Twelve men have been charged with manslaughter over the death of a football fan who died five years after he was assaulted on his way home from a match.

Cambridge United fan Simon Dobbin was attacked after watching his team play Southend United in Southend, Essex, on 21 March 2015.

Violence broke out outside the Railway Tavern pub in Southend in March 2015.

The married father and former RAF serviceman was left permanently brain-damaged by the attack and died five years later, in October 2020, aged 48

Mr Dobbin’s family provided him with 24-hour care at home in Mildenhall, Suffolk, until his death.

Essex Police said on Wednesday that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had authorised manslaughter charges against 12 men.

The CPS said they were: Greg Allen, 37, of of Westcliff-on-Sea; Ryan Carter, 40, of HMP The Mount; Jamie Chambers, 33, of Southend-on-Sea; Lewis Courtnell, 43, of Leigh-on-Sea; Philip McGill, 40, of Westcliff-on-Sea; Scott Nicholls, 49, of Basildon; Matthew Petchey, 35, of Rochford; Rhys Pullen, 29, of Maldon; Thomas Randall, 31, of Leigh-on-Sea; Michael Shawyer, 40, of Leigh-on-Sea; Alexander Woods, 33, of Westcliff-on-Sea; and James Woods, 33, of Westcliff-on-Sea.

Rebecca Mundy, deputy chief crown prosecutor, confirmed the charges and said: “Prosecutors in our Complex Casework Unit have worked closely with Essex Police to examine and review the material obtained from their investigations from both the incident itself and following the death of Mr Dobbin.

“We have established that there is sufficient evidence to charge 12 people with the offence of manslaughter and that it is in the public interest to pursue criminal proceedings.”

Read more from Sky News:
Woman who cut her girlfriend in half jailed for life
Cold weather health alert issued – as Met Office warns of snow

Detective Superintendent Stephen Jennings of Essex Police said: “This is a significant milestone in an extremely complex investigation, and comes as the result of the professionalism, dedication and hard work from a team of highly skilled officers and staff.

“Investigations such as these are challenging and can take time, it has required hundreds of hours of painstaking work to get to this stage.”

He added: “Simon’s case is one that has evoked a great deal of emotion but I would ask people to be mindful about commentary to ensure those charged are able to have a fair trial.

“I want to thank Simon’s family – his wife Nicole and daughter Emily – for their patience and unwavering support for our team.”

The men are due to appear before Colchester Magistrates’ Court on 31 March.

Since there was such a tempest over Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show, perhaps there’s a solution at hand. This compromise would satisfy both red and blue America. And the exhibition would transfix the country: Have former President Bill Clinton and President Donald Trump testify at halftime about the Epstein files.

Republicans believe former President Clinton has something to hide about Jeffrey Epstein. Democrats think the same about President Trump. The House Oversight Committee subpoenaed the former president and Hillary Clinton to testify about the Epstein files. After a lot of wrangling, the Clintons are due to appear for closed-door depositions later this month.

But both Bill and Hillary Clinton are now calling for open sessions. And Democrats believe that such an appearance at a public session — by a former President — would establish a precedent to lug in President Trump to answer questions about what he knew about Epstein.

GHISLAINE MAXWELL TO APPEAR BEFORE HOUSE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE LAWMAKERS FOR EPSTEIN PROBE DEPOSITION

Hillary Clinton addresses her staff and supporters about the results of the U.S. election as her husband, former U.S. President Bill Clinton, applauds at a hotel in the Manhattan borough of New York, Nov. 9, 2016.  (Reuters/Carlos Barria)

One architect of the law compelling the release of the Epstein files, applauded demands last week by the former First Couple to testify at a televised open hearing. Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., said the former president is an important witness.

“As long as [the hearing is] focused on Epstein, and it’s not a wild goose chase — it’s not trying to score political points or embarrass either President Clinton or President Trump, it is asking legitimate questions about what they knew took place and who they knew were participating in heinous acts,” said Khanna. “That should be a legitimate point of inquiry.”

After agreeing to a closed-door deposition later this month, Hillary Clinton took to X. She wrote to Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., saying, “If you want this fight let’s have it in public.” 

Former President Clinton echoed his wife the next day on X, also calling for a public session. The former commander-in-chief declared that he won’t be used “as a prop in a closed door Kangaroo Court.” 

A spokeswoman for Comer accused the former first couple of “moving the goalposts.” Comer was always open to a hearing. But after a closed-door deposition.

“Depositions have historically been much more substantive than hearings,” said Comer. “Hearings unfortunately, have become more of an entertainment thing.”

It’s hard to track exactly what the Clintons wanted.

The House Oversight Committee voted on a bipartisan basis last August to subpoena both Bill and Hillary Clinton for depositions — along with a host of other prominent figures like former Attorney General Bill Barr. After a lot of haggling, the committee subpoenaed them to appear at dates in October. The Clintons defied those. Then the committee assigned them dates just before Christmas. But neither showed then because of a funeral. The committee requested that the Clintons give them dates for January appearances. They didn’t. The committee then assigned them additional dates for January testimony. They skipped out on those. That’s when Comer threatened to hold the Clintons in contempt of Congress if they didn’t appear in January. The Oversight Committee voted — in bipartisan fashion — for contempt. The House Rules Committee planned last week to prep a measure to force the entire House to vote on contempt — and send criminal referrals for the Clintons to the Justice Department for prosecution after they defied the subpoenas.

REVEALED: TRUMP CALLED POLICE CHIEF TO SUPPORT EPSTEIN PROBE, AND LAWMAKERS NAMED 6 MEN SHIELDED FROM EXPOSURE

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., alongside Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., left, speaks to reporters after a closed-door deposition with Ghislaine Maxwell, the former girlfriend and confidante of sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, at the Capitol in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 9, 2026. (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)

But the Clintons finally agreed to depositions at the end of this month. And once that was on the calendar, the duo began calling for public hearings.

There is a method behind this madness. There isn’t a loyalty among younger Congressional Democrats to the Clintons. In fact, former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was steamed at some Democrats for wanting the Clintons to appear. Younger Democrats don’t have the same reverence for the Clintons as older Democrats. Hillary Clinton ran for president a decade ago. She hasn’t been a senator since 2009. She last served as Secretary of State in early 2013. President Clinton left the Oval Office more than a quarter-century ago.

However, this is the Democrats’ gambit:

If former President Clinton appears about the Epstein files, it may be tough to make the case that President Trump shouldn’t appear.

“Certainly it does set the precedent. President Trump was subpoenaed during the January 6th investigations and didn’t come in. He cited some form of executive privilege. And so we’re kind of forcing the Clintons to come in with the threat of criminal contempt. Then that is a precedent that we are setting,” said Rep. Suhas Subramanyam, D-Va. “In other countries, like the UK, the Prime Minister regularly comes before the Parliament. And so it’s not like it’s unprecedented around the world.”

Granted, that’s a parliamentary system where the prime minister is a member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer regularly appears for “Prime Minister’s Questions” every Wednesday at noon in London. Members of Parliament usually pepper the prime minister with questions and scoff in a scene which resembles something out of Monty Python.

But the American and British systems are fundamentally different.

Getting a sitting or former President — and even first lady — before Congress is rare but not unheard of.

BONDI TO FACE GRILLING IN HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE OVER EPSTEIN FILES, WEAPONIZATION ALLEGATIONS

Former President Bill Clinton was seen in photos with Jeffrey Epstein as part of a DOJ Epstein files release on Friday, Dec. 19. (Department of Justice)

There are three prominent examples of sitting Presidents appearing before Congress. President Abraham Lincoln testified voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee in 1862. The New York Herald published his “State of the Union” message to Congress just before it was sent to Capitol Hill. Presidents sent written “reports” in those days. They did not give speeches to Congress. Lawmakers probed the leak of the message to Congress. It was speculated that Herald reporter Henry Wikoff got the message ahead of time thanks to his friendship with Mary Todd Lincoln. The House Sergeant at Arms briefly held Wikoff — and released him after the president spoke to the Judiciary Committee.

President Woodrow Wilson appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1919 to discuss a treaty with Germany and establishing the League of Nations. Wilson’s push for the League of Nations failed. The Senate rejected the Treaty of Versailles.

President Gerald Ford had been in office two-and-a-half months before he appeared voluntarily before the House Judiciary Committee in the fall of 1974. Ford told lawmakers that his pardon of former President Richard Nixon wasn’t something they bargained about. Ford told the committee that he pardoned Nixon because his physical and mental health fell into a steep decline.

Former President Harry Truman appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1955 to testify about the United Nations Charter.

Ford came back as a former president in 1983 for a Senate hearing on the bicentennial of the Constitution.

And there are examples of both sitting and former first ladies testifying, too.

Eleanor Roosevelt testified twice as first lady. Once about labor issues. Then, about the organization of volunteers for the civilian defense agency before World War II.

Rosalynn Carter testified about mental health as first lady.

Hillary Clinton famously testified about her husband’s health care plan — even though it was dubbed (often derisively) “Hillarycare” in the fall of 1993. She testified multiple times as Secretary of State. Most notably in early 2013 regarding Benghazi. 

And, first lady Laura Bush was en route to Capitol Hill to testify before a Senate panel about early childhood education on 9/11. The committee cancelled the hearing after the attacks in New York and at the Pentagon. 

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

So, many Republicans are game to hear from the Clintons about the Epstein files. Frankly, some were more interested in just holding them in contempt than actually gleaning anything about Epstein. But it looks like the Clintons will at least sit for depositions in a few weeks. Whether there’s a hearing or not is unclear. Some Republicans may even push for that. But caveat emptor. An open session for the Clintons will only intensify the push by Democrats — and some GOPers — to hear from President Trump. 

Their testimony might not come during the Super Bowl halftime show. But open testimony by a former President and a sitting President would be a political Super Bowl.

Shiv Sena has opened its traditional front in protest against Valentine’s Day (14 February) in Sagar, Madhya Pradesh. To protest against this festival of western culture, Shiv Sainiks have started preparations in a unique and aggressive manner. In the Pehalwan Baba temple of the city, Shiv Sainiks worshiped the sticks and prepared them by drinking jasmine and mustard oil. The organization has clearly warned that those spreading obscenity in the name of Valentine’s Day will not be spared.

Shiv Sainiks warned

Under the leadership of Shiv Sena deputy state chief Pappu Tiwari, the workers roared after the lath-puja, raising the slogan ‘Jahan Milenge Babu Sona Chhode Denge Kona Kona’. He said that Valentine’s Day celebrated on 14 February is not a part of Indian culture and tradition. Shiv Sainiks have warned that if any couple is caught spreading obscenity near parks, hotels, restaurants or religious places on this day, strict action will be taken against them.

Will conduct rounds on the spot itself – Shiv Sena

Shiv Sena leaders have warned the administration and the lovers and said that their teams will keep vigil across the city. Pappu Tiwari announced, “If any couple is found indulging in obscenity in public places, we will call their parents and if they are adults, they will get married on the spot.”

Ultimatum to hotel operators also

The Shiv Sena chief has also warned hotel and restaurant operators in strong words. He said that if ‘obscene’ programs or parties were organized in any hotel or restaurant on February 14, they would have to face fierce opposition from Shiv Sainiks. The organization says that like every year, this year too they will take to the streets to protect their culture and stop blind imitation of western culture.

Voting for general elections is being held in Bangladesh on Thursday (12 February 2026). This may be a general election, but it is going to be the most special election in the political history of Bangladesh. In the absence of Awami League, BNP is being seen as the largest and oldest party of Bangladesh.

BNP means Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which is one of the oldest parties here. This party was founded on September 1, 1978 by the then President Ziaur Rahman. Khaleda Zia became the Prime Minister of Bangladesh for the first time in 1991 from BNP. For the second time in the year 2001, Khaleda Zia of BNP formed the government in Bangladesh. Although Jamaat-e-Islami also joined this government, but since 2006, Bangladesh Nationalist Party was never able to come back to power.

Contest between BNP and Jamaat

During this period, Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League had a bumper victory in the general elections of 2009, 2014, 2018 and 2024. While BNP made allegations of rigging in the 2014 elections, BNP boycotted the 2024 general elections. However, now everything has changed in Bangladesh after the overthrow of Sheikh Hasina on August 5, 2024. Now the electoral ban has been imposed on Awami League and BNP is definitely visible as a big party. year 2026 In the general elections, only contest is visible between Bangladesh Nationalist Party and Jamaat-e-Islami.

Tariq Rahman took command of the party as soon as he reached Dhaka.

Before Sheikh Hasina’s coup, Khaleda Zia was in jail and her son Tariq Rehman was living in exile in London. After Sheikh Hasina left the country, Khaleda Zia was released from jail and her son Tariq Rehman also returned to Dhaka from London after a long time. Tariq Rehman reached Bangladesh at a time when his mother Khaleda Zia was very ill and was hospitalized. Tariq Rahman took command of the party as soon as he reached Dhaka and started preparing for the general elections. Khaleda Zia died just a few days after the election was announced.

In such a situation, the challenge before Tariq Rahman is that after being away from Bangladesh for so long, how much will he be able to understand the party and how much will he be able to catch the pulse of the people. It is certain that Tariq Rehman will get the benefit of lack of options. It can also be said that the sympathy factor of mother Khaleda Zia’s demise will also be with Tariq Rehman, but staying away from one’s country for 17-18 years is a long time. If an entire generation changes during this period, will Tariq Rahman really be able to hear the voice of the people of Bangladesh? Will the people of Bangladesh be able to trust Tariq Rahman?

Tariq Rehman left no stone unturned in the election campaign.

Tariq Rehman left no stone unturned in his election campaign. He has given slogan in this election – Bangladesh Before All. He is contesting elections from 2 seats in Bangladesh and has also released the election manifesto. BNP is contesting on 292 seats out of 300. 8 seats have been given to allies. Tariq is also BNP’s prime ministerial candidate. During the elections itself, delegations and diplomats from all over the world met Tariq Rehman. Some big election promises made by Tariq Rehman-

1. Will implement the July National Charter. (This was the biggest demand of the student movement)
2. Will make the true history of the liberation movement a part of the curriculum.
3. Will create the post of Vice President in Bangladesh.
4. Any person will be able to hold the post of Prime Minister for a maximum of 10 years.
5. Establishment of a 100-member Upper House in Parliament.
6. Formation of an independent commission of inquiry to investigate the murders and violence that occurred in July 2024.
7. Committed to cooperation and equality of friendship with neighboring countries.
8. Will strengthen cooperation with Muslim countries.

What is the challenge before BNP?

Apart from this, many free schemes have also been announced by Tariq Rehman. The biggest challenge before him is the Jamaat-e-Islami alliance, because the new youth party NCP is also in alliance with it. In such a situation, the challenge before Tariq Rehman is double. On one hand, the youth can go with NCP, while on the other hand, those who are staunch supporters of Islamic rule can go with Jamaat-e-Islami.

Who will get support from Sheikh Hasina’s supporters?

The biggest benefit that Tariq Rehman can get is from the class which has been a supporter of Sheikh Hasina. Who votes for Sheikh Hasina in the last many elections. In the current political situation in Bangladesh, supporters of Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League will definitely not go with Jamaat-e-Islami. Tariq Rehman can benefit from this. In fact, Sheikh Hasina’s supporters cannot accept Jamaat-e-Islami because it stood against the Bangladesh Liberation Movement in 1971. During her rule, Sheikh Hasina has imposed restrictions on Jamaat-e-Islami many times due to spreading fundamentalism. In such a situation, if the supporters of Awami League do not support Jamaat, then Tariq Rehman’s BNP will definitely benefit politically from it.

The world will keep an eye on relations with India

Everyone’s eyes are on Tariq Rehman regarding relations with India also. The general public of Bangladesh completely wants that whichever government is formed in Bangladesh, it should maintain very good relations with India. The people of Bangladesh look at India with great respect and honor. The people of Bangladesh always keep relations with India much ahead of any other country. Recently, when Tariq Rehman’s mother Khaleda Zia passed away, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed condolences.

India’s External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar visited Dhaka and attended the funeral of Khaleda Zia. During this, India’s Foreign Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar addressed the Prime Minister Narendra Modi A condolence message was also handed over to Tariq Rehman. Both this election and its results are going to prove very important for the political future of Tariq Rehman and BNP.

A 23-year-old British woman who was shot dead by her father while visiting him at his home in the US was unlawfully killed, an inquest has concluded.

Lucy Harrison, a fashion buyer from Warrington, Cheshire, was staying with her father, Kris Harrison, and his family at their home in Prosper, Texas, in January last year.

Mr Harrison, described to the court as a functioning alcoholic, claimed the gun had gone off accidentally in the incident, shortly before 3pm.

Concluding the inquest into Ms Harrison’s death on Wednesday, senior coroner Jacqueline Devonish said she found the father’s actions “to be reckless”.

She said that “to shoot [his daughter] through the chest whilst she was standing would have required him to have been pointing the gun at his daughter, without checking for bullets, and pulling the trigger”.

The coroner found Ms Harrison died due to unlawful killing on the grounds of gross negligence manslaughter, adding that the 23-year-old was “young, vibrant and beautiful with her whole life ahead of her and this is a most tragic death”.

Ms Harrison’s boyfriend, Sam Littler, who was on the trip to the US with her, previously told Cheshire Coroner’s Court that she would often become upset with her father when he spoke about his gun ownership.

He said that Ms Harrison and her father argued about Donald Trump on the morning of 10 January 2025, when the couple were due to fly home.

About half an hour before they were expected to leave for the airport, Mr Harrison took his daughter by the hand and led her from the kitchen to his ground-floor bedroom, where he kept a Glock semi-automatic handgun in his bedside cabinet.

He said he heard a loud bang some 15 seconds later, before Mr Harrison started screaming for his wife, Heather.

Mr Littler said: “I remember running into the room and Lucy was lying on the floor near the entrance to the bathroom and Kris was just screaming, just sort of nonsense.”

Mr Harrison did not attend the two-day inquest hearing, but said in a statement that he had bought the gun to give his family a “sense of security”. As it was for home defence, Texas laws meant he did not need a licence.

Verdict gives ‘Luce her voice back’, says mum

Speaking outside the court in Warrington, Ms Harrison’s mother Jane Coates said that the outcome “has finally given Luce her voice back, after what has been an unrelenting year of deep shock, grief and fight”.

She said her daughter was “failed” by Texan gun laws and decisions made by the police department in Prosper.

“Although we are satisfied with the coroner’s conclusion,” Ms Coates added, “there is much to be learnt from Lucy’s needless and entirely avoidable death.”

The inquest heard a grand jury in the US determined there was insufficient evidence to charge anyone in connection with Ms Harrison’s death.

It was also told that Mr Harrison had previously been to rehab for alcohol addiction. His representative, Ana Samuel, said the hearing was “more akin to a criminal investigation than a fact-finding inquiry”.

Read more from Sky News:
Tottenham boss Thomas Frank sacked
How Epstein made his money
Cold weather health alert issued

In a statement issued by his solicitors, Mr Harrison also said “I fully accept the consequences of my actions”, and added: “I cannot undo what happened, but I can honour Lucy by being the best father I can be to her sisters and by carrying her memory forward in everything we do.

“I am deeply sorry for the pain others feel from this tragedy. Lucy’s spirit – her warmth, her humour, her kindness – will live on in all of us who loved her.”

Vice President JD Vance shared advice he had for American Olympic athletes who have been outspoken about the Trump administration’s policies while at the Milan Cortina Games.

Vance, who acknowledged he heard some boos from the crowd while he was in Italy for some of the sporting events, told reporters in Baku, Azerbaijan, that the American athletes should try to bring the country together rather than divide it further.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE SPORTS COVERAGE ON FOXNEWS.COM

Vice President JD Vance and second lady Usha Vance watch the opening ceremony of the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic Games at the San Siro stadium in Milan, northern Italy, on Feb. 6, 2026. (Alexander NEMENOV/AFP via Getty Images)

“The Olympic athletes were unbelievable and I know the entire country is rooting for them,” Vance said. “Yes, you’re gonna have some Olympic athletes who pop off about politics. I feel like that happens every Olympics. My advice to them would be to try to bring the country together. And when you’re representing the country, you’re representing Democrats and Republicans. You’re there to play a sport and you’re there to represent your country and hopefully win a medal. You’re not there to pop off about politics.

“So when Olympic athletes enter the political arena, they should expect some pushback.But most Olympic athletes, whatever their politics, are doing a great job, are certainly enjoying the support of the entire country. And I think recognize that the way to bring the country together is not to show up in a foreign country and attack the president of the United States. But it’s a play your sport and represent the country well.”

Boxer Jake Paul and US Vice President JD Vance are seen in the stands during the Women’s Preliminary Round Group B match between the USA and Finland on day one of the Milano Cortina 2026 Winter Olympic games at Milano Rho Ice Hockey Arena on Feb. 7, 2026 in Milan, Italy. (EyesWideOpen/Getty Images)

AMERICAN OLYMPIAN CHLOE KIM EYES HISTORIC GOLD MEDAL DESPITE SHOULDER INJURY

Several Olympic athletes spoke out against the Trump administration before their events began last week.

Skiers Hunter Hess and Chris Lillis and figure skater Amber Glenn were among the Olympians to do so. Their statements sparked significant backlash on social media.

President Donald Trump called Hess a “real loser” over his complaints.

Hunter Hess of the United States reacts during the Men’s Ski Halfpipe Final at the Toyota US Grand Prix at Aspen Snowmass Ski Resort on Jan. 9, 2026 in Aspen, Colorado. (Dustin Satloff/U.S. Ski and Snowboard/Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Still, the U.S. has been among the top performers overall in the Winter Games.

Follow Fox News Digital’s sports coverage on X and subscribe to the Fox News Sports Huddle newsletter.