Post Office systems down after outage hits branches
People trying to send out parcels today might run into trouble after reports of a glitch affecting the Post Office this afternoon.
Outage reports for the Post Office shot up shortly before 3pm, according to DownDetector's tracker.
Most of the problems were about a 'total blackout,' while others indicated there was a problem with the internet connection.
Post Office said: 'We're aware of an outage impacting our branches. The issue is being worked on and things should be back to normal later this afternoon. Thanks for your patience.'
It is not known yet what has caused the outage. More Trending
It comes after a spate of high-profile cyber incidents affecting the M&S and Co-op.
M&S online orders were back in action six weeks after the cyber attack in April, which cost the company £300 million.
Metro approached the Post Office for a comment.
Got a story? Get in touch with our news team by emailing us at webnews@metro.co.uk. Or you can submit your videos and pictures here.
For more stories like this, check our news page.
Follow Metro.co.uk on Twitter and Facebook for the latest news updates. You can now also get Metro.co.uk articles sent straight to your device. Sign up for our daily push alerts here.
MORE: 'Anything to make Trump's ego grow', reader's discuss the US President and the Nobel Peace Prize
MORE: At least 13 people driven to suicide by the Post Office Horizon scandal, inquiry finds
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Why Putin thinks Trump's Russia tariffs are a bluff
Moscow's response to the latest ultimatum issued by Donald Trump last week has been to deploy that most Russian of diplomatic weapons: contemptuous laughter. The US president's threat to impose draconian sanctions unless Putin ends his invasion of Ukraine within fifty days has been met with the kind of theatrical disdain that would make Chekhov proud. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, never one to miss an opportunity for diplomatic sarcasm, openly sneered at Trump's intervention on Tuesday. 'We want to understand what exactly is behind this statement. Fifty days. It used to be 24 hours, and then it became 100 days. Russia has gone through all this and now wants to understand what the US president's motives are,' he said. Russian officials have pledged to continue 'achieving the aims of the special military operation – the Kremlin's Orwellian euphemism for what the rest of us call the invasion of Ukraine. Putin himself has yet to comment, but then again, he's never been one to appreciate being lectured by anyone, least of all an American president. 'If and when President Putin considers it necessary, he will certainly respond,' Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. This defiance might appear to be typical Russian bravado, but a closer examination suggests Moscow's confidence may be rather more calculated than theatrical. Trump's volte-face has been spectacular. After months of courting Putin and pressuring Ukraine to accept what amounted to capitulation, the President abruptly changed course on Monday. Fed up with Putin's intransigence, Trump promised to resume arms supplies to Ukraine and threatened to impose 100 per cent import tariffs on goods from any country trading with Russia. On paper, this threat is enormous. Russian oil exports, the lifeblood of Putin's war machine, would be in the crosshairs. Such sanctions could deprive Moscow's already strained budget of roughly a quarter of its revenues and remove five million barrels per day from global markets. Yet oil prices barely flinched. The markets, it seems, share Moscow's scepticism – and with good reason. The fundamental problem is that neither the Kremlin nor the stock market's trading desks appear to understand how these tariffs would actually work. This is hardly surprising, given that the idea seems to have been conceived more as a political gesture than a practical policy. Trump's track record with deadlines provides little comfort for those hoping he'll follow through. He has previously presented Putin with ultimatums that proved to be more bluster than bite, while simultaneously bombing Iran, but only after issuing warnings shortly beforehand. In March, he signed an executive order imposing 25 per cent tariffs on countries importing Venezuelan oil – tariffs that have yet to materialise. The fifty-day deadline itself presents Putin with both opportunity and incentive. It's sufficient time to pursue his summer offensive – the most successful, if costliest, since 2023. Rather than seeking immediate peace, Putin might well decide to go all in, intensifying his bombardment of Ukrainian cities while gnawing at Ukrainian defences. By September, he could be better positioned to offer a ceasefire from a position of strength, or perhaps to persuade his American counterpart that he needs just a little more time to complete his objectives. Should Trump's tariffs actually materialise, they would devastate America's relationships with some rather important countries. China, India, and Turkey – Russia's primary oil customers – would face prohibitive trade barriers. The notion that America could simply cease trading with China, which is what the 100 per cent tariffs would result in, defies economic reality, as it became clear in the wake of Trump's trade war earlier this year. Similarly, alienating India at a time when Washington needs Delhi's support against Beijing seems strategically myopic. The issue of Turkey would also present an absurd scenario: sanctioning a Nato ally whose cooperation is essential for American interests in Syria and the Caucasus. Perhaps most tellingly, removing five million barrels of Russian oil from global markets would trigger precisely the kind of price surge that Trump has spent years promising to avoid. With no spare production capacity to replace Russian crude in the short to medium term, American motorists would face soaring fuel costs just as inflation begins to bite harder. For a president who campaigned on economic competence, this would look like a self-damaging strategy. Ironically, Trump's threat has already delivered Putin an unexpected gift: it has effectively neutered congressional efforts to impose more serious sanctions. Senate Majority Leader John Thune announced on Monday that he would postpone advancing a bipartisan sanctions package that boasted 85 Senate co-sponsors. The senators' bill would have imposed even more severe, but equally prohibitive, tariffs – 500 per cent rather than 100 per cent. More importantly, though, it would have codified existing sanctions within a congressional framework, preventing future presidents from simply lifting them by declining to extend emergency powers. The bill also included provisions to exclude countries supporting Ukraine from the sanctions, potentially redirecting Russian oil flows and forcing Moscow to sell below the agreed price cap. Instead, the Senate has put the legislation on ice and seems unlikely to revisit it soon. Putin could hardly have asked for a better outcome. As theatre director Konstantin Stanislavsky once famously told his unconvincing actors, 'I don't believe you.' The markets appear to share this assessment. Trump's tariffs threat represents a change in rhetoric rather than substance. Moscow's mockery, therefore, may be justified. Putin has called Trump's bluff before and emerged victorious. With economic reality, political constraints, and America's own strategic interests all working in his favour, the Russian president may well have calculated that he can afford to laugh at yet another American ultimatum. The question isn't whether Putin will blink – it's whether Trump's threats will prove any more substantial than his previous deadlines. Moscow's confidence suggests they know the answer.
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
What to know about the latest twists in the Trump, Epstein saga
"We have just filed a POWERHOUSE Lawsuit against everyone involved in publishing the false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS 'article' in the useless 'rag' that is, The Wall Street Journal," Trump wrote on social media. He filed the lawsuit the day after directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce more Epstein documents amid public clamor for the records - a fascination Trump said he doesn't understand about what he called a "pretty boring" case. And on July 19, Trump doubted the upcoming records release will satisfy his critics. "It will always be more, more, more," Trump said on social media. Here's what to know about the latest developments in Trump's dealings with the continued interest in the disgraced financier and convicted sex offender who died in a Manhattan jail cell in 2019 while awaiting trial on federal sex trafficking charges. What does Trump want? Trump wants $10 billion in damages from the Wall Street Journal, its parent company, owner and two reporters claiming libel and slander. A $10 billion award would far exceed the largest defamation judgments and settlements in recent history, according to Reuters. More: Trump sues WSJ, Rupert Murdoch and two reporters for Epstein letter story To win, Trump has to prove the Wall Street Journal acted with "actual malice," a standard set by the Supreme Court in 1964. The court in March declined an appeal from top Republican donor and former casino magnate Steve Wynn asking the court to overturn that ruling. What did the Wall Street Journal report? At issue is a story published July 17 describing a letter from Trump that the Journal wrote was part of a leather-bound birthday book with dozens of other letters that was presented to Epstein in 2003. Trump's letter ends with "Happy Birthday -- and may every day be another wonderful secret," according to the report. Trump's signature on the letter, which was written in the form of text inside a hand-drawn outline of a nude woman, is "a squiggly 'Donald' below her waist, mimicking pubic hair," according to the Journal. How has the Wall Street Journal responded to Trump's lawsuit? A Dow Jones spokesperson said July 18 that the Wall Street Journal stands by its story. "We have full confidence in the rigor and accuracy of our reporting, and will vigorously defend against any lawsuit," the spokesperson said. More: Trump's team promised transparency on Epstein. Here's what they delivered. What new Epstein files does Trump want released? After Trump on July 17 directed Bondi to produce more Epstein documents, federal prosecutors followed up with a motion filed July 18 in federal court in Manhattan seeking to unseal grand jury transcripts in the criminal cases against Epstein and his former associate Ghislaine Maxwell. "Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval," Trump wrote on social media. More: At Trump's request, Justice Department asks court to release Epstein grand jury records Epstein's federal sex-trafficking case was still pending when he was found dead in a jail cell in 2019. It was a partial about-face for Trump, after his Justice Department released a memo July 7 saying no further Epstein disclosure was warranted. But it's not clear what portion of the government's Epstein files are taken up by that testimony. When will the new information become public? It could take time for the courts to release any records, and the grand jury documents are just a portion of the unreleased files. "What about videos, photographs and other recordings?" Democratic Rep. Daniel Goldman, a former prosecutor, wrote on social media in response to Bondi saying she'd seek the release of grand jury testimony. "What about FBI... (witness interviews)? What about texts and emails?" Meanwhile, Congress also is considering another, non-binding, resolution calling for the release of Epstein records. The House Rules Committee advanced the resolution July 17 on a party-line vote. Democrats opposed the measure because it is non-binding. What Epstein information was previously released? Trump previously accused the Biden administration of hiding a list of Epstein clients. he Department of Justice teased that more files would be coming out, but then on July 7, Bondi said there was no client list and no further disclosure was needed. More: Jeffrey Epstein had no 'client list,' died by suicide, DOJ and FBI conclude That led to a wave of backlash from Trump's MAGA base. More: Trump bows to Epstein critics clamoring for more records. Will it calm MAGA's fury? What was Trump's reletionship with Epstein? Trump's association with Epstein, whom he knew socially, has dogged him since his first term in office. In 2019, Trump said he'd had a "falling out" with Epstein, whom he described as a "Palm Beach fixture," in the mid-2000s. Trump hasn't explained why, but a 2019 Washington Post story describes a power struggle the two men had that year over an oceanfront Palm Beach mansion. In 2022, Trump called Epstein a "terrific guy." "He's a lot of fun to be with," Trump told New York magazine. "It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side." Is Trump in the Epstein files? Trump has already appeared in legal documents concerning Epstein's crimes, but never in a way that implicates him. In the 1990s, Trump rode on aircraft owned by Epstein, according to flight logs released in two lawsuits. But that was 30-plus years ago. In Palm Beach County state attorney documents, an image of a message pad communication seized in a Palm Beach police search appeared, but there is nothing more than Trump's name and a phone number. Contributing: Aysha Bagchi, Joey Garrison, Zac Anderson, Swapna Venugopal Ramaswamy, Kinsey Crowly, Holly Baltz.
The National
2 hours ago
- The National
'Vulnerability' left in UK constitution after UKIMA review
The Internal Market Act (UKIMA) faced fierce criticism from devolved administrations when it was introduced in 2020 to regulate trade within the UK following EU withdrawal. They argued it enabled Westminster to override devolved decision-making in areas such as public health and food standards in pursuit of a unified UK market. After winning power in 2024, the Labour Government announced it would be reviewing the legislation. The findings of the UKIMA review were published last Tuesday. The review introduced procedural changes – including a mechanism to fast-track exclusions from the act where the economic impact is less than £10 million per year – and pledged to prioritise the use of common frameworks, post-Brexit agreements intended to manage formerly EU-governed policy areas collaboratively. READ MORE: Lesley Riddoch: I was steered by BBC bosses on how to report. I ignored it However, the review's changes are not legally binding and could easily be reversed, Professor Thomas Horsley, a constitutional law expert at the University of Liverpool, said. 'All they've done is said, 'these legal powers that exist, we commit politically to exercise them in accordance with what we agree in the common frameworks',' Horsley said. 'But that is a political commitment, and we all know that intergovernmental commitments can be – even the strongest ones – can be disregarded by a particular recalcitrant government in London. 'So the constitutional vulnerability, if you want to put it like that, remains.' He also said the £10m threshold below which UKIMA exclusions would be fast-tracked was a 'low bar', noting that it could be met by the turnover of a single company. Following the publication of Labour's review, both the SNP Government in Edinburgh and the Welsh Government in Cardiff welcomed changes to the exclusions process – but called for UKIMA to be fully repealed. Welsh Deputy First Minister Huw Irranca-Davies (Image: Welsh Government) Huw Irranca-Davies, the Deputy First Minister of Wales, said: 'We particularly welcome the commitment to implement any exclusions agreed via common frameworks, which should improve the functioning of the UK internal market. The common frameworks operate on a clear set of principles which fully respect devolution and include dispute resolution mechanisms. 'However, it is our long-standing and consistent view that the act should be repealed and replaced with a system, underpinned by legislation, designed around the common frameworks.' Scottish Constitution Secretary Angus Robertson hit out in stronger terms, saying UKIMA 'introduces radical new uncertainty as to the effect of laws passed by the Scottish Parliament and effectively provides a veto to UK ministers'. 'Nothing set out in the UK Government's response to the review changes this position, which is completely unacceptable,' he went on. READ MORE: Kate Forbes calls for Internal Market Act to be scrapped 'The conclusion of the review falls well short of our stated position of repeal and replace UKIMA, and indeed short of the legislative change required to mitigate the most damaging aspects of the operation of UKIMA.' Horsley said he could understand the argument being made by the devolved governments, that the 'common frameworks can do it all' and UKIMA is unnecessary. 'It is precarious because if things don't get agreed through the common frameworks – or a future UK Government decides, well, these political commitments we made, we're changing our mind – the legal powers are still there,' he said. 'This review doesn't change the legal framework, it just says, wait a minute, we're going to park it in the background and we're going to try and work using more intergovernmental political mechanisms, the common frameworks.' However, Horsley said that although the Labour Government's review has resulted only in political pledges, it was 'definitely a move in the right direction and a move that speaks to the ambition of the UK Government to reset relations'. He went on: 'There are other parts of UKIMA which are just not discussed. [The devolved governments] would like to reopen discussions around the direct payments that can be made from London in devolved areas. So there are things that are not so narrowly related to intratrade that are still rubbing up wounds. 'But in terms of just narrowly looking at UKIMA and the market access principles, there are some positive things there and some clear commitments from the UK Government towards more consensual policy making … which is very different to obviously the more abrasive approach which preceded under previous governments.' READ MORE: John Swinney sets out 3-point plan for fresh independence push In late 2024, Horsley was one of four constitutional legal experts to co-author a report on UKIMA which concluded that reform of the legislation was 'essential to restore intergovernmental trust'. Asked if Labour's review had provided that essential reform, he said: 'What this review shows is that there is more work to be done, but it's around those common frameworks. 'It's now shifting the attention to making the common frameworks work. These are not off-the-shelf things that are super functioning and solve all the problems. 'So the work between the governments now is going to have to be making those common frameworks work.' Douglas Alexander is UK Trade Policy Minister (Image: UK Parliament) After the review was published, UK Trade Policy Minister Douglas Alexander acknowledged there were 'real concerns' about how the laws have operated, and pledged "improvements'. Alexander stressed the importance of having a 'well-functioning UK internal market' as part of the Government's 'ambition to improve economic growth for the benefit of businesses and people in all parts of our country'. He added: 'Latest figures show that trade between the four nations of the UK is valued at £129 billion and that it is particularly important to the economies of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.'
