s time to go further, and have more direct scrutiny.
Whips would be better served by occasionally putting up spokespeople for interviews or having the chief whip and other seniors face the equivalent of a whips select committee or departmental questions in the Commons, perhaps once a parliamentary term, or on an ad hoc basis, such as during business questions.
This could be set with limitations. They should not, for example, discuss individuals or private information. Instead, they would speak about the parliamentary process, the government’s approach to particular votes, or broader whipping principles that may have informed the behaviour in question.
Speaking publicly would help the whips push back against misconceptions and clarify their essential role. From ensuring attendance at unheralded bill committees, responding to procedural prompts in the Chamber, to facilitating two-way communication between No 10 and backbenchers, the whips keep the place going. The public deserves to know that, and understand the whips’ core purpose beyond cajoling MPs into the ‘correct’ division lobby.
There’s a second powerful argument – though few traces remain of the brutality of old, the whips are nonetheless recipients of a potent form of political power: information. And where there’s power, there will be the wrong people attracted to it.
No matter how few the wrong ’uns are in comparison to the good, there will always be friction where whips are privy to MPs’ personal lives, while at the same time lobbying them for their votes. Having more accountability would help to neutralise this threat, reassure backbenchers wavering over who to trust, and preserve the ethos of good whipping that predominates.
The whips’ silence is starting to hurt them: reputationally, strategically, politically.
Everyone with an interest in politics knows they’re not the fearsome enforcers of old, and yet misconceptions about ‘issues of conscience’ persist. With pragmatism going out of fashion, a forthright argument for their raison d’etre has never been more urgent. And who better to make the case than the all-knowing actors at the heart of the parliamentary nexus?
Sebastian Whale is author of The Usual Channels: Inside the Mysterious World of Political Whips
People with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often talk about feeling like there’s a never-ending stream of information or dialogue racing through their minds. But what is that actually like?
In an insightful Reddit thread, people with ADHD have attempted to offer others a glimpse inside their minds.
Describing how there can be a billion thoughts racing at once, Redditor foozballhead said: “Like right now? I’m watching football, reading Reddit posts, while also wondering where a certain piece of mail is, with a separate thought of what I’m gonna pack for lunch tomorrow, and whether to take a shower tonight or just wash my face, but also trying to figure out what is the song that’s playing quietly in the back left corner of my brain, and how am I gonna rearrange my furniture when I move from the smaller bedroom into the bigger bedroom, and how do I move that bookshelf by myself without any help without having to unload it, oh, and I need to turn the porch light on. But also go Seahawks.”
In response, one commenter said: “Wow. I’ve never actually seen it written out that way before.”
Another likened the inside of their mind to a pinball game with the multi-ball in effect. “The pinballs are getting shot around, careening off the bumpers, DING-D-D-D-D-DING. You can faintly hear the tunes playing in the background, along with the occasional narration. The table keeps lighting up. All while you’re trying to control multiple sets of flippers.
“All that at once in my brain. Playing through past events, picturing how future conversations will go, hearing random song lyrics, you name it.”
Someone else (user GonzoPuro) described two extremes that usually play out in their mind. One is “static” or “a gazillion thoughts coming one after the other, cutting each other off so that it’s hard to focus”. And the other is “when it’s tuned to one clear station that is so loud that I can’t hear anything else”.
“This second one seems great until I can’t stop fixating on the thought,” they added.
Many others shared similar stories. Redditor H0pefulUn1verse said they have multiple ‘voices’ that verbalise most of their thoughts: “There’s one that narrates pretty much everything I do. And then there’s multiple random trains of thoughts that are usually all going on at once – lists of things I need to remember, a radio playing 3 seconds of a song I can’t recall, what I want to eat next, internal palilalia of random words, scattered opinions about things I’m experiencing in my body, etc.
“Sometimes it’s louder and more chaotic up in there depending on what’s going on and how I’m doing, and sometimes it’s more chill and I’m able to focus more into whatever I’m engaging in…”
Why does this happen?
One Bright Mental Health, which offers private psychological therapy and neurodevelopmental services, suggests ADHD can manifest as intrusive thoughts and overthinking.
“Intrusive thoughts are unwanted and repetitive thoughts that can be distressing or disturbing. They can take many forms, such as worries, doubts, or even violent or taboo images,” said the experts.
People with ADHD “may have a hyperactive default mode network (DMN), a brain network responsible for mind-wandering and self-referential thought”, they added, which can lead to a constant stream of thoughts that are difficult to control.
Some people with ADHD described how medication had helped them quiet the stream of thoughts that bombards their minds.
“When I’m unmedicated, it’s like I’m in a room with a ton of people having different conversations. I can hear and understand much of what’s being said nearby, but I get less and less info the further away the other people are. When I’m medicated, it’s like everyone lines up in a queue and tells me what they want to say,” said Redditor derberner90.
Another said taking medication had helped them achieve a “quiet brain”. Before that, they experienced “constant running and changing stream of thoughts combined with some song also playing in the background which makes it difficult to process what I need to be doing in the moment or what someone is trying to tell me”.
If you experience persistent intrusive thoughts or a constant flow of thoughts which make it difficult to focus on one thing, it’s worth speaking to your GP.
This article contains spoilers for The Gentlemen season two.
Alongside season leads Theo James and Kaya Scodelario, Guy Ritchie’s TV series managed to bring together two giants of the gangster genre in Vinnie Jones and Ray Winstone.
However, despite both playing key roles in the popular Netflix series, the two actors’ characters, Geoff Seacombe and Bobby Glass, have never crossed paths in the story yet.
This was originally supposed to have changed in season two, with Vinnie teasing to Radio Times: “There’s a scene which we never did in the end, where Geoff goes to the prison to see [Bobby] – which never got done but it was being spoken about.”
Vinnie claimed: “He is that go-between, and he’s got that respect that Bobby would listen to him, Eddie would listen to him, like, ‘Okay, Geoff’.”
“I think he’s got some history, some past, don’t he?” Ray agreed, to which Vinnie said: “Yeah, and Bobby would know that.”
Ray added that he thinks Bobby would “respect” Geoff, suggesting that “maybe that will come” in the next season, “if I’m back”.
Vinnie then quipped he’d “have a word” with Guy, his frequent friend and collaborator, to “see what I can do”.
A third season of The Gentlemen was confirmed to be in the works shortly before the second iteration began streaming, with Guy teasing that the next episodes will expand the show’s in-universe even further.
“The ambition of The Gentlemen has accelerated, the world has expanded and the consequences carry weight,” the director enthused. “A third season felt inevitable, and I’m looking forward to pushing the boundaries of it further.”
Much of the buzz surrounding season three of The Gentlemen has revolved around rumours that Meghan Markle had been in talks about a role following her move back to the UK, which there’ve been conflicting reports about in recent weeks.
Van driver caused death of Olympic athlete, York court hears
Why Beijing’s territorial claims are turning into a boardroom concern for Thai businesses
ADA Price Forecast: Approaches Critical Support as Correction Risks Grow
-
Tech3 days agoMemory prices are slowing because buyers ran out of money
-
Business1 day agoMicron Stock Climbs Above $1,031 as AI Memory Crunch and a $50 Billion Outlook Fuel the Rally
-
Business2 days agoAMD Stock Climbs After Management Lifts 2027 Data Center Outlook Toward $70 Billion in AI Sales
-
Crypto World3 days agoBitcoin price risks $76K drop as $78K support weakens
-
Crypto World3 days agoRobinhood Stock: How To Take Advantage With Reduced Risk
-
Crypto World3 days agoEthereum price stalls below $2,500 as ADX drops to 11
-
NewsBeat3 days agoWhat went right this week: an ‘historic’ fall in violent crime, plus more
-
Crypto World2 days agoBitcoin price risks $70K if $78K neckline breaks
-
Crypto World3 days agoIntel Stock Jumps 9% on Chip Price Hike Report, US Stake Gains $36 Billion
-
NewsBeat3 days agoEngland up in reading, maths and science rankings as Scotland and Wales dip
-
Business2 days agoMeta debuts long-awaited personal AI agent, Muse
-
Crypto World2 days agoBitcoin price holds near $79K as cycle drawdowns narrow
-
Crypto World3 days agoBrent Crude Oil Moves Above $100 for the First Time in 3 Months
-
Crypto World1 day agoEthereum price breakout hinges on a close above $2,535
-
Sports3 days agoPhones confiscated, players sent home: Pakistan’s England tour turmoil revives memories of Mohammad Amir, Salman Butt and Mohammad Asif’s 2010 Lord’s spot-fixing scandal | Cricket News
-
Crypto World3 days agoPump Fun and Kraken delete Hunter Biden $LAPTOP promotion
-
Crypto World23 hours ago2 Chip Stocks Broke Out This Week. Neither Was Nvidia
-
Tech3 days agoStrong Password Policy and Password Manager Guide
-
Crypto World3 days agoVisa expands stablecoin card network to 160 programs
-
Tech3 days agoMeta debuts its Muse AI agent. Will consumers trust it?
You must be logged in to post a comment Login