The former Super Bowl headliner was awarded the Lifetime Achievement prize as part of Sunday night’s ceremony, but when it came to accepting his award, the Burn singer had censors reaching for the mute button pretty much immediately.
“By the way, I should caution you that I like to talk and I have a way with words,” he said at the beginning of his speech, which aired live on the US network BET.
“I’m sorry I’m cursing, this is how I really feel,” he told the crowd at one point during his speech. “At one point it got really thick, and motherfuckers wasn’t fucking with me. I get it, I understand, sometimes you gotta go through some shit to get to something.”
Later in the speech, he turned his attention to his male role models, saying (via Vibe): “They’re solid, and it ain’t about a motherfucking hit record. They’re solid, and they’re going to always have my back. And I will always have theirs.”
Last month, the Strictly judge weighed in on the ongoing controversy surrounding the show, after the BBC began investigating complaints made by three of Giovanni’s former celebrity dance partners (including actor Amanda Abbington) about his conduct behind the scenes of the show.
Over the weekend, Shirley and Giovanni took part in a dance workshop together, where the Daily Mail reported that she told those in attendance: “I’ve known him for 10 years and we’re good friends.”
She reportedly added: “I will be one person who will be by his side forever. What you see is what you get with him.”
Giovanni at a Strictly Come Dancing launch event in 2018
Tim P. Whitby / Getty Images
Advertisement
Two weeks ago, Shirley was quoted by The Mirror as saying: “I don’t condone bullying on any path, but also I don’t believe gossip and what you read in the newspapers, because things get escalated and they are blown way out of all proportion and it can turn into a great big snowball.
“My feeling for Giovanni is, let them do this investigation, or whatever it is they are doing, and the truth will come out. So we don’t judge anybody until I know absolutely 100 percent. I won’t pass on the gossip unless I know 100 percent it is true.”
Insisting she’s “never ever ever experienced any ill will or bad feeling or bad sportsmanship or rudeness” from Giovanni, Shirley apparently added: “I can only talk from my own perspective. He has always been to me – and I will make that clear, to me – a perfect gentleman.”
Giovanni told fans last month: “I am co-operating fully with the ongoing BBC investigation, which will determine the truth.
“As requested, I have stayed silent, but I am looking forward to the conclusion of the investigation and ultimately clearing my name and establishing the truth.
Advertisement
“I am so happy to be back on tour. Thank you all for your continued support – [your] messages and love mean so very much to me. I will hopefully see many of you very soon and I look forward to clearing my name.”
“It is a longstanding position that the BBC does not comment on specific matters related to individuals,” a spokesperson said. “Nor ordinarily, would we comment on whether we are reviewing any individual complaints.
“Recently, we have seen a number of media reports about a high profile show. We would urge people not to indulge in speculation. Anyone involved in a complaint has a right to confidentiality and fair process.
Advertisement
“If a complaint is made to the BBC, we assess and take any necessary steps to establish the facts, whether there is a case to answer, and, if appropriate, what action should be taken.”
“This is all within the context of the BBC having duties of care to everyone linked to a complaint – that applies to those that have raised the complaint and to those that have been complained about,” the statement added.
“Whilst we know our shows have been positive experiences for many of those who have taken part, we will always look at any issues raised with care, fairness and sensitivity to everyone concerned.”
The past couple of years have been incredible for Alzheimer’s research with experts seemingly getting closer to the truth of how Alzheimer’s is developed, and, crucially, how it can be prevented.
Now, researchers have revealed that the gut health link to Alzheimer’s is becoming more apparent with gut inflammation being tied to an increased risk of developing the neurodegenerative disease.
Advertisement
69 humans with Alzheimer’s disease and 64 healthy humans donated blood for research with some also providing gut microbiota via stool samples.
The gut microbiota from Alzheimer’s patients was then transplanted into 16 young adult rats whose microbiomes had been depleted by antibiotics for a week. A matching group of 16 rats received gut microbiota from humans in the healthy control group.
The researchers found that Alzheimer’s could be given to young rats through a transfer of gut microbes, confirming a link between the digestive system and the health of the brain.
This news could mean earlier diagnosis is possible
Lead researcher Yvonne Nolan said: “People with Alzheimer’s are typically diagnosed at or after the onset of cognitive symptoms, which may be too late, at least for current therapeutic approaches.
Advertisement
“Understanding the role of gut microbes during prodromal – or early stage- dementia, before the potential onset of symptoms may open avenues for new therapy development, or even individualised intervention.”
Professor Sandrine Thuret, Professor of Neuroscience at King’s College London and one of the study’s senior authors said: “Alzheimer’s is an insidious condition that there is yet no effective treatment for. This study represents an important step forward in our understanding of the disease, confirming that the make-up of our gut microbiota has a causal role in the development of the disease.
“This collaborative research has laid the groundwork for future research into this area, and my hope is that it will lead to potential advances in therapeutic interventions.”
Reform UK has also gone to war with Channel 4 after it broadcast secretly recorded footage showing one of the party’s canvassers, Andrew Parker, advocating shooting people arriving in the UK on small boats across the Channel.
Farage has insisted it was a “set-up” because Parker is an actor – claims denied by the broadcaster.
On Sunday Morning With Trevor Philips, the presenter asked him: “Do you ever ask yourself this question, in the words of the immortal Mrs Merton, what was it about you, Nigel Farage, that first attracted these racists and homophobes and anti-Semites to your party?”
But Philips hit back: “Come on, Reform is your party, you own it, they knew it’s your party. So answer my question, what is it about you that attracted them?”
Farage said: “Ironically, destroying the BNP, means people who are minded that way don’t any longer have a home to go to, and some will gravitate in our direction. When we find out who they are they’ll be gone.”
The presenter then asked: “Why do you think that is? Why do they think that you are the person that’s going to give them a home?”
But Farage pointed out that at a Reform UK election rally in Birmingham later today, the “star of the show” will be Zia Yusuf, who he described as “a practicing Muslim who is going to say things about the growth of Islamic extremism”.
He added: “I can assure you that anybody who has a racist point of view, I don’t want to know.”
Rishi Sunak has insisted has insisted he is “proud” of the Tories’ disastrous general election campaign.
The prime minister made the surprising comment during an ill-tempered interview with Laura Kuenssberg this morning.
Advertisement
With just four days to go until the country goes to the polls, the Conservatives remain as far behind Labour as they were when Sunak called the election nearly six weeks ago.
Since then, the PM has been hit by a string of gaffes, controversy and scandal.
Despite this, Sunak said: “This campaign is something that I am proud of, and that’s what I’m here to talk about.”
An incredulous Kuenssberg replied: “Really? After everything, you’re proud of the campaign.”
The PM said: “Yes, I am.”
Sunak’s troubles began on the very first day of the campaign, when he was soaked to the skin while announcing the election date outside the front door of No.10.
The last two weeks of the campaign have also been overshadowed by the Tory gambling scandal, which saw Sunak eventually dump two candidates accused of betting on the date of the election.
Two senior party official have also taken leaves of absence over the controversy, while one of Sunak’s close protection team has been arrested.
Dozens of opinion polls throughout the campaign have also confirmed that the Tories are on course for their worst ever election result, with predictions that they could even end up with fewer than 100 seats.
Oliver Dowden was told the Tories are “on the brink of destruction” with just four days to go until the general election.
Sky News presenter Trevor Phillips also told the deputy prime minister his party’s campaign had been “a mess”.
The pair clashed as voters prepare to go to the polls on Thursday and with Labour still miles ahead of their rivals.
Phillips said: “This is your 738th weekend in charge. How does it feel to be essentially on the eve of destruction for your party, because that’s what every signal tells us.”
Dowden replied: “In an election campaign you can have commentators and you can have participants. I’m a participant, and my job, whether it’s on the doorstep or in this television studio speaking to you and your viewers at home, is to make the case for the Conservative Party and to warn – mark my words, dogs bark, cats meow and Labour put up taxes.
“Don’t take that risk, it’s in your hands. We have a clear plan to control migration, to start to reduce taxes. The game is on, the fight is on, now is the time for people to make up their minds about the future of this country.”
But Phillips hit back: “Liz Truss essentially made the party of sound money into the party of market chaos, and Boris Johnson made the party of law and order the party of lawbreakers.
“It’s really striking that in this interview you seem to refuse to accept that you’re carrying that burden – the gambling, D-Day, the rain. I mean, it’s been a mess.”
Dowden said: “Having been in power for 14 years, of course we haven’t got everything right. I totally accept that and apologies have been made for various things you’ve mentioned there.
“But fundamentally this is a choice about where we go as a country for the future.”
Following President Joe Biden’s poor debate performance on Thursday night, a number of prominent Democrats are privately hoping he withdraws from the presidential race and gives the party a chance to nominate someone younger who may have a better chance of beating Donald Trump.
But the logistics of any hypothetical attempt to replace Biden are complicated.
Things are different now. At this stage, Biden has locked up enough convention delegates to clinch the nomination, and party elders have no mechanism for forcing him out. He would have to voluntarily withdraw from the presidential race.
Advertisement
Neither Biden nor his campaign has shown any sign of openness to stepping aside. He spoke with defiant exuberance at a campaign rally in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Friday. “I might not debate as well as I used to,” he said. “But what I do know is how to tell the truth.” Former President Barack Obama offered words of support in a social media post linking to Biden’s campaign website.
But if Biden were to change his mind in the coming weeks, it would be simpler if it happened before the Democratic National Convention in August, when his status as the presidential nominee will be official.
If the August 19 convention convenes in Chicago without a presumptive Democratic nominee, the nearly 4,000 pledged delegates would be free to pick a different candidate on the first ballot. And, thanks to reforms passed in 2018, if no candidate achieved a majority on the first ballot, the group of 749 unpledged delegates known as “superdelegates,” which includes all Democrats in Congress and other party dignitaries, would only be able to cast votes on the second ballot.
In the scenario of such a contested or brokered convention, rival candidates for the Democratic nomination would duke it out for the loyalties of state party officers, precinct captains, union leaders, nonprofit officials and Democratic activists.
Advertisement
“It would be very chaotic – like the Wild West out there,” said Casey Burgat, a specialist in political conventions at George Washington University.
“We have a strong party system playing out in a weak party era.”
– Casey Burgat, George Washington University
Party leaders could seek to steer the process to make it more orderly. Biden himself would likely have the biggest influence, since he could appeal to delegates on the basis that they were previously dedicated to him. Former President Barack Obama has also played a role in corralling disparate party factions in the past.
On the one hand, Obama, Biden and other party leaders lack some of the tools top Democrats wielded before reforms passed after the 1968 election democratized the nominating process.
Party elders in the pre-reform era were able to tap vast state and local-level political machines to overcome ideological and regional differences with promises of patronage jobs and other political perks.
Advertisement
“We have a strong party system playing out in a weak party era,” Burgat said. “There isn’t a strong party cabal or leader or group of leaders who can basically point to a candidate and say, ‘Everyone fall in line.’”
At the same time, the Democratic Party is, relatively speaking, less ideologically divided than it was in the era when segregationist Southern conservatives made up a major party faction.
“The policy differences that exist among Democrats today, while they seem big, are trivial compared to what they had in the past,” said Hans Noel, a presidential nomination process expert at Georgetown University. “And they all agree that they don’t want Donald Trump.”
It would ultimately be up to the individual delegates themselves, however. And in a contest where perceived electability is likely to take precedence, the choices before them would be politically thorny.
Vice President Kamala Harris, an increasingly prominent surrogate for Biden, has a dedicated constituency within the Democratic Party, but also detractors who worry about her electability.
K.M. Cannon/Las Vegas Review-Journal/Getty Images
Advertisement
Biden’s logical successor is Vice President Kamala Harris, who did a capable job spinning Biden’s performance in a CNN interview last night. As the nation’s first Black, first Asian, and first female vice president, she has made history.
But many Democrats lack confidence in Harris’ ability to win a general presidential election. In 2019, when she ran her own presidential campaign before joining the Biden ticket, her candidacy failed to take off and she ultimately dropped out before any votes were cast.
Harris now rates as only nominally more popular than Biden. The number of voters who disapprove of her job performance exceeds the number of voters who approve of her job performance by 10 percentage points, according to an average of available polls.
Meanwhile, there is a bench of prospective alternatives to Harris — California Governor Gavin Newsom, Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker, and Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro — who each have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Rejecting Harris, though, would likely alienate Black officials and voters, who are the backbone of the Democratic base. And with the possible exception of Newsom, the other potential contenders would be new to the national stage.
Advertisement
“You’re jumping over someone who would not only be presumptively in that place, you’re jumping over a Black woman, and so that’s going to have all kinds of frustration and spawn a lot of anger among Democrats,” Noel predicted.
There are practical advantages to a Harris nomination as well. Biden would be able to transfer his campaign war chest since she is already part of his presidential ticket.
If it were another candidate, Biden would be able to transfer funds earmarked for the primary, which has concluded, but would have to offer refunds on donations earmarked for the general election. The Democratic National Committee, the joint victory fund and pro-Biden super PACs would be constrained by those limitations.
“You’re jumping over someone who would not only be presumptively in that place, you’re jumping over a Black woman, and so that’s going to have all kinds of frustration and spawn a lot of anger among Democrats.”
– Hans Noel, Georgetown University
Biden withdrawing from the race after already accepting the nomination at the Democratic National Convention would be even trickier.
Advertisement
It would be up to the Democratic National Committee to name a replacement, and it’s not clear if that responsibility would fall solely on Chair Jaime Harrison; a powerful panel within the DNC, such as the Rules and Bylaws Committee; or all 448 voting members of the party body.
Withdrawing at that late date would also make ballot access considerably harder since many states restrict presidential candidates from withdrawing after accepting the nomination. In Wisconsin, for example, a presidential nominee can only withdraw from the ballot in case of death.
The conservative Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project issued a memorandum in April outlining the potential legal hurdles to ballot access that would face a Democratic nominee in the event of Biden’s withdrawal.
“This isn’t as easy as ‘abracadabra,’” Mike Howell, executive director of Heritage’s Oversight Project, said in a Friday call with reporters.“There is going to be a lot of litigation.”
Howell and other Heritage attorneys maintain that there could be legal challenges to a new candidate even if they are nominated in lieu of Biden at the convention.
Advertisement
But a Democratic elections attorney told HuffPost that ballot access is mainly only an issue after the formal acceptance of the party nomination.
Party officials are unlikely to allow Biden to be nominated at the convention only to have him withdraw later on, save for a reason related to his health, according to Noel.
Then again, in the absence of a consensus choice to replace Biden, Noel also suspects party elders will decide against pressuring Biden to withdraw altogether.
“There are so many people who not just want the job, but to whom Democrats want to give it, that it’s really messy,” he said. “The party is risk-averse, and I think that’s how they’re going to behave.”
CNN fact-checker Daniel Dale offered a breathless breakdown of the misleading claims and false statements that former President Donald Trump made during his first 2024 presidential debate with President Joe Biden, which the network hosted in Atlanta on Thursday.
The presumptive Republican presidential nominee’s list of false claims is “way, way longer” than the president’s, Dale noted before reeling off and then debunking the many, many falsehoods uttered by Trump.
Advertisement
Dale, during his near-3-minute segment, described Trump’s claim that Biden wants to quadruple people’s taxes as “pure fiction” and said his line about Biden only creating jobs for “illegal immigrants” was “total nonsense.”
CNN’s Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, who moderated the debate, were criticised for not fact-checking Trump’s false claims in real time for the audience’s benefit.
“No great tryst ever started with someone being rational,” says the always-wise Kathy Bates as grandmother Leila Ford in Netflix’s newest rom-com, A Family Affair. One could argue that the same truism also applies to romantic comedies, especially the great ones.
Like all movies, rom-coms ask us to suspend our disbelief, to settle into our couch and let ourselves believe in anonymously heartfelt email exchanges and wish for bouquets of sharpened pencils. We watch them with the belief that things will work out, that a seemingly dysfunctional friendship can make two people surprisingly good wedding dates and even better lovers. From Nora Ephron classics such as You’ve Got Mail to more recent indie films such as Plus One and Rye Lane, great romantic comedies, like a life-changing love affair, offer both escape and self-discovery. And, most importantly, they remind us to hope.
Advertisement
Admittedly, this is a high bar for a genre that is so often dismissed and undervalued, but when I learned that Nicole Kidman, Zac Efron and Joey King would be starring in a romantic comedy together, I thought they just might be able to reach it. However, instead of lifting up a genre, A Family Affair reinforces the sad state of rom-coms right now.
In it, Zac plays difficult movie star Chris Cole who falls for Brooke, the mother of his 24-year-old assistant, Zara. Like the cast, the premise is promising. On its surface, the film could even be touted as a mash-up of the recent age-gap romance The Idea Of You with a classic Notting Hill-esque twist (a movie star falling in love with a non-celebrity).
However, in execution, A Family Affair misses the mark and often doesn’t feel like a rom-com at all. Is the movie supposed to be a rom-com with emotional depth or a parody of one? It doesn’t know. This problem is most evident in the stark dichotomy between the characters’ trope-y personas and their sincere relationships.
Joey King as Zara Ford and Kathy Bates as Leila Ford in A Family Affair
Tina Rowden/Netflix
Advertisement
Zac plays a caricature of a movie star, embodying the stereotype of being an out-of-touch celebrity (he hasn’t been to a grocery store in 10 years) who has forgotten how to treat other people with respect, especially his assistant Zara. Zara is the quintessential entitled young person who is working her first job and struggling because she’s a – dare I use the term – “nepo baby” (her mum is basically Joan Didion) who feels like her producing career should begin sooner, so she can step outside of her mum’s shadow. That mum, Brooke, is suffering from writer’s block and hasn’t dated in the decade since her husband died, and she longs to remember what it feels like to be a woman, not a mother or wife to a man who was jealous of her success.
In the opening scene, Zara is cursing in standstill traffic because she’s late to deliver a pair of diamond earrings to Chris, so he can break up with the latest woman he is seeing. Simultaneously, Brooke is across Los Angeles bemoaning to Kathy Bates’ character (her former editor and mother-in-law) about her inability to write. Neither of these tropes play well.
But the actors do. The result is that Nicole, Zac and Joey’s delivery of Carrie Solomon’s unbalanced script swings the film from satire to sincerity in a disorienting way. For example, when Chris and Brooke first meet, their conversation is stilted and interesting and unobtrusively funny (he doesn’t know the myth of Icarus despite starring in a huge franchise called Icarus Rush). Their first kiss is part of a sweet exchange of dialogue that is one of the movie’s few swoon-y moments. But, as the encounter becomes steamier, the tone shifts.
Suddenly, a widow who hasn’t kissed someone in a long time is letting a man rip off her dress (but it’s OK because it was 50% off at Nordstrom) and tearing his bespoke shirt made from the wool of an endangered animal off his unbelievably toned body (but she’s worth the unethical clothing’s damage). When Joey’s character walks in on them and runs into the door, adding physical comedy to the mix, the moment becomes even more confusing. Was it supposed to be sweet, sexy, satirical or silly?
This tonal inconsistency plagues the film. It also emphasises its plot holes. For example, Chris is so famous that he’s unable to grocery shop, but he can sit in his assistant’s pediatrician office (a setting that is supposed to play as comedic) next to her and her mum who he just slept with. This is the kind of disbelief one might be able to suspend if the other components of the movie were working, but they aren’t.
Advertisement
In “A Family Affair,” Efron plays a difficult movie star who falls for the mother (Kidman) of his 24-year-old assistant, Zara (King).
Tina Rowden/Netflix
Ultimately, the tropes and tonal shifts overshadow the less produced moments that are fresh and interesting and could have underpinned a truly great rom-com. Most of these moments occur during conversations, especially in the second half of the movie.
Zara is struggling with the realisation that her mum’s life is about more than mothering, and she is a person who deserves happiness, but she also doesn’t want Chris to hurt her mum. Brooke is having a hard time opening herself up to a relationship that could end with hurt. This mother-daughter dynamic and depiction of coming-of-age as a lifelong process are easily the film’s highlights, and it should have leaned into them.
While these rom-coms (and Anyone But You’s box office success and the resurgence of rom-coms on streaming platforms) have been lauded as proof that the genre is back, all of them have left me rubbing my eyes in disbelief, wondering if I just watched the same movie that other critics and viewers said they loved.
Advertisement
I’m not writing this to be a contrarian or detract from a viewer’s enjoyment (all art is subjective), but I do want to know what happened to the modern rom-com in its purest form? When did we lose the plot of clandestine emails and No. 2 pencils, and why is it so rare to capture that magic in movies today? Why is Plus One an aberration?
In our hyperbolic, engagement-driven world, everything is either “the greatest” or “the worst”, and A Family Affair is neither. It is mediocre, run-of-the-mill, exactly what we have come to expect from most content. And that’s the problem. It’s watchable.
When the goal is getting eyes on the small screen, rom-coms like this and The Idea Of You become successes not because they are great but because we are willing to consume them in large volumes. I still hold this up as proof that people want rom-coms, but I’m losing faith in the new movies we now qualify as “great” ones.
The prime minister said his two daughters should not have to hear racist insults being hurled at their father.
Advertisement
An undercover reporter for Channel 4 News secretly filmed Reform supporter Andrew Parker saying: “I’ve always been a Tory voter, but what annoys me is that fucking P*** we’ve got in. What good is he? You tell me, you know. He’s just wet. Fucking useless.”
Reacting today, a clearly-emotional Sunak said: “When my two daughters have to see and hear Reform people who campaign for Nigel Farage calling me an ‘effing P***’ it hurts and it makes me angry, and I think he has some questions to answer.
“And I don’t repeat those words lightly, I do so deliberately because this is too important not to call out for what it is.”
Channel 4 have also denied claims that Parker is an actor who was paid to be in the video.
Reform UK leader Nigel Farage stoked the conspiracy with a post on X.
Andrew Parker was the man that made the astonishing racist comments that have given us so much negative coverage.
We now learn that he is an actor by profession.
His own website says he is ‘well spoken’ but from the moment he arrived in Clacton he was doing what he calls…
But a Channel 4 spokesperson said: “We strongly stand by our rigorous and duly impartial journalism which speaks for itself.
“We met Mr Parker for the first time at Reform UK party headquarters, where he was a Reform party canvasser.
“We did not pay the Reform UK canvasser or anyone else in this report. Mr Parker was not known to Channel 4 News and was filmed covertly via the undercover operation.”
Parker himself told the Press Association that he apologised for what he had said.
“Of course I’m sorry,” he said. “They were off-the-cuff things that everyone says.”
