In recent days, Trump began the process of shutting down the decades-old department and laid off almost half off the 4,133 members of staff.

It’s said that there’s now just over 2,000 people still working for the DoE, but their future hangs in the balance as Trump has now signed an executive order regarding the DoE’s closure.

The White House said earlier on Thursday (March 20) that the department will continue to manage federal student loans, but the order appears to say the opposite.

It says the Education Department does not have the staff to oversee its 1.6 trillion dollar loan portfolio and ‘must return bank functions to an entity equipped to serve America’s students’.

The decision to lay off hundreds of staffers had already drawn criticism.

National Education Association President Becky Pringle said at the time that the Trump administration had ‘abandoned students, parents, and educators across the nation’.

But others have argued that the DoE has long been funnelling ‘billions of taxpayer dollars into a failing system’.

Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation who is in favor of the DoE’s dismantlement, said: “For decades, it has funnelled billions of taxpayer dollars into a failing system — one that prioritises leftist indoctrination over academic excellence, all while student achievement stagnates and America falls further behind.”

Elsewhere, The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) president, Derrick Johnson, isn’t happy with the decision.

“This is a dark day for the millions of American children who depend on federal funding for a quality education, including those in poor and rural communities with parents who voted for Trump,” he said.

Opponents are said to be gearing up for legal challenges, including Democracy Forward, a public interest litigation group.

Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called the order a ‘tyrannical power grab’ and ‘one of the most destructive and devastating steps Donald Trump has ever taken’.

Margaret Spelling, who served as education secretary under Republican president George W Bush, questioned whether whether the department will be able to accomplish its remaining missions, and whether it will ultimately improve schools.

“Will it distract us from the ability to focus urgently on student achievement, or will people be figuring out how to run the train?” she asked.

What do you think about the Trump administration’s decision to dismantle the DoE? Comment below.

The comedian had been speaking on her Telling Everybody Everything podcast when she talked about getting a mole removed that she’d previously been discussing.

She said: “I’ve had a mole on my arm – that I told you about last week – removed.

“The only reason that they agreed to remove it was because I went to a fancy private place in South Kensington and I paid them a grand.

“I don’t know if on the NHS they ever would have removed this mole.”

Ryan explained that she also had issues with seeing a private doctor, as she paid for a consultation with a doctor who told her that the mole on her skin wasn’t cancerous.

“He gave me the news that I wanted!”, the comedian said, before warning about the dangers of assuming that things would be fine even if you know something is wrong.

“I think it’s really easy to take a diagnosis of you’re healthy, and walk away, you go ‘great I’m healthy’, and you don’t think about it again, because that is the easiest news.”

Ryan went on to explain that she still didn’t feel at ease, especially as she’d already dealt with a skin cancer diagnosis in the past.

“But the mole kept changing – I know a lot about melanoma, I had a melanoma as a very young woman, stage two on my leg – and I’ve spoken about that before.

“Even that didn’t look traditionally like melanoma to me, fair enough it had some discolouration and asymmetry and a bit of black and red. It was a flat mole, not that bad and not that big, but it was stage two melanoma so that was bad.”

Ryan said she ‘just felt like this mole wasn’t right’, and wanted a doctor to remove part of it, but was told that it’d be ‘totally fine’.

She said: “I went in and I wanted the doctor to remove a bigger piece of it and stitch it up in a straight line.

“But even when he looked at it, he was like ‘not melanoma, totally fine, I will do the shave and send it away for histology and if there’s any borders that we missed, then we will do the deeper cut’.”

Further testing confirmed that there was more to the mole that needed attention, and Ryan wondered ‘what could have happened if I hadn’t been my own advocate’.

“If I hadn’t pushed, if I had taken that good answer the first time and walked away then I would have had melanoma just growing and spreading in my arm and I would say ‘oh no the doctor says it’s fine, it’s fine’ and god knows how far that would have gone,” she said.

And the praise and chatter are undeniably deserved as the Netflix show is absolutely brilliant.

From the pure excellence of Stephen Graham to the tiny little details, there’s so much to unpack in the four-parter.

One particular part of Adolescence that’s got viewers talking is young Jamie’s (Owen Cooper) meeting with the child psychologist (Erin Doherty). This intense one-on-one scene with the pair was the first episode the breakthrough star filmed, making his on-screen debut in this masterpiece.

During this meeting, Doherty’s character brings the boy half a sandwich and a cup of hot chocolate with marshmallows, which Cooper admitted was ‘minging’ to drink.

And an expert has explained the fascinating reason why the psychologist, Briony, presented him with the sweet cuppa in the first place.

Psychologist Dannielle Haig says that ‘everything’ that is done during a psychological assessment is ‘deliberate’.

“Small actions can tell you a great deal about a person’s mindset, and this is no exception,” she told Tyla.

“The hot chocolate is a comforting, almost maternal offering. It’s something associated with warmth, safety, and childhood, a stark contrast to the harsh reality of Jamie’s situation.”

She added that by giving the drink to the teen, Briony might ‘be trying to create a sense of familiarity and ease’ and therefore, there could be a better chance that ‘he will open up’.

The seemingly innocent hot chocolate having a purpose is similar to that half of a cheese and pickle sarnie that the psychologist presents at the beginning of their meeting.

“The half-sandwich, particularly the fact that it contains something Jamie dislikes, could be a way of testing his response,” Dannielle explained.

“Does he push it away? Does he eat it to be polite? Does he comment on it? These reactions provide insight into his personality. If he simply tolerates it without complaint, it may suggest a history of feeling powerless and being accustomed to having things done to him rather than for him.

“If he refuses it outright, it might indicate defiance or a need to exert control in a situation where he has very little power.

“It’s a clever way of gauging how Jamie sees himself in relation to authority figures and whether he feels able to assert his own needs.”

Well, you really can’t deny that this show is brilliant down to the detail as small as a little cup of hot chocolate.

You might already be drawing up plans for your summer holiday, or are perhaps just looking wistfully at flights you wish you had the disposable income for, but your hopes will be scuppered if your passport is out of date.

For some journeys, it’ll need to be valid for a few months before the actual expiration date, as people have had their holidays ruined by being close to the time when they had to get a new one and being stopped at the border.

And if you’re heading into Europe, then your red passport may also contain a feature which could trip you up and spoil your trip.

Some passports issued before September 2018 may be officially valid for 10 years and nine months, but if you’re travelling to an EU country or Norway, Switzerland, Iceland or Liechtenstein, then you must ensure the ID is less than 10 years old.

Your passport could be a way off expiry, but if it’s a little too old then your travel plans could still be thrown into doubt.

All passports issued before September 2018 are going to be the burgundy ones and millions of Brits still have them despite the new blue ones being available.

Even if it hasn’t expired and has months left to go, just make sure it’s not 10 years old to avoid being caught short.

On top of the need not to have your holiday plans ruined by an expired passport, there’s also the fact that the cost of getting a new one is set to increase.

Last year the cost of renewing your passport online climbed from £82.50 to £88.50, and this year the price is set to rise again from £88.50 to £94.50 for adults.

The changes kick in on 10 April, and the cost of an online application for children is going up from £57.50 to £61.50 as well.

Doing your passport by post is getting more expensive too, going from £100 to £107 for adults and £69 to £74 for children.

Basically, if you didn’t need another reason to renew your passport then doing it now to save a few quid is just extra incentive.

Just think how many Freddos you could buy with the money you save, then lament that they’re no longer 10p.

We rather hope the prospect of World War Three is not approaching, and despite the talk of it and possible conscription the position of the UK government is that it’s not on the table.

The UK is boosting defence spending in response to rising tensions in the world but government minister Pat McFadden has ruled out conscription, saying: “We are not considering conscription, but of course we have announced a major increase in defence expenditure.

“We do have to recognise that the world has changed. The phrase ‘step up’ is used a lot. Europe does have to step up in terms of its own defence.

“President Trump isn’t actually the first president to say that, but he said it more loudly and with more force than his predecessors – so, I think we have got to recognise that moment.”

He added that people shouldn’t ‘cling on to old assumptions’, while a spokesperson for Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer reiterated that the UK’s armed forces were voluntary and plans weren’t being made to change it.

“The British military has a proud tradition of being a voluntary force. There are no plans to change that,” the spokesperson said.

The UK has previously introduced conscription for both previous World Wars, here’s how it worked.

Conscription in the First World War

It was not until 1916 that the UK brought in conscription for the First World War when the Military Service Act was passed in January of that year.

Until then the British forces in the First World War had been volunteers, though in the autumn of 1915 something that came to be known as the Derby Scheme was implemented to try and pressure and persuade people to volunteer.

Men would go round to houses and ask single men aged between 18 and 41 if they wanted to enlist immediately or sign up to be called up later on, it led to over 300,000 new recruits.

However, that wasn’t enough for the armed forces and conscription was introduced, with a bill passed in January 1916 and coming into force on 2 March, 1916.

Initially, men aged between 18 and 41 who were not exempt for a list of specific reasons were conscripted into service, conscription was an unpopular policy and in April 1916 a protest of over 200,000 people marched through Trafalgar Square.

That list of exemptions included married men, widowers with children, those working as religious ministers, men working in vital industries, those already in the Royal Navy and conscientious objectors.

In May 1916 married men were removed from the exemption list, and in 1918 the age limit was increased from 41 to 51.

Brits had the right to appeal conscription, and their employers could appeal as well if they thought the man being called up ought to be exempt.

Conscription applied only to men from England, Scotland and Wales, a law was passed in 1918 to try it with Ireland but never put into effect after there was a significant backlash.

While many Irishmen had volunteered to fight in the First World War, the prospect of conscription was hugely unpopular.

Conscription from the First World War did not end immediately after the end of hostilities and was instead extended until 1920. The UK reckons that about 2.5 million men were conscripted into military service in the First World War.

Conscription in the Second World War

Shortly before the outbreak of World War Two once it became apparent that war was coming, the UK once again introduced conscription.

In April 1939 the British government decided to implement limited conscription, and the following month it passed the Military Training Act where single men between the ages of 20 and 22 were called for six months of military training, after which they’d be discharged and become army reservists.

The first group of men were conscripted this way on 3 June, 1939.

The outbreak of the Second World War three months later in September 1939 resulted in the National Service (Armed Forces) Act which conscripted all men aged between 18 and 41.

Those judged to be medically unfit, students, clergy and people working in certain jobs were exempt, while conscientious objectors could make an appeal which would place them in a non-combat job instead.

Conscription was expanded later on in the war and by 1942 men aged between 18 and 51 and women between the ages of 20 and 30 were called up in some fashion, barring exemptions.

Married women and those who had one or more children aged 14 and under living with them were exempt.

Men who were called up before they were 51 but passed that age during their time conscripted had to stay on.

After the Second World War

Following the end of the Second World War, Brits could still be conscripted into National Service until 1960.

The parameters were changed to affect men aged between 17 and 21, and the last conscript left the armed forces in 1963.

Since then the possibility of reviving conscription has been brought up a few times, most recently by Rishi Sunak who put a form of it into the Conservative manifesto for last year’s election.

That would have seen some but not most 18-year-old Brits put into the military, the vast majority would have instead worked a weekend a month for a year in some other occupation.

The idea was heavily criticised and Sunak lost the election quite badly.

But the former Top Gear man had a bit of a dilemma with the venue in recent weeks after revealing the pub grounds had been taken over by a ‘gang of 150 burly men’.

Taking to his weekly column for The Sunday Times to document exactly what happened at the Oxfordshire pub, explaining that a group of Travellers had descended on his site.

Writing in his weekly opinion piece, Jezza revealed the padlock had been cut on the car park and staff threatened after confronting the group who had made their way on to the pub grounds.

“In the olden days you’d call the police and they would at least try to sort it out, but times have changed,” Clarkson wrote.

Shining a light on the issue of trespassing, he said it had become ‘increasingly vexing for farmers and landowners’.

“I’m rather envious of the way they live among us while taking absolutely no part in the society we’ve created,” the TV-presenter-turned-farmer said.

“The question of who owns something is a kind of vexing grey area, and if you want to break into a pub car park and then spend the morning racing your horses and traps up and down the A40, then you go right ahead.”

He added: “That’s broadly speaking what I was like as a schoolboy. It was the teachers’ job to make the rules and my job to completely ignore them.”

Ultimately, Clarkson said, it was about treating members of the Travelling community with respect.

He said: “Basically, treat them like the Canadians treat their neighbours south of the border. Smile sweetly and hope they don’t come over.”

As for what happened at the pub, Clarkson revealed the police ‘responded as if someone had just sent an unpleasant tweet about Sir Starmer himself’.

“They turned up, fast, in great numbers, did vehicle checks and organised a fleet of lorries to tow away those that had some kind of defect. It was an impressive operation,” Clarkson recalled.

As for the damage done, Jezza said he was handed £150 to fix the padlock and clear up the litter.

And when asked if they could come back the next year, it was a polite ‘no’ from Clarkson after the ‘unforgivable abuse’ one of the young girls working in the pub was given.

“But in the spirit of getting on, I do wish them well because racing horses on a fully open dual carriageway looks a damn sight more fun than chasing an imaginary fox over a hedge,” he said.

Being that person who has come forward for the jackpot everyone’s been talking about all week, getting presented with that whopper cheque and buying the things you thought you’d never own.

But that’s all well and good to imagine under the assumption that if you won the lottery, you’d actually be given your prize.

Whereas in more of a nightmare scenario, one woman has been blocked from cashing in her mega win after ‘using app’ to buy her ticket with things getting a little political.

She hit the absolute jackpot in a Texas draw on 17 February, bagging the huge $83.5 million (£64.5 million) prize.

This all seems to be because of controversy over using third-party couriers in buying lottery tickets.

The woman, who has remained anonymous, used Jackpocket (a subsidiary of sports betting company DraftKings) which enables users to buy lottery tickets on their phone.

Her attorney, Randy Howry, told PEOPLE that she had been using the app for several years and has always been paid for her winnings.

“She just preferred to play this way and felt more safe and didn’t have to leave her house,” he said of the widow.

DrafKings also owns the Winners Corner store in North Austin and Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick visited the day after the draw.

He posted a video to X where a person claiming to be the manager says the winning ticket was bought via a courier.

“The bottom line is, if people are going to have confidence in the lottery, we have to be sure that no one has an advantage,” Patrick said.

“This is not the way the lottery was designed to operate.”

And on 24 February, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced he’d called on state law enforcement officials to look into the drawing as well as wins from a previous one in April 2023.

“Texans must be able to trust in our state’s lottery system and know that the lottery is conducted with integrity and lawfully,” Abbott said.

Howry said that before the woman met with state lottery officials recently to claim her prize, a preliminary check was conducted and she had to do a telephone interview with a lottery investigator.

But on the day she was due for her meeting, officials apparently told her she couldn’t received her winnings until an investigation is completed with Howry saying no timeline has been given.

“She played by all the rules,” the attorney said. “She did everything the right way…She’s just a regular citizen who decided to play the lottery…If you allow a person to play by your rules and they win and you refuse to pay ’em, then why would anyone play the Texas lottery going forward?”

And the woman told Austin American-Statesmen: “I literally spent $20. I didn’t spend $26 million to run every single possible combination of numbers. If [the Lottery Commission] didn’t do an investigation into the [April 2023 jackpot winner], that’s on you.