President Donald Trump shared on Truth Social a photo and video footage of a shooter’s attempt to barrel past a security checkpoint at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
The video, shared shortly before a hastily convened press conference at the White House on Saturday night, shows a blur of a man running past law enforcement officers standing near magnetometers at the Washington Hilton.
“The man has been captured. They’ve gone to his apartment,” Trump said. He added that the suspect is in his 30s and from California.
“He’s a sick person, a very sick person, and we don’t want things like this to happen,” Trump added.
One law enforcement officer was shot during the incident but was wearing a bulletproof vest.
“The vest did the job. I just spoke to the officer and he’s doing great, great shape,” Trump said at the press conference.
Advertisement
Trump also used the shooting to promote his plans for a new White House ballroom, saying it will be “drone proof” with “bulletproof glass.”
“That’s why the military are demanding it,” Trump said.
“They’ve wanted the ballroom for 150 years, for a lot of different reasons, but today is a little bit different, because we need levels of security that no one has probably ever seen before,” Trump added.
Asked by a reporter how he’s coping following multiple assassination attempts, Trump said at least it hasn’t made him a “basket case.”
Keir Starmer has been mocked over his decision to appoint Peter Mandelson as the UK’s ambassador to America in a brutal Saturday Night Live UK sketch.
The prime minister was portrayed as a confused and indecisive ‘Who Wants To Remain A Millionaire’ contestant on the Sky TV show.
Advertisement
Asked “is it ever a good idea to give Peter Mandelson a job”, the fake PM is presented with four possible answers.
They are no, of course not, not in a million years, and yes.
Actor George Fouracres, who plays Starmer on the show, says “it’s a tricky one” before saying he wants to ask the audience for their view.
After none of them choose yes, the PM says that has “put a seed of doubt ion my mind” and then asks for two wrong answers to be taken away.
Advertisement
With only “not in a million years” and “yes” left, Starmer says: “Oh gosh, this looks so much easier at home.”
He then adds: “I’m afraid I’m just not being presented with the facts.”
Starmer then asks to phone a friend, who turns out to be Mandelson himself.
After asking to go 50-50 again, and despite being left with only “not in a million years” as a possible answer, the prime minister says: “I have my answer. I know it’s not conventional, but I’d like to actually bring back one of the previous options, because I’m going to go with [yes], final answer.”
Asked if he is totally sure, the PM says: “Oh never.”
When told the correct answer was “not in a million years”, he replies: “It’s clear to me now that was the wrong decision. Would I make the same decision again, knowing what I know now? Quite possibly.”
Advertisement
It is not the first time that SNL has mocked the PM.
Last month, Donald Trump shared a clip from the show in which Starmer was presented as a weak and ineffectual prime minister who is scared of the US president.
Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
Keir Starmer has insisted he can fight and win the next general election despite the mounting speculation he faces an imminent challenge to his leadership.
The prime minister’s political future has been cast into doubt once again following the latest revelations in the Peter Mandelson scandal.
Advertisement
Starmer sacked Sir Olly Robbins, the top civil servant at the Foreign Office, for not telling him UK Security Vetting had recommended Mandelson not be given clearance to become the UK’s ambassador to Washington.
The PM has admitted appointing the shamed peer to the plum diplomatic role was a mistake and insisted he would not have done so had he known.
Labour is also set to suffer major losses in next month’s elections in England, Scotland and Wales.
That could trigger an attempt to unseat the prime minister, even though his critics remain split on who should take over from him.
Advertisement
But in an interview with the Sunday Times, insisted he had no intention of leaving No.10 any time soon.
Asked if he was planning to stay in post, Starmer said: “Of course. We didn’t wait 14 years to get elected, we didn’t change the Labour Party, we didn’t do all that it entailed to win the election and the mandate for change, not to deliver on it.”
Asked if Labour can win the next election with him at the helm, the prime minister said: “I think we can. I think it’s going to be a very important general election.
Advertisement
“It’s likely to be Labour versus Reform. An election where the defining question is, what is it to be British? An election where what I would call patriotic values of tolerance, decency, live and let live, diversity, are under challenge like we’ve never seen before.”
Starmer also claimed that most Labour MPs remain supportive of him.
On the speculation about his job, Starmer said: “In politics, you get this sort of thing all of the time. There is always talk. What you never hear from are all the people who are supportive, loyal and just want to get on with the job. And that is the vast majority of people in the :arliamentary Labour Party.
“They’re pleased to be in power. They’ve waited a long time to be in power. And they just want to get on with their job. They don’t make a lot of noise about it. They don’t talk to journalists about it. It’s really important that is reflected in these debates.”
Advertisement
Subscribe to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.
It turns out the kind of oil you use for nonstick pans matters no matter what you’re cooking in them, too.
Advertisement
According to cookware brand Circulon, “there are several reasons to avoid using cooking sprays on your nonstick cookware”.
Why are cooking sprays so bad for nonstick pans?
Speaking to the New York Times’ Wirecutter, Fran Groesbeck, a managing director of the Cookware and Bakeware Alliance trade association, said that – ironically – some non-stick sprays can ruin the coating on your pans.
They can leave a thin film behind after use, she said, and it’s especially hard to spot on nonstick pans.
Advertisement
“You can’t necessarily see that residue, because nonstick coatings are all black, but if you don’t properly clean it off after you’re done cooking, then your food will start to stick.”
This film is made up of ingredients not usually seen in non-spray oils, like soy lecithin. As they linger on an often-reheated pan, they polymerise, becoming next-to-impossible to remove.
But that’s not the only unwanted side effect. Because these sprays typically have a lower smoke point than many other oils, they begin to burn on your pan – corroding the nonstick surface further.
Advertisement
Speaking to EatingWell, cookware company Our Place’s associate director of product development, Stephanie Hong, said: “Many spray oils also contain chemical propellants, which are prone to breaking down under high heat. This instability can lead to scorching, residue buildup and long-term damage to the nonstick surface, ultimately causing the very sticking you were trying to avoid.”
What should I use instead?
If you want to use less oil, try wiping your nonstick pan with a paper towel dipped in your usual oil, Circulon shared.
Advertisement
Alternatively, you could place regular oils in a mister bottle, though Hong warns this could carry its own risks.
“The ultra-fine oil particles (even from pure oil options or refillable oil-misters) can burn and carbonise during cooking, leaving behind a stubborn residue that bonds to the pan’s surface and gradually impacts the pan’s nonstick performance,” she told EatingWell.
She added, “To preserve the quality and lifespan of your nonstick pans, skip aerosol sprays” altogether.
Netflix finally released the long-awaited second instalment of its hit rage drama Beef last week, with the series quickly rising to the top spot of the streamer’s most-watched TV shows, according to its public ranking system.
Season one of the Emmy-winning series starred Steven Yeun and Ali Wong as two strangers who turn a road-rage incident into a long, fury-filled feud. The 2023 series racked up awards for its writing and performances.
Advertisement
The second iteration features a new cast and a whole new beef, in which a struggling Gen Z couple goes head-to-head against a well-to-do millennial married couple in a blackmail saga.
Oscar Isaac stars as Josh, the general manager of a country club, who’s at odds with his wife, Lindsay (played Carey Mulligan), in season two’s opening scene. Two of the country club’s employees — Cailee Spaeny’s Ashley and Charles Melton’s Austin — catch Josh and Lindsay’s big fight on camera, and so ensues the beef that drives the season.
On top of that, the billionaire owner of that same club, Chairwoman Park (the latest screen outing for Oscar winner Youn Yuh-jung), is trying to cover up a big mess dealing with her husband, Dr. Kim (played by Song Kang-ho), and gets everyone entangled in that mess.
Advertisement
We’ve watched all of season two – and these are our thoughts about the show…
Let’s talk about the cast and performances in Beef season 2
Cailee Spaeny as Ashley Miller, Carey Mulligan as Lindsay Crane-Martin and Charles Melton as Austin Davis in Beef
I thought the ensemble cast for season two was quite a mixed bag when Netflix first announced it, but given the millennial-versus-Gen Z plot, it makes sense now.
Oscar Isaac, Carey Mulligan, Charles Melton and Cailee Spaeny all give great performances. Cailee’s Ashley is an absolute menace by the end of the season, which I’m sure was the whole point of her character’s arc, but the actor played a clingy, controlling girlfriend well. I’m still thinking about those scenes on the planes where she loses it. Oscar was great, too, at flipping the switch between calm and unhinged with his character, especially in his scenes with Carey’s Lindsay.
Advertisement
The real standout for me was Youn Yuh-jung as Chairwoman Park. She was the perfect unexpected villain in this scenario. I have my qualms about season two’s story, but this cast wasn’t half-bad. — Njera
Out of the main cast, I was really only familiar with Charles Melton’s work, specifically his incredible turn opposite Julianne Moore in May December. So he was an exciting lead for me.
I’m still sitting with how I felt about Cailee Spaeny, Carey Mulligan and Oscar Isaac — mostly because their characters were so terrible that I can’t imagine saying anything “good” about them. But yes, I guess that is the whole point. We’re seeing the worst of people in this show — but I just can’t help but keep comparing their character arcs and personalities to the first season’s leads. They just didn’t grab me as much as I thought they should.
Advertisement
That said, I can’t praise Song Kang-ho and Youn Yuh-jung’s performances enough. Make them the leads in another, better Netflix series! — Erin
The best of Beef season 2…
Cailee Spaeny as Ashley Miller and Charles Melton as Austin Davis in season two of Beef
Charles Melton. Listen, I hated that his character was ridiculous and annoying. But he is so hot that I overlooked it during every moment that he did something questionable. I also loved Youn Yuh-jung and Song Kang-ho’s performances as Chairwoman Park and Dr. Kim. If the series had been focused more on them, I probably would have enjoyed it more. — Erin
Advertisement
Charles Melton’s Austin was probably my least favourite at the start of the season, simply because I couldn’t take him being the idiot boyfriend to Cailee Spaeny’s Ashley. However, I feel like he did his job because he played the role convincingly, and he may not have been as dumb as he seemed by the end!
Honestly, everyone’s characters pissed me off the whole show for different reasons, but I still think the actors delivered great performances.
The comedic moments are what really kept me tapped into season two, like when Lindsay went after that coyote trying to save poor Burberry (Lindsay and Josh’s dog) in the woods. Or when Austin thought “misc” on an invoice was a typo for “mist”. Austin’s ditzy moments actually had me screaming. He was the highlight of the show for me. — Njera
Advertisement
…and the worst
My biggest complaint about this second season is how incredibly overstuffed the story feels, from the plot itself to the many characters the show forces us to follow.
We start off with the basic inciting event: Ashley and Austin witness a horrific fight between Josh and Lindsay and capture it on video. They then use that footage to blackmail their boss and his wife to get Ashley health insurance and a promotion with a pay bump – nothing yet for Austin, as he points out.
But then the story unravels into all kinds of mayhem that goes far beyond each couple’s relationship turmoil and their “beefs” with each other. What starts off as a character study of these four peculiar individuals becomes some kind of suspenseful corporate thriller when the show turns its focus toward a third couple: the country club’s billionaire owner, Chairwoman Park, and her much younger husband, plastic surgeon Dr. Kim. We get into the flaws of their relationship as well, but the main focus is on the death that Chairwoman Park is trying to cover up after her husband accidentally kills a patient during surgery at their clinic in Korea. She has to pay off all the clinic employees to keep them quiet and used the country club to clean said hush money.
Advertisement
Somehow, this turns into a money laundering scheme/conspiracy, and while entertaining, this is where the show started to lose me. It felt so far removed from what the original premise was that it no longer felt like a follow-up to Season 1. Granted, it is an anthology series, so I knew season two wasn’t going to replicate everything from the first season, but it felt like the show tried so hard to top its breakout success that it got away from itself.
Beef season one wasn’t perfect, but there’s a reason why it resonated with so many viewers. It tapped into themes and ideas that the average disgruntled person could relate to. Season two has its moments as well, though more often than not, it trades them for wildly ridiculous plots that don’t amount to any great revelations. The finale is proof of that. — Njera
Youn Yuh-jung as Chairwoman Park and Song Kang-ho as Dr. Kim in the Season 2 finale of Beef.
Advertisement
How does Beef season 2 compare to season 1?
Season one of Beef was one of the top shows of 2023. It won eight Emmy Awards, including Outstanding Limited Series, and both its stars won the Outstanding Actor Awards in the limited series categories. Steven Yeun and Ali Wong were incredible leads who you were rooting for even while they were raging against each other. You could feeeeel their energy through the screen.
Unfortunately, that same energy just did not translate for me in season two. Maybe if I’d gone into the show knowing that it’d had a very different feel from season one, I could have adjusted my expectations. But from the first moments of season two, I knew that it was unlikely the show would reach the bar season one set. I imagine it’s pretty hard to replicate that success for any TV show, but season two of Beef felt totally undercooked. — Erin
The first season of Beef immediately grabbed me within the first five minutes of the show. The road-rage incident was the perfect setup — it had action, rage, suspense and you immediately wanted to know where the story was going next. Steven Yeun and Ali Wong were excellent in their roles and proved why that debut season was such a runaway hit.
Advertisement
Season two gets off to a much slower start, and even Josh and Lindsay’s fight didn’t feel as dramatic as it could’ve been. The stakes didn’t feel big enough, not even when they got caught red-handed by Austin and Ashley. The plot sounded boring on paper and played out exactly like I thought it would on screen (before things went haywire).
The season didn’t feel like a drag to me because the action of the Chairwoman Park storyline made up for the parts that were lacking, but if we’re comparing one and two, there’s no competition to me. — Njera
What other critics are saying about Beef season 2
Oscar Isaac as Josh Martin and Carey Mulligan as Lindsay Crane-Martin in Season 2 of “Beef.”
Advertisement
Alison Herman at Variety called it “overcrowded and unfocused” in her review. “But over eight episodes, Beef loses focus and overcrowds this already expanded premise,” Herman writes. “By the closing credits, season two is no longer mainly about the acrimony between its antiheroes and what it brings out from within them.”
Aisha Harris at NPR said ultimately the show is “well done”. “Season two is compelling enough largely because its stars gamely tap into the spirit of the show’s M.O.; at any given moment, each character may reveal the worst of themselves, which looks different for everyone,” Harris writes.
While I agree that each character has some truly terrible personality traits, I’m not convinced it taps into the same modus operandi as the first season and definitely not nearly as well.
Advertisement
Christopher Campbell at Rotten Tomatoes rounded up the early reviews of the season, with most critics saying season two was worth the wait. I totally disagree with that! Maybe if the show didn’t seem so sprawling — six episodes instead of eight, 30 minutes each instead of 45- to 55-minute episodes — it would have felt like less of a time investment for something not nearly as focused as season one.
It’s very interesting to see how mixed the reviews are. But I’m more curious to see what folks have to say about it on social media as more people dig in over the weekend. — Erin
So, should you watch Beef season 2?
If you’re looking for the same fervour as Season 1, skip it. But if you’re a huge Charles Melton fan, enjoy. — Erin
Advertisement
If espionage thrillers are your jam, you might enjoy the latter half of the season. Might not be the Beef you’re expecting, but it’s quite a series of events. Also, if you tend to get FOMO, you might just want to get this binge-watch out of the way to avoid spoilers on socials. — Njera
We all know kids and teens are reading less – and an increasing number are enjoying it less, too.
The stats speak for themselves. When The National Literacy Trust polled almost 115,000 kids in early 2025, it found just one in three (32.7%) kids aged eight to 18 years old said they enjoyed reading in their free time.
This marked a 36% decrease in reading enjoyment levels since 2005.
It’s not just a UK issue, either. In a US-based survey of Gen Z students by Walton Family Foundation and Gallup, 35% admitted they disliked reading, with 43% saying they rarely or never did it for fun.
Discussing why older kids are reading less, she said there are “many reasons” like “increased pressure inside and outside of school, a desire to spend more time socialising, and, of course, the phones”.
Advertisement
But an even more “obvious” reason, she said, is that “adults have lowered the bar for how much you should read as a teenager” to the point where “the bar cannot be found”.
She explained: “There are many educators who have the mindset that you shouldn’t teach whole books because kids just won’t read them.”
“In the past I’ve taught at schools where teaching novels is actually discouraged,” she claimed.
I asked teachers and school librarians in the UK for their two cents on why kids are falling way out of love with reading by the time they reach their teens.
Advertisement
Sol Elliott, librarian at Overton Grange School, suggested more time spent online, especially on social media, plays a key part: “The technology that brings a lot of young people towards reading also keeps far more people away from it.
“The dopamine hit of social media use is hard to compete with, especially when we are working with people whose brains are developing quickly.”
Sarah Parsons, director of education at the Ted Wragg Multi Academy Trust, said: “Sadly, we see in our schools that teens find it hard to maintain the reading habits that they may have developed during primary school.
Advertisement
“Increasing demands on their time both within and beyond the classroom, combined with the growing influence of technology, have all contributed to a decline in regular reading among our teenagers.”
Research suggests there was a 52% increase in children’s screen time between 2020 and 2022. Kids aged eight to 14 years old who use the internet spend an average of 2 hours 59 minutes a day online across smartphones, tablets and computers, typically on YouTube, Snapchat, Google (search), Facebook and WhatsApp.
Nat Parnell, CEO of the Westcountry Schools Trust, also suggested social media plays a major role in teens reading less: “The risk is that the short bursts of gratification teenagers get from social media and texting are far more immediately satisfying than reading, which requires much greater effort before enjoyment is reached. It is not really a fair competition.”
Advertisement
The benefits of reading for pleasure
Besides being a nice way to switch off and unwind, there are several benefits to kids reading for pleasure. It helps introduce children to a range of experiences and viewpoints, which can help build empathy. It can also boost confidence and spark creativity.
Reading enjoyment has also been reported as more important for children’s educational success than their family’s socio-economic status, and it’s linked to higher scores in reading assessments.
Schools are trying to address the reading crisis – but it’s not easy. Parnell said their schools ensure all students have structured reading opportunities. “We also banned mobile phones in school some time ago,” she noted.
Advertisement
Parsons said their are a few strategies they’re deploying to try and boost reading: providing dedicated time each week for independent reading, for example, as well as exposing kids to texts that stimulate meaningful discussion and debate.
For Elliott, it’s been a case of tailoring the school library collection to the pupils’ tastes “in the hope that they will pick up a healthy reading habit as they grow up”.
“A lot of these choices are informed by internet trends and TikTok friendly genres (Fantasy, Romance, Manga etc.),” said the librarian.
Advertisement
“I genuinely fear for the health of our society if a meaningful cohort of young people are not reading regularly and interacting with serious literature,” Elliott added.
“I am optimistic, though, that when a school is sensitive to its young readers and pays attention to their interests that we can help them turn into regular readers.
“All reading is good reading, and I can only hope that stocking my library with magazines, comics and manga, will lead a good amount of them to a Zadie Smith novel, or a play by Arthur Miller.”
Advertisement
Ways to get kids reading at home
If you’re hoping to spark a love of reading in your teen, here’s what might help:
Appearing on Jimmy Fallon’s talk show on Wednesday night, the stand-up explained: “After I [host an awards show], I always send flowers to everyone that I made fun of that was a good sport about it, which was everyone.”
She then revealed that Leo is “the only person who sent something back to me”.
“Is your favorite food still ‘Pasta, pasta and more pasta?’” she quipped from the stage, to which Leonardo responded by giving an amused thumbs-up.
So, guess what his gift to Nikki was?
“He sent me three baskets of pasta as a ‘thank you,’” she revealed. “So funny. So good. And part of me was like, ‘Does Leo want to smash?’”
You can watch Nikki Glaser’s complete interview with Jimmy Fallon below:
During her opening monologue at the Golden Globes in January, Nikki said: “What a career [Leonardo DiCaprio has] had. Countless iconic performances, you’ve worked with every great director, you’ve won three Golden Globes and an Oscar.
“The most impressive thing is you were able to accomplish all that before your girlfriend turned 30… I’m sorry I made that joke, it’s cheap, I tried not to, but we don’t know anything else about you, man. There’s, like, nothing else.”
However, critics are far more divided over his follow-up series, Half Man. with some saying it is too violent and dark.
Advertisement
Starring Richard and Jamie Bell as two half-brothers with an explosive, toxic relationship and follows them from childhood, through their awkward teens and into adulthood, Half Man is a dark exploration of toxic masculinity, repression and male rage.
Ahead of its release on Thursday, reviews were split over whether the project was a vital piece of television that’s among the year’s best or slightly too much to stomach.
Here’s a selection of what the critics are saying about Half Man so far…
“It leaves you with that rare and precious feeling that everyone involved – Gadd, of course, who has once again pulled out his viscera, spread them over the page and taken a scalpel to every bloody organ, but every actor too (Bell is on career-best form and then some here) – has given us the very best of themselves.”
Advertisement
“The best show of 2026 […] Half Man will be a lot of things to a lot of people, and that’s where its brilliance lies. Many will instantly draw parallels with ongoing conversations about toxic masculinity, and that’s important. But this drama actually speaks to so much more than that, and what you will get out of it as a viewer will be dependent on what theme resonates or speaks to you most.”
The hard-hitting series centres around two half-brothers with a toxic relationship
BBC/Mam Tor Productions/Anne Binckebanck
“Half Man is an excellent but difficult watch. A viciousness runs through the narrative, and countless acts of violence depicted. For those who stick it out, the final episode features one of the most emotionally shattering scenes on television.”
Advertisement
“Half Man is so potent because it’s not sanitised. It is a deeply uncomfortable watch about deeply messed-up characters whose lives are in constant turmoil, anchored by some unreal performances – certainly by the younger cast, but definitely from Bell in particular, who I’ve determined deserves an Emmy win for embodying how tortured Niall is in his 20s and 30s.”
“Half Man is gripping, emotional, complex, and upsetting, telling a story of masculinity and brotherhood that feels rooted in reality even though the story is fictional. It stumbles at times but never falls, and the strengths massively outweigh any negatives.”
“The series isn’t flawless. There are dips in pacing here and there, and a few of the women characters could be better written. Often, the monologues feel better suited to a play than they do to television. But the density and layered nature of the writing win the day.
Advertisement
“Half Man makes one thing abundantly clear: Everyone else churning out scripts for TV is a writer. Richard Gadd is a bloody artist.”
“I needed an entire evening to decompress after binging Richard Gadd’s Half Man, and I don’t think I can ever watch it again. Foundational issues aside, Gadd has proved why his disturbing style makes him the storyteller of a generation”
Half Man is Richard Gadd’s first major project since the global success of Baby Reindeer
BBC/Mam Tor Productions/Anne Binckebanck
Advertisement
“Family, for good or for ill, is an undeniable bond. It’s something that can frequently bring out the best and worst in a person. It’s hard to know how to navigate these situations, where it can be easy to feel like you’re living in their shadow or are constantly pulled, unwillingly, back into their orbit.
“The ways in which Half Man acutely understands that dynamic make it a must-see series even in spite of a few misgivings along the way, ultimately presenting itself as a singular experience that sticks with you. After all, family is hard to shake.”
“Life certainly can seem like a constant test of a man’s virility, but Gadd’s dramatisation of that notion doesn’t have enough resonance – as drama it’s fussy and overwrought and as dark comedy it’s lightweight and inconsequential.
Advertisement
“The occasional jolts of sex and violence only emphasise the overall superficiality. It’s probably not a good sign when the only people you care about in a show are the ones your hero mistreats.”
“I don’t doubt that its ugliest scenes are sincere efforts to blast away narrative euphemisms, leaving only scorched kernels of truth. But for me, it doesn’t expand upon the revelations of Reindeer enough to merit the misery.
“Someone more invested in dissecting the nuances of masculinity might disagree. If Gadd has taught us anything, it’s that we are all shaped by an infinite accumulation of experiences, and thus all tragically unique.”
Advertisement
“Six episodes may not seem like enough time to uncover 30 years in the lives of these men, but this limited series packs some serious punch. Niall and Ruben’s journey together is worth sticking around for.”
“Much of what’s explored is hard-hitting and very much real, but the story devolves into a bit of a bleak-fest that makes it hard to really engage with it.”
“Not only does Half Man end without attaining the same level of lived complexity as Gadd’s past work, but its conclusion also ensures the only way to read their story is as an allegory. They’re half-men who add up to even less.”
Advertisement
“Bell and Gadd’s commitment to their roles is never in question. At a certain point, though, the series’ schematism becomes so pronounced that it renders them mere pawns in a contraption designed to underscore, at every turn, the corrosiveness of homophobia and, also, the resultant act of hiding and hating your true self.”
“It’s a show with much to recommend it, but it’s an emotionally draining show that, in its ultimate revelations, left me with little enthusiasm for recommendation.”
“Cartoonishly exaggerated characters knock chunks out of each other, speaking in overwritten soundbites in service of a plot that rambles over the course of multiple decades. It has the feeling of a dark, misanthropic novel – the sort of thing Martin Amis would’ve written, to great acclaim, in the Eighties – but struggles as a six-hour entertainment piece.”
Advertisement
“Gadd was garlanded with awards for Baby Reindeer but the show was mired in accusations of mixing fact with fiction. It was bracingly original and morally dubious. Half Man is a weaker piece of work but, once again, it leaves a nasty taste.”
The first episode of Half Man is now streaming on BBC iPlayer, with new instalments following every Friday. The show is also available to watch weekly on BBC One on Tuesday nights.
If there’s not a day that goes by where you aren’t scratching your head over something your teen’s said, you’ve come to the right place.
Today we’re talking about the Gen Z term ‘larp’, which tweens and teens might call each other, or mention in comments online. The clue is absolutely not in the name. So, what on earth does it mean?
Advertisement
“People are calling each other larps which Google says is ‘live action role play’ but that sentence literally makes no sense, so what are they saying?” asked one Redditor who was equally baffled by it.
What is a larp or larper?
The Redditor is correct that larp comes from the gaming term ‘live action role-playing’, which is where people physically act out characters. For example, wearing costumes and acting out scenes from their favourite computer games.
But over time, the term has also evolved to mean someone pretending to be something they’re not. You can be a larper or larping, too.
Advertisement
One Redditor explained: “LARPing usually involves some form of acting.
“So if you’re calling someone a larper you’re saying they are acting a part, calling them fake basically, that they are pretending to be something they aren’t, and/or their behaviour is performative.”
In short, it’s become an insult and a way to call someone out. As another Redditor noted, larper has become “a common insult online used to imply the person is making shit up”.
What else are kids saying?
Call your Uber
Some teachers report kids are saying “call your Uber” or “call yo Uber” in class. Uber is a popular ride-hailing company so it’s kind of like saying, “call yourself a taxi”. In short: you need to leave.
Advertisement
Mid
When Gen Alpha uses it, “mid” means mediocre or of disappointing quality. If you’re described as “mid” by a teenager then they’re basically saying you are… average.
According to Merriam-Webster, “mid” serves to express that something falls short of expectations, or isn’t impressive.
The dictionary notes that this slang term is thought to have come from a shortening of the term mid-grade, “a designation in cannabis culture of medium quality”.
Advertisement
City boy
“City boy, city boy” is the call of Gen Alpha currently, with TikTok creator and teacher Philip Lindsay noting kids in his class have been saying it.
“It’s a meme from an old video clip that they’re just repeating,” explained the teacher, who is based in the US. The memes actually first did the rounds in 2022 and appear to be popular again.
From a Gen Alpha perspective, Mr Lindsay suggested the phrase doesn’t really mean anything and kids are just shouting it out at all opportunities – a bit like six-seven.
Advertisement
Unc
This is short for “uncle”. And, per Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, it’s “often used humorously to indicate old age” and may imply “someone is old, getting old, or acting older than their age”.
Unc status may also be awarded to someone who “exhibit[s] behaviours that are considered outdated or out of touch”.
Former I’m A Celebrity star Jimmy Bullard has spoken out amid rumours he was planning on swerving the show’s upcoming live final.
Earlier this month, I’m A Celebrity: South Africa viewers saw Jimmy become embroiled in a heated bust-up with campmate Adam Thomas, after the former footballer chose to cut a Bushtucker Trial short, effectively sending them both home in the process.
Since then, it was reported that Jimmy would not be attending Friday’s live final as he and Adam are still not on speaking turns.
Adam Thomas and Jimmy Bullard had it out on I’m A Celebrity earlier this week
ITV/Shutterstock
Advertisement
However, he’s now set the record straight on his exit – and whether or not he will be reuniting with his former co-stars later this week.
On Wednesday, Jimmy reposted a clip of I’m A Celebrity star Sinitta on Instagram, in which she claimed that he was struggling in camp after his friend Gemma Collins’ elimination, and that he was also worried about his father’s health back home, which motivated him to quit.
“Shame that wasn’t shown!” he wrote alongside the clip, before telling his followers: “My version will be told Friday! Can’t wait to see you all – well some of yous!!”
Advertisement
In an on-camera interview, Jimmy also admitted that “letting Adam down” by eliminating himself was a “killer”, but that his dad not being “too well” motivated his decision.
He also confirmed that losing both Gemma and David Haye simultaneously had left him feeling that his “time was up in the game”.
Advertisement
I’m A Celebrity: South Africa was filmed last year, and is now airing on ITV, meaning viewers have had no say in who stays and goes.
Viewers will choose their winner during Friday’s final, though, with a public vote deciding who will follow Myleene Klass to become the next crowned I’m A Celebrity “Legend”.
