Politics
Dare to be free – spiked
We live in profoundly risk-averse times. And this has had a tremendous impact on individual freedom. Every aspect is increasingly overshadowed by a concern over the seemingly adverse consequences of our actions. Every potential decision, right down to what we choose to eat or drink, is increasingly regulated by officialdom.
In this context, how do we start to re-make the case for individual freedom? The answer lies not in denying but in embracing the risks and the responsibilities that come with freedom.
There’s certainly a straightforward way to argue for the freedom to take risks, especially risks that don’t directly affect anyone else, and that is to see risk as a form of harm to the risk-taker. If smoking, or drinking excessively, or eating too many pies, harms me by increasing my long-term health risks, that’s my own business. If I bet my rent on a spin of the roulette wheel, and end up eating cold baked beans for a month, how does that harm anyone else? If I take up mountaineering, or motorcycle racing, or lion taming, and suffer life-changing injuries, I am the one who suffers harm, and therefore I should be free to do what I think best.
I have a great deal of sympathy for this argument taken from classic liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill’s ‘harm principle’, especially in this puritanical age. It’s important to defend our freedom to make choices about our own lives, small as well as large, even when others think they’re bad choices and not in our own interests.
Yet the negative impacts of an individual’s actions or even just their bad luck do extend beyond that individual. Financially, practically or emotionally, it’s almost impossible to think of a risk that doesn’t resonate somehow along the social bonds tying us together. To live as if each of us is, in John Donne’s words, ‘an island’ is neither possible nor, I would suggest, desirable. We are human by virtue of growing up in human society – our lives interwoven with other humans.
To argue that the authorities should keep their noses out of our riskier actions is not to deny this inescapable web of human connection. The question is not whether our actions have effects on others, but who should have the authority to criticise or constrain those actions. Is it those who are involved with us – practically, or emotionally – or public bodies with a blueprint for desirable lifestyles that we’re all urged to follow?
Governments and campaign groups may claim to have our best interests at heart, but they don’t in the way our family and friends do. People who know us understand that there is more to life than being healthy, safe and solvent. They can see positive, as well as negative, aspects of risk-taking – the potential rewards as well as the possible harms.
Public bodies, by contrast, tend to have population-level targets for us, the public, that don’t take into account harder-to-measure values such as pleasure, altruism, curiosity or autonomy. Preserving bodily health, financial stability and safety in general are almost moral imperatives in themselves today. The scope of Bessie Smith’s ‘Tain’t Nobody’s Bizness if I Do’ has shrunk so far that we can’t even be trusted to choose what we look at online, let alone what we do in the real world.
Putting oneself at risk is framed as an invitation to harm: at best, reckless and feckless; at worst, wantonly self-destructive. To take a risk is seen as irresponsible. I want to turn this argument around. Far from being irresponsible, taking risks is the only way to be a truly responsible adult. To live a life devoted to constraining uncertainty, minimising bad possibilities and maximising predictability, is to live as a child. It’s not only permissible to take risks – in fact, it’s intrinsic to being a moral agent.
There is a school of moral philosophy that is focussed entirely on the consequences of one’s actions: consequentialism, particularly utilitarianism. To decide what to do, a good utilitarian tries to predict the outcomes of different courses of action, choosing the one that will probably lead to the best state of affairs for the greatest number of people affected.
I say ‘probably’, because it’s impossible to predict exactly how things will turn out. This leads to arguments about whether it’s better to minimise the worst harm that can happen, maximise the best possible outcome or calculate the ‘expected’ (average) outcome and follow the numbers. Then comes the question of what we mean by the ‘best’ state of affairs. Who gets to decide the measure of ‘best’? Utilitarianism, while neat in theory, is very tricky in practice.
Another school of moral philosophy, intentionalism, avoids these tricky questions by judging the intentions of the person who acts. If the intentions are good, but the action turns out to result in a bad state of affairs, the agent is still a good person. The German 18th-century philosophy Immanuel Kant is often credited with formalising this approach, by asserting that what matters most is a ‘good will’. Kant distinguished the moral universe from the cause-and-effect physical universe of our everyday experience. In the physical world, we are governed by physical laws, but in the moral universe individuals are capable of governing themselves, by choosing to act according to moral laws.
This idea of ‘pure’ agency – that we should be judged only by our intentions, not the outcomes of our actions – doesn’t quite match our everyday moral instincts. We can sympathise with the well-meaning person whose well-intentioned actions go wrong, but we don’t necessarily think that their ‘good will’ lets them off the hook.
Suppose you borrow my car to drive somebody to hospital. Unfortunately for you – and for me – when you bring it back you hit the gatepost. Who should be responsible for getting the car (and possibly the gatepost) repaired? Surely it’s you, because you were driving. Not only that, when you decided to take the car, you took on responsibility for its safe return.
Real life is full of examples like this: we take on projects, large and small, with varying degrees of uncertainty about how they will turn out. By initiating something new, we take on responsibility for seeing it through. This may involve unforeseen challenges. It may mean learning new skills we didn’t expect to need. It may bring new obligations that we didn’t anticipate.
I took a show about risk to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival in 2019. Early in the show, I would ask a random audience member, ‘What’s the biggest risk you’ve ever taken?’. Several people answered, ‘getting married’. This always got a laugh (especially as that person was usually sitting with their spouse and sometimes children) followed by reflective silence.
Is getting married the same as a spin of the roulette wheel? That’s a cheeky thing to say about your life partner. Did you get lucky? Or have you tied yourself to a lifetime of snoring and being talked over at dinner? But marriage is not a spin of the roulette wheel. It’s not a single decision after which there is nothing to be done but sit back and wait for fate to take its course.
Marriage is an open-ended commitment to another person, ‘for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health’, without knowing what challenges the future will bring. You may acquire new obligations to children. You may have to find new strengths you didn’t know were in you, to cope with what life throws at you. Hopefully, you will also find new possibilities open to you, new opportunities that you could not have foreseen when you first said, ‘I do’.
Marriage is, in short, the kind of risk that responsible adults take, because we recognise that responsibility extends beyond our intentions, beyond what we can predict and beyond what we explicitly agree to take on.
Having children is another example. So is starting a business, setting in motion a political campaign, leading an expedition – anything new which needs others to make it happen is not a single risk, but an unfolding, branching series of risks that cascade from the first decision, committing you to a path that can’t be retraced if you regret choosing it. More decisions, more risks, more actions will be required of you along the way, each one causing outcomes you couldn’t predict but now can’t rewind.
Hannah Arendt, writing in The Human Condition (1958), calls this ‘the burden of irreversibility and unpredictability’, which is an inescapable part of human action. It’s inevitable that ‘he who acts never quite knows what he is doing… he always becomes “guilty” of consequences he never intended or even foresaw… no matter how disastrous and unexpected the consequences of his deed, he can never undo it’.
Philosophical discussion of moral responsibility often includes the ‘control condition’ – the idea that one’s responsibility extends only as far as one’s control. Philosophers Bernard Williams and Thomas Nagel introduced the idea of ‘moral luck’ to challenge this idea. Luck can, and does, affect our moral judgment of individuals and actions. A ‘good will’ is not enough: we judge people differently if their actions turn out to have better or worse consequences due to things beyond their control. The drunk driver who kills is condemned more harshly than the equally drunk driver who is lucky enough to encounter no pedestrian on the way home.
But, as Arendt points out, every worthwhile human enterprise involves factors beyond an individual’s control. Not only the vagaries of nature and the unknowability of the complex physical world, but the fundamental unpredictability of other people. ‘The fact that man is capable of the unexpected means that the unexpected can be expected from him, that he is able to perform what is infinitely improbable.’ Not even the most sophisticated computer imaginable could predict the future of the human world, because humans are free to transcend the deterministic laws of nature. We have a unique capacity to defy statistical probability with unprecedented actions that set new things in motion.
Because every significant project – from a marriage to a political campaign – needs more than one person to make it happen, it can never be under the control of a single individual, not even the person who set it in motion. This means that to act in any significant way, to set in motion anything that could influence the world, is to take a risk.
Freedom is not liberation from responsibility for the consequences of one’s actions, but freedom to act in full acceptance of that responsibility. Freedom to act, that is, without being able to know for what, exactly, one will turn out to be responsible.
This is what philosopher Margaret Urban Walker calls ‘impure’ agency. We are human agents, ‘agents of, rather than outside, the world of space, time, and causality’, and our responsibilities outrun our capacity to control the world around us. If ‘pure agents’ really existed, says Urban Walker, and insisted that their responsibilities – moral and practical – ended at the limit of their control, they would be able to walk away from all unforeseen, unplanned or uncontrolled outcomes of their actions. ‘Relationships, situations and encounters in which emerge uncontrolled and uninvited needs, demands and opportunities to enable or harm’ would be no grounds for moral claims upon such ‘pure agents’.
We could not live together, trusting each other to assume the burdens of our web of human commitments, if everyone insisted on thus limiting their obligations to others. Dependability may not seem to be an especially glorious virtue, but, without it, society rapidly falls apart. Moral luck, far from being a curious paradox of interest only to philosophers, is ‘a fact of our moral situation and our human kind of agency’, Urban Walker writes. Recognising the reality of this situation is itself part of being a moral agent.
To children who act without understanding we say, ‘it wasn’t your fault, you didn’t know’, even when their actions have terrible consequences. Adults are expected to take responsibility for the consequences of their actions, no matter how unforeseen. In our current, risk-averse society, our knowledge of this fact turns out to be a constraint on our willingness to act, to start new things, and to take on open-ended responsibilities.
All sorts of things that previous generations regarded as normal parts of life – relationships, children, starting a business or a voluntary community group – are now understood less as exciting opportunities but more as risky Pandora’s boxes of potential harm. Uncertainty about how things will turn out is regarded as a reason not to do them, in case they turn out badly.
When we do begin new things, we’re encouraged to do them in ways that minimise that uncertainty. Dating apps, for example, feel more controllable than just talking to strangers in a bar; potential partners are viewed through a screen and communication can be carefully crafted before sending. In person, spontaneous looks and words might betray our feelings and leave us emotionally vulnerable to another person’s actions.
There is a deep pessimism in this tendency to think about risk mainly in terms of harm, rather than opportunity. Embarking on a risky project is generally something we do because we hope for good outcomes, not bad. Underlying this pessimism is a lack of faith in our human ability to cope with uncertainty, to follow through with our responsibilities in unforeseen situations. This is consistent with the general trend to see adults more and more like children: too emotionally fragile to act rationally in upsetting situations; too immature to be relied upon when the going gets tough; vulnerable, not dependable.
No wonder we’re inclined to discuss risk as a state of impending harm from which we should all be protected, and not as a way of understanding action, as an integral part of human life.
What, then, should an adult who values freedom do about risk? It’s not a question of taking risks for the sake of danger. If you feel that doing more risky things will build your habit of courage, fine, but suddenly taking up mountaineering will do little to shift the infantilising, risk-averse mood in our society.
Instead, we need to take on the inherent risk that any worthwhile human enterprise entails, wholeheartedly, and with full acceptance of the moral responsibility that brings. As much as one can – and should – prepare for any project, plan ahead for potential problems and anticipate the unexpected, there will always be unforeseen challenges.
These are, what Urban Walker calls, ‘the decisive moral tests one did not invite… the faulty or horrifying results that one invited but did not control and that one is expected to find resources to address or redress without taking refuge in denial, demoralisation, or paralysis’.
It is our willingness to live up to our responsibilities at such times that is the real test of our integrity as moral agents. But that willingness to commit to a project in full knowledge of the risks involved, and live up to our responsibilities when the going gets tough, is also what constitutes real freedom to act in, and on, the world.
Timandra Harkness is a writer, performer and broadcaster. She is the author most recently of Technology is Not the Problem, published by HQ.
This is an edited version of a Letters on Liberty pamphlet, Risk and Responsibility, which can be purchased in full here. Subscribe to the Academy of Ideas Substack for this and more.
Tomorrow, the King of the North will grace southerners with his exulted present and travel to London to claim the throne that he considers his by right. It’s as if he has hypnotised his party to lay down their collective shawls in order that the chosen one can walk on water. It’s as if the Messiah is coming to rescue those who have proven incapable of running the country. It’s almost as if he, like Barack Obama appeared to be in 2008, considers himself the only human being in the country who can come to its rescue. He’s even using Obamaesque language, promising hope and change. Obama soon found out that governing was more difficult than that. Andy Burnham is about to discover the awful truth, that changing things in government and changing things in Whitehall are much more difficult. Having been a cabinet minister for three years under Blair and Brown, you’d think he might know that already.
I like Andy Burnham, but I’m afraid we are about to find out that our new emperor has no clothes.
One of the main complaints about Keir Starmer is that he has no grounding political ideological groundings. This means that he is very proficient at swaying in the political wind, and flip-flopping on a policy in the hope that no one will notice.
Burnham has a longer history than Starmer in the Labour Party. Indeed, he’s been a Labour activist from a young age. But can anyone identify what Burnhamism actually is or means. People point to ‘Manchesterism’ but as Sam Coates’s excellent 20 minute film points out, the ground for what Burnham has allegedly achieved in Manchester was laid by Sir Richard Leese. Burnham has been very adept in claiming the glory for himself. Running a city region the size of Manchester is very different to running a country.
Since it became clear that Burnham intended to topple the prime minister, the media has had a collective failure in scrutinising what Andy Burnham really believes in. We’ve seen plenty of examples of issues which he has u-turned on in a way that would make even Keir Starmer blush, but there is scant little evidence of anything which he believes in except himself.
In 2007, when Gordon Brown succeeded Tony Blair, everyone thought he would come in with an agenda for government. That he knew exactly what he wanted to do and achieve. After all, he had had ten years to think about it. But when he walked through the Number 10 door, it turned out the policy cupboard was bare. It led to three years of listless government, with a prime minister incapable of making decisions or to reflect the priorities of the people he was there to serve.
I genuinely hope I am wrong and that Burnham has some visionary policies up his sleep which he can deploy to the benefit of the nation. I am, however, sceptical, because I see no evidence of it. However, assuming he has two months to prepare to take over, perhaps there is still time to put some meat on the bone.
Theresa May became prime minister two months earlier than she might have expected, when Andrea Leadsom pulled out of the 2026 Tory leadership contest in early July 2016. I do hope history does not repeat itself. There should be a context, but if there isn’t, Keit Starmer would do his successor a favour by staying on until the beginning of September. May had no time to prepare for government, and we all know what happened to her.
There is a huge responsibility on Burnham’s shoulders. If he becomes another prime minister who overpromises and underdelivers, the electorate’s faith in politics will diminish to an even more dangerous level than it already has.
Welcome to political realism, Andy. You’ve campaigned in poetry. Now is the time to realise that, as Mario Cuoma memorably said, you have to govern in prose.
Get writing.
Gov. Josh Shapiro is quickly becoming the prospective 2028 presidential campaign field’s biggest World Cup fan.
On Monday, the Pennsylvania governor and potential presidential candidate is set to attend his second match of the tournament when he is in the stands at Lincoln Financial Field to see Iraq play France in Philadelphia, according to a spokesperson. He also attended Ivory Coast vs. Ecuador there a week ago with his wife Lori. Shapiro is also expected to hit the FIFA Fan Festival before the match.
Shapiro joins a growing list of 2028 hopefuls to take in the tournament. California Gov. Gavin Newsom, alongside Secretary of State Marco Rubio, attended the U.S. opener against Paraguay. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. attended the American squad’s match against Australia. New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill, who hasn’t actively made moves toward a campaign but has carved out a leadership role in the party, attended the France vs. Senegal game at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey.
A number of potential 2028 candidates in states hosting games have not yet made the pilgrimage to a game: Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) hasn’t partaken of an East Rutherford match. Sens. Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock of Georgia, for example, have not attended matches at Mercedes-Benz Stadium in Atlanta (Ossoff has said he has no interest in running for president), nor has Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) hasn’t taken in a match at either AT&T Stadium in Arlington or NRG Stadium in Houston.
Shapiro is known on local sports radio as “Josh in Abington,” and is a fan of the Philadelphia Eagles and 76ers. That fandom could help him build stronger relationships with voters. Philadelphia’s fan zone has drawn significant crowds.
Shapiro has also used host status to distribute 700 free tickets to Philadelphia community organizations. He said it was “really important” to him that it would happen when he landed matches.
“Governor Shapiro believes the FIFA World Cup is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that should benefit all Pennsylvanians,” his office said in a press release earlier this month, and “he is working to make the matches free and accessible to as many people as possible.”
The tickets are also an economic development tool: “As part of Visit PA’s sponsorship of Philadelphia Soccer 2026, the Commonwealth gains access to a mix of suite, VIP, and general admission tickets, which are being used to host business leaders, prospective partners, and other guests to further strengthen Pennsylvania’s economic development and promote the Commonwealth as the best place to visit, live, and do business,” a Shapiro spokesperson said.
More broadly, the politics of attending a FIFA World Cup game are tricky, says Eric Koch, a soccer fan and Democratic consultant based in New York City.
“In fairness the ticket prices are insane and the U.S. matches have all been on the West Coast so it’s hard for anyone to get out there — and AOC has been (rightfully!) basking in the Knicks win,” Koch said. “The U.S. loves a winner and this squad is not only super talented but is also on the cusp of really capturing the hearts of the whole country as we go to the knockout rounds so I expect we will see more candidates embracing them. It’s going to be a great unifying thing to rally behind.”
For Democrats in particular, embracing the World Cup could help them with two political projects, Koch said: embracing some kind of patriotism and relating more with voters, but it has to be an authentic effort.
“As with all things in politics, if it’s not authentic to you and what you’re about, it’s going to seem fake and forced and this applies extra to sports, which people have actual deep connections to,” Koch said. “The good thing is the USMNT can be everyone’s team and as the hype train builds I think we will see more pols embracing them.”
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
One day, someone will invent an injection that means we never have to reapply sunscreen again. But until that day comes, it is a sad and unfortunate truth that sunscreen is a daily skincare essential – and more so in the sunny months than ever.
Despite the undeniable benefits of wearing SPF – it protects against skin cancer, and prevents visible signs of ageing, etc, etc – it is a pretty spenny necessity, which can make it all the more tempting to skip it. Fine, we’ll admit it.
So you need a little extra nudge to stock up on sunscreen this year, that’s completely understandable.
If you’ve not yet stocked up on sunscreen for the season ahead, I’ve made it my job to round up the best tried and tested SPFs.
Keep reading for our suggestion of the best face, sensitive, Korean, and beach-appropriate sunscreens to shop now.
How I tested the best sunscreens
As a shopping writer, I’m constantly bombarded by packages. What an affliction, right? That means I’m always receiving the newest and latest SPFs.
Over the last few months, I’ve been trialling a new SPF every day. I’ve already found the best face sunscreens for sensitive skin, and now I’ve been branching out to find the best overall.
Using a different one on my face weekly, I’ve made sure each sunscreen stands the test of time on the beach, while out and about in a city, without makeup, and with.
I’ve considered price points, whether they’re planet-friendly, if they have a combination of UVA and UVB protection, their SPF rating, the size of the bottle, and sometimes their scent. The best are listed down below.
Best sunscreens to shop now
Best all-round
If you’re looking for a sunscreen that won’t leave a white cast, isn’t greasy, and is sensitive-skin friendly (who isn’t?) this one from La Roche Posay covers all bases. It’s not only formulated with sensitive, rash-prone skin in mind, but uses a combination of long and short-range UVA and UVB technology to keep you ultra protected.
Best value for money
As a sensitive skin girly, I’m more than used to struggling to find sunscreen that’s affordable and won’t leave me covered in an awful rash. Thankfully, Boots has the solution in the form of this face and body sunscreen combo. It genuinely won’t break you out, isn’t too greasy, and most importantly is a steal.
Amazon
Best for kids
If there’s one thing that’s going to convince your kids to wear sunscreen, it’s if it smells like tangerine and vanilla. This SPF 30 zinc formula might leave a little greasy layer on your skin, but it’s water resistant for over an hour, and it’s made from 98% natural ingredients.
Best for the beach
If there was ever a scent that encapsulated summer, it would be Hawaiian Tropic. I don’t know how they’ve done it, but the brand has bottled what it feels like to be on a beach, and the sunscreen is great for that, too. It does leave stains on white clothing, so beware, but the formula comes with hints of shimmer that leave you looking and feeling like you’ve been coated in a ray of sunshine. With factor 50 protection and added hydration, it’s ideal for loading up when you’re by a body of water, and it’s water-resistant.
Best SPF moisturiser for ageing
Okay, hear me out: £92 is a lot to ask you to spend on a moisturiser. But if you’re really serious about a two in one SPF moisturiser that feels good, and keeps you protected, this is it. Not only is the packaging truly luxurious, but it also smells delightful, and most importantly uses real science to back up its age-defence properties. Using Nobel Prize-inspired technology, it has been clinically proven to protect against collagen degradation and inflammation. Plus, it won’t pill under makeup and doesn’t leave a white cast, so what more could you want?
Best organic sunscreen
Of course you want a sunscreen that looks after you, but it should look after the planet, too. At least, that’s what Green People thinks, as its formulas are made from entirely natural and organic ingredients, meaning it’s friendly on sensitive skin. This one is scentless, invisible, and has a boost of B5 to leave your skin feeling hydrated – all without any oiliness.
Best Korean face sunscreen
I’ve recently discovered there’s a reason Korean skincare has taken off in the last few years: it’s really fucking good. This SPF 50 from Laneige is completely invisible and lightweight, and absorbs faster than you can say ‘protection’, making it ideal for wearing under makeup.
I wish my eyelashes would take some lessons from the hairs that grow on my mole.
For some reason, the ones I least want to appear end up darker, thicker, and longer-looking than the kind on my head.
Friends have said they experience the same thing, too. So what’s going on?
Why does mole hair grow so thick and dark?
Pigmented moles, or those which are a different, darker colour to the rest of your skin, are melanocytic, the British Association of Dermatologists writes.
That means they “are made up of the cells (melanocytes) which produce the dark pigment (melanin) that gives the skin its colour”.
Healthline says this might affect any hairs growing there.
“In some cases, the hair that grows out of a mole may appear darker or thicker than the other body hair surrounding it. This is because the extra pigment in the cells may darken the hair, too,” they suggested.
But speaking to Mental Floss, dermatologist Lauren Ploch said that the exact process is still a “mystery”.
She said that microscopic investigations have shown that nevus cells, a type of melanocyte, don’t seem to invade the actual structure of mole hairs and haven’t been seen to affect colour or growth speed.
But we do know the skin that makes up moles is different to “normal” skin. It can be created by different hormonal balances and signalling proteins.
“I suspect that, while the mole itself may not have a direct role in creating a darker, coarser hair, the local milieu of signaling molecules and hormones in the skin that created the mole leads to a darker, coarser hair within the lesion,” Ploch posited.
Are hairy moles less likely to be cancerous?
Some people think that hairy moles can’t be cancerous. But while some anecdotal accounts suggest the risk may be lower, the Dermatology Associates of Atlanta calls the idea that hairy moles never have cancer a “dangerous myth”.
They added, “While melanoma tends to eventually make mole hairs fall out, this doesn’t happen until the cancer has advanced”.
They’re not alone. In a TikTok video, dermatologist Dr Sam Ellis said: “Whether or not a mole grows a hair has absolutely nothing to do with whether ot not it’s cancerous”.
Experts recommend following the ABCDE method to identify potentially cancerous moles instead.
- A: asymmetry,
- B: border irregularity,
- C: colour variability,
- D: diameter (a mole that’s bigger than 6mm across),
- E: evolution (watch out for moles that change in size, shape, or colour).
If you notice these, visit your GP.
We hope you love the products we recommend! All of them were independently selected by our editors. Just so you know, HuffPost UK may collect a share of sales or other compensation from the links on this page if you decide to shop from them. Oh, and FYI — prices are accurate and items in stock as of time of publication.
It’s time to start expecting more from your suitcases. Point blank.
Yes, they’re mainly something to store all your things in, and they should do that really well. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be so much more.
There are so many stressful elements of travelling, but for more me one of the worst fears is losing my case, and with it, all my belongings.
I had a near brush with this once when my checked suitcase was irretrievable for four days on a month-long trip to the US a few years ago.
But I must admit I’m always worrying about someone grabbing my carry-on case off a plane or train without my knowing, or even out of a hotel lobby (sorry if this is unlocking a new fear for you).
Thus, anything I can do to abate that fear is top of my list of priorities. So there couldn’t be a more perfect product for me than July’s latest release: a top-down packing suitcase that has a built-in tracking device, so you can always have peace of mind.
As soon as it arrived, I knew we’d be firm and fast travel buds.
My honest review of the July Capsule Carry On Pro
How I tested the July Capsule Carry On Pro
You would not believe the divine timing on this case – it launched the week before I was set to go on a long weekend trip to Paris, and arrived at my house no more than an hour before I had to leave.
Thus, I had to reorganise my packing from a duffle bag into this case. I took enough clothes for five days (and then some) including my laptop, three pairs of shoes, and plenty of toiletries.
I travelled on the Eurostar, so this case withstood lots of tube, train, and metro travelling over the course of five days. And, I’m pleased to say, I didn’t take another bag.
First impressions
I must admit, I’m quite precious about my clothes and shoes, so when the case arrived with a supremely hard shell made from 100% polycarbonate, I was a happy bunny. I ordered the white version, but it’s also available in tan, black, navy, and green.
Risky, you might think (my friends and girlfriend have taken to calling it ‘The Kim K’) but even after five days it is barely scuffed, and I think the exterior will be easy to clean when it inevitably gets dirty.
Immediately, I could tell it would have the smoothest glide – and I was right. With a solid build, the case doesn’t topple over unlike other carry ons (which I’ve noticed especially happens when I overpack, weird!).
It’s also extremely easy to drag, as it comes with completely silent 360 double spinner wheels. I had a lot of fun pushing it ahead of me and seeing how little I could touch it on my journey to and from Paris.
The handle is easy to open at any given moment, thanks to the button underneath, which makes it intuitive to unlock when you wrap your hand around it. It also has multiple stops, so you can raise it to the ideal height for you.
Next to the handle is a combination code, for extra reassurance that no one is going to take your things en route, and a location tracker.
Of course, I had to get synced up to that straight away, which you can do with Find My iPhone or Google Hub, and took mere seconds to set up. All you have to do is remove the tab, and add an ‘item’ to your tracker on your phone, which will then pair with your suitcase.
Packing and arrival
Now, probably the most notable thing about the Carry On Pro is that it doesn’t have a front pocket – at least not on the outside.
But when you unzip it (by pressing the button that releases the magnetism on the zippers) you’re met with a handy front pocket that allows you to have access to anything you’ll need on your journey – shoes, book, or laptop.
There’s also a zipper pocket in there for your more sensitive items like passport, phone, and keys. This means you don’t have to open your entire suitcase to reach your essentials on the go.
To unlock the rest of the suitcase, you simply undo another set of zips to move from the front pocket to the rest of the suitcase.
July describes this mechanism as ‘top-down’ packing, which means essentially there’s only one compartment, rather than two halves, so there’s plenty of volume and depth to fit everything you need in there.
The other side of the front pocket doubles as a separator with a small and large pockets for things like underwear, toiletries, or whatever else you want. Then there’s the large compartment, which I had no trouble fitting more than enough clothes for a long weekend in.
Plus, there’s a small interior pocket near the wheels so you can hide sensitive items (like travel sex toys… just saying), and a Y-compressor strap to keep everything held in one place.
Final verdict
- Silent, easy to drag wheels
- The top-down system is easy to use
- Location tracker and combination lock for extra security
- Handle easy to unlock
- Plenty of internal pockets
- Comes with a wash bag
- On the heavier side at 4.1kg
- No side handle
I loved the fact that I didn’t have to worry about all of my bits and bobs flailing around from one half of my case into the other. The ‘top-down’ approach is completely intuitive to use, from packing through to travelling, and eventually unpacking.
Then, of course, there’s the fact that you have the security of the location tracker, combination lock, and multiple internal pockets to keep everything safe.
It really is the details the make the difference between easy packing and a chore, which is why I have to give bonus points to the inclusion of a stain-proof laundry bag.
And, as someone who hates taking a suitcase with me, I appreciated how easy it was to drag this along – it was completely noiseless, I could drag it with two fingers, and you can even lock the wheels while you’re travelling so it doesn’t go flying down the carriage.
My one note would be that there isn’t a side handle, which might make lifting it into the overhead locker quite awkward, depending on how much you’ve packed.
But honestly, that’s being picky, because overall I’d rate this a 4.5 out of five stars, and I’m already raring to break it out for my next trip.
Sen. Ruben Gallego repeatedly used campaign cash to fund luxury outings with his wife and to care for his children since launching his campaign for Senate in 2023, according to a POLITICO review of campaign finance records and a person familiar with the senator’s spending.
The Arizona Democrat has used his leadership PAC to fund recent trips to Miami, Chicago, Disneyland and Disney World with his family. Gallego has tapped that PAC and his main campaign committee for more than $18,000 in reimbursements for child care since 2019 — including $400 to his wife’s mother for babysitting.
And Federal Election Commission records show that on one such occasion, Gallego used a joint campaign account with disgraced former Rep. Eric Swalwell to attend the 2023 Super Bowl in Arizona with his wife, Sydney.
Federal lawmakers can legally use campaign committee funds for travel, food, events and even child care, as long as those funds are not for “personal use,” meaning they may not cover activities that would exist irrespective of the campaign, according to the FEC. Leadership PACs are not even beholden to that “personal use” rule, meaning lawmakers have broad latitude to use the money they raise as long as it has some fundraising function. Ruben Gallego has leaned into that leeway, with his three children, Sydney Gallego, her mother and their full-time au pair frequently joining the senator on donors’ dime, according to the person, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the situation.
“He just spends his campaign account like it’s his personal slush fund,” said the person. “He’s using campaign cash to live a luxury lifestyle.”
Gallego did not dispute using donor funds to pay for family travel or child care. “This is not breaking news,” he said in a statement to POLITICO. “With the rising costs of child care and the burden it has on the budgets of American families, Democrats and Republicans in Congress and the White House alike regularly travel with their wives and children, as is permitted by the FEC.”
Gallego is considering a presidential run in 2028. On Friday, Gallego traveled to South Carolina, where he took part in the Democratic Party’s “On the Road” series on Juneteenth.
But the pattern of spending could pose a major liability on top of his longtime friendship with Swalwell, who resigned from Congress in April amid allegations of sexual assault and a series of headlines about his misuse of campaign funds. Gallego’s team has recently brought on former Biden White House deputy press secretary Andrew Bates to assist in political communications. Jacques Petit, Gallego’s communications director, told POLITICO that Gallego “is weighing all options for his political future. He has brought on Andrew to help navigate those processes.”
The person familiar with his spending said that there was concern among some members of Gallego’s inner circle that he would not pass the required vetting to be president or vice president.
“Any person close to Gallego would know that he is one of the most vetted candidates after his tough 2024 campaign where millions of dollars were spent against him,” Petit said in a statement to POLITICO. “Despite that, he overperformed the top of the ticket. Now he is focused on delivering for Arizonans and electing Democrats in 2026.”
Gallego has denied any knowledge of Swalwell’s actions and called for him to be expelled from Congress. Swalwell has called the allegations against him “false” and pledged to fight them.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-Fla.) told CBS News in April that she had asked Senate leadership to investigate Gallego about allegations of misconduct that are “sexual in nature,” as well as “issues of campaign finance violations” but did not release details. A Gallego spokesperson called those allegations “right wing conspiracy theories.” Luna did not respond to a request for comment.
Asked about the status of the ethics probe, a spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader John Thune directed POLITICO to comments he made in April, when he told reporters that “the Ethics Committee will be tasked with trying to determine whether there’s a there there.”
Last month, Gallego established a legal defense fund.
The Big Game
In February 2023, 20 days after Gallego had launched his Arizona Senate bid to replace Kyrsten Sinema, the Gallegos, Swalwell, Swalwell’s then-chief of staff Yardena Wolf and several donors and their guests piled into State Farm Stadium in Glendale, Arizona, to watch Super Bowl LVII.
The gathering was billed as a fundraiser for the “Swallego Victory Fund,” a joint committee Swalwell and Gallego established in October 2022. Tickets to attend cost $5,000 and included a “pre-game brunch” that could be attended independently for $1,000, according to a copy of the invitation provided to POLITICO by Swalwell’s lawyer, Sara Azari. The committee raised a total of $56,505, all but $900 of which the FEC logged between Jan. 31 and Feb. 13, 2023, the day after the Super Bowl, according to FEC records. It spent $34,700 on event tickets and about $2,715 at The Henry, a brunch restaurant in Phoenix, the records show.
Donors to the committee included Rick Smith, the country’s highest paid CEO in 2024, and Dina LaPolt, a celebrity entertainment lawyer, both of whom attended the Super Bowl with family members. Neither Smith nor LaPolt responded to a request for comment. Wolf, Swalwell’s chief of staff at the time, also did not respond to a request for comment.
Gallego and Swalwell established the joint committee “in connection with Super Bowl LVII, and supporters who met the applicable contribution requirements were eligible to attend,” a Gallego spokesperson said in a statement to POLITICO. The spokesperson added that “tickets were purchased at fair market value” and that “Hosting donors and supporters at sporting events in their areas is a common, bipartisan practice.”
In a statement, Azari told POLITICO that Swalwell had “followed his campaign counsel’s guidance to plan the event,” noting that “Tickets were purchased [and] distributed through the fundraiser, and all activity was properly reported and conducted in compliance with applicable campaign finance rules.”
The Swallego Victory Fund, which raised no money after March 2023, was shut down on Jan. 1, 2025. Swalwell and Gallego each received $7,643.89 in their personal campaign committees, with the remainder going to standard operating fees.
It is unusual, though not unheard of, for candidates to fundraise at the Super Bowl. Former Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich) hosted a fundraiser at the Super Bowl in 2010 that cost $5,000 to attend. And Swalwell dipped into campaign funds in 2024 to watch his San Francisco 49ers play in Las Vegas.
Lawmakers also sometimes have their tickets paid for in other ways. Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, a fellow Democrat widely viewed as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, drew headlines when he attended the 2023 Super Bowl at the expense of a nonprofit. In President Donald Trump’s first term, for example, the Republican National Committee paid almost $500 per seat at the World Series for Trump, 11 members of Congress and senior White House staff, The Washington Post reported.
But it is far more common for politicians to pay their own way. Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) attended the 2023 Super Bowl in Glendale but paid personally, his office told POLITICO. When New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani watched the Knicks play in the NBA finals earlier this month, he emphasized to reporters that he had personally paid for his $1,000 nosebleed seats.
Earlier this year, Gallego used the high price of Super Bowl tickets to lean into Democrats’ affordability messaging. “The average Super Bowl ticket now costs $6,773,” he wrote in an X post. “That’s not just a game — it’s a luxury bill.”
‘There’s a pattern’
Gallego cemented himself as a battleground-tested Democrat when he defeated Republican challenger Kari Lake in 2024, despite sweeping losses for his party across the country — immediately elevating him to the 2028 conversation.
In February 2024, about a month after being sworn in to the Senate, Gallego established the “JUNTOS PAC,” a leadership PAC used to raise and spend money separate from his official campaign committee. Since then, that committee has raked in nearly $1.5 million, more than half of which came from corporate PACs, according to FEC records.
Gallego, like many politicians with leadership PACs, has used those funds for an array of campaign and fundraising-related travel. He has also paid for his family to come along on several of those trips, according to the person familiar with Gallego’s spending.
That includes PAC retreats at Disney World where Gallego brought his wife, children and their au pair, and another to Disneyland with his wife and kids that FEC records show totaled nearly $1,500 in meals and hotels, not including flights, the person said.
The Gallegos also used PAC money to travel to St. Barts for Sydney Gallego’s boss’ birthday and to Miami for Sydney Gallego’s own birthday, according to the person familiar with his spending, staying at a Loews hotel on Miami Beach that cost more than $9,000, FEC records show. And when Gallego traveled to Chicago’s Little Village neighborhood in November 2025 to denounce the federal immigration crackdown there, the family stayed in a vacation rental, the person said, which records show cost the PAC nearly $1,500.
The Gallego spokesperson did not address the birthdays, but told POLITICO that all of those trips included fundraising activity. The Gallegos’ trip to St. Barts was part of “a multi-stop political and fundraising swing—as senators regularly do,” the spokesperson said. They added that Gallego hosted a fundraiser in Chicago and that the Gallegos “attended several widely attended political events and fundraisers” in Miami.
Gallego’s campaign committee and leadership PAC have also disbursed more than $18,000 in child care reimbursements and direct payments to an au pair company — including a $400 payment to Sydney Gallego’s mother, Moria Comini, for “Babysitting while at [a] campaign fundraiser.”
The child care reimbursements and trips to Miami and St. Barts were first reported by The Daily Beast.
Sydney Gallego and the children also used campaign committee and leadership PAC funds to fly between Washington and Phoenix 13 times in 2025, according to the person familiar with his spending.
“There’s a pattern,” the person said, adding that Sydney Gallego “just basically rides [Ruben Gallego’s] wave.”
Adam Wren contributed to this report.
Like this content? Consider signing up for POLITICO’s Playbook newsletter.
Once upon a time, people swiped on dating profiles because of big biceps, adorable dogs, or the massive fish a person may or may not have actually caught.
Dating culture, however, is always evolving. Suddenly we’re “freak matching” or “shrekking” or intentionally looking for a “slow burn” romance.
But, now, one of the latest must-haves for a sparkling dating profile feels surprisingly down-to-earth: showing off a love of reading.
Recently, pop star Dua Lipa married actor Callum Turner in a glamorous, multi-day Italian wedding extravaganza. As gorgeous as the celebrations were, it was their meet-cute that really captured people’s imaginations.
Turner shared that they met at a mutual friend’s birthday party, when they sat next to each other and discovered they were both reading the exact same book, Trust by Hernán Díaz. Not only that, but they had both just finished the first chapter.
To which Turner claimed he said to his future wife, “So we’re on the same page.”
If a rom-com writer pitched that storyline, we might call it unrealistic. But the internet, upon hearing this story, was totally swooning.
In modern swipe culture, books are boosting attraction. Reading has become a staple of dating app profiles, whether it’s including your favorite novel as a prompt, stating your go-to genre, or specifying that you’re “looking for someone to talk books with.” Reading is quickly becoming an item on our good partner wish list – and, for many, a non-negotiable.
This is what a reader’s dating profile really tells you
Whether it’s romantasy, a Dan Brown airport thriller, or the latest BookTok sensation, reading – and talking about reading – seems to be having a moment. And dating apps are no different.
“These days, we tend to seek partners on dating platforms. So the first thing that pops up is a photo,” Dr. Suzanne Degges-White, a licensed counsellor and relationship expert at the Headway app, told HuffPost.
“But it’s not just a face or a beautiful background anymore that gets the swipe right; people look for some cues that would show foundation for connection, intelligence and empathy.”
Citing research from Headway examining modern trends around readers, Degges-White said they found “that 75% of people, regardless of physical attractiveness, find partners who read or indicate that they are well-read more attractive.”
“This evokes a certain emotional maturity that people are seeking in a partner,” she continued. “People consider books a sign of a willingness to better understand oneself and others, develop empathy and resolve conflicts.”
TRAVELARIUM via Getty Images
Tinder users apparently report similar patterns: “Reading is clearly having a moment,” Devyn Simone, the app’s relationship expert, told HuffPost.
“Mentions of books in Tinder bios are up 29% overall and have jumped 41% among women. When someone shares what they’re reading, it offers a glimpse into their inner world. Are they into sweeping romance, dark thrillers or epic fantasy? Those choices hint at what excites them, what they value in connection and how they might show up in love.”
“With 37% of singles saying shared values are important to them, showcasing your interests isn’t performative – it’s purposeful,” Simone said. “Singles today are craving partners who feel thoughtful, intentional and just a little bit like the main character.”
When did reading become hot?
I didn’t realise I wanted to date a reader until I actually did. I once spent three months in a relationship with someone who loved books as much as I did – and some of my favourite memories were simply talking about what we were reading. He read the books I recommended, and I did the same for him.
Although the relationship didn’t work out – and he wasn’t a great match in many other ways – I still think fondly about those conversations.
“There’s something undeniably attractive about someone who reads,” Annabelle Knight, sex and relationships expert at Lovehoney, told HuffPost. “It signals curiosity, emotional intelligence and empathy – all qualities that translate beautifully into relationships and the bedroom.”
Plus, there are other benefits of a well-read mind: “A partner who reads is often more in tune with communication, more open-minded, and more willing to explore different perspectives, which can create deeper emotional and sexual connections.”
Reading also creates conversation fuel. Silence becomes easier to navigate when you can talk about a book.
“For singles, bonding over books can create a slow-burn kind of tension,” Knight continues. “Sharing favourite passages, discussing characters you’re drawn to, or even reading the same spicy novel at the same time can build anticipation and spark conversations about desires in a way that feels safe and playful. It’s a subtle form of foreplay that starts long before you’re physically intimate.”
“Ultimately, reading stimulates the brain, and the brain is the body’s biggest erogenous zone,” Knight says. “When you turn someone’s mind on, the rest tends to follow.”
Mirjana Pusicic via Getty Images
Simone also noted that it’s not just about the books themselves, but the habit of reading. Nowadays, millennials and Gen Z alike are known to have shorter attention spans, and a 300-page book is very different from a 20-word Instagram caption.
“There’s something quietly confident about someone who can unplug and focus,” she said. “In a culture built on constant scrolling and short attention spans, reading signals patience, curiosity and emotional range — all qualities that contribute to real chemistry and connection. So of course, reading is hot!”
While someone having different reading habits from you is hardly an intense dealbreaker, it could be important for you – and someone with a list of interesting books they’ve read (and an interest in what you’ve read) can totally be a green flag.
And, at the end of the day, who wouldn’t want to find someone to curl up next to and enjoy a good book?
When my divorce lawyer told me in 2020 that I might only see my children every other weekend, I wasn’t just afraid of losing time with my kids. I was terrified of becoming the kind of father mine had been.
“[Your ex wife] is filing for primary physical custody. In this set up, you would be granted limited parenting time every other weekend from Thursday evening until Monday morning,” my lawyer informed me.
The words “limited parenting time” sent a cold shiver down my spine.
“No,” I said firmly into the phone speaker, my voice cracking. “I will do whatever it takes to get equal custody.”
I stood up and started pacing around the kitchen island as one thought played on loop in my head: “I can’t repeat the cycle. I can’t be an absent parent to Lydia and Peter, just like he was to me.”
Mere months before that phone call with my lawyer, I had flown to Ghana, to ask my own father why he didn’t fight for me. The decision to visit him had been partly spurred by Father’s Day in 2019.
Father’s Day was always one of my worst days of the year, as it would bring up feelings of abandonment and rejection, and there were no Hallmark cards that said, “You weren’t present, but thanks for being a part of my birth!”
A few years after my father and my mother divorced, he remarried and eventually moved to Kenya with his new family. Meanwhile, my mom, stepbrother and I struggled with a period of being unhoused and living on welfare.
Photo Courtesy Of Justin Jones-Fosu
When I visited Ghana, my father’s answer to my question about his absenteeism surprised me: he said he had never intended to leave me behind. He’d had custody struggles and interpersonal conflicts with my mother, and he decided that the best thing was to let me find him when I was ready. Minus the last part, it sounded eerily similar to what I was facing today.
I forgave him, but I have never stopped wishing he had fought for me.
And now, pacing around the granite kitchen countertop of the apartment I’d rented to be close to my kids after my ex-wife and I separated, it felt like history was repeating itself.
Knowing my own father’s story, I was plagued by the thought that giving up equal custody was a slippery slope. First, it’s custody. And then, it might become easier to skip a weekend here and there, or let a new marriage or job relocate me to a new state (or worse, like my own father, a new country).
Thankfully, my ex-wife and I were able to decide on a shared custody agreement. I would live in the same school district, and we’d alternate one week off, one week on with the kids.
This solved the main problem. But, as I soon discovered, my fear of repeating the cycle couldn’t be solved with just a custody agreement.
Photo Courtesy Of Justin Jones-Fosu
Before the divorce, I was travelling almost 100 times a year as a keynote speaker. My ex-wife, on the other hand, had left her job to study full-time, so she had been more hands-on with the kids’ bedtime routines, dinner schedules and school drop-offs.
Honestly, I was terrified. Was I cut out for the job? Dinners, packing school lunches, doing Lydia’s hair (I’d never done a girl’s hair before), supervising homework and making sure they didn’t stay up too late watching TV – could I do it all? Were they actually better off staying with their mother, and just joining me for fun weekends and holidays? I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have these thoughts almost daily.
Every time the kids and I had a disagreement, or they refused to do their homework or put their electronics away, I’d wonder: “Is this just normal development? Or is it because they’re not in a two-parent household?”
And then, there were the times I messed up. Like when I cut Peter’s hair, and I did such a bad job that he was almost bald. Or the time when Lydia stubbed her toe and instead of just offering comfort, I jumped into, “What did you learn from this?” I could see it in their faces: in that moment, they wished I had shown up differently.
Photo Courtesy Of Justin Jones-Fosu
On top of my fears, I had to fight to be included as a parent. Since the cultural norm is that moms are the primary caregiver, the schools never included me in emails about upcoming field trips or sports events. And when I showed up to my kid’s games or church or parent-teacher conferences, I always imagined I felt eyes on my back.
“People think you’re weird, showing up here alone,” I thought to myself.
But then I’d see Peter running through the field or Lydia at a dance practice catch my eye, and I just knew that them looking into the stands and seeing me made it all worth it.
Still, when I went to bed at night, the negative thoughts would suffocate me. Can I do it? Are they better off without me?
I started going to therapy. Sitting on my therapist’s brown leather couch, the words caught in my throat, like they’d been stuck there for years and were struggling to get dislodged.
“I am afraid I’m the same as my dad,” I told him.
My therapist leaned forward on his chair and said, “You are not your father.”
He said this is evident by the fact that I’ve made different decisions to those that he’d made, all those years ago. He said that making mistakes is a part of parenting, but the important thing is that unlike my own father, I am there for my kids, and I am learning along the way.
My eyes felt hot before the tears came, as a mixture of pain and relief poured out of me. My chest involuntarily started heaving in sobs.
My therapist didn’t wave a magical wand and fixed me, but after that session, something shifted in how I approached fatherhood. I still had self-doubt and, almost weekly, I was pushed into a new zone of discomfort. The change showed up in how I managed the self-doubt.
Ironically, the answer to my problems laid in a single line of a keynote that I’d been delivering dozens of times a year at the time: “When you know your ‘why,’ it helps you overcome obstacles, to be more resilient, to engage, even when there are more challenging moments to come.”
My ‘why’ was Lydia and Peter. The rest? I could figure it out.
The first question I had to ask when arranging shared custody was, “How do I travel less?” I rearranged my work schedule to make sure that I was more present for my kids during our time together. We also started quarterly “fine dining with Daddy” classes. It was part-etiquette training, but mostly, it was a time for me to ask questions like, “How am I doing as a dad?” and “What is one thing I can change or do better?”
My kids shared some feedback that was difficult to hear, like the time they told me that when I am stressed about work, they can feel like they’re walking on eggshells around me. They asked that I am more open and honest, and share that I’m stressed with them. I thanked them for their feedback, and now I do my best to catch myself when I am stressed, regulate my emotions and openly share what is bothering me (when appropriate).
But other times, they surprised me with their feedback.
“You are firm but fair,” Peter once told me. “I love that you do the Daddy-Daughter dances with me,” Lydia shared on another day. This brought tears to my eyes, as I loved that she appreciated the playfulness that I inherited from my own mother.
Photo Courtesy Of Justin Jones-Fosu
There are still hard days. Days when I’m overworking myself, or exhausted from travel or when I lose my patience and snap. When this happens, my self-doubt kicks in. But then I think back to the statement my therapist shared in his office that day, that I am not my father.
This experience – the divorce, reckoning with the possibility of not having equal custody of my children, and navigating the uncertainty of life as a solo parent – came with one silver lining.
I have a new perspective on my own father’s decision to be a largely absent parent. I now see just how hard it can be to stay present when it feels like everything is an uphill battle. Experiencing this firsthand, and knowing that my grandfather (my father’s parent) was largely absent from my own dad’s life, has helped me see that my dad probably truly believed that leaving me in the care of my mother was the best decision for me.
It has been seven years since I became a part-time solo dad. I have since remarried (my wife and I are doing long distance for now), and there isn’t a day where I don’t feel doubt or guilt for raising my kids in a home without both of their parents.
However, there also isn’t a day where I am not overcome with love for my children – and gratitude that I get to be there with them as they grow up.
Father’s Day has also changed from being my worst day of the year to my favourite day of the year. Every Father’s Day, Peter and Lydia make me cards. Sometimes they’re funny. Sometimes they’re heartfelt. Sometimes they’re covered in inside jokes that only we understand. And every year, when I read them, I think about the little boy who wished his father had fought harder to stay connected.
Then I look at my own children and realise that breaking the cycle was never about being a perfect father. It was about being a present one.
Photo Courtesy Of Justin Jones-Fosu
Justin Jones-Fosu is a husband, full-time daddy, keynote speaker, and author of the newly-released book, Stop Chasing, Start Creating: A Timeless Fable on Mindset, Resilience, and Meaningful Work.
Do you have a compelling personal story you’d like to see published on HuffPost? Find out what we’re looking for here and send us a pitch at pitch@huffpost.com.
Preston Davey was 13 months old when he died at the hands of Jamie Varley, after months of torture from Varley and his partner, John McGowan-Fazakerley. Reading the details of the depraved and evil acts committed by the two men – including repeated physical, sexual and emotional abuse – is unbearable. In July 2023, Varley rushed Preston to hospital claiming that he had drowned in the bath, but this lie was exposed by a postmortem that found ‘40 external and internal trauma injuries to the child’s body’.
Varley and McGowan-Fazakerley seem to have adopted Preston for the purpose of abusing him – he was in their care just four months before his death. Varley had even filmed Preston taking his last breaths before going to hospital. The wickedness it must take to commit such acts is bone-chilling.
The only consolation – and it is a small one – is that both will spend a very long time in prison. At Preston Crown Court on Thursday, Varley was was given a whole life order for the murder and sexual abuse of Preston. McGowan-Fazakerley was sentenced to 25 years for allowing the death of a child, sexual abuse and child cruelty.
Preston’s short life is a tale of woe. He was born in June 2022 to Sarah Davey, who had been in and out of jail following a mandatory life sentence she received for the brutal murder of pensioner Lily Lilley in 1998. After his birth, Preston was put into emergency care and spent the first nine months of his life in foster care. In January 2023, Varley and McGowan-Fazakerley were approved to adopt Preston. On 1 April of that year, he spent the first night at their home in Blackpool.
Less than two months later, Preston was rushed to hospital floppy and unresponsive. He returned to hospital again in June and July with injuries including bruising, seizures and respiratory failures. Despite this, social workers who visited Varley and McGowan-Fazakerley at their home said they did not feel that he was in danger. We now know that all of these hospital visits were the result of sexual and physical abuse.
While it might be fruitless to try to understand why these two men sank to such depths, there are very necessary questions about why no alarm bells were raised by Varley and McGowan-Fazakerley’s behaviour. Varley had messaged many friends and relatives complaining that Preston was a difficult baby, and that he was having fantasies about ‘drowning’ or suffocating him. McGowan-Fazakerley went round to the neighbours to apologise for Preston’s constant crying. After being treated for a fractured elbow in hospital, a text from the social worker assigned to Preston read: ‘Just to reassure you they said they had absolutely no concerns. U absolutely did the right thing.’
During the trial, the judge noted that Varley – a teacher – had used his respectable credentials to play the doting parent. CCTV and police bodycam footage show Varley acting upset, his head in his hands, while bringing Preston – already deceased – into hospital. Is it possible that Varley was simply a brilliant actor, fooling everyone that he and McGowan-Fazakerley were doting parents with a clumsy child? Or was there something else going on here? Some have suggested that their middle-class lifestyle would have convinced social workers of their moral worth. Much like the grooming-gangs scandal, there are too many examples of institutionalised cowardice and failure to brush off.
Professionals missed eight opportunities to notice that Preston was being abused, taking Varley’s word that he was a bit ‘weepy’ because he had just had his injections. Debbie Davey – Preston’s maternal grandmother – has suggested that ‘social services might have been hesitant to take action when they saw Preston because they may have been accused of being homophobic’.
Many have been keen to defend gay adoptive parents in the wake of this horrific case, and they are right to do so. Nothing about Varley and McGowan-Fazakerley’s depravity is typical or representative of the majority of same-sex adoptive parents. But the question of whether social workers’ nervousness about causing offence might have prevented professionals from doing their job properly is worth asking.
For many people, adopting a child is a long and arduous process – too long and too difficult in many cases. And yet Varley and McGowan-Fazakerley got their baby in just a matter of months, and were allowed to torture and kill him. We talk about child abuse constantly – everything from social media to junk food is discussed in the language of ‘abuse’. With bans and intrusive legislation, the state seems to want to stick its oar into every child’s life in the country. And yet, when intervention is desperately needed, time and again the state seems to fail vulnerable children.
Hard questions need to be put to everyone involved in Preston Davey’s short life. Something is going terribly wrong with the system, and we can no longer allow sensitivities or nervousness to prevent us from getting to the truth.
Donald Trump has unexpectedly declared that Keir Starmer “will resign as prime minister” on social media.
The US president appears to have jumped the gun as the PM and his top team have publicly insisted that Starmer will not be walking away from the job.
However, The Observer reported on Saturday that the prime minister was going to announce his plan for an orderly exit from office on Monday.
In a post on TruthSocial, the president wrote: “Keir Starmer will resign as Prime Minister of The United Kingdom. He failed badly on two very important subjects- IMMIGRATION AND ENERGY (OPEN NORTH SEA OIL!). I wish him well! President DJT”
The president’s remarks are at odds with the comments from cabinet minister Peter Kyle this morning.
He told Sky News that he no reason to believe the reports Starmer is considering stepping down were true, though he conceded the PM was thinking about the “political realities and challenges” facing him right now.
Speculation about the prime minister’s future is at an all-time high after Starmer’s greatest rival, Andy Burnham, won the Makerfield by-election on Thursday and became a Labour MP.
Burnham, Labour’s most popular politician, will be in a position to challenge Starmer’s leadership once he is sworn into the Commons this coming week.
A Labour MP needs the support of 20% of the parliamentary Labour Party (81 MPs) to trigger a contest.
An incumbent leader does not need to reach that threshold and is automatically put on the ballot.
Starmer insisted on Friday that he would not “walk away” from any leadership contest which may be triggered.
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.
Self-powering shaking capsule shows the future of safe drinking water in the palm of our hands
Woman, 45, ‘given weeks to live’ after contracting flu on dream holiday in Turkey
Celebrity Chef Gordon Ramsay’s Family Guide Includes 6 Kids
-
Crypto World7 days agoZimbabwe Requires Crypto Businesses to Register Annually Under New FIU Regulations
-
Fashion2 days agoWeekend Open Thread: Miami – Corporette.com
-
Crypto World7 days agoCrude Oil Plunges Over 4% as US-Iran Agreement Reopens Hormuz Strait
-
Business2 days agoWall Street Week Ahead: Investors see Micron earnings as pulse check of AI rally momentum
-
Crypto World2 days agoHIVE shares jump as $220M AI deal speeds Bitcoin mining pivot
-
Tech7 days agoOver 400 Arch Linux packages compromised to push rootkit, infostealer
-
Tech5 days agoThe Adder At The Heart Of Intel’s 8087 FPU
-
Tech7 days agoMicrosoft Updates Six Windows’ Apps. ‘Photos’ Gets Watermarks for Copilot Images (Off by Default)
-
Sports3 days agoFIFA World Cup 2026: Canada beat 9-men Qatar 6-0 to register first ever win | FIFA World Cup 2026
-
Business24 hours agoSoccer-U.S. defends Iran World Cup travel restrictions, says discussions ongoing
-
Tech7 days agoEtzioni on AI: Backlash against AI-generated text mirrors the anti-GMO movement
-
Tech7 days agoToday’s NYT Connections Hints, Answers for June 15 #1100
-
Tech7 days agoChinese AI models are learning to detect safety tests and adjust their behaviour accordingly
-
Business3 days agoBrexit cost 6% of UK economy, Bank of England company data suggests
-
Crypto World1 day agoJake Chervinsky accuses CME of protecting derivatives monopoly
-
Tech4 days agoWeeks Of In-The-Field Testing And A Verdict
-
Crypto World4 days agoAnthropic’s Dario Amodei Urged AI Unity at G7, Even as US Banned His Models
-
Tech3 days agoAdobe adds its AI assistant to Premiere, Illustrator and InDesign
-
Entertainment24 hours agoRenter of Home in Anne Heche Crash Denies Settlement With Son
-
Crypto World7 days ago
Ethereum Users Can Now Add Quantum-Resistant Account Protection for Just $0.07, Researchers Say
You must be logged in to post a comment Login