Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The conflict in the Middle East is expected to have a significant impact on the UK's economy, with the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) warning of rising inflation and downgrading the UK's growth forecast to 0.7% this year.The OECD's analysis suggests that the UK economy will grow by just 0.7% this year, compared to its last forecast of 1.2% for 2026. This downgrade is attributed to a weakening of the UK jobs market and a contraction in business investment towards the end of 2025.The UK's economy is expected to suffer higher inflation than previously expected, with the OECD citing the country's dependence on international trade and imports of fuel as a major factor. In contrast, France, Germany, and Italy are expected to suffer a more modest hit to growth of 0.2 percentage points.The OECD's chief economist noted that the evolving conflict in the Middle East will test the resilience of the global economy, which is expected to grow at an average rate of 2.9% this year. However, the organization warned of a significant downside risk to the outlook, citing persistent disruptions to exports from the Middle East and potential repricing in financial markets.UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves responded to the OECD's warning, stating that the government plans to take steps to build a stronger, more secure economy, including handing more powers to regional mayors, embracing AI and innovation, and establishing a closer relationship with the EU.

Israel stands as the sole nation where overwhelming public support exists for the conflict with Iran, despite the profound impact on daily life. At least 15 people have been killed and hundreds injured by Iranian missiles since the war began in February, with school closures and missile warnings becoming routine. Polling indicates that more than 90% of Jewish Israelis back the war, a figure that sharply contrasts with international sentiment.The global perspective reveals a dramatically different picture. Nearly a month into the fighting, polling shows that 60% of the US public opposes the war with Iran, and just one in four Americans backed the initial strikes. In the Gulf, Europe and Asia, the conflict is widely unpopular as severe economic consequences begin to manifest.According to Emma Graham-Harrison, The Guardian's chief Middle East correspondent based in Jerusalem, many Jewish Israelis view themselves as under siege in a hostile world since the October 2023 massacre. This perception has led many to conclude that an aggressive security policy is the only way to ensure safety, regardless of international reaction.There's a prevailing sentiment in Israel that short-term suffering will lead to long-term security, despite security experts questioning whether Israel has a clear strategy to convert tactical achievements into lasting security. Life in Jerusalem remains restricted, with many working from home and limitations on businesses from cafes to gyms.The public support for the war has not translated into improved political fortunes for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who currently lags in polls for the upcoming general elections. While there is majority support for Netanyahu's decision to launch the war and his handling of it, even among those who don't want to give him another term, his coalition faces challenges in securing enough seats to return him to power.Some Israeli supporters of the war worry that Netanyahu's push to attack Iran has jeopardized the country's crucial relationship with the United States. Historically, Israel's foreign policy has been based on bipartisan ties, but Netanyahu has effectively abandoned that approach to cultivate an extremely close relationship with Trump.Israel's isolation is becoming increasingly apparent as the conflict continues. Unlike historical precedents where Israel achieved security through negotiated agreements with Jordan and Egypt, the current approach emphasizes military power above diplomatic solutions. This isolation is reflected in the fact that Israel may be the only place in the world with broad support for this war, with populations in Lebanon and Iran experiencing the conflict as horrific.

Prem Rugby is set to introduce a significant change to its financial structure by implementing a minimum salary floor of £5.4m for each club next season. This move is part of a broader strategy to enhance competitiveness within the league. The decision was made by the Rugby Football Union Council last month, which also included the decision to ringfence the existing 10-team Prem until the 2029-30 season.The introduction of the salary floor is a key component of Prem Rugby's growth plan, which includes expansion windows every four years. This means that up to two new clubs could join the league, provided they meet the required minimum financial and sporting standards. The first tender process for new clubs is slated for 2027, with potential new members possibly joining Champ Rugby the following season and moving up to Prem Rugby in 2028-29 if they reach the playoffs.Prem Rugby's chief executive, Simon Massie-Taylor, emphasized that the league's vision is to become the best league in the world. However, this does not mean exceeding the financial capabilities of other leagues and creating wage inflation. The new salary floor is £1m lower than the current cap, which will remain unchanged for next season. Massie-Taylor highlighted that any future increases to the salary cap will be based on a formula as part of financial control measures.As part of its growth strategy, Prem Rugby also aims to host several 'Big Games' to appeal to a wider fanbase. The ambition is to have 10 Big Games by 2030, including the final and potential neutral playoffs. One example of this initiative is England's game against Fiji at the Hill Dickinson Stadium in Liverpool this summer, which could set a precedent for future events.

In 2025, England's rivers and seas were hit by 291,492 instances of raw sewage discharge from storm overflows, a 35% reduction from the previous year. The discharges lasted for 1.8 million hours, a significant decrease from almost 4 million hours in 2024. The Environment Agency (EA) reported that some water companies achieved reductions of over 60% and 70% compared to the previous year. However, campaigners argue that the discharges, which are only supposed to occur in extreme weather conditions, are still too frequent and harmful to the environment. Richard Benwell, chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated, 'When sewage is pouring out even in a dry year, you really know the system is broken.' He emphasized that rivers, lakes, and seas should not be used as pressure valves for pollution. The water industry acknowledged that dry conditions contributed to the reduction in discharges but also cited record levels of investment in the system. Water UK stated that the industry aims to halve spills over the next five years by building bigger storm tanks and expanding capacity at sewage treatment works. Michelle Walker, technical director for the Rivers Trust, highlighted that many discharges occur on dry days and are therefore illegal. She warned that the impact of these discharges will be more concentrated and damaging in already stressed ecosystems. The government and water companies face criticism for the ongoing pollution. Water minister Emma Hardy said there is still an unacceptable amount of sewage entering waterways and a long way to go in cleaning up rivers, lakes, and seas.

Retailer Next has reported a £1.16bn pre-tax profit for the full year, with the Middle East conflict expected to add only £15m to fuel and air freight costs. This amount, which assumes a three-month disruption, is considered minimal and can be offset by savings elsewhere.Chief Executive Simon Wolfson added £8m to this year's profit forecast as a mechanical read-through from last year's outcome, indicating that trading had been “encouraging” in the UK and “strong” overseas until late February.The main concern for Next is the potential long-term impact of the conflict on supply chain resilience, freight rates, factory gate prices, and consumer demand. Wolfson emphasized that the company has no insight into the duration and implications of the conflict, stating, “As yet, we have no feel for the medium-term effects”.If higher costs persist, Next may put up prices, but this remains “a contingency, not a plan”. The company will provide a clearer view in its first-quarter update in May.Wolfson also offered nuanced insights, suggesting that consumer confidence may not have collapsed as much as some, like the British Retail Consortium, have claimed. He noted that UK consumers tend to react to actual higher prices, not the threat of them.Additionally, Next's spring-summer ranges are already in stores, online, and warehouses, minimizing the immediate need for adjustments. Any increases in fabric costs or production disruptions in Asian factories would mostly affect autumn-winter ranges.The stock market responded positively, with Next's shares rising 5% to £125.40. This resilience could indicate potential for a profit upgrade in May if the £15m in extra costs turns out to be the worst of it.However, no retailer will be immune if the energy price shock persists and the OECD's prediction of UK economic growth of just 0.7% this year materializes.

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to address addictive features in social media platforms, signaling a potential regulatory shift following a significant US court ruling that held Meta and YouTube accountable for harms caused by their technology designs.The prime minister emphasized that the recent California court verdict reflects rising public expectations for more aggressive regulation of social media platforms. "I'm absolutely clear that we need to go further," Starmer stated, adding that "the status quo isn't good enough" in terms of protecting children online.Starmer specifically mentioned that the government is consulting about banning social media for under-16s and expressed strong commitment to addressing addictive features within social media platforms. These remarks come amid growing international pressure on tech companies to address the potential harms of their products on young users.In the landmark US case, a California jury found Meta and YouTube negligent for failing to provide adequate warnings about the potential dangers of their platforms. The plaintiff, a 20-year-old woman who claimed she became addicted to social media during her childhood, was awarded $6 million (£4.5 million) in damages, with Meta responsible for 70% of the payment and YouTube covering the remainder.The Duke and Duchess of Sussex welcomed the verdict as "a reckoning" for tech companies, stating in a joint statement: "For too long, families have paid the price for platforms built with total disregard for the children they reach." They emphasized that "today, the truth has been heard and precedent has been set" regarding children's safety versus corporate profits.Both Google, which owns YouTube, and Meta have indicated they will challenge the decision. Google claimed the case "misunderstands YouTube, which is a responsibly built streaming platform, not a social media site," while Meta stated it "respectfully disagrees with the verdict and is evaluating our legal options." The verdict came after nine days of deliberation in the first lawsuit concerning social media's alleged harm to young people to reach trial.The ruling has resonated beyond the courtroom, with European Commission digital chief Henna Virkkunen noting that such cases send "a very clear message" to online platforms about the risks they pose. Campaigners for safer social media have celebrated the decision as a potential watershed moment in regulating platforms like TikTok, Instagram, and X.The Molly Rose Foundation, established after the death of 14-year-old Molly Russell who was exposed to harmful content on Instagram, called for legislation that would make "safety and wellbeing the price for tech firms to pay for doing business in the UK." Thomas Lancaster, a computing expert at Imperial College London, emphasized that policies must be effectively enforced to protect those they're designed to safeguard.Sacha Haworth, executive director of the Tech Oversight Project, declared that "the era of big tech invincibility is over," suggesting that the verdict validates concerns about tech platforms' impact on young people that have been raised for years.

Google has issued a warning that quantum computers could potentially break most existing encryption systems by 2029, posing a significant threat to current cryptographic standards. The tech giant is urging banks, governments, and technology providers to prepare for this emerging threat.In a blog post, Google stated that the encryption currently used to keep information confidential and secure could easily be broken by a large-scale quantum computer in the coming years. The company, owned by Alphabet, emphasized the need for post-quantum cryptography migration to protect sensitive data.While quantum computers are still a nascent technology, Google, Microsoft, and universities across the UK and the US are actively building systems that harness the physics of quantum mechanics to perform extremely sophisticated mathematical calculations. However, constructing a powerful quantum computer with hundreds of thousands or even millions of stable qubits remains a significant technological challenge.Leonie Mueck, formerly the chief product officer of Riverlane, a Cambridge-based quantum startup, noted that Google's statement does not necessarily mean a working quantum computer capable of breaking encryption will definitely exist by 2029. Most timelines for a cryptographically relevant quantum computer range from the 2030s to the 2050s.Despite this, governments and organizations are already preparing for the eventuality that data stored to today's encryption standards would be exposed when the technology sufficiently advances. The UK's cybersecurity agency, the National Cyber Security Centre, has urged organizations to guard their systems against quantum hackers by 2035.Google's timeline suggests that engineering teams across the technology industry should consider measures to protect sensitive data by migrating to more advanced encryption systems now. Certain kinds of attacks predicated on the future availability of quantum decryption – “store now, decrypt later” – may currently be being deployed across the field.

Egil Johansen, the landlord of the Kenton pub in Hackney, east London, describes recent incidents involving children as "like the wild west." He has now banned children entirely after a three-year-old fell down a cellar hatch while parents sat elsewhere, a five-year-old crashed into staff carrying drinks, and six parents brought 10 hyperactive children after a birthday party while ignoring their behavior."In every case, the parents blame us when something goes wrong or get really angry when we ask them to control their children," says Johansen, who has run the pub for 17 years. "I'm legally obliged to keep children safe on my premises and if the parents let their children run riot, the only answer is to not allow them in at all."Johansen initially tried banning children only after 5pm, but this interim measure failed to address the underlying issues. Despite online criticism framing him as the "baddie," he expresses sadness about the situation: "I'm a publican; I'm a people-person. It gives me no joy to ban anyone, but it's just not safe: parents don't control their children and our other customers were beginning to go elsewhere. I had no choice."The Kenton's decision reflects a growing trend among UK pubs seeking to differentiate themselves from establishments that "resemble soft play centres without the ball pit." While some welcome this shift, others view it as unwelcoming to families, creating a culture war in the pub industry.Lee Jones, landlord of the Brewers Arms in West Malvern, Worcestershire, reversed a previous child ban: "We're dog-friendly, child-friendly, adult-friendly. We're just friendly – we don't distinguish. Pubs are for the community and I don't see bans in the spirit of what we're here for." Jones reports that when children become rowdy, staff can address the issue with parents, though this is rarely needed.Stephen Boyd, who runs the Alma in south London, took a different approach after attempting to attract young families. He found families with children consumed disproportionate time and resources with special requests for diluted drinks, heated beverages, and customized meals, while adult customers waited longer for their orders."You just need a couple screaming, banging on a table or running up and down, and it dictates the whole atmosphere of the pub," Boyd says. "Parents would take massive umbrage if staff asked them to stop their children doing something." After implementing a child ban, he describes the change as "a fucking revelation" with staff retention improving and takings doubling.Despite the positive results, Boyd faced significant backlash: "I got a lot of online hate. Mainly from people who had never been to the pub but felt I was doing something morally hateful."Tom Stainer, chief executive of the Campaign for Real Ale, acknowledges the debate is "very live" but emphasizes: "But you do have to look at the responsibility of the parents in these situations, not just at the pubs. They're the ones responsible for making sure that their children behave."Financial considerations also drive some decisions. Mandy Keefe, landlady of the Wheel Inn in Ashford, banned children partly for behavioral reasons but also financial ones: "If a third of my Sunday customers were children eating from a reduced-rate child's menu and not drinking any alcohol, that wouldn't be financially viable."Across the UK, pubs are making individual decisions based on their specific circumstances, but as Johansen's experience demonstrates, it only takes one serious incident to settle the question for good.

The Co-op Group has announced that its chief executive, Shirine Khoury-Haq, will step down this weekend after a challenging year that included a cyber-attack and recent claims of a “toxic” culture at the business.Khoury-Haq will depart on 29 March, and Kate Allum, a board member and former boss of the dairy group First Milk, will step in as interim boss while a permanent replacement is sought.The company, which owns more than 800 funeral parlours and an insurance and legal advisory business, as well as operating more than 2,000 convenience stores, reported an underlying loss of £125m. This is a significant drop from a £45m profit the year before, largely due to a £107m profits hit from the damaging IT hack.Khoury-Haq denied that her resignation was linked to the allegations of a toxic culture, stating that her decision to leave was a personal one. She expressed her desire to “go and do something else”.Sales at Co-op fell 2.3% to £11bn in the year to 3 January, following the mutual’s shops being left with gaps on shelves after the cyber-attack, which knocked £285m off sales.The group cited a “contracting convenience market” and “layered cost headwinds” of about £150m during the year, due to increases in employers’ national insurance, pay and packaging taxes.Khoury-Haq’s departure comes a month after reports of concerns about the culture at the top of the group. In February, the Co-op defended the behaviour of its bosses after reports said senior managers had complained of a “toxic” environment at the retailer.