Garden owners rush to get 34% off ‘beautiful' Amazon fire pit for cosy evenings in the garden
The Yaheetech Fire Pit has been reduced from £79.99 to 53.19, saving 34% off.
Yaheetech Fire Pit Heavy Duty Fire Bowl
£53.19 (was £79.99)
Spending time in the garden is a must during the summer, but sometimes it can get chilly in the evenings.
A fire pit is the ultimate solution for keeping warm and cosy when relaxing once the sun's gone down.
The Yaheetech Fire Pit has an effective design, with a hexagonal shape that emits heat from six sides.
Wire mesh offers safety, so heat can escape without the risk of sparks and embers flying.
The firepit is 60.5cm wide and 62 cm high, and it's ideal for patios, balconies and outdoor seating areas.
You could also take it with you on a camping trip to experience toasting marshmallows and sitting out with a hot chocolate.
If you're hosting people for a BBQ and want to keep the party going outside, a fire pit not only helps with warmth, but also creates a cosy atmosphere.
There's also a poker, so you can move around the wood and keep the fire going safely.
The popular fire pit has made its way into the Amazon bestsellers list, with many shoppers buying it this summer - but it could now get even more tempting with the current deal saving £26.80.
More than 700 shoppers have left their feedback so far, and some are even vouching for the longevity of the fire pit after owning it for years.
One shopper said: ''This is a beautiful design firepit which really was so easy to assemble and adds that beautiful touch to the garden.''
Another shopper commented: ''I would recommend if you are looking for a fire pit that will last about five years if you store it indoors.''
While a third added: ''Loved this fire pit for keeping us warm and cosy in the cold.''
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
a few seconds ago
- Daily Mail
Cash-strapped universities will take students who missed A-level grades
Cash-strapped universities are set to usher in students who miss their grades on A-level results day next week, the boss of Ucas has said. Jo Saxton said a 'record number' of students are likely to get their first choice place, even including those that 'near-missed' their grades. It is thought universities are desperate to fill places this year to boost their coffers amid a financial crisis in the sector. Other admissions experts said it will be a 'buyers' market' as universities 'compete' to hoover up students. Hundreds of thousands of sixth formers will receive their A-level grades next week, and find out if they have secured their first-choice university place. Historically, those who missed the grades in their offer would be rejected – but this year many will likely be kept on due to universities wanting to guarantee income. Dr Saxton, head of official admissions body Ucas, said: 'I would anticipate a record number of 18-year-olds will wake up with confirmation, quite possibly even where they are near-misses.' Universities have been hit by a fall in international students, who pay much higher fees, due to changes in visa rules. Dr Saxton said universities have now 'fallen back in love' with standard applicants due to 'uncertainty' around whether overseas students, including many postgraduates, will turn up. She added: 'It's a really good year to be a UK-domiciled 18-year-old that wants to go to one of our world-class universities. 'A couple of the directors of admissions and vice-chancellors have talked about recognising that a three-year undergraduate student is stability for your teaching and learning, for your university community, for your financial planning.' She said many universities had tried to 'pin down' students early this year so they could organise logistics such as accommodation and facilities. Anyone rejected from their first and second choice can enter Clearing, which matches unplaced students with unfilled places. Yesterday, a PA Media analysis showed 17 Russell Group universities entering Clearing this year, one less than last year. In addition, the number of courses available at these universities fell to 3,630 from 3,892 at the same point last year. It is thought this is due to universities deciding to hold on to the students they've given offers to, even if they miss their grades. Ucas figures released last month revealed that the number of offers made to prospective undergraduate students from universities and colleges has reached a record high this year. Nick Hillman, director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), said: 'The financial plight of universities makes them very keen to fill their courses and they will be falling over themselves to sign up good potential students.' Lee Elliot Major, professor of social mobility at the University of Exeter, said: 'This year is shaping up to be a buyer's market in admissions, with many universities competing to recruit more home students.' Vivienne Stern, chief executive of Universities UK, added: 'It's certainly competitive between universities. 'From an applicant point of view, that's a really good thing as it means you've got lots of choice.' A Department for Education (DfE) spokesman said: 'While universities are independent from government and responsible for their own admissions decisions, it is essential that quality is maintained and that the students they admit are likely to succeed. 'Students deserve high-quality teaching, fair admissions and a clear path to good jobs, whether through a degree or technical route. 'Apprenticeship starts, participation and achievements are all on the rise, helping more people gain the skills they need.'
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
Eugene Shvidler case highlights threat to fundamental liberties
E ugene Shvidler left the Soviet Union in 1989 and obtained refugee status in the US before being granted a UK visa under the highly skilled migrant programme. A British citizen since 2010, Shvidler and his family chose to build their lives in England. He has not set foot in Russia since 2007, holds no ties to its regime, and has never been a citizen of the Russian Federation. Indeed, in 2022, he publicly condemned the 'senseless violence' in Ukraine. Nevertheless, that year the British government took the draconian step of freezing Shvidler's assets on the basis that he was 'associated with' Roman Abramovich, the former owner of Chelsea FC; and that he was a non-executive director of Evraz, a mining company carrying on business in a sector of strategic significance to Russia. Critically, because Shvidler is a British citizen, the asset-freeze makes it a criminal offence for him to deal with his assets anywhere in the world — subject to certain limited exceptions. Roman Abramovich, left, with Eugene Shvidler, centre ALAMY Ironically, had Shvidler not become a British citizen, the asset-freeze would be limited to his assets in the UK — he would have been better off. Instead, he cannot even buy food without obtaining a licence to do so. This is in circumstances where he has done nothing unlawful. It is unquestionable that the asset-freeze interferes with Shvidler's ability to have peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, a right guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The question is whether such interference is justified in the public interest. Having failed to persuade the government and the lower courts that the answer to that question was a resounding 'no', Shvidler appealed to the Supreme Court to uphold his rights. Sadly, they did not do so — the majority decision of four to one deferred to the government on the basis that the executive branch has a 'wide margin of appreciation' when imposing sanctions for the pursuit of foreign policy objectives. Lord Leggatt did not defer. In a dissenting judgment that will roar through the ages, he championed the constitutional role that our courts should play in keeping checks and balances on the executive powers exercised by the government. Without that separation of powers, our fundamental liberties are under threat. Citing Magna Carta and Orwell, Lord Leggatt stood up for those liberties and declared unlawful the asset-freeze 'without any geographical or temporal limit' which has deprived Shvidler of the basic freedom to use his possessions as he wishes, a freedom to which he should be entitled as a citizen of this country. In 1989, Shvidler left a country in which — in his words — 'individuals could be stripped of their rights with little or no protections'. He has since left the UK for the same reason. James Clark is a partner at the firm Quillon Law; Jordan Hill, an associate at the firm, also contributed to this article
Times
28 minutes ago
- Times
Symbolic gestures won't prevent illegal working
T he Home Office's latest move to crack down on illegal working in the gig economy feels more like political theatre than a serious solution. Announcing a plan to share data with food delivery businesses such as Deliveroo, Just Eat, and Uber Eats, specifically around asylum hotel locations, sounds bold on paper. But in reality, it is unlikely to achieve much. The government wants these companies to flag and cancel accounts repeatedly active in 'high-risk' areas. But this relies on the flawed assumption that such monitoring will deter or even detect illegal workers. It won't. The simple fact is that account sharing is incredibly easy to get around. More information will be shared with food delivery companies such as Just Eat, Uber Eats and Deliveroo ALAMY And the reality is that these companies do not have a genuine incentive to stop it. Unlike traditional employers, they are not subject to a penalty of up to £60,000 per illegal worker. So why would they invest in better checks or policing their own systems? The simple fact is that gig economy companies do not know who is using their apps, and who is engaging with their customers under their brand name, making illegal work easy, effortless and undetectable. If ministers were serious about tackling this issue, they would demand more — facial recognition or real-time identity verification every time a job is accepted could make a real difference. Illegal workers simply would not be able to operate. But until that's mandated, and until companies face real consequences, nothing will change. Worryingly, the issue does not end with gig economy firms. There is a troubling lack of understanding among traditional employers about their own compliance risks. Since 2022, businesses have been allowed to use digital verification services for right to work checks on British and Irish nationals. But many are using the same checks for foreign workers without realising that doing so leaves them legally exposed. Employers are surprised to learn that they are not establishing the all-important statutory excuse for their foreign workers. Large organisations — including NHS trusts, local authorities, universities and household organisations — are unknowingly putting themselves at risk. They believe using digital verification is enough — but it does not give them the legal protection they think it does. When foreign workers lose their right to work, or even exceed their permitted hours, employers are shocked to be slapped with penalties from the Home Office. Both the gig economy and traditional employment are riddled with loopholes. And while the government focuses on symbolic gestures such as data sharing, illegal work will continue, unchecked and undetected. If this crackdown is to mean anything, there needs to be more enforcement, starting with the government holding the platforms and third-party providers accountable. Emma Brooksbank is a partner at the law firm Freeths
