It was the middle of the night in DC when a tweet dropped from Ukraine's national security advisor, Rustem Umerov.

He said that the US and Ukraine had reached a "common understanding on the core terms of the agreement discussed in Geneva."

He added that Volodymyr Zelenskyy would travel to America "at the earliest suitable date in November to complete final steps and make a deal with President Trump".

Ukraine latest: 'Delicate' deal details must be sorted, White House says

By sunrise in Washington, a US official was using similar but not identical language to frame progress.

The official, speaking anonymously to US media, said that Ukraine had "agreed" to Trump's peace proposal "with some minor details to be worked out".

In parallel, it's emerged that talks have been taking place in Abu Dhabi. The Americans claim to have met both Russian and Ukrainian officials there, though the Russians have not confirmed attendance.

"I have nothing to say. We are following the media reports," Dmitry Peskov, Vladimir Putin's spokesperson, told Russian state media.

Trump is due to travel to his Florida resort Mar-a-Lago tonight, where he will remain until Sunday.

He set a deadline of Thursday - Thanksgiving - for some sort of agreement on his plan.

We know the plan has been changed from its original form, but it's clear that Zelenskyy wants to be seen to agree to something quickly - that would go down well with President Trump.

Read more:
US hails 'tremendous progress' on Ukraine peace plan
In full: Europe's 28-point counter proposal

My sense is that Zelenskyy will try to get to Mar-a-Lago as soon as he can. Before Thursday would be a push but would meet Trump's deadline.

It will then be left for the Russians to state their position on the revised document.

All indications are that they will reject it. But maybe the secret Abu Dhabi talks will yield something.

The 39-year-old, from the Guildford area, was arrested on Tuesday following co-operation between the Environment Agency (EA) and the South East Regional Organised Crime Unit.

Last week, the EA declared the 40ft-high mountain of waste near Kidlington a "critical incident".

Anna Burns, the Environment Agency's area director for the Thames, said that the "appalling illegal waste dump... has rightly provoked outrage over the potential consequences for the community and environment".

"We have been working round the clock with the South East Regional Organised Crime Unit to bring the perpetrators to justice and make them pay for this offence," she added.

"Our investigative efforts have secured an arrest today, which will be the first step in delivering justice for residents and punishing those responsible."

Phil Davies, head of the Joint Unit for Waste Crime, added that the EA "is working closely with other law enforcement partners to identify and hold those responsible for the horrendous illegal dumping of waste".

He then said: "A number of active lines of investigation are being pursued by specialist officers."

Sky News drone footage captured the sheer scale of the rubbish pile, which is thought to weigh hundreds of tonnes and comprise multiple lorry loads of waste.

Read more from Sky News:
Woman wakes up in coffin at crematorium
'Milkshake tax' to be introduced in budget

The EA said that officers attended the site on 2 July after the first report of waste tipping, and that a cease-and-desist letter was issued to prevent illegal activity.

After continued activity, the agency added that a court order was granted on 23 October. No further tipping has taken place at the site since.

The government says there is a "crisis" in the criminal justice system and bold action will be announced soon by ministers.

Sky News previously reported the Ministry of Justice was set to remove the right to trial by jury for thousands of cases, in a controversial measure which would mark a move away from a core pillar of the criminal justice system in England and Wales.

It's now reported that ministers are examining plans to scrap jury trials in all but the most serious cases, with the majority being heard only by a judge.

A memo sent by David Lammy to fellow ministers, seen by the Times, says there is "no right" to jury trials in the UK and that drastic action was needed to cut the backlog of cases in the crown courts, nearing 80,000.

A spokesman for the government confirmed changes are coming soon to deal with the backlog. They say that the measures outlined in the memo are not yet the subject of cross-government agreement.

When Mr Lammy took up his position in September, it is understood he saw the courts as his 'crisis' to tackle, with his predecessor, Shabana Mahmood, having been seen to have gripped the immediacy of the prison overcrowding crisis.

In the summer, retired Court of Appeal judge, Sir Brian Leveson, made recommendations to government, including a suggestion to end jury trials for many serious offences, saying they could be dealt with by a judge alone or a judge with two magistrates.

This would have been done by creating a new intermediate court, called the Crown Court Bench Division, sitting between magistrates' courts and crown courts.

The plans in the leaked document go further than that, with suggestions that offences likely to receive a sentence of up to five years would be heard by judges alone.

Sir Brian suggested a judge and two magistrates should hear cases with a maximum sentence of three years.

These measures will be highly controversial, with the leader of the Conservatives Kemi Badenoch saying the move "risks fairness, undermines public trust and erodes the very foundation of our justice system".

The Criminal Bar Association said the plans would "eviscerate the jury trial as we know it".

Read more from Sky News:
Man arrested in connection to waste dump
Heathrow's £33bn third runway plan chosen

The government is expected to lay out its plans to tackle the backlog within the coming weeks.

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "No final decision has been taken by government.

"We have been clear there is a crisis in the courts, causing pain and anguish to victims - with 78,000 cases in the backlog and rising - which will require bold action to put right."

The 57-year-old comedy writer, who had faced trial at Westminster Magistrates' Court, denied both charges linked to posts made on social media and a confrontation at a conference in London in October 2024.

Summarising her judgment, District Judge Briony Clarke started by saying it was not for the court to pick sides in the debate about sex and gender identity.

She said she found Linehan was a "generally credible witness" and appeared to be "genuinely frank and honest", and that she was not satisfied his conduct amounted to the criminal standard of harassment.

The judge said she accepted some of complainant Sophia Brooks' evidence, but found they were not "entirely truthful" and not "as alarmed or distressed" as they had portrayed themself to be following tweets posted by the comedy writer.

While Linehan's comments were "deeply unpleasant, insulting and even unnecessary", they were not "oppressive or unacceptable beyond merely unattractive, annoying or irritating", the judge said, and did not "cross the boundary from the regrettable to the unacceptable".

However, she did find him guilty of criminal damage, for throwing Brooks's phone. Having seen footage of the incident, the judge said she found he took the phone because he was "angry and fed up", and that she was "satisfied he was not using reasonable force".

The judge said she was "not sure to the criminal standard" that Linehan had demonstrated hostility based on the complainant being transgender, and therefore this did not aggravate his offence.

He was ordered to pay a fine of £500, court costs of £650 and a statutory surcharge of £200. The prosecution had asked the judge to consider a restraining order, but she said she did not feel this was necessary.

Speaking outside court after the hearing, Linehan said he was pleased with the judge's findings.

"The judge found me and the women who gave evidence on my behalf to be credible, honest witnesses, and said that my actions were not criminal and did not constitute harassment," he said, addressing the harassment verdict but not the criminal damage verdict.

He said he was grateful to the Free Speech union "for their unwavering support" and protecting those who "speak out", and that he hoped the judgment would mean "people in future won't be subject to those kind of tactics".

What happened during the trial?

The writer, known for shows including Father Ted, The IT Crowd and Black Books, had flown to the UK from Arizona, where he now lives, to appear in court in person.

He denied harassing Brooks on social media between 11 and 27 October last year, as well as a charge of criminal damage of their mobile phone on 19 October outside the Battle of Ideas conference in Westminster.

The trial heard Brooks, who was 17 at the time, had begun taking photographs of delegates at the event during a speech by Fiona McAnena, director of campaigns at Sex Matters.

Giving evidence during the case, Linehan claimed his "life was made hell" by trans activists and accused Brooks, a trans woman, of being a "young soldier in the trans activist army".

He told the court he was "angry" and "threw the phone" after being filmed outside the venue by the complainant, who had asked: "Why do you think it is acceptable to call teenagers domestic terrorists?"

Brooks told the court Linehan had called them a "sissy porn-watching scumbag", a "groomer" and a "disgusting incel", to which the complainant had responded: "You're the incel, you're divorced."

The prosecution claimed Linehan's social media posts were "repeated, abusive, unreasonable" while his lawyer accused the complainant of following "a course of conduct designed both to provoke and to harass Mr Linehan".

Read more from Sky News:
BBC board members face MPs
Woman wakes up in coffin at crematorium

Following the judgment but ahead of sentencing, Linehan's lawyer Sarah Vine KC said the court "would do well to take a conservative approach towards the reading of hostility towards the victim".

She said the offence of criminal damage involved a "momentary lapse of control", and was part of the "debate about gender identity, what it means".

Vine said it was important "that those who are involved in the debate are allowed to use language that properly expresses their views without fear of excessive state interference for the expression of those views".

She also said the cost of the case to Linehan had been "enormous", telling the court: "The damage was minor; the process itself has been highly impactful on Mr Linehan."

She requested he be given 28 days to pay the full amount.

Centrica chief executive Chris O'Shea told Sky News, "I personally would be happy to pay more. I think that's fair."

Mr O'Shea's pay package was £4.3m last year.

Money blog: 'My husband died before getting his state pension'

On Tuesday, he called for those with the "broadest shoulders" to pay more, as he said the cost of decarbonising should be paid from the general tax pot, rather than levies being added to bills.

Removing those levies, which fund things like national grid improvements, would take about £200 off people's bills, Mr O'Shea said.

It would also be more progressive, he said, as wealthier people would pay more tax, rather than every household facing the same levies regardless of income.

Energy regulator Ofgem increased the energy price cap on Friday, not because of energy costs, but because of policy costs such as the construction of Sizewell C nuclear power station.

For every pound spent on energy bills, 13.4 pence goes on policy costs, 22.6 pence goes to infrastructure costs and 11 pence goes to operating costs. Just 39.3 pence pays for energy. Ofgem said.

Ofgem criticism

Mr O'Shea was critical of the regulator, saying, "They are focused more on micromanagement than on growth".

In response, a spokesperson for Ofgem said: "Our regulation has delivered results: customer satisfaction is at record highs, from a low of 66% in 2022 and the sector is financially stronger with suppliers now holding around £7.5bn in assets protecting households from the cost of supplier failures.

"The government is already reviewing our remit and powers to ensure we remain the best possible regulator for consumers as the energy system evolves. We welcome this review and have already made clear our intent to move to more outcome-based regulation and work with suppliers as we move forward."