The chairman, Lord Hughes, found there were "failings" in the management of Sergei Skripal, 74, who was a member of Russian military intelligence, the GRU, before coming to the UK in 2010 on a prisoner exchange after being convicted of spying for Britain. But he found the assessment that he wasn't at "significant risk" of assassination was not "unreasonable" at the time of the attack in Salisbury on 4 March 2018, which could only have been avoided by hiding him with a completely new identity. Mr Skripal and his daughter Yulia, 41, who was also poisoned, were left seriously ill, along with then police officer Nick Bailey, who was sent to search their home, but they all survived. Dawn Sturgess, 44, died on 8 July, just over a week after unwittingly spraying herself with novichok given to her by her partner, Charlie Rowley, 52, in a perfume bottle in nearby Amesbury on 30 June 2018. Mr Rowley was left seriously ill but survived. In his 174-page report, following last year's seven-week inquiry, costing more than £8m, former Supreme Court judge Lord Hughes said she received "entirely appropriate" medical care but her condition was "unsurvivable" from a very early stage. The inquiry found GRU officers using the aliases Alexander Petrov, 46, and Ruslan Boshirov, 47, had brought the Nina Ricci bottle containing the novichok to Salisbury after arriving in London from Moscow with a third agent known as Sergey Fedotov to kill Mr Skripal on 2 March. The report said it was likely the same bottle Petrov and Boshirov used to apply the military-grade nerve agent to the handle of Mr Skripal's front door before it was "recklessly discarded". "They can have had no regard to the hazard thus created, of the death of, or serious injury to, an uncountable number of innocent people," it said. It is "impossible to say" where Mr Rowley found the bottle, but was likely within a few days of it being abandoned on 4 March, meaning there is "clear causative link" with the death of mother-of-three Ms Sturgess. Lord Hughes said he was sure the three GRU agents "were acting on instructions", adding: "I have concluded that the operation to assassinate Sergei Skripal must have been authorised at the highest level, by President Putin. "I therefore conclude that those involved in the assassination attempt (not only Petrov, Boshirov and Fedotov, but also those who sent them, and anyone else giving authorisation or knowing assistance in Russia or elsewhere) were morally responsible for Dawn Sturgess's death," he said. Russian ambassador summonsed After the publication of the report, the government announced the GRU has been sanctioned in its entirety, and the Russian Ambassador has been summonsed to the Foreign Office to answer for Russia's ongoing campaign of alleged hostile activity against the UK. Sir Keir Starmer said the findings "are a grave reminder of the Kremlin's disregard for innocent lives" and that Ms Sturgess's "needless" death was a tragedy that "will forever be a reminder of Russia's reckless aggression". "The UK will always stand up to Putin's brutal regime and call out his murderous machine for what it is," the prime minister said. He said deploying the "highly toxic nerve agent in a busy city centre was an astonishingly reckless act" with an "entirely foreseeable" risk that others beyond the intended target would be killed or injured. The inquiry heard a total of 87 people presented at A&E. Lord Hughes said there was a decision taken not to issue advice to the public not to pick anything up which they hadn't dropped, which was a "reasonable conclusion" at the time, so as not to cause "widespread panic". He also said there had been no need for training beyond specialist medics before the "completely unexpected use of a nerve agent in an English city". After the initial attack, wider training was "appropriate" and was given but should have been more widely circulated. In a statement following the publication of his report, Lord Hughes said Ms Sturgess's death was "needless and arbitrary", while the circumstances are "clear but quite extraordinary". "She was the entirely innocent victim of the cruel and cynical acts of others," he said. 'We can have Dawn back now' Speaking after the report was published, Ms Sturgess's father, Stanley Sturgess, said: "We can have Dawn back now. She's been public for seven years. We can finally put her to peace." In a statement, her family said they felt "vindicated" by the report, which recognised how Wiltshire police wrongly characterised Ms Sturgess as a drug user. But they said: "Today's report has left us with some answers, but also a number of unanswered questions. "We have always wanted to ensure that what happened to Dawn will not happen to others; that lessons should be learned and that meaningful changes should be made. "The report contains no recommendations. That is a matter of real concern. There should, there must, be reflection and real change." Wiltshire Police Chief Constable Catherine Roper admitted the pain of Ms Sturgess's family was "compounded by mistakes made" by the force, adding: "For this, I am truly sorry." Russia has denied involvement The Russian Embassy has firmly denied any connection between Russia and the attack on the Skripals. But the chairman dismissed Russia's explanation that the Salisbury and Amesbury poisonings were the result of a scheme devised by the UK authorities to blame Russia, and the claims of Petrov and Borisov in a television interview that they were sightseeing. The inquiry chairman said the evidence of a Russian state attack was "overwhelming" and was designed not only as a revenge attack against Mr Skripal, but amounted to a "public statement" that Russia "will act decisively in its own interests". Lord Hughes found "some features of the management" of Mr Skripal "could and should have been improved", including insufficient regular written risk assessments. But although there was "inevitably" some risk of harm at Russia's hands, the analysis that it was not likely was "reasonable", he said. "There is no sufficient basis for concluding that there ought to have been assessed to be an enhanced risk to him of lethal attack on British soil, such as to call for security measures," such as living under a new identity or at a secret address, the chairman said. He added that CCTV cameras, alarms or hidden bugs inside Mr Skripal's house might have been possible but wouldn't have prevented the "professionally mounted attack with a nerve agent". Sky News has approached the Russian Embassy for comment on the report.

Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS, Spain's RTVE, Ireland's RTE and Slovenia's RTV immediately issued statements saying they will not participate in the 2026 contest following the European Broadcasting Union's general assembly meeting on Thursday. Members from 37 countries were asked to vote in a secret ballot on whether they were happy with tougher new rules announced last month, without going ahead with a vote on participation next year. It followed criticism from some broadcasters of Israel's role in Eurovision amid the war in Gaza, and allegations this year's vote had been manipulated in favour of their contestant. In a statement, the EBU, which organises Eurovision, said members had shown "clear support for reforms to reinforce trust and protect neutrality". Golan Yochpaz, chief executive of Israel's public broadcaster KAN, said during the meeting that attempts to remove them from the contest could "only be understood as a cultural boycott", according to a statement shared by the organisation. Israel's president Isaac Herzog posted on X following the announcement, saying: "Israel deserves to be represented on every stage around the world, a cause to which I am fully and actively committed... I hope that the competition will remain one that champions culture, music, friendship between nations, and cross-border cultural understanding." Boycott announcements - what have broadcasters said? The broadcasters from Spain, Ireland, Slovenia and the Netherlands had all said earlier in the year that they would not participate in 2026 should Israel be allowed to continue in the competition. In a statement following the general assembly meeting, RTE confirmed it will not take part or broadcast the competition. "RTE feels that Ireland's participation remains unconscionable given the appalling loss of lives in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there which continues to put the lives of so many civilians at risk," the broadcaster said. AVROTROS, broadcaster for the Netherlands, said that "under the current circumstances, participation cannot be reconciled with the public values that are fundamental to our organisation". General director Taco Zimmerman said it had not been an easy decision, adding: "Culture unites, but not at any price. What has happened over the past year has tested the limits of what we can uphold." Confirming its withdrawal, Spain's RTVE highlighted how its board of directors had agreed in September that the country would withdraw "if Israel was part of it". This is a big deal for Eurovision, as Spain is one of the "Big Five" broadcasters - a group which also includes France, Germany, Italy and the UK. While the host broadcaster - as last year's winners this is Austria this year - will often contribute most towards the cost of staging the contest, the Big Five will also make up a significant amount. Slovenian broadcaster RTV said it was pulling out of the competition "on behalf of the 20,000 children who died in Gaza". In her address to members before the decision, Natalija Gorsck, RTV Slovenia board chairwoman, said: "For the third year in a row, the public has demanded that we say no to the participation of any country that attacks another country. We must follow European standards for peace and understanding. "Eurovision has been a place for joy and happiness from the very beginning, performers and audiences have been united by music, and it should remain that way." Eurovision 'is for broadcasters, not governments' But Austria's broadcaster ORF said it was happy with the decision and is looking forward to hosting next year. Roland Weissman, ORF director-general, said the contest was a competition for broadcasters, "not governments", and that he had personally advocated for Israel's participation. "In the spirit of fostering cultural dialogue and supporting and strengthening the democratic role of public broadcasters, it was important not to burn any bridges," he said, adding that concerns raised by some members had been taken seriously. "Naturally, I would regret it if broadcasters were to decide against participating," he added. "I see the Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna as an opportunity to emphasise what unites us rather than what divides us - United by Music." Politics has always played a part in Eurovision, despite the EBU's insistence that it remains politically neutral. Countries have pulled out or been banned in previous years - most notably Russia in 2022, just days after the invasion of Ukraine. But this exodus could be Eurovision's biggest political crisis yet, with suggestions that other broadcasters may follow suit. Iceland's broadcaster RUV said its board would discuss participation at a meeting next Wednesday, after previously agreeing to a motion to recommend Israel be expelled. The BBC, which broadcasts the competition in the UK, said it suppoeted the collective decision. "This is about enforcing the rules of the EBU and being inclusive," it said in a statement. Earlier this year, outgoing BBC director-general Tim Davie said the corporation was "aware of the concerns" raised, but the song contest had "never been about politics". How have the rules changed? In November, the EBU announced it was changing its voting system. This followed allegations of "interference" by Israel's government earlier this year. The rule changes annnounced in November came after Israeli singer Yuval Raphael received the largest number of votes from the public at the 2025 event, held in Basel, Switzerland, in May - ultimately finishing as runner-up to Austria's entry after the jury votes were counted. But a number of broadcasters raised concerns about Israel's result. Key changes to next year's competition include: • Clearer rules around promotion of artists and their songs• Cap on audience voting halved• The return of professional juries to semi-finals• Enhanced security safeguards It was these changes members were secretly balloted on at the general assembly. With a "large majority" voting that they were happy with these changes, the EBU said there was no need for a further vote on participation. Speaking after the discussion, EBU president Delphine Ernotte Cunci said the result demonstrates members' "shared commitment to protecting transparency and trust in the Eurovision Song Contest, the world's largest live music event". Thanking members for their "thoughtful, respectful and constructive contributions" during the session and throughout the year, she said these discussions had led to "meaningful changes" to the rules, ensuring the contest "remains a place for unity and cultural exchange".

"We now know the black hole was fake, the chancellor's book was fake, her CV was fake - even her chess claims are made up," said the Tory leader. Politics Live: Labour MP who voted against inheritance tax suspended "She doesn't belong in the Treasury; she belongs in la-la land." Chess claims made up? Where did that attacking move from Kemi come from? Hasn't the chancellor told us for years that she was a national chess champion in 1993? Indeed she has. "I am - I was - a geek. I played chess. I was the British girls' under-14 champion," she declared proudly in a 2023 interview with The Guardian. She posted a video showing her playing chess in parliament and before last week's budget posed for photos with a chessboard. But her chess champion claim has been disputed by a former junior champion, Alex Edmans, who has accused her of misrepresenting her credentials. "Her claim was quite specific," Edmans, now a professor of finance at the London Business School, told Ali Fortescue on the Politics Hub on Sky News. "She said she was the British girls' under-14 champion. There was one event that can go on that title, which is the British Championship. And in the year that she claimed, it was Emily Howard who won that title instead. "She did indeed win a quite different title. There was a British Women's Chess Association championship, but that's a more minor title. I've won titles like the British squad title, but that's not the same. "Just like running a marathon in London is not the same as the London Marathon, there was one event which is very prestigious, which is the British Championship. "So the dispute is not whether she was a good or bad chess player. That shouldn't be the criterion for a chancellor. But if you weren't the British champion, you shouldn't make that statement." Read more from Sky News:Mysterious tentacles wash up on Scottish beachAustralia's under-16s social media ban Oh dear! So now, along with allegations of plagiarism, a dodgy CV and "lying" - according to Ms Badenoch - about the nation's finances, the chancellor is between a rook and a hard place. Or is she? "This story is absolute nonsense," a Treasury mate told Sky News. No word from the No.10 knight, Sir Keir Starmer, or his Downing Street ranks, however. Emily Howard, as it happens, is now an accomplished composer, having graduated from the chessboard to the keyboard. The chancellor's opponents, meanwhile, claim her budget blunders means the Treasury queen has now become a pawn, there for the taking. But since Rachel Reeves did indeed win a chess title, just not the one she claimed, her supporters insist she can justifiably claim to have been a champion. So it's too soon for Kemi Badenoch and the Conservatives to claim checkmate. The dispute remains a stalemate. For now.

In their draw at St James' Park, Newcastle were controversially awarded a spot-kick after the Tottenham midfielder was penalised for pulling Burn to the floor, with questions over whether it was a foul. Speaking on a special midweek edition of Ref Watch, Dermot explained: "I think it raises a number of issues. "Just before the corner came in, Thomas Bramall went to the two players and said to Bentancur 'you're facing the wrong way'. 'I don't understand!' - Was VAR wrong to give Newcastle penalty against Spurs?Newcastle 2-2 Tottenham - Match report and highlightsRef Watch as it happened - Chelsea, Celtic, Rangers and more "He's told them. Now if I was that referee, when I go back to my position, that's who I'd be focused on. "Clubs were warned about players not facing the ball, which he never is. There's no doubt about it and he runs the risk of giving a penalty away. "The referee is focused on those players - you have to think that because he's made that decision. "So you would think he's seen that and thinks it's not a penalty. The VAR then looks and says 'is it a clear and obvious error.' "They're grappling and he [Bentancur] is not looking at the ball. The referee clears it, the VAR says no and the referee goes to the screen, where he sees something he didn't see in the match. "That's a mystery to me - why he identifies that and then ignores it." Former Premier League striker Jay Bothroyd also believed it was a penalty, adding: "When I initially saw this, I thought it could be a bit soft. The more I see it, the more I agree. It's a definite penalty. "When you learn how to play football, you learn how to mark. Your shoulders are open so you can see, you can feel and you can glance at the same time. "Dan Burn has initially tried to run there and then he's tried to duck around the other side. Bentancur has turned around because he knows he's in a bad decision and he's trying to block him. That's why I think he's given the penalty." There were plenty of other incidents analysed on Ref Watch too, including a five-and-a-half-minute VAR check at Molineux... Wolves 0-1 Nottingham Forest INCIDENT: Nottingham Forest had a goal disallowed at Wolves. As a corner came in, Igor Jesus headed home but keep your eye on the player just in front of the goalkeeper. The goal was initially given but VAR Rob Jones checked if Dan Ndoye was in an offside position and interfering with the eyeline of the goalkeeper. The process took over five minutes to review by VAR. DERMOT SAYS: "It was [the right decision], but too convoluted. "You could clear this up so quickly because you see the shot from behind the goal, it's clearly in the goalkeeper's line of vision. "You see it from the side, it's clearly in the goalkeeper's view and impacting because it's so close. He's clearly offside. "The assistant should know he's in an offside position. Whether he knows he's in an offside position is a different matter. "As an official, you have your headsets. You pool your resources. Say to the referee: 'he's in an offside position.' The referee can see where he is. He can say 'he's in front of the goalkeeper.' "That takes five seconds. Flag goes up, whistle goes, free-kick taken." BOTHROYD SAYS: "I looked at that in full speed and straight away, I could see that was offside. It's easy to see. "I don't know why that takes five and a half minutes. I don't know what they're looking at. I can't wrap my head around it. "The linesman is the funny thing for me because what is he really looking at? It looks like he has laser focus down the line but he's missed something so obvious. "Does he not want to take responsibility to make his own decision? What're you waiting for? "Referees are relying on VAR. It seems like they don't want to be wrong and don't want to be called out, just in case they do make a bad decision." Liverpool 1-1 Sunderland INCIDENT: Liverpool's Dominik Szoboszlai appeared to push Sunderland defender Dan Ballard in the back in the area but nothing was given. DERMOT SAYS: "What happens is Ballard is not going to get the ball. He feels a touch on his back and just goes down. It also proves that it is a full-contact game and making contact with a player isn't necessarily a foul." JAY BOTHROYD: "He realises he is ahead of Szoboszlai. When he's ahead of him, he tries to back in to initiate contact. "It's not a case of Ballard was standing and Szoboszlai pushes him. They are both moving into that area. Ballard realises he's in front. He stops and plants his legs and Szoboszlai goes into the back of him." Brighton 3-4 Aston Villa INCIDENT: In the lead-up to Brighton's first goal, they were awarded a corner but replays show it shouldn't have been given. Matty Cash headed the ball, but it appeared to make contact with the Brighton player before going out of play. Brighton then scored from the corner through Jan Paul van Hecke. There was then a VAR check for handball for the goal itself, but not for the corner and the goal stood. DERMOT SAYS: "It's interesting because I don't see it as judge and jury. I see it as a mindset. "When I was a referee, one of the things you do is take a little bit of time. You'll be amazed, if you wait one second, how the landscape changes and you can gather a little bit more information to make a decision. "The clue there was the Brighton player. He gives himself up. These are all the clues you are looking for." Should VAR rules change to decide on corners? BOTHROYD SAYS: "You can't change rules during the season. I genuinely think big rule changes can happen, but you should be able to make modifications during the season. "That's a modification that we can make. So far this season, there have been about four or five occasions where a corner has been given, they score from it, and it's not the correct decision. I think it needs to be looked it but, how far do you go? "Do you then go to throw-ins? Now, we're playing in an era where there's a long throw. If that throw goes the wrong way and someone throws it in the box and they score from it, do you look at it?" DERMOT SAYS: "You can't change the rules or protocols without an experiment. Usually if you're going to do it, you usually do so in a youth league or a league in another country. "There isn't enough time to do that before the World Cup, so now they're talking about trialling at the World Cup. "It comes out of massive fear. Imagine two teams are playing in the World Cup final, five minutes to go. That incident happens, a goal is scored and a team win or lose the World Cup on that. It will never be forgotten or forgiven."

Dutch broadcaster AVROTROS, Spain's RTVE, Ireland's RTE and Slovenia's RTV immediately issued statements saying they will not participate in the 2026 contest following the European Broadcasting Union's general assembly meeting on Thursday. Members from 37 countries were asked to vote in a secret ballot on whether they were happy with tougher new rules announced last month, without going ahead with a vote on participation next year. It followed criticism from some broadcasters of Israel's role in Eurovision amid the war in Gaza, and allegations this year's vote had been manipulated in favour of their contestant. In a statement, the EBU, which organises Eurovision, said members had shown "clear support for reforms to reinforce trust and protect neutrality". Golan Yochpaz, chief executive of Israel's public broadcaster KAN, said during the meeting that attempts to remove them from the contest could "only be understood as a cultural boycott", according to a statement shared by the organisation. Israel's president Isaac Herzog posted on X following the announcement, saying: "Israel deserves to be represented on every stage around the world, a cause to which I am fully and actively committed... I hope that the competition will remain one that champions culture, music, friendship between nations, and cross-border cultural understanding." Boycott announcements - what have broadcasters said? The broadcasters from Spain, Ireland, Slovenia and the Netherlands had all said earlier in the year that they would not participate in 2026 should Israel be allowed to continue in the competition. In a statement following the general assembly meeting, RTE confirmed it will not take part or broadcast the competition. "RTE feels that Ireland's participation remains unconscionable given the appalling loss of lives in Gaza and the humanitarian crisis there which continues to put the lives of so many civilians at risk," the broadcaster said. AVROTROS, broadcaster for the Netherlands, said that "under the current circumstances, participation cannot be reconciled with the public values that are fundamental to our organisation". General director Taco Zimmerman said it had not been an easy decision, adding: "Culture unites, but not at any price. What has happened over the past year has tested the limits of what we can uphold." Confirming its withdrawal, Spain's RTVE highlighted how its board of directors had agreed in September that the country would withdraw "if Israel was part of it". This is a big deal for Eurovision, as Spain is one of the "Big Five" broadcasters - a group which also includes France, Germany, Italy and the UK. While the host broadcaster - as last year's winners this is Austria this year - will often contribute most towards the cost of staging the contest, the Big Five will also make up a significant amount. Slovenian broadcaster RTV said it was pulling out of the competition "on behalf of the 20,000 children who died in Gaza". In her address to members before the decision, Natalija Gorsck, RTV Slovenia board chairwoman, said: "For the third year in a row, the public has demanded that we say no to the participation of any country that attacks another country. We must follow European standards for peace and understanding. "Eurovision has been a place for joy and happiness from the very beginning, performers and audiences have been united by music, and it should remain that way." Eurovision 'is for broadcasters, not governments' But Austria's broadcaster ORF said it was happy with the decision and is looking forward to hosting next year. Roland Weissman, ORF director-general, said the contest was a competition for broadcasters, "not governments", and that he had personally advocated for Israel's participation. "In the spirit of fostering cultural dialogue and supporting and strengthening the democratic role of public broadcasters, it was important not to burn any bridges," he said, adding that concerns raised by some members had been taken seriously. "Naturally, I would regret it if broadcasters were to decide against participating," he added. "I see the Eurovision Song Contest in Vienna as an opportunity to emphasise what unites us rather than what divides us - United by Music." Politics has always played a part in Eurovision, despite the EBU's insistence that it remains politically neutral. Countries have pulled out or been banned in previous years - most notably Russia in 2022, just days after the invasion of Ukraine. But this exodus could be Eurovision's biggest political crisis yet, with suggestions that other broadcasters may follow suit. Iceland's broadcaster RUV said its board would discuss participation at a meeting next Wednesday, after previously agreeing to a motion to recommend Israel be expelled. The BBC, which broadcasts the competition in the UK, said it suppoeted the collective decision. "This is about enforcing the rules of the EBU and being inclusive," it said in a statement. Earlier this year, outgoing BBC director-general Tim Davie said the corporation was "aware of the concerns" raised, but the song contest had "never been about politics". How have the rules changed? In November, the EBU announced it was changing its voting system. This followed allegations of "interference" by Israel's government earlier this year. The rule changes annnounced in November came after Israeli singer Yuval Raphael received the largest number of votes from the public at the 2025 event, held in Basel, Switzerland, in May - ultimately finishing as runner-up to Austria's entry after the jury votes were counted. But a number of broadcasters raised concerns about Israel's result. Key changes to next year's competition include: • Clearer rules around promotion of artists and their songs• Cap on audience voting halved• The return of professional juries to semi-finals• Enhanced security safeguards It was these changes members were secretly balloted on at the general assembly. With a "large majority" voting that they were happy with these changes, the EBU said there was no need for a further vote on participation. Speaking after the discussion, EBU president Delphine Ernotte Cunci said the result demonstrates members' "shared commitment to protecting transparency and trust in the Eurovision Song Contest, the world's largest live music event". Thanking members for their "thoughtful, respectful and constructive contributions" during the session and throughout the year, she said these discussions had led to "meaningful changes" to the rules, ensuring the contest "remains a place for unity and cultural exchange".

The organisation has launched an indicative ballot among about 7,000 members working in film and TV. Performers are being asked whether they are prepared to refuse to be digitally scanned on set in order to secure adequate artificial intelligence protections. It will be the first time the performing arts and entertainment trade union has asked this whole section of its membership to vote in a ballot. The announcement follows the Hollywood strikes in 2023, when members of Equity's sister union in the US, SAG-AFTRA, and writers, went on strike over issues including AI. Video game actors in the US also protested over the use of AI, ending almost a year of industrial action earlier in 2025. Equity's ballot opens on Thursday and runs for two weeks, and will show the level of support the union has for action short of a strike. Another statutory ballot would have to be made before any industrial action is taken. "While tech companies get away with stealing artists' likeness or work, and the government and decision makers fret over whether to act, unions including Equity are at the forefront of the fight to ensure working people are protected from artificial intelligence misuse," Equity general secretary Paul W Fleming said in a statement. "If bosses can't ensure someone's likeness and work won't be used without their consent, why should performers consent to be digitally scanned in the first place?" Mr Fleming said the ballot would give members the opportunity to "send a clear message to the industry: that it is a basic right of performers to have autonomy over their own personhood and identity". The union has no choice but to recommend members support industrial action, he said. "It's time for the bosses to step away from the brink and offer us a package, including on AI protections, which respects our members," added Mr Fleming.

Christopher Harborne gave Nigel Farage's party £9m in August, according to new data published by the Electoral Commission. The contribution ranks as the largest ever single donation from a living person in UK political history. Born in Britain, Mr Harborne is a businessman who owns several companies, employing more than 600 people worldwide, according to a court filing dated last year. Yet he's not resident in the UK, and is also a citizen of Thailand, where he is known as Chakrit Sakunkrit, and has lived and worked there for 20 years. Follow live: Politics latest Nonetheless, he has a long history of political donations to British parties. Electoral Commission data shows he has previously donated to the Conservatives, gifting them £10,000 in May 2001, and continuing to support them with close to £2m in donations by October 2022. But there was been some overlap with his backing of Reform, which first received a donation from him in April 2019, for £200,000. He's also donated to Mr Farage personally, giving £27,616.76 in January so the Reform leader could attend the second inauguration of Donald Trump. He paid another £32,836 for the Reform and a member of staff to fly to the US following the attempted assassination of Trump in July last year. And he gave one of the biggest donations ever made to an individual UK politician when he backed Boris Johnson to the tune of £1m in 2022. He served as an advisor to Mr Johnson during the former PM's trip to Kyiv in 2023. His latest cash injection to Reform UK breaks the previous record for a donation from a living person, which was £8m from supermarket tycoon Lord David Sainsbury to the Liberal Democrats in 2019. The largest ever single donation to a UK political party was from his cousin, Lord John Sainsbury, who left more than £10.2m to the Conservatives in 2022 in his will. Read more:Labour accused of 'scandalous attempt to subvert democracy'Tory-Reform pact talks 'not happening at any level' Electoral Commission records show Mr Harborne has made at least £24.5m in UK political donations since 2001. But where is his money from? Several of his businesses come under the banner of AML Global, including one registered in the UK, which has a London address listed with Companies House. AML Global is described in a court filing as an international jet fuel broker that works with oil companies, and which has been awarded $39m (£29m) worth of contracts by the US Department of Defense. Harborne was also an early investor in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. On his LinkedIn page, the businessman further describes himself as chair of Sherriff Global Group. His profile shows he was educated at INSEAD business school, Cambridge University, and Westminster School. Figures from the Electoral Commission released this week show Reform UK reported the most donations of any party in the third quarter of 2025, a total of £10,526,846. By contrast, the Conservatives reported £7,038,861 in the same period, Labour £2,564,786, and the Liberal Democrats £2,174,712.

Mercedes flagged over 1100 "severe or suspect comments" across Antonelli's social media accounts, which included death threats, as some fans were unhappy title-chasing Lando Norris overtook the Mercedes driver in the closing stages of Sunday's race. Max Verstappen's engineer Gianpiero Lambiase and Red Bull advisor Helmut Marko initially said Antonelli had let Norris through, before apologising to Antonelli and Mercedes for their comments. F1 title permutations for three-way Abu Dhabi GP deciderWhen to watch Abu Dhabi GP on Sky | F1 championship standingsDownload the Sky Sports app for expert analysis, best video & more📱Not got Sky? Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW📺 Red Bull posted a statement on Monday which said comments made were "clearly incorrect" and that they "sincerely regret" the abuse Antonelli received. Haas driver Bearman, who is at the end of his rookie campaign like Antonelli, said: "I didn't face that level of criticism, but that comes as part of being in a team like Haas rather than Mercedes. There's also a benefit of starting your career in a team like Haas. You're a bit less in the limelight. You have the possibility to make mistakes and be less criticised for those. "Generally it's always the case that people behind the screen are horrible and the scum of the earth, really. I don't think they should be doing that type of stuff to someone. "I understand that people who've been in F1 for a very long time get used to it and people who are rookies, it may be their first experience having that type of criticism, but that criticism is an absolute joke. It shouldn't be tolerated." Formula 1's governing body, the FIA, started a campaign earlier in 2023 - United Against Online Abuse - and said it "absolutely remains critical that everyone operating within our sport can do so in a safe and respectful environment", adding their support for Antonelli. Bearman continued: "I know the FIA are doing everything they can to stop that, but the problem is these sad people giving those types of criticisms. "It's a joke. We're putting our lives on the line to entertain people and give the people who are passionate for the sport a good time. "But, you have people like that who are just hurting people. That's not just racing, that's also their personal life. I just think people are terrible. The real people of the world are terrible." Mercedes' George Russell and Ferrari's Charles Leclerc stated the abuse is "unacceptable" while Racing Bulls' Isack Hadjar called them "idiots". "It all started with a mistake from the Red Bull guys, and of course, they apologised, and that's okay," said Russell, who is the head of the GPDA (Grand Prix Drivers' Association). "People make a mistake, especially when you don't have the full facts. But I think those thousands of people behind their keyboards have no excuse and really need to take a hard look at themselves in the mirror and think why that is acceptable - not just for F1, but just society altogether. I just struggle to comprehend it, really." Leclerc added: "Those people face no consequence for their words and for their disrespect towards drivers. So, it's not up to us to think about the consequences that they should endure, but it's a big shame because we're all here trying to do our absolute best. "We've done racing since we were kids, dreaming of being in that position, and today we're doing absolutely everything in order to be at the limit. And sometimes mistakes happen. In that particular case, also, the hate was for absolutely nothing." Antonelli: Verstappen, Norris among drivers to message me Antonelli, 19, is in his rookie F1 season and just two points behind Lewis Hamilton in the battle for sixth in the Drivers' Championship. The Italian revealed Verstappen and Norris were among the drivers to message him, plus Red Bull team principal Laurent Mekies and Lambiase himself spoke to him prior to this weekend's Abu Dhabi Grand Prix. He said Verstappen called the online abusers "brainless" and some of the threats were "difficult to see". "A lot of insults, even some death threats. At the end of the day, it was very tough, because I was being accused for something I would never do. I would never do anything that could favour someone over the other," Antonelli added. "I would never do something to damage Max or Lando or Oscar. I'm racing for myself and to achieve the best result possible. To be accused of that hurt but at the end of the day, I got a lot of support from people I trust, and drivers, which was nice because it helped forget what happened. "At the end of the day, we are athletes, we try to do our best. We are driving for ourselves, our careers. This sport is an incredible sport and it's bad to see these things happen but it needs to improve. It can happen to other athletes." Sky Sports F1's live Abu Dhabi GP schedule Friday December 57am: F2 Practice9am: Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Practice One (session starts at 9.30am)*10.55am: F2 Qualifying*11.40am: Team Bosses' Press Conference*12.45pm: Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Practice Two (session starts at 1pm)*2.15pm: The F1 Show* Saturday December 610.15am: Abu Dhabi Grand Prix Practice Three (session starts at 11:30am)*12.10pm: F2 Sprint*1.15pm: Abu Dhabi GP Qualifying build-up*2pm: ABU DHABI GRAND PRIX QUALIFYING*4pm: Ted's Qualifying Notebook* Sunday December 79.10am: F2 Feature Race11am: Grand Prix Sunday: Abu Dhabi GP build-up*1pm: THE ABU DHABI GRAND PRIX*3pm: Chequered Flag: Abu Dhabi GP reaction*4pm: Ted's Notebook *also on Sky Sports Main Event The 2025 F1 season concludes with the title-deciding Abu Dhabi Grand Prix live on Sky Sports F1 from Friday. Stream Sky Sports with NOW - no contract, cancel anytime