It’s the dream, isn’t it? Unearth something old from the attic, blow the dust off, hand it to a valuer, and realise you’ve been hoarding a secret fortune this entire time.
Well, that’s more or less what happened to Antiques Roadshow guest Lucy.
In a Childhood Special episode of the show, hosted at Belmont House, the woman made an appearance with original sketches of the Teletubbies. They’d been drawn by Jonathan Hills, her late husband ― he was a designer and illustrator who died in 2020, aged 66.
Advertisement
The drawings were completed before the TV show’s initial airing in 1997, meaning they represented a vision of the kid’s telly legends most of us had never seen before.
Antique expert Mark Hill evaluated the collection, saying “We’re looking here at a selection of drawings of what look like the Teletubbies, but there’s a sort of slight difference in some of them. They’re original drawings – how on Earth did you come to get these?”.
“My husband was asked to develop some characters for a programme they were making, which was directed at children that were at home watching TV without an adult,” Lucy answered.
“Jonathan sadly died two years ago. And this is his legacy,” she added.
Advertisement
The initial sketches look very different to the Teletubbies we all know
The early drawings revealed creatures that more closely resembled bears and mice.
In fact, the show was almost called something completely different ― Lucy shared that the TV touchstone almost went by Teleteddies (that’d explain the bear-like design, right?).
Mark Hill commented on the “creepy” appearance of a sketch of the iconic baby’s face in the sun, but Lucy said children liked it because they could see themselves in it.
How much is it worth, then?
“At some point, you want what made you feel warm and happy and cosy as a child. And I think when that age group matures, I think they’re going to want to buy things like this,” Mark Hill began his evaluation.
“They’re going to want to own these and display them. When it comes to value, we have to ask what they might pay. What would you pay for a Teletubbies original drawing? £500? I think so. £1,000? Highly possible,” he revealed.
Advertisement
Lucy’s collection contains 80 original drawings, meaning she could bank £80,000 from the entire set.
″[Jonathan Hills, her ex-husband] would be so thrilled,” she said. “It’s great.”
The Duffer Brothers have put an end to a popular fan theory that the events in Stranger Things are not *actually* happening.
The runaway hit show, which has been a flagship series on Netflix since its inception in 2016, will draw to a close with a fifth season, speculated to drop in late 2025 or early 2026.
Advertisement
Created by brothers Matt and Ross Duffer, Stranger Things has gripped fans since its debut, and made huge stars of its principally younger cast, including the likes of Millie Bobby Brown, Sadie Sink and Finn Wolfhard.
Though the premiere date for the final instalment has yet to be revealed, with filming having been delayed significantly by the SAG-AFTRA strike of this year, one thing that has been confirmed is that the fantastical events that occur throughout the show are most definitely real.
The theory has been in circulation for a good long while, but picked up steam again last summer around the end of season four of the show.
Advertisement
Fans theorise that the show’s main characters – Will Byers, Mike Wheeler, Lucas Sinclair and Dustin Henderson – are in fact playing the same game of Dungeons & Dragons that they were playing in Mike’s basement at the beginning of season one.
Therefore, events like Eleven coming onto the scene and Vecna’s mass destruction never actually occurred.
The young friends playing a D&D campaign in the first ever episode
Dungeons & Dragons is certainly a big motif in Stranger Things – from the friends using the game as a metaphor to understand what’s happening to their small town in season one, to the many monsters that appear throughout the show which are largely plucked from the popular tabletop game.
However, when confronted with this particular theory on the red carpet of Stranger Things: The First Shadow, Ross Duffer said “that would be the equivalent of, ‘that’s all a dream’… No, I assure you that is not how we’re going to end the show.”
Advertisement
Duffer continued “we’ve known where we’ve been going for a while. And we feel comfortable with it; hopefully, it satisfies everyone. We’ll see.”
If you haven’t seen Chicken Run’s recent-to-Netflix sequel, Dawn of the Nugget, I’d advise you to fix that ASAP. The movie’s earned an 83% audience score on review site RottenTomatoes, and having seen it myself recently, I get the hype.
The film focuses on the daughter of the original Chicken Run’s Ginger and her adventures on the mainland, away from the chicken haven her revolutionary parents have helped to establish.
Advertisement
But one detail in the film completely escaped my notice on the first watch; in fact, it wasn’t until I watched TikToker Luke Poulton’s video on the topic that I spotted it.
In one scene, where the chickens who have escaped the evil Tweedy’s farm in the first film are assembled behind leaves, the movie pans out to reveal all the birds at once.
But, after sharing his shocked face, Luke zoomed his camera into the background of the scene, revealing that Aardman had snuck Feathers McGraw ― the villainous penguin from Wallace and Gromit ― into the fray.
People had thoughts
“Feathers McGraw is always just around the corner,” one commenter said.
“Does this imply Feathers McGraw was in the chicken farm?” another asked (personally, I think he’s just a big believer in avian liberation).
Advertisement
“He is so back in the next [Wallace and Gromit], mark my words,” yet another commenter said. I’d believe it.
Dawn of the Nugget was 23 years in the making
I can understand a little better why the crew put so much effort into the details of the movie after learning it took 23 years to make.
That’s because the technology, budget, and scale needed for the sequel ― which was far, far more intense than the single-set Chicken Run ― was out of reach for Aardman until recently.
In fact, the film’s animation supervisor, Ian Whitlock, pointed out that an establishing shot of the chicken’s safe haven island at the start of the film took “over six months to complete from the initial brief to preparing and shooting” because the set was so enormous.
Ah, Aardman ― never change.
You can watch Chicken Run: Dawn of the Nugget on Netflix in the UK.
In an article in the Sunday Telegraph, Dowden hit out at “amateur BBC pundits offering as much insight as I could on football tactics”.
On Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips on Sky News this morning, the presenter asked the deputy PM: “Do you want to say who you had in mind then?”
Dowden replied: “I think it’s fairly obvious some of the people who have been spewing their views forth on this.”
Phillips then said: “Could the words ‘Gary Lineker’ be floating through this conversation?”
The deputy PM said: “I think people should swim in their own lane. I know nothing about football punditry, I can assure you about that.
Advertisement
“The wider point I was making is there’s a lot of talking this country down. Actually, I see a country with a manufacturing sector larger than France’s, we’re dominating in artificial intelligence.
“There’s so many reasons to be optimistic about this country, and this doomster scenario that they’re constantly predicting doesn’t actually happen because there’s real strength in our economy.”
Phillip then asked: “So the message to my fellow anchor Gary Lineker is stay in your lane?”
Dowden replied: “Each person should play to their strengths.”
The incoming chair of the BBC, Samir Shah, last week told MPs that “on the face of it” Lineker had broken the corporation’s social media guidelines by criticising Shapps, Anderson and Gullis.
He said: “The BBC’s reputation matters and this isn’t helpful so we do need to find a solution to it and, were I to be chair, I’d be keen to try to bring about such a solution.”
Trevor Phillips has accused Rishi Sunak of using “extreme” language on immigration after the prime minister claimed the UK risks being “overwhelmed” by foreigners.
The prime minister said that could “destroy” British democracy unless the government takes tough action to crack down on the issue.
Advertisement
He made his comments at a conservative political festival in Rome, where he also heaped praise on the Italy’s right-wing prime minister, Georgia Meloni.
On his Sky News programme this morning, Phillips asked deputy prime minister Oliver Dowden: “Does Rishi Sunak, son of east African Asians, really believe that immigrants are going to – as he put it yesterday – overwhelm us and destroy our democracy?”
Dowden said: “We do have to reassure people that we have got control of our borders, and we cannot have this unsustainable situation where we’re enriching people smugglers, the worst people on the Earth, through allowing this trade in human beings across the Channel.”
But Phillips hit back: “You know I’m not a nit-picker for language, but really ’immigrants are going to overwhelm us and destroy out democracy’?
Advertisement
″This is quite extreme language, isn’t it? If you hear that from your own prime minister and you are of an immigrant background, it’s not nice.”
Trevor Phillips attacked the PM on his Sky News programme this morning.
John Walton – PA Images via Getty Images
The clash came after Sunak won backing from MPs for his emergency legislation which is designed to finally allow the government to deport asylum seekers to Rwanda.
The prime minister is under huge pressure from the right of his party to bring down the numbers coming to the UK from abroad.
Figures revealed last month that net migration – the difference between those leaving and entering the country – hit 750,000 last year.
Advertisement
That is despite the last Tory election manifesto promising to bring immigration down below 226,000.
Michelle Mone has admitted she stands to personally benefit from a £60 million profit a consortium led by her husband made from providing personal protective equipment (PPE) during the pandemic.
The lingerie tycoon and Conservative peer had repeatedly denied to the press about her involvement in the controversy.
Advertisement
In an interview with the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg today, Mone said she had “lied” to journalists protect her family.
Mone’s husband, Doug Barrowman, said his consortium, PPE Medpro, had agreed PPE contracts worth £202 million with the government following the Covid outbreak.
He said that had generated a £60 million profit, which is now held in a family trust.
The government is now suing PPE Medpro for breach of contract.
Asked why she had denied any involvement in the controversy, Mone said: “I wasn’t trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes, and I regret and I am sorry for not saying straight out ‘yes I am involved’ because [the Department of Health], the NHS, the Cabinet Office, they all knew of my involvement, but I didn’t want the press intrusion for my family.
“My family have been through hell with the media over my career and I didn’t want another big hoo-ha in the media.”
Advertisement
But Kuenssberg told her: “This wasn’t just a slip-up. You didn’t tell the truth for months on end.”
Mone replied: “I think if we were to say of anything we’ve done – we’ve done a lot of good – but if we were to saying anything that we have done that we are sorry for, and that’s we should have told the press straight up straight away, nothing to hide, and again I’m sorry for that. But I wasn’t trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes.”
Mone – who took a leave of absence from the House of Lords a year ago – insisted that the £60 million PPE profit is “not my money”, but her husband said: “If I die, one day in the future, she is going to directly benefit.”
Mone said: “If one day, if God forbid my husband passes away before me, then I am a beneficiary as well as his children and my children, so yes of course.”
She also claimed she and her husband have been used as “scapegoats” by the government.
“We’ve done one thing, which was to lie to the press to say we weren’t involved. No one deserves this.”
She added: “The only error that I have made is say to the press that I wasn’t involved.”
Elsewhere in the interview, the couple confirmed that they are under investigation bythe National Crime Agency (NCA) over allegations of conspiracy to defraud, fraud by false representation, and bribery.
Advertisement
Lib Dem MP Christine Jardine demanded that Rishi Sunak strip Mone of the Tory whip in the House of Lords.
She said: “It is jaw-dropping that Michelle Mone has admitted lying to the country over this shameful PPE scandal and is now trying to play the victim card.
“She repeatedly denied she would make money from this contract, now it emerges she’s set to profit to the tune of millions.
“Rishi Sunak was too weak to withdraw the Conservative whip from Baroness Mone when this scandal emerged last year. He must finally do the right thing now.
“The Prime Minister should kick Michelle Mone out of the Conservative Party and withdraw the whip if she has the gall to return to the Lords.”
Amy has been unable to compete in the current series of Strictly as she was undergoing treatment for cancer, but has made repeated appearances in the studio.
In the lead-up to the finale, the Welsh star revealed she’d intended to perform a surprise routine on the show, but these plans were scuppered when she broke her foot.
However, she did appear in Saturday’s opening group number, dancing with her fellow professionals to welcome this year’s finalists and serving up some fabulous fan-ography.
Strictly viewers were delighted with Amy’s surprise appearance, with many writing they’d been moved to tears seeing her back where she belongs…
Amy first joined Strictly’s team of professional dancers in 2017.
“An afternoon of chemo and then I’m so lucky and grateful to be able to ring that bell!” she wrote on Instagram. “[I] will never take it for granted! Thank you to the incredible Sheldon Unit! You are all amazing.”
According to Psychology Today, 85% of people worldwide report having low levels of self-esteem.
Self-esteem relates to how we think and feel about ourselves and how much value we believe we have as individuals, according to NHS Inform. This means that if your self-esteem is low, you’re more likely to focus on your setbacks than your successes. Additionally, people with low self-esteem often ignore their own achievements and positive things about themselves and tend to be needlessly self-critical.
When we’re experiencing these confidence dips, it’s likely that we’ll look for validation of who we are in other people — a behaviour known as ‘seeking external validation’, according to Psych Central.
Advertisement
If this all sounds familiar to you, advice from licensed therapists Nick Tangeman and Dr. Jim from podcast ‘Pod Therapy’ might be exactly what you need.
How to overcome low self-esteem
Back in April this year, the therapists took to social media platform Reddit saying, “We are Therapists hosting a R-Rated podcast called “Pod Therapy”, Ask Us Anything for Mental Health Awareness Month!”
One user, So1337, asked”, “It took me a long time to realise that I was constantly seeking my esteem and sense of self-worth from others. What are some things I can do to 1) look inward for my own worth and 2) stop seeking validation so much?”
The therapists responded to the commenter saying, “First, it’s not inherently bad to get a sense of ourselves from the perspectives of others. Humans are social animals, we value community and its normal for us to want to please others and desire their approval.
Advertisement
“However, as you’ve realised, this often becomes toxic to us. Maybe the people we look to for approval will never give it, can’t give it, or have a myopic view of reality and we shouldn’t trust their judgement of us in the first place. Maybe people around us see our conspicuous flaws and fail to be curious or interested in who we really are. Or maybe we are just surrounded by assholes.”
The therapists then recommended taking the following steps:
Reflect on who you are as a person
The therapists unsurprisingly recommended looking inwards as the first step saying, “Get a list of personality description words from the internet. Look through that list and circle as many positive qualities about yourself as you can find which you relate to. Then reflect on each of the words you circled, recalling memories and experiences you’ve had which you feel exemplify that word.
“Make it a ritual in your life to review your day, your week, your month and your year through the lens of what your personal goals for yourself were, where you’ve grown as a person, and what you are proud of.”
They said this is important because, “part of how we let go of the voices of others is to consciously hear our own voice, so we have to make this a practice in your life.”
Advertisement
Be direct about your needs
The therapists pointed out that when we’re looking for external validation, we’re often doing so passively and laying expectations without actually indicating what we need. They said, “While it’s natural to seek validation from others, we often do so in a passive way that is unsatisfying. We are *hoping* somebody will thank us, compliment us or affirm us.
“We post online that we are sad or feeling down to fish for some positive feedback (which isn’t wrong to do). But a better way is to approach a few quality people in your life from time to time and tell them that you need a reminder of what they like about you, or admire in you, and ask if that is something they can take a moment to give you.
″I like being direct and honest about what we need from others because it gives them an opportunity to think about it and get closer to providing what we need.”
The last thing I expected to be doing a couple of weeks before a romantic getaway with my boyfriend was staring slack-jawed at his smiling face among a sea of dick pics and X-rated action shots in a seedy hookup site’s search results. Yet there he was on Adult Friend Finder with a hokey username below a clear picture of his face. For a smart man, he was a massive idiot.
The breakup was swift. He told me he was only on the site for porn and declared: “Either you believe me or you don’t.” Considering that his bio on the site started with ”I’m primarily looking for sex,” I didn’t believe him. Then he broke up with me.
Advertisement
Soon after, I was left alone with the Adult Friend Finder account I created to discover my ex’s. So, I did what any angry hot-blooded single woman would do. I started checking out profiles.
In no time, I was awash in a sea of lewd photos — limp dicks, hard dicks, spread-eagled men inexplicably displaying their assholes. Instantly, I had messages pouring in ― most of them so ridiculous they didn’t even deserve a reply. More than once, I asked myself what in the hell I was doing, but I didn’t delete my profile.
Eventually, after being disappointed and disturbed by the quality of gentleman callers, I decided to edit my profile and lay it out like I was on any regular dating site. I talked about enjoying music and the theatre, being a voracious reader of modern literature, and my desire to find someone intelligent and engaging. To prove I was totally over the semiliterate penis parade, I made the first line of my introduction: “Who’s got brains to go with their balls?”
This earned me some more refined suitors whose opening lines only hinted at the intent of the site instead of outright telling me all the gruesome and misspelled things they were going to do to me. What their messages lacked in overt vulgarity, they made up for with arrogance. Without fail, their lead foot was a profession they were sure would fill me with uncontrollable sapiosexual desire.
Advertisement
One example was the guy who bragged, ”Aerospace Engineer here. Big symphony lover. I read the New York Times every morning. Brains enough to go with my well-formed other parts.”
Of them all, my favourite self-promotion was, ”If critical thinking is your aphrodisiac, then I must be chocolate, oysters, and green M&Ms all rolled into one.”
I wasn’t nearly as impressed as they all hoped I would be. On the other hand, Mr. Engineer’s profile picture displayed some impressive muscles. My thirst for revenge on my ex (and thirst in general) led me to reserve a hotel room and agree to meet with him a couple of weeks later.
But right after I arranged my rendezvous, a surprising message landed in my inbox. A guy wrote me an email filled with questions. About me. After a little “I can’t even begin to say how gorgeous you are” and “Your beauty pales compared to your intellect” were some shockers like, ”What’s your favourite genre?” and “Who’s your favourite author?”
This new contender was a high school Latin teacher and the first guy to genuinely have manners without rambling on about how wonderful he was with three paragraphs’ worth of academic and career credentials.
Advertisement
“I’m Paul,” he ended his message, “and it’s a pleasure to meet you, I hope.”
We exchanged our email addresses. After a little correspondence, Paul won Mr. Engineer’s hotel room date.
In lieu of a cellphone exchange, the first nudes of our relationship were Roman statues at an art gallery. We wandered through the exhibits with Paul acting as both date and guide, entertaining me with the stories behind the mythological characters in the works on display.
Paul lacked all the bragging and preening of the other men who sent me messages. Rather, he was refreshingly normal: average build, a little on the short side, graying hair. His standout feature was a voice made for radio, deep and pleasant.
After our museum trip, we had dinner, then drinks, then we headed up to my hotel room. All told, a rather successful first date.
***
Not long into seeing each other, Paul mentioned that he was sick. An inherited condition had shut down his kidneys years before, and his body was currently working with one donated by his father.
Advertisement
His attitude was amazingly accepting about the whole thing. “I’m going to be bummed when this kidney runs out of steam,” he admitted. “I’m not looking forward to being on dialysis. But I’ve lived with this all my life, and it’s just another one of those things.”
I couldn’t believe someone could call end-stage renal disease “just another one of those things.”
“You have to get through it and get on with it,” he shrugged, “because otherwise what’s the point?”
In addition to being impressively resilient, Paul was interesting and respectful — a rare find among the creeps who had contacted me — and a catch by any other standards, as well. But I just didn’t have the energy after the whole blowup with my ex. I backpedaled our relationship to friend status, and over time, we mostly fell out of touch.
Courtesy of Liz Armstrong
The author giving her mom the thumbs up after her surgery in October 2015.
Months passed. I eventually opted out of relationship attempts altogether and was spending lots of quality time with my cats. One day, an email showed up.
“Most of you know that my transplanted kidney has been declining for a while,” Paul wrote. “My doctors think that, within a year or so, I’ll need another transplant or dialysis. I’d like to avoid dialysis, though. It can lead to complications, and even when it goes well, I understand it’s kind of miserable. Also, living donor kidneys are more successful than cadaver organs. And so, my doctors have asked me to try to find a donor. ‘Bring us a warm body!’ was their specific instruction.”
Advertisement
It wasn’t a lack of desire to help that prevented me from responding ― it was the Army. I was enlisted at the time and doubted the military would be keen on the idea of a soldier getting an organ removed, even for a worthy cause. I reluctantly archived the email and crossed my fingers that someone else would come along who happened to be willing, able and Type O.
Around a year after our first date, we met to catch up and see a play. Though there were plenty of parts worth laughing at, the performance was pretty gloomy. As the main characters spiralled toward their inevitable ends, one grimly mused, “Dying is not romantic.” I looked over at Paul and saw that his eyes were bright with tears.
His dialysis had begun. He was paler, weaker, slower, and more miserable overall. He was “getting through it and getting on with it,” but it was taking a toll on him.
My friend was dying. It was not romantic.
***
I got home from the play and sent an email to Paul’s transplant coordinator. “I’m hesitant to jump in the potential donor pool because I’m in the military,” I wrote. “I’m not certain I could actually get approval to donate.” I begged her to keep it a secret from Paul, not wanting to get his hopes up.
Everything after that was a flurry of tests and paperwork. Physical, CT scan, EKG, chest X-ray. Psychiatrists from the civilian and military worlds both interviewed me to make sure I wasn’t too unstable to make my own decisions. Every time I turned in one document, I needed a signature on another.
My secret from Paul didn’t stay under wraps for quite as long as I wanted. Before I got a thumbs-up from the military, another of his friends who was going through testing heard from the transplant team that there was a strong contender waiting for the Army’s permission. She spilled the beans.
When he found out, Paul told me he immediately felt what he could only describe as pure joy. He was elated and relieved, but most importantly, “for the first time in months, hopeful.” I tried to feel confident that everything would work out, but was terrified of disappointing him if I ultimately couldn’t donate.
It took four nail-biting months of waiting. After getting medically cleared and pushing paperwork all the way to the Office of the Surgeon General in Washington, my request was finally approved.
When Paul and I met again in the hospital after the surgery, I was flooded with a relief there aren’t words for. I’ve been told I should be proud of myself. I’m not. I’m grateful. I gave a good man more time. He’s so much healthier now and off dialysis. My kidney is serving him well. With luck, it’ll hold out for many years to come.
Advertisement
Courtesy of Liz Armstrong
The author preparing to leave the hospital. “The man who wheeled me to the car asked, ‘Is it your first?’ assuming I had given birth. I responded that it was my first, and hopefully only, kidney donation.”
I often get asked why I was willing to donate to someone I hadn’t known for very long, even though any health complications could’ve jeopardised my Army career. Most people who would shell out an organ for someone are doing it for a family member. Many say they couldn’t do it, no matter what.
But here’s the thing: Paul was dying. It would’ve been a long, slow road of suffering while he waited for a cadaver kidney that probably wouldn’t have been as functional as my living one. People don’t need two kidneys to live a normal life. I wasn’t that likely to experience negative side effects and it turned out that I didn’t. Those who make it through the donor selection process are already healthy, so the surgery doesn’t usually affect them much. And I can’t stress this enough: Paul was dying. I wanted to save the life of my dying friend.
Realistically, Paul probably did me a service, too. Revenge-screwing some muscle from a hookup site wasn’t the safest life choice I could make. Paul was proof that there were still decent men in the world, but any other online rando might not have been one of them.
Since the surgery, we’ve remained friends. Though we don’t see each other very often, we talk online almost daily. A while back he married another Latin teacher, whom I’m sure he also wooed with Roman nudes.
Advertisement
If you’re considering becoming a living organ donor — and I strongly recommend you do — you can get more information here.
Liz Armstrong is finally wrapping up her undergraduate studies after spending eleven years in the Army and a handful more bobbing aimlessly through life. A student at the University of Maryland, College Park, she is pursuing degrees in English and Chinese, though how she will apply them remains a mystery. She lives with her wife and three cats.
Most voters do not believe that Rishi Sunak’s flagship Rwanda plan will help him stop the small boats carrying asylum seekers across the Channel, HuffPost UK can reveal.
Polling by the More in Common think-tank shows that barely one in four people (27%) think it will reduce the numbers making the perilous journey.
Advertisement
By contrast, 47% believe it will make no difference and a further 8% think it will lead to more refugees coming to the UK.
The poll also shows that nearly half of voters – 45% – think ministers should not break international law to make the deportation policy work, compared to 32% who think they should.
Overall, fewer than half – 46% – say they support the policy of sending asylum seekers to Rwanda, compared to 28% who do not.
The findings are a major blow for the prime minister, who has staked his personal authority on getting flights to Rwanda off the ground.
Advertisement
Luke Tryl, More in Common’s UK director, said: “It continues to be the case that more people support the Rwanda project than not – although crucially not a majority.
“The truth is that for all the political capital that has been spent on the Rwanda project, the public just don’t think that it is going to work and there continues to be limited public support for the UK to break international law in order to try and get flights off the ground.
“It does make you question the wisdom of making this the centrepiece of the Tories plans to tackle illegal immigration – and issue which itself is important to voters.”
Last Tuesday, Sunak won a crunch vote in the Commons on the Safety of Rwanda Bill, which the PM said is vital to finally getting flights to Rwanda off the ground.
It was drawn up after the Supreme Court last month ruled the scheme illegal because of the risk of asylum seekers being sent from the east African country to another nation.
Advertisement
More in Common polled 2,041 adults between December 12 and 14.