A "momentous" court battle to determine the future of Rupert Murdoch's media empire and his £14.9 billion family trust begins in Nevada today.

The fate of "a string of newspapers and television channels consumed by millions of people around the world" is at stake, as well as "thousands of jobs" and "billions of pounds", said Sky News.

What is the court case about?
At the heart of the case is a £14.9 billion family trust created in 1999, when Rupert Murdoch was divorcing his second wife, Anna. Instead of seeking a larger share of his fortune, Anna had an "irrevocable family trust" set up for her three children (Elisabeth, Lachlan and James) and Murdoch's eldest child Prudence (born to his first wife, Patricia Booker), which meant that when Murdoch died, his News Corp and Fox voting shares would be divided between them. 

However, last November, Murdoch began legal action to change this arrangement, to give his chosen successor, eldest son Lachlan, full control. Prudence, Elisabeth and James are now contesting the move.

Why does Murdoch want to change the trust?
Political differences are said to play a significant role. Lachlan is thought to more closely share his father's right-wing views and has been a strong supporter of Fox News's conservative editorial line, which Murdoch believes is important for the continued success of his media empire. 

What could change?
Murdoch wants to give Lachlan "permanent, exclusive control" of the companies after his death in a plan dubbed "Project Harmony", according to reports.

"It is ironic that Rupert has managed to get James, Elisabeth and Prudence together, as before the case they didn't share much common ground," one long-time News Corp executive told The Telegraph. "Rupert keeps the family together, but once he has gone the siblings are likely to devolve into all out war." 

What are the potential outcomes of the case?
The court case could go in a number of directions. If Murdoch wins, Lachlan would take control of News Corp and Fox, likely continuing their current conservative editorial lines. But if the other siblings win, they could challenge or even dismantle Lachlan's leadership, possibly altering the political stance of the companies and selling off assets.

Keir Starmer has brushed off suggestions that taxpayers should pay for personal items for the prime minister as he faces mounting anger over designer clothes gifted to his wife by a Labour donor.

With the so-called "wardrobe-gate" controversy rolling into its third day, the PM "slapped down" comparisons with the US, where the president gets a generous expenses allowance, and said the public shouldn't be forced to pay, said The Mirror.

'Nasty stink'
"What in the name of God was Starmer thinking accepting free clothes for himself and his wife from a rich party donor?" journalist Isabel Oakeshott asked on social media. "Being that stupid" should be an "immediate disqualification for leading our country".

This "Frocky Horror Picture Show" has a "nasty stink to it", said Amanda Platell in the Daily Mail, because as Starmer "denies millions of pensioners their winter fuel allowances", he and his wife are benefiting from "questionable largesse". 

It's true that the "demands" on Victoria Starmer's wardrobe – "whether at banquets with royalty or as a plus-one at world summits" – certainly go "beyond those of the ordinary working Briton", said The Times. But failure to disclose the gifts "may remind some of the Johnson era's excesses".

'High fashion' 
During an interview on "Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg", Foreign Secretary David Lammy said that US presidents and first ladies have a "huge budget, paid for by the taxpayer", so that they "look their best on behalf of the US people".

In fact, said the BBC, although the US first lady’s fashion choices attract "immense scrutiny and attention", she "does not have access to a specific clothing budget" and many have "shared frustration at the cost of staying fashionable in the White House".

Spouses of leaders in other countries "generally appear to rely on donations for their style choices", the broadcaster added. In France, Brigitte Macron is believed to be lent outfits by "high fashion houses" such as Louis Vuitton.

Ministers in Germany were criticised for spending €450,000 on hairdressers, make-up artists and photographers in the first six months of 2023, but there does not appear to be a "specific fund for clothing".

"Nowhere does autumn come in such a burst of sensory glory as in Finland," said Paula Hardy for Lonely Planet.

From mid-September, the Nordic country's forests are transformed into a "multi-layered tapestry" of gold, copper and auburn. With nearly three-quarters of Finland blanketed in trees, it's spectacular to witness the leaves change colour. Finnish people even have a name for this "fleeting" season: ruska. For around three weeks until early October, "ruska pilgrims" flock to Finland to explore the "paprika-dusted mountains".

HaliPuu is a 250-acre wellbeing retreat in a forest near the town of Levi in Finnish Lapland. "Cocooning in a hammock" tied between the "centuries-old pine trees" is among the "traditional autumn activities" on offer here, said Richard Franks on the i news site. Evenings are spent toasting lingonberry marshmallows around the campfire and sipping chai lattes.

Nearby in Levi, the Northern Lights Village is one of the top spots for watching the natural light phenomenon. The "cosy wooden cabins" have glass roofs and wraparound windows, so guests can see the "lights dance across the night sky" from the comfort of their beds.

As ruska starts to "fade" in Lapland, the autumn shades "travel south like a colourful wave", said Hardy in Lonely Planet. Koli National Park is "daubed in orange, red and yellow" by the third week of September and you can hike to the top of Ukko-koli to see the "iconic" autumn landscape of Lake Pielisjärvi, painted by Finnish artist Eero Järnefelt in 1889.

Farcical coconut trial shows police and CPS still have so much to learn regarding race
Darren Lewis in The Mirror
When Marieha Hussain was arrested for carrying a placard of a coconut tree with pictures of Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman, "most people assumed it would come to nothing", writes Darren Lewis. Politicians like Sunak and Braverman "weaponised their colour" to make life "hell for Black and Brown people". In "non-white vernacular", such a person would be described as a "coconut", and this term is "not racist" because it is a "cultural critique within specific racial communities".

If Keir Starmer wants to be braver than Tony Blair, this is how: ignore the neanderthal right on crime
Polly Toynbee in The Guardian
This country's "addiction to prison" sees us "lock up more people than any other western European country", writes Polly Toynbee, even as crime has "declined sharply over the past 30 years", with a "near 90% fall in violent crime, burglary and car theft". Crime is "the currency of populists posturing tough for political gain" and "the public's misperception of ever-rising crime stokes mistrust in politics", so Keir Starmer should ignore "the foghorns of the right".

House prices are on the rise – so why isn’t everyone happy?
James Moore on The Independent
"Mortgage rates may be falling" but "it's not good news for everyone", writes James Moore. "Greed is motivating some sellers to get ahead of themselves." But "they aren't having it all their own way" because it is taking them "60 days to find buyers, on average", which is three days longer than in the "quiet market" this time last year. "Trying to buy a house right now" is "a miserable experience".