The ​decision to throw out most of the claims in the case was made by District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan on Thursday on jurisdictional grounds. Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment in connection with the filming of their 2024 romantic drama It Ends With Us. The 38-year-old actress - who is married to Ryan Reynolds - sued Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios and others, seeking damages for alleged harassment, defamation, invasion of privacy and violations ‌of federal and state civil rights laws. She claimed the defendants created a sexually charged atmosphere during the film's production and then schemed to silence her from speaking out. The film starred Lively and Baldoni, who was also the director. Baldoni - who denies any wrongdoing - argued he addressed his co-star's concerns as soon as she raised them and defended his decision to hire a crisis management firm after Lively began disparaging him publicly. In his ruling, Judge Liman said Lively had sued under a ​California law but the alleged wrongful conduct took place elsewhere. He said Lively could pursue a retaliation claim against Wayfarer Studios, in addition to a contract claim and an aiding and ​abetting claim against various defendants. The rift became public in December 2024 when Lively filed a complaint with the California civil rights department, followed by her lawsuit. Read more from Sky News:Bodycam footage shows Tiger Woods' arrestBBC boss addresses Scott Mills sacking The New York Times published an article about the events, titled: "'We Can Bury Anyone': Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine." Baldoni ⁠sued Lively and Reynolds for defamation, accusing the couple of destroying his reputation, but Judge Liman dismissed the case in June. He also dismissed Baldoni's case against The New York Times. It Ends With Us is about a flower shop owner, played by Lively, who marries a neurosurgeon ​played by Baldoni, but the marriage falls apart when he becomes abusive, reminding the florist of her own parents' relationship.

The ​decision to throw out most of the claims in the case was made by District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan on Thursday on jurisdictional grounds. Lively accused Baldoni of sexual harassment in connection with the filming of their 2024 romantic drama It Ends With Us. The 38-year-old actress - who is married to Ryan Reynolds - sued Baldoni, his production company Wayfarer Studios and others, seeking damages for alleged harassment, defamation, invasion of privacy and violations ‌of federal and state civil rights laws. She claimed the defendants created a sexually charged atmosphere during the film's production and then schemed to silence her from speaking out. The film starred Lively and Baldoni, who was also the director. Baldoni - who denies any wrongdoing - argued he addressed his co-star's concerns as soon as she raised them and defended his decision to hire a crisis management firm after Lively began disparaging him publicly. In his ruling, Judge Liman said Lively had sued under a ​California law but the alleged wrongful conduct took place elsewhere. He said Lively could pursue a retaliation claim against Wayfarer Studios, in addition to a contract claim and an aiding and ​abetting claim against various defendants. The rift became public in December 2024 when Lively filed a complaint with the California civil rights department, followed by her lawsuit. Read more from Sky News:Bodycam footage shows Tiger Woods' arrestBBC boss addresses Scott Mills sacking The New York Times published an article about the events, titled: "'We Can Bury Anyone': Inside a Hollywood Smear Machine." Baldoni ⁠sued Lively and Reynolds for defamation, accusing the couple of destroying his reputation, but Judge Liman dismissed the case in June. He also dismissed Baldoni's case against The New York Times. It Ends With Us is about a flower shop owner, played by Lively, who marries a neurosurgeon ​played by Baldoni, but the marriage falls apart when he becomes abusive, reminding the florist of her own parents' relationship.

Sir Keir Starmer issued an ultimatum on Tuesday, saying the government would withdraw its offer of thousands of NHS jobs, extra training places, and pay reforms if the walkout wasn't called off within 48 hours. With no agreement reached, the medics – formerly known as junior doctors – will strike for six days from 7 April. The British Medical Association's (BMA) resident doctors' committee has maintained the government's pay rise offer does not go far enough to deal with the cost of living. Sir Keir has pointed out the 3.5% proposal is above inflation and would take their total raise over three years to 35%. Writing in The Times earlier this week, he said strikes would be "reckless" and damage the NHS. But the committee's chair, Dr Jack Fletcher, said the government's approach was "extremely disappointing". Using the offer of more training places as a "pawn" in negotiations was "simply wrong", he said. "We have consistently maintained that we are willing to postpone industrial action should a genuinely credible offer be provided. This remains the case now, up to, and throughout any period of industrial action," he added. More from Sky News:Scott Mills breaks silenceClaims of sex scandal 'cover-up' A Department of Health and Care spokesperson maintained the deal on offer was "generous". "Because the BMA resident doctor committee has not agreed to call off these strikes and put an offer to members, we will now not be able to deliver the 1,000 extra training places which the BMA asked for," they said. "These posts would have gone live this month, but as systems now need to prepare for strikes and more uncertainty, it simply won't be operationally or financially possible to launch these posts in April in time to recruit for this year. "This won't impact the overall number of resident doctors, and the NHS will be there for patients when they need it." They said attention must now turn towards protecting patients by minimising disruption during the walkout. It will be the 15th round of strikes by resident doctors in England since 2023.

For all the analysis of what has gone wrong to leave Spurs in this perilous position, the sheer scale of the club makes a possible demotion to the second tier hard to comprehend... Squad cost Tottenham have the sixth most valuable squad in the Premier League. Yet, here they are, 17th in the table. Back where they finished last season - but this time in real danger of the drop. Live Premier League table | Watch FREE PL highlightsGot Sky? Watch Premier League games LIVE on your phone📱Not got Sky? Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW 📺 The £747.8m combined valuation of Spurs players is so far in excess of the squad cost of other sides battling relegation it will leave fans questioning whether their players are really worth such astronomical figures. It's no surprise they are the biggest underperformers when that ranking is stacked against league position. Wages When it comes to value for money, it's also worth noting Spurs rank seventh in the Premier League for wages paid, according to Capology. Their gross annual payroll for this season is estimated at £136.8m - that's £49.3m more than Nottingham Forest and £62.6m more than West Ham, two teams they are battling with for top-flight survival. If Spurs were relegated, the below chart hints at the enormity of cost-cutting they may have to undergo. Currently their wage bill is more than three times that of the most highly-paid Championship squad - Leicester City. Their new boss Roberto De Zerbi doesn't have a relegation release clause in his contract. Transfer spending The transfer market is another big point of difference between where Spurs are and where they could be headed. They spent almost as much in the two transfer windows this season as the entirety of the Championship combined. Spurs' transfer spending over the past five seasons is equivalent to 67 per cent of transfer fees paid by the three teams relegated (or currently in the relegation zone) combined across those seasons. Revenue and debt Tottenham ranked ninth across Europe in the Deloitte Money League 2026. Their revenue for the 2024/25 season was 672.6m Euros - that was £565m at the exchange rate in January when the report was published - placing Spurs just behind Man Utd and ahead of fellow heavyweights Chelsea and Inter Milan. Championship clubs had a combined revenue of £958m for the 2023/24 season, although that figure fluctuates substantially season-on-season depending on which clubs are in the league. Spurs also had a net debt of £772m in June 2024, which was mainly made up of loans used to finance the building of their stadium. Championship net debt in 23/24 was £1.5bn. Stadium size 'Tottenham away, ole, ole,' sang Lincoln City fans gleefully last month. The prospect of the Imps going to Spurs' £1bn stadium as Championship rivals next season has frequently been noted to highlight the enormity of Tottenham's potential tumble out of the top flight. But perhaps it would be the reverse match which would really underline the point - Lincoln's LNER Stadium can host 10,130 fans in contrast to the 62,850 capacity at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium. It's a world away from the venues Spurs' multi-millionaire footballers are used to playing at. The smallest stadium in the Championship right now is Oxford United's Kassam Stadium, with a 12,500 capacity. Season ticket prices A change of league could also hit Spurs in the pocket when it comes to what they could charge for tickets. Adult season tickets this season at the Tottenham Hotspur Stadium cost between £856 and £2,223. At Championship side QPR you could get a season ticket for £262. Training ground When it comes to facilities, the magnificent Spurs training centre is another point of contrast. The state-of-the-art venue, which boasts its own on-site accommodation, cost £45m to build and opened in 2012. If you adjust that for inflation that is the equivalent of £65.6m - dwarfing the £10m Championship side Stoke City spent on their training ground which opened in February 2026. Honours So would Tottenham be the biggest team ever to be relegated from the Premier League? While their finances would suggest so, there may be other clubs rivalling them for that unwanted accolade when it comes to honours. The below table shows the number of titles a team had when they were first relegated from the Premier League. Seven-time champions of England Aston Villa went down in 2016. If Spurs were to drop, last season's Europa League triumph means they would be the first side to go down having won the Champions League or Europa League (European Cup/UEFA Cup) on three occasions. Leeds and Huddersfield have also been relegated from the Premier League and have both won more league titles than Spurs (three each). Social media following In the modern world, we can also measure the size of a club by their social media following. Spurs have almost 10 million more followers on Instagram than the Championship's most-followed club Leicester City. The Foxes account for a major chunk of the 18.67 million followers of Championship clubs combined on that platform, which only just surpasses the 17.38 million who follow Spurs. Counting the cost for Spurs... Relegation from the Premier League would be a big hit to the prestige of Tottenham Hotspur. As the figures above show, they are a behemoth of English football in so many areas. But their enormity would also mean a drop to the Championship would hit them substantially on the balance sheet. Relegation would cost around £100m. Unless they win the Champions League, they will be substantially worse off for not playing in Europe's elite club competition. They pocketed £45.5m in prize money alone this season for reaching the last-16, with broadcast revenue to be added to that figure. Will attendances remain as strong in the second tier? Currently, 22 per cent of Spurs' income is from matchday revenue. They would receive a Premier League parachute payment of around £50m, though, if they spend one season in the Championship. The figures across the board are enormous - and highlight the scale of a potential relegation for Spurs.

The National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the agency responsible for approving construction on federal property in Washington, approved the plans to build the ballroom in a vote on Thursday. Commission chairman Will Scharf, a top aide in the Trump administration and the president's former lawyer, said a judge's ruling on Tuesday that construction should be halted for two weeks "really does not impact our action here today". Mr Trump's plan to build a 90,000sq ft ballroom on the site of the demolished East Wing will mark the biggest structural change to the White House in more than 70 years if it is completed. Before the vote, Mr Scharf delivered a defence of the project touching on past additions to the White House that were criticised at the time but have since become beloved. He spoke of the addition of the north and south porticos and the balcony added by President Harry Truman. "I believe that, in time, this ballroom will be considered every bit of a national treasure as the other key components of the White House," Mr Scharf said. US District Judge Richard Leon granted a preservationist group's request for a preliminary injunction that temporarily halts the construction project until the plan has undergone independent reviews and obtained congressional approval. Judge Leon wrote: "The President of the United States is the steward of the White House for future generations of First Families. He is not, however, the owner!" Read more from Sky News:Trump attends Supreme Court hearing on birthright citizenshipMarket uncertainty despite Trump attempt to soothe concerns The commission's vote, including three members appointed by Mr Trump, had initially been scheduled for March but was pushed to Thursday because so many people signed up to comment on it at the commission's meeting. The only no vote was cast by Phil Mendelson, a Democrat who chairs the Council of the District of Columbia, who criticised the design of the ballroom for being too large. The commission also considered some design changes announced by Mr Trump on Sunday, including removing a large staircase on the building's south side and adding an uncovered porch on the west side. The staircase has been criticised as there is no way to enter the ballroom from them under the plans.

The 53-year-old, who hosted the Radio 2 breakfast show, had his contract terminated last Friday over an allegation relating to his "personal conduct". It emerged the Metropolitan Police had launched an investigation into Mills in December 2016 over "allegations of serious sexual offences against a teenage boy", said to have taken place between 1997 and 2000. However, the Crown Prosecution Service ultimately decided "the evidential threshold had not been met to bring charges", and the case was closed in May 2019, the police force added. The BBC confirmed on Wednesday that the organisation was aware of the investigation in 2017, but dismissed him after receiving "new information" in recent weeks. The broadcaster reported on Thursday that the corporation had sacked the presenter "after learning the alleged victim in the police investigation was under 16". "It is not clear if BBC managers at the time of the investigation in 2017 knew the age - but current management only became aware in recent weeks and took action," it said. Outgoing BBC director general Tim Davie said in a leaked recording of an internal staff call obtained by Sky News that new information had "quite recently" come to light, which made the decision the broadcaster needed to make "very clear". "It has been a tough week with Scott Mills and it's been a real shock to the organisation," he said. Rhodri Talfan Davies, who is replacing Mr Davie for an interim period, said on the call there are "lines and when individuals cross across the line, irrespective of the seniority or their profile, there are consequences". On Wednesday Mills issued his first public statement since news broke of his dismissal. "An allegation was made against me in 2016 of a historic sexual offence which was the subject of a police investigation in which I fully cooperated and responded to in 2018," he said. "As the police have stated, a file of evidence was submitted to the Crown Prosecution Service, which determined that the evidential threshold had not been met to bring charges. "Since the investigation related to an allegation that dates back nearly 30 years and the police investigation was closed seven years ago, I hope that the public and the media will understand and respect my wish not to make any further public comment on this matter." Read more from Sky News:Resident doctors lose jobs package and will strikeMother who lost sight after birth has vision restored Mills' final show before he was taken off-air by the BBC was on Tuesday 24 March. He signed off by saying "back tomorrow", but the following day's show was presented by Gary Davies, who did not give a reason for Mills' absence. Mills took over from Zoe Ball on Radio 2's breakfast show in 2025 after a long career at the BBC and regional radio. He was paid between £355,000 and £359,999. Earlier on Wednesday, a BBC spokesperson said the corporation "spoke directly" with Mills before terminating his contract. The statement went on: "The BBC has made a significant commitment to improve its culture, processes and standards. "Last year, following an independent culture review, we set out the behavioural expectations for everyone who works with or for the BBC and we were clear action would be taken if these were not met."

Sir Keir Starmer and opposition parties had called for Simon Dudley to be sacked as Reform's new housing spokesman after he said the 72 deaths were a "tragedy and a failure" but "everyone dies in the end". Politics latest: UK to host virtual summit to discuss 'viable plan' for reopening Strait of Hormuz Reform leader Mr Farage revealed on Thursday morning Mr Dudley had been sacked, adding: "He's no longer a spokesman for the party." Mr Farage added that his comments were "frankly rather shocking to many people". An inquiry into the 2017 blaze in west London found the deaths were avoidable and preventable, while safety concerns were regularly ignored by local and national politicians. Grenfell United, which represents some of the survivors and bereaved, said in a statement on Thursday: "Our loved ones did not simply 'die.' They were failed. "They were trapped in their homes, in a building that should have been safe, in a fire that should never have happened. Reducing their deaths to an inevitability strips away the truth: this was preventable. "To speak about Grenfell in this way is to erase responsibility. It suggests this was just fate, just 'how it goes,' rather than the result of years of ignored warnings, poor decisions, and a failure to value the lives of residents, and is deeply offensive and ill-informed. "Everyone deserves the right to a safe home. But this attitude clearly shows Simon Dudley is not the man to ensure that happens." In an interview with industry magazine Inside Housing, published on Wednesday, Mr Dudley said the building safety regulations introduced after the Grenfell fire were not working. "That was a tragedy, it was a failure," he said. "Sadly, you know, everyone dies in the end. It's just how you go, right? "Extracting Grenfell from the statistics, actually people dying in house fires is rare. Many, many more people die on the roads driving cars - but we're not making cars illegal, so why are we stopping houses being built?" On Thursday morning, the prime minister called on Reform leader Nigel Farage to sack Mr Dudley over his comments. Read more: Farage no longer wants a deal with the Tories, he wants to destroy themWill new donor rules hit Reform's finances? Mr Farage brought Mr Dudley, a former head of Homes England, in as an expert to advise the party after he joined Reform in February. He is a former Conservative leader of Windsor and Maidenhead Council, when he called for "aggressive begging" to be tackled in Windsor ahead of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex's wedding. Mr Dudley retweeted a post quoting his "everyone dies in the end" comments on Wednesday. But after calls came for him to be sacked, Mr Dudley said Grenfell was "an utter tragedy and quite rightly prompted a wholesale review and tightening of fire regulations". He added: "In no shape or form am I belittling that disaster or the huge loss of life. It must never happen again. "I reiterate that, and am sorry if it was not sufficiently clear.

De Zerbi's arrival on a five-year contract was met with concern by the Tottenham Hotspur Supporters' Trust, who said that his hiring "raises serious and far-reaching concerns", adding in a strongly-worded statement that Spurs were directly warned about the "strength of feeling" among fans. Greenwood joined Marseille from Manchester United in 2024 after charges against him, which included attempted rape and assault, were dropped. Last November, De Zerbi described him as a "good guy" who paid a "heavy price". He added at the time: "It saddens me what happened in his life because I know a totally different person than the one who was described." Opting to speak in Italian during his first interview with the club media, De Zerbi addressed the comments for the first time since his appointment, saying: "I have never wanted to downplay the issue of violence against women or violence against anyone more broadly. "In my life I have always stood up for who are more vulnerable, more fragile. I have consistently fought and taken a stand to be on the side of those who are more at risk. "Those of you who know me well will know I'm not the type of person who makes compromises to win more games or to win an extra title. I apologise to those who I offended with this subject matter. I have a daughter and I'm very sensitive to these things and always have been. "I hope that over time, people will get to know me better and will understand that in that moment I didn't mean to take a stance." De Zerbi is still expected to speak about his comments during his first press conference, Sky Sports News understands. Greenwood was charged in October 2022 with one count of attempted rape, one of controlling and coercive behaviour and another of assault occasioning actual bodily harm over allegations relating to a woman after images and videos were posted online, although the Crown Prosecution Service dropped the charges in February 2023. The charges against Greenwood were dropped because of "a combination of the withdrawal of key witnesses and new material that came to light", which meant there was "no realistic prospect of conviction". Sky Sports News understands the Spurs board carefully considered and discussed the sentiments around De Zerbi's association with Greenwood during the hiring process.