On Thursday night I was told that Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer were now not going to raise income tax, having had anonymous briefings for weeks that a manifesto-breaking tax rise was coming, culminating in the speech in Downing Street by the chancellor last week alluding to that. Politics live: U-turn on budget income tax rise triggers 'not normal' market volatility I had also heard the prime minister was going to make a speech next week to the same effect. The U-turn - first broken in the Financial Times - was not something the government wanted to leak, and there is anger in Downing Street. I was told late last night by a source that the decision had been taken to back off income tax rises. There is obviously some consternation, to say the least, that ministers, the party, the public have been marched up the hill, only to be marched back down again. It all adds to a sense of chaos and a government out of control. So what on earth is going on? Read more: How No 10 plunged itself into crisis Let's first do the economics of it. I was told this morning by Treasury sources that the fiscal forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility are stronger than expected. There had been expectations of a £30bn-£40bn black hole in the public finances. But I'm told today that black hole is actually closer to £20bn: the chancellor also wants headroom of perhaps up to £15bn, but I'm told the change in forecasts has changed the calculation. I'm told wage growth has been stronger which has helped tax receipts and improved forecasts. So, where does that leave the government? Treasury figures tell me that the change in forecasts mean the manifesto-busting income tax hike is now not necessary. I don't need to spell out the jeopardy for such a move: Rachel Reeves was poised to be the first chancellor in 50 years to raise the basic rate of income tax and break the core manifesto pledge that Labour made to voters last year. It doesn't mean taxes are not going up. The government is set to freeze tax thresholds for another two years from 2028. That will raise around £8bn as millions of workers are dragged into higher tax bands and end up paying more tax. There will also be tax raising around pensions and salary sacrifice schemes and on electric vehicles, as well as other measures, as the chancellor casts around for £20bn. But what about the politics? Well, one government figure today insists that the decision to drop the income tax plan is nothing to do with the self-inflicted leadership crisis at No 10 after anonymous briefings designed to see off any potential post-budget coup against the prime minister spectacularly backfired. The changed forecasts, I'm told, came in last week. 👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈 But of course there's tonnes of politics in this. The talk of higher wage growth perhaps offsetting some of the productivity downgrades was being flagged a couple of weeks back, before the chancellor made her speech. It's extremely unusual for a chancellor to pitch-roll their budget. But Reeves did it for a reason. That was laying the ground for a massive budget that would bring manifesto-breaking tax rises. She told us of the difficult environment, ruled out more borrowing or spending cuts before telling us "everyone must play their part". She repeatedly refused to stick to manifesto promises on tax. It doesn't get much more stark than that. That the government has U-turned on that decision is about far more than just the fiscal framework. Read more: What taxes could go up now? With trust so low in the government, there were serious worries - and warnings - from the party that such a big manifesto break might be something from which the PM and the chancellor wouldn't recover. One senior party figure that thinks there could be a leadership challenge after the May elections told me this week that manifesto-breaking tax rises would only make that more likely because Labour would "need a clean skin" to try and rebuild with the public if Starmer broke his promises in that way. Read more: Is Starmer 'in office but not in power'? Lucy Powell, the deputy Labour leader, fired a warning shot last week when she said the party should stick to the manifesto and not raise tax: "We should be following through on our manifesto, of course. There's no question about that," she told Matt Chorley on BBC Radio 5 Live. "Trust in politics is a key part of that because if we're to take the country with us then they've got to trust us and that's really important too." The party will no doubt feel relief today that the chancellor is not going to break the manifesto. It would have only made things a whole lot worse for a government that is in real trouble. But the shambles of this week is staggering. From the self-inflicted leadership crisis to leaks over a massive budget U-turn, it all lends to the sense that this is a No 10 out of control, lurching from one mess to another. Strap in.

Grande was in Singapore for the debut of Wicked: For Good when the incident unfolded on Thursday. The video captured the moment the fan scaled the barricade and pushed past photographers towards Grande. He then threw his arms around her, before co-star Cynthia Erivo intervened and security swoops in to stop him. The man, now identified as Johnson Wen, 26, is reportedly a notorious red carpet crasher. Wen, who has since been charged with being a public nuisance, goes by the nickname Pyjama Man, and gloated as he shared footage of the intrusion online. "Dear Ariana Grande, Thank You for letting me Jump on the Yellow Carpet with You," he wrote on Instagram. In video stories posted to the site beforehand, he was seen at the Universal Studios venue, revealing his intentions. In one, he said: "I feel like I'm in a dream, that's my best friend, Ariana Grande, and I'm gonna meet her. I've been dreaming about that." Read more:When you should actually arrive at cinema to avoid adsTV and film's obsession with upper-class actors The Australian has ambushed several performers on stage, according to reports, including Katy Perry and The Chainsmokers at concerts in Sydney, and The Weeknd in Melbourne. It has been reported that Wen intends to plead guilty and that he could face a fine of more than £1,000. Grande took a moment to gather herself in the aftermath of the intrusion, visibly shocked by the incident. She didn't address the incident on her own Instagram, but shared some photos with the caption "thank you, Singapore", adding "we love you". The singer battled post-traumatic stress disorder after her 2017 concert in Manchester was bombed, leaving 22 people dead. She told Vogue in 2018: "It's hard to talk about because so many people have suffered such severe, tremendous loss. But, yeah, it's a real thing. "I know those families and my fans, and everyone there experienced a tremendous amount of it as well. Time is the biggest thing. "I feel like I shouldn't even be talking about my own experience - like I shouldn't even say anything. I don't think I'll ever know how to talk about it and not cry." In the same interview she also addressed her own anxiety, saying she has "always" had it. Grande plays Galinda Upland in Wicked: For Good, the character who becomes Glinda the Good Witch. Ms Erivo plays Elphaba, the character who becomes the Wicked Witch of the West. The film is released in UK cinemas on 21 November.

The decision, first reported in the Financial Times, comes after a bruising few days which has brought about a change of heart in Downing Street. Read more: How No 10 plunged itself into crisis I understand Downing Street has backed down amid fears about the backlash from disgruntled MPs and voters. The Treasury and Number 10 declined to comment. The decision is a massive about-turn. In a news conference last week, the chancellor appeared to pave the way for manifesto-breaking tax rises in the budget on 26 November. She spoke of difficult choices and insisted she could neither increase borrowing nor cut spending in order to stabilise the economy, telling the public "everyone has to play their part". The decision to backtrack was communicated to the Office for Budget Responsibility on Wednesday in a submission of "major measures", according to the Financial Times. The chancellor will now have to fill an estimated £30bn black hole with a series of narrower tax-raising measures and is also expected to freeze income tax thresholds for another two years beyond 2028, which should raise about £8bn. 👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈 Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch said: "Only the Conservatives have fought Labour off their tax-raising plans. "But one retreat doesn't fix a budget built on broken promises. Reeves must guarantee no new taxes on work, businesses, homes, or pensions - and she should go further by abolishing stamp duty." How did we get here? For weeks, the government has been working up options to break the manifesto pledge not to raise income tax, national insurance or VAT on working people. I was told only this week the option being worked up was to do a combination of tax rises and action on the two-child benefit cap in order for the prime minister to be able to argue that in breaking his manifesto pledges, he is trying his hardest to protect the poorest in society and those "working people" he has spoken of so endlessly. But days ago, officials and ministers were working on a proposal to lift the basic rate of income tax - perhaps by 2p - and then simultaneously cut national insurance contributions for those on the basic rate of income tax (those who earn up to £50,000 a year). That way the chancellor can raise several billion in tax from those with the "broadest shoulders" - higher-rate taxpayers and pensioners or landlords, while also trying to protect "working people" earning salaries under £50,000 a year. The chancellor was also going to take action on the two-child benefit cap in response to growing demand from the party to take action on child poverty. It is unclear whether those plans will now be shelved given the U-turn on income tax. Read more: What taxes could go up now? The change of plan comes after the prime minister found himself engulfed in a leadership crisis after his allies warned rivals that he would fight any attempted post-budget coup. It triggered a briefing war between Wes Streeting and anonymous Starmer allies attacking the health secretary as the chief traitor. Read more: Is Starmer 'in office but not in power'? The prime minister has since apologised to Mr Streeting, who I am told does not want to press for sackings in No 10 in the wake of the briefings against him. But the saga has further damaged Sir Keir and increased concerns among MPs about his suitability to lead Labour into the next general election. Insiders clearly concluded that the ill mood in the party, coupled with the recent hits to the PM's political capital, makes manifesto-breaking tax rises simply too risky right now. But it also adds to a sense of chaos, given the chancellor publicly pitch-rolled tax rises in last week's news conference.

It is understood the date of the test was on the day of the New Zealand heavyweight's fight against Fabio Wardley, which the Briton won last month. The news of Parker's failed test only emerged on Friday. Anthony Joshua and Jake Paul in talks for December fightThe English champion on his stolen future: 'My life begins now'Not got Sky? Get Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW Sky Sports News has contacted Parker's manager, while Frank Warren's Queensbury Promotions released the following statement via their X account. "The Voluntary Anti-Doping Association [VADA] last night informed all required parties that Joseph Parker returned an adverse finding following an anti-doping test conducted on October 25 in relation to his bout with Fabio Wardley. "While the matter is investigated further, no additional comment will be made at this time." The British Boxing Board of Control [BBoC] has told Sky Sports it is "investigating" the matter. Parker, 33, is a former world champion, who lost his belt to Anthony Joshua in 2018, but he went into his fight against Wardley in arguably the best form of his career. After a punishing loss to Joe Joyce in 2022, Parker won his last six contests prior to Wardley, picking up victories over Deontay Wilder and Zhilei Zhang among them, as well as winning the WBO Interim strap. He was due to challenge then IBF belt-holder Daniel Dubois in February, only for Dubois to fall ill just days before the fight was meant to take place. Parker put his position as the WBO mandatory challenger for undisputed champion Oleksandr Usyk on the line by taking the fight against Wardley. It was a gamble that backfired and news of his failed drugs test now leaves major questions over the New Zealand heavyweight's future in the sport. 'Possibility Parker is facing a two-year ban' Sky Sports Boxing expert Andy Scott: "The headline is shocking. "Everybody loves Joseph Parker. I think he's most people's second-favourite heavyweight. But there were questions as to why take that fight [against Wardley]? "He was in line to fight [Oleksandr] Usyk. He instead took a risky fight against Wardley, and now this is the headline. "Not only did he lose the fight, he now has this investigation that he will have to come out of and clear his name. "For context, Liam Cameron is the high profile case in boxing with similar circumstances. He received a four-year ban for traces of cocaine, but the rules have changed since then. "It will be interesting to see how this develops further. There's a full investigation, we'll wait to see what the outcome is of that, but there is a possibility that he's facing a two-year ban."

Democrats on the House Oversight Committee initially published several emails which they said "raises questions about Trump and Epstein's relationship, Trump's knowledge of Epstein's crimes" and the president's relationship to Epstein's victims. The White House said the "selectively leaked emails" were an attempt to "create a fake narrative to smear President Trump", who has consistently denied any involvement or knowledge about Epstein's sex trafficking operation. Trump latest: 20,000 pages published in response to 'leak' It prompted Republicans to retaliate by releasing more than 20,000 pages from Epstein's files and accusing Democrats of "cherry-picking" their documents. Here's what the emails say... What Epstein said about Trump Three messages, dated between 2011 and 2019, are between Jeffrey Epstein and his sex trafficking co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell and between Epstein and author Michael Wolff. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In the first exchange of emails, between Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell, dated 2 April 2011, Epstein wrote: i want you to realize that that dog that hasn't barked is trump.. Virginia spent hours at my house with him ,, he has never once been mentioned. police chief. etc. im 75% there Maxwell responded: I have been thinking about that... The name Virginia, refers to Virginia Giuffre, a prominent Epstein survivor who died in April and had never accused Mr Trump of wrongdoing. Ms Giuffre made allegations of three sexual encounters with Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was recently stripped of his prince title, in her autobiography which was released last month - allegations Andrew has denied. In the second exchange of emails, between Epstein and Michael Wolff, a journalist who has written several books about the Trump administration, dated 31 January 2019, Epstein wrote: [REDACTED NAME] worked at mara lago. . she was the one that accused prince andrew. . trump said he asked me to resign, never a member ever.. of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop The third email exchange, between Epstein and Wolff, dated between 15 and 16 December 2015 shows that Wolff wrote: I hear CNN planning to ask Trump tonight about his relationship with you--either on air or in scrum afterwards. Epstein replied: if we were able to craft an answer for him, what do you think it should be? Wolff responded: I think you should let him hang himself. If he says he hasn't been on the plane or the house, then that gives you a valuable PR and political currency. You can hang him in a way that potentially generates a positive benefit for you, or, if it really looks like he could win, you could save him, generating a debt. Of course, it is possible that, when asked, he'll say Jeffrey is a great guy and has gotten a raw deal and is a victim of political correctness, which is to be outlawed in a Trump regime. Responding to the release of emails, Mr Wolff posted a video on Instagram: "I have been trying to talk about this story for a very long time now and perhaps we're getting close to the smoking gun. "These two men... had the closest of relationships for more than a decade." Other messages mentioning Mr Trump were sent in 2015, a year before he won the election in 2016, and came as he was gaining momentum as a candidate. In an email exchange with a reporter from The New York Times in December 2015, with the subject line "Trump", Epstein wrote: have them ask my houseman about donald almost walking through the door leaving his nose print on the glass as young women were swimming in the pool and he was so focused he walked straight into the door In the same email exchange with the reporter, Epstein said: would you like photos of donald and girls in bikinis in my kitchen In another email from March 2018, a person whose name has been redacted said: It will all blow over! They're really just trying to take down Trump and doing whatever they can to do that...! Epstein replied: yes thx. its wild [sic]. because i am the one able to take him down It is important to note the overall context of this email is unknown. Andrew included in Epstein emails In several email exchanges, Epstein refers to Andrew and a picture of him with Virginia Giuffre. A photo emerged in 2011 of Andrew, which has become infamous, showing the former prince with his arm around Ms Giuffre, apparently taken in Ghislaine Maxwell's London home. The former duke previously said he didn't recall meeting Ms Giuffre and claimed an image of the pair could have been doctored. Although the name of the "girl" is redacted, Epstein appears in his email exchange to be referring to Ms Giuffre, who at the time had spoken to The Mail on Sunday, which had published the photo. In an email to a reporter on 1 July 2011, Epstein wrote: The girl has fled the country with an outstanding arrest warrant. The da (sic) after she accused others, said in writing that she has no credibility, she was never 15 years old working for me, her story made it seem like she first worked for trump at that age and was met by ghislaine maxwell. Total horseshit, the daily mail paid her money, they admitted it, with the statement that it took money to coax out the truth. Yes she was on my plane, and yes she had her picture taken with Andrew, as many of my employees have. In a separate email to a publicist on 1 July 2011, Epstein wrote: The girl who accused Prince Andrew can also easily be proven to be a liar. I think Buckingham Palace would love it. You should task someone to investigate the girl Virginia Roberts, that has caused the Queen's son all this agro (sic). I promise you she is a fraud. You and I will be able to go to ascot (sic) for the rest of our lives. In a different email exchange in March 2011 about an inquiry from a news reporter, Epstein messaged someone listed as "The Duke", who is thought to be Andrew, and told him: im not sure how to respond, the only person she didn't have sex with was Elvis A reply from "The Duke" said: Please make sure that every statement or legal letter states clearly that I am NOT involved and that I knew and know NOTHING about any of these allegations. I can't take any more of this my end. Mandelson and Epstein talk Trump According to the documents, Peter Mandelson, who was sacked as the UK ambassador to the US in September, was continuing his connections with Epstein in 2016. Sir Keir Starmer dismissed him after learning about emails between him and Epstein from 2005 to 2010 - including after Epstein's conviction for soliciting a minor for prostitution. In an exchange between Epstein and Peter Mandelson on 6 November 2016, Epstein wrote: 63 years old. . you made it Responding to the message referring to his birthday several days before, Mr Mandelson replied: Just. I have decided to extend my life by spending more of it in the US. On the same day, and just before the 2016 US presidential election, Epstein then replied: in the donald white house Epstein went on to refer to Andrew and Mr Mandelson's partner, now husband, Reinaldo Avila da Silva: trump/ and having agreat [sic] deal of fun. In hindsight. you were right about staying away from andrew. I was right in your staying with rinaldo [sic] According to the documents, Mandelson responded: Of course, donald in WH. Will he get there? Yes, without Andrew it would not have gone nuclear. Did you advise me to stay with R ? Such a handful but loyal and never embarrassing. In a separate email from 7 March 2011, Epstein received an interview request from the BBC via his lawyer: We are keen to explore the possibility of conducting an interview with Mr Epstein, on the subject of the stories which are circulating, however inaccurately, about both him and Prince Andrew, the Duke of York; we'd be keen to hear from Mr Epstein first hand so that the various and at times, speculative reporting which is at large in the UK press can be betterscrutinised?". The message was forwarded to Mr Mandelson, who replied, bluntly: No!! In May this year, Mr Mandelson was asked by Sky News about his relationship with Epstein. He responded: "I'm not answering any questions about him. My knowledge of him is something I regret, I wish I'd never met him in the first place." Read more from Sky News:Key claims by Virginia Giuffre in memoirGhislaine Maxwell appeals to TrumpUS Congress summons Andrew Sky News' US news partner NBC News has reached out to lawyers for Mr Wolff, Maxwell and the family of Ms Giuffre for comment. The top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, Robert Garcia, of California, said in a statement that the released emails "raise glaring questions about what else the White House is hiding and the nature of the relationship between Epstein and the President". Democrats on the House Oversight Committee say the emails strike "a blow against the White House's Epstein cover-up". But White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement: "The Democrats selectively leaked emails to the liberal media to create a fake narrative to smear President Trump. "The 'unnamed victim' referenced in these emails is the late Virginia Giuffre, who repeatedly said President Trump was not involved in any wrongdoing whatsoever and 'couldn't have been friendlier' to her in their limited interactions."

The corporation said it was an "error of judgement" and the programme - from shortly before last year's presidential election - will "not be broadcast again in this form on any BBC platforms". But it added that it "strongly" disagrees that there is "a basis for a defamation claim". Mr Trump's legal team had threatened to sue the BBC for £1bn (£792m) unless it issued a "full and fair retraction" of the programme, apologised immediately, and "appropriately" compensated the president. The White House has not offered comment on the BBC's response, and told Sky News to direct questions to "the president's outside counsel on this matter". Sky News is awaiting a response from the president's counsel. Mr Trump's legal team earlier revealed the US president has not yet filed a lawsuit against the BBC over thebroadcaster's editing of a speech he made in 2021 on the day his supporters overran the Capitol building. Legal experts have said that Mr Trump would face challenges taking the case to court in the UK or the US. Deadlines to bring the case in English courts, where defamation damages rarely exceed £100,000 ($132,000) expired more than a year ago. Because the documentary was not shown in the US, it would be hard to show that Americans thought less of him because of a programme they could not watch. What has the BBC said? In a statement, the corporation said lawyers for the BBC have written to Mr Trump's legal team. BBC chair Samir Shah has written a personal letter to the White House, "making clear" he and the corporation "are sorry for the edit of the president's speech on 6 January 2021". "The BBC has no plans to rebroadcast the documentary 'Trump: A Second Chance?' on any BBC platforms," the statement added. "While the BBC sincerely regrets the manner in which the video clip was edited, we strongly disagree there is a basis for a defamation claim." Read more: Trump's legal threat in full The BBC also said it was looking into fresh allegations, published in The Telegraph, that its Newsnight show also selectively edited footage of the same speech in a report broadcast in June 2022. A BBC spokesperson said: "The BBC holds itself to the highest editorial standards. This matter has been brought to our attention and we are now looking into it." On Sunday evening, two of the BBC's top figures, including the director-general, resigned amid the row over the edit and concerns about impartiality.

On Thursday night I was told that Chancellor Rachel Reeves and Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer were now not going to raise income tax, having had anonymous briefings for weeks that a manifesto-breaking tax rise was coming, culminating in the speech in Downing Street by the chancellor last week alluding to that. Politics live: U-turn on budget income tax rise triggers 'not normal' market volatility I had also heard the prime minister was going to make a speech next week to the same effect. The U-turn - first broken in the Financial Times - was not something the government wanted to leak, and there is anger in Downing Street. I was told late last night by a source that the decision had been taken to back off income tax rises. There is obviously some consternation, to say the least, that ministers, the party, the public have been marched up the hill, only to be marched back down again. It all adds to a sense of chaos and a government out of control. So what on earth is going on? Read more: How No 10 plunged itself into crisis Let's first do the economics of it. I was told this morning by Treasury sources that the fiscal forecasts from the Office of Budget Responsibility are stronger than expected. There had been expectations of a £30bn-£40bn black hole in the public finances. But I'm told today that black hole is actually closer to £20bn: the chancellor also wants headroom of perhaps up to £15bn, but I'm told the change in forecasts has changed the calculation. I'm told wage growth has been stronger which has helped tax receipts and improved forecasts. So, where does that leave the government? Treasury figures tell me that the change in forecasts mean the manifesto-busting income tax hike is now not necessary. I don't need to spell out the jeopardy for such a move: Rachel Reeves was poised to be the first chancellor in 50 years to raise the basic rate of income tax and break the core manifesto pledge that Labour made to voters last year. It doesn't mean taxes are not going up. The government is set to freeze tax thresholds for another two years from 2028. That will raise around £8bn as millions of workers are dragged into higher tax bands and end up paying more tax. There will also be tax raising around pensions and salary sacrifice schemes and on electric vehicles, as well as other measures, as the chancellor casts around for £20bn. But what about the politics? Well, one government figure today insists that the decision to drop the income tax plan is nothing to do with the self-inflicted leadership crisis at No 10 after anonymous briefings designed to see off any potential post-budget coup against the prime minister spectacularly backfired. The changed forecasts, I'm told, came in last week. 👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈 But of course there's tonnes of politics in this. The talk of higher wage growth perhaps offsetting some of the productivity downgrades was being flagged a couple of weeks back, before the chancellor made her speech. It's extremely unusual for a chancellor to pitch-roll their budget. But Reeves did it for a reason. That was laying the ground for a massive budget that would bring manifesto-breaking tax rises. She told us of the difficult environment, ruled out more borrowing or spending cuts before telling us "everyone must play their part". She repeatedly refused to stick to manifesto promises on tax. It doesn't get much more stark than that. That the government has U-turned on that decision is about far more than just the fiscal framework. Read more: What taxes could go up now? With trust so low in the government, there were serious worries - and warnings - from the party that such a big manifesto break might be something from which the PM and the chancellor wouldn't recover. One senior party figure that thinks there could be a leadership challenge after the May elections told me this week that manifesto-breaking tax rises would only make that more likely because Labour would "need a clean skin" to try and rebuild with the public if Starmer broke his promises in that way. Read more: Is Starmer 'in office but not in power'? Lucy Powell, the deputy Labour leader, fired a warning shot last week when she said the party should stick to the manifesto and not raise tax: "We should be following through on our manifesto, of course. There's no question about that," she told Matt Chorley on BBC Radio 5 Live. "Trust in politics is a key part of that because if we're to take the country with us then they've got to trust us and that's really important too." The party will no doubt feel relief today that the chancellor is not going to break the manifesto. It would have only made things a whole lot worse for a government that is in real trouble. But the shambles of this week is staggering. From the self-inflicted leadership crisis to leaks over a massive budget U-turn, it all lends to the sense that this is a No 10 out of control, lurching from one mess to another. Strap in.

It was the most breathless of starts between MVG and Noppert as they found four ton-plus checkouts between them in the opening five legs, a Big Fish each plus a 101 for Noppert and sensational 160 checkout for Van Gerwen helping them put on quite the show for the Wolverhampton crowd. With a bit of calm ensuing in the second session, the darts went with the throw throughout, Van Gerwen handing Noppert a reprieve in the 10th leg as he missed a break opportunity on D18 to allow his fellow Dutchman to move 6-4 ahead. Grand Slam of Darts 2025: Latest scores & updatesLatest Grand Slam of Darts results, scheduleGet Sky Sports or stream with no contract on NOW📺Download the Sky Sports app for analysis, video & more From there, Noppert took real control, reeling off three legs in a row to put himself one leg away from victory, nervy darts taking hold until he eventually wrapped up the match on tops. "At the end I couldn't take it out! Over the whole game I played well, everything went my way, but in the end I was a little bit nervous," Noppert told Sky Sports. "Why was I nervous? I don't know. I didn't need to be nervous. I could have got over the line easier. "It was a rollercoaster. I think I coped under pressure and scored well in the game, so I'm really happy. "If I keep playing like this and maintain this form, there will be problems for everyone." Littler finds doubling magic as title defence marches on Littler put on an imperious doubling display with a 105 average to secure a 10-4 win over Wessel Nijman and continue his title defence in Wolverhampton. Littler was on another level in the opening session, a near 111 average helping him clean sweep all five legs on offer as Nijman could find no answer to his electric play. Nijman then came back out of the break and managed to wrestle a bit of the control to bring the score to 5-2 but then missed a massive opportunity to break the throw again and let Littler move 7-3 ahead, 'The Nuke' letting out a celebration as he realised how pivotal the 10th leg was. That huge moment put the game firmly back in Littler's favour as he then came out swinging, breaking the throw, taking out 86 on the bull, and confirming an 83 per cent success rate on the doubles as he took the game with a 96 checkout. It means Littler continues his quest to move to world No 1, a spot in the Grand Slam final enough to help him usurp Luke Humphries. "I just want to win as quick as possible. I know Wessel, we've had our battles on the Pro Tour, so to get the win over him tonight was special. We go onto the last eight," Littler told Sky Sports. "If someone plays their best darts, they might catch me but tonight felt very good. I have my eyes on everything, the title, world No 1. "I know if I get to the final then I'll be world No 1, so I'm taking it game by game and hopefully Josh and I can have another good game like the Matchplay." Rock scrapes to Littler battle as Wenig gets monumental win Littler will now play Josh Rock in the quarter-finals. Rock was pushed all the way by Connor Scutt in a deciding-leg 10-9 win in which neither player showed their best darts. Despite Rock racing into a 3-0 lead, that did not deter Scutt as he took his moments when they arrived with Rock's scoring and doubling massively eluding him, 16 trebleless visits across the opening eight legs costing the Northern Irishman. In a similar vain to the first session, Rock picked up three legs on the spin once again but Scutt then had his moment to take three in a row, the momentum swinging between the pair as the match went all the way. Rock then held it together at precisely the right moment with a 14-dart leg on D9 to seal his quarter-final spot, shaking his head at the scrappy battle. Meanwhile Noppert will face Lukas Wenig after he pulled off the biggest win of his career so far with a 10-8 victory over Niko Springer, his incredible 53 per cent success rate on the doubles seeing him over the line and into his first ever major quarter-final. It was a close battle between the two Germans early on, Springer picking up the first two legs before Wenig fought back to take two of his own, the latter continually fighting back and finding a sensational 154 checkout to level the game at 5-5. Nothing then separated the pair until Wenig made his move with a break of throw to help him move 9-7 ahead, eventually wrapping up his monumental moment on tops. What's coming up on Friday? Friday sees the quarter-final action begin at the Grand Slam with Ricky Evans taking on Gerwyn Price and a battle of former Grand Slam champions between Luke Humphries and Michael Smith. Friday November 14 1900 (Sky Sports + and Sky Sports Main Event) 2x Quarter-Finals (best of 31 legs) Ricky Evans vs Gerwyn Price Luke Humphries vs Michael Smith Who will win the Mr Vegas Grand Slam of Darts? Watch live throughout the week from 7pm on Sky Sports+ and Sky Sports Main Event. Stream darts and more top sport with NOW