Nigel Farage has been dubbed “the Enoch Powell of the social media age” after he said that Britain was now a “two tier state against white people”.

The Reform UK leader made the incendiary claim in the first of a series of essays he plans to publish on Substack.

He said he had decided to start using the platform because “the mainstream media constantly distorts what I say”.

In the essay, published on Sunday morning, said the “British state is no longer working for everyone in this country”.

That was in reference to the murder of Henry Nowak, who was arrested and handcuffed by police as he lay dying after being wrongly accused of racism by his killer, Vickrum Digwa.

“There is nothing fair about the way white people have been treated by their governments,” he said.

Housing, healthcare, education, policing, the military and the workplace are all listed as being adversely affected by what he describes as “deeply anti-white racism”.

“Anything which is seen to disadvantage a minority group is cracked down on,” he said.

“Anything which benefits a minority and damages the White British is likely to be left alone.”

On housing, he said that during the last century, “rules which gave priority to local people and ties to the area were stripped away”.

Farage said that under a Reform government, foreign nationals living in social housing would be given a three-month grace period to relocate to private rented accommodation, or face deportation.

But Lib Dem leader Ed Davey accused the Reform leader of “pushing the politics of grievance and division”.

He said: “Nigel Farage has turned into the Enoch Powell of the social media age.

“He’s trying to excuse racist disorder and violence against police officers. He’s pushing the politics of grievance and division that goes totally against our fundamental British values of tolerance and decency.

“Farage is desperate to turn our United Kingdom into his version of Trump’s America. We can’t let him.”

Enooch Powell was a Tory minister who sparked outrage with his infamous 1968 speech warning of “rivers of blood” due to mass immigration.

Former defence minister Al Carns, who resigned in protest at the government’s spending plans for the armed forces, said Farage was “a race-baiter in a Barbour jacket”.

Culture secretary Lisa Nandy told Sky News that Farage “should take his nasty hate and anger and division somewhere else”.

“I think people want hope,” she said. “They don’t want more anger, they don’t want more division, they don’t want more hate, and I wish he’d just take it somewhere else.”

Posting on X, Tory MP Ben Obese-Jecty also rejected Farage’s claims.

“Trying to whip up the politics of grievance will be a genie that’s difficult to put back into the bottle,” he said. “Nigel Farage isn’t stupid. He knows that.”

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.

Sunday scaries – or feelings of dread and anxiety that build before the working week – are believed to affect as many as 67% of UK workers.

Psychologist Kia-Rai Prewitt told Cleveland Clinic it’s an “anticipatory anxiety”, meaning it has to do with your expectations of coming stress in the work week.

We’ve written before at HuffPost UK about signs your Sunday scaries may be more than normal work dread. And new research from travel agent SpaSeekers has sought to find the jobs that make us stress the most before Monday even hits.

The SpaSeekers study, which polled 1,000 UK workers, found that people spend an average of 2.5 hours a week worrying about their work on the weekend. That amounts to 200 days over a lifetime (woah).

Just over a quarter (26%) of employed adults surveyed said that the Sunday scaries make them lose sleep, while 21% shared it means they can’t enjoy the last day of the weekend at all.

Work stress and busyness are the most common sources of anxiety (29%), while a heavy workload affects 23% of employees.

“Imposter syndrome”, or feelings that you’re not good enough, and worries about being asked to come into the office more often, affected 11% of respondents each.

Per this survey, the worst jobs for Sunday scaries were revealed as being:

1) Finance
The Sunday scaries were found to regularly affect 95% of those in this category.

2) Human resources (HR)
Affects: 91%

3) Manufacturing
Affects: 87%

5) IT and telecoms
Affects: 84%

8) Healthcare
Affects: 83%

9) Arts and culture
Affects: 82%

10) Building and construction
Affects: 76%.

Kerry Sutcliffe, a corporate and individual coach at Kerry Sutcliffe Coaching, said: “The Sunday Scaries could be described as a physical alarm bell, telling you that something is not right. It’s a sign, a flashing red light and something you should listen to, pay attention to, and take action on.”

That might include planning your week ahead of Sunday, she added. “I recommend doing this on a Friday afternoon… Once done, you can close the laptop and enjoy your weekend, knowing you’re all set for Monday morning,” she advised.

“Get all of those unhelpful thoughts out of your head and down on paper!”

The NHS suggests you should see a GP about anxiety if you’re struggling to cope with fear and panic, and/or if lifestyle changes like getting enough sleep and exercising don’t help.

The UK government’s decision to ban under-16s from major social media platforms is a significant moment.

It reflects what many parents already know: the online world is exposing children to content and experiences they simply are not equipped to deal with.

But we should be careful not to mistake a step forward for a complete solution.

A social media ban is a bit like putting a lock on the front door while leaving the back door wide open. It will help some children. It will certainly make access more difficult.

But it does not address the wider reality of how young people use technology.

Children are not only spending their time on Instagram, TikTok and Snapchat. They are on WhatsApp. They are on gaming platforms. They are using AI tools. They are communicating through dozens of apps and services that fall outside of the traditional definition of social media.

Harmful content does not magically disappear because one category of app is restricted.

The other uncomfortable truth is that bans tend to work best on children who are already willing to follow the rules. The children most at risk are often the ones most likely to find workarounds, borrow devices, create alternative accounts or simply move to less regulated platforms.

I am not making an argument against action. I am making an argument for the action to go further.

For years, parents have been told that many of the protections they want are technically impossible. We have been told that harmful content cannot be identified. That explicit images cannot be blocked. That meaningful parental controls are unrealistic. The reality is very different.

The technology already exists. At the startup I co-founded, we have built systems that can block explicit content, prevent the sharing of nude images, and give parents meaningful oversight of a child’s digital experience across their entire device, not just one or two apps.

If a startup can build these protections, it is difficult to accept that some of the largest technology companies in the world cannot.

The biggest risk today is not that the government has gone too far. It is that parents are given the impression that the problem has now been solved.

It has not. Legislation will take time. Enforcement will take time. Legal challenges will take time. Meanwhile, millions of children will continue using smartphones every day. Parents need help now, not several years from now.

A social media ban may be part of the answer. But the long-term solution is technology that is designed to protect children from harm wherever that harm appears, not just on a list of banned apps.

The good news is that we do not need to invent that technology. We simply need to use it.

George Bevis is the co-founder of online child safety app Safetymode.com and founder of Tide.

Donald Trump has accused Benjamin Netanyahu of having “no fucking judgment” as he launched another foul-mouthed attack on the Israeli prime minister.

The US president said an Israel’s attack on Beirut on Sunday had “pissed me off very much”.

He was speaking amid fears that the Israeli strikes could scupper a deal to end the Iran war at the last minute.

Speaking to Axios, Trump insisted the bombing had only delayed the agreement “by a few hours” and that it was still due to be signed on Sunday.

Trump said: “Why did Bibi have to do a fucking attack? I was so pissed off. I let him know. He has no fucking judgement. I let him know that.”

Lebanese officials said three people had been killed in Sunday’s attack, which Israel said was on a command centre run by the Iran-backed terror group Hezbollah.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said it was in retaliation for “Hezbollah’s launch of aerial targets toward Israeli territory” earlier on Sunday.

The latest Trump-Netanyahu spat comes less than a fortnight after the president reportedly called the Israeli leader “fucking crazy” in a phone call.

It came after Israel resumed its aerial bombardment of Lebanon.

A source told Axios that Trump told Netanyahu: “You’re fucking crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”

Another source said Trump was “pissed” on the phone call and at one point shouted at Netanyahu: “What the fuck are you doing?”

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.

The Italian beach of Punta Molentis in Villasimìus has introduced a controversial new ban on beach umbrellas for some.

The sandy spot, located on Sardinia’s South-East coast, costs €10 (£8.64, as of the time of writing) to enter.

Once you’re in, only people older than 65 or with a child under 10 can pitch a beach umbrella at the site – and there’s a max limit of one per eligible person or group, The Guardian reports.

It comes alongside a slew of other changes which are designed to protect the area’s ecosystem.

In 2025, the site faced wildfires that left cars burnt out and forced beachgoers to flee by boat, per the BBC.

“The ecosystem of Punta Molentis is among the most precious in our territory, but also among the most fragile,” the council explained.

“The fires of 2025 and exceptional marine weather events have reduced the capacity of the sandy shore and put habitat and biodiversity to a severe test.

“Because of this, it is necessary to limit human impact and ensure the protection of this heritage for future generations.”

As a result of the disaster and the risk for future fires, authorities have decided to limit the number of beach visitors to 150 at a time (pre-booking is needed to secure a spot). You can’t park more than 70 cars a day nearby, either.

Opening hours run from 8am-9pm, and you aren’t allowed to leave towels, umbrellas, tents, or chairs overnight.

The official notice also asks people to check the beach’s fire risk level before visiting, too.

Under the governing body’s Facebook post addressing these changes, one person wrote: “I advise the mayor and the entire council that voted for this outrage to visit a dermatologist to learn about the risks of skin cancer to which they are exposing us to profit from those who want to enjoy the sea at Punta Molentis”.

Another commented, “If [we] pay 20 euros for entry and parking, who are you to ban umbrellas?”

And on a separate post on the same page, yet another site user said: “To protect the beach, the only solution is to close it and make it inaccessible for a few years, to allow flora and fauna to reclaim their place. This is just a sneaky way to hand it over to the rich”.

They joked, “Do we need a black market to rent out children and the elderly?”

Apologies in advance, but there’s a pretty gross reason our pillowcases turn yellow.

The colour change is usually due to a buildup of our sweat, skin oils, hair oils, and drool – and parts of these deposits, like proteins and fats, yellow with age. (Rarely, clear sweat changes hue after contact with bacteria in a process called pseudochromhidrosis.)

Depending on how discoloured your pillowcase has become, a regular wash might not cut through this residue.

Luckily, though, some experts say there’s a two-ingredient solution to the problem.

Panda London said that a “mixture of baking soda and water” can help to banish stubborn stains.

They reccomend turning it into a paste and applying it to your case before washing. Begin with a small patch to test whether it works on your material.

Southern Living recommended a similar method.

Baking soda, they explained, can help to lift stains and boost the effectiveness of your detergent later on.

Spot-treat affected areas with a baking soda and water paste, they suggest, before rubbing off the mixture before washing.

When you do chuck the offending item in your machine, make sure to add 110-135g of baking soda in your drum alongside your usual detergents.

The Spruce said you should wait until your paste is completely dry before removing it and putting it in the wash.

They also point out that baking soda “softens clothes and boosts the detergent’s power,” and can even help to keep your washing machine drum clean.

Lastly, speaking to Ideal Homes, Petya Holevich, a cleaning expert at Fantastic Services, said it could help to improve the smell of your pillowcase, too: “Baking soda acts as a natural deodoriser and mild pillow stain remover”.

For more severe stains, oxygen bleach may be needed.

This is a “safer alternative to chlorine bleach for whitening,” Holevitch said.

Soak your clothes in a mixture containing the product for at least an hour before washing.

However, there are exceptions: silk, wool, and fabric with leather strips or wooden buttons can suffer in the solution.

Make sure you check the care label on your pillowcase first.

Keir Starmer will announce that under-16s will be banned from accessing the biggest social media platforms as part of plans to “keep children safe online”.

The prime minister, who had previously been opposed to such a ban, will use a Downing Street press conference on Monday morning to unveil the plans.

He is expected to say that the UK will follow Australia’s example in raising the minimum age to 16 for sites including TikTok, Instagram, Threads, Facebook, X, YouTube, Snapchat and Reddit.

More than 90% of parents backed the move in a government consultation.

Starmer said: “How we keep kids safe online is one of the biggest debates of our time. As a dad, I know every parent wants their child to grow up safe and happy.

“This is a choice about whose side we’re on: families across the country, or a status quo that isn’t working.

“People rightly expect action, and this government will always stand up for parents and put children first.

“That’s why we will call time on a system that’s failing our kids and take bold action to give every child the best possible start in life.”

But the father of a teenager who took her own life after viewing harmful content online accused the prime minister of “playing politics” by rushing the announcement amid speculation about his future.

Ian Russell, whose daughter Molly died in 2017 aged just 14, said the PM’s behaviour was “deplorable”.

Speaking to the BBC’s Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg programme, he said: “In opposition, Keir Starmer promised to tighten up the online safety world by regulating better.

“Early last year, father to father, I met with him briefly and he was very concerned – and he promised me he would look into effective solutions to deal with this problem.

“But as we sit here on the verge of this announcement, it seems that he’s not kept either of those promises.”

He said the prime minister had “promised a group of bereaved parents” an announcement could be expected by the summer recess, which falls in mid-July, “so he’s rushed that forward for some reason”.

“I can’t think of a reason other than a political reason… if he’s playing politics, what he’s doing is gambling with young people’s lives – and I find that deplorable,” he said.

Starmer is also expected to announce a social media curfew for 16 and 17-year-olds after 8.30pm.

Critics pointed out that Labour also want to lower the voting age to 16.

Liberal Democrat education, children and families spokesperson Munira Wilson said: “The government appears to have cobbled together a hodgepodge of social media restrictions which don’t keep children safe, nor hold big tech’s feet to the fire.

“The government must heed the lessons from Australia and stand up to big tech with a credible set of measures that genuinely protects our children, rather than rushing through a half-baked policy just to secure a political legacy.”

Tory shadow education secretary Laura Trott said: “It’s shameful that it’s taken the Prime Minister’s job to be on the line for the government to finally U-turn and ban social media for under 16s.

“Three times Labour voted against a ban, failing to stand up to Big Tech and protect children from the extreme content they are exposed to every day.”

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.

President Donald Trump announced on Sunday that his administration has reached a peace deal with Iran more than three months after the US and Israel launched a disastrous war that has put intense strain on the world’s energy supply, and left the Iranian regime strengthened and emboldened.

The agreement constitutes the most notable diplomatic development since the strikes on Iran began on February 28.

American and Israeli forces decapitated the Iranian government by reportedly acting on information that many of the country’s top leaders would be in the same place at the same time.

The Iranian regime, however, has managed to sustain its grip on power, even in the wake of mass protests that were put down with ruthless violence earlier this year.

After some initial confusion among Trump’s own Republican Party as to what the US military action was ultimately meant to accomplish, the president began repeating that Iran could not be permitted to develop a nuclear weapon, and that the Strait of Hormuz needed to be reopened to commercial shipping, as it was before the war began.

He has also said that Iran’s nuclear “dust” — or the remnants of nuclear materials that were targeted in US airstrikes last summer — must also be destroyed. The issue of how the country will dispose of its highly enriched uranium has long been a point of contention.

Fully reopening the Strait of Hormuz is expected to alleviate some of the pressure on global fuel markets, which have seen major spikes in oil and gas prices due to the closure of the waterway.

Prior to the Iran war, 20% of the global oil and gas supply moved through the Strait.

Iran effectively shut it down by threatening to attack ships that attempted to cross, leaving some crews stranded on ships waiting for the conflict to resolve.

Casualty estimates from the war vary, with the Israel Defense Forces estimating some 6,000 Iranians have been killed. The US officially counts 13 deaths on its side.

News of a previous possible deal between the US and Iran drew pushback in May from some Senate Republicans, who favored a harsher approach toward Iran.

Trump had signalled he would not be rushed into an agreement. He repeatedly pushed back on the idea that the upcoming midterms were putting political pressure on him, due to rising prices that could be directly tied back to his decision to launch the war.

“I don’t care about the midterms,” Trump said bluntly at one point. At another, when asked whether he shared Americans’ concerns over the high cost of living, he was even more abrasive.

“The only thing that matters when I’m talking about Iran — they can’t have a nuclear weapon. I don’t think about Americans’ financial situation. I don’t think about anybody. I think about one thing — we cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That’s all,” he said.

He doubled down on that sentiment last week, saying, “I love the inflation.”