Annie Kilner shows off her incredible figure in a black bikini as she joins shirtless Kyle Walker after confirming they are back together on Florida family holiday
The couple's relationship has made headlines as it was claimed it was 'as bad as it's ever been' after Annie, 33, served Kyle, 35, with divorce papers in October 2024.
However, after enlisting their family to dog-sit back home, they then jetted off on a sun-soaked family holiday, with the Mail exclusively confirming this week that they are officially back together.
With plans to divorce now in the past, the couple were seen chatting while at the pool with their kids - Roman, 12, Riaan, eight, Reign, six and five-month-old Rezon.
Annie showed off her incredible figure in a plunging black bikini, which she styled with fitted bike shorts during their family day out.
She fixed a pair of reflective shades on top of her raven tresses as she strolled alongside Kyle.
The Manchester City ace put his toned frame and intricate tattoos on full display as he went shirtless in a pair of vibrant blue board shorts.
The couple have been making the most of their time together on a five-star holiday to Disneyworld, where onlookers claimed the family seemed 'extremely happy'.
They jetted off not long after Kyle returned from Italy, where he was on loan to AC Milan.
This week, it emerged that the couple are back together after Lauryn Goodman told Annie that Kyle was the father of just her son Kairo, but also her newborn baby daughter Kinara.
'They are back together,' a friend exclusively told the Mail. 'This wasn't a 'make-or-break' holiday. It was a proper family trip where they were back together as man and wife.
'They flew off - leaving the dogs at home to look after the house - and they were determined to have a great time.
'Annie was obviously devastated and very, very angry about what Kyle did, so she threw him out for six months. After he moved back in they tried and tried. It was a hard process.
'Deep down, they both knew that they wanted to be together - but there were so many distractions.'
Annie wore a pair of oval shades while she added another pair on top of her tresses at one point
Annie had previously spotted with Kyle in Cheshire as they enjoyed a day out together after he jetted back to the UK, fuelling rumours of their reunion.
Earlier, it had been claimed that Annie and Kyle's relationship was 'as bad as it's ever been', as the footballer ponders his next move following an unsuccessful spell at AC Milan.
Kyle reportedly landed himself in hot water after he was seen partying with two models in Milan, prompting Annie to allegedly tell her husband to be 'incredibly careful'.
The full-back is now back in the UK and according to pals had been 'barely speaking' with Annie, who was struggling to move on from the footballer's affairs with Lauryn.
Kyle hoped his stint in Italy with the seven-time Champions League winners would trigger a fresh start for himself and Annie - who ended up staying in Cheshire with their kids.
Being away from the 'noise' of his sex scandal was a major reason behind his hasty departure from Manchester City in January.
But the Rossoneri have declined the opportunity to sign Kyle for an extra year, meaning he will now have to find another club.
City boss Pep Guardiola indicated the defender has no future at the Etihad, despite having one year left on his contract.
Lauryn fell pregnant with her son Kairo while Kyle was 'on a break' from Annie back in 2019, leading to him and Annie briefly separating.
However, the childhood sweethearts got back together shortly afterwards and married in secret in 2022.
But in the winter of that year, after another brief fling with Kyle, Lauryn once again fell pregnant with Kyle's baby and the following summer, his daughter Kinara was born.
Annie then threw Kyle out of the family home two weeks later, and Kyle then spoke out about the situation, describing the relationship as 'stupid' and a 'mistake'.
In turn, Lauryn hit back claim that his words were 'unimaginably cruel' towards her children, with a very public row and court case between Kyle and Lauryn following.
Kyle and Annie don't yet know what their future together will bring, but Kyle is reportedly looking at offers from football teams in the UK and also Europe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
38 minutes ago
- The Guardian
AI companies start winning the copyright fight
Hello, and welcome to TechScape. If you need me after this newsletter publishes, I will be busy poring over photos from Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez's wedding, the gaudiest and most star-studded affair to disrupt technology news this year. I found it a tacky and spectacular affair. Everyone who was anyone was there, except for Charlize Theron, who, unprompted, said on Monday: 'I think we might be the only people who did not get an invite to the Bezos wedding. But that's OK, because they suck and we're cool.' Last week, tech companies notched several victories in the fight over their use of copyrighted text to create artificial intelligence products. Anthropic: A US judge has ruled that Anthropic, maker of the Claude chatbot, use of books to train its artificial intelligence system – without permission of the authors – did not breach copyright law. Judge William Alsup compared the Anthropic model's use of books to a 'reader aspiring to be a writer.' And the next day, Meta: The US district judge Vince Chhabria, in San Francisco, said in his decision on the Meta case that the authors had not presented enough evidence that the technology company's AI would cause 'market dilution' by flooding the market with work similar to theirs. The same day that Meta received its favorable ruling, a group of writers sued Microsoft, alleging copyright infringement in the creation of that company's Megatron text generator. Judging by the rulings in favor of Meta and Anthropic, the authors are facing an uphill battle. These three cases are skirmishes in the wider legal war over copyrighted media, which rages on. Three weeks ago, Disney and NBC Universal sued Midjourney, alleging that the company's namesake AI image generator and forthcoming video generator made illegal use of the studios' iconic characters like Darth Vader and the Simpson family. The world's biggest record labels – Sony, Universal, and Warner – have sued two companies that make AI-powered music generators, Suno and Udio. On the textual front, the New York Times' suit against OpenAI and Microsoft is ongoing. The lawsuits over AI-generated text were filed first, and, as their rulings emerge, the next question in the copyright fight is whether decisions about one type of media will apply to the next. 'The specific media involved in the lawsuit – written works versus images versus videos versus audio – will certainly change the fair use analysis in each case,' said John Strand, a trademark and copyright attorney with the law firm Wolf Greenfield. 'The impact on the market for the copyrighted works is becoming a key factor in the fair use analysis, and the market for books is different than that for movies.' To Strand, the cases over images seem more favorable to copyright holders, as the AI models are allegedly producing identical images to the copyrighted ones in the training data. A bizarre and damning fact was revealed in the Anthropic ruling, too: the company had pirated and stored some 7m books to create a training database for its AI. To remediate its wrongdoing, the company bought physical copies and scanned them, digitizing the text. Now the owner of 7 million physical books that no longer held any utility, Anthropic destroyed them. The company bought the books, diced them up, scanned the text, and threw them away, Ars Technica reports. There are less destructive ways to digitize books, but they are slower. The AI industry is here to move fast and break things. Anthropic laying waste to millions of books presents a crude literalization of the ravenous consumption of content necessary for AI companies to create their products. Google's emissions up 51% as AI electricity demand derails efforts to go green Inside a plan to use AI to amplify doubts about the dangers of pollutants Two stories I wrote about last week saw significant updates in the ensuing days. The website for Trump's gold phone, 'T1', has dropped its 'Made in America' pledge in favor of 'proudly American' and 'brought to life in America', per the Verge. Trump seems to have followed the example of Apple, which skirts the issue of origin but still emphasizes the American-ness of iPhones by engraving them with 'Designed in California.' What is unsaid: Assembled in China or India, and sourced from many other countries. It seems Trump and his family have opted for a similar evasive tagline, though it's been thrown into much starker relief by their original promise. The third descriptor that now appears on Trump's phone site, 'American-Proud Design', seems most obviously cued by Apple. The tagline 'Made in the USA' carries legal weight. Companies have faced lawsuits over just how many of their products' parts were produced in the US, and the US' main trade regulator has established standards by which to judge the actions behind the slogan. It would be extremely difficult for a smartphone's manufacturing history to measure up to those benchmarks, by the vast majority of expert estimations. Though Trump intends to repatriate manufacturing in the US with his sweeping tariffs, he seems to be learning just what other phone companies already know. It is complicated and limiting to make a phone solely in the US, and doing so forces severe constraints on the final product. Read last week's newsletter about the gold Trump phone. Last week, I wrote about Pornhub's smutty return to France after a law requiring online age verification was suspended there. This week, the US supreme court ruled in favor of an age-check law passed in Texas. Pornhub has blocked access to anyone in Texas in protest for the better part of two years, as it did in France for three weeks. Clarence Thomas summed up the court's reasoning: 'HB 1181 simply requires adults to verify their age before they can access speech that is obscene to children,' Clarence Thomas wrote in the court's 6-3 majority opinion. 'The statute advances the state's important interest in shielding children from sexually explicit content. And, it is appropriately tailored because it permits users to verify their ages through the established methods of providing government-issued identification and sharing transactional data.' Elena Kagan dissented alongside the court's two other liberal justices. The ruling affirms not only Texas's law but the statutes of nearly two dozen states that have implemented online age checks. The tide worldwide seems to be shifting away from allowing freer access to pornography as part of a person's right to free expression and more towards curtailing Experts believe the malleable definition of obscenity – the Texas law requires an age check for any site whose content is more than a third sexual material – will be weaponized against online information on sexual health, abortion or LGBTQ identity, all in the name of child protection. 'It's an unfortunate day for the supporters of an open internet,' said GS Hans, professor at Cornell Law School. 'The court has made a radical shift in free speech jurisprudence in this case, though it doesn't characterize its decision that way. By upholding the limits on minors' access to obscenity – a notoriously difficult category to define – that also creates limits on adult access, we can expect to see states take a heavier hand in regulating content.' I'll be closely watching what happens in July when Pornhub willingly implements age checks in compliance with the Online Services Act. Read more: UK study shows 8% of children aged eight to 14 have viewed online pornography Number of new UK entry-level jobs has dived since ChatGPT launch – research Fake, AI-generated videos about the Diddy trial are raking in millions of views on YouTube Denmark to tackle deepfakes by giving people copyright to their own features New features are a dime a dozen, but even a small tweak to the most popular messaging app in the world may amount to a major shift. WhatsApp will begin showing you AI-generated summaries of your unread messages, per the Verge. Apple tried message summaries. They did not work. The company pulled them. For a firm famed for its calculated and controlled releases, the retraction of the summaries was a humiliation. The difference between Apple and Meta, though, is that Meta has consistently released AI products for multiple years now. In other AI news, I am rarely captivated by new technologies, but a recent release by Google's DeepMind AI laboratory seems promising for healthcare. Google DeepMind has released AlphaGenome, an AI meant to 'comprehensively and accurately predicts how single variants or mutations in human DNA sequences impact a wide range of biological processes regulating genes,' per a press release. The creators of AlphaGenome previously won the Nobel prize in chemistry for AlphaFold, a software that predicts the structures of proteins. A major question that hovers over Crispr, another Nobel-winning innovation, is what changes in a person when a genetic sequence is modified. AlphaGenome seems poised to assist in solving that mystery. Disabled Amazon workers in corporate jobs allege 'systemic discrimination' Six arrested at protest of Palantir, tech company building deportation software for Trump admin Online hacks to offline heists: crypto leaders on edge amid increasing attacks 'Lidar is lame': why Elon Musk's vision for a self-driving Tesla taxi faltered 'It's like being walled in': young Iranians try to break through internet blackout
BreakingNews.ie
41 minutes ago
- BreakingNews.ie
Meghan Markle's rosé wine goes on sale at €76 for three bottles
Meghan Markle's new rosé wine, which is said to 'capture the essence of sun-drenched outdoor moments', has gone on sale, costing more than €76 for a three-bottle order. Meghan launched her As Ever Napa Valley Rose 2023, described as having 'soft notes of stone fruit, gentle minerality, and a lasting finish', on Tuesday. Advertisement In a post on Instagram, her As Ever brand said: 'It's here! Raise a glass to the newest addition to the As ever family. Our beautiful Napa Valley rose is now available'. View this post on Instagram A post shared by @aseverofficial A short clip showed the wine being poured into a glass, with accompanying sound. The pale pink wine, in a clear bottle with a white gold-rimmed label, was launched on a dedicated where an over-21 birth date must be inputted to enter and where the drink was described as: 'A delicately balanced rose with soft notes of stone fruit, gentle minerality, and a lasting finish.' The site adds: 'Reminiscent of the finest Provencal styles, it's crisp, pale in color, and effortlessly elegant – crafted for slow afternoons and golden-hour gatherings. Advertisement 'This rose captures the essence of sun-drenched outdoor moments through its thoughtfully crafted blend.' View this post on Instagram A post shared by @aseverofficial The wine is not available to buy in orders of less than three bottles. Three bottles cost $90 dollars (€76), six bottles cost $159 including a 12 per cent discount, and 12 bottles are priced at $300, including a 17 per cent discount. Shipping, which begins on July 9th, costs an additional flat rate $20 per order. Advertisement Meghan's wine has an ABV (alcohol by volume) of 14.5 per cent. According to the Drink Aware charity, most wines have an ABV of around 11-14 per cent. Meghan added apricot jam to her collection in June after restocking her online store, with items selling out for a second time in a row. View this post on Instagram A post shared by @aseverofficial The duchess was shown drinking rose during the last episode of her Netflix series With Love, Meghan earlier this year when she offered chef Alice Waters a glass of wine. Advertisement Entertainment Meghan Markle announces season two of Netflix life... Read More 'Would you like a glass of rose while we're cooking?' the duchess said, pouring from a bottle which does not appear to be As Ever wine, having a different label. Meghan added as she drank: 'Might be the best sip of wine I've ever had.' Napa Valley wine country is in northern California, around 50 miles from San Francisco.
Times
43 minutes ago
- Times
Every Jurassic Park movie ranked — from worst to best
The cinematic world has never been quite the same since 1993, when Steven Spielberg unleashed on the world breathtaking CGI dinosaurs accompanied by performances from Jeff Goldblum, Sam Neill, Laura Dern and the great Richard Attenborough. Jurassic Park captured the hearts and minds of movie lovers across the world and although not every film since has fired on all cylinders, it has grown into a franchise of epic proportions. The seventh film in the series, Jurassic World: Rebirth (released July 2), is a standalone sequel to Jurassic World: Dominion (2022) and stars an ensemble cast that includes Scarlett Johansson, Mahershala Ali and Jonathan Bailey. • Jurassic World: Rebirth review — more sumptuous than Spielberg's original Set five years after the events of Dominion and with the world now inhospitable to most prehistoric creatures, operatives and scientists working for a pharmaceutical company head to a forbidden island in search of creatures whose biomaterials could change drug-making for ever. What happens next, obviously, does not go to plan (it never does). What are the best Jurassic Park films so far? Our critics have ranked the first six from worst to best. But do you agree? Share your favourites from the franchise in the comments below. What were they thinking? Up to this point, the expansion of the original film series had been surprisingly successful. Then this dud, flaccid dino disaster comes along. This film forgets about John Hammond's park and instead lets the dinosaurs loose to roam free, pretty much everywhere. It seems to forget everything that came before and instead copies from other blockbusters: a hint of Mission: Impossible, a sprinkle of Indiana Jones and a splatter of 007. The dinosaurs, once awe-inspiring, now feel like a CGI afterthought. And just when you thought it couldn't get more desperate, they shoehorn in the original trio of Sam Neill, Laura Dern and Jeff Goldblum and expect it to stick. The worst part? It wasn't scary at all. Read our full review The third in the original dino trilogy delivers all the expected thrills but is largely forgettable. William H Macy and Téa Leoni play wealthy adventurers who make the stupid decision to return to the island of the first film in search of their lost son. Neill and Dern reprise their earlier roles but Goldblum is missing, reportedly due to an injured leg. But the real person missing is Spielberg. This was the first movie in the franchise not directed by him (and the first not based on the novels by Michael Crichton) and it shows. • Jeff Goldblum: I've devoted my life to the serious business of play This dinosaur sequel is severely underrated. Directed by JA Bayona (the Spanish director behind A Monster Calls and the survival thriller The Impossible), the movie took the franchise in a different and gothic direction. We start back on the treacherous shores of Isla Nublar, where everything has gone wrong. There is a volcanic super-eruption and our leads Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard have minutes to send their dino-friends onto rescue boats. From then the film is at a creepy stately home with strange housemaids and even stranger benefactors. Rafe Spall and Toby Jones deliver enjoyably theatrical villain turns, while Goldblum pops in for a brief but memorable three-minute cameo. The real triumph lies in how bold and invigorating this instalment feels. Ignore the naysayers; this is blockbuster entertainment at its our review Julianne Moore, Pete Postlethwaite and Arliss Howard joined returning favourites such as Goldblum and Richard Attenborough for this solid sequel to the original film, once again directed by Spielberg. It managed to riff well around Crichton's The Lost World novel to deliver an action-packed and entertaining story that felt the same but different from the original. Set four years after the events of Jurassic Park the movie follows the story of John Hammond's nephew, who has taken control of his company and is planning to exploit a second dinosaur Island, Isla Sorna, and open a dinosaur park in San Diego. What follows is a breathtaking battle for the very soul of dinosaur DNA cloning. After two sequels that had failed to fully recapture the magic of Spielberg's 1993 film, a lot was riding on this reboot 14 years after the original trilogy had ended. Directed by Colin Trevorrow, it did not disappoint, finally allowing us to see Jurassic Park in action as John Hammond had intended … for a bit. Pratt and Howard offered supercharged energy in a film that offered hidden secret references and callbacks galore to the original while successfully driving forward a film that could be enjoyed by newbies too. There was a lot of nostalgia and just as much action — plus those glass ball things they went round in were the best. • Ranked: the best 20 Steven Spielberg films The original. The film that changed everything. Spielberg's roaring masterpiece exploded onto the screen across the globe with stunning CGI that was the talk of every playground. But far more than just an action thriller that brings alive Crichton's high-concept sci-fi novel, the film has a beautifully crafted mix of humour, drama and intrigue that draws in the viewer before jump-scaring them back out again with a velociraptor attack. The dialogue is pithy and eminently quotable ('Life will find a way …'; anything Goldblum says) and the performances, from Neill and Dern to Attenborough, tread the line perfectly between hammy and knowing. The dino-directors have had several decent attempts since 1993, but no one has come close to beating this marvel of modern cinema.
