Britain's Alex Yee braved the waters of the Seine to win the men's triathlon test event for the Paris Olympics on Friday, on a course identical to the one set...

Shortly before hard-right Republicans made history by ousting Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the House of Representatives, Ukraine’s western allies, including the UK, the European Union and Nato, received a phone call from President Joe Biden. Congress may be frozen but support for Ukraine is “ongoing”, Mr Biden told those on the line. It was intended as a message of reassurance but, devoid of any detail, it spoke to an impending issue largely outside of the president’s control. Hardline Republicans in the US, the powerhoue of the West, are threatening to demonstratively derail US aid to Ukraine for the first time since last February. Mr McCarthy was removed as head of the lower chamber of the United States Congress, on Tuesday evening following a dispute over how best to allocate government funds for the next fiscal year. The campaign was spearheaded by a group of eight Republicans – a number of them supporters of Donald Trump – angry the domestic issue of securing the border was not being prioritised over supporting Ukraine. The move has plunged the House into chaos and frozen its ability to allocate money completely, including to Ukraine. Until a new speaker is elected and a new financing agreement is approved for next year – a temporary funding bill takes them to 17 November – those reliant on these funds are living on borrowed time. The US is currently operating a policy of taking equipment from its military stocks and sending them straight to Ukraine under the agreed “President Drawdown Authority”. This circumvents the need to buy new equipment from defence companies, which would inevitably delay military aid to a nation that needs it immediately. Congress last year raised the ceiling on the amount the president can take from these military stockpiles from $100 million (£82.4 million) to $14.5 billion (£11.9 billion) to ensure continued support for Ukraine. The Pentagon subsequently sought to get the most out of its funds. But when the fiscal year ended on 1 October without an agreement in the House over how to finance next year, that drawdown authority went back to $100m. Given the burn rate per month for Ukraine of military aid, including artillery and heavier equipment lost in battle, is about $2.5bn, the lowered ceiling of $100m is “basically nothing”, according to Max Bergmann, director of the Europe, Russia and Asia programme at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank. US aid to Ukraine has nearly three months worth of funds (up to $6 billion) to keep feeding its military needs but after that, without a resolution in the House, the stockpiles will run dry. The ousting of Mr McCarthy has made hopes of a resolution evermore difficult. Without a speaker, no decisions can be made. “There is no way to sugarcoat how bad it would be if US security assistance [to Ukraine] stops,” Mr Bergmann said. “A lot of Ukrainians will die and their ability to fight on will be severely compromised.” Russian strikes on critical infrastructure across Ukraine has already begun ramping up, making Kyiv’s need for more air defence systems to protect its civilians more acute. If US funding slows or stops this task beomes far more difficult. Along the frontline, a winter Ukrainian offensive, or the continuation of the current summer counteroffensive, will become exponentially harder the more foreign military aid dwindles. Ukraine’s Armed Forces have become used to attritional warfare, which involves bombing enemy positions before advancing in small groups, retaking small chunks of territory in the process. This requires a continual supply of artillery and shells. Without this, not only are advances more difficult but the threat of a Russian counterattack is heightened. There is also the geopolitical implication of reduced support: it would prove correct the Russian belief that their deep military and personnel resources can outlast Western resolve. “Such a lapse in support will make [Russian President Vladimir] Putin believe that he can wait us out,” US national security council spokesman, John Kirby, said on Tuesday, describing this issue as “just as critical” as the impact on the frontline. European aid will go some way to slowing a potential dilution of US support but they have their own long-term problems regarding arming Ukraine. “The continent collectively has underinvested in defence,” Mr Bergmann said. “There is not as much in the warehouses; there is less ammunition and less mortar rounds.” The House of Representatives, ruled by a razor-thin Republican majority, will now have to vote for a new speaker. Representative Steve Scalise, the number two House Republican, has long been favoured to take over as speaker and enjoys wide support from across his party, but he is currently undergoing chemotherapy for blood cancer. The House, then, must elect a new speaker from a pool of options that are either in the middle of treatment or will struggle to earn enough support to secure any form of sustainable leadership in the House. While they debate and jostle, Ukraine will get closer to losing its most significant military supporter. Read More Kevin McCarthy ousted as US House speaker by Trump supporters – everything you need to know White House says ‘time not our friend’ on Ukraine funding as all eyes on next House speaker Ukraine-Russia war – live: Kyiv launches 31 drones on Putin’s territory as offensive gains momentum

Days after asking for the public’s help to determine what happened at a California protest that resulted in a Jewish demonstrator’s death, authorities say they still have no video of the incident and are urging patience as they investigate

She expressed admiration for Saget's comedic genius, noting that her appreciation for this form of art has grown even more after getting to know him

Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s administration says it has finalized new policies on the treatment of transgender students

Amber Husain was cooking dinner for a friend when she suddenly realised the meat she was preparing was a corpse. She looked at the chicken in front of her and was overcome with a visceral sense of disgust. Instead of food, she saw “a carcass – plucked, beheaded, and fleshy”. Husain was 26 when she had this epiphany, and it served as a wake-up call not just for her stomach but her mind, too – as her personal tastes shifted away from meat products, her political outlook on the meat industry and food production more broadly also altered and expanded. Five years later, that moment of revulsion forms the opening of her new book, Meat Love, in which she scrutinises the idea of “ethical” meat consumption, and dares to ask how the contemporary middle classes have come to criticise “the worst violence against animals” while still happily feeding on their flesh. Why, for example, has well-heeled, middle-class London gone nuts for slurping bone marrow from the shin bones of baby cows? Why is offal on so many trendy menus? How has contemporary culture at large come to accept that factory farms are monstrous, but that if animals are cared for, cherished and loved while alive, we should feel better about killing them for our carnivorous pleasures? “For ages, I was one of those carnivores who felt mildly bad about eating meat but just turned that into this inane, self-consciously sadistic part of the pleasure of it all,” Husein tells me. “The more my diet started to revolve around stuff that wasn’t meat, the weirder meat started to feel. Interestingly, once my stomach had been radicalised, I found I had a much greater intellectual openness to thinking about the politics of meat.” Having freed herself from the conflict of eating meat but also feeling bad about it, she found she was able to go beyond those questions of morality – which she suggests can be “stifling” – and think politically. “Now that I have no desire to eat animals, there’s nothing to stop me reckoning with what it means that the meat industry [consists of] an underclass of both humans and animals who are exploited and – in the animals’ case – killed for pleasure and profit.” This is the essential crux of Husain’s argument, and it’s something often lacking in discussions around the “ethics” of meat consumption. For Husain, the question is not, “how can humans eat meat responsibly?” but “how are certain lives devalued to an extent that their suffering can be written off, in order to ‘make a killing’?” What she’s saying, in other words, is that whether the meat on the table has come from a factory farm or an organic farm, or whether you’re tucking in at Burger King or the River Cafe, the path to the plate is still paved with violence. And, while current cultural trends may claim it is better to love and respect an animal before killing and consuming it, perhaps what this cultivates is the ability to embrace exploitation “in a spirit of virtuous indulgence”. What does it really mean, for all living beings, if love is imagined as compatible with killing? “To slide your buttery hand between the flesh and skin of a thing that, if only for a moment, you have re-learnt to perceive as a corpse, is to give an invigorating massage to your sense of political possibility,” Husain writes in Meat Love. By the slim book’s end, her invigorated “sense of political possibility” has led to “a ravenous hunger – a desire for a different culture, a different society”; a new world “in which no one, neither animal, immigrant, worker, woman, or peasant, was considered a thing to be owned, controlled, killed, or left to die”. For many, the leap from a chicken breast on a plate to the exploitation of oppressed people around the globe might seem like a vast one. Yet, it certainly seems clear that there has been a marked shift in the way meat is conceived and consumed – among the middle classes, at least. Since the turn of the millennium, foodie figures like Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall have been promoting “seasonal, ethically produced food” as part of a broader commitment to caring for the environment. At the same time, a distinctly carnivorous spirit has taken hold – one that professes to be an “honest”, “grounded” and “down to earth” ethos. “Good food, good eating, is all about blood and organs, cruelty and decay,” Anthony Bourdain wrote at the start of the 1999 New Yorker article that would, eventually, catapult him into global foodie fame. I find it easy to laugh at Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and people like that, but I’m not totally convinced that they’re really the bad guys Lewis Bassett Then there’s Fergus Henderson and St John – the illustrious London restaurant, born in 1994 on the premises of a former bacon smokehouse, which popularised “nose to tail” dining. This offal-centric “no waste” approach is neatly summed up in Henderson’s oft-quoted phrase: “If you’re going to kill the animal, it seems only polite to use the whole thing.” Traditionally “cheap cuts” are “elevated” from a source of sustenance for the working classes, to a source of virtue for the urban bourgeois. According to its own cookbook, St John dishes combine “high sophistication with peasant roughness” – that winning aesthetic formula that also sees middle-class urbanites flocking to farmers’ markets and chugging natural wine. In a sharp and searing piece for food and culture newsletter Vittles, writer Sheena Patel dubs this “Rich Person Peasantcore”, asking: “Why are these influencers pretending that they themselves till the land and eat like 17th-century French peasants when in fact their chopping boards cost more than most people’s rent?” In the face of swathes of small plates adorned with offal, and slices of ham served for upwards of £20, it seems like a pertinent question not just for influencers, but also for today’s trendiest restaurateurs and diners. Lewis Bassett is a chef and the host of The Full English podcast, which, over its two seasons, has dived into everything from the birth of “modern European” cuisine to high food prices, factory farms, and why Britain is in love with Greggs. “It’s interesting the way we create these fantastical worlds for us to eat within,” he says. “It is clearly a fantasy to imagine that you can have the rural experience of a peasant in France or Italy, in modern-day Britain.” Yet, he also says that this trend is far from new. The current “rustic” style – typified by “nose to tail eating” – is, he suggests, “intimately tied with what you could call a culinary and broader cultural movement that appears in the wake of countercultural movements in the Sixties, and eventually finds its way into food, especially as some of those countercultural people get a bit older and a bit more affluence”. Essentially, “it’s the same thing that manifested in places like Habitat,” he says, of the homewares and furnishings brand founded in 1964 by Terence Conran. Both design and dining were transformed, offering experiences to the middle classes that were both refined and casual at the same time. Alongside that cultural shift, and “that fashion for pared-down forms of eating out”, Bassett notes the arrival of a broader awareness of environmental and animal welfare concerns. “It’s obviously easy to ridicule these middle-class forms of culture,” he says, “but these concerns are ones I certainly share and I think should be considerations for everyone. I find it easy to laugh at Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and people like that, but I’m not totally convinced that they’re really the bad guys.” So is there a danger that legitimate backlash to the “thrifty rural”, “nose to tail” trend – and bourgeois “peasantcore” more broadly – could spill over into an attack on all food industry attempts at sustainability? “I think people don’t want stuffy fine dining experiences,” Bassett says, “but at the same time, having the kind of pared-down, rustic, ‘peasant food’ – like, having ham served to you at St John costs you 20 quid – maybe people are slightly sick of that.” He quickly adds, though, that he is “not saying it can come any cheaper than 20 quid, because when you spend a lot of time and effort rearing animals properly, and paying chefs properly, and paying rents in your restaurants, that racks up”. It seems there is a tension, then, between practical and immediate ethical matters – such as paying food industry staff liveable wages or reducing food waste – and broader questions about what kind of society we wish to live in or create. Is the question of “ethical” meat consumption, as Husain suggested, “beyond morality” – a question of politics only? Or is it still, at heart, a moral dilemma, based on people’s personal sense of “right” and “wrong”? Summing up Husain’s attitude towards animals in Meat Love, Bassett suggests “she’s saying that, if you love them so much, why are you killing them? I suppose where Amber Husain and I would slightly disagree is that I’m not convinced that killing an animal is inherently wrong.” Away from the carnal appreciation and “peasantcore” of contemporary restaurant culture, meat-eating often seems to be conceived as either a “guilty pleasure” or a “grim necessity”. In all these cases, however, there appears to be an overriding sense that there is “no alternative” to a meat-eating status quo. The late cultural critic Mark Fisher famously used similar terms to define “capitalist realism”, meaning that capitalism is the only viable economic system, and thus there can be no imaginable alternative. Is it possible we’re also stuck in a kind of “carnivorous realism”? If so, it might be because the two are so interlinked. As Husain puts it, “meat is the inevitable outcome of an economic system that relies on cheap labour and cheap life. But that doesn’t mean meat is a necessity, it means a new economic order is a necessity.” Perhaps taking the leap from a vegetarian diet to full-scale social and economic revolution still seems unthinkable to many. But, in nasty, brutish and austere times, it has also perhaps never been more necessary to seriously consider who can eat, and who is made meat. “I think we need an avalanche of political will from within the food justice, land justice, climate justice and labour movements to radically transform society,” Husain says. With that as the goal, she believes it isn’t helpful “for us to be clinging to the idea of meat as a pleasure”: “If we can’t imagine something other than animal flesh to eat for dinner we might struggle to imagine an entirely different society.” ‘Meat Love: An Ideology of the Flesh’ by Amber Husain is out now Read More Between Brexit and Covid, London’s food scene has become a dog’s dinner – can it be saved? It’s time for booze bottles to have health warning labels Should I give up Diet Coke? With aspartame under suspicion, an addict speaks Food portion sizes on packaging are ‘unrealistic and confusing’, says Which? In Horto: Hearty, outdoorsy fare in a secret London Bridge garden Zero-fuss cooking: BBQ pork ribs and zingy Asian slaw

Tua Tagovailoa reminds Boomer Esiason of Joe Cool.

YouTube has launched a verification system for UK-based doctors, nurses, and other healthcare professionals to help Britons dodge medical misinformation online. UK-based users accounted for more than two billion video views of clips on health conditions in 2021. YouTube added a new seal of approval to accounts run by licensed doctors, nurses, psychologists, and other health practitioners or organisations who have passed stringent verification checks to fight misinformation. YouTube head of UK health Dr Vishaal Virani said the move to verified health videos for UK users was crucial due to the number of Brits accessing healthcare information through the video-sharing platform. Dr Virani told the BBC: “Whether we like it or not, whether we want it or not, whether the health industry is pushing for it or not, people are accessing health information online. We all know how difficult it can be to differentiate between healthcare information from trusted and reliable sources and content which is inaccurate or doubtful provenance Professor Dame Helen Stokes-Lampard “We need to do as good a job as possible to bring rigour to the content that they are subsequently consuming when they do start their care journey online.” The verification system began accepting applications from UK-based healthcare professionals to those with an active medical licence in June. Accounts that applied to the verification scheme are now starting to receive their YouTube mark of authenticity on their videos, to make it as easy as possible users to know if the information has come from a qualified healthcare professional. Potential health creators submitting their accounts have to go through a rigorous, multi-stepped verification process that works in partnership with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and the NHS. Health creators also have their past videos scrutinised and do not receive verification if previous videos uploaded to YouTube have contained any medical misinformation. Chairwoman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges Professor Dame Helen Stokes-Lampard said the partnership with YouTube had resulted in a positive solution for all. Dame Helen said in a statement: “We all know how difficult it can be to differentiate between healthcare information from trusted and reliable sources and content which is inaccurate or doubtful provenance. “I am pleased to say we have been able to draw on our own expertise and that of organisations from across the UK healthcare landscape to produce an easy-to-apply set of principles which will ultimately benefit everyone who turns to YouTube seeking trustworthy health information.” YouTuber and doctor Simi Adedeji has already received her YouTube tick of approval. But Dr Adedeji told the BBC that her videos, which primarily focus on skin health and women’s health, are not to be used in lieu of making an appointment with a medical professional for real-life advice. Dr Adedeji said: “There’s a difference between giving medical education, which is what we’re doing, and giving medical advice, which we don’t do. “It’s about giving medical information so that the audience feels empowered and can then go and see their doctor.” Read More Charity boss speaks out over ‘traumatic’ encounter with royal aide Ukraine war’s heaviest fight rages in east - follow live Should you swap your foundation for a lightweight skin tint? What should you do if you think your child is being bullied at school? What women should do if they experience violence online

Sophia Gibb was both with a condition that affects 1 in 26,000. Her accomplishments as an athlete make her 1 of 1.Sophia Gibb originally shared her story with Yoocan, a global collaborative community where people with disabilities share experiences and knowledge — so that no one feels alon...

Government officials meet as teachers refuse to work following the latest reported infestation.

Volvo today unveiled the EX30, its smallest, most affordable electric vehicle yet. European customers can

Freddy Peralta combined with three relievers on a one-hitter, Christian Yelich homered on the game’s first pitch and Milwaukee shut out the Cincinnati Reds for the third straight game, a 3-0 win that gave the Brewers sole possession of the NL Central lead