Venue: All England Club Dates: 27 June-10 JulyCoverage: Live across BBC TV, radio and online with extensive coverage on BBC iPlayer, Red Button, Connected TVs and mobile app.Britain’s Cameron Norrie reached the Wimbledon semi-finals by fighting back to beat David Goffin in a memorable five-set thriller which left the home fans celebrating jubilantly.Ninth seed Norrie, 26, battled hard to secure a 3-6 7-5 2-6 6-3 7-5 win against unseeded Belgian Goffin.As his name was chanted around Court One, he was overcome with emotion.Norrie will now contest his first Grand Slam semi-final, meeting defending champion Novak Djokovic on Friday.Asked for his reaction to beating Goffin, Norrie said: “Honestly? Speechless. I can’t even talk.”The British men’s number one, known for his laid-back demeanour, showed a unusual flicker of emotion during his on-court interview.The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were among the 10,000 or so fans who watched as the world number 12 absorbed the finest moment of his career.Norrie added: “I think just winning a match like this, I’m in shock. I don’t know what to say now.”I have flashbacks of all the hard work and all the sacrifices I have had to make and it’s definitely paid off – and it feels pretty good.”Norrie is the first British man to reach the Wimbledon singles semi-finals since Andy Murray in 2016 and the first British player since Johanna Konta in 2017.Next he faces top seed Djokovic, who is chasing a fourth successive title at the All England Club.The 35-year-old Serb was given a huge scare by Italy’s Jannik Sinner before fighting back to win in five sets earlier on Tuesday.”It great to get this now but it’s only going to get tougher,” added Norrie.”I’m going take it to Novak and hopefully you guys can get behind me and I’m sure you will.”More to follow.
Published41 minutes agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesThe chancellor and health secretary have resigned from government, saying they no longer have confidence in Boris Johnson to lead the country.Chancellor Rishi Sunak said the public expected government to be conducted “properly, competently and seriously”. Health Secretary Sajid Javid echoed this, saying the government was not “acting in the national interest”.The resignations came minutes after the PM apologised for appointing MP Chris Pincher to a government role.Mr Johnson admitted he had made a “bad mistake” in appointing Mr Pincher to the role of deputy chief whip earlier this year, despite being told about earlier allegations about the MP’s conduct.His handling of the row has come in for fierce criticism from the opposition and some of his own MPs.But the BBC understands Foreign Secretary Liz Truss, Levelling Up Secretary Michael Gove and other cabinet ministers are backing the prime minister as he assesses the scale of the rebellion against his leadership.Rishi Sunak and Sajid Javid resignation letters in fullPM regrets appointing Chris Pincher after complaintPincher suspended as Tory MP after groping claimPM under renewed pressure over Pincher appointmentAsked if that was an error to appoint Mr Pincher, Mr Johnson said: “I think it was a mistake and I apologise for it. In hindsight it was the wrong thing to do.”I apologise to everybody who has been badly affected by it.”The resignations of two senior cabinet ministers plunge Mr Johnson into a fresh leadership crisis weeks after he survived a no-confidence vote.Mr Johnson won the backing of a majority of Tory MPs in the vote despite a significant revolt against his leadership.The PM won 59% of the vote, meaning he is now immune from a Conservative leadership challenge until June next year under party rules.Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said cabinet ministers should act in the national interest to remove Mr Johnson from office, urging them to resign, or force him to do so.”They know what he’s like,” Sir Keir said. “He’s said that he’s psychologically incapable of changing, and therefore they have to do what’s in the national interest and remove him.”Is this the beginning of the end for Boris Johnson? During the course of the day, some of the PM’s prominent critics called on government ministers to put pressure on the prime minister to resign.A chancellor, Rishi Sunak, and an ex-chancellor, Sajid Javid, have done just that.Both men see their resignations as necessary if the PM is to be pushed out.Both may be positioning for a future leadership contest.But even now, Downing Street will hope to avoid this.Boris Johnson still has his foreign secretary, home secretary, defence secretary and business secretary.And, remember, a beleaguered Gordon Brown survived a ministerial resignation because the rest of his cabinet stayed loyal, when he was in Number 10.But it now seems more likely that other ministers, in more junior roles, who have been privately critical of Boris Johnson could follow Mr Sunak and Mr Javid’s lead.Mr Johnson’s government has been dogged by a series of controversies since the Conservatives won a landslide election victory in 2019.Discontent among Tory MPs has grown since a highly critical report into lockdown parties in and near Downing Street during the Covid-19 pandemic was published earlier this year.The report laid bare the extent of Covid rule-breaking in Number 10, including at a birthday party Mr Johnson was fined by the police for attending in June 2020.The fine meant Mr Johnson became the UK’s first serving prime minister to be sanctioned for breaking the law.Some Tory MPs have also expressed dissent over tax rises, the government’s response to rising living costs and its policy direction.More on this storyResignation letters in full58 minutes agoLord McDonald’s Chris Pincher letter in full10 hours agoPM was briefed on Pincher says Simon McDonald9 hours agoPM was made aware of a formal Pincher complaint13 hours ago
The prime minister has said it was “a mistake” to appoint Chris Pincher, and it was the “wrong thing to do” to make the MP deputy chief whip.Boris Johnson said the MP had behaved “very, very badly” and apologised to those who has been affected.The PM says a complaint was made against Chris Pincher in the Foreign Office three years ago.Mr Pincher has denied previous allegations of sexual misconduct. The BBC has approached him for a comment about a complaint made about an alleged incident while he was a minister in the Foreign OfficeLIVE: PM did not recall hearing about Pincher complaint – minister
Published2 hours agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, LurpakButter brand Lurpak has said the price of its products has gone up so that dairy farmers get a fair deal.Lurpak was trending on Twitter as shoppers expressed shock at the price of the spread in supermarkets. A 750g tub is £7.25 in Sainsbury’s.Asda said photos of the butter covered in security tags did not indicate that they were being stolen more often, but an issue in an individual store.Lurpak said: “Prices on the shelves have had to rise in recent months.”A statement from Lurpak’s owner Arla Foods said: “We understand that recent inflation in food price is hitting many households really hard right now. “Unfortunately, our farmers are facing a similar situation with prices for the feed, fertiliser and fuel they need to produce milk, all rising significantly in recent months.”While we don’t set the prices on the shelves, we do work closely with the retailers to ensure our farmers receive a fair price for the milk they produce.”Britain in 2022… Lurpak butter is at £6 a tub in ASDA and even has a security tag on it. Mental! 😂🤦🏼♂️ pic.twitter.com/ZxOocgYeZg— Charlie Bennett (@CharIieBennett) July 5, 2022
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.View original tweet on TwitterAsda said its largest pack of Lurpak had been at about the £6 mark since last year, its price had not changed and it was not considered high value.”We’ve no data to suggest it’s being stolen more than anything else or more than it has been in the past,” a spokesperson said.”Asda hasn’t started tagging this product as a rule, individual stores may add tags to products they may have noticed have been going missing.”Sainsbury’s said: “The price of products will be influenced by a range of factors, including manufacturer’s costs, and we are doing all we can to mitigate rising costs where we can.”A spokesperson for the supermarket pointed out it had own brand options and butter was also part of its Sainsbury’s Quality, Aldi Price Match campaign.Food securityRetail analyst Steve Dresser, chief executive of Grocery Insight, said high costs for production, energy, fuel and other raw materials at the start of the supply chain were now making their way to the shelf edge.He said: “Paying farmers a fair price is important for our wider food security and as their costs rise, the price paid for their produce has to rise too. It all leads to a higher cost price and thus, a higher shelf price. “Of course, Lurpak is a brand with a distinctive taste and lots of loyal fans, but it’s a reminder that other (cheaper) brands are also available.”A non-promotional price for Lurpak at £5/£7/£9 is a reminder of the significant inflationary pressure we’re all feeling at the minute. “We often hoped with Covid we’d flatten the curve, with inflation, it’s a similar story. But we see no signs of the upper trajectory slowing down, let alone levelling off.”
Published27 minutes agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Sarah LappinA woman said she was left feeling humiliated after she was ordered from a swimming pool for breastfeeding.Sarah Lappin had finished a parent-and-toddler swimming session at the pool in Rhyl, Denbighshire, when she began feeding five-month-old son Kalel.But a lifeguard asked the 31-year-old to leave the pool if she wished to continue, even though it is legal to breastfeed in public.Rhyl Leisure Centre bosses have apologised for causing offence.Keen swimmer Ms Lappin said she had breastfed all five of her children in the same pool and was shocked to be told to stop by the lifeguard, who told her: “It’s the rules.”Breast milk bank opens in SwanseaTaking pictures of breastfeeding mothers in public to be made illegalNHS Wales urged to give autistic mothers better helpMs Lappin carried on feeding Kalel as she felt “there’s no such rule”.”He whistled at me again, and said I will have to leave if I carry on breastfeeding in the pool,” she said.”I kept my calm and replied that I can’t stop him once he’s on. Everyone was looking now.”Ms Lappin lodged a complaint with the deputy manager who, she said, told her she would speak with the lifeguard.She said: “I felt so humiliated. I am a very proud breastfeeding mother and have been feeding for almost a decade now with five children.”I have never come across such negative behaviour towards a mother breastfeeding her infant.”Image source, GoogleShe worried some mothers could have had their confidence knocked by being spoken to in such a manner. “There are people who think it’s nudity, or that it should be done in private or at least covered with a blanket or in a breastfeeding room, hidden away,” she said.”It’s wrong to think a mother has to hide to do a perfectly natural thing. It’s our right as women to feed our babies where we want, as it’s not just a source of food, it’s their comfort and makes them feel safe.”She dismissed fears breastfeeding in a pool could be a health hazard.Denbighshire Leisure, which runs Rhyl Leisure Centre, said the company supported breastfeeding.A spokesman said: “We do not prevent any person from breastfeeding in our facilities, but on this occasion, the breastfeeding was taking place in the water.”It is very unclear whether or not a baby should or should not be fed in the water due to conflicting views on the health risks and the heightened risk of vomiting in the pool, which would result in a pool closure.”They said they would seek advice from health professionals and make changes as required.”We apologise for any offence this may have caused,” the spokesman said.More on this storyMum told to stop breastfeeding at Sainsbury’s6 days agoMum creates breastfeeding app to support women16 December 2021Company defends selling human breast milk26 August 2021
Published42 minutes agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesThe Scottish government’s top lawyer was not prepared to sign off on an independence referendum bill, court papers have revealed.Lord Advocate Dorothy Bain has asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether Holyrood has the power to legislate for a vote without UK government consent.She said she currently “does not have the necessary degree of confidence” that it does.Nicola Sturgeon has said she wants to hold a referendum on 19 October 2023.The Lord Advocate is still expected to argue the Scottish government’s case at the Supreme Court, and she said there was an issue of “exceptional public importance” for judges to resolve.The indyref2 questions facing the Supreme CourtSturgeon raises indyref2 plan in call with PMMs Sturgeon still hopes to win the agreement of UK ministers for a fresh referendum, but had asked the Lord Advocate to refer the matter to the Supreme Court for a ruling on whether one could go ahead without the backing of Westminster.She told MSPs that this would “accelerate to the point when we have legal clarity and legal fact”.However, papers lodged with the court suggest that the Lord Advocate would not have backed ministers in tabling a referendum bill while the question of whether Holyrood has the powers to do so remained unresolved.All bills must be accompanied by a statement underlining that they are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament, which must be cleared by the Lord Advocate.The reference to the Supreme Court said that in the case of a referendum bill, “the Lord Advocate does not have the necessary degree of confidence” to do this.Instead, it said that Ms Bain “considers there is a genuine issue of law that is unresolved”, and this is of “exceptional public importance to the people of Scotland”.Image source, Getty ImagesShe also said that the matter was directly relevant to a key manifesto pledge which she said had been endorsed by the Scottish public, with the SNP and Greens holding a majority of the seats at Holyrood.Ms Bain wrote: “The Scottish government, the Scottish Parliament and the people of Scotland and the wider United Kingdom ought to have clarity on the scope of the relevant reservations on this issue of fundamental constitutional importance. “Being questions of law, only this court can provide that clarity and unless the issue is judicially resolved there will remain uncertainty and scope for argument about the powers of the Scottish Parliament. That is not in the best interests of the people of Scotland or of the United Kingdom.” Ms Bain will submit a written note of argument to the court, while the UK government will be asked to respond. The Welsh and Northern Irish administrations have also been notified.Handling of the case is currently with the president of the court, Lord Reed – a Scottish former Court of Session judge. He will decide the timescales on which the case will be heard, and whether any preliminary issues need to be dealt with first.If the Scottish government wins the case, Ms Sturgeon said the bill would be introduced at Holyrood and passed swiftly to allow a vote to happen in October 2023.However if judges rule against this, the first minister said the SNP would treat the next UK general election as a “de facto referendum” and seek to use the result to trigger independence negotiations.It was the centrepiece of Nicola Sturgeon’s big referendum announcement – the Supreme Court would be asked to settle once and for all the long-standing question of Holyrood’s powers.The tactic of having the Lord Advocate push the matter to the courts immediately was an innovative one which caught Holyrood’s opposition parties and indeed the UK government on the hop.However, it appears the first minister actually had little choice. Her previous strategy was to pass the bill, then defend it in court against an inevitable challenge, but these papers show that the Lord Advocate would not have signed off on the key first step in that plan.It may make little difference in the grand scheme of things. We are still going to court, and the Lord Advocate is still arguing the case for MSPs having the power to legislate for indyref2.But this illustrates the narrow room for manoeuvre the first minister has on this issue – and the potential difficulty of winning over the judges of the Supreme Court.Image source, Getty ImagesOpposition MSPs had pressed for Ms Bain to give a statement to parliament following Ms Sturgeon’s announcement, but this did not happen before Holyrood’s summer recess.The UK government remains opposed to a referendum with Deputy Prime Minister Dominic Raab saying on Tuesday that the position has not changed.He told MPs: “We do not think that now is the right time for a second referendum, given all the pressures and challenges and given the outcome of the first.”I think what the people of Scotland want to see is both their governments – in Edinburgh and in Westminster – working closely together.”Scottish Conservative constitution spokesman Donald Cameron claimed that the papers that had been sent to the Supreme Court showed that the SNP was “playing political games by going to court in order to stir up grievance.”He added: “Now we know why the Scottish government, shamefully, failed to allow the Lord Advocate to appear before Parliament last week, ahead of the summer recess – because Scotland’s top law officer is not confident that the First Minister’s plan to hold a divisive and unwanted referendum has any legal basis.”Scottish Labour MSP Sarah Boyack said: “It is clear from the document that the Lord Advocate does not have confidence that what the SNP is proposing is legal.”With the country in the midst of a cost of living crisis, it is deeply disappointing to see Nicola Sturgeon return to the politics of the past.”
Published3 hours agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Met PoliceA “truly dangerous” man who targeted women on the streets of east London has been found guilty of murdering a woman as she left home to take food to her sons ahead of the first Covid lockdown.James Sinclair stabbed to death 40-year-old Shadika Patel, who he did not know, in East Ham, on 19 March, 2020.He was also convicted by the jury of attempting to murder Beverley Barzey, 48, the next night in Islington.Prosecutor William Emlyn Jones QC called it “the stuff of nightmares”.Sinclair is set to be sentenced at the same court, the Old Bailey, on Friday.During the trial, jurors were told Ms Patel had been planning to deliver a food parcel to her two teenage sons after it was announced the capital would soon be placed into lockdown to stop the spread of Covid-19.CCTV images were shown at the trial of Sinclair going up to Ms Patel after she had left her home on the night she was killed.After a “brief and slightly awkward” conversation the defendant and Ms Patel parted.Image source, Met PoliceBut Sinclair then ducked out of view and put a glove on his hand before running towards her and stabbing her seven times in the face, head and shoulders, jurors were told.The following night Sinclair approached Beverley Barzey in Axminster Road, Islington, north London.Sinclair had led his victim down an alleyway before attacking her with a machete-style knife, stabbing her 16 times.Travel to BrazilNeighbours were woken up by her screams and shouted at the defendant who ran off, the court heard.DNA traces from the two women were found on clothing and a trainer police had seized from Sinclair’s hostel address in Poplar, showing a one-in-a-billion match.Sinclair booked a flight ticket and planned to travel to Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, on 27 March, just a day after he was arrested, Mr Jones QC said.The jury was told that Sinclair had chosen not to attend to his trial.Defence barrister Gillian Jones QC said it was his “right” to be absent and told the jury not to hold it as evidence against him.Follow BBC London on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. Send your story ideas to [email protected] on this storyStabbing murder was stuff of nightmares, jury told6 days agoRelated Internet LinksHM Courts & Tribunals ServiceThe BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
Published1 hour agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, PA MediaAn undercover police officer, posing as a criminal, was invited into a military armoury, a court has heard.It was part of a plot by two serving Coldstream Guards officers to sell him ammunition, prosecutors allege.Southwark Crown Court heard the police officer also visited Kirtland Gill’s house to collect a batch of bullets.Mr Gill, 41, denies conspiracy to sell ammunition and possession of a prohibited weapon. Rajon Graham, 33, previously admitted selling ammunition.At the time of the alleged offences – between December 2020 and January 2021 – Mr Gill was serving with the Coldstream Guards – part of the Household Division, which is responsible for the protection of the Queen and guarding Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.The court has heard how Graham sold a total of 300 9mm Parabellum bulleted cartridges, which he called “sweets”, to the police officer, referred to as “D”.The bullets were wrapped in Bacofoil bags, and sold for £5,800 in cash across four meetings with “D”, the jury was told.’Nervous on camp’The court heard Graham had taken “D” to Victoria Barracks, near Windsor Castle, where the regiment, known for its red jackets and black bearskin hats, is based, on 17 December 2021.Giving evidence from behind a screen, the officer said: “When we entered the camp, he had obviously spoken to the guards at that point.”I was nervous of being on a military camp in the way I was portraying myself as a criminal.””D” said they parked on the parade square, while waiting for Graham’s friend, who he said was being interviewed by The Sun newspaper.The court has heard Mr Gill was interviewed because he was the first black regimental sergeant major in the Household Division.The undercover officer told jurors he said to Graham, who he knew as “Solj”, that he thought it was “too risky” for him to be on the base.’Did not enter armoury'”He kept saying it was fine, I was with him and while I was with him everything would be okay,” “D” said.But asked by prosecutor Duncan Atkinson QC if he took Graham up on an offer to view rifles in the armoury, D said: “No. I decided that was a bad idea.”It was a challenge to go into the Army base, but to go into the armoury with live weapons with whom I perceived to be a serious criminal was not a risk I was willing to take.”Graham is then said to have driven “D” to Mr Gill’s nearby home to collect a batch of ammunition, which he bought for £1,000.The trial continues.Follow BBC South on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram. Send your story ideas to [email protected] on this storySoldiers sold ammunition for cash, court hears1 day agoRelated Internet LinksHM Courts and Tribunals ServiceThe BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.
A Premier League and international player arrested in north London on Monday on suspicion of rape has been questioned over two further rape allegations against a different woman.The Metropolitan Police said on Tuesday the man had been further arrested on suspicion of two incidents of rape in 2021 against another woman.He has been bailed until August.The Met Police said in a statement: “On 4 July, an allegation of rape of a woman in her 20s was reported to police.”It was reported the alleged rape happened in June 2022. On 4 July, a 29-year-old man was arrested at an address in Barnet on suspicion of rape and taken into custody.”While in custody, he was further arrested on suspicion of two incidents of rape that were alleged to have been committed in April and June of 2021 against a different woman in her 20s.”He has subsequently been released on bail to a date in August. Enquiries into the circumstances are ongoing.”
Published2 hours agoSharecloseShare pageCopy linkAbout sharingImage source, Getty ImagesA big burst of exercise at the weekend is as good as spreading activity out across the week, according to a study.US researchers tracked 350,000 people over 10 years to see how well so-called weekend warriors fared. The findings, in the JAMA Internal Medicine journal, suggest the type and total amount of exercise count, rather than how many sessions.At least 150 minutes a week of moderate intensity exercise is recommended. Going for a brisk walk, a light effort cycle on a bike or playing doubles in tennis would count towards this.Or you could do 75 minutes of vigorous activity – something like running, swimming or playing a game of football – say health experts in guidance published by the NHS. Many of the participants in the US study clocked up this amount in a week. But some crammed it into one or two sessions rather than spacing it out. Those who reached their recommended level of activity, whether during the week or the weekend, had lower a death risk than those who did less than the recommend amount.Image source, Getty ImagesThe NHS also says people should do some form of physical activity everyday including strength exercises and try not to stay seated for extended periods of time.Strength exercises include yoga, pilates and heavy gardening. Very vigorous activity that can help achieve recommended physical activity levels and can be done in shorter, sharper bursts, includes:high-intensity interval trainingspinning classeslifting heavy weights hill sprintingBreathe harderBritish Heart Foundation senior cardiac nurse Joanne Whitmore said: “This large study suggests that, when it comes to exercise, it doesn’t matter when you do it. “The most important thing is that physical activity is undertaken in the first place.”Whether you cram your exercise in on the weekend or spread it across the week, aim for 150 minutes of moderate-intensity activity each week. “Exercise can improve your health, reducing your risk of heart and circulatory diseases like heart attack and stroke.”Moderate-intensity activities make you breathe harder and make your heartbeat faster than usual but you should still be able to have a conversation whilst doing them.”The NHS also recommends:toddlers are active for at least 180 minutes a daychildren and young people are active for about an hour a day More on this storyWeekend exercise ‘warriors’ boost health10 January 2017Could music festivals be good for your health?5 August 2019Related Internet LinksJAMA Internal MedicineThe BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites.