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 planIn 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 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 MPsWoman 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.

Addressing the Parliamentary Labour Party last night, the chancellor described politics as a "team sport" and insisted that tomorrow's announcements will be "fair". Backbenchers are said to have become increasingly frustrated at the prospect of further tax hikes, which come against a backdrop of falling opinion poll ratings. Ed Conway: Three things the budget boils down to Ms Reeves argued the budget should be regarded as a package - and not a "pick 'n' mix" where MPs "like the cola bottles but not the fruit salad". She added that her three top priorities were to cut the cost of living, reduce NHS waiting lists and slash the cost of servicing debt - with £1 in every £10 now spent on interest. Newspaper reports suggest there were cheers in the room when Ms Reeves vowed to stay in Number 11 and withstand criticism about her handling of the economy. She was quoted as saying: "I'll show the media, I'll show the Tories, I will not let them beat me, I'll be there on Wednesday, I'll be there next year, and I'll be back the year after that." The chancellor suggested Labour MPs will be happy with 95% of the budget's contents, but hinted there are difficult political decisions yet to be announced. Setback for Reeves as growth forecasts cut Yesterday, Sky News revealed that the Office for Budget Responsibility's growth forecasts are going to be downgraded every year until the current parliament ends in 2029. Our deputy political editor Sam Coates reports that the government will argue there are "a number of reasons" for the revision. But he added: "However you cut it, whatever the reasoning, once again, last year, growth will be lower after this budget than before, which is not a great position for a government that had claimed growth as their top priority." In some better news for the government, Ms Reeves is expected to announce that she has more headroom than first thought - meaning ministers will be able to claim that the country is no longer in an "economic doom loop". "That might well be one of the positive surprises when we actually get to Wednesday's budget," Coates added on the Politics At Sam and Anne's podcast. 'I think she's doing a terrible job' Meanwhile, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has accused the government of stymying growth and pursuing "job-killing measures". She told Sky News that she thinks Ms Reeves is "doing a terrible job" as chancellor - and warned Labour should pay close attention to public perception of the budget. "A lot of people out there in the country, men and women, thinks that she needs to cut tax, and if she raises it, then she should go," Ms Badenoch added. At the CBI conference in London yesterday, the Opposition leader urged the government to scrap the Employment Rights Bill - describing it as an "assault on flexible working" that would empower trade unions and drag the UK back to the 1970s. Ms Badenoch said: "Killing it would be a signal to the world that Britain still understands what makes an economy grow. "If the chancellor had any sense, and any regard for business, she would use the budget to say 'we got this one wrong' and drop it." This Employment Rights Bill includes measures that would ban zero hours contracts, but Ms Badenoch has argued that this would amount to a "de facto ban" on seasonal and flexible work. The CBI conference marks a difficult anniversary for the government - with attention turning to the speech Ms Reeves gave there a year ago. Having already delivered her first budget, she had told businesses that she was "not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes" - a statement that flies in the face of what the chancellor is expected to unveil tomorrow. Read more from Sky News:What tax rises and spending cuts will be announced?Analysis: Chancellor's authority is on shaky ground Greens call for wealth tax In other developments, the Green Party has called on the government to introduce a 1% tax on wealth over £10m - rising to 2% over £1bn. Its estimates suggest this measure could help potentially raise £15bn a year in revenues. Zack Polanski also wants the rates of capital gains tax, which is currently one of the lowest among G7 nations, to be raised in line with income tax. He will outline his demands on Mornings With Ridge And Frost ahead of a protest in Westminster. Announcements have been gradually trickling through ahead of the budget tomorrow, with the chancellor widely expected to freeze income tax thresholds once again. Ms Reeves is also set to lift the two-child cap on benefits, with figures suggesting this policy will cost about £3bn a year. Over the weekend, it was confirmed that rail fares in England will be frozen for the first time since the 1990s - meaning some commuters will save hundreds of pounds on season tickets. An above-inflation rise to the state pension is planned too, meaning 13 million people will receive an extra £550 a year from April.

The reigning Premier League champions suffered a 3-0 home defeat by Nottingham Forest on Saturday - a sixth loss in seven league matches - leaving them 11th, the first time in more than a decade the club have been in the bottom half of the table. Then then dropped to 12th following Merseyside rivals Everton's win over Man Utd on MNF. Ahead of Wednesday's Champions League home game against PSV Eindhoven, Slot said of their woeful form: "I would describe it as ridiculous, almost. Something I did not expect to be in. Liverpool news & transfers🔴 | Liverpool fixtures & scoresGot Sky? Watch Liverpool games LIVE on your phone📱Not got Sky? Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW📺 "Not at any club I was going to work at, let alone Liverpool. That is unbelievable. "If you can find an excuse, you will never find enough excuses to make you perform like this. Unexpected for the club, for me and everyone. "But I am working at a club where if you need to face it, this is the best club to face it. The harder it gets at a club like this, the more we are together to achieve the things Liverpool usually achieve." Last season, Liverpool conceded 41 goals as they stormed to the Premier League title. This term, they have already shipped 20 goals in the opening 12 matches. "Conceding far more goals than last season. The amount of goals we have conceded and the amount of goals from set-pieces is close to ridiculous for a club like us. "The biggest one is the goals we concede. From open play, we are still able to generate enough chances to get a result." He added: "I take the responsibility and feel guilty for it." Slot slams 'unacceptable' form Liverpool have suffered eight defeats in their last 11 matches in all competitions, with Saturday's 3-0 home loss to Forest equalling their worst Premier League loss at Anfield. When asked about what his side could learn from the defeats in the build-up to their next fixture, Slot said: "It's difficult to say at this moment. "I have said quite a lot of times, there are certain things that you can do better but this hasn't helped and hasn't been of use. "You can think of quite a lot of reasons why you have lost. From our perspective, at Liverpool Football Club, it is not acceptable. "It is a situation you do not want to have. Now it is time to start winning matches again but you have to do a lot to win a match. "The simple things, they must do better. That is what we are not doing and that is quite easy to solve. Simple football is the most difficult thing."

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.

Sir Robbie, whose position on the BBC board has been challenged by critics in recent weeks, was among senior leaders, including the broadcaster's chair, Samir Shah, to face questions from the Culture, Media and Sport committee about the current crisis. The hearing took place in the wake of the fallout over the edit of a speech by US President Donald Trump, which prompted the resignation of the corporation's director-general and the chief executive of BBC News, and the threat of a lawsuit from the US president. Former editorial adviser Michael Prescott, whose leaked memo sparked the recent chain of events, also answered questions from MPs - telling the hearing he felt he kept seeing "incipient problems" that were not being tackled. He also said Mr Trump's reputation had "probably not" been tarnished by the Panorama edit. During his own questioning, Sir Robbie addressed concerns of potential political bias - he left BBC News in 2017 to become then prime minister Theresa May's director of communications, a post he held until 2019, and was appointed to the BBC board in 2021 by Boris Johnson. "I know it's hard to marry the fact that I spent two years as director of communications for the government... and my genuine passion for impartiality," he said. "I want to hear the full range of views... I don't want the BBC to be partisan or favour any particular way." Asked about reports and speculation that there has been a "board-level orchestrated coup", Sir Robbie responded: "It's up there as one of the most ridiculous charges... People had to find some angle. "It's complete nonsense. It's also deeply offensive to fellow board members... people of great standing in different fields." He said his political work has been "weaponised" - and that it was hard as a non-executive member of the BBC to respond to criticism. 'We should have made the decision earlier' Mr Shah admitted the BBC was too slow in responding to the issue of the Panorama edit of Mr Trump, which had been flagged long before the leaked memo. "Looking back, I think we should have made the decision earlier," he said. "I think in May, as it happens. "I think there is an issue about how quickly we respond, the speed of our response. Why do we not do it quickly enough? Why do we take so much time? And this was another illustration of that." Following reports of the leaked memo, it took nearly a week for the BBC to issue an apology. Mr Shah told the committee he did not think Mr Davie needed to resign over the issue and that he "spent a great deal of time" trying to stop him from doing so. Is director-general role too big for one person? Asked about his own position, Mr Shah said his job now is to "steady the ship", and that he is not someone "who walks away from a problem". A job advert for the BBC director-general role has since gone live on the corporation's careers website. Mr Shah told the hearing his view is that the role is "too big" for one person and that he is "inclined" to restructure roles at the top. He says he believes there should also be a deputy director-general who is "laser-focused on journalism", which is "the most important thing and our greatest vulnerability". Earlier in the hearing, Mr Prescott gave evidence alongside another former BBC editorial adviser, Caroline Daniel. He told the CMS committee that there are "issues of denial" at the BBC and said "the management did not accept there was a problem" with the Panorama episode. Mr Prescott's memo highlighted concerns about the way clips of Mr Trump's speech on January 6 2021 were spliced together so it appeared he had told supporters he was going to walk to the US Capitol with them to "fight like hell". 'I can't think of anything I agree with Trump on' Mr Trump has said he is going to pursue a lawsuit of between $1bn and $5bn against the broadcaster, despite receiving an official public apology. Asked if the documentary had harmed Mr Trump's image, Mr Prescott responded: "I should probably restrain myself a little bit, given that there is a potential legal action. "All I could say is, I can't think of anything I agree with Donald Trump on." He was later pushed on the subject, and asked again if he agreed that the programme tarnished the president's reputation, to which he then replied: "Probably not." Read more:Experts on why Trump might struggle to win lawsuitWhy are people calling for Sir Robbie Gibb to go? Mr Prescott, a former journalist, also told the committee he did not know how his memo was leaked to the Daily Telegraph. "At the most fundamental level, I wrote that memo, let me be clear, because I am a strong supporter of the BBC. "The BBC employs talented professionals across all of its factual and non-factual programmes, and most people in this country, certainly myself included, might go as far as to say that they love the BBC. He said he "never envisaged" the fallout that would occur. "I was hoping the concerns I had could, and would, be addressed privately in the first instance." Asked if he thinks the BBC is institutionally biased, he said: "No, I don't." He said that "tonnes" of the BBC's work is "world class" - but added that there is "real work that needs to be done" to deal with problems. Mr Davie, he said, did a "first-rate job" as director-general but had a "blind spot" toward editorial failings.

It could, depending on how it lands, determine the fate of this government. And it's hard to think of many other budgets that have been preceded by quite so much speculation, briefing, and rumour. All of which is to say, you could be forgiven for feeling rather overwhelmed. But in practice, what's happening this week can really be boiled down to three things. 1. Not enough growth The first is that the economy is not growing as fast as many people had hoped. Or, to put it another way, Britain's productivity growth is much weaker than it once used to be. The upshot of that is that there's less money flowing into the exchequer in the form of tax revenues. 2. Not enough cuts The second factor is that last year and this, the chancellor promised to make certain cuts to welfare - cuts that would have saved the government billions of pounds of spending a year. But it has failed to implement those cuts. Put those extra billions together with the shortfall from that weaker productivity, and it's pretty clear there is a looming hole in the public finances. 3. Not enough levers The third thing to bear in mind is that Rachel Reeves has pledged to tie her hands in the way she responds to this fiscal hole. She has fiscal rules that mean she can't ignore it. She has a manifesto pledge which means she is somewhat limited in the levers she can pull to fill it. Put it all together, and it adds up to a momentous headache for the chancellor. She needs to raise quite a lot of money and all the "easy" ways of doing it (like raising income tax rates or VAT) seem to be off the table. So… what will she do? Quite how she responds remains to be seen - as does the precise size of the fiscal hole. But if the rumours in Westminster are to be believed, she will fall back upon two tricks most of her predecessors have tried at various points. First, she will deploy "fiscal drag" to squeeze extra income tax and national insurance payments out of families for the coming five years. What this means in practice is that even though the headline rate of income tax might not go up, the amount of income we end up being taxed on will grow ever higher in the coming years. Second, the chancellor is expected to squeeze government spending in the distant years for which she doesn't yet need to provide detailed plans. Together, these measures may raise somewhere in the region of £10bn. But Reeves's big problem is that in practice she needs to raise two or three times this amount. So, how will she do that? Most likely is that she implements a grab-bag of other tax measures: more expensive council tax for high value properties; new CGT rules; new gambling taxes and more. No return to austerity, but an Osborne-like predicament… If this summons up a particular memory from history, it's precisely the same problem George Osborne faced back in 2012. He wanted to raise quite a lot of money but due to agreements with his coalition partners, he was limited in how many big taxes he could raise. The resulting budget was, at the time at least, the single most complex budget in history. Consider: in the years between 1970 and 2010 the average UK budget contained 14 tax measures. Osborne's 2012 budget contained a whopping 61 of them. And not long after he delivered it, the budget started to unravel. You probably recall the pasty tax, and maybe the granny tax and the charity tax. Essentially, he was forced into a series of embarrassing U-turns. If there was a lesson, it was that trying to wodge so many money-raising measures into a single fiscal event was an accident waiting to happen. Except that… here's the interesting thing. In the following years, the complexity of budgets didn't fall - it rose. Osborne broke his own complexity record the next year with the 2013 budget (73 tax measures), and then again in 2016 (86 measures). By 2020 the budget contained a staggering 103 measures. And Reeves's own first budget, last autumn, very nearly broke this record with 94 measures. In short, budgets have become more and more complex, chock-full of even more (often microscopic) tax measures. Read more from Sky News:What tax measures are expected in budget?The political jeopardy facing Rachel Reeves in budget In part, this is a consequence of the fact that, long ago, chancellors seem to have agreed that it would be political suicide to raise the basic rate of income tax or VAT. The consequence is that they have been forced to resort to ever smaller and fiddlier measures to make their numbers add up. The question is whether this pattern continues this week. Do we end up with yet another astoundingly complex budget? Will that slew of measures backfire as they did for Osborne in 2012? And, more to the point, will they actually benefit the UK economy?

The incident was sparked when Gueye - who misplaced a loose pass towards Keane in the penalty area to give the ball away - began berating his team-mate. Gueye then raised his hand to Keane's face before he was sent off for violent conduct by referee Tony Harrington. Follow Man Utd vs Everton LIVE here!Got Sky? Watch now on the Sky Sports app📱Not got Sky? Get instant access with no contract📺 Despite his sending off, Everton went on to win 1-0 thanks to Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall's 29th-minute goal, and afterwards Gueye apologised to his team-mates in the changing room and released a statement on social media. He wrote on Instagram: "I want to apologise first to my team-mate Michael. I take full responsibility for my reaction. "I also apologise to my team-mates, the staff, the fans and the club. What happened does not reflect who I am or the values I stand for. Emotions can run high, but nothing justifies such behaviour. I'll make sure it never happens again." However, Everton boss Moyes said he "likes his players fighting each other" when asked about the incident. Moyes told Sky Sports: "If nothing happened, I don't think anyone in the stadium would have been surprised. "I thought the referee could have taken a bit longer to think about it. I got told that the rules of the game that if you slap your own player, you could be in trouble. "But there's another side to it: I like my players fighting each other if someone didn't do the right action. If you want that toughness and resilience to get a result, you want someone to act on it. "I'm disappointed we got the sending off. But we've all been footballers, we get angry with our team-mates. He's apologised for the sending off, he's praised the players and thanked them for it and apologised for what happened." Man Utd head coach Ruben Amorim also disagreed with the red card and criticised his players for not showing enough fight. He said: "Fighting is not a bad thing. Fighting doesn't mean they don't like each other. Fighting is if you lose the ball, I will fight you because we will suffer a goal. That was my feeling with that red card. "I don't agree with that sending off. We can fight with team-mates. I know it's violent conduct, the referee explained it, I don't agree with that. I hope my players, when they lose the ball, they fight each other. I hope they don't get sent off, but that is a good feeling not a bad feeling. "My players showed in many games we can do it. Today, we didn't. I need to help them. We need to be better in the future." 'Moment of madness' Everton's match-winner, Dewsbury-Hall, called Gueye's red card a "moment of madness". He told Sky Sports: "We started really well - the situation happened. It was a moment of madness, avoidable. "But all I can say is Idrissa has apologised to us at full-time, said his piece, and that's all he can do. We move on from it. "The reaction from us was unbelievable. Top tier. We could have crumbled, but if anything, it made us grow. "He [Moyes, at half-time] just said: that's done now. We'll deal with that another time. It was about keeping to the plan we had. He made sure we do the right things, continue what we're doing. We can't change that now, second half we continued to do that." Nev and Carra question decision to send off Gueye However, the decision to dismiss Gueye was questioned by Sky Sports' Gary Neville on co-commentary. "How much venom was in that slap?" said Neville. "He has been sent off for that. Was it a little slap or a proper whack? "There is no doubt a hand comes out to the face but it didn't look too much. They might have had to send him off purely because there is a strike to the face. "They were not fighting, it wasn't a scrap. It could have been dealt with by a yellow. I don't think it needed to be a red." Jamie Carragher said at half-time in the Monday Night Football studio: "I just think: can a referee manage the situation a bit better? "Can you get the two of them together and say: 'Hey can you behave yourselves?' Just sort of manage the situation, rather than that's the rulebook. "The rulebook gives the referee a bit of an out. He could say: 'I don't think it's over the top' and then you can carry on 11 vs 11." Monday Night Football guest Roberto Martinez, the Portugal head coach, agreed with the red card decision. The ex-Everton boss said: "Clearly, it's a misunderstanding; Gueye is trying to play the ball [to Keane], but it's that reaction, the slap. "The referee has no other choice because the law tells you that any aggression above the neck is a red card." According to the Premier League rules, striking an opponent or any other person on the head or face with their hand or arm represents violent conduct, unless the force used was negligible. "Was it negligible?" pondered Neville. "That's the question. I think it was negligible. I don't think there was much in that at all." Gueye is now set to be suspended for Everton's next three games. The Senegal international became the first Premier League player sent off for striking his own team-mate since Ricardo Fuller for Stoke City against West Ham in 2008. It was only the third time a player has been sent off for striking a team-mate, after Lee Bowyer and Kieron Dyer's infamous double-red card in 2005. IN PICTURES: Gueye's moment of madness! What happened with the Bowyer-Dyer and Fuller incidents? When Bowyer and Dyer clashed in 2005, the former was handed a seven-game ban in total - an initial four games for it being his second red card of the season, before the FA handed an additional three matches to the suspension. Bowyer was also given a £30,000 fine, with the midfielder then leaving for West Ham in the following summer. Meanwhile, in 2008, Stoke striker Fuller was sent off for striking his captain Andy Fuller. The striker claimed the situation actually helped team morale. Fuller stayed at Stoke until 2012. "It's one of those things. It's done and dusted, and it's made us stronger as a unit," Fuller said. "Sometimes in life, negatives can bring about positives, and I'm pleased that we've got by it in a positive way."