Thousands of people in Turkey have turned out for a seventh night of protests which have so far seen more than 1,400 people detained, including students, journalists and lawyers.

The nightly unrest began last Wednesday when the city’s Mayor Ekrem Imamoglu – who is seen as the President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s main political rival – was arrested on corruption charges.

Rights groups and the UN have condemned the arrests and the use of force by police on the protesters.

Imamoglu said the allegations against him were politically motivated, a claim the Turkish president has denied.

Speaking to a group of young people at a Ramadan fast-breaking meal in Ankara on Tuesday, President Erdogan urged patience and common sense amid what he described as “very sensitive days.”

He added that people who want “to turn this country into a place of chaos have nowhere to go”, and the path protesters have taken is “a dead end”.

On Tuesday evening, thousands of students from many universities in Istanbul met in Maçka Park and then marched towards Şişli.

Authorities in Istanbul banned protests and closed some roads “in order to maintain public order” and “prevent any provocative actions that may occur”.

As students marched through the Nisantasi district they chanted “government, resign!” and waved flags and banners as they were watched by a large deployment of riot police.

Many students had their faces covered with scarves or masks, and acknowledged they feared being identified by the police.

Turkey’s main opposition party, the Republican People’s Party (CHP), said that Tuesday’s rally outside Istanbul’s City Hall would be its last in a run of nightly gatherings – and that it is planning a rally in the city on Saturday.

“Are you ready for a big rally in a large square in Istanbul on Saturday?” Ozgur Ozel told crowds.

“To support Imamoglu, to object to his arrest, to object to the detention of each of our mayors. To demand transparent, open, live broadcast trials, to say that we have had enough and we want early elections.”

Since last Wednesday, Turkey’s interior minister said 1,418 protesters have been detained following the days of demonstrations that the government has deemed “illegal.”

Posting on social media Ali Yerlikaya wrote: “While there are currently 979 suspects in custody, 478 people will be brought to court today.

“No concessions will be made to those who attempt to terrorise the streets, to attack our national and moral values, and to our police officers.”

Elsewhere on Tuesday, seven journalists appeared in court including AFP news agency photographer Yasin Akgül who had been covering the demonstrations.

AFP chairman Fabrice Fries has written a letter addressed to the Turkish presidency urging Erdogan to “intervene” in Akgul’s imprisonment which he described as “unacceptable”.

“Yasin Akgül was not part of the protest,” Fries said. “As a journalist, he was covering one of the many demonstrations that have been organized in the country since Wednesday 19 March.

“He has taken exactly 187 photographs since the start of the protests, each one a witness to his work as a journalist.”

In Washington, Secretary of State Marco Rubio voiced “concerns” following a meeting with Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan, the US State Department said in a statement.

Imamoglu was one of more than 100 people detained last week as part of an investigation. Others arrested included politicians, journalists and businessmen.

His arrest does not prevent his candidacy or election as president, but he will not be able to run if he is convicted of any of the charges against him.

The opposition mayor is seen as one of the most formidable rivals of Erdogan, who has held office in Turkey for 22 years as both prime minister and president.

Erdogan’s term in office is due to expire in 2028, and under the current rules, he cannot stand again – but he could call an early election or try to change the constitution to allow him to remain in power for longer.

Turkey’s Ministry of Justice has criticised those connecting Erdogan to the arrests, and insisted on its judicial independence.

Two childhood sweethearts have been reunited after more than 85 years thanks to an old school photograph.

Jim Dougal and Betty Davidson (nee Dougal) used to walk to school together hand in hand in Eyemouth in the Scottish Borders in the 1930s.

They lost touch after Jim’s family moved away in about 1939, but his son Alistair’s efforts to trace all the members of a class photo from 1936 brought them back together.

The old friends met again recently in North Yorkshire and Alistair said: “To describe it as a magical moment would be a gross understatement.”

Jim is 96 years old and now lives in Rayne in Essex – but he was born in Eyemouth in 1928.

His son was researching the family ancestry when he was made aware of a class photo at Eyemouth Primary taken in 1936, when his father was probably eight years old.

In total there are 32 children in the photo – including Betty.

Jim left the town a few years later and never returned after getting conscripted and meeting his wife, Iris Gibbs, while in an army camp in Essex.

Meanwhile, Betty remained in Eyemouth until about 1950 when she met her husband Alfred “Ivor” Davidson and then moved, first, to Tweedmouth and then to North Yorkshire, where she still lives near Northallerton.

Alistair said he became fascinated by the school photograph after a visit to Eyemouth last year and set out – with the help of his father’s “astonishing long-term memory” – to find out what had happened to the other children in the image.

He found they had gone all across the globe – including Australia, Canada and New Zealand – but most of them had died.

The first living person he traced in the picture was Margaret MacCauley (nee Duggie), who still lives in the Eyemouth area.

The second was Betty, who is also 96.

“I couldn’t be quite sure although I was almost certain I had traced her to North Yorkshire up to a few years ago,” said Alistair.

“In a final slightly desperate push, I posted a copy of the photo on the Eyemouth Past Facebook group and asked if anyone could help.

“Within an hour, Betty’s niece Maureen Stevenson posted and said, ‘That’s my aunt Betty and, yes, she is alive and well, and in North Yorkshire’.”

“I wrote to Betty and, as soon as she received the letter, she rang me,” said Alistair, who lives about 70 miles from his father in Mendham in Suffolk.

“Not only that, then she sent me a photo she had, after all those years, of her and my father together, along with her sister Wilhelmina (Elma), taken in about 1936 too.

“They each have an arm around the others shoulder. My father was completely overwhelmed.”

The story ended with the reunion nearly 90 years after that photo was taken.

“Before we left her, they re-posed that photo she had retained all that time and they looked as happy and comfortable together as they did way back when,” said Alistair.

“What a thing to see.

“Ultimately, of the 32, just three remain; Margaret, my father and Betty.

“That Betty should be one of those feels – as my father has said – like destiny.”

Betty remembered growing up across the road from Jim.

“I used to knock on the door for him in the morning or he knocked on mine and we used to walk up to school together,” she said.

She also recalled getting the picture taken together in her back garden with her sister Elma.

Their reunion was prompted by the photo of their class appearing in the local paper, the Berwickshire News.

“Jim and I were both on that school photograph and I think the others had all died,” said Betty.

“I was the only one that was left and he was anxious to get in touch with me. I was quite surprised actually.”

She said it had been lovely to see him again.

“I spoke to him a couple of times on the phone and then he said they would like to come and see me, which they did – with his son,” she said.

“It was nice to get in touch after all these years with my childhood sweetheart.

“I think he was quite shy, Jim, but we were good pals.”

Jim described the reunion, thanks to his son’s research, as “fantastic” and he remembered Betty well.

“We lived on opposite sides of the road in Eyemouth,” he explained.

“Right opposite there was a baker’s shop and Betty lived behind it.

“We used to go to school together, we used to play together – everything.

“It is something that she is the last one standing and so am I.

“It is just incredible really.”

He had no regrets about travelling north to meet up with her once again.

“It was terrific, it really was,” Jim said.

“It was a tiring couple of days but it was well worth it.

“She was fantastic – she has still got that glint in her eye and a touch of the fair hair that I remember her by.”

An NHS trust criticised over the avoidable death of a newborn baby was paid £2m for providing good maternity care, the BBC can reveal.

A senior coroner ruled on Friday that University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay (UHMB) NHS trust contributed to Ida Lock’s death and had failed to learn lessons from previous maternity failures.

Despite this, the trust claimed it had met all 10 standards under an NHS scheme aimed at promoting safe treatment.

Ida’s mother Sarah Robinson said the behaviour of the trust – which has declined to comment – was “another kick in the teeth” while her father Ryan Lock labelled it “disgusting”.

Senior coroner for Lancashire James Adeley concluded that Ida had died due to the gross failure of three midwives to provide basic medical care.

Ida, who was born at the Royal Lancaster Infirmary (RLI) on 9 November 2019, died a week later after suffering a serious brain injury due to a lack of oxygen.

Dr Adeley ruled her death had been caused by the midwives’ failure to deliver the infant “urgently when it was apparent she was in distress” and contributed to by the lead midwife’s “wholly incompetent failure to provide basic neonatal resuscitation”.

He said eight opportunities had been missed “to alter Ida’s clinical course”.

Her five-week inquest at Preston County Hall heard that many of the issues identified in a 2015 independent review of UHMB’s maternity services were still evident in November 2019.

The RLI is run by the UHMB trust.

Under the Maternity Incentive Scheme run by NHS Resolution, the health service’s insurance arm, maternity departments in England are encouraged to provide good care by meeting 10 safety standards, including properly investigating deaths and listening to parents’ concerns.

Trusts which certify they have met these standards receive a rebate on their insurance premiums, in addition to a share of money paid by NHS trusts which do not.

In the five years that the scheme has been running, UHMB said it had met the 10 standards four times.

In 2018, the first year of the programme, the trust’s self-certification led to it being paid £1,288,241.

In 2019, the year of Ida’s death, it received £734,112 after again claiming to have hit all of the criteria.

The UHMB trust also claimed a perfect 10-out-of-10 record in 2020 but their submission was reviewed by NHS Resolution following a critical inspection of maternity services by the Care Quality Commission.

The regulator’s report rated maternity services as “inadequate”, with UHMB’s score downgraded to three out of 10.

Consequently, UHMB was not given any money that year by NHS Resolution, and the trust was made to repay most of the amount it had received in 2019.

When told about the payments scheme and how the trust had benefitted from it, Mr Lock said it was “disgusting”.

He said: “It’s painting a false picture so they can receive money.”

A former maternity risk manager at the trust, Rox-Anne Hetherington, said Morecambe Bay’s actions were in keeping with her experience.

“I can, hand-on-heart, say that it wasn’t a case of ‘What have we done to [make things better]?’

“It was a case of ‘What are we going to say we’ve done?'”

Dr Bill Kirkup, whose 2015 inquiry exposed widespread failings in maternity care, including the preventable deaths of 11 babies and a mother at the trust’s Furness General Hospital in Cumbria, also said he wasn’t surprised.

“Some trusts put a lot of effort into how they can present the best picture of themselves, and much less effort into whether they’re actually making improvements underneath,” he said.

UHMB’s claims are in line with other struggling trusts which have also made similar erroneous submissions under the Maternity Incentive Scheme.

The Shrewsbury and Telford NHS trust was forced to repay almost £1m after it similarly claimed to have met all of the safety standards.

A review of its maternity care, published in 2022, found more than 200 babies and mothers could have survived with proper care.

The East Kent University Hospitals trust, where an inquiry found at least 45 babies could have survived, was also forced to repay £2m after falsely claiming it had met the safety criteria.

In a statement, NHS Resolution said “University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS trust initially self-reported full compliance with the Maternity Incentive Scheme in years 1, 2, 3 and 5.

“However subsequent NHS Resolution reviews of the Trust’s evidence for years 2 and 3 following the publication of their CQC report demonstrated that they were not fully compliant for those years.

“The Trust was required to repay any funds for those years. The previously granted rebate was returned to NHS Resolution and was redistributed to all compliant Trusts.”

The UHMB, which has previously apologised for its failings in Ida Lock’s death, declined to comment about its participation in the Maternity Incentive Scheme.

On Wednesday the chancellor will give an update on her plans for the economy.

The government has promised to boost growth, which should mean higher pay and more jobs, but so far the economy has been sluggish.

Rachel Reeves will share the latest official forecasts and explain how she intends to tackle the big challenges facing her when she delivers her Spring Statement.

Those challenges are also being felt on the ground, in people’s everyday lives.

People have contacted the BBC through our Your Voice, Your BBC News to tell us how they are feeling about the months ahead and what plans they have to tackle the hurdles they face.

Radhika Gupta thinks whatever Rachel Reeves does on Wednesday she shouldn’t cut spending on health or education.

The student from Derry in Northern Ireland is in the third year of a five-year medical degree at Queen’s University in Belfast.

“One thing that worries me is how many doctors want to leave,” she says.

“The consensus is it is not worth practising medicine in the UK because of how little you are paid. And you are left with a lot of student debt.

“I don’t think the government really understands the challenges.”

Despite what she sees as underfunded services and staff burnout she wants to work in England after she graduates.

But more needs to be done to fund and improve medical training, she says.

The other thing she would like to see more money spent on is transport, which is one of her biggest expenses at around £75 a month, partly because unreliable public transport sometimes means she takes a cab to the hospital.

Her parents and maintenance loan give her about £800 a month, which she supplements with tutoring and casual work in hospitality. Her rent is £600. There are extra costs like her scrubs – she needs several sets – at £35 a set.

“Things are quite tight,” she says.

“I’m working paycheque to paycheque,” says Dylan Caulkin. “If I have a tyre that pops, I rely on credit.”

The teaching assistant, who lives with his parents near Truro, Cornwall, is about to start a new job as a support worker for people with learning difficulties.

At £12.24 an hour, his pay will be only just above the level the minimum wage is rising to in April. But it is more than he is getting in his current role.

“I’m very excited,” he says. The opportunity for doing overtime, too, means the change will have a “massive impact” on his finances.

He pays his parents £160 a month rent and contributes to food costs, which are higher for him as he is on a gluten-free diet. His car – a necessity, he says – costs about £500 a month to run. And he has a small amount of credit card debt he is currently trying to clear.

He sometimes has £100 left over at the end of the month for spending on himself.

“I’m very lucky to have family around me,” he says. “I wouldn’t be able to survive without them.”

He would like to see the government provide more help for young people like him.

“In the near-future I’m looking to move in with my partner but it is just so expensive.”

What happens next with interest rates is what matters most to Ellie Richardson and Billy Taylor.

They found their dream home for £350,000 last year, but the sale has been delayed and now won’t be completed before stamp duty rises at the end of this month, costing them an extra £2,500.

“You have to roll with the punches,” says Ellie, who works in sports PR. But they hope mortgage rates aren’t also about to go up.

She and Billy, a builder, have been shuttling between his parents’ and her parents’ houses in Essex for the past three years.

“We’ve worked really hard to save as much as we can for this house,” she says. “We’re pretty set on it.”

They have a joint income of around £80,000 and they have a mortgage offer that would see them pay around £1,200 a month.

But if the house purchase is delayed too long, they may end up having to apply for a new mortgage.

“The silver lining is, if we do complete later in the year, then hopefully mortgage rates could be lower,” she says.

The student from Worcester has a combination of health conditions including PoTS, which causes her heart rate to increase very quickly when she stands up and can lead to loss of balance and consciousness.

“I faint multiple times a day, I’m in immense pain constantly. I dislocate my fingers, elbows, shoulders and knees a lot.

“Most students work part-time,” she says. “I’ve been deemed unfit to work.”

Elspeth receives a total of about £1,200 a month through a student maintenance loan and incapacity and disability benefits.

She is dropping out of her current course – nursing – because she can’t manage the hospital shifts. She wants to start a new course, in astrophysics, in the autumn.

But she says her parents can’t support her financially, so if her benefits are cut, she will have to abandon that ambition.

“I’ve got more outgoings than the average student,” she says.

Currently, she has nothing left at the end of the month, after spending around £800 on rent and another good chunk on her cardiac support dog, Podge.

His food costs £90 a month, there are vet’s bills, and recently he needed a new harness that helps him to communicate to her, including when she is about to faint. It cost £1,200.

“Currently all my money goes on him,” she says.

Businessman Lincoln Smith reckons consumer confidence is the lowest it has been for 15 years.

He owns and runs Custom Heat, a plumbing firm based in Rugby. The rising cost of living has meant his customers have cut back on annual boiler services and other things. On top of that, taxes for businesses go up in April.

“That makes you shrink your ambitions, makes you think, ‘Let’s not replace people who are leaving.'”

The company is not taking on apprentices this year, and has even got rid of the office cleaner.

Lincoln himself is taking a 20% pay cut to help balance the books for the forthcoming financial year.

He’ll be earning £125,000, while his wife, who also works for the business, earns £45,000.

“It sounds like a lot,” he admits, but the cut will still mean lifestyle changes. “When you are earning any salary, you set your outgoings based on it.”

With a mortgage of £3,000 a month they are already at “breakeven point”, he says.

“We haven’t booked a holiday this year. We are definitely not going away,” he says.

But if that is not enough he will look at moving house to reduce the mortgage.

It’s a bit upsetting, he says, because it’s the only house his sons, aged seven and four, have known.

“I know it’s ‘first world problems’,” he says. “You’ve just got to do what you’ve got to do.”

“There doesn’t seem to be anything good on the horizon,” says Malcolm Hindley, a retired window cleaner from Liverpool.

A widower, he lives with his daughter, who “does everything round the house” and cares for him and her disabled daughter.

He owns his own house, but finds it hard to get by on his £200-a-week state pension, plus attendance allowance of around £80 a week.

He needs a car to get to the shops and medical appointments, and has just been in a car accident that has left him with a neck brace, on top of existing mobility issues.

He will be listening out on Wednesday for further details around cuts to benefits for the long-term sick and disabled.

Losing the winter fuel payment was hard, he says, because he feels the cold more as he gets older. Now he is worried what else might go.

“The way this government’s working, it just seems to be hitting the poorer more. What else are they going to take off us?”

He doesn’t have much left at the end of the month, but what he does have goes on ice creams and sweets for the grandchildren.

“When you see their faces it’s brilliant,” he says.

Additional reporting by Kris Bramwell & Emma Pengelly.

“Definitely not a Budget” is the basic message emerging from the Treasury about the chancellor’s upcoming economic statement.

There will not just be no red box outside Number 11, there will only be a “thin book” of new policies with a “light scorecard” of measures with no further tax rises.

So what is the point of this Spring Statement?

It is principally a spring forecast from the government’s official forecasters, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR). In that process it has had to take into account a slower economy than expected, and higher government borrowing costs.

This OBR forecast has wiped out the room for manoeuvre against the “non-negotiable” rules Chancellor Rachel Reeves has set on government borrowing in the future. She has made a number of further adjustments to keep the numbers on track.

Essentially low growth and higher borrowing costs have blown the budgetary numbers off course.

We will hear a lot from the chancellor about how “the world has changed”.

The reality is this course correction is likely to have been required even before US President Donald Trump transformed global diplomacy and trade.

When Reeves begins her statement at the despatch box, we will find out whether the chancellor can continue to rule out having to resort to tax rises, even in this “changed world”.

And if there is no return to spending austerity, then where does the money come from?

While no significant tax measures are expected, the chancellor may nonetheless leave the option on the table for the autumn Budget.

Some economists do expect tax rises in the autumn, in particular to meet rising defence spending. There is talk of a “conversation with the public” on this matter.

At her first Budget the chancellor rejected, for example, extending the Conservative freeze to income tax thresholds by another two years. The public could get a clear idea around this Spring Statement if that is back as an option.

The £5bn cut to welfare spending already announced is the biggest single welfare cut for a decade. That is likely to be the biggest saving. The chancellor is now set to expand the cuts after being told reforms to the system would save less than planned.

Later on Wednesday, the number of people losing Personal Independence Payments (PIP) and Universal Credit, how much on average, and the split between current or future recipients should be revealed. Hundreds of thousands will lose thousands of pounds worth of health-related benefits.

There is a £2.2bn cut to civil service admin costs, including staffing by 2029-30. A 15% cut is a significant chunk of what is spent by central government on wages and consultants.

However, the chancellor suggested a loss of 10,000 roles, which is only a pruning of a workforce of over half a million – especially as it sees 30-40,000 leavers every year.

The unions say this cannot be done without harming front line services. There is a lot riding here on deployment of automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI).

A further fractional trim to the rise in departmental budgets, a crackdown on tax avoidance, and the switch from aid to defence spending should all help restore the chancellor’s room for manoeuvre by another few billion pounds.

It will be difficult to characterise this as “austerity” given the early injection of significant upfront sums into public spending at the Budget.

Divvying up the increase in defence spending will be a key feature of the Spring Statement.

Defence spending (for example, on jets and tanks) is more capital intensive than aid spending, so more of it is exempted from the chancellor’s self-imposed borrowing rules to limit day-to-day spending only to what is raised in taxes.

Understandably there will be a lot of focus on a chunky downgrade to the OBR forecast for the economy in 2025.

The real question for the chancellor has been the extent to which that has carried through to the end of the forecast period, and so permanently dented the economy and tax revenues. It may have not, and therefore not impact the Budget numbers quite so much.

The Treasury has also been trying to get the OBR to give it credit for growth-enhancing reforms such as planning changes.

In theory, higher growth means lower forecast borrowing and more room for manoeuvre – a win-win. But the OBR may have become stricter on this after a recent external review of its methods.

There is a bigger picture here about growth and the government’s strategy. Investors and business are still awaiting the infrastructure, industrial and trade strategies of this government eight months since it took power.

The new global reality means further uncertainty, but also creates a potential significant upside for a stable, rules-based advanced economy with cutting-edge frontier science, research and financial services.

This is particularly the case for a nation that can simultaneously keep its trade and investment connections with the US, Europe, China and the Gulf, even amid the tariff tumult. In Cabinet they call it “the most connected economy in the world”.

Is the world hearing this? UK Government borrowing costs have risen again as markets await the new calendar of bond sales on Wednesday.

UK bond yields went up with the US in January, but when that stopped they also rose in line with Europe after massive debt-fuelled rearmament plans. It’s the worst of both worlds for the borrowing forecast.

The Spring Statement might be an opportunity to project the opposite case – that the UK is uniquely placed to be the best of both worlds. Some sort of economic deal with the US is imminent, and talks over the Brexit reset are also progressing.

There are some small signs of the economy breaking out of its recent rut, especially in the service sector. Small businesses in retail and hospitality fearing the rises to National Insurance and the National Living Wage are holding out for some sort of alleviation of the pain.

So Wednesday, while definitely not a Budget, will answer some important questions about the economy.

The chancellor will set out her plans for the UK economy during the Spring Statement on Wednesday 26 March.

Rachel Reeves has ruled out further tax rises, but faces difficult choices because of the weak performance of the UK economy and world events.

She is due to make her statement in Parliament at about 12:30.

Afterwards, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) – which monitors the government’s spending plans – will publish its forecast for the UK economy.

It will also say whether it thinks the government will stick to its self-imposed rules on borrowing and spending.

Reeves will present the watchdog’s main findings alongside her economic plans.

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride will respond for the Conservatives.

Reeves has committed to one major economic event each year – the Budget.

She has already signalled that she will neither raise taxes nor government budgets in this statement.

However, with the government under pressure over its finances, she is expected to update her growth forecast, and provide more detail on policies already announced.

Welfare spending

Cuts designed to save £5bn a year by 2030 from the welfare bill were announced on 18 March.

These include stricter tests for personal independence (Pip) payments, affecting hundreds of thousands of claimants, and a freeze on incapacity benefits.

However, Reeves is now expected to expand the welfare cuts after the OBR calculated that the reforms would save at least £1bn less than planned.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is due to publish details about who will be affected by the changes.

Civil service

The chancellor has pledged to reduce government running costs by 15% by the end of the decade.

About 10,000 civil service jobs are expected to go, including staff who work in HR, policy advice, communications and office management.

Aid and defence

The chancellor will argue that “the world has changed”, and the government must respond accordingly.

Reeves is expected to confirm a £2.2bn increase in defence spending. This will help the government meet its existing pledge to spend 2.5% of national income on defence by 2027.

Tax changes

Personal tax rises have been repeatedly ruled out. But UK taxes on big firms may change as part of a deal to avoid US trade tariffs.

This could include the 2% Digital Services Tax (DST) which raises about £800m a year from global tech giants like Amazon and Meta.

Reeves has two main fiscal rules:

• Not to borrow to fund day-to-day public spending
• To get government debt falling as a share of national income by the end of this parliament

She has repeatedly said her rules are “non-negotiable”.

However the OBR’s forecast is expected to confirm that low financial growth and higher government borrowing costs are making it much harder to meet these rules by the 2029-30 financial year, as planned.

UK inflation fell by more than expected in February, driven by a drop in clothing and shoe prices due to an unusually high number of sales.

Inflation decreased to 2.8%, down from a rate of 3% in January, according to the Office for National Statistics (ONS).

The latest figures come ahead of Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ Spring Statement, where she will set out her economic plans.

Grant Fitzner, chief economist at the ONS, said women’s clothing “was the biggest driver for this month’s fall”.

“This was only partially offset by small increases, for example, from alcoholic drinks”, he added.

Overall prices for clothing and footwear fell in the year to February for the first time since 2021, with children’s clothing and accessories such as hats and scarves also having an impact.

The ONS said another factor was an unseasonably high number of clothing sales. Discounting usually drops off in February as January sales end and spring ranges enter the shops, but that did not happen this year.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected that inflation – which measures the rate at which prices rise – would dip to 2.9% in February. However, despite the bigger than expected fall, the figure is still above the Bank of England’s target of 2%.

The rate of price rises is also expected to increase in the months ahead, with council tax and energy and water bills all set to rise in April.

In addition, a recent survey from the ONS found that almost a half of businesses are considering price rises as they brace for next month’s tax rises and increase in the National Living Wage.

Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown, said the Bank of England was unlikely to cut rates at its next meeting because February’s fall was “not an enormous change” and inflation “is still significantly above target”,

“Although policymakers won’t want to keep rates too high for too long given the stagnation in the economy, they are set to stay cautious with a rate cut looking more likely to come in June and another later in the year”, she said.

Reeves will address Parliament with her Spring Statement in Parliament on Wednesday afternoon, with further cuts to welfare spending expected.

She is also expected to confirm a downgrade to official economic growth predictions.

Some economists have raised concerns about the possibility of ‘stagflation’, where prices rise faster than the central bank’s target but the economy fails to grow.

“Economic growth is miniscule and risks going backwards, but should inflation continue to refuse to get back near the 2% target, it is difficult to see what the Bank of England can do with interest rates,” said Lindsay James from wealth manager Quilter.

Chief Secretary to the Treasury Darren Jones said the government’s “number one mission is kickstarting growth” and pledged to go “further and faster on growth through our plan for change”.

Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said the Conservatives left government in July “with inflation bang on target” and urged Reeves take “urgent action” in her Spring Statement or “working families will continue to pay the price”.

The Liberal Democrats said the inflation figure “will be of no comfort to the millions of families across the country who are struggling”.

“It took a huge amount of courage to speak out,” NewJeans have told the BBC in their first interview since a court blocked their attempt to leave their record label, in a case that has rocked the K-pop industry.

“This fight is necessary. Although it will be extremely difficult and arduous, we will keep doing what we have done so far and speak up,” said Haerin, one of the band’s five members.

“We thought it was important to tell the world about what we’ve been through. All the choices we’ve made so far have been the best choices we could have made.”

NewJeans looked invincible in the charts when they launched what was an unusual rebellion in the high-pressure, tightly-controlled world of K-pop. Hanni, Hyein, Haerin, Danielle and Minji stunned South Korea and fans everywhere with their decision in November to split from Ador, the label that launched them.

They alleged mistreatment, workplace harassment and an attempt to “undermine their careers”, which Ador denies. It sued to enforce their seven-year contract, which is set to expire in 2029, and sought an injunction against any commercial activities by the group.

On Friday, a South Korean court granted it, ordering NewJeans to stop all “independent” activities, including song releases and advertising deals, while the case was still under way. NewJeans has since challenged the injunction in court.

Friday’s ruling was a “shock”, the group told the BBC.

“Some people think that we’re famous enough to do whatever we want and say whatever we please. But the truth is, it’s not like that at all,” Hyein said. “We held it in for a long time, and only now have we finally spoken up about what we think, what we feel and the unfairness we’ve experienced.”

The K-pop industry has repeatedly come under fire for the pressure it puts on its stars not only to perform and succeed, but to appear perfect. But rarely do conflicts spill into the public, exposing stars’ grievances and rifts with their labels.

NewJeans’ dramatic announcement last year followed a long and public spat with Ador and its parent company, Hybe – South Korea’s biggest music label, whose client list includes K-pop royalty such as BTS and Seventeen.

Ador told the BBC in a statement that the contract with NewJeans still stands, adding that “most of their claims have risen from misunderstandings”. The court said that NewJeans did not “sufficiently prove” that Ador had violated the contract, adding that the label had upheld “most of its duties, including payment”.

The girls were rehearsing for a performance in Hong Kong, when news of the ruling dropped. They found out when Minji got a worried message from her mother: “She asked me, ‘are you okay?’ And I was like ‘what happened?'”

“I was stunned,” Minji says. So were the others when she told them. “At first I thought I didn’t hear her properly,” Danielle says. “We were all kind of in shock.”

This was their second of two interviews with the BBC in as many weeks. In the first interview, which happened before the ruling, the group had been excited to release their new single, Pit Stop – their first since they announced their break from Ador and renamed themselves NJZ.

They spoke about how they coped with a difficult period, including finding comfort in cooking. “I’m not really good at it but it’s kind of healing,” Minji had said, before promising to cook an “amazing dinner” for the group.

In the second interview, which was 24 hours after the ruling, they seemed disheartened and unsettled, less sure of what was to come. “If we knew we were gonna go through this, maybe we would have chosen…” Hanni trailed off as she teared up.

Seconds later, she continued: “Even if we do everything we can and it doesn’t work out the way we hope it does, then we’ll just have to leave it to time. I’m sure time would figure it out for us.”

The following night, they took to the stage in Hong Kong and, despite the court order, performed Pit Stop under their new name. But the evening, which they had pitched to fans as a fresh start, ended in tears as they told the crowd they were going on a hiatus.

“It wasn’t any easy decision to make,” Hyein said on stage, as each of them took turns to address their fans. “But at the moment for us, it’s about protecting ourselves, so that we can come back stronger.”

Just three years into their debut, the future of the young stars – they are aged between 16 and 20 – is now in question.

But they tell the BBC that this is not the end of the road for them as they “find more ways” forward. With the legal battle expected to last for months, if not years, Minji says that gives them time to plan what they want to do next.

Ever since they debuted in July 2022, NewJeans have delivered remarkable success with each new release – OMG, Ditto, Super Shy, Attention. A year on, they were the eighth biggest-selling act in the world.

Critics called them a “game-changer” as their uniquely playful blend of 1990s R&B and sugar-coated pop melodies broke through a K-pop market dominated by electronic beats. And their breezy dance moves stood out among super-synchronised videos.

They were still on the rise when Min Hee-jin, their long-time mentor and Ador’s former boss, began trading accusations publicly with Hybe. Min had launched Ador and NewJeans, before she sold Hybe a majority stake in the agency.

Hybe was now accusing her of plotting Ador’s takeover and Min, in an emotional press conference, accused them of undermining NewJeans by launching another girl group with a similar style. The fight got uglier and Min left the company, alleging she was forced out.

That’s when NewJeans broke their silence – they demanded Min’s return in two weeks in a livestream.

They were not able to contact her for a while, Danielle told the BBC in the first interview: “We didn’t know what was happening and we didn’t have a way to support her. That itself was a hard thing because she was always there for us and… in a way a person to look up to.”

Ador had said Min could not return as CEO, but could continue as an internal director and NewJeans’ producer. When Min didn’t return, NewJeans announced that they were leaving Ador and accused the label of not meeting other demands: an apology for alleged bullying and actions against what they claimed were controversial internal reports.

Ador, which denies all these allegations, appears to blame Min for their dispute with NewJeans. “The core of this issue lies in the label’s ex-management providing distorted explanations to their artists, leading to misunderstandings. They can be fully addressed and resolved upon the members’ return to the label,” Ador told the BBC in a statement.

In the months since, Hanni, a Vietnamese-Australian, testified in tears to South Korean lawmakers in an inquiry into workplace harassment. “I came to the realisation that this wasn’t just a feeling. I was honestly convinced that the company hated us,” she told them, after describing several incidents where she said the group felt undermined and bullied.

NewJeans’ case was dismissed because the labour ministry said K-pop stars did not qualify as workers and were not entitled to the same rights.

Then in December, NewJeans took another rare step by supporting fans who were calling for the impeachment of South Korea’s disgraced president, Yoon Suk Yeol who had briefly imposed martial law – the group provided free food and drinks to fans who showed up at the huge protest rallies.

With each round of publicity, there was also criticism, much of it involving their age. Some said they had “crossed the line”, while others called them “stupid and reckless,” and even “ungrateful” for picking a fight with Ador. Others questioned if they were making their own decisions.

Being young doesn’t mean they should be taken less seriously, the group says. “That’s an easy way to devalue the fact that we are actually trying to do something,” Hanni says. “The decisions we’ve made in the past year have been decided through a very, very large amount of discussion between us.”

As the dispute has dragged on, the critics have got louder, dubbing the girls as troublemakers rather than game-changers. Following the ruling, which their critics welcomed, NewJeans says they have been “very aware of the intense scrutiny and judgment” ever since they held that press conference last year.

“There hasn’t been a single moment when we’ve expressed our opinions without worry or tension,” Minji says. “We’ve thought more than anyone else about how much responsibility each of our actions carries, and we’re currently bearing that responsibility ourselves.”

It’s not clear how long their hiatus will last. Ador says it hopes to meet with the group soon to discuss the future, but NewJeans insists it don’t feel protected enough to go back.

Their lawsuit with Ador will return to the headlines next week when the hearings begin – and so will all five of them.

The one thing that seems constant is their determination to get through this together.

Two weeks ago, Hanni had said: “We’ve always said to each other, if one person doesn’t want to do it, then we’re not going to do it. It has to be all all five of us that agrees to do it. That’s how we’ve gotten here and that’s how we are going to get to the end.”

On Saturday, she repeated: “We’re gonna get through it.”

US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz has taken responsibility for a group chat in which high-ranking officials planned military strikes in Yemen in the company of a journalist who was inadvertently added.

“I take full responsibility. I built the group,” Waltz told Fox News on Tuesday, adding it was “embarrassing”.

President Donald Trump and US intelligence chiefs have downplayed the security risks and said no classified material was shared.

But Democrats and some Republicans have called for an investigation into what several lawmakers have described as a major breach.

Atlantic magazine editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg reported that he was accidentally added to the Signal chat by a user named Mike Waltz.

In his article that broke the story he says he saw classified military plans for US strikes in Yemen, including weapons packages, targets and timing, two hours before the bombs struck. That content was held back from the piece.

Waltz was unable to explain in his Fox News interview how Goldberg came to be on the chat but – contradicting Trump – he said a member of his staff was not responsible and another, unnamed contact of his was supposed to be there in Goldberg’s place.

“We’ve got the best technical minds looking at how this happened,” Waltz continued, adding that Goldberg’s number had not been on his phone.

“I can tell you for 100% I don’t know this guy,” Waltz said, adding that he had spoken to Elon Musk for help in finding out what happened.

President Trump played down the incident, calling it a “glitch” that had “no impact at all” operationally.

Speaking to Newsmax, Trump said somebody who worked with Mike Waltz at a lower level had Goldberg’s phone number.

US Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who were part of the group, denied at a Senate hearing on Tuesday that any classified information was shared in the message chain.

The Signal group chat also included Vice-President JD Vance and Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth.

Mark Warner, Democratic vice-chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: “This Signal chat situation sheds light on a sloppy and grossly incompetent national security strategy from the Trump administration.”

In his reporting, Goldberg said the officials on the chat had discussed the potential for Europe to pay for US protection of key shipping lanes.

“Whether it’s now or several weeks from now, it will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes,” the account associated with Waltz wrote on 14 March.

He added his team was working with the defence and state departments “to determine how to compile the cost associated and levy them on the Europeans” – at Trump’s request.

At one point in the thread the Vance account griped that the strikes would benefit the Europeans, because of their reliance on those shipping lanes, adding: “I just hate bailing Europe out again.”

The user identified as Hegseth responded three minutes later: “VP: I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.”

The revelation has sent shockwaves through Washington, prompting a lawsuit and questions about why high-ranking officials discussed such sensitive matters on a potentially vulnerable civilian app.

Some national security experts have argued that the leak was a major operational lapse, and archive experts warned that it violated laws on presidential record keeping.

American Oversight, non-partisan watchdog group, sued the officials who participated in the chat for alleged violations of the Federal Records Act and Administrative Procedure Act.

The group said that by setting the chat to automatically delete messages, the group violated a law requiring White House officials to submit their records to the National Archives.

The National Security Agency warned employees only last month of vulnerabilities in Signal, according to documents obtained by the BBC’s US partner CBS.

With additional reporting by Kayla Epstein, Bernd Debusmann Jr and Brandon Drenon