Connect with us

Politics

Trade unions voice criticisms and vow resistance to transphobic EHRC code

Published

on

EHRC code

EHRC code

Several major trade unions have reportedly pledged that they’ll resist the EHRC’s transphobic code of practice, which came into force on 5 August. While the new guidance is desperately unclear, many organisations have quickly adopted trans-hostile policies, even where there is no legal requirement to do so.

The news, first published in the Times, follows the announcement that four of the eleven Labour-affiliated unions will boycott the upcoming Labour Women’s Conference in September 2026. Unison, Aslef, Usdaw, and the Musicians’ Union cited the party’s decision to ban trans women from attending the event.

The EHRC code encourages service providers to require that anybody they perceive as trans should use ‘single-sex’ spaces aligned with their sex assigned at birth, or a mixed-sex space. Not all workplaces count as service providers, but this hasn’t prevented some from abandoning trans-inclusive policies regardless.

Unison: ‘We are taking the fight to every workplace’

As such, Unison general secretary Andrea Egan said in a video posted to Twitter/X that, on the EHRC code:

Advertisement

Over 600 members have written to us and provided examples of how the updated EHRC guidance is unworkable. We’ve also heard many employers have withdrawn their trans equality policies in response to this guidance and that is unacceptable.

I’ll be working with our network and equality team to ensure that we are taking the fight to every workplace to make them trans inclusive.

Unison represents some 1.3 million members. It also happens to be Labour’s second-largest union donor, to the tune of almost £26m to the party since 2010.

A spokesperson for Unison also stated that:

The union has an agreed policy recognising that trans women are women, trans men are men and non-binary identities are valid.

As a responsible organisation, Unison is complying with the judgment of the Supreme Court and the recent ruling of the certification officer.

Advertisement

The impact on trans, non-binary and gender diverse members is devastating. The union will be campaigning for a change in the law to reflect its policy.

NUS: EHRC code is ‘ideologically motivated’

In a similar move, the National Union of Students (NUS) has criticised the apparent bias behind the EHRC code. Avery Greatorex, NUS vice-president for liberation and equality, said:

We are wholeheartedly against this new guidance, and believe that it is not the result of unbiased legal advice, as it should be, but is ideologically motivated by the so-called ‘gender-critical movement’.

We thus encourage activists to resist trans-exclusionary policies.

Critics, including genocide watchdog the Lemkin Institute and even EHRC insiders, have made similar claims regarding the commission’s anti-trans ideology. Likewise, the guidance is already facing a legal challenge from two anonymous claimants, alleging that it fundamentally misunderstands the law.

Advertisement

As such, the NUS has issued a booklet containing advice for members on how to remain trans-inclusive in the wake of the guidance. It includes a letter template for students to send to their vice chancellors, which urges them:

to co-design all policies regarding the new Code of Practice with trans staff and students. Together, I am sure you can create policies that both follow the law and mitigate its trans-exclusionary consequences. I look forward to hearing how you plan to do this.

BMA: Code ‘will not work’ with NHS reality

Meanwhile, the British Medical Association (BMA) council has hit out at the sheer impracticality of implementing the EHRC’s guidance. Whilst that would be valid in itself, it’s particularly true given that the NHS is already dangerously overstretched. Deputy chairman Emma Runswick told the Times that:

Doctors want to be able to provide care to patients of all gender identities … Our concern is that the new code will not work with the reality of NHS services, many of which are already ill-equipped to provide safe and dignified care for trans patients.

Earlier this year, the BMA also criticised the government’s actions towards trans patients with regard to the Cass Review. The BMA’s own review of that report found that it established no evidential basis for the ensuing puberty blocker ban. As such, the government over-reached in reaction to the (already distinctly transphobic) report.

Other unions which have already criticised the EHRC code include the University and College Union, Unite, GMB, Equity and the Public and Commercial Services union.

Advertisement

The ideologically-captured government and its anti-equality equalities watchdog clearly believe that they have free reign to ride roughshod over trans people and their allies. Fortunately, the UK’s trade movement is here to show them that they’re willing to fight for principles of inclusion and fairness for all.

Featured image via the Canary

By Grace

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Politics

Kemi Badenoch Slaps Down Idea Of ‘Monstrous’ Tory-Reform Pact

Published

on

Kemi Badenoch Slaps Down Idea Of 'Monstrous' Tory-Reform Pact

Kemi Badenoch has rejected the idea of setting up a coalition government with Reform UK, describing it as “monstrous”.

The Conservative leader ruled out any prospect of a deal with her right-wing opponents, saying it would deter as many voters as it would attract.

There’s long been speculation that the Tories will have to join forces with Reform following their historic defeat in the 2024 general election.

But speaking to broadcaster Iain Dale at the Edinburgh Fringe, Badenoch said: “[Reform is] just people fighting all the time.

Advertisement

“Nigel Farage dictates what he wants depending on what he had for breakfast that day, and they’re all over the place.

“How do I work with people like that?”

Her words comes after Reform suspended commentator Tim Montgomerie, who defected from the Conservatives two years ago, over his outspoken criticism of Nigel Farage’s party.

Montgomerie has accused Farage of having a “women problem”, criticised the leader’s “angry and aggrieved tone” following his victory in the Clacton by-election and taken aim at Reform’s home affairs spokesperson Zia Yusuf repeatedly.

Advertisement

He has claimed the unelected politician needs to be a “team player” and stop acting like a “child” after Yusuf previously caused outrage by calling former Tory defence secretary Ben Wallace a “traitor”.

Badenoch also suggested her party’s victory in the Aberdeen South by-election in June proves they do not need a boost from other right-wing parties to win back voters.

She said: “If Reform had stood down in Aberdeen, no one would have believed we’d have won it on our own. They would have said we only got there because of Reform. So that’s why I say no deals.

“What I want is a Conservative government, not a monstrous Reform-Conservative hybrid, which will actually put as many people off as it gains.”

Advertisement

Reform UK has lost its dominant lead in most polls amid Andy Burnham’s takeover of the Labour government and the scandal around Farage’s finances.

The Reform leader failed to declare a £5 million donation from cryptobillionaire Christopher Harborne when he was first elected in 2024, leading to a parliamentary sleaze probe.

Farage then quit as an MP and stood again in what he described as a “people versus the establishment” contest in Clacton, forcing the investigation into his finances to pause.

All other major parties refused to stand a candidate in the by-election, calling it dubbed a “political stunt”.

Advertisement

Farage comfortably won his seat back earlier this month – and the probe into his finances resumed.

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Lee Anderson Advises Critics To Scroll Past Zia Yusuf’s Posts

Published

on

Lee Anderson Advises Critics To Scroll Past Zia Yusuf's Posts

Lee Anderson has advised critics to “scroll by” Zia Yusuf’s social media posts amid heightened scrutiny over Reform UK.

Yusuf, the party’s home affairs spokesperson, attracted backlash earlier this month when he called former defence secretary Ben Wallace a “traitor” to Britain.

Before he was suspended by Reform, party member Tim Montgomerie claimed Yusuf “consistently freelanced on Twitter” and “behaves like a child”.

Asked about the criticism surrounding Yusuf at a press conference, Reform’s chief whip Anderson defended his colleague.

Advertisement

He said: “I think Zia is probably one of our best communicators in Reform UK, very popular with the membership and a little bit of advice to anybody: If you don’t like what Zia says, then just scroll by. It’s really simple.”

He added: “If you don’t like what any of us have to say on social media, you don’t have to follow us. You don’t have to read our comments. Just scroll on by and go and listen to somebody else.”

Deputy leader Richard Tice also shrugged off the scrutiny around Yusuf, insisting the unelected politician is “passionate”.

He told reporters: “We’re all passionate; Zia is passionate.

Advertisement

“And we all, frankly, are furious at how the previous Conservative government let us all down because they said they were going to reduce immigration numbers. They didn’t. They opened the doors, they allowed the ‘Boriswave’.

“So, Zia is on great form. We’re on great form. We’re looking forward to conference. And as I tweeted out a couple of days ago, I think the summer heat may have got to a few journalists.”

Yusuf himself later took issue with reporters at the right-wing outlet Guido Fawkes after the site reported that Anderson had told people to scroll past his social media posts.

He wrote on X: “The Tory Labour establishment is terrified of my social media platform.

Advertisement

“My accounts do over 200 million organic views a month. Which is why establishment media is hell bent on trying to censor me.”

He added: “Remember, the things the establishment media write about Reform are not only lies, they are the *opposite* of the truth.”

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

‘Shenstone 5’ speak out after receiving light sentences in rare fair trial

Published

on

Shenstone 5

Shenstone 5

The ‘Shenstone 5′ anti-genocide activists have spoken out after receiving only conditional discharges for damaging a UAV Engines Ltd factory belonging to Israeli murder drone manufacturer Elbit.

Shenstone 5: rare and fair trial

The Shenstone 5 praised the judge for allowing them a fair trial – a rarity since the UK state’s war on the rights of citizens to protect Israel. The court allowed the activists to plead their political motivations for taking the action and even to show evidence of Israel’s use of drones made at the factory. And the judge even agreed they were prisoners of conscience.

Small wonder, then, that an Israel-compromised regime is determined to prevent juries from hearing about the crimes Israel commits with these weapons – or even of their legal right to acquit:

Following our trial, the Shenstone 4 were found guilty of criminal damage but are relieved to have been given only a conditional discharge. This has been almost 4 years after the action.

During the trial we were given the chance to each speak as to our motivations, what we knew about Elbit and why we did what we did. The lawyers also commented on these aspects. As such, we are glad to have been able to politicise the trial.

Advertisement

The judge even allowed the submitting of news articles about the Hermes 450 [drone], CAAT report on Elbit’s export licences etc as evidence after the first day.

The prosecution failed to present clear evidence regarding the sum of damage we did – they failed to present the relevant witness (two others also didn’t show up and hence the claims of violence from us also couldn’t be corroborated) but it was established that we did break 6 windows.

The one person they called up to give an estimate about the damage admitted, during cross-examination, that he knew the engines made here are used in military drones and specifically are also sent to the other Elbit- owned factory in Leicester. He had said in his statement that the business conducts lawful business but our lawyers grilled him and established that he was not in a position to say this – they got him to claim he doesn’t really know where engines do and don’t go.

The judge, after hearing our defences and evidence, said that it was clearly a crime of conscience and that he was convinced as to our belief that we were doing the right thing. As a result he gave a very light sentence and, unusually, did not force any compensation to Elbit.

Advertisement

We had feared having to compensate Elbit and also went in mentally prepared for for a short custodial (even if suspended) sentence if unlucky. The conditional discharge means that this will essentially disappear from our record as long as we don’t get convicted of a crime committed in the 12 months. He explained he was unable to find us not guilty due to the letter of the law.

But the action still carried a terrible cost in the face of state repression and contempt – though the Shenstone 5 said it was nothing compared to the suffering of the Palestinians:

This conviction only serves to show the imperialist injustice that lies in the so-called “justice” system. Our own comrade and co-defendant JoJo was deeply affected by the stress of this prolonged case and repression of the anti-Elbit movement, which he faced directly. This was a contributing factor to him taking his own life. We affirm that he never should have faced legal proceedings for acting to prevent genocide.

The prosecutor sought to bully us, particularly Jay, with circular questioning and and putting forward absurd statements. He told us our actions were pointless and did nothing for the Palestinians but also argued that the damage was “significant”. He said that we should have pursued other means including reporting war crimes to the police’s war crimes department, lobbying MPs and even emailing UAV Engines to tell them about our concerns. This exposed the absurd and genocidal logic of liberalism to us.

Further to this, the legal system refuses to hold the real criminals and perpetrators of genocide to account. The Palestinians continue to be the principal subjects of the genocidal settler-colonialism of Zionism. The judge said something along the lines that some of what was being disputed needed an investigation into UAV Engines but that this was beyond the purview of the court.

Advertisement

No repression on us can be compared to that the Palestinians face. We do not regret our actions and for this reason we have won. Long live the resistance.

Inquilab Zindabad
Shenstone 5

Featured image supplied

By Skwawkbox

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Why Death Breaks So Many Friendships Apart

Published

on

Why Death Breaks So Many Friendships Apart

Speaking to The Times recently, actor Richard E. Grantwho lost his wife of 35 years, voice coach Joan Washington, in 2021 – said the experience led him to cut certain friends out of his life for good.

“There are people that have been edited out of my life, and I will never see them again,” he shared, speaking about friends who became distant after his wife’s death. “If I had done that to them, I wouldn’t be able to look them in the face.”

I’ve heard a similar sentiment from many bereaved loved ones (I’ve been blindsided by it, too). Something tragic happens, and just when you need support the most, people you’d have thought were closest to you appear to fade away.

Or maybe you feel you can never “connect” the same with your old pals after such a life-changing event (another common issue friends have shared).

Advertisement

What’s happening here? HuffPost UK spoke to BACP-registered therapist Laurie Hole about why friendships so often fall apart after a death.

Why do so many friendships break apart after a death?

Hole said that while death is universal, the topic of grief remains incredibly taboo for many.

“We are generally very under-equipped to understand grief or know how to support somebody through it,” she explained.

Advertisement

“Until you experience a significant loss, it can be almost impossible to comprehend the enormity of it – and even the grieving person themselves may struggle to make sense of what they are experiencing.”

That might mean those suffering a terrible loss feel the responsibility to explain their feelings or the nature of their pain when they might be least equipped to do so.

Therefore, the griever might isolate themselves first: “Sometimes withdrawing from friendships becomes a way of protecting already very limited emotional reserves”.

Other times, the therapist added, “Another person’s loss can bring up [friends’] own unacknowledged or unresolved grief, or confront them with feelings about death and mortality that they would rather avoid. They may have their own life challenges that mean they simply don’t have the capacity they ordinarily would.”

Advertisement

She said this isn’t always intentional, though it still stings.

“And sometimes people genuinely believe they are saying or doing something helpful, but it lands painfully. Good intentions don’t necessarily prevent hurt, particularly when we have so few conversations about what grief actually looks and feels like.”

How can I be a better friend to a grieving person?

Given how little grief and death are talked about, Hole shared some guidelines that can help you if your friend is going through it.

Advertisement
  1. Ban the phrase “at least”. The therapist said we should avoid sentences like “’At least they lived a long life’, ‘at least they’re no longer suffering’, ‘at least you had the time you did’ – however well-intentioned, trying to find a positive in somebody’s loss can feel incredibly devastating to the person hearing it”.
  2. Forget about timelines. When someone loses a loved one, Hole said, don’t try to give them a schedule for getting over the pain or “accepting” their loss. “Instead of asking whether they have accepted or moved on from the death yet, you could ask, ‘How is grief showing up for you right now?’ Be curious about their experience rather than assuming what it should look like,” she advised.
  3. Read up. You might not be able to imagine your friend’s pain, but it can help to “read memoirs and accounts of grief rather than expecting your friend to teach you everything – while remembering that nobody else’s grief will be exactly like theirs”.
  4. Don’t forget big dates. Check in on “the dates that matter: the anniversary of the death, birthdays and other significant occasions. And if you knew the person who died, share your memories,” the expert advised.
  5. Say their loved one’s name. “People sometimes worry that mentioning somebody who has died will remind the grieving person of their loss, but they haven’t forgotten,” stated Hole. “Hearing their loved one’s name can instead be a reminder that this person mattered to other people too.”

When should I give up on a friendship that’s suffering after a death?

Sadly, Hole said, “Friendships don’t necessarily have to last a lifetime, and losing friendships following bereavement can itself become another loss that has to be processed. The death of someone you love is already a profound loss; discovering that some of your friendships cannot survive your grief can become another loss that has to be grieved”.

There’s no right or wrong answer when it comes to breaking a friend off, she continued. “Repair might involve acknowledging what happened, listening without becoming defensive, and taking responsibility for the impact – even when causing hurt was never the intention.

“But if somebody who is grieving has explicitly communicated what they need or set boundaries and a friend continually ignores or dismisses those needs, it is reasonable to consider whether that friendship can support them at this point in their life. Sometimes that means temporarily stepping back; sometimes it means allowing the relationship to end.”

Sometimes, the therapist shared, grief can expose existing problems that were easier to hide before a death. And bereavement can make someone who used to put up with a lot more bad behaviour less forbearing, too.

Advertisement

“If maintaining a friendship is repeatedly causing more hurt, it may be worth asking whether that person can still have a place in your life in the same way they did before.”

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Media freaks out because Burnham wears polo shirt

Published

on

Andy Burnham of the Labour Party

Andy Burnham of the Labour Party

On Sunday 23 August, Andy Burnham visited Ukraine. And his first trip to the besieged nation has given the UK media the perfect opportunity to once again demonstrate how ridiculous they are:

Un-suit-able

There’s quite a lot to think about in Dale’s comment, as we’ll demonstrate:

Advertisement

Call me old-fashioned if you like, but a zip-up polo shirt on a visit to a warzone? What on earth is he thinking?

At this point, you’d be forgiven for thinking that Dale wanted to see Burnham in camo and body armour. The next sentence put that notion to bed:

Even Boris worse a suit.

Okay, so what did this suit achieve exactly? It certainly wouldn’t have protected him from the bullets – not unless it was made of a Top Secret material from Q Branch.

The next point from Dale was probably the wildest thing he said:

Knowing how the Ukrainians like their protocols to be respected, I imagine this will have caused some offence.

Famously, Volodymyr Zelenskyy was criticised in the White House earlier this year for not wearing a suit. His sartorial choice was no blip, either; the guy never wears suits. In fact, he notably wasn’t wearing one when he met Andy Burnham:

Advertisement

Dale ended on the following point:

Advertisement

Surely the [Foreign, Commonwealth, and Development Office] advise PMs on things like this?

We imagine they did advise Burnham, and that said advice was: ‘probably best not to dress up given who you’re meeting, eh?‘.

Hysteria

Dale wasn’t the only one to become uncontrollably upset by the image of Burnham’s polo neck; GB News had this to say:

It’s not wrong to suggest the decision was ‘performative’; everything world leaders do in public is a performance. Burnham almost certainly did have conversations about what he wore, and he no doubt anticipated the move upsetting our permanently offended media class.

Actual problems with Burnham

Saying all the above, there are plenty of good reasons to be unhappy with Burnham, as we’ve extensively reported:

Advertisement

Featured image via Henry Nicholls

By Willem Moore

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Manchester United mauled by The Tigers in Hull

Published

on

Manchester United Hull City

Manchester United Hull City

Hull City marked their Premier League return with a controlled, confident and fully deserved 2-0 win over Manchester United at the MKM Stadium, delivering a jolt to Michael Carrick’s side on the opening weekend. First‑half goals from Semi Ajayi and Nobel Mendy exposed United’s defensive frailties and set the tone for an afternoon where the visitors never looked comfortable.

United arrived with optimism after a strong finish last season. Hull arrived with noise, energy and a point to prove. By the final whistle, only one of those moods remained.

Ajayi strikes as Manchester United unravel early

Hull’s opener came from the kind of moment Carrick will recognise all too well. A routine ball into the box wasn’t dealt with, Manchester United hesitated, and Ajayi reacted quickest, poking home from close range on 17 minutes. It was scruffy, simple and exactly the type of goal United have been warned about.

The MKM Stadium erupted. Hull, back in the top flight for the first time since 2017, fed off the atmosphere. Acun Ilicali had spoken pre‑match about people writing his team off, inside 20 minutes, Hull were making their own argument.

Advertisement

United, meanwhile, looked physically second best. Hull’s intensity, particularly in midfield, forced mistakes and pinned Carrick’s side deeper than they wanted. Every Hull attack carried purpose. Every Manchester United defensive action looked improvised.

Mendy doubles the damage

The second goal arrived before the break and again exposed Manchester United’s lack of organisation. A simple delivery, a clean run, and Mendy rose unchallenged to power a header past Senne Lammens on 38 minutes. Hull didn’t need to be spectacular; they just needed to be sharp. United weren’t.

By half-time, Carrick had seen enough. Marcus Rashford was sent on for his first competitive United appearance in 618 days. It was a moment of significance for the forward, but it didn’t change the pattern of the game.

Rashford’s introduction didn’t bring the spark United needed. Hull remained compact, disciplined and confident. United remained flat.

Advertisement

Bryan Mbeumo carved out Manchester United’s only genuine second‑half chance, breaking into space before firing a half‑volley that Konstantinos Tzolakis saved superbly with one hand. It was the kind of moment Hull had been dealing with all afternoon, decisive, calm, assured.

United never built sustained pressure. Hull never looked rattled. The newly‑promoted side managed the game with maturity, slowing it when needed, speeding it when space opened, and winning duels across the pitch.

Hull’s control highlights problems

Carrick’s side finished last season strongly, but this performance revived familiar concerns. Hull’s wing‑backs were aggressive, their midfielders relentless, and their forwards led superbly by Oli McBurnie held the ball, drew fouls and kept United pinned back.

McBurnie’s work rate and hold‑up play were central to Hull’s approach. He gave his team territory, time and a focal point. Hull didn’t just defend well; they carried a threat throughout.

Advertisement

Manchester United, by contrast, lacked intensity. They were second to loose balls, slow to react in transitions and vulnerable at set‑plays an issue Bruno Fernandes later admitted had been flagged before kick-off.

Hull’s win is more than an opening‑day surprise. It’s a statement that they intend to compete, not simply survive. Their organisation, physicality and clarity of approach suggest a team comfortable at this level.

For United, the defeat triggers familiar questions. Defensive reinforcements have been demanded by supporters, and with around 10 days left in the window, the pressure on recruitment and on Carrick will now intensify.

Manchester United’s next fixtures offer little margin for error. Hull, meanwhile, take momentum into their schedule, buoyed by a performance that showcased both quality and resilience.

Advertisement

Hull show fight as Manchester United show fragility

Hull’s performance was built on energy, organisation and belief. They were first to duels, aggressive in transitions and composed in possession. Their wing‑backs stretched Manchester United, their midfielders controlled the tempo, and their forwards carried constant threat.

United lacked those qualities. They were passive, disjointed and repeatedly exposed. Carrick’s side will argue it’s only one game, but the manner of the defeat ensures the conversation won’t be quiet.

Hull City earned this win. They were sharper, hungrier and more cohesive. Manchester United were not. For Carrick, the challenge now is to ensure this isn’t the start of another familiar story.

Featured Image courtesy of Reuters

Advertisement

By Faz Ali

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Russia Withdraws Ambassador From The UK Amid Fresh Ukraine War Row

Published

on

Russia Withdraws Ambassador From The UK Amid Fresh Ukraine War Row

Russia has withdrawn its ambassador to the UK amid rising tensions over Britain’s role in the Ukraine war.

Andrei Kelin, who spent seven years as the Russian ambassador in the UK, left the posting on July 21 and the Kremlin has not submitted any names to the Foreign Office to be considered as his replacement.

According to The Times, embassy staff have no clear idea of when the role might be filled – sparking fears of a communication breakdown between the UK and Russia.

It comes after Moscow officials expressed outrage when it was confirmed British drones had been used by Ukraine to strike targets deep within Russia.

Advertisement

The embassy in London then claimed Britain would face the “consequences”, though the UK government doubled down on its support on Ukraine.

Prime minister Andy Burnham said the UK was not a “fair weather friends” and supports “Ukraine 100%”.

A spokesperson for the Russian embassy claimed Kelin had made “considerable efforts to preserve contacts and channels of communication” with Britain.

They accused Downing Street of choosing a “path of confrontation” with Russia.

Advertisement

Putin’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov also told the media: “I feel sorry for the United Kingdom, if it is going to stand with Ukraine until the very end.

“As for the substance of our Embassy’s comment, it means only one thing: President Vladimir Putin has warned of our right to act in any area of the world’s oceans, should anyone encroach on our interests or our property.

“We have exactly the same right to regard the proudly announced direct involvement of British missile forces in strikes against the Russian Federation as participation in the war. With all the consequences that entails.”

The reason for Kelin’s departure from the role remains unclear.

Advertisement

Russia has threatened to downgrade its relationship with the UK over Britain’s support for Ukraine following Putin’s illegal invasion in 2022.

As Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said in June 2024: “The issue of lowering the level of diplomatic relations is a standard practice for states that face unfriendly or hostile manifestations.”

Listen to Commons People, the podcast that makes politics easy. Every week, Kevin Schofield and Kate Nicholson unpack the week’s biggest stories to keep you informed. Join us for straightforward analysis of what’s going on at Westminster.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

What Is ‘Ferritin Face’? Signs Of Iron Deficiency Explained

Published

on

What Is 'Ferritin Face'? Signs Of Iron Deficiency Explained

My skin’s a little dry, dull and pale. The rings under my eyes stay shadowy no matter how much sleep I get, and my hair could stand to be thicker.

This, TikTok assures me, is “ferritin face” – a series of visual signs that suggest my iron stores are low.

In my case, that’s been proven true through blood tests. These tests are the only reliable way to work out whether you’re iron deficient: you should see your GP if you suspect low iron.

So, does the social media trend have any merits?

Advertisement

Here’s what Dr Kathryn Basford from Asda Online Doctor had to say.

How common is low ferritin?

Low ferritin levels refer to depleted long-term supplies of iron. Dr Basford said it’s very common in the UK, especially among teens, kids, older people and women.

People who menstruate are at particular risk, because of the blood they lose during their periods or while pregnant.

Advertisement

“Women with heavy periods are likely to lose even more iron and may benefit from iron supplements, but most people can get enough iron from the foods they eat,” the GP expained.

“Iron deficiencies can be under-recognised causes of fatigue, especially in women, and larger studies, alongside increasing public interest in testing has raised awareness of this.”

What are the signs of low ferritin?

Some symptoms of low iron, like paler-than-usual skin and (more rarely) ulcers in the corners of your mouth, really do form something of a “ferritin face”.

Advertisement

But Dr Basford said there are loads of other possible signs of low iron we should pay attention to, like:

  • tiredness
  • shortness of breath
  • heart palpitations
  • headaches
  • hair loss
  • nail changes
  • feeling itchy
  • tinnitus

Again, however, you’ll need to see a doctor to know if you’re anaemic.

“Speak to your GP if you think you have low iron levels, and they will ask you about your lifestyle and medical history. They will likely perform a blood test to diagnose low ferritin,” the doctor stated.

“If it is unclear what is causing low iron, a doctor may issue further tests to uncover the reason for your symptoms, like a faecal immunochemical test that looks for blood in a small sample of your poo.”

Can other conditions cause symptoms like ‘ferritin face’?

Advertisement

That’s another reason to see your doctor if you have what you think are signs of iron deficiency. Dr Basford said that “conditions that cause fatigue, weakness, or dizziness can sometimes mimic low iron”.

“The most common are alternative forms of anaemia, or conditions like hypothyroidism and chronic kidney disease, as these impair red blood cell production,” she stated.

These might not appear on your face, but they can be confused with other symptoms of low iron.

Meanwhile, sleep apnoea can lead to fatigue, and far more rarely, some heart and lung conditions can create symptoms like palpitations and/or difficulty breathing.

Advertisement

What should I do if I’m diagnosed with iron deficiency anaemia?

It depends on what’s causing it, Dr Basford shared. If the issue lies mainly in your diet, your GP might recommend eating more:

  • red meat
  • pulses (like beans and chickpeas)
  • nuts
  • dried fruits
  • leafy greens (especially alongside vitamin C-rich foods)

They might also instruct you to “drink less tea and coffee, and eat less dairy and foods with high levels of phytic acid, like wholegrain cereals, as these can make it harder for your body to absorb iron”.

Your doctor could put you on iron supplements, too. Whether you’re taking them after being told to by your GP, or just bought some over-the-counter, the doctor said: “Make sure not to take more than the recommended daily dose, as this can cause constipation, nausea, vomiting and stomach pain”.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Rebecca Smith: Britain needs water abundance

Published

on

Rebecca Smith is the MP for South West Devon.

For too long, our national debate has assumed that decline is inevitable. As something to be managed, rather than reversed. We block housing instead of building more homes. We ration energy instead of producing more power. We restrict infrastructure instead of unleashing more growth. And increasingly, we are rationing water on an island famed for its rainfall.

Britain cannot build a prosperous future on a politics of scarcity, which tells the public to consume less, build less, and expect less. This mindset assumes that Britain’s best days are behind us and that the Government’s role is simply to manage decline as fairly as possible.

Central to our plans for renewal of both our party and our nation, the Conservatives must reject this managed decline and instead champion abundance. And, from the food we grow to the data centres we want to attract, securing an abundant supply of water now and for generations to come must be central to this vision.

Advertisement

However, water infrastructure currently takes decades to deliver. If we do not act swiftly, Britain risks sleepwalking into chronic shortages that will damage growth, push up food prices, constrain housebuilding, and undermine national resilience.

As I have seen first-hand with farmers and the Westcountry River Trust in my constituency, water storage, such as ponds, could provide much-needed relief when water is in short supply and play a vital role in irrigating crops during heatwaves. Too often, however, farmers are forced to navigate a regulatory headache to create ponds, on top of facing the financial pressures from droughts, heatwaves, and Labour’s war on rural communities.

The Environment Agency has already tried to block thousands of homes around Cambridge because of water shortages. Meanwhile, water-intensive businesses in my constituency and across England are being told additional supply cannot be guaranteed. Data centres, essential for the future of artificial intelligence, are increasingly constrained by water stress.

At the same time, climate change is making rainfall less predictable. We face wetter winters, drier summers, and more severe droughts. Despite these realities, Britain has not built a major reservoir since 1991. This statistic alone should shame us all.

Advertisement

Rather than respond to rising water demand and greater weather uncertainty by expanding supply and prioritising resilience, Britain instead has constructed a labyrinth of regulators, obstacles, and rules that make almost any meaningful infrastructure project painfully slow, prohibitively expensive, or outright impossible. This makes managing scarcity appear to be the only viable option.

The problem is not a lack of rainfall, expertise, or private capital. It is a regulatory culture built around pessimism, risk aversion, and the assumption that growth itself is the problem. That mindset is embedded most clearly in the EU-derived Habitats Regulations, which increasingly operate as barriers to resilience rather than tools for sensible environmental stewardship.

Wanting abundance is not anti-environment. In fact, scarcity is often what destroys nature. The current framework is failing both the economy and our natural world. Conservatives should be honest about this.

The system we have is littered with perverse incentives that have distorted investment decisions, by encouraging box-ticking compliance over genuine environmental improvement. This bureaucratic rigidity has resulted in water scarcity, leading to bottlenecks for homes, infrastructure, and economic growth. This is decline dressed up as environmentalism.

Advertisement

Conservative environmentalism should be about stewardship, resilience, and abundance. Just as we should strive to supply our economy with the water it requires, we should be striving for biodiversity in abundance, not conserving dwindling quality and quantity of habitats and species.

We must, therefore, replace these EU-era rules and pursue a more flexible, outcomes-based regulatory system that looks at entire landscapes, rather than try to address what is going on in isolated individual sites.

The current system also plans water supply around politically aspirational assumptions and a belief thatthere is no longer a strong link between non-household water demand and economic activity.” The rapid growth of sectors such as artificial intelligence, hydrogen production, carbon capture, and gigafactories strongly suggests the opposite may now be true.

And yet, the Environment Agency continues to require water companies to plan future supply on the assumption that the target will be achieved, despite growing evidence to the contrary. This reckless approach creates the illusion of water resilience without actually delivering it.

Advertisement

Successive governments have pursued ambitious demand reduction targets while avoiding the trade-offs required to achieve them. Unable to easily increase supply, such as by building reservoirs, those responsible with delivery reductions in consumption have limited powers to influence demand.

Again, with a clear pressure to act, governments have pursued piecemeal policies that tinker at the edges, like water efficiency standards and product labelling. While striving for water abundance should not encourage unnecessary waste of resources, equally it should not be an excuse for managing scarcity through ever tighter restrictions on demand because it is easier than increasing supply.

A country that cannot provide enough water for new homes, new industries, and future generations is a country that has accepted decline. Conservatives should reject that future because, ultimately, the choice is not between prosperity and sustainability. It is between managing scarcity and creating the conditions for both to flourish.

Advertisement

Source link

Continue Reading

Politics

Netflix Confirms The Gentlemen Season 3 Amid Meghan Markle Rumours

Published

on

Netflix Confirms The Gentlemen Season 3 Amid Meghan Markle Rumours

Netflix has made a very timely announcement about the future of the hit gangster series The Gentlemen.

On Monday afternoon, with just over a week to go until the long-awaited second season of Guy Ritchie’s Emmy-winning show returns, Netflix dropped a two-minute trailer featuring Theo James and Kaya Scodelario back in action.

“Ambition can’t be tamed,” they teased. “The Gentlemen season two, starring Theo James and Kaya Scodelario, premieres next Thursday.”

Responding to recent speculation about a third run, they added: “As for Season 3? Consider it official.”

Advertisement

Check out the trailer for yourself below:

Guy enthused: “The ambition of The Gentlemen has accelerated, the world has expanded and the consequences carry weight.

“A third season felt inevitable, and I’m looking forward to pushing the boundaries of it further.”

Advertisement

In the lead-up to its return, The Gentlemen has been majorly back in the news over the last few days, over conflicting reports in the entertainment press suggesting that Meghan Markle had begun talks about appearing in a potential third season.

Following the news that the Duke and Duchess of Sussex were moving back to the UK next month, it was suggested that the former Suits star could make a return to the acting world in The Gentlemen’s third outing, after reportedly meeting director Guy Ritchie at a social event.

While initially it was claimed that Meghan had entered “advanced talks” about a role in a future storyline, it was later suggested that these had fallen through due to the discourse sparked by the media reporting – although others who claim to have knowledge of the story have claimed that the whole thing was a total “fabrication”, anyway.

The Gentlemen’s first season – a spin-off of the Guy Ritchie film of the same name – premiered on Netflix in 2024, and was a hit with both viewers and critics.

Advertisement

Returning for season two are Vinnie Jones, Daniel Ings and Ray Winstone, while Love Island host Maya Jama is also joining the cast this time around.

The Gentlemen returns on Thursday 3 September.

Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2025