Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
The quiet streets of Uxbridge were shattered late on 27 October 2025 when 49-year-old Wayne Broadhurst, a well-loved waste services worker and dog-walker, was killed in what police have called a “brutal” triple stabbing. Mr. Broadhurst, a man described by his family as a "devoted and hardworking man" with a "gentle heart," became the central, tragic figure in a debate that quickly transcended local crime.
His murder immediately exposed a national fault line when the suspect, 22-year-old Safi Dawood, was identified as an asylum recipient from Afghanistan. This connection transformed a local horror into a political crisis, forcing the government to navigate a perilous ethical tightrope between legal caution and public compassion.
Yet, in the days following the brutal attack and the revelation of the asylum link, the government chose a path of stark formality. The Home Office issued only a brief, bureaucratic response, and no senior minister made a public statement, appearance, or parliamentary mention. This deliberate silence—a calculated strategy to avoid prejudicing the active criminal case or inflaming the already polarized national debate—has been widely interpreted as a profound failure of leadership and empathy, leaving the Uxbridge community to grieve alone.
A Home Office spokesperson said:
“Our thoughts are with the family and friends of those impacted by this horrific incident. We are receiving regular updates from the Metropolitan Police, who are leading the investigation. The priority must now be for the police to investigate so those responsible can be brought to justice.”
That’s the only official Home Office comment made so far — no minister (including the Home Secretary or Immigration Minister) has issued a personal or parliamentary statement, and no press release appears on gov.uk.
The family's tribute effectively established the human cost of the tragedy. Wayne Broadhurst, who died at the scene, was described as a man who "never shied away from helping his community," known for his ever-present broom, high-vis jacket, and loyalty to Liverpool FC. Two others were injured: a 45-year-old man with life-changing injuries and a 14-year-old boy. The community's deep wound is compounded by the growing unease over knife violence in the capital, making the loss feel like a broader failure of safety.
The suspect, Safi Dawood, who was granted asylum two years after arriving in the UK in 2020, was charged with murder and attempted murder. Crucially, the analytical article noted there is "no indication" his immigration status was connected to the crime's motive.
However, the fact of his status was enough to inevitably draw attention to the government’s vetting and integration systems. This immediately created a polarizing debate: some commentators warned against stoking xenophobia, while others argued that the case demanded immediate scrutiny of the asylum process itself.
The government’s silence is rooted in a difficult choice between caution and compassion:
1.The Caution Imperative (Legal Safety):Ministers must avoid violating the Contempt of Court Act 1981... This risk was confirmed when the Chief Crown Prosecutor, in announcing the charges on October 29, issued a formal warning that "It is vital that there should be no reporting, commentary or sharing of information online which could in any way prejudice these proceedings."
2. The Compassion Imperative (Public Leadership): The article strongly argues that this legal caution came at a high cost. A measured statement from a senior figure would have offered public reassurance, signaled awareness of the community's pain, and prevented the perception of indifference. Instead, the bureaucratic response, lacking "human warmth," failed to calm public anger and allowed misinformation to take hold.
The government's choice to prioritize avoiding controversy over the asylum link, coupled with the need to protect the criminal trial, was deemed by many observers to be misplaced caution—a strategic silence that deepened public frustration.
As Uxbridge residents leave flowers near Midhurst Gardens, the sense of disbelief persists. The tragedy of Wayne Broadhurst's life ending so violently has become a mirror reflecting the broader national anxiety: the erosion of safety, the failure of political empathy, and the human cost of policy silence.
In the coming months, the trial of Safi Dawood will determine the facts of what happened that evening. Yet the moral question of whether the government should have spoken sooner, more openly, and more compassionately will likely linger long after the courtroom doors close.
When British adult performer Bonnie Blue sat down opposite Australian journalist Allison Langdon on A Current Affair, few expected the conversation to spiral into one of the year’s most controversial immigration stories. But within minutes, the 26-year-old OnlyFans creator had revealed her audacious plan: to fly back to Australia in time for Schoolies Week — and to “offer free sex” to newly-turned 18-year-old men on the Gold Coast, filming the encounters for her subscribers.
Within days, the public outrage was deafening.
Parents called for bans. Lawmakers demanded answers. And by December 2024, Australia’s Department of Home Affairs had revoked Blue’s 12-month visitor visa, citing breaches of visa conditions and a clear intent to perform paid work while in the country.
For many Australians, Schoolies Week is a rite of passage — a week-long celebration for young adults who’ve just graduated high school. But Bonnie Blue saw it differently: as a marketing event.
In interviews and social-media posts, the London-born creator boasted that she would be on her knees “ready to pleasure” freshly 18-year-old school leavers, as long as they signed consent forms and allowed her to film it.
Those videos, she said, would later be uploaded to her OnlyFans page — a subscription platform known for adult content.
It didn’t take long for backlash to ignite. A petition to ban her entry to Australia gathered tens of thousands of signatures within days. Critics argued that the stunt was exploitative, calling it a dangerous precedent that blurred the line between adult entertainment and predation.
Child-safety advocate Kristi McVee summed up the public sentiment: “If this were a male content creator targeting barely-legal girls, the outcry would be ten times louder.”
Australia’s immigration rules are strict for a reason. Under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), a visitor visa is issued strictly for tourism, family visits, or short-term leisure — not for paid or promotional work.
Once Bonnie Blue publicly stated her plans to film and monetise sexual content during her trip, she effectively invalidated the purpose of her visa.
Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke confirmed the cancellation, stating,
“The Australian visa system has rules. If you don’t intend to obey those rules, don’t apply.”
From a legal perspective, the case was almost textbook. Even though she claimed the encounters would be consensual and unpaid, the moment filming and online publication entered the equation, commercial gain became clear.
Tourist visas prohibit any work that involves earning money — even indirectly through digital platforms like OnlyFans, Patreon, or YouTube.
Beyond the immigration issue, the incident triggered a broader debate over ethics, consent, and digital responsibility in the influencer era.
Parents expressed fears over social-media glamorization of adult content targeting teenagers.
Advocates pointed to the double standard of how female sex workers are vilified while male creators often face less scrutiny.
Lawyers saw a new legal frontier: where the intersection of digital sex work, visa law, and consent is colliding in public view.
Bonnie Blue herself claimed the outrage was driven by “society’s shame around sex work.” She told viewers:
“Sex work has always been disgusting in most people’s eyes. Porn has always been shamed. People are intimidated because I talk about it proudly.”
Yet for many Australians, the issue wasn’t moral — it was legal. Schoolies Week is heavily regulated, with strict safety and alcohol laws designed to protect young adults during their first taste of freedom. The idea of a foreign content creator turning that event into an adult film set was never going to pass quietly.
“Can someone on a visitor visa legally film or promote content for money in Australia — even if no direct cash changes hands?”
Expert Explanation:
No. Under Australian law, “work” includes any activity for which a person receives payment or other reward — including digital monetisation, sponsorships, or subscriber-based income. That means if a creator films content on a tourist visa and later sells or streams it online, they’ve breached their visa conditions, even if no money changes hands at the time.
The relevant legal basis lies in the Migration Regulations 1994, which allow the Department of Home Affairs to cancel or refuse visas if the holder “engages in activities inconsistent with the purpose of the visa.” In Bonnie Blue’s case, announcing commercial filming before even arriving made the breach undeniable.
Social media counts as evidence. Publicly declaring that you intend to “work” or “collaborate” abroad can flag you for visa review.
Digital creators are under new scrutiny. Immigration systems worldwide are adapting to the gig-economy and online monetisation — a tweet, TikTok, or OnlyFans post can be enough to trigger enforcement.
A cancelled visa can lead to long-term bans. Australia can impose exclusion periods lasting up to ten years for serious misrepresentations.
If you’re a freelancer, content creator, or influencer, your next sponsored trip could land you in legal trouble if your visa doesn’t match your intent. Immigration officials increasingly cross-reference digital footprints — making online transparency both a blessing and a risk.
Always apply for the correct visa subclass (e.g., a temporary work or media visa) when traveling for promotional or commercial activity.
Avoid public statements suggesting paid work while visiting under a tourist visa — even jokes can be taken literally.
Consult an immigration lawyer if you’re unsure about work eligibility abroad. The cost of a short consultation is nothing compared to a four-year re-entry ban.
Bottom line:
The law is clear — and public. Bonnie Blue’s case shows how quickly a single viral post can evolve from a publicity stunt to a legal cautionary tale.
“Visitor visas do not permit you to work, provide services or sell goods to the public whilst in Australia — if you announce you are filming for commercial gain, the visa purpose is undone.”
— Hannan Tew, Partner at Melbourne-based immigration law firm Hannan Tew Lawyers
Blue’s defenders argue her punishment exposes deep-seated hypocrisy. Sex work is legal in parts of Australia, and OnlyFans is a legitimate, regulated business. Yet, critics counter that her Schoolies stunt was never about sex work — it was about public decency and protecting vulnerable demographics.
The situation reignited questions about digital consent, age verification, and how governments regulate sexually explicit material filmed within their borders.
Even some sex-positive campaigners admitted that targeting an event synonymous with teenagers made her actions “irresponsible, if not predatory.”
Since her ban, Bonnie Blue has teased a possible return, claiming she has “good lawyers” and is “working behind the scenes” to challenge the decision. Whether she succeeds remains uncertain — but her case has already changed how Australia monitors influencer and adult-content visas.
Meanwhile, the Department of Home Affairs has reportedly tightened its review protocols for high-risk entrants whose online presence suggests commercial activity — a move that could soon impact global creators across TikTok, YouTube, and subscription sites alike.
Bonnie Blue’s story isn’t just tabloid fodder. It’s a snapshot of our times — where digital fame collides with real-world law, and where social-media freedom meets national border control.
For travellers, creators, and influencers, the message is simple but vital:
Tourist visas are not business licences.
Understanding your legal limits before posting, filming, or selling content abroad isn’t just smart — it could save your freedom, your income, and your right to ever come back.
Australia’s Department of Home Affairs revoked Bonnie Blue’s 12-month visitor visa after determining she intended to perform paid or promotional work during her stay — specifically filming and monetising sexual content at Schoolies Week. Under the Migration Act 1958, visitor visas strictly prohibit any form of employment or commercial activity. Even if she claimed the encounters were “free,” the intent to film and profit from the content through OnlyFans constituted a clear breach of visa conditions.
No. Anyone entering Australia on a visitor visa is barred from performing paid work or producing monetised content. Immigration authorities interpret “work” broadly — it includes earning income from digital media, brand partnerships, or adult content subscriptions. If you plan to create or sell content during your stay, you must apply for an appropriate Temporary Work (Subclass 400) or Entertainment Visa (Subclass 408) instead. Violating this rule can lead to visa cancellation, deportation, or long-term re-entry bans.
Bonnie Blue’s case marks a turning point for online creators and influencers who travel internationally for content creation. Immigration agencies are increasingly reviewing social-media activity to detect undeclared work, sponsorships, or collaborations that breach visa conditions. If a creator’s posts suggest commercial intent — even jokingly — it may trigger an investigation. The takeaway is clear: transparency matters, and creators must ensure their visa status aligns with their activities to avoid legal or reputational fallout.
Anthony Williams, a 32-year-old man from Peterborough, has been formally charged in connection with the mass stabbing that occurred on an LNER train travelling from Doncaster to London King’s Cross on Saturday evening, November 1, 2025. Although terrorism has been ruled out, sources have confirmed that the suspect has a history of mental health issues and was already known to authorities.
After a brief appearance before Peterborough Magistrates’ Court on Monday 3 November, 2025, Anthony Williams has been remanded in custody pending further proceedings. Williams is facing a series of serious charges connected to violent incidents in both Cambridgeshire and London over the weekend.
British Transport Police (BTP) confirmed that Williams, of Langford Road, Peterborough, faces serious charges including:
Ten counts of attempted murder — linked to a stabbing attack on a train in Cambridgeshire on Saturday.
Actual bodily harm (ABH) — relating to an alleged assault on a police officer in a custody suite following the train incident.
One count of possession of a bladed article — in connection with the Cambridgeshire train attack.
One further count of attempted murder — connected to a separate incident at Pontoon Dock DLR station in London in the early hours of Saturday.
One additional count of possession of a bladed article — relating to the Pontoon Dock DLR station incident.
In a significant and separate development, BTP announced that Williams has also been charged with an additional count of attempted murder and possession of a bladed article connected to an incident at Pontoon Dock DLR station earlier on the same day (November 1). Police are also Police are investigating the stabbing of a 14-year-old boy in Peterborough as one of three knife-related incidents in the city that are believed to be connected to the suspect in the Huntingdon train stabbings.
In court earlier, prosecutors stated that Anthony Williams is also accused of assaulting a police officer following the stabbing attack on a train in Cambridgeshire on Saturday. The alleged assault took place inside a custody suite shortly after Williams’ arrest and is said to have left the officer with a broken nose, the court heard.
Chilling CCTV footage reportedly shows Anthony Williams, 32, pacing outside a barbershop on Friday night, shortly after he allegedly stabbed a 14-year-old boy, according to The Sun.
The chaotic incident began shortly after the 6:25 pm LNER service departed Peterborough station around 7:30 pm. The entire episode, from the start of the stabbings to the suspect's arrest, unfolded in approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
A total of eleven people, including passengers and staff, were treated in hospital following the attack.
While Counter Terrorism Policing initially assisted the probe, the incident has officially been ruled not terror-related.
The royal family, including the Prince and Princess of Wales, expressed their shock and sympathy for those impacted by the "horrific events."
Anthony Williams, 32, from Langford Road, Peterborough, has been charged with 10 counts of attempted murder after a violent knife attack aboard a Doncaster to London King’s Cross LNER train on November 1, 2025.
British Transport Police (BTP) also confirmed he faces one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm (ABH) and one count of possession of a bladed article linked to the train attack. In a related development, Williams has been charged with an additional attempted murder and bladed article possession connected to a separate incident at Pontoon Dock DLR station earlier that same day.
The stabbing spree lasted around 10 to 15 minutes. The first 999 call came in at 7:42 p.m., and within eight minutes, armed officers had intercepted the train, which made an emergency stop at Huntingdon Station.
Passengers described the terrifying moments as “pure chaos,” with people fleeing carriages and locking themselves in toilets for safety. Police subdued Williams using a Taser after witnesses reported him shouting “kill me, kill me.” The driver, Andrew Johnson, has been praised for his quick thinking, ensuring the train stopped at the platform for immediate police and paramedic access.
Yes. Passengers and staff injured during the attack may be eligible for compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) — a government program supporting victims of violent crime in public places.
In addition, they may pursue civil claims against LNER if investigations find that the rail operator failed in its duty of care, such as insufficient staffing, emergency response delays, or lack of adequate safety measures. Victims should gather evidence, contact the British Transport Police, and seek advice from a personal injury solicitor specializing in railway negligence and criminal injury claims.
U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered the Pentagon to prepare for “possible action” in Nigeria, accusing the government of failing to protect Christians from what he called “mass killings.” His post on Truth Social over the weekend — warning that he may send U.S. forces “guns-a-blazing” and cut all aid to Nigeria — instantly went viral and reignited global debate over whether Nigeria is facing a Christian genocide.
“If we attack, it will be fast, vicious, and sweet — just like the terrorist thugs attack our cherished Christians,” Trump wrote.
The claim has divided opinion across diplomatic, religious, and human rights circles — with Nigerian officials strongly rejecting the “genocide” label and urging caution.
Trump Threatens Military Action in Nigeria Over Protections for Christians
Nigerian President Bola Tinubu said that while his government welcomes international cooperation, “Nigeria is a sovereign nation” and any foreign military intervention must respect its territorial integrity. Officials acknowledged widespread insecurity but denied it is religiously targeted.
“The killings are not restricted to Christians alone,” said Kimiebi Imomotimi Ebienfa, a spokesman for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. “Muslims are being killed. Traditional worshippers are being killed… The majority is not the Christian population.”
Tinubu added that the characterization of Nigeria as “religiously intolerant” does not reflect the country’s national reality — pointing instead to years of attacks from Boko Haram, Islamic State West Africa Province (ISWAP), and Fulani extremist militias, which have targeted civilians of all faiths.
While analysts agree the violence is multifaceted and not purely sectarian, the scale of Christian persecution in northern and central Nigeria is undeniably staggering.
According to the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety), an April 2023 report found that at least 52,250 Nigerian Christians have been killed for their faith since 2009, when Boko Haram began its deadly insurgency. In addition, the report estimated over 18,000 churches and Christian schools have been destroyed or burned, with four million people displaced, most of them Christian farmers fleeing jihadist and Fulani militia attacks.
“Nigeria has tragically become the world’s center of Christian martyrs,” the Intersociety report concluded, noting that in a typical year, the number of Christians killed in Nigeria “is rarely less than 4,000 — often more than the rest of the world combined.”
Violence has increasingly spread beyond the 12 northern states that adopted Sharia law in 1999, pushing into the Middle Belt — especially Benue, Plateau, Nasarawa, and Taraba States — where Fulani militants have targeted Christian farming villages in raids described by witnesses as “ethnic cleansing.”
Groups such as ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project) and Christian Solidarity Worldwide agree that Nigeria’s violence is driven by multiple overlapping crises — religious extremism, ethnic rivalry, land scarcity, and government weakness.
ACLED data shows that between 2020 and 2025, over 1,900 civilian attacks occurred nationwide, many indiscriminate. Analysts caution that while Christian communities are disproportionately affected in some regions, the term “genocide” oversimplifies what is a nationwide security collapse.
Nevertheless, the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) insists that the pain of Christian families “torn apart by violence must never be treated as mere statistics,” calling for urgent government protection and international support.
The central issue is one of sovereignty and law:
Can the United States legally send troops or launch strikes inside Nigeria without its government’s consent?
Under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, nations are prohibited from using force against another state’s territorial integrity except in three narrow situations:
With the host nation’s consent.
With United Nations Security Council authorization.
In self-defense following an armed attack.
Because none of these apply to Nigeria, unilateral U.S. military action would be illegal under international law — and could be condemned as aggression.
Domestically, Trump cannot legally deploy troops to Nigeria without Congressional approval under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. The President may order short-term strikes only if the U.S. is under imminent threat — a condition clearly absent here.
Furthermore, the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998, which allows the U.S. to designate a nation as a “Country of Particular Concern,” permits sanctions, not armed intervention.
Humanitarian risk: Airstrikes or ground operations would likely kill civilians and worsen the refugee crisis, which already exceeds 4 million displaced Nigerians, mostly Christians.
Economic fallout: Escalation could disrupt oil production, trade, and regional markets — affecting global prices and U.S. economic interests.
Legal precedent: Acting outside UN or Congressional approval would weaken international law and set a dangerous example for other world powers.
Dr. Bulama Bukarti, a Nigerian human rights lawyer, told Al Jazeera:
“All the data reveals there is no organized Christian genocide. The violence is real and devastating — but the narrative that one faith is exclusively targeted is dangerously simplistic.”
Legal scholars add that even if persecution is proven, the U.S. must act through the UN or by invitation, not unilateral force. Otherwise, any intervention risks violating the same human rights norms it claims to defend.
Stay informed with credible data from ACLED, Intersociety, and CAN — not viral social posts.
Contact legislators (if in the U.S.) to demand Congressional oversight before any overseas military action.
Support verified NGOs offering aid to Nigerian Christian refugees — humanitarian relief remains the only legal and moral intervention path today.
Watch for key signals: If Nigeria formally invites U.S. support or the UN Security Council votes on a peacekeeping mission, that could change the legal landscape.
The persecution of Nigerian Christians is real and severe — with over 50,000 lives lost, millions displaced, and entire communities living in fear. But Trump’s threat of unilateral U.S. military action crosses clear legal red lines under both international and domestic law.
For now, the lawful path forward is through sanctions, diplomacy, and humanitarian support, not invasion.
How many Christians have been killed in Nigeria?
According to the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety, April 2023), over 52,250 Christians have been killed since 2009, and more than 18,000 churches have been destroyed.
Why are Christians targeted in Nigeria?
Extremist groups like Boko Haram and ISWAP aim to eradicate Christianity in the north and Middle Belt, where Sharia law and ethnic land conflicts fuel religious tension.
Can Trump legally intervene militarily?
No. Without Nigeria’s consent, U.N. approval, or Congressional authorization, such an action would be illegal under the U.N. Charter and U.S. law.
Is Nigeria’s government complicit?
There’s no evidence of direct state complicity, but critics say successive governments have failed to act decisively, allowing extremist networks to spread.
Nigeria is fighting for its soul — against extremists, disinformation, and political posturing from abroad. The suffering of its Christian population is undeniable, but the solution lies in law, truth, and accountability, not unilateral military threats.
When a night out took a terrifying turn for a young woman in Jersey City Heights, it was Law & Order actor George Pogatsia who stepped into the real-life role of a hero.
What began as an ordinary Saturday dinner ended in a dramatic rescue that could have come straight from one of television’s most intense crime scenes.
According to reports first published by TMZ, Pogatsia and his wife were driving home around 10:30 PM when they spotted a man approaching a 19-year-old woman who appeared intoxicated and disoriented.
Witnesses said the woman rejected the man’s advances, insisting she didn’t know him. Moments later, things escalated.
When the woman tried to run, the man allegedly grabbed her and threw her over his shoulder.
That’s when Pogatsia stepped in. The actor shouted at the suspect to put her down. Startled, the man dropped the woman and fled the scene before police arrived.
“I just hope she’s okay,” Pogatsia told reporters afterward. “I’m glad I was there to stop it.”
Police confirmed Pogatsia stayed behind to give a full statement and waited with the victim until medical help arrived.
Fans of Law & Order might recognize Pogatsia from his role as court officer Mikey in the long-running NBC series, or from appearances in The Sopranos, Luke Cage, and Manhattan Night.
But off-camera, this was a moment of pure instinct — a stranger intervening when someone was in danger.
In an era when most bystanders reach for their phones, Pogatsia did the opposite. He acted.
This story exploded online for reasons that go beyond celebrity headlines:
It reflects real-world fears — how easily nightlife can turn dangerous.
It taps into collective anxiety about public safety and women walking alone.
It shows human decency still exists — and that acting fast can make all the difference.
As one viral commenter put it: “He didn’t just play a hero. He was one.”
Everyday heroism like Pogatsia’s raises an important question:
👉 If you step in to stop an assault or abduction — what are your legal rights? Could you be held liable if something goes wrong?
Here’s what the law actually says.
In most U.S. states, you’re legally allowed to intervene to protect another person from imminent harm.
This is known as the “defense of others” doctrine — part of self-defense law.
However, your actions must be reasonable and proportionate.
That means:
You must have a genuine belief the person is in danger.
You can only use the minimum force necessary to stop the threat.
If you tackle someone trying to drag a woman into a car, your actions are likely justified. But if you continue attacking them after the danger has passed, that protection weakens.
Some states extend Good Samaritan laws to people who intervene in emergencies — not just those providing medical aid.
These laws are meant to encourage bystanders to help without fear of being sued, so long as their actions are made in good faith and not recklessly harmful.
However, coverage varies widely. For example:
New York and New Jersey protect medical responders more than physical interveners.
California and Texas have broader laws covering emergency assistance and crime prevention.
If you use unnecessary force, misidentify the aggressor, or cause harm while intervening, you could face civil or even criminal liability.
For instance, if two people are arguing and you mistakenly attack one, thinking they’re the threat, you could be sued for assault — even if your intentions were noble.
Call 911 first — that’s your legal and safest move.
Make your presence known — sometimes shouting “Police are on the way!” is enough to deter an attacker.
Document what you see if it’s safe to do so.
Avoid escalation — act only if someone is clearly being assaulted or abducted.
Cooperate fully with law enforcement afterward.
The law recognizes that stepping in can save lives — but it also sets limits to prevent chaos.
If you act reasonably and in good faith, you’re likely protected.
But knowing where the legal line is could make the difference between being hailed as a hero and being questioned as a suspect.
George Pogatsia’s quick action highlights both the power and complexity of public heroism.
He didn’t hesitate, and because of that, a young woman is safe today.
Still, the story underscores a larger truth: when danger appears, the law expects courage tempered by caution.
Whether you’re a TV actor or an ordinary passerby, that balance — between instinct and legality — can change everything.
After two decades of heartbreak, hope, and painful IVF treatments, Atomic Kitten star Liz McClarnon has finally welcomed her first child — a baby boy — with her husband Peter Cho.
The 44-year-old singer shared the emotional news on Instagram, posting a radiant selfie from her hospital bed and writing:
“Little man arrived early. It started out a bit scary, but all went well in the end.”
It was the moment fans had prayed for. For years, Liz had been open about her fertility journey, describing the “dark times” she faced through repeated IVF cycles, miscarriages, and the constant fear that motherhood might never happen.
Her story — one of grit, love, and quiet faith — has now touched millions across the UK and beyond.
Liz McClarnon has joyfully welcomed her first child — a baby boy — with her husband, Peter Cho, following years of emotional highs and lows on their painful IVF journey.
Liz first revealed her pregnancy in May after what she called “painful IVF and endless hope.” She and Peter, who met four years ago, faced three failed embryo transfers in 2023 and two miscarriages before finally receiving the positive test that changed everything.
“We feel like we’ve been given the world,” she said in an emotional Instagram video, filmed in a quiet park where she revealed her growing bump.
Fans flooded the comments with messages of joy, including well wishes from celebrity friends Natasha Hamilton, Michelle Heaton, and Jo O’Meara.
Liz married Peter in 2023 but kept his identity private until their first wedding anniversary. When she finally revealed his face, followers noted the pure happiness radiating from the pair — a couple who had endured and triumphed together.
Liz McClarnon and Partner Peter Cho
Speaking on Loose Women earlier this year, Liz admitted that hearing her story played back on screen made her emotional:
“It’s strange — when you hear someone else tell it, it almost feels like it happened to another person.”
She revealed she was five months pregnant at the time and had just learned she was expecting a boy.
The road to motherhood wasn’t simple. Liz began IVF treatments after learning that, at over 40, her chances of conceiving naturally were slim. Doctors found fluid around her ovaries but encouraged her to try assisted conception.
Despite setbacks, she persevered — and her story has inspired thousands of women who face similar challenges.
The emotional and legal realities of IVF are deeply intertwined with biology. Fertility expert Professor Geeta Nargund, a leading consultant at St George’s Hospital in London, once urged policymakers to help women better understand their biological clock.
“Ideally, if a woman is ready for a child, she should start trying by the time she is 30… because as a woman gets older, her fertility declines sharply,” she told Sky News.
Her words highlight why fertility law isn’t just a set of regulations — it’s about ensuring access, education, and empowerment. For women like Liz McClarnon, those hard-won rights made the dream of motherhood possible later in life.
For many couples like Liz and Peter, IVF isn’t just a medical journey — it’s a legal one too. What most people don’t realize is that fertility law in the UK governs everything from embryo ownership to age limits and parental rights once treatment begins.
Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended in 2008), embryos created during IVF belong jointly to both partners who provided the eggs and sperm. This means no embryo can be used, stored, or destroyed without the written consent of both parties.
If a couple separates, this rule can have life-changing consequences — as seen in past cases where one partner withdrew consent, forcing clinics to legally destroy embryos despite the other’s wishes.
Takeaway: Always review and update your IVF consent forms before every cycle. It protects both your reproductive rights and emotional well-being.
The UK doesn’t have a strict legal age limit, but the NHS typically funds IVF only up to age 42, depending on local clinical commissioning policies. Private clinics can offer treatment later, but must ensure medical safety and informed consent.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) regulates all UK fertility clinics, ensuring ethical practice and patient protection. Clinics must clearly explain risks, success rates, and legal rights before treatment begins.
By law, donor-conceived children have the right to learn the donor’s identity at age 18. The donor, however, has no parental rights or responsibilities. This legal clarity helps families plan for the future and avoids complex disputes later in life.
Fertility law in 2025 continues to evolve — especially around egg-freezing time limits, single-parent IVF, and same-sex couple rights. New proposals in Parliament could soon extend embryo storage from 10 years to 55 years, giving families more flexibility in building their future.
Practical advice: Before starting IVF, ask your clinic about your legal consent forms, storage rights, and what happens to your embryos in worst-case scenarios. Consider consulting a fertility lawyer — even a one-hour session can prevent years of emotional and legal uncertainty.
Reader takeaway: IVF is not only about science and hope — it’s about legal empowerment. Knowing your rights ensures you stay in control of your body, your family, and your future.
Now home with her newborn, Liz is focusing on recovery and gratitude. “After years of heartbreak,” she wrote, “we finally have our miracle.”
The singer’s story is already sparking renewed conversations about women’s health, fertility access, and the emotional cost of IVF — a reminder that behind every baby photo lies a story of resilience, love, and legal rights that protect that dream.
1. Can women over 40 get IVF treatment on the NHS in the UK?
Yes, but access is limited. Most NHS trusts offer funded IVF up to age 42, though some stop at 40 depending on local policy. After that age, women can still pursue IVF privately if medically suitable. Always check your local NHS Integrated Care Board (ICB) rules before starting treatment.
2. Who legally owns embryos created during IVF in the UK?
Under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, embryos belong jointly to the people who provided the egg and sperm. No clinic can use, store, or destroy them without written consent from both partners — even if they separate. It’s vital to review consent forms before each cycle to avoid future legal complications.
3. What legal rights do IVF parents and donor-conceived children have?
In the UK, donors have no parental rights or financial obligations. Children conceived through donation have the right to request identifying information about their donor when they turn 18. This law helps ensure transparency and protects the rights of all parties involved in assisted reproduction.
When fans filled Birmingham’s Utilita Arena on Saturday night, few expected the show to fall silent. Just 45 minutes before he was due to perform, 23-year-old rising pop star Benson Boone announced on Instagram that he couldn’t go on — his voice had completely given out.
“I have tried everything I can to revive my voice,” Boone wrote. “But I cannot give you the show I’d like to with the condition of my throat right now.”
The message, posted moments before thousands were set to see him live, sparked frustration and confusion among concertgoers. Many had travelled hours to attend what was meant to be one of the biggest stops on Boone’s American Heart World Tour.
Boone, who performed in Glasgow just two nights earlier, was expected to continue his UK run in Birmingham before finishing with three London shows. But his last-minute cancellation came as a shock to fans already inside the venue.
“People were gasping,” one concertgoer said. “No one knew what was happening — then the crowd started booing.”
For an artist whose hit Beautiful Things has dominated streaming charts and amassed over four million TikTok uses, the decision underscored the pressures of relentless touring. Behind the fame, Boone’s health struggle highlights a common but often overlooked risk for singers: vocal damage.
Voice strain is one of the most common reasons artists cancel live shows. Performing multiple nights in a row, often in air-conditioned venues or cold climates, can inflame vocal cords and lead to laryngitis or worse.
London ENT and Laryngology Specialist Mr. Nick Hamilton explained:
“When singers push through vocal inflammation, they risk a vocal cord haemorrhage—a bleed on the cord. That can permanently alter their sound, leading to scar tissue and stiffness, which sometimes ends careers. Absolute voice rest is vital when a voice is injured.”
Boone’s decision not to perform may have saved his voice. But it also opened questions about how last-minute cancellations affect fans, promoters, and ticket policies.
A cancellation this close to showtime can cost organisers and venues thousands. Staff, security, and lighting crews are already on site. Merchandise is out, and bars are stocked. When the show stops, that investment evaporates.
“Once doors are open, everything’s running,” said one arena employee. “Pulling the plug minutes before the start throws the whole operation into chaos.”
Boone told fans he’s working to reschedule:
“This is genuinely the worst feeling. I promise I’ll make it up to you.”
So far, no replacement date has been confirmed, though his London performances are still listed on the tour calendar.
Reactions were mixed. Many defended the young artist for prioritising his health. “He’s human — voices aren’t machines,” one fan wrote. Others were angry about the short notice, saying they spent hundreds on travel and hotels.
On TikTok, videos showed disappointed fans leaving the arena while others replayed clips of his Glasgow show, calling it “unreal” and “worth the wait.” For some, the cancellation only strengthened their loyalty. “Better to cancel than lose your voice forever,” one user wrote.
When a concert is cancelled at the last minute, ticket-holders aren’t powerless. Under UK consumer law, your purchase is a contract for a service — and if that service isn’t delivered, you’re entitled to a refund.
The Consumer Rights Act 2015 states that if an event doesn’t take place as advertised, the promoter, venue, or ticket agent must return your money. You’re not required to accept vouchers or credits unless you prefer them.
If a new date is offered, you have the choice: attend the rescheduled show or request a refund. The law is clear — you don’t lose your rights just because the artist plans to make it up later.
According to consumer-advice charity Citizens Advice, when a live‐event ticket represents a service that’s cancelled or significantly changed, ticket-holders may have the right to demand a full refund under UK consumer law. (Citizens Advice)
A full refund of the ticket price and standard booking fees.
Refunds processed by the authorised seller (e.g., Ticketmaster, See Tickets).
No extra deductions or “admin fees” unless stated in the original terms.
Travel and hotel expenses are usually excluded. However, if organisers knew the event would be cancelled and failed to warn customers, you could claim additional compensation through small claims court.
Keep your proof — confirmation emails, digital tickets, and screenshots of the cancellation.
Contact your ticket provider within 14 days to request your refund.
Watch for scams — only use official sites and emails.
If refused, report it to Citizens Advice or the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
The UK Music Venue Trust estimates that sudden cancellations cost fans more than £12 million annually in wasted travel and accommodation. Knowing your rights ensures you don’t add to that total.
Bottom line: If your concert is cancelled less than an hour before start time — like Benson Boone’s Birmingham show — you’re entitled to your money back. The law is on your side.
1. Why did Benson Boone cancel his Birmingham concert?
Benson Boone cancelled his Birmingham show less than an hour before he was due on stage because of severe throat and vocal strain. He told fans he had “tried everything” to recover his voice but couldn’t perform safely without risking long-term damage. Doctors often advise professional singers to rest immediately to avoid permanent injury.
2. Will Benson Boone reschedule his Birmingham tour date?
Boone has said he’s working with his team to find a new date for the cancelled show, though no official replacement has been confirmed yet. Fans are encouraged to keep an eye on his verified social media accounts and the Utilita Arena’s website for rescheduling updates.
3. Can fans get a refund for Benson Boone’s cancelled concert?
Yes. Under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, UK concertgoers are entitled to a full refund if an event is cancelled, even at the last minute. Refunds should be issued through the authorised ticket seller (such as Ticketmaster or See Tickets). Fans who cannot attend a rescheduled date also have the right to claim their money back.
4. What should I do if my concert is cancelled just before it starts?
Keep your proof of purchase, save any official announcements, and contact your ticket provider immediately. Request a full refund or confirm your place at the rescheduled event. If a company refuses to refund you, you can escalate the complaint to Citizens Advice or the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for support.
Despite the setback, Boone’s star continues to rise. With billions of streams, sold-out venues, and an MTV Award for Beautiful Things, he’s become one of pop’s fastest-growing names. His openness about health struggles may even win him more respect in the long run.
Whether Birmingham gets its rescheduled date or not, Boone’s message is clear: sometimes protecting your voice means disappointing your crowd — but in the music business, silence can be a smart move.
Protect Your Name: The Essential Guide to UK Libel, Slander, and the Serious Harm Test
Have you been targeted by false online reviews, a damaging social media post, or an untrue newspaper article? In the UK, the law of defamation—covering both libel and slander—is your shield. This guide breaks down the complex rules of the Defamation Act 2013 to help you understand your rights, what you need to prove, and the powerful defences publishers can use. (For readers in the United States, see our related guide on US defamation law)
| Quick Reference: Defamation Basics |
| What is Defamation? |
| Libel vs. Slander |
| The Key Law |
Before 2014, it was easier to bring a defamation claim. The law changed to protect free speech and stop trivial lawsuits (often called 'libel tourism'). Now, the most important hurdle is proving Serious Harm.
A statement is not considered defamatory unless its publication has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to your reputation.
If you're searching for "how to sue for libel in the UK" or "proving serious financial loss for defamation", this serious harm test is the first thing your lawyer will ask about. Without evidence, your claim will fail immediately.
According to Tom Double, media and communications lawyer at Brett Wilson LLP, ‘under the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant must show that the words complained of were published to a third party, referred to the claimant (directly or by inference), carried a meaning which would lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, and caused or are likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation.’
Most modern defamation happens in the digital world, and the law has adapted.
While both are types of defamation, the distinction is usually about the permanence of the statement:
This is a common question: can I sue the person who wrote the post, the website, or both?
If a claimant successfully proves the statement is defamatory and caused serious harm, the defendant (the publisher) will almost certainly rely on one of the statutory defences:
This is the strongest defence, replacing the old "justification" rule.
This protects personal opinions, but not fake facts dressed as opinions.
This is the journalist's shield, protecting responsible reporting.
Seeking professional legal advice is critical, but the first steps are simple:
Navigating UK libel law requires careful strategy, particularly against a defendant armed with the modern statutory defences. If you feel your reputation has suffered serious harm from a false publication, acting quickly is vital.
Defamation in the UK refers to a false statement that damages someone’s reputation. It covers both libel (written or published statements) and slander (spoken words). To be defamatory, the statement must be false, published to others, and cause serious harm to the person’s reputation.
Under Section 1 of the Defamation Act 2013, a claim is only valid if the statement has caused, or is likely to cause, serious harm to your reputation. For businesses, the harm must result in serious financial loss.
Yes. Social media posts, online comments, and digital publications are considered libel because they create a permanent record. If a post contains false claims that damage your reputation, you may have a defamation case.
The three key defences are: Truth, Honest Opinion, and Publication on a Matter of Public Interest. If the publisher can prove any of these, the claim may fail even if the statement was harmful.
After months of speculation and whispered clues hidden in Lily Allen’s explosive new album West End Girl, actor David Harbour has finally spoken out.
In a rare interview with Esquire Spain, the Stranger Things star opened up about turning 50, reflecting on heartbreak, mistakes, and the search for redemption following his split from Allen — whose latest record lays bare a marriage that once looked golden from the outside.
“You either accept your path completely,” Harbour said quietly, “and realize that even the pain, the slip-ups, and the mistakes are all part of the journey. There’s growth and empathy in all that.”
It was a strikingly self-aware confession from an actor more often seen wielding sarcasm and a sheriff’s badge. Yet the timing was no accident. Allen’s album — written in just 10 days after their separation — paints a vivid picture of betrayal, secrecy, and emotional exhaustion.
Through tracks like “Tennis” and “Madeline,” she channels raw anger and disbelief: “You won’t play with me — who the f** is Madeline?”*
Fans have called West End Girl the British Lemonade — a reference to Beyoncé’s 2016 confessional masterpiece. But Allen’s lyrics go further, detailing late-night texts, double lives, and one name that’s become its own cultural riddle: Madeline.
When Allen appeared at a Halloween party dressed as the children’s-book character Madeline, the internet erupted. “We got Jolene, Becky with the good hair, and now Madeline,” one fan joked on X.
Speculation grew that the mysterious Madeline wasn’t real but a pseudonym created for legal protection, allowing Allen to tell her story without identifying anyone directly. Her label declined to comment — a silence that said plenty.
Harbour, meanwhile, didn’t mention the album directly but admitted to “regret and deep learning.” Looking ahead, he said there are still people he wants “to love, to be good to, and to nurture.”
Related Exclusive: Stranger Things Scandal
Whenever a public breakup becomes the subject of a chart-topping record, one question inevitably follows: Can you be sued for what you sing?
Under UK defamation law, a person may sue if a publication — including a song — damages their reputation by making false claims. To win, the claimant must prove that:
The words are about them;
The words were published to others; and
The content caused serious harm.
But here’s the legal twist: truth is a complete defense. If Allen’s lyrics reflect events that genuinely happened — even if painful or unflattering — she’s shielded from liability. UK courts also protect freedom of artistic expression under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998, granting wide creative latitude to musicians and writers.
The “Madeline Clause” — How Artists Protect Themselves
In today’s music industry, it’s common to disguise real identities behind composite characters or pseudonyms — informally dubbed the Madeline Clause. By fictionalizing names and altering details, artists can explore personal experiences without directly identifying anyone. Labels often run every lyric through legal review before release, especially in albums based on real relationships.
So What Does This Mean for You?
Even ordinary people posting about relationships online face similar rules. You can share your truth, but accuracy and respect for privacy matter. If you blog, post, or write music about a breakup, avoid publishing identifiable details that could harm someone’s reputation. Stick to your own experience — not unverified accusations — and your story remains legally protected self-expression.
Expert Takeaway:
In Allen’s case, the decision to rename her alleged rival Madeline was likely a deliberate legal safeguard. It lets her vent emotional truth while protecting both her label and herself from a potential defamation claim. Harbour could theoretically challenge specific lyrics, but doing so would require proving both falsity and measurable reputational damage — a steep uphill climb in creative works.
According to Tom Double, a media and communications lawyer at Brett Wilson LLP, “under the Defamation Act 2013, a claimant must show that the words complained of were published to a third party, referred to the claimant (directly or by inference), carried a meaning which would lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society, and caused or are likely to cause serious harm to the claimant’s reputation. For a body that trades for profit, that means serious financial loss.”
What began as a breakup ballad has ignited a broader conversation about truth, privacy, and the limits of public storytelling. Lily Allen’s record may chronicle heartbreak, but it also exposes the modern tension between artistic freedom and personal boundaries — a space where law, love, and pop culture collide.
As Harbour looks ahead to “being good to people” and Allen basks in newfound critical acclaim, one truth remains: in the court of public opinion, the lines between confession and creation have never been more blurred.
Who is Lily Allen’s “Madeline”?
The identity of Madeline has not been confirmed. Most observers believe it’s a pseudonym used for privacy and legal protection under UK defamation law.
Could David Harbour sue Lily Allen over her lyrics?
Technically yes — but success would be unlikely. Truth and artistic expression provide strong legal defenses, especially in music and creative storytelling.
What is Lily Allen’s album West End Girl about?
The album chronicles Allen’s marriage breakdown and emotional recovery, using metaphor and character storytelling to explore love, betrayal, and self-rediscovery.
Final Takeaway:
The David Harbour–Lily Allen saga is more than celebrity gossip — it’s a modern case study in how far truth can travel when filtered through art. For anyone watching their favorite stars navigate heartbreak in public, one thing’s clear: behind every lyric and lawsuit lies the same fragile question — how much of your own story is truly yours to tell?
As Netflix counts down to the release of Stranger Things Season 5, unsettling reports have cast a shadow over one of the streaming giant’s most beloved series. According to multiple outlets, Millie Bobby Brown has filed a formal harassment and bullying complaint against her long-time co-star David Harbour, who plays her on-screen father figure, Chief Jim Hopper.
The alleged incidents reportedly took place just before filming began for the show’s much-anticipated final season, sparking an internal investigation at Netflix that sources claim “lasted months.” While insiders say the accusations did not include sexual misconduct, the reported behavior allegedly left Brown “deeply uncomfortable” on set — prompting heightened safeguards during production.
Brown — who has portrayed Eleven since she was 12 — has grown up in front of millions of viewers. Now 21, she’s an actress, entrepreneur, and newlywed, having recently married Jake Bongiovi, son of rock legend Jon Bon Jovi.
But behind the nostalgic 1980s glow of Stranger Things, the set wasn’t always as friendly as it appeared. A report by the Daily Mail, echoed by Perez Hilton and other entertainment outlets, alleges that Brown lodged a harassment complaint against Harbour just before cameras rolled for Season 5.
Sources claimed the studio received “pages and pages of accusations,” prompting a quiet internal review. Netflix, for its part, has refused to comment publicly, but several insiders suggest the studio acted swiftly — reportedly assigning Brown a personal representative to remain by her side throughout filming.
The claims come at a turbulent time for Harbour, 50, who is also facing reports of marital strain and alleged infidelity amid his separation from singer Lily Allen. Allen’s latest album features lyrics that fans believe reference betrayal and emotional distance — adding further intrigue to the story.
While no direct link has been confirmed between Harbour’s personal troubles and the Stranger Things complaint, Netflix’s reported inquiry was said to be “comprehensive,” involving multiple departments and confidentiality agreements.
Over nearly a decade, Millie Bobby Brown has transformed from a breakout child star to one of Hollywood’s most bankable young women. Her decision to reportedly raise concerns about treatment on set signals a growing shift in the industry: younger actors are demanding accountability, not just fame.
The presence of a personal representative on set was likely designed to protect her under Netflix’s workplace safety protocols — a quiet but telling sign that even high-profile productions must now take such allegations seriously.
While fans view Stranger Things as fantasy, the allegations surrounding Brown and Harbour shine a spotlight on a real-world legal issue — workplace harassment.
Under U.S. law, harassment typically falls under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects employees from discrimination and hostile work environments. But Hollywood’s rules differ: productions rely on union contracts, state law, and private agreements. This means an actor’s ability to file a complaint depends not just on what happened, but on where and how the production is registered.
In California, where Stranger Things filming partially takes place, employers are required to protect staff from bullying or psychological abuse, even if it’s not sexual or discriminatory. After the #MeToo movement, California expanded its Labor Code to address “abusive conduct” — including intimidation, humiliation, or sabotage — the same behaviors that Brown reportedly cited.
Netflix’s move to provide her with a personal representative likely stems from its duty of care obligations under these laws. This ensures that employees or contractors who’ve reported misconduct are shielded from retaliation — a legal safeguard that now applies across entertainment, tech, and corporate sectors alike.
Harassment laws don’t just protect celebrities. According to a 2024 EEOC report, one in three workplace complaints now involves non-physical harassment, such as verbal bullying or exclusion — issues that mirror the allegations in this case.
For ordinary readers, the takeaway is clear:
You have the right to a respectful workplace, no matter your role or industry.
Document and report any patterns of intimidation, bullying, or verbal abuse.
Know your state laws, which may go further than federal rules.
And if your employer fails to act, agencies like the EEOC and state labor boards can intervene.
In short, what’s playing out on Netflix’s biggest stage is a reminder that the law protects dignity at work — whether you’re on a film set or in a cubicle.
Netflix and the Duffer Brothers have remained publicly silent on the controversy, choosing instead to focus on promoting the show’s final season. Sources say the internal investigation has concluded, though the findings remain sealed under studio confidentiality agreements.
Industry insiders speculate that Netflix, still recovering from prior PR storms involving other stars, is walking a careful line between protecting its brand and ensuring it adheres to post-#MeToo compliance standards.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc()/stranger_things_s03e02_4m23s6316f_r-2000-af167a9d6a064fc3a3367bef56dfc9ee.jpg)
Despite the off-screen tension, Stranger Things 5 promises to deliver a cinematic conclusion to the Hawkins saga. Set in the autumn of 1987, the story continues where Season 4 left off, as Eleven and her friends face their ultimate confrontation with Vecna and the Upside Down.
Netflix will release the episodes in stages:
Part 1: November 26, 2025 (four episodes)
Part 2: December 25, 2025 (three episodes)
Final Episode: December 31, 2025 – January 1, 2026
Early trailers tease nostalgia, heartbreak, and explosive action — the kind of high-stakes storytelling that made Stranger Things a global phenomenon.
The online reaction has been divided. Many fans have rallied around Brown, praising her courage for allegedly speaking out against mistreatment. Others urge restraint until Netflix releases an official statement. On social media platforms like X and TikTok, hashtags including #JusticeForEleven and #ProtectMillieBobbyBrown have trended globally, reflecting how deeply the story resonates beyond television.
As the entertainment world awaits clarification, one truth has emerged: Hollywood’s culture is changing. Allegations like these are no longer dismissed as “personality clashes” — they’re recognized as potential breaches of workplace law and ethics.
For the public, this story is more than gossip; it’s a case study in how legal standards and cultural expectations are merging in modern workplaces. Whether you’re a teacher, a nurse, or an actor, the message is universal — respect isn’t optional.
Was Millie Bobby Brown harassed on the Stranger Things set?
Reports from several outlets claim Brown filed a harassment complaint against co-star David Harbour. Netflix has not issued an official statement.
Did Netflix investigate the allegations?
Yes, according to multiple reports, an internal review took place, though the findings remain confidential.
Is David Harbour still in Stranger Things Season 5?
Yes, Harbour continues to appear as Jim Hopper in the show’s final season.
When does Stranger Things Season 5 release on Netflix?
Part 1 premieres November 26, followed by new episodes on December 25 and December 31–January 1.
Millie Bobby Brown Net Worth 2025 — Updated Figures & Earnings Breakdown
Disclaimer: This article is based on publicly available media reports. Neither Netflix, Millie Bobby Brown, nor David Harbour has issued an official statement confirming the details of the internal complaint as of November 2025.
