This year’s Love Island final is taking place – with Jack and Dani the bookies’ favourites to win.
The winning couple, who will take home £50,000, will be crowned in Monday night’s episode of the ITV2 show.
Dani Dyer has been with boyfriend Jack Fincham since the start of the series and viewers have taken the pair to their hearts.
But other couples – such as Josh and Kaz – have also been popular with fans in recent weeks.
The remaining couples are:
Megan and Wes
Dani and Jack
Laura and Paul
Kaz and Josh
Of the 11 contestants who entered the villa in the first episode of this series in early June, four remain – Laura, Wes, Jack and Dani (who is the daughter of EastEnders actor Danny Dyer).
Love Island: A long, hot summer
When presenter Caroline Flack tweeted ahead of the launch that it was going to be a “long, hot summer”, nobody knew just how true that would turn out to be.
The UK has been in the grip of a heatwave during the eight-week series, in a summer that also saw President Trump’s UK visit, the Thai cave rescue and World Cup fever.
Through it all, there has been Love Island – a series that has been a consistent success for ITV2, breaking the channel’s all-time record ratings and frequently attracting more then five million viewers per episode (across all platforms and catch-up services).
Jack and Dani got together in the first episode and became the only couple to stay together for the duration of the series.
This evidently became a little boring for producers – who threw in Jack’s ex-girlfriend to shake things up a bit, prompting more than 2,600 viewers to complain to broadcasting regulator Ofcom.
Contestants we lost along the way included Samira – who exited so she could be with her evicted boyfriend Frankie – and Niall, who left early in the series for “personal reasons”, later revealing that he has Asperger’s Syndrome.
Evenings won’t be the same without it. The big questions are whether the winning couple will be able to stay in the spotlight – and stay together – and whether audiences will come back for more next year.
Relatives who have faced the court process in the past said the ruling would help families dealing with a “tragic situation”.
But anti-assisted dying campaigners said vegetative patients are “effectively going to be starved and dehydrated to death”.
Previously the Court of Protection has ruled on cases but the process can take months or years, and it costs health authorities about £50,000 in legal fees to lodge an appeal.
The ruling could have an impact on the thousands of families whose loved ones are in a vegetative state.
There is estimated to be 1,500 new cases each year in England and Wales which would be affected, with about 3,000 of these patients alive at any one time.
The case was brought to the Supreme Court after a banker in his 50s suffered a heart attack, resulting in severe brain damage.
The man, known as Mr Y, was unresponsive after his heart attack last year and there was no chance of recovery.
His family and his doctors agreed it would be in his best interests to allow him to die by withdrawing his feeding tube.
The NHS trust asked the High Court to declare that it was not necessary to apply to the Court of Protection for a decision when the doctors and the family all believe it is in the patient’s best interests.
The judge agreed, but the official solicitor appealed on behalf of Mr Y – an appeal which has now been dismissed.
Mr Y has since died but the case continued so that a court ruling could be made.
Analysis: ‘Judgement will divide opinion’
By BBC legal correspondent Clive Coleman
For years – so long as relatives agree, and it’s in the best interests of a patient in a minimally conscious or vegetative state – doctors have been able to withdraw all sorts of treatment that will result in the end of someone’s life.
These include, for instance, the withdrawal of life-saving dialysis. Doctors do not need the permission of a court to be able to do this.
However, withdrawing food and water – the most basic requirements for life – has been handled differently. Since the case of Hillsborough survivor Anthony Bland in 1993, it has been regarded as a matter of practice that doctors must seek the approval of a court, even when they and relatives agree withdrawal would be in the best interests of the patient.
It has been treated as an exception, in part, perhaps, because of the emotional and psychological significance of the decision to remove sustenance from a person.
This has resulted, some experts believe, in individuals spending longer on life support in a vegetative state than was necessary because hospitals have shied away from going to court due to the expense and bureaucracy involved.
Monday’s ruling makes clear that courts need not be involved in these sorts of cases, so long as doctors and families are in agreement, and it is in the best interests of the patient.
However, the judgement cuts across ethical and religious beliefs and will divide opinion.
Some will see it as compassionate and humane, others the removing of a vital legal safeguard for a highly vulnerable group.
Author Cathy Rentzenbrink welcomed the ruling.
Her brother Matty was severely brain damaged in a hit-and-run accident when he was 16 years old.
He spent eight years in a vegetative state, and she says her family had to go through a painful process of allowing the court to allow food and water to be withdrawn so he could die in 1998.
Ms Rentzenbrink, who wrote a book about her experience, told the BBC: “For families to be put through a court case, on top of everything else that has happened to them, is a struggle.”
She said not having to face a court would help families already facing an “incredibly difficult” time.
She said one of the “difficult things” about her experience in court was being made to swear an affidavit that she wanted her brother to die.
“I didn’t want my brother to die. I wanted him to get better,” she said.
“I wanted him not to be knocked over in the first place – but I couldn’t have any of those things.”
She said: “For all the families in this situation, they don’t want to have to go to court and say they want someone to die.”
The right to withdraw treatment from vegetative patients began in 1993 with Tony Bland, who had been in a vegetative state since 1989, until the House of Lords agreed that removing “clinically assisted nutrition and hydration” – where a patient is fed through tubes – did not constitute murder.
But they did say referring similar cases to the Court of Protection was best practice.
In Monday’s Supreme Court judgement, Lady Black said an agreement between families and doctors was sufficient safeguarding to ensure “public confidence”.
But she urged families to apply to court “where there are differences of view” between relatives or medical professionals.
What is a vegetative state?
A vegetative state is when a person is awake but is showing no signs of awareness. They may open their eyes, wake up and fall asleep at regular intervals and have basic reflexes. They’re also able to regulate their heartbeat and breathing without assistance
A person in a vegetative state doesn’t show any meaningful responses, such as following an object with their eyes or responding to voices. They also show no signs of experiencing emotions
Continuing – or persistent – vegetative state is when this happens for more than four weeks
Permanent vegetative state is defined as more than six months if caused by a non-traumatic brain injury, or more than 12 months if caused by a traumatic brain injury
If a person is diagnosed as being in a permanent vegetative state, recovery is extremely unlikely but not impossible
Dr Peter Saunders, director of anti-assisted dying group Care Not Killing, said he was “very concerned and quite disappointed by the Supreme Court ruling” on ending care for vegetative patients, who are “effectively going to be starved and dehydrated to death”.
He said it removed an “additional layer” of protection for vulnerable, and “financial concerns” about looking after vegetative patients could mean “decisions may be made for the wrong reasons”.
But the charity Compassion in Dying said it would “allow those closest to a person – their loved ones and medical team – to feel supported and empowered to make the right decision for the person, even when it is a difficult one”.
A young boy who was being rescued from Grenfell Tower told a fire officer the rest of his family were “all dead”, the blaze inquiry has been told.
Glynn Williams, who co-ordinated 999 call information at the scene of the fire, described struggling to keep track of who had been helped to safety.
In a statement, he said communication with some residents was difficult as some were “too traumatised”.
He added the events had a “massive emotional impact” on him.
Mr Williams’s statement described how he had been handed slips of paper with information provided by residents during their 999 calls.
He wrote the details on a wall in the foyer of Grenfell Tower and was attempting to confirm people’s identities as they left the building.
“At times I would ask the casualties themselves as they walked past, but communication was difficult as they were either too traumatised to speak or unable to understand due to the language barrier,” he said.
“There was a woman carrying a little boy. As the woman walked past me crying, I asked them where the rest of their family were, to which the little boy said: ‘All dead’.”
Later in the night a station manager sent across a new list with details of every person they knew of who still needed rescuing.
Mr Williams wrote: “There were far more numbers on the second list. This clearly showed there was a breakdown in communication.”
‘Eyes wide open’
The fire in North Kensington, west London, killed 72 people on 14 June last year.
Mr Williams also told of how firefighters gave their helmets to children.
One girl was alone and in her pyjamas as she was being carried out of the building by a fire fighter, Mr Williams, an officer of 18 years’ service based at Fulham Fire Station, said.
“She looked to be in shock as her eyes were wide open. To protect her from the falling debris, I gave her my helmet before the firefighter carried her out the main entrance.”
He added: “Shortly after the incident I started to feel really angry that I did not go in and rescue someone. When I was asleep I started to have visualisations of the little girl’s face who I had given my helmet to.”
Mr Williams acknowledged crews had not received training about safely rescuing someone through “a toxic environment 20-plus floors high”.
He said the absence of a working fire lift meant rescue teams clogged a single stairwell and this “prevented their ability to fight the fire and conduct rescues”.
The foyer of Grenfell Tower became “heavily congested with fire fighters and casualties”, Mr Williams said.
He said being told it was too dangerous to commit rescue crews above the 10th floor “was difficult for me to hear and I expressed my dissatisfaction”.
But Jewish leaders and some Labour MPs have been critical, pointing out the code does not include four working examples provided by the IHRA definition. They say the party should adopt these examples in complete form from the IHRA.
Labour says its own wording “expands on and contextualises” the IHRA examples.
The party has said that while the examples are not reproduced word for word, they are covered elsewhere in the new code and it has produced “robust, legally sound guidelines that a political party can apply to disciplinary cases”.
The IHRA examples of anti-Semitic behaviour include requiring higher standards of behaviour from Israel than other nations and comparing contemporary Israeli policies to those of the Nazis.
Speaking to the Radio 4 programme The World This Weekend, Mr Austin denied he was using the ongoing anti-Semitism debate as a way to attack Jeremy Corbyn.
Mr Corbyn has repeatedly said anti-Semitism is wrong and it will not be tolerated in the party.
Mr Austin said the Labour leader had always been on the “extreme fringes” of the party, “supporting and defending all sorts of extremists and in some cases frankly, anti-Semites”.
“That’s why I think now that somebody with views and history like his isn’t really suited to the leadership of a mainstream political party,” he said.
“Am I upset about anti-Semitism? Yes I am. And I’m upset as well about the leadership’s failure, I think refusal really, to deal with this properly.
“I grew up listening to my dad tell me how he’d escaped from the Holocaust and how his mum and sisters were murdered in Treblinka [a Nazi death camp] and that led to me joining Labour Party as a teenager determined to fight racism.”
“I’m really shocked that a party that has got a proud tradition throughout its entire existence of fighting racism has ended up causing such huge offence and distress to the Jewish community in Britain.”
Mr Austin said he was “ashamed of the Labour Party”, adding: “We are becoming a different political party. This could just never have happened in the past.”
She reportedly swore at Jeremy Corbyn and called him an anti-Semite.
Labour’s shadow justice secretary Richard Burgon said he would not condemn Mr Austin as he “didn’t see what happened”, adding that he hoped the situation could be resolved “amicably”.
“What we need to ensure is that the people who disciplinary action is taken against are the small number in the party who have said or done anti-Semitic things, not those who have strong opinions about things we should all have strong opinions about.”
Labour’s National Executive Committee approved its new code following continuing criticism of its handling of anti-Jewish discrimination and attitudes within its ranks.
After criticism of its code of conduct, the party said it would “in recognition of the serious concerns expressed… reopen the development of the code” in consultation with Jewish groups.
The party’s MPs will vote in September on whether to adopt the full IHRA wording after passing an emergency motion at a meeting on Monday night.
Two senior members of Mr Corbyn’s shadow cabinet have also suggested the controversial new code of conduct should be rewritten.
Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth urged the party’s ruling NEC to “reconsider” its decision and include the full definition.
Barry Gardiner, shadow international trade secretary, said it “would have been better” to adopt the IHRA definition in full.
Labour MPs Chuka Umunna, Liz Kendall and Anna Turley have also been critical.
And five senior Scottish Labour politicians – MSPs Monica Lennon, Jackie Baillie, Anas Sarwar, Daniel Johnson and Colin Smyth – on Sunday said they want the wider party to adopt the wording in full.
The Board of Deputies of British Jews said Labour has become a party that “obstructs measures to counter hatred and punishes those who speak out against it” and called on Mr Corbyn to lead it out of “this deep abyss”.