Three women dedicated their working lives to protecting and supporting society’s most vulnerable. At home, however, each lived with the constant fear that she might not survive.

Helen Duncanson, an ambulance worker, refers almost casually to “the time he came at me with a claw hammer” as our interview draws to a close.

By then, Helen, 41, has already described the catalogue of abuse inflicted by her former partner: being strangled until she lost consciousness, enduring sustained psychological torment and financial control, and being locked out of her home. On one occasion, she was forced to sleep in her freezing car before reporting for duty the next morning to help save other people’s lives.

Karen Haynes, a 54-year-old primary school teacher, endured almost three decades of torment at the hands of her headteacher husband. To the outside world he appeared to be a respected pillar of the community. In private, he claimed that his Freemason connections meant he could arrange her murder. “One call; one bullet,” he told her.

Kirsty Pellant, 46, had built an impressive career as a school safeguarding lead and was widely respected. That changed when parents were confronted with entirely fabricated allegations portraying her as a sexual predator who sold herself online under the name “Slutty Teacher”.

The man responsible was a teacher at her school, but Kirsty had never been in a relationship with him. By stealing her identity, wrecking her career and making even a trip to the supermarket feel terrifying, he transformed her life.

His vicious stalking campaign eventually drove men to turn up at Kirsty’s home in Kent. A judge later described the case as the worst example of its kind he had ever encountered.

All three women eventually found the strength to report their abusers to police. What followed was years of navigating a justice system they say proved punishing in its own right.

When their abusers were finally sent to prison, all three women felt an enormous sense of relief—not only for themselves, but for others who might otherwise have been targeted.

Today, though, none of them feels truly safe. The controversial Progression Model, introduced to reduce prison overcrowding by releasing thousands of offenders before the end of their sentences, began this week. The first 700 prisoners have been freed, with around 3,800 more due to follow in 10 phased releases by next June.

Helen, Kirsty and Karen are among the thousands of victims warned that their attackers may soon be back in the community. “We’re sitting ducks,” Helen says, fearing what could happen next. “What if he comes back to kill me?”

As we speak, Helen has been watching television images of the first prisoners leaving jail. Some punched the air, celebrated their release and thanked Prime Minister Andy Burnham.

“Thank you, mate… I appreciate it,” one jubilant inmate said as he left HMP Brixton after serving only a third of his sentence, when asked whether he had a message for the Prime Minister.

“I had to switch it off. I can’t watch it,” Helen says. “It feels as though they’re saying, ‘We’ve won.’”

Kirsty fears the consequences will be even more devastating. “The Government is using us as guinea pigs. They keep saying these men can be recalled to prison if something happens, but don’t they understand that by then a victim may already have been hurt again? I simply can’t believe what they’re doing.”

“What is the point of justice? Why do we have judges? Why are we bothering? Are women’s lives really worth so little?” Public anger intensified as details of the scheme emerged. Following widespread protests—including those triggered by the possible early release of PC Andrew Harper’s killers—Mr Burnham announced a partial reversal, saying rapists, sex offenders and people convicted of unlawful killing would be excluded.

Domestic abusers and stalkers, however, remain eligible for early release.

Which leaves an awful lot of victims, mostly women, terrified, angry, feeling let down by the authorities – and fearing for their lives all over again.

Helen, who lives near York, has been told that her tormentor, Michael Boyes – a man who, even before she met him, had 20 previous convictions, including for domestic abuse – may be free as early as March.

By then he will have served just 14 months of a three-and-a-half year sentence. When he was jailed in January, after admitting assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and controlling or coercive behaviour against Helen, the judge described what she had been through at his hands as ‘mental torture’ and imposed a ten-year restraining order.

Words can’t adequately convey what he did to Helen but he specialised in torture relating to memories of her mother. He once strangled her to the point of unconsciousness with a necklace her late mum had bought her. ‘I was so stupid, thinking, “don’t break, don’t break” because my mum had bought it’, she tells me.

He also smashed other prized gifts from her after forcing Helen to get on her hands and knees to beg him not to. She did. He smashed them anyway.

Helen attempted suicide towards the end of her ordeal, ‘and then he laughed at me for not even being able to kill myself properly. He told me no one cared about me. He told me no one would ever listen.’

How did she finally free herself? She tells me she said ‘enough’ on the night he insisted she return from a 12-hour ambulance shift to have his dinner on the table at 8pm. ‘He wanted steak pie, potatoes and veg, all cooked from scratch. I did it, and when he still wasn’t home by 10pm, something broke in me. I locked the doors.

‘It’s ludicrous really, I nearly let him kill me and the thing that broke the camel’s back was a steak pie.’

It took extraordinary courage for Helen to go to the police. She only did so because a colleague asked how she would feel if he went on to hurt another woman, or kill her?

It took even more courage for her to start rebuilding her life. Despite suffering from PTSD and having a demanding job, Helen enrolled in a degree course when she finally gained her freedom, celebrating the fact she could at last make independent decisions.

‘I thought there would be at least a few years of respite from fearing for my life and I could just get my head down, study, just breathe for a bit. I’m devastated, and so angry. I simply don’t understand how the Government can overrule a judge.’ Kirsty’s stalker – former paratrooper turned teacher Jonathan Bates, 54 – was sentenced to five years in prison in January 2025 for his crimes. She has been told he could be out as early as January.

Her sentence is ongoing. Her career in education is over. ‘I couldn’t go back,’ she tells me.

She is still having therapy – and still finding vile images purporting to be her online.

Karen, who lives in Port Talbot, also tried to take her own life, 28 years of an abusive marriage having convinced her that it was the only way out.

Her ex Christopher Haynes, a headteacher, had chosen what she wore, where she went, even what music she could listen to.

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE: Former NBA Star J.R. Smith Accused of Attacking Woman in Court Filing

His torture took place in full view. She describes him once asking a pub landlord to play Evil Woman on the sound system, telling all and sundry it was her favourite song.

The abuse was ‘insidious’, starting with him pinning her against the wall, threatening to kill any other man who looked at her, but descended into threats against Karen herself.

He threatened to ‘rip me limb from limb’ or ‘annihilate’ me. ‘He loved that word.’

Haynes revelled in the fear he inflicted, once telling her: ‘I am the best sociopath there ever was. You don’t even know what I am capable of.’

By 2021 Haynes, who would frequently pass out in a drunken haze, had become obsessed with serial killers.

That Christmas Day, he ‘threatened to blow my brains out’. Karen recorded the tirade.

Unknown to her, her daughter Ella had been standing outside the bedroom, recording too. ‘Mum, I thought he was going to kill you,’ she said.

The Christmas Day threats to Karen ended when an emergency responder overheard her daughter say, ‘Mum, he’s going to shoot you’, and told her to get out of the house. Armed police were there within minutes.

There was no shortage of incriminating messages and evidence but it still took over four years for this case to come to trial. He was sentenced to 21 months in prison. She knew he wouldn’t serve that, ‘but I thought we’d at least have one Christmas without having to worry about panic alarms’.

Now, she has been told he could be out by next month. ‘This is a man who spent nearly three decades controlling me. He got more dangerous towards the end, which is a recognised pattern with coercive control. Don’t they realise that these men are more dangerous when they have been challenged, when someone has stood up to them? These are the men who go on to kill.’

Karen simply will not hang around to see how dangerous her new situation might be. She is taking extraordinary steps to secure her own freedom.

She and her children – she has a 26-year-old daughter and a 17-year-old son with Haynes – are packing up and moving away from Britain completely.

She won’t say where they are going, for safety reasons, but the house is on the market.

She plans to change her name and start a whole new life. And her rage is palpable.

‘This Government has let women like me down,’ she says. ‘It feels like a gut punch. I’ve spent 30 years working in the public sector. I’ve given my life to the Government. People like me have done everything asked of us and more. And where are they when we need some protection?’

Helen feels similarly abandoned. ‘The Government asked us all to put our lives on the line in Covid – and yet when we want protection, no one is there for us.

‘They sit in their big Government houses and they have no idea what it’s like.

‘Well, I’ll tell you this: if anything happens to me, I don’t want anyone from the Government going to my family and apologising and saying “mistakes were made”.’

Of course, these women are carrying difficult pasts and unthinkable emotional baggage – but that is the point. Domestic abuse charities are seeing these sorts of fears multiplied and warning of a crisis to come.

According to Women’s Aid, nearly 79 per cent of victim support organisations have reported that survivors were frightened for their children’s safety.

Meanwhile, Alice Russell-Harris of Refuge has called on ministers to pause the early release of abusers until ‘necessary safeguarding measures, risk assessments and adequately resourced services are in place to properly support survivors’.

The Government insists that offenders released early will remain under intensive supervision subject to licence conditions and, where appropriate, electronic monitoring and exclusion zones.

It has also announced extra victim support and investment in probation. That doesn’t wash with these women. ‘Have they tried to get a panic alarm?’ asks Karen.

‘Oh yes you can get one – until the police ask for it back because there aren’t enough to go round. You might, if you are lucky, get a police patrol to swing by – but only for a time because they are overstretched.’

The speed with which this has been swept through has not helped. The goalposts have been moved with little warning, little clarification. Kirsty says she has sympathy with her probation liaison officer ‘who doesn’t seem to know much himself’.

While Kirsty and Karen initially received generic letters warning them about the possibility of early release, Helen had to phone her probation liaison officer to discover the timeline for her abuser.

‘I actually phoned up because I’d been told he could be eligible for release in September – about halfway through his sentence. They said, “Actually it now looks like March”. I said “What?”

‘But I haven’t been able to clarify anything. The idea that victims are kept informed is a joke.’

Nor is she comforted by the idea that her attacker would be tagged and police informed if he broke the terms of his licence. ‘At what point would they know? When he was in my house?’ she asks.

There is another obvious question in Kirsty’s case. ‘How do you electronically monitor a man whose offending was carried out online. How can you possibly know what my abuser is doing online?’

A more chilling point, too. ‘These men were deemed so dangerous that they needed to be off the streets. What has changed? No one can tell us that.

‘They’ve gone on some list saying, “Oh, he’s fine for release”, but this is the same person that a judge, having looked at the specifics, having examined all the evidence of this individual, said needed to be in prison.’

All these women understand there is a prison crisis. What they do not think is fair is that they’re being asked to absorb the risk because of Government failings.

‘I just read about someone in my area being sent to prison for having a cannabis farm,’ says Kirsty.

‘So they are still sending offenders there. Why does that person need a space and my abuser doesn’t? Why are there still offenders in prison for non-payment of fines. I believe that anyone who has harmed another human being should not be part of this scheme.’

Perhaps the Government will move to allay fears. Although any changes of policy will come too late for Karen.

At the end of our conversation, I say that it’s simply extraordinary that the UK is losing a primary school teacher because she no longer feels safe in her own home.

‘And a nurse,’ she points out. ‘My daughter, who is coming with me, is a nurse. She has no more faith in the system than I do.’

As the Green Party gathers for its conference this weekend, leader Zack Polanski might appear to have plenty of reasons for confidence.

A little more than a year after taking charge, the former hypnotherapist, who once specialised in breast-enlargement treatments, has energised the party and helped drive a sharp rise in its polling support.

Under his leadership, the Greens have secured a high-profile by-election victory and taken control of numerous councils. Next week, Polanski will also have the chance to unseat Labour in former Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Holborn and St Pancras constituency and enter Parliament himself.

His progress has been built on recasting the Greens from a niche environmental movement into a leading force on the British hard Left.

Yet that transformation could now create his most serious political challenge, as 4,000 delegates meet at the Brighton Centre for the party’s conference.

Many of the newer members are strongly opposed to Israel, and some have questioned whether Polanski—the only Jewish leader of a major UK political party—takes a sufficiently hard line on the issue.

Polanski has repeatedly described Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks as “genocide”. Even so, hardliners within the party have long voiced concerns about his Jewish identity. One leaked message in a Green WhatsApp group claimed he had been unable to break with his Jewish background or “Zionist indoctrination”.

Against that backdrop, critics believe his opponents at the conference have devised what they regard as a test of his position on Israel and Zionism—a “Zack Trap”.

If he fails that test in their eyes, it is widely expected that some members will attempt to remove him as leader.

The dispute centres on an activist-backed motion titled “Zionism is Racism”. Its supporters have campaigned aggressively for the proposal, while critics accuse them of promoting anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and misinformation about the October 7 atrocities. The motion now has substantial backing among party members.

It argues that support for Zionism—the belief that the Jewish people should have a state in their ancestral homeland—should be “treated as any other form of racism”.

If adopted, the policy would place Polanski in the position of treating his own mother and other relatives, who have previously expressed support for Israel, as racists.

The proposal could also make membership difficult for practising Jews, as many belong to synagogues that identify with Zionism and could therefore face immediate suspicion within the party.

The motion has another contentious element: it calls for support for Palestinian “resistance” against “occupation” by “all available means, including armed struggle”. Critics argue that this wording amounts to endorsing violence by terrorist organisation Hamas.

The motion was initially submitted to the Green Party’s spring conference in late March, but time ran out before delegates could debate it. Its supporters blamed what they described as a “Zionist” effort to block the proposal.

Its removal from the agenda was likely a relief for Polanski, who had given an equivocal response when questioned about it before the conference, saying that the term Zionism could have different meanings.

Supporters have since returned with renewed determination, encouraging hundreds of new “entryist” members to join the party in the hope of ensuring that the motion is debated this time.

With 800 co-proposers, it is now the most widely supported motion in the history of the Green Party conference. However, its prominence has also caused deep unease among sections of the party.

Some of the old guard, recognising that the Zionism is Racism motion is undeniably racist and could affect the party’s popularity, have put forward a counter-motion called Building a Consensus for Palestinian Liberation with the aim of uniting the party.

While it agrees Israel is a genocidal country, it does not call for it to be dismantled and says it favours peaceful resistance over violence.

This has infuriated the pro-Palestine cohort. The Daily Mail can reveal that in an online workshop on Tuesday night to fight off the counter-motion, a series of extreme amendments were agreed upon which would make it as inflammatory as the original.

One agreed upon was that anyone who calls themselves a Zionist should be regarded as a ‘far Right or religious extremist’ who needs to be reported to Prevent, the government’s counter-extremism programme. 

(This is despite the Green Party’s own policy to scrap Prevent, which it says disproportionately targeted Muslims and reinforces the idea that Islam is inherently linked to terrorism.)

Another amendment states that ‘anyone who voluntarily relocates to Israel is inciting the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians’.

This poses another problem for Mr Polanski, who has relatives in Israel.

The entire row threatens to break up the Greens and has left Mr Polanski, whose election leaflets in Holborn and St Pancras feature a flag of Palestine, ‘in a bit of a pickle’ said one Jewish Green Party member with a level of understatement.

Shahrar Ali, a former deputy leader of the Greens, said that by allying himself with the ‘hard-Left and Islamists’ Mr Polanski has created a ‘monster’ which threatens to destroy him. 

‘Conference is going to be an existential moment for Polanski, but he only has himself to blame,’ he said.

‘We now have a Palestinian mob within the party, which he has encouraged relentlessly, but they’re now turning against him because he’s not puritanical enough. 

‘He’s not ‘anti-Zionist’ enough. He has failed to recognise his own contribution to the monster that he’s created. Now he’s being turned on, and he can please nobody.’

The Zionism is Racism motion is proposed by Lubna Speitan, a British-Palestinian artist, who admits to joining the party simply to push her agenda. 

She has been drumming up support during the summer with the help of some unsavoury characters.

In an online discussion promoting the motion in July and shared on her social media, Speitan spoke with notorious firebrand Dr Shola Mos-Shogbamimu.

This was three months after Dr Mos-Shogbamimu infamously posted a social media rant criticising police officers for their use of force while trying to prise a knife from a man who had allegedly stabbed two Jewish men in North London – a post Mr Polanski shared to widespread criticism. 

During their online discussion Ms Speitan said she backed ‘armed resistance’ and that being labelled as ‘anti-Semite’, ‘Hamas supporter’ or ‘terrorist’ was a ‘badge of honour’.

She also claimed reports of Hamas rapes during the October 7 attacks were ‘disinformation and propaganda’ – despite a UN investigation finding the evidence strongly suggested such atrocities had occurred.

She nodded her support as co-host Dr Mos-Shogbamimu unleashed a string of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories, even claiming Zionists and the Israeli government had ‘allowed’ and ‘wanted’ the October 7 terror attacks to happen.

On a separate podcast to promote her motion, Ms Speitan sat beside another extremist who insisted: ‘Until we break the chains of Zionism none of us will ever be free’ and said there was no such thing as liberal Zionism: ‘You’re either with the struggle or against the struggle. You’re either with the Nazis or against the Nazis.’ 

Ms Speitan has allied herself with a group called the Anti Zionist Movement (AZM) which is run by disgraced conspiracist professor David Miller and doctor Rahmeh Aladwan, currently suspended from her NHS job because of her extreme anti-Semitism.

Polanski is certainly not pure enough for them: they have put out a leaflet called ‘Zack Polanski is a Zionist’. 

Miller has also written an article ‘outing’ the Jewish Green members in a far-Left online magazine called The Canary, which earlier this week put out a news report hinting that the Dubai-Tel Aviv plane hijacking was a ‘false flag’.

Extremists have been encouraged to join the party to back Ms Speitan’s motion, with social media posts from the Greens For Palestine group providing step-by-step guides on how to enrol, sign up for conference and then vote to ‘help make the Green Party anti-Zionist’.

One Jewish Green Party member, who said they have been offered security for the conference, told the Daily Mail this week: ‘It has gone from a party where the majority of members respected each other, even if disagreeing on an issue; at party conference we could have a heated debate on the conference floor and then we’d still socialise in the bar later. 

‘Now, there are newer members, the entryists, who are abusive and threatening towards other members, especially Jews and anyone challenging anti-Semitism.

‘These newer members are obsessed with only one issue, Palestinians, and will not engage with anyone who doesn’t pass their purity test, i.e. you have to be a vocal anti-Zionist.’

Former party deputy leader Mr Ali said none of this was surprising, accusing the Greens of ‘refusing to criticise Hamas’s terrorist tactics’ since October 7. 

‘There is a direct causal relationship with the Green focus and anti-Jewish hatred in this country,’ he added.

‘Whatever your stance on the politics of that region, to be oblivious to the impact of your words on anti-Jewish hatred is unforgivable. The way they have been campaigning on the subject is morally beyond the pale. 

‘Polanski has failed to recognise the contribution he personally has made to the rise of anti-Semitism in this country.’

Mr Polanski has tried to stay above the issue, but when asked whether Zionism was racism at a Jewish hustings for the Holborn and St Pancras by-election last week, he equivocated that the term ‘means different things to different people’.

But this time, to boos from the audience, he added: ‘If you’re defining Zionism as a displacement genocide, which in practice Zionism has become, then that is racism.’

The tilt was welcomed by Greens For Palestine as a ‘step in the right direction’. But the problem Mr Polanski has is that there is no room for nuance or hedge-sitting among most of his new party members.

Mr Ali, who is now suspended from the Greens and is suing the party, alleging discrimination for his gender-critical beliefs, said: ‘Zack understood that this motion is too extreme, even for his party.

‘While it might be popular for the hard-Left and Islamist wing, it is politically suicidal because it is so deeply problematic… Polanski has been severely damaged by this.’

The Jewish Green Party member agreed, saying: ‘This conference is very important for Zack. It could be the make or break of him depending on whether he still passes the Greens For Palestine purity test if the motion is discussed. 

‘If Zack doesn’t win the by-election I’m scared Mothin Ali will try to take over.’

The party’s deputy leader famously greeted his election as a Green councillor in Leeds by saying it was a ‘win for the people of Gaza!’ and adding: ‘We will raise the voice of Palestine. Allahu Akbar!’

He is the only senior party leader who is publicly supporting the Zionism is Racism motion and this week earnestly explained it was because it was part of the Greens’ proud tradition as an ‘anti-war’ party.

This sudden love of peace from Mr Ali might come as a surprise to anyone who saw his posts as the October 7 terror attacks were unfolding, when he appeared to enthusiastically celebrate Hamas’s actions.

But describing himself as ‘anti-Zionist’ makes Mr Ali a compelling candidate for the party’s new base.

The Green Party and Lubna Speitan were approached by the Daily Mail for comment.

Under party rules, leaders face re-election every two years. But with internal opposition growing against Polanski, even completing his full term seems increasingly unlikely.

As one disillusioned ex-Green member told the Daily Mail this week: ‘Zack has been the useful idiot for the hard-Left in the Greens. He revitalised the party and his Jewish background has been a useful foil while the hardcore got themselves organised. 

‘Now they are ready to seize full power and install Ali. And then, as far as they are concerned, the revolution will be complete.’

The Beckham family made its familiar twice-yearly trip to Paris to support Victoria as she unveiled her latest collection during Paris Fashion Week.

David Beckham was seated prominently in the front row with his children and their partners, proudly watching Victoria’s show at the Conciergerie on Boulevard du Palais. The historic venue was once a medieval royal residence before later becoming a prison during the French Revolution.

Victoria, 52, appeared visibly moved as she took her final bow, dressed in an elegant chocolate-brown suit.

In keeping with the family’s coordinated fashion tradition, Cruz’s girlfriend Jackie Apostel, Romeo’s partner Kim Turnbull and Harper all wore pieces from Victoria Beckham’s fashion label.

Friends said the family were delighted to be together for the occasion, although Brooklyn Beckham’s absence was impossible to overlook. Before the family feud, he would have been expected to support his mother at one of her most important fashion events.

Hours before the show, David appeared to extend another gesture toward his eldest son by liking a video of Brooklyn and Nicola at the MESSIKA show. However, the apparent olive branch did not lead to a reunion.

Brooklyn and his wife Nicola Peltz were not present at Victoria’s show last summer or the previous year. Instead, only a day earlier, they had been celebrating at the Grand Palais, just over a mile from the Beckham family’s gathering.

Victoria reportedly did not arrive in Paris until Friday. Meanwhile, her son Romeo, who is also believed to be estranged from Brooklyn, was enjoying an evening at the Plaza Athénée with Spanish tennis star Carlos Alcaraz, less than a mile away.

The brothers did not cross paths during their time in the French capital, a situation that reportedly came as a relief to the wider family.

A source said: “There would be no benefit to them unexpectedly meeting. Relations remain devastatingly strained.”

“Victoria’s Paris Fashion Week shows are incredibly special to her. She enjoys celebrating her work and having her family there means a great deal. Brooklyn is, of course, missed—he is always missed at major Beckham family gatherings. He used to love being part of them, but he has chosen for things to be this way.”

Earlier in the day, 15-year-old Harper, who is preparing to launch her skincare and beauty brand Harlo by Harper, posed for a selfie with her 24-year-old brother Romeo.

Romeo’s girlfriend Kim Turnbull also shared a video from her drive through Paris on Friday afternoon before dining on sushi from Matsuhisa Paris at Le Royal Monceau.

Brooklyn, 27, and Nicola, who have been married for four years, arrived in Paris earlier in the week. The couple enjoyed a date night on Wednesday before attending the Balenciaga show at the Tennis Club de Paris.

Their last appearance at one of Victoria’s fashion shows came in September 2024, only months before the family rift became public. The event was filmed for Victoria’s Netflix series, although Brooklyn and Nicola appeared only briefly.

Less than six months later, tensions escalated between Brooklyn and his parents after he reportedly skipped David’s 50th birthday celebrations.

Despite being in London they refused to join the former England captain and the rest of the family for a trip to a Bordeaux vineyard, a big do at Posh and Becks’ countryside home in the Cotswolds and a meal at Notting Hill restaurant, Core.

Friends say of the rift that there is ‘no end in sight at the moment’ after relations worsened after Brooklyn posted a six page message on Instagram where he made several heartbreaking accusation about his parents, including his Victoria hi-jacking the first dance at his wedding.

But despite her upset, former Spice Girl Victoria remained upbeat in the run up to her bit Parisienne moment

She was filmed by David as she strutted on her Stairmaster in the heels, successfully managing to balance her footwear on each step. In a video shared to Victoria’s Instagram story, David asked: ‘Darling I know it’s Fashion Week, but don’t you think you’re taking this a bit too far?

Victoria playfully responded: ‘No I’m just training.’

Her family feud aside, it has been a successful year for her. She is ecstatic after her company made a £7.3million operating profit thanks to her £104 foundation make up which was so popular it was sold out within days, leading to a waitlist list of 25,000 according to her accounts which were released last month.

Amid the ongoing family feud, David offered one more olive branch to his estranged son ahead of Victoria’s big night in the French capital.

Victoria’s fashion show has become a highlight of the glitzy event and Brooklyn and Nicola’s presence in the city sparked speculation a family reunion could be on the cards. 

David appeared to be keen to defuse the feud as he was seen liking an Instagram post of his son and Nicola attending the MESSIKA show on Thursday night. 

The clip, shared by photographer Yehiel Chekroune, showed Nicola praising the designers after watching the catwalk alongside photos of the couple at the event. 

Eagle-eyed fans noticed David liked the post, with one writing: ‘David liked this. He loves his kids. Everything’s going to be okay.’  

Elsewhere, last night, Brooklyn and his wife Nicola Peltz, whom he married in 2022, attended the Balenciaga show.

EXPLORE MORE: Petition Hits 500 Signatures Against Proposed Groveland Gun Range

Victoria and David’s eldest son tucked his newly grown out salt and pepper locks behind his ears as he arrived at the designer’s spring/summer 2027 show.

He chef rocked an untucked open collar white shirt with a loose black tie, a leather jacket and cargo trousers as he posed with beaming wife Nicola.

The actress meanwhile showed off her toned figure in a black tank top which she paired with low-rise skirt and stilettos.

The couple were all smiles as they arrived hand-in-hand before cosying up for photos at the event.

Meanwhile Brooklyn’s brother Cruz and girlfriend Jackie took to Instagram to show off their looks ahead of Victoria’s fashion show.

Filming themselves at their hotel, the pair brushed aside the family drama and instead gave fans a glimpse of the outfits they would be wearing to the show.

While Cruz opted for a trendy cream jumper, Jackie wowed as she went braless beneath a cut-out black gown from Victoria’s collection.  

Romeo also took to Instagram to share snaps from Paris ahead of Victoria’s fashion show.

While Victoria’s best friend Eva Longoria snapped a bouquet of flowers and a Victoria Beckham branded gift bag as she shared her excitement for the show. 

Victoria’s holding company – which comprises both the fashion and beauty businesses – made an operating profit of £7.3million in the year to December 2025, a huge improvement from the previous year’s figure of a £1.5million loss.

The fashion business alone made an operating profit of £1.5million thanks to a sales boost of the grey Tilly T-shirt (£110) and 1970s style Alina jeans (£395) she wore in her Netflix documentary.

Notes to the accounts, which cover the year to December 2025, say: ‘The series generated… particularly strong momentum in denim and jersey with unit sales boosted by 48 per cent and 35 per cent respectively.’

There was also an operating profit for the first time – as proudly announced to the Financial Times earlier this month.

She told the newspaper: ‘We have all worked hard for a long time for this moment of profitability and growth.

‘We’ve been very transparent about the problems that we had in the business but have recovered and are now growing at a sensible pace. After 20 years, people don’t look at my brand as a celebrity brand any more.’

But the full position is that after tax the fashion business actually made a loss of £1.7million. What’s more, there was a new loan to the fashion business of £1.5million.

Fashion is booming, but the cost of sales is still sky-high and stands at £17.5million for the fashion business, actually an increase on the previous year. The fashion brand also owes £59million to creditors.

When you include the make-up and beauty brand the figures look better. Victoria Beckham Holdings made an operating profit of £7.3million, and after-tax made a profit of £2.4million.