Rupert Murdoch is "locked in a secret legal battle against three of his children over the future of the family's media empire", according to reports first published in The New York Times.

In a rift reminiscent of the smash-hit TV series "Succession", the 93-year-old tycoon and his eldest son, Lachlan, are taking legal action to keep Lachlan's siblings out of News Corp, which owns media brands including The Times, The Sun and Fox News.

What is the legal battle about?
Currently, a family trust "hands control of the family business to the four oldest children when Mr. Murdoch dies", said the NYT. However, Murdoch is reportedly concerned about maintaining his empire's "conservative editorial bent" and wants to change the terms of the trust to ensure that Lachlan can take sole control – "without interference from his more politically moderate siblings".

James, Elisabeth and Prudence Murdoch, who were "said to have been blindsided by the move, have reportedly hired their own legal team to contest their father's plans", said Fortune. A trial is reportedly set to begin in September. Any "restructuring of the trust would have significant implications for decision-making at the top of the Murdoch empire", said the Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal.

What does it mean for the Murdoch family?
Murdoch has "brought several of his children into the business over the years", and is "widely believed to be the inspiration for the character of Logan Roy" in the TV show "Succession", said CNN. Elisabeth and Prudence "made it a point to distance themselves from the family business", said Business Insider. "Elisabeth left the media empire years ago in 2000, while Prudence is said to be the least involved in the business."

However, James has expressed critical opinions of News Corp brands, including the outlet Lachlan currently helms: Fox News. There are "views I really disagree with on Fox", James told The New Yorker in 2019. A year later James left his seat on News Corp's board of directors because of his "disagreements over certain editorial content published by the company's news outlets and certain other strategic decisions", he said in his resignation letter.

A serial shoplifter who made a "full-time job" out of claiming £500,000 in refunds on stolen items has refocused attention on the growing pitfalls of retail returns.

Jailing Narinder Kaur for 10 years, a judge said she had indulged in a "veritable tsunami of dishonesty", conning high street giants like Debenhams, John Lewis, House of Fraser and TK Maxx into refunding her for items she had stolen from them.

West Mercia Police said Kaur "exposed loopholes in till operating systems" to pull off the fraudulent returns, a lot of which "have now been closed".

'Avalanche of returns'
Online returns systems are also prone to abuse. Britain is "being buried" under an "avalanche" of returned clothes thanks to fast fashion and social media, said The Telegraph. In particular, influencers regularly try on an array of outfits for an "appreciative audience of millions". The "immensely popular" posts are "emblematic" of how buying and returning masses of clothes is "easier than ever".

It costs retailers "serious money" to deal with the sheer volume of clothes being returned. UK fashion companies lost at least £7 billion due to returns in 2022, according to the British Fashion Council. Asos said last year that it had suffered a £100 million hit to its profits because shoppers are buying up discounted clothes only to return most of them.

'Gone to hell'
Faced with these issues, some commentators claim that retailers are making it gradually more complicated to return products.

Online retailing's "blanket promise" that "you can always send it back" has become "unsustainable", wrote Ian Bogost in The Atlantic. The biggest online retailers have gradually "revised, modified, and amended the logistics processes" for returns. All those "small changes" have "started to compound", so "what used to be a simple system for consumers is getting more complex".

So if the returns process "put customers off just enough to dissuade some returns", but "without upsetting the precious idea of free returns", that would be a "net benefit for retailers". An Amazon spokesperson said it would be "patently false and misguided" to claim that any of its return practices are meant to discourage returns.

"Showman, charlatan or both?" That is the "gist" of Cy Coleman and Michael Stewart's "zesty" 1980 musical about the 19th-century American showman, P.T. Barnum, brought back in a "high-spirited revival" by Jonathan O'Boyle, said Donald Hutera in The Times.

The show chronicles Barnum's fascinating life story, charting his rise to fame as a circus proprietor and disastrous attempt to move into politics. 
At the "triumphant centre" of the 18-strong "multi-talented" cast is Matt Rawle as the titular showman. With his "chiselled features" and "nimble physicality", he "positively oozes the huckster's charisma". 

The "strong chemistry" between Barnum and his "long-suffering wife" Charity (Monique Young) anchors the show, said Paul Vale in The Stage, and Penny Ashmore can "hit all the right notes" as Swedish opera singer (and Barnum's brief love interest) Jenny Lind. "Superb" supporting performances come from Fergus Rattigan as a "sympathetic" Tom Thumb, and an "expressive" Tania Mathurin as the "highly likeable" Joice Heth. 

The dazzling show "exudes old-world magic", said Arifa Akbar in The Guardian, and is filled with "stunning" acrobatics overseen by circus director Amy Panter and dance routines choreographed by "Strictly Come Dancing"'s Oti Mabuse. 

The show never places Barnum "in anything other than a lovable light", skimming over his infidelity, "controversial foray" into politics, and "menagerie of performing animals and circus 'novelties'". Historical realities aside, this is an "immensely beguiling production" with flawless performances that "work magic".

At the Watermill Theatre, Newbury, Berkshire, until 8 September

Let prisoners phone home
Adrian Usher in The Spectator
Last year, "every three-and-a-half days a prisoner killed themselves", writes prisons ombudsman Adrian Usher. Perhaps you wonder "why should we care", but this shows "just how desperate life inside is" and "when prisoners are feeling desperate" they are "far more likely to reoffend" once released. Prisoners pay for calls per minute but if, "in their darkest hour", they could "contact a friend or family member", would that reduce despair and suicide?

Men need to see that novels aren't for losers
James Marriott in The Times
The "failings of 21st-century men" provoke "incessant commentary", writes James Marriott, but one is that "my generation of men" has "failed to produce a single important or widely read novelist". Indeed, "men hardly even read" fiction, and "I am sceptical that they can be moralised into it". Novels offer benefits such as "emotional intelligence and a better appreciation of life's ambiguity and complexity", and "I wonder whether this might be an incentive for reluctant men".

Labour should know better than to start a fight with Nigel Farage
John Oxley in The Telegraph
Jess Phillips and Nigel Farage's "Twitter tussle" has overshadowed the tragic events in Southport this week, says John Oxley. Farage sought to "inflame the situation" by speculating that the truth about the attack was "being withheld" – but Phillips shouldn't have got involved. "MPs have a duty to calm", a responsibility that is "even heavier upon ministers". As Labour settles into governing, "they need to understand that there are some fights you are better off not picking".