You have to admire the chutzpah of Apple TV+. They’ve chosen to make an eight-part miniseries out of the towering intellectual-slash-action figure of Benjamin Franklin – the son of a Boston candlemaker, who ran away to Philadelphia at 17 and rose to become one of the US’s founding fathers, via polymathic stints as a printer, publisher, inventor, writer and scientist. And they’ve based it on what was surely one of the least televisual accomplishments of his entire storied career.

Franklin (whose eponymous hero is played by Michael Douglas) is adapted from the historian Stacy Schiff’s 2005 book A Great Improvisation: Franklin, France and the Birth of America. It tells the story of the then 70-year-old statesman’s unofficial eight-year-long series of negotiations with the Gallic great and good, beginning in 1776 as America’s losses in the revolutionary war looked set to crush the young nation before it had fairly begun. Over to Paris hops Benjamin in the hope that the – well, let’s call them longstanding contretemps – between the French and the English would help him persuade the former to provide money, weapons and other supplies to the beleaguered seekers after independence.

His teenage grandson Temple (Noah Jupe) accompanies him – not his son, William, because he is a wellknown loyalist (and the less charming Frenchmen Franklin meets like to bring this shame up from time to time). Temple learns a lot about diplomacy and even more about fashion and fornication as he is taken under the wing of the Marquis de Lafayette (later to become a hero of révolutions américaine et française and more importantly, a star in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s Hamilton), played by Théodore Pellerin. Metaphors about seduction and chess abound as grandfather tries to keep the boy’s focus on their real mission.

Unfortunately for the viewer, that mission is composed mostly of meetings. Some more clandestine than others, but mostly in virtually indistinguishable chateaux with virtually indistinguishable French ministers and rich men. Those we do learn to pick out – such as the secretly sympathetic foreign minister Comte de Vergennes (Thibault de Montalembert) and the wealthy merchant Chaumont (Olivier Claverie), who decides to help fund US independence for the trading opportunities that would result – too often get sidelined by lesser characters. We spend too much time with the pawns in this monumental chess game, when we would really rather be concentrating on the alliances and treacheries among the main pieces.

Franklin is dogged by the same slight but dreary sense of worthiness that attended Apple’s other recent foray into US period drama, the meticulous Manhunt (about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, the conspiracy behind it, and – almost as a distasteful afterthought – the capture and trial of his killer, John Wilkes Booth). This time, though, it doesn’t even have the background pursuit of a murderer to keep things moving. Douglas is wholly convincing as the experienced but idiosyncratic statesman and 18th-century celebrity. And he has his usual undeniable presence (so compelling but always with a hint of creepiness at the edges). But Franklin himself was wearying by this point in his illustrious career and it feels as though we are concentrating on the wrong part of his astonishing story. And when Congress becomes frustrated with Franklin’s perceived lack of progress and send John Adams (Eddie Marsan) over instead, Douglas/Franklin has to join le comte and Chaumont towards the sidelines too.

Doubtless it plays slightly better in its native land, where Franklin’s more immediately interesting and understandable accomplishments are better known. It probably feels more like a wrong being righted as an underacknowledged period of the national hero’s life is given its due. Whether this is quite enough to bring the punters in and satisfy the expectations for entertainment they have – mostly rightly – come to expect from Apple TV+, I am not nearly so sure.

Most of life on Earth is not like us at all. Barely 5% of all known living creatures are animals with backbones. The rest – at least 1.3 million species, and many more still to be discovered – are spineless. They are the invertebrates, animals of wondrous diversity, unique niches and innovative and interesting ways of making a living on this planet, which include insects (at least a million), arachnids, snails, crustaceans, corals, jellyfish, sponges and echinoderms.

And yet, despite their numerical advantage, originality and dazzling charisma, invertebrates are usually overlooked in favour of animals that more closely resemble ourselves. So, over the last two weeks, we’ve gone in search of the UK’s invertebrate of the year, and profiled 10 different invertebrates – plus the invertebrate nominated by readers, Lumbricus terrestris, the common earthworm.

And if you need a reminder of them, here they are: glowworm, Clifden nonpareil, swallowtail, Asian or yellow-legged hornet, barrel jellyfish, St Piran’s hermit crab, distinguished jumping spider, ash-black slug, minotaur beetle, shrill carder bee and the common earthworm.

And now we’re asking you to choose your favourite by clicking on one of the options below. In reality, of course, they are all winners, and we are winners, too, lucky enough to share the Earth with these amazing creatures.

As one reader, James Chisnall, put it: “It’s important to remember it’s not just our planet, and everything from the largest to the smallest deserves our respect and its place on this sphere we call home.”

Voting ends at 8am BST on Monday 15 April, after which the votes will be tallied and the champion invertebrate will be crowned.

Shell has argued that it “lobbies for, not against, the energy transition” on the final day of its appeal against an important climate ruling.

The fossil fuel company is fighting the decision of a Dutch court in 2021 that forces it to pump 45% less planet-heating CO₂ into the atmosphere by 2030 than it did in 2019. In court on Friday, Shell argued the ruling is ineffective, onerous and does not fit into the existing legal system.

Lawyers for Milieudefensie (Friends of the Earth Netherlands), which brought the case against Shell, repeated their calls for the company to act in line with climate science and international agreements to stop extreme weather from growing more violent. They said the outcome of the case will determine how much the climate changes.

“It’s not just about Shell,” said Donald Pols, the Milieudefensie chief executive, after the hearing. “We want to hold all companies accountable – to combat dangerous climate change.”

Shell argued in court that it plays its role in energy transition and pointed to the lobbying it had done in favour of climate policies such as the EU emissions-trading scheme and the US Inflation Reduction Act.

Milieudefensie said it was “quite clear” that Shell had used its social influence to safeguard the role of oil and gas and that it had continued to do so with its policies. In recent months, Shell has backtracked on a series of clean energy ambitions.

“I think it’s a little bit far-fetched from Shell to argue they are in favour of the energy transition, at least to the extent of being in line with the Paris agreement,” said Roger Cox, Milieudefensie’s lawyer in the case.

The appeal wraps up just days after the European court of human rights sided with a group of 2,400 Swiss women who sued their government over its climate policy.

Both Shell and Milieudefensie cited the Swiss case to support their arguments on Friday. Shell argued that the decision of the 17 Strasbourg judges showed it was up to states, rather than companies, to rein in emissions. Milieudefensie said it showed that “judges have an important role to play in the complex debate on preventing dangerous climate change”.

A report last week found that 57 companies are linked to 80% of carbon emissions since 2016, though the bulk of that comes from their customers burning the fuels they sell.

At the appeal, Milieudefensie argued that Shell should not achieve the original emissions reduction target by simply selling off fossil fuel assets, which may then land in the hands of companies with less public scrutiny and dirtier operations. Shell argued that the original ruling gave it the freedom to do so and said the activist group had failed to contest this point by lodging a cross-appeal.

Frans Everts, director of Shell in the Netherlands, said in the company’s closing remarks that he was concerned by the “unintended consequences” of the lawsuit. He said the activists wanted to limit the supply of Shell’s products before its customers are “able, willing or ready to switch to less fossil fuels”.

He said: “As long as the demand for these products doesn’t change – and people can just go to the competitor – there is not one less carbon molecule in the air. And without a clean alternative to oil and gas products, the energy transition will not benefit either.”

In 2021, after evidence for the original case was filed, the International Energy Agency published a report on reaching net zero emissions by 2050 that found no room for new oil and gas exploration. Companies including Shell have since continued to invest in new oil and gas fields despite protests from climate scientists and activists.

A verdict is expected on 12 November 2024.

A carer who says he was “dragged through the courts” and had to sell his home to pay back almost £20,000 in benefit overpayments is fighting to clear his name after the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) acknowledged he made an innocent mistake.

George Henderson, 64, said he made a gain of just 30p a week while claiming carer’s allowance for his son John, who has learning difficulties and is addicted to heroin. He now costs the Treasury £1,000 a month more in benefits, having become homeless and too unwell to work.

Henderson said he was left suicidal after being prosecuted by the DWP, which accused him of fraudulently claiming the benefit for six years while he was caring for John, who is now 42.

He wrongly ticked a box saying he was unemployed while filling in the “tricky” application form for carer’s allowance in 2010. “I thought they were asking about John,” he told the Guardian.

The DWP has records of him working as a taxi driver since 2002, earning about £7.50 an hour. Yet it took more than six years for anyone at the department to tell him he was claiming the benefit incorrectly.

By that point he had claimed £19,506.20 – about £60 a week. The DWP not only wanted it all back but also prosecuted him for fraud. Investigators said he had lied about having a job and had ignored annual letters reminding him to report any changes in circumstances.

He protested his innocence but was found guilty. In 2018, a judge at Preston crown court gave him a 32-week suspended sentence and ordered him to wear an electronic tag for 16 weeks.

Never in trouble with the law before, Henderson found it humiliating having the tag fitted and suddenly having a 9pm curfew. “My stomach was churning watching them putting it on,” he said. “I just felt helpless, embarrassed, degraded … I’d been dragged through the courts like a criminal, and I’m not.”

Afterwards, he received letters from the DWP every three weeks demanding he sell his two-bed former council house to pay the debt or face a seven-month jail term, he said.

Henderson eventually sold the property for £115,000, and after paying off his mortgage and the DWP he was left with just £6,000. “It breaks my heart,” he said. “I’ve been back and looked at [the house] twice and I’ve actually broke down and cried.”

His mental health deteriorated to the point that he attempted to kill himself and became seriously unwell. “I’d lost four stone. You could actually see my ribcage.”

Henderson is one of a number of carers the Guardian has spoken to after exposing how people looking after disabled, frail or ill relatives are being forced to repay huge sums to the government and threatened with criminal prosecution after unwittingly breaching earnings rules by just a few pounds a week.

The government is facing calls to overhaul the system after the Guardian revealed that tens of thousands of unpaid carers are facing severe fines, some over £20,000, for relatively modest and unintentional breaches of rules branded “cruel and nonsensical”.

John, Henderson’s middle child, was born healthy but lost most of his hearing and developed disabilities after contracting measles aged three. He was unable to manage living independently as an adult, particularly after becoming addicted to heroin, and so moved in with his father.

Initially, John was claiming disability benefits worth about £60 a week. But Henderson soon realised that John’s drug dealers would wait by the cashpoint each week when he was paid, taking his money off him for heroin.

Henderson claimed that in 2010 a DWP official came to the house to assess John and they discussed the pros and cons of claiming carer’s allowance instead.

The new benefit was worth 30p a week more but meant Henderson could receive the money into his bank account and pay it to his son as a daily allowance, with the aim of stopping it being taken by the heroin dealers.

After his conviction in 2017, Henderson tried and failed to appeal. He was left homeless and had to be housed by the local council in sheltered accommodation, at a cost to the public purse. Too unwell to work, he now relies on universal credit, receiving £1,300 a month to cover his housing and living costs.

“Believe it or not, when I moved in I couldn’t get in and out of the bath because I’ve got two hip replacements and I’ve got a serious spinal condition. So it cost them £7,000 to put in a wet room. It’s costing them the universal credit. It’s absolutely ludicrous. It’s actually cost the taxpayer or the government money by doing this,” he said.

Recently, Henderson decided to try to clear his name and wrote to Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary. Last month he received a letter from the DWP apologising for his ordeal but refusing to give him the money back.

The letter said: “The appeal conceded that you were a convincing and credible witness [and] it was more probable than not that you were telling the truth and that the false declaration was an innocent mistake.”

It went on: “I am so sorry that you feel that experiences with DWP have contributed to your financial problems, severe emotional trauma and mental health.”

Henderson refuses to accept the apology. “It’s not addressing what I need addressed,” he said. “Why did it take six years to find that I ticked the box incorrectly? Why not in the first year? Then it would be acceptable. I would have been able to pay the first year, I made a mistake.”

A DWP spokesperson said: “We are committed to fairly supporting all those who need the welfare system, while fulfilling our duty to treating taxpayers’ money responsibly.

“Claimants have a responsibility to inform DWP of any changes in their circumstances that could impact their award, and it is right that we recover taxpayers’ money when this has not occurred. We will work with those who need support with their repayment terms whilst protecting the public purse.”