Feb. 17 (UPI) — Spanish authorities plan to investigate social media giants X, Meta and TikTok over the distribution of child sex abuse materials on their respective social media platforms, the government announced Tuesday.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said there is a pending investigation by state prosecutors into the alleged spread of artificial intelligence-generated material.

“These platforms are jeopardizing the mental health, dignity and rights of our sons and daughters,” Sanchez said in a translated post on X.

“The state cannot allow this,” he said. “The impunity of the giants must end.”

The Spanish government said it is looking at options for holding tech firms accountable for “potential criminal liability of increasingly widespread practices in the digital environment, such as the generation and dissemination of sexual content and child sexual abuse through deepfakes and the manipulation of real images to create others with explicit sexual content, thereby undermining the dignity of the victims,” as reported by The Guardian.

A recently produced report suggested that social media platforms enable the creation and rapid distribution of offensive content that enables their makers to elude detection and potential criminal prosecution.

Meanwhile, the respective social media sites profit from such activities, officials said.

Sanchez said Spain’s Council of Ministers will invoke Article 8 of the Organic Statute of the Public Ministry to ask it to investigate the alleged crimes that the three tech firms might be committing via the creation and distribution of AI-generated child sexual abuse materials using their respective AI tools.

The Spanish probe into the social media giants arose after French authorities raided X’s offices in Paris over similar accusations, but X officials there have denied any wrongdoing.

X recently added Grok AI, which is the creation of Elon Musk’s xAI artificial intelligence company. Musk also owns X.

TikTok offers AI tools, while Meta AI is integrated into Meta’s Facebook, Instagram, Messenger and WhatsApp platforms.

The issue raises the matter of free speech laws in the European Union and the United States.

Ireland’s Data Protection Commission is among European regulatory bodies leading the European Commission’s inquiry into X over the use of the Grok AI tool to generate deepfake and sexualized images of real people, including children.

The investigation is to determine if X is complying with European laws regarding personal data and how algorithms might protect lawbreakers.

Judge states Trump administration has made ‘one empty threat after another’ to deport Salvadoran national to Africa.

A United States federal judge has ruled that the administration of US President Donald Trump cannot re-detain Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national who was wrongfully deported last year and who the federal government has sought to deport again.

US District Judge Paula Xinis stated on Tuesday that a 90-day detention period had passed without the administration presenting a workable plan to deport Abrego Garcia, whose lawyers say he is being punished because his wrongful detention embarrassed the government.

Xinis said that the government “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success”.

“From this, the court easily concludes that there is no ‘good reason to believe’ removal is likely in the reasonably foreseeable future,” he added.

The ruling is a victory for Abrego Garcia, who has been fighting his attempted deportation by US immigration authorities who have tried to send him to African nations such as Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana, and Liberia. Abrego Garcia was released from an immigration detention facility in December.

His wrongful deportation to El Salvador, where he was held in a prison known for poor conditions and widespread abuse, became an early flashpoint in the Trump administration’s push to deport non-citizens from the US, often with few efforts to abide by due process requirements. The Trump administration had also accused Abrego Garcia of being a member of the criminal group MS-13, without offering any evidence.

His mistaken deportation prompted widespread anger and calls for the Trump administration to bring him back to the US. After initially stating that it had no authority to do so, the Trump administration brought Abrego Garcia back to the US in June following a court order mandating his return. It has since charged him with human smuggling, an allegation that he denies.

The Federal Communications Commission‘s stronger enforcement of its “equal time” rules is already affecting late-night TV.

During Stephen Colbert’s Monday night monologue on “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert,” he carried on per usual, introducing the Late Show Band and his guest Jennifer Garner. He then posed the question, “You know who is not one of my guests tonight?”

The late-night host was meant to have Texas state representative James Talarico on the show. But he said on air that he was “told in no uncertain terms by our network’s lawyers, who called us directly, that we could not have him on the broadcast.”

He continued on to explain the FCC’s new guidance for equal time rules under its Chairman Brendan Carr. The rules require broadcasters who feature political candidates to provide the same time to their rivals, if requested. Typically, news content, daytime and late-night talk shows have been excluded from these regulations, as it’s been an informal tradition for presidential candidates to make their rounds on various late-night shows.

But the FCC under Carr, who has made no secret of his intention to carry out an agenda that is aligned with President Trump’s wishes, has questioned whether late-night and daytime talk shows deserve an exemption from the equal-time rules for broadcast stations using the public airwaves. Many legal and media experts have said a stricter application of the rule would be hard to enforce and could stifle free speech

“Let’s just call this what it is. Donald Trump’s administration wants to silence anyone who says anything bad about Trump on TV, because all Trump does is watch TV,” said Colbert Monday night.

Earlier this year, ABC’s “The View” featured Talarico, as well as his main rival and fellow Democrat Jasmine Crockett. Talarico is currently facing off with Crockett and Ahmad Hassan in the Democratic primary for one of Texas’ two seats in the U.S. Senate. The FCC is also reportedly investigating his appearance on “The View.”

Experts consider the equal time rule to be antiquated, designed for a time when consumers were limited to a handful of TV channels and a dozen radio stations if they lived in a big city. The emergence of cable, podcasts and streaming audio and video platforms — none of which are subject to FCC restrictions in terms of content — have greatly diminished traditional broadcast media’s dominance in the marketplace. Carr has previously suggested that if TV hosts want to include political candidates in their programming, they can do it — just not on broadcast TV.

Colbert said he was taking Carr’s “advice” and revealed that his entire interview with Talarico was instead uploaded on YouTube. During the interview, Talarico calls out the Republican Party for initially running against “cancel culture.”

“Now they are trying to control what we watch, what we say, what we read. And this is the most dangerous kind of cancel culture, the kind that comes from the top,” said Talarico. “They went after ‘The View’ because I went on there. They went after Jimmy Kimmel for telling a joke they didn’t like. They went after you for telling the truth about Paramount’s bribe to Donald Trump.”

“The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” is leaving the air come May, signaling the end of CBS’s longstanding relationship with the late-night talk show. Its cancellation was a “purely financial decision,” according to CBS. But it also came at a time when Paramount Global, which owns CBS, was seeking regulatory approval from the Trump administration to sell itself to Skydance Media. The merger was finalized in August.

L.A. Times staff writer Stephen Battaglio contributed to this report.

The second round of the Dubai Tennis Championships was hit by fitness issues again as four players, including fifth seed Mirra Andreeva, advanced because of player withdrawals.

Andreeva went through when opponent Daria Kasatkina pulled out before the tie, while ninth seed Belinda Bencic was also handed a walkover when Sara Bejlek withdrew prior to the match.

Paula Badosa retired after losing the first set 6-4 against sixth seed Elina Svitolina, while Ella Seidel withdrew after dropping the first set 6-0 to Jaqueline Cristian.

The withdrawals follow nine dropouts in the first round, which saw seven lucky losers from qualifying fill the main draw.

Meanwhile, the Women’s Tennis Association (WTA) has announced it is launching “the Tour Architecture Council” to oversee improvements to the women’s game.

In a statement, WTA chair Valerie Camillo says the council has been set up because the “current calendar does not feel sustainable for players given the physical, professional and personal pressures of competing at the highest level”.

Chaired by American world number five Jessica Pegula, the council is set to “develop meaningful improvements to the calendar, commitments and other core elements of the Tour framework”.

Potential changes to the Tour “can be implemented as soon as the 2027 season”.

The council is made up of a number of players, including former world number one Victoria Azarenka, as well as tournament directors and WTA Tour chiefs.

“This is a chance to focus on specific parts of the Tour structure and see what can be addressed in the short-term, while continuing the conversation on longer-term improvements in a dedicated, focused way,” said Pegula.

“The WTA has the opportunity and standing to bring a group like this together and I’m grateful they’re using that power to advance real change for 2027.”

Feb. 17 (UPI) — The European Commission announced Tuesday that it has opened formal proceedings against online retailer Shein “for its addictive design, the lack of transparency of recommender systems, as well as the sale of illegal products, including child sexual abuse material.”

The Commission said in a press release it was specifically investigating: the systems Shein has to limit the sale of illegal products in the European Union; risks linked to the addictive design of the service and the systems to mitigate those risks; and transparency of the recommender systems that it uses to propose content and products to users.

Under the Digital Services Act, Shein must disclose the parameters used in its recommender systems and it must provide users with at least one easily accessible option that is not based on profiling for each recommender system, the release said. The EU said it found that Shein only explained its recommender “in a very general manner.”

“In the EU, illegal products are prohibited — whether they are on a store shelf or on an online marketplace,” Henna Virkkunen, executive vice president for Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy, in a statement. “The Digital Services Act keeps shoppers safe, protects their wellbeing and empowers them with information about the algorithms they are interacting with. We will assess whether Shein is respecting these rules and their responsibility.”

If the investigation finds that Shein has broken EU law, Brussels can impose interim measures, accept binding commitments from Shein or give a non-compliance decision that could lead to large fines, EuroNews reported.

Shein released a statement saying it always “cooperates fully” with the Commission and the Coimisiún na Meán, the Digital Services Coordinator for Ireland involved in the investigation.

“Over the last few months, we have continued to invest significantly in measures to strengthen our compliance with the DSA. These include comprehensive systemic-risk assessments and mitigation frameworks, enhanced protections for younger users, and ongoing work to design our services in ways that promote a safe and trusted user experience,” Shein said in the statement. “Protecting minors and reducing the risk of harmful content and behaviors are central to how we develop and operate our platform. We share the authorities’ objective of ensuring a safe and trusted online environment and will continue to engage constructively.”

The retailer has recently come under fire in France because, in November, it was found to be selling weapons and sex dolls designed to look like young children. Around the same time, Shein opened its first brick-and-mortar shop in Paris to protests for its sale of the dolls and its environmental impact.

Singapore-based Shein issued a statement on Nov. 4 saying it had removed the dolls and permanently banned “all seller accounts linked to illegal or non-compliant sex-doll products.”

A Shein spokesperson said in December that the platform would not reopen in France right away. It was doing an internal audit to find weaknesses in its marketplace operations.

Bed rest can go pound sand: Ray J gave his all on stage on Friday night, it seems, with fan videos showing his eyes appearing to bleed as he worked the crowd.

The singer also doffed the top of his orange jumpsuit to reveal some sort of medical port or device inserted on the upper left side of his chest.

The “Love & Hip-Hop: Hollywood” star, who is singer-actor Brandy’s brother, was performing in Shreveport, La.

In the first clip, red liquid — which many assumed was blood — ran down one of the R&B singer’s cheeks like tears as he handed out long-stemmed red roses to people in the audience. Another clip showed him singing into a mic while climbing down from the stage after shedding the top part of his jumpsuit.

“Hey, y’all, we perfectly fine. Ain’t nobody sick. Look at me, I’m fine,” he says in a later clip, which takes place off stage. The 45-year-old appears to be annoyed, saying that people have been laughing at him because he’s sick.

“He loves the camera. He loves the attention,” Tommy Nard II of Nard Multimedia Group, who was behind the scenes that night, told Shreveport news station KTAL separately. “It’s all theatrical … I seen him literally put on the fake blood and go out there.”

A concertgoer told KTAL that it was “very concerning to see blood, what appeared to be blood, coming from his eyes.”

Ray J told TMZ in late January that he was under doctor’s orders to stay on bed rest and avoid drugs and alcohol. He said he was on eight medications related to his heart, which he said had been damaged because of his excessive drug and alcohol use.

“I thought I could handle all the alcohol, I could handle all the Adderall,” he said in a video livestream in late January.

Doctors told Ray J — real name William Ray Norwood Jr. — that he should prepare for the chance that he might need a pacemaker or defibrillator soon, the singer told the celebrity site. He expected to get an update when he went back in two weeks for a checkup.

Two weeks was up over the weekend.

Ray J told followers in a video posted Jan. 25 that he wanted to “thank everyone for praying for me.”

“I was in the hospital,” he said. “My heart is only beating like 25%, but as long as I stay focused and stay on the right path, then everything will be all right.” In a video, he said the right side of his heart was “like, black. It’s like done.”

Ray J said elsewhere that his heart was beating at 60%. The number likely refers to his heart’s ejection fraction, which measures the volume of blood coming out of the heart’s left ventricle or being drawn into the right ventricle when the heart beats. Right-sided heart failure is far less common, according to WebMD.

A representative for Ray J did not respond immediately Tuesday to The Times’ request for comment.

However, in an Instagram story posted Monday, Ray J put up this quote: “‘If you want to know who your real friends & family are, lose your job, get sick, or go through hard times. You’ll see clearly.”

THE Holiday Inn in Oxford might not be the fanciest, but it is one of the most affordable for visiting the historic city.

Here is everything you need to know including room rates and how to get there.

What is the hotel like?

The hotel is a bright, modern 220-room hotel just a short detour off the M40 motorway.

The terrace bar is a great suntrap, perfect for enjoying a gin and tonic or a pint of Stella while topping up your tan.

There’s also a spacious lobby bar inside, a decent sized gym and other amenities like a Starbucks and Waitrose within a minute’s walk.

What are the rooms like?

They have huge walk-in showers, robes and slippers (a nice touch in a value hotel), and big TVs with Netflix and other subscription services built-in.

Read more on hotel reviews

INN AND OUT

The Holiday Inn, Cambridge hotel review

SUPER SM-ART

Artist Residence, Bristol hotel review

Ask for one of the recently refurbished rooms if you can.

We were on the ground floor but slept soundly with no road noise, despite the easy road links in the area.

Room rates start from £76 per night, or £92 with breakfast.

What is there to eat and drink at the hotel?

While it is a 15-minute drive into Oxford city centre, the hotel restaurant serves up big portions at decent prices.

Fish and chips, curries, pizza and burgers are among the options. Save room for a triple chocolate brownie or Belgian waffle for dessert.

Breakfast is available until 11am on weekends, so you can enjoy a lie-in before your full English.

What else is there to do?

The hotel sits in between the city centre of Oxford and the Cotswolds with its rolling hills and charming villages.

Gorgeous landmark Blenheim Palace is only a 10-minute drive away or spend a day exploring Oxford’s famous university buildings and visiting a pub on the banks of the Thames.

Discount designer shopping complex Bicester Village is another good local draw – also a 15-minute drive away.

If the hotel family friendly?

Family rooms that sleep four and connecting rooms are available, as well as cots on request.

Is it accessible?

The hotel has wheelchair accessible rooms, which include accessible door locks as well as bathrooms with grab bars, tall toilets and adequate clear turning space.

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Peru’s Congress convened Tuesday in an extraordinary session to debate seven censure motions against interim President Jose Jeri — a move that could remove him from office less than two months before general elections and deepen the country’s ongoing political instability.

Jeri, who also serves as head of Congress, would automatically lose the presidency if lawmakers vote to oust him from that parliamentary post. He has denounced what he calls a plot against him and an intention by enemies to destabilize the country.

Jeri assumed the presidency in October after the removal of Dina Boluarte. However, investigations into Jeri’s conduct and declining public support have weakened his political standing, according to local newspaper La Republica.

According to local media reports, the current crisis escalated after reports that the president held unregistered meetings, not listed on his official agenda, with two controversial Chinese businessmen.

One reportedly holds multimillion-dollar state contracts and has been linked to construction firms accused of securing public works through bribes. The other has faced legal proceedings for trafficking illegal timber from the Amazon region.

Prosecutors have also opened a preliminary investigation into alleged influence peddling involving the hiring of nine young women in public institutions after meetings with Jeri at the presidential palace.

Those allegations enabled opposition lawmakers to gather 78 signatures to present a censure motion against him as congressional president — a step that would automatically remove him from the presidency.

Under congressional rules, a simple majority is required to approve the censure motion, RPP Noticias reported.

Peru has experienced marked political volatility over the past decade. Six recent presidents have faced removal proceedings or imprisonment, reflecting a pattern of institutional instability.

Analysts often cite the repeated use of constitutional mechanisms such as presidential vacancy on grounds of “moral incapacity” and censure votes against congressional leadership, factors that have made the presidency unusually fragile.

Political calculations ahead of Tuesday’s vote suggest limited support for the 39-year-old president. Most political blocs have expressed opposition to him continuing in office, with the exception of Fuerza Popular, the party associated with right-wing presidential candidate Keiko Fujimori.

Peru’s fragmented Congress includes about a dozen political blocs whose members frequently split during votes, leading analysts to caution that the outcome remains uncertain.

Jeri’s party, Somos Peru, is expected to attempt a procedural delay by requesting a constitutional review on whether a censure motion applies to an interim president. According to El Comercio newspaper, the Constitutional Commission could take about two weeks to issue an opinion, which might give Jeri time to secure additional political backing.

If Jeri is removed, Congress would elect a successor from among its members. That person would become Peru’s eighth president in a decade and oversee the transition toward general elections scheduled for April.

Ali Juwon’s future shattered at the same time his father’s leg did. The year was 2012, and the 9-year-old, hand in hand with his mother, was fleeing his home in Borno State, northeastern Nigeria. Boko Haram members had stormed their community in Gwoza, killing neighbours and burning buildings Ali had known his entire life. 

As he and his mother ran, a familiar voice cried behind them. Both turned to see that Ali’s father had crashed to the ground, crushing his leg in the process. Yet, with all the odds stacked against them, the three managed to make it out with their lives. 

The family travelled for half a day to Nigeria’s federal capital, Abuja, and sought refuge in the Durumi IDP camp like many survivors at the time. 

The camp, with the flurry of Borno survivors, was overcrowded, but Ali’s mother promised him it would not be home, only a resting place before they could find their footing again. Over 14 years later, the Juwon family continue to reside there. 

Ali, now 23, explained how the situation derailed his life, “Before fleeing, my father had a business and was able to afford all my needs. Since he broke his leg, he hasn’t been able to work, and because we couldn’t get him properly treated, his leg never healed well. He hasn’t walked since the fall. Suddenly, all the luxuries we could afford before have vanished.”

Being the only child in his family, Ali took it upon himself to care for his parents. The only thing he needed was a decent education that would lead to a business or accounting degree. He planned to join whatever lucrative fields these courses would thrust him into and use his money to get himself and his parents a place away from the camp.

But Ali quickly learnt that he was no longer in Borno, dependent on his well-to-do father. His education now rested in the hands of IDP leaders, non-profit donors,  government promises, and his own hustle. As the years wore on, he learnt that even with seemingly more helpers, his chances of finishing school had dimmed significantly.

In the Durumi IDP camp, displacement does not end with fleeing violence. For many, it continues in the classroom. While primary education is often supported by NGOs or private donors, secondary school is where the system collapses. 

According to camp leaders, the girls in the camp are often married off after their basic education ends, as secondary education is no longer attainable without sustained government intervention. Hundreds of displaced boys, on the other hand, are forced to choose between survival and schooling, a gap that is reshaping their futures and deepening Nigeria’s long-term social and economic vulnerabilities.

No way past secondary school

“In primary school, things were okay. NGOs sponsored my schooling, but once I got to secondary school, that was where the real problem began. No one sponsored secondary schooling for us,” Ali explained. 

Liyatu Yusuf, the woman leader of the Durumi camp, finds the schooling situation distressing.

“We had certain sponsors who do everything for these children. Usually, it’s from an individual with a good heart. We used to do their secondary school education in the camp as well, but due to a lack of teachers and overcrowding, we had to stop it.”

According to her, over 1,000 students occupy the less spacious class, forcing them to have seven different sessions in just one class. But that’s not just the problem. There is a lack of teachers, too.

“The teachers we have are university volunteers. They would come three times in a week, but then refuse to come the next week because no one was paying them or giving them transport money,” Liyatu said.

Liyatu says the children never receive government sponsorship, and that many of the people who help the children through primary school are good-natured individuals or NGOs. Despite record education budgets announced in Abuja, camp leaders say they have not seen much implementation, especially for the displaced children like those in Durumi.

In a 2025 press release by the Presidential State House Villa, Nigeria’s Vice President, Kashim Shettima, called for collaboration between the government and the private sector to invest in education, as the burden of educating children cannot fall entirely on the government’s shoulders. But in the Durumi IDP camp, help has come mainly from the camp leaders and individual sponsors. 

So, with no one to help him through secondary school, Ali did what several boys in the camp chose to do: work and fund his education in tandem. This way, he would be able to pay for school with the money he made and leave some for his unemployed parents. 

But this was not an easy route, and soon the stress of paying for so much caught up with the boys. Salim Aliyu, for example, now runs a small provision shop near Durumi, as his education ended in Senior Secondary (SS) 1.

“I’m 25 now,” he said. “I stopped at SS1 because it was too expensive. Transport alone was about ₦1,000 every day. How much was I earning to pay that?”

At the time, Salim did menial jobs, sweeping houses and cleaning compounds to survive. Eventually, the numbers stopped adding up. “One day, I realised I couldn’t continue. I just had to leave school.” His story is common in the camp. For many boys, the challenge is not only tuition fees but the impossible balance between earning and learning.

Sulieman Nobo repeated SS3 three times after running out of money repeatedly. By his final attempt, anxiety had overtaken ambition. “In junior secondary school, I learned a lot,” he said. “But in senior secondary, I was focused on passing, not learning. I didn’t have time to retain anything.”

School ended by mid-afternoon. Work began soon after. By nightfall, he was too exhausted to revise his notes. Despite the strain, Sulieman managed above-average grades. Others were not as fortunate.

“I was funding my education myself,” Usman Selman, another young man in the camp, told HumAngle. “My school fees were ₦20,000 a year, so I had to work. But the stress became too much.”

The dual burden affected his concentration. “No matter how hard I tried to listen in class, the only thing on my mind was money.” For some, the pressure pushed them out entirely. Aliyu Usman began paying his own fees at 15. By 17, even ₦3,000 per semester proved unsustainable.

“I was tailoring while in school,” he said. “But I couldn’t cope with fees and transport. I dropped out in SS2. Now I do laundry. It feeds my family.” He paused before adding, “If I could go back to school, I would. But I know in my heart I can’t.”

Salim, now financially stable enough to run his shop, no longer sees school as essential.

“Even if I had the chance, I wouldn’t go back,” he said. “Everything I need for business, I learned here. And after school, where is the job? Unless you already have money, there’s nothing waiting.”

For the few who make it through secondary school, graduation does not guarantee anything. Umar borrowed ₦87,000 to register for the West African Examinations Council (WAEC) exam, one the final secondary school tests that qualify one for further education in the university and other higher insitututions. It took him half a year to repay the debt. In those six months, he was forced to cut back on food. “After all that, I still didn’t get a job,” he said. “If university graduates are struggling, who am I with only a WAEC certificate?” 

The repeated disappointments take a toll. According to Liyatu, who coordinates the camp, more than half of the 1,000 boys there are currently out of school and unemployed. “If they even register for WAEC, we are lucky,” she said. “Most cannot finish secondary school. When they see there’s no support, they lose hope.” She worries about the ripple effects.

“With no school and sometimes no work, small arguments turn into fights. I saw boys punch each other over ₦200. I don’t excuse it, but I understand the frustration.”

Humanitarian worker Mohammed Abubakar, who has spent over a decade in Nigeria’s humanitarian sector, says prolonged educational exclusion carries broader consequences. “When young people are cut off from opportunity, their productivity drops,” he said. “They become more vulnerable to exploitation and manipulation.” He cautions that marginalisation, not ignorance alone, creates risk. “If society neglects them, others will step in, sometimes with harmful intentions. That is how cycles of insecurity and poverty sustain themselves.”

Beyond security, he points to economic cost. “When you underinvest in education, your population becomes less competitive. It affects productivity, innovation, even GDP. The impact goes far beyond one camp.”

Yet, despite the barriers, many of the boys continue to dream. Sulieman plans to register for JAMB, hoping for a scholarship. If that fails, he wants to join the armed forces.

“My dream is simple,” he said. “To live a better life and take my parents out of this camp.”

Umar still hopes to study computer engineering. Aliyu once imagined becoming a doctor. Sadiqi Shauku, 18, who left school in SS2, says he would return “if someone helped.” And Ali Juwon, still carrying the weight of his family’s survival, has not let go. “If there is anyone who can help me continue my education, I will continue,” he said. “I want to study something that will help me start a business or work in government. I want to be a better man.”

For now, he survives on friends’ support and periodic food distributions. Hope remains, but evidence of escape is scarce.

“Since I started primary school, I have never seen anyone gather enough money to leave this camp,” Sulieman said. “I believe in my future. But no one has gotten out.”

This article contains spoilers from the Season 3 finale of “Tell Me Lies.”

“Tell Me Lies” ended with the hard truth.

Based on the book by Carola Lovering, the Hulu series centers on the toxic and manipulative on-again, off-again relationship between college students Lucy Albright and Stephen DeMarco — portrayed by real-life couple Grace Van Patten and Jackson White — whose distressing bond causes a ripple effect of chaos and turmoil for their friend group that stretches across eight years.

It all culminated in Tuesday’s Season 3 finale, which brought explosive revelations, the return of old habits and final fractures to the friend group. But what about its central pair?

Across the show’s two timelines, Stephen’s admission to Yale Law School was revoked and his engagement blew up — but is that enough retribution for the most-hated fictional millennial man with a buzz cut after all the emotional and mental abuse he inflicted? Meanwhile, Lucy’s life is upended when she is expelled from school; but years later, and not without making another questionable choice, she is finally free from his torment. For good. Hours before the finale dropped, creator Meaghan Oppenheimer announced the series would not return for another season.

Over two separate video interviews from New York — Oppenheimer from her home; Van Patten and White, later in the day, from a hotel room — The Times caught up with the trio to discuss bringing the dark and twisted saga to an end, why Stephen wasn’t dealt more severe punishment and the love story between Bree and Wrigley. The conversations have been combined and edited for clarity and length.

Lucy (Grace Van Patten) and Stephen (Jackson White) in the series finale of “Tell Me Lies.”

(Ian Watson / Disney)

Before we dive into the finale, the other big news is the announcement that the show will not return for another season. Would you have wanted more or are three seasons enough?

Oppenheimer: This was definitely a very thoughtful, mutual decision that I came to with Hulu and 20th [Television,” which produces the show]. I went into this season wanting to write it with a sense of finality. I always felt like three seasons was sort of a perfect number for a smaller show like this. I always envisioned Lucy and Stephen’s worst, biggest breakup in college, and her public downfall culminating with the wedding weekend. But we went into this season not knowing for sure if there would be another one — and after seeing the amazing fan response and the numbers being so great, we definitely discussed “is there an organic way to keep it going?” I was definitely trying to make a very specific point with the way that Lucy and Stephen ended, which is that it was inevitable that he was going to hurt her, and that if she chooses him over her friends, she’s going to lose them. To keep going after that and force them back in each other’s lives, it would have felt like it was undermining the stakes of everything we set up.

Does it feel like the right time to be done with these characters?

Van Patten: It does. Of course, it’s bittersweet. But in terms of the story, it feels really right that it’s ending here, and we’ve had a beginning, a middle and an end.

White: I like the way that goes out.

Will you be glad to not be the most hated fictional man on TV?

White: I’m stoked. I’m stoked. I really am. I’m really excited to not trigger people like that. It’s a strange burden, like an odd social burden.

Van Patten: Because it’s out of love, but what they’re saying is so negative.

White: Yeah, it’s a compliment, but it’s mean. It’s kind of like how Stephen talks to the other characters.

Grace Van Patten as Lucy Albright in the final moments of the “Tell Me Lies” series finale. (Ian Watson/Disney) (Ian Watson/Disney)

Finales are challenging because they come with a lot of expectations from fans. Since you weren’t sure if the series might return, how did that shape how you wrapped this third season?

Oppenheimer: I had to go into it not worrying too much about what would happen in the future. When we found the [Season 3] ending in the writers room, we all were like, “Oh s—, that’s the ending to the story, not the ending of the season.”

Sometimes, when I see certain [fan] theories, I’m like, “What show are you watching?” I think people that were expecting a resolution to the Macy story, for instance, for him [Stephen] to get arrested — that’s so surprising to me … because I’m like, “I don’t feel like you’re watching the same show that I’m watching.” It’s one of the few things that we kept from the book. He doesn’t get justice for that. In reality, people get away with really bad things and that’s one of the scary truths of the show.

How did you and the writers decide on the moment that ends the series? Lucy choosing to ride off with Stephen after the wedding goes off the rails, only for him to leave her stranded at a gas station.

Oppenheimer: The show was going to end in one of three ways: Does she reject him? Does he reject her? Or do they end up together? I felt for a very long time that they should not end up together because this is a story about abuse. I don’t think this is a love story. It felt like staying true to what the show meant not having this overly positive, optimistic ending where she wins.

At the same time, the one thing we’ve learned about Stephen is that he will never let you go unless he’s the one making that decision. For Lucy to actually be free of him, he needed to be the one to walk away. It actually is the only way for her to really wake up and see it.

I will get images for scenes before I know what the actual scene is, and it’ll be almost more of like a symbolic image, or it’ll be a fable that I’ve heard before. But I said to the writers room, “I just want it to be her finally having the decision — Bree or him, friends or him — and her choosing him and then, it’s not this, but it’s as if he just drives away and leaves her by the side of the road.” And they were all like, “He could literally just drive away and leave her by the side of the road.” The idea of her being on this island alone, and the inevitability of it. And that’s why we have the whole —

Grace Van Patten on ending the series: “Of course, it’s bittersweet. But in terms of the story, it feels really right that it’s ending here, and we’ve had a beginning, a middle and an end.”

(Dutch Doscher / For The Times)

Allusion in the previous episode to the scorpion and frog fable?

Oppenheimer: Yes. The answer is, of course, he was going to hurt you because he’s Stephen. It’s in his nature. Also he’s not driving away, thrilled and happy. When he says, I’ve just blown up my entire life. If I hurt you, I’m hurting myself. It’s true. He would have more fun if he just learned to be nice and be with Lucy. But he can’t help it. His nature is to win and to wound and to get the last laugh.

White: That character is all about himself, and this is one final way to leave on the last laugh.

Van Patten: I find the ending to actually be a little bit helpful. I think there’s a lot of freedom and relief in that last moment when she realizes he left her.

There’s that almost wistful look that she has at the gas station, getting the coffees. Then there’s the one when she realizes she’s been stranded and all she can do is laugh. It’s quite the trajectory.

Van Patten: Every time Lucy has gone back to Stephen, she’s completely in denial. There’s a sense of hope, maybe it’s going to be different this time — also, he had just blown up every relationship she had at the wedding. We’re completely on an island together. There’s this hope of like, maybe we can be OK now, there are no more secrets left. The friend group isn’t together. There’s nothing being held over one another’s head. Then she’s hit with, “Oh, my God he did it again. Shame on me.” She totally could have cried, but she just decided to laugh instead because it is predictable. She actually saw it for the first time as definitive.

Jackson White on playing the hated character Stephen: “It’s a strange burden, like an odd social burden.”

(Dutch Doscher / For The Times)

How did you and the writers grapple with why Evan and Bree would invite Stephen to the wedding after everything that happened in college?

Oppenheimer: It’s one of the things that struck me in the book and scares me about a lot of young men in general (especially operating within groups) — the way guys tend to forgive other guys for what they do to girls. When Evan and Stephen leave things in senior year, they’re actually at a relatively good place with each other. Even though Evan knows that Bree knows the truth (about Lucy‘s one-night stand), he knows that Stephen still recognizes the worst parts of him, so he’s made a decision to keep him close in order to keep himself safe. Bree has a line where she says, “I begged Evan not to invite him.” So it’s not up to Bree, and like a lot of people do, she’s decided to accept that her fiancé has this friend she hates.

On social media, there are fans who say they won’t be satisfied if this show doesn’t end with Stephen dying. And there was the theory that characters were plotting their revenge on him to take place at the wedding. What do you make of that? Why not go that route?

Oppenheimer: When you’re writing anything based on fan expectations or giving them the happy ending all tied in a bow, I think you’re doing a disservice to the story. Different writers would do different things. I have to stay true to my taste. Hoping for all that, I get it. But I think that the way that we do it is with a laugh.

But why not go that route? It just didn’t feel realistic. Maybe I’m just very jaded, but as I look around the world — everyone after #MeToo was like, “Oh, did we cancel all the men?” It’s like, “No, we didn’t.” That is the reality of the world that we live in, especially now, with everything coming out about the Epstein files — it’s appalling. To me, it feels almost belittling to people who’ve been abused and been in these kind of things to say, “Oh, it all works out in the end.” But also, I will say, Stephen is not going to be happy. He’s miserable.

White: He was hardwired to hate. I think the character was designed to start hating. He’s started as a confusing character, and by the end, I think it’s pretty clear that he is one-sided and complicated, sure, but also unquestionably immoral. And there’s a lot of satisfaction in wanting to take that person out, especially if you’re projecting your own whatever onto this character. I totally understand the impulse to want to ice him. But that’s not the way the world works, and I think that’s why the ending is well done because [that’s] not always the case. You don’t get that satisfaction. You actually have to live with it for a long time. And I think the message is that it’ll keep happening over and over and over unless you fix it yourself. No one’s gonna save you. You have to heal yourself.

What about the outcome of the college timeline — in the end, Yale revokes its law school admission offer to Stephen after receiving a tip about behavior that goes against its code of conduct, namely the distribution of pornographic material, which we come to learn was Wrigley’s doing. And that’s one big loss for Stephen. What intrigued you about that? And was it always going to be Wrigley who did that?

Oppenheimer: We didn’t think, initially, that it was going to get reported. That was something that someone — I can’t remember who it was — said, “It really doesn’t feel fair for Diana not to get to go to Yale after everything she’s done to get past every obstacle to better her life.” Then when we were deciding who reports him, it was just very obvious that it needed to be Wrigley because it’s the last person Stephen expects. I thought it was really important to have a guy … it really devastates me the way that men choose other men over their female friends and turn a blind eye. I just wanted one boy to stand up against the other mean boys.

White: I think [having Yale revoke his admission] really messed him [Stephen] up. He is a survivor, though, he’s a shark. A lot of these people don’t face consequences. I think eventually they do. Everything does come around. I think the people who wish ill upon other people will get what’s coming to them. We’re just not going to see when. But in his lifetime, he will get his ass kicked in that way.

Grace Van Patten, left, on the set of “Tell Me Lies” with showrunner Meaghan Oppenheimer.

(Ian Watson / Disney)

To move on to Lucy, we learn what happened in the college timeline that led to her being largely estranged from the friend group. Grace, what stands out to you about playing her in that state of numbness to her life crashing down?

Van Patten: It’s been set up the past two seasons, in the present day, that the worst thing happened to Lucy in college, and we haven’t known what that thing was until this last episode. It’s the last piece of the puzzle for the audience to see what really ruined Lucy’s life. It was so tragic and heartbreaking because she is not computing anything. She’s completely reverting back to being a little girl and doesn’t know how to deal with getting in trouble, and she’s not taking in what’s what’s going on; she’s completely disassociating. I think if she allows herself to feel, then she would not be able to pick herself up off the floor. It’s self-protection and complete denial.

“It’s the last piece of the puzzle for the audience to see what really ruined Lucy’s life,” says Grace Van Patten of “Tell Me Lies.”

(Dutch Doscher / For The Times)

At what point did you both learn that it was Bree who released the tape with Lucy confessing to lying about being sexually assaulted by Chris — a lie she told to protect Pippa, his actual victim?

Van Patten: I forget if it was through reading or Meaghan just telling us before we got the scripts. I was definitely surprised by that because the first few episodes, they’re really emphasizing the closeness between Lucy and Bree and how they’ve developed this really tight-knit relationship, which made sense; they were bumping it up to make that feel like real betrayal. But I just see it as Bree getting even.

White: I really did like that. I liked playing that I genuinely didn’t do it.

Tell me more.

Van Patten: His first time!

White: Just because every single person will obviously think he did. We’ve just established him for three years as the guy who would do that. And to actually have it not be him is confusing, and it was very fun to play. I did not do this horrible thing — I’ve done a lot of other horrible things, but I didn’t do this.

I love the way you deliver the line, when it clicks for you that it was Bree — “Oh, my God, you released the tape, didn’t you?”

White: If the character’s putting pieces together, I like to try and put pieces together. It was just easy to act in that moment. That entire wedding sequence was very easy for everybody because it was well-crafted. We were all bringing it. We knew it was one of the big, important moments.

The cake got demolished.

White: Branden Cook [Evan] is amazing in that sequence.

Van Patten: He insisted that he do that stunt. He was like stretching beforehand.

White: He was chomping at the bit. Oh, he was ready.

Was the end goal to find a way to use ‘Toxic” by Britney Spears to score the climax?

Oppenheimer: I love it so much. It’s really funny because since Season 1, I was, “When are we gonna use ‘Toxic’?” It’s just so perfect for the show. We were editing that scene and we were throwing different songs in, and we’d actually tried this other song that worked really well — “I Gotta Feeling” [by the Black Eyed Peas]. But then I was like, “Should we just try ‘Toxic’?” And my editor, Jen, was like, “It’s literally now or never.” The way that the music lines up with Evan crashing into the cake. It timed out perfectly.

Wrigley (Spencer House) and Bree (Catherine Missal), during a break from the engagement party, have a conversation about their relationship that leads to sex. (Ian Watson / Disney)

The night of his wedding to Bree, Evan (Branden Cook) learns about her affair with Wrigley. (Danielle Blancher / Disney)

How did you arrive at some of the other big moments, like Bree and Wrigley. She goes through with the wedding, but their secret is out. What happens next for them? It’s also like, is this trauma bonding or … ?

Oppenheimer: I don’t think it’s trauma bonding. I think they’re soul mates, personally. Trauma bonding is a thing, but there’s also something very real about meeting someone in a moment of grief and it has just taken all of your outer layer off, and it has exposed the real you. I think that’s what they’re seeing when they connect at the beginning of Season 3; they’re the truest version of themselves. I knew that I wanted it to come out because Evan could not get away with this. Evan could not have the happy marriage to Bree. Lucy had a choice that she was making with the full knowledge of the choice, but Bree doesn’t know all the things that Evan did to her to completely destroy her relationship with her mom. It would have felt so unfair for that to work out. I always saw that exploding and coming to light. That smile at the end of the wedding, that tells you they’re going to make this work. I literally wrote it into the action line of the script. I said, “Their eyes meet across the room, and they smile. And you get the sense that in spite of it all” — I think I wrote “carnage” — “they’re gonna find a way to make it work.” And I think they do.

White: I like happy endings, just as a viewer. I like when things work out for characters that didn’t really do anything bad. I love Wrigley and Bree. It’s a great relationship.

Van Patten: I love that relationship. I feel like they deserve each other and like they’re the two with the most well-rounded moral compass. They feel right together. And so do Pippa and Diana. They’re the only ones who are leaving happy, in the end. They’re like, “Let’s get out of here. We do not belong here.” And they just walk off. They kind of leave unscathed when everyone else is in the fire?

Grace Van Patten and Jackson White of “Tell Me Lies.”

(Dutch Doscher / For The Times)

Do you wish, especially as a real-life couple, that’s what you could have played?

Van Patten: I thought it was the perfect ending for these characters. If they ended up together and figured things out, it would just be so unrealistic. Look what these people have done to each other for the past three seasons. They’re not going to be OK together.

I guess I mean the whole trajectory, having to play the fictional couple that’s so toxic as you’re starting a relationship.

White: Yeah, not a lot of blending between work and real life.

Van Patten: Thank God. It’s only a nice, warm feeling to know we’re nothing like them. But it’s just fun acting together. We have to do crazy things and say crazy things. It’s very, very separated for us.

What do you hope for your characters?

White: I don’t hope much for him. I’m trying to think if I know anybody like that or with those tendencies — I do. I do know people who have a lot of similarities, and I pray for them, and I hope they do well. I also hope they get what’s coming to them. Actually let me take it to back because if somebody has wronged me, then I wish them the best. But for somebody like him, he’s sort of beyond that, isn’t he? I don’t know how to answer that question. I don’t know what I would want for him.

Van Patten: I hope that final instance that we see in the last episode pushes her into a journey of self-analysis and her really trying to figure out why she looks for that type of thing in a relationship, and why she has been so drawn to that. Hopefully she does the work to change that and focus on the relationships that matter, that she should be paying more attention to. I hope it’s the beginning for her.

On a final note, I will say, I was relieved to see Stephen at least left behind Lucy’s purse.

White: That’s pretty funny.

Van Patten: I wish there was footage of him placing it there. Like, him hopping out of the car and carefully placing it. I always wondered if he parked in a place where he can see Lucy, just to see her reaction.

Sexton was speaking before Ireland’s match against England on Saturday amid ongoing uncertainty over the long-term incumbent of the number 10 jersey he wore with distinction before retiring in 2023.

Sam Prendergast has started both Six Nations games this year, but it remains to be seen if head coach Andy Farrell sticks with the 23-year-old Leinster player or gives Jack Crowley, Ciaran Frawley or Harry Byrne the chance to impress against England.

“It’s important that not only those two but Frawley and Harry Byrne, as well, that they keep developing and getting game-time,” added Sexton, who won 118 Ireland caps.

“So there are four guys and all the criticism from previous World Cup cycles is that we didn’t develop guys, and we have relied too heavily on one [player] in some positions.

“So we’re doing it a different way now and whether that’s right or wrong, everyone judges it by the outcome but I know that in games to come, they’re going to hit their best form and they’ll be in a good place.”

Sexton added: “All four are very good, they’ve all got their different strengths and as coaches I think we are trying to make sure that we have lots of options going to a World Cup, try and learn from previous cycles and make sure that we give them all a certain number of caps.

“We need to make sure that we see their form in different pressurised situations, in different venues against different opposition and yeah, I’m sure it will be like that for the foreseeable.”

Follow the build-up, analysis and live text commentary of the first leg of football’s Champions League playoff in Lisbon.

George Munsey – so often the man to provide impetus at the top of the order for Scotland – struggled to find the middle of the bat as he made 27 from 29 balls.

In contrast, Jones looked in magnificent touch as he found gaps in the off-side field and struck powerfully down the ground.

However, when Jones and Brandon McMullen (25) both fell in one Sompal Kami over, momentum evaporated.

Berrington (10) was the only other batter to reach double figures for Scotland as Tom Bruce, Matthew Cross and Leask all fell in quick succession.

Nepal’s bowlers used pace-off variations to great effect in the death overs with Kami (3-25) particularly impressive.

Mark Watt struck the final ball of the innings for six to boost Scottish hopes, but under lights on a good pitch it felt as though they were at least 10 runs short.

In reply, Nepal reached 56 without loss after a powerplay in which both openers were the beneficiaries of good fortune.

Brad Currie put down Kushal Bhurtel with a tough chance off his own bowling before Brad Wheal hit the stumps without dislodging the bails.

Wicketkeeper Cross also failed to cling on when Aasif Sheikh gloved one from Currie down the leg side.

Bhurtel (43) and Sheikh (33) were both dismissed by the ever-competitive Leask as Scotland fought back, and when the off-spinner also removed captain Rohit Paudel, Nepal were behind the eight ball.

That wicket brought Gulshan Jha to the middle with Airee in the 14th over and three sixes in consecutive balls off Olly Davidson and then Leask provided another twist.

Airee’s fast hands and faster running was the bedrock of the chase, as he rotated strike expertly and found the boundary when required to leave five required from six deliveries.

Having failed to take 10 from the final over in the defeat by England, Jha swiped Wheal for four through mid-wicket to seal a famous win for the team known as the Cardiac Kids.

THIS NOUGHTIES indie band looks unrecognisable after undergoing a bleach blonde hair transformation.

The rockers released a new promo photo for their upcoming gigs later this year.

The lads looked very different as they showcased their new look.

The trio posed for a photo all suited and booted and looking serious.

But have you worked out who it is yet?

Well it’s none other than British punk rock band The Ordinary Boys.

READ MORE ON NOUGHTIES STARS

called off

Noughties rock band forced to cancel UK tour just days before it starts

OPENING UP

Noughties pop star opens up about ‘damaging experience’ in band

The band consists of Samuel Preston ‘aka Preston’, along with Charles “Chuck” Stanley, James Gregory and Matthew Powers.

The band is set to return to live music next month after a decade’s hiatus to celebrate their 20th anniversary.

They will be performing a number of intimate gigs in Worthing, Bristol, Darwen and Portsmouth.

But first they will be kicking things off with a special show in London at the Strongroom Bar – and fans can get tickets for as little as £20.

The group will also be making an appearance this summer at Chester’s Together Again Festival at Bolesworth Castle.

In a bid to reinvent themselves ahead of the shows, the singers were seen sporting their striking hairdo for a new poster.

The Ordinary Boys are best known for their 2006 UK Top 10 hits Boys Will Be Boys.

Their collaboration with Lady Sovereign titled Nine2Five was also a hit.

They also released a number of other tracks during the mid-2000s including I Luv U, Lonely at the Top, and Talk Talk Talk.

Preston is arguably the most well known member of the group thanks to his appearance on Celebrity Big Brother in 2006.

The singer went on to marry fellow housemate Chantelle Houghton after meeting on the show, but split just a year later.

Preston’s ex Chantelle told The Sun last year: “I think everyone loves a romance love story don’t they.

“I think a house romance would definitely make it easier for you, because you’ve got that person haven’t you.

“Whereas if you have no real friendship or connection, you’re sort of there on your own and it’s quite lonely and there’s a lot of mind games.

The information cycle in Venezuela following Maduro’s capture by the US on January 3rd has moved at a stunning pace. In just weeks, the discussion of an amnesty law, the release of political prisoners, including high-profile figures such as Juan Pablo Guanipa, or the closure of El Helicoide have generated a steady stream of headlines that suggest plenty of movement.

Yet in Venezuela’s political history, first glances rarely tell the full story. A closer look reveals the traps embedded within those headlines: “liberations” that are in fact conditional releases, an amnesty bill that excludes many political prisoners and leaves key demands unmet, and the looming threat of new detentions, materialized in Guanipa’s re-arrest less than twelve hours after his release.

These gestures are not improvised. Since January 3rd, the leadership now headed by Delcy Rodríguez has invested heavily in projecting moderation and pragmatism abroad, positioning itself as the most viable partner for stability.

In that effort, the regime has often benefited, sometimes unintentionally, from the structure of international reporting itself. Part of this dynamic stems from the regime’s tight control over access, including restrictions on foreign correspondents and selective granting of exclusive interviews to chosen outlets. But it is also structural. In a polarized and fast-paced media environment, initial announcements often receive more attention than their aftermath, making it harder to trace how events unfold within the broader structure of power.

The regime understands this dynamic, and operates within it.

Confuse and conquer

What connects these episodes is not coincidence, but method. The regime frequently generates overlapping announcements, partial concessions, and selective gestures that make it difficult to follow the full sequence of events.

Over time, the regime’s leadership has learned that generating visible actions works. These actions do not need to be structural or transformative, they simply need to be striking enough to become discrete headline events. Once reported, the action itself becomes the story, while the broader context and sequencing often fade from view.

This dynamic is particularly visible in the management of the opposition. The regime has fostered divisions through multiple mechanisms, weakening cohesive action while presenting itself as conciliatory. The current National Assembly, for instance, includes figures labeled as opposition lawmakers despite significant opacity surrounding the electoral processes that brought them there, allowing the regime to project pluralism.

Shortened contextual memory, where events are reported but patterns are not continuously revisited, ultimately works to the regime’s advantage.

Similarly, dialogue initiatives involving individuals described as “moderate” opposition leaders are framed as evidence of a political opening, even when those actors lack a clear or broad mandate. In contrast, María Corina Machado and others who decline to participate are often portrayed as “radical”, not necessarily because of ideological extremism, but because they refuse to legitimize mechanisms that function primarily to buy time and reinforce the regime’s image.

The amnesty bill seems to show the same dynamic: it not only leaves many political prisoners out, but also risks fracturing victims’ groups by rewarding accommodation and penalizing refusal. However, once the “amnesty” headline circulates, the broader exclusions become secondary, and from the regime’s perspective, the immediate narrative gain may already be sufficient.

This tactic operates within a broader structural reality. Venezuela is politically complex and has been in crisis for decades. For international media outlets managing multiple global crises, sustained contextualization is difficult. Shortened contextual memory, where events are reported but patterns are not continuously revisited, ultimately works to the regime’s advantage.

Bias and competing agendas

International coverage has long interpreted Venezuela through familiar frameworks—authoritarianism, sanctions, polarization—rather than through the specific institutional degradation that defines the regime. This does not imply sympathy for the government. It simply flattens the crisis. When Venezuela is treated as another authoritarian state negotiating political transitions, the depth of institutional collapse and the entanglement of state power with coercive and illicit structures often receive less attention.

After January 3rd, this dynamic became more visible. Coverage focused heavily on the legality and geopolitical implications of Maduro’s capture, with comparatively less emphasis on the regime’s documented record of abuses. In a strongly polarized media climate, scrutiny of US actions often eclipsed scrutiny of the regime itself. That asymmetry contributed to a subtle relativization of the regime’s trajectory.

Separately, competing priorities within Washington shaped the policy debate and media coverage around Venezuela. Some actors emphasized engagement and economic opportunity, particularly regarding oil, presenting gestures such as prisoner releases as signs of rapid progress. President Trump echoed that framing, stating that political prisoners were being released at a rapid rate, at a time when Foro Penal had documented roughly 250 releases out of more than 800 detainees, most under restrictive conditions.

Differences in tone do not necessarily create media bias, but contribute to a fragmented narrative environment in which signals of progress and signals of caution circulate simultaneously.

Others adopted a more cautious position. During his deposition before the Senate, Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that Delcy Rodríguez’s leadership would be judged not on rhetoric but on actions, stressing that pace, conditions, and follow-through mattered.

These differences in tone do not necessarily create media bias, but contribute to a fragmented narrative environment in which signals of progress and signals of caution circulate simultaneously. That fragmentation has at times extended to portrayals of opposition figures themselves. Reports citing unnamed US officials have described frustrations with María Corina Machado’s positioning, implicitly framing her stance as complicating broader strategy. When unnamed officials are cited to express frustrations, rather than to disclose substantive policy shifts, the line between reporting and narrative shaping becomes blurred.

Judging by actions, and what follows

Rubio’s standard to judge by actions is reasonable. But in Venezuela, actions cannot be read in isolation. A release, a meeting, or a legislative proposal may be factual. Yet without context, timing, sequencing, and what unfolds around them, tactical adjustments can resemble structural change.

The case of Juan Pablo Guanipa makes this tension visible. His release contributed to the narrative of progress. The quick re-detention that came hours later disrupted it. The regime does not want mass mobilization in the streets, yet it also needs to project moderation abroad. When Guanipa mobilized, he forced the regime to choose between sustaining its international image and reasserting control at home, and it chose control.

Moments like this strip the strategy bare. There is no calibrated messaging capable of reconciling a re-arrest with claims of normalization. No sequencing trick can disguise it. While the regime can often manage headlines through partial gestures, episodes like Guanipa’s expose the underlying logic too clearly to blur.

That is also where the agency of Venezuelans becomes visible. When citizens and opposition figures test the boundaries of controlled concessions, they reveal whether those gestures signal transformation or merely delay. If the regime responds with repression, the narrative of change collapses. In that sense, the limits of the illusion are not determined only by media framing, but by how far Venezuelans are willing to push against it.

In Venezuela, actions do matter, but only when understood within their full context. Without that context, they risk becoming headlines that obscure more than they clarify.

Henry Pollock has been handed his first Test start as Steve Borthwick makes three changes to his starting XV for England’s must-win Six Nations match against Ireland on Saturday at Allianz Stadium.

Pollock, 21, is named at number eight alongside fellow British and Irish Lion Tom Curry, who has featured off the bench in the past six Tests, and Ben Earl in the back row.

Centre Ollie Lawrence returns after missing out on selection for Saturday’s crushing defeat by Scotland at Murrayfield.

Tommy Freeman, who started the first two rounds at outside centre, shifts back to the right wing.

England struggled in the air against Gregor Townsend’s side – an area of strength during a 12-game winning run that was ended on Saturday.

Tom Roebuck loses his spot on the right wing after struggling to assert himself aerially, but Henry Arundell, who was sent off after receiving two yellow cards – the second for taking a player out in the air – is given a chance to redeem himself on the left wing.

The 23-year-old has scored four tries in the opening two rounds and was cleared to play after being cited for the incident.

Head coach Steve Borthwick has been clear about his desire to use Freeman at outside centre, but the 24-year-old is arguably England’s best player at winning the ball in the air and those skills have been missed.

Fit-again Lawrence, who missed the opening game through a knee injury, was always likely to play a role in this Six Nations after a standout performance against New Zealand in the autumn, with his powerful ball carrying a point of difference.

England’s attack failed to click against Scotland and Lawrence’s strengths would have also been a factor in forcing the Freeman switch.

Captain Maro Itoje will earn his 100th cap, becoming the ninth England man to reach the milestone.

Half-backs Marcus Smith and Jack van Poortvliet both missed out on selection last week and are named on a 6-2 bench spilt.

Ireland, like England, have one win from their opening two games in the tournament, making the fixture a must-win for both sides to keep their championship hopes alive.

Feb. 17 (UPI) — Oil prices climbed on Tuesday as Iran partially closed the Strait of Hormuz, a critical shipping path, to conduct military drills.

Fars, an Iranian news agency, cited “security precautions” as the reason for the closure, with no indication of when the Strait of Hormuz will fully open again.

About 13 million barrels of crude oil were transported through the strait each day in 2025, making up about 31% of oil shipments by sea. It is the main seaborne export route for Middle Eastern oil shipping to Asia.

Iranian naval forces began the drill “Smart Control of the Strait of Hormuz,” on Monday.

The drill involves deploying drones capable of striking aerial and maritime targets and is “focused on enhancing operational readiness, strengthening deterrence, and reinforcing multilayered defense,” Fars reported.

Tuesday is the first time that Tehran has closed any part of the Strait of Hormuz since President Donald Trump threatened military action against Iran in response to the killings of protesters.

The United States has posted warships on the Indian Ocean as Trump attempts to negotiate with Iran to scale back its nuclear program.

The United States and Iran held a second round of negotiations in Geneva on Tuesday. Trump was not present for those negotiations but said he would participate “indirectly.”

A prequel to one of the most acclaimed sci-fi films of all time has just been added to Netflix and fans are already eating it up

A sci-fi film directed by Ridley Scott that’s been praised by fans as a “masterpiece” is available to stream now in the UK. Prometheus (2012) is the fifth instalment in the iconic Alien franchise, and follows scientists who uncover startling clues that humanity may have been created by an ancient alien race, and journey to a remote world to investigate.

However, in their quest to solve the mystery they stumble upon a terrifying discovery that could spell the end of the human race. The psychological thriller boasts an all-star ensemble cast, including Noomi Rapace, Michael Fassbender, Guy Pearce, Idris Elba, Logan Marshall-Green, and Charlize Theron.

The film acts as a prequel to the first film in the franchise, Alien (1979) which was also helmed by Scott, and generated a number of successful sequels directed by Hollywood titans including James Cameron and David Fincher, as well as a cross-over franchise, Alien vs. Predator.

Mere hours after its release on the platform and it has already reached the number two spot on Netflix’s top 10 films.

One fan, writing on Rotten Tomatoes, called Prometheus a “masterpiece”. “This movie expands the Alien world and lore,” they added.

“The acting is top notch. The sci-fi horror element is incredible. Very existential. Watch it with commentary,” reports the Express.

Another described simply as the “Best movie of all time”.

Not everyone was impressed by the prequel, with one writing whilst Prometheus “looks phenomenal” its “strong visuals cannot hide weak writing”.

“The dialogue feels stiff and unnatural, making it hard to connect with the characters.”

Another commented: “It’s frustrating how amazing this film could’ve been. Solid cast, beautifully shot, original story. Scott should’ve either made a film about our creators or an Alien prequel; instead the two elements get too muddled together and neither gets full service.”

**For the latest showbiz, TV, movie and streaming news, go to the new **Everything Gossip** website**

However, others believed it matched the high benchmark established by the franchise’s stronger entries.

One remarked: “This was a perfectly cast movie. It gave excellent insight into the origins of the Alien lore. Excellently tied in with the existing movies. Not too many Aliens ripping people apart but plenty of action. Truly a great movie.”

Another rejected criticism of the picture, claiming it’s “gripping, thought provoking, visually stunning and entertaining from start to finish”.

A third branded it an “incredible and impactful film that deserves to be seen multiple times”.

Get Netflix free with Sky for Bridgerton Season 4

This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more

from £15

Sky

Get the deal here

‘Dearest gentle reader’, as the fourth season of Bridgerton follows second son Benedict love story, there’s a way to watch this fairytale-like season for less.

Sky is giving away a free Netflix subscription with its new Sky Stream TV bundles, including the £15 Essential TV plan. This lets customers watch live and on-demand TV content without a satellite dish or aerial and includes the new season of Bridgerton.

A fourth described it as “massively underrated in the Alienverse”, boasting a “strong script, amazing cast”, and visual effects that are “on point”.

The film carries a 15 certificate and features strong violence, gore, alongside threat and horror – so viewer discretion is recommended.

Prometheus arrived on Netflix in the UK on Monday (February 16). It’s also accessible to stream on Disney+, and available to rent or purchase on various platforms, including Apple TV, Amazon Prime Video, and Sky Store.