The Get Ahead on Flex pledge aims to get employers to speed up their progress on working arrangements that allow more freedom. This can include team-rostering and ‘any-hours’ contracts, offering staff the hours they want to work from the outset.
Flexible working in every job
Those who sign up will commit to highlighting flexible working in every job advert. They’ll set targets to increase the number of approved requests, publish data (such as the number of requests staff make) and train all managers on how to champion choice for workers.
Advertisement
Sussex Community NHS Foundation Trust and Milton Keynes University Hospital have already signed up to the pledge. It’s also got backing from equality campaigners including Kate Jarman, who champions flexible working the NHS, and Professor Alison Leary from London South Bank University.
At present, all NHS workers have the right to request flexible working from day one of employment and to make unlimited requests without providing a reason.
However, health unions say all too often accessing the flexibility they need is a struggle for staff, including those with childcare and other family commitments. The inconsistent approach by employers has created a postcode lottery across the NHS.
Some staff are having to accept less favourable contracts – or bank shifts, which are lower paid – in return for gaining flexible working. Employers often reject applications from workers who want to determine their own schedule and instead insist they must fit in with rigid shift patterns.
Advertisement
One health worker, who cares for her mother, said:
I applied for flexible working twice, but it was declined both times. I used all my annual leave to have weekends off [to care for her mother]. It meant I had no holidays or time away for me for several years until we got a different manager.
Get Ahead on Flex is also aiming to ensure managers know how to handle requests in a way that benefits individual staff. The campaign encourages them to take the initiative to redesign jobs and services to better meet the needs of staff and patients.
The benefits of flexible working, such as increased performance and higher quality care for patients, are well-understood at the policy level. But the unions say financial and other pressures on the health service get in the way of real change.
Advertisement
In England, a new standard on flexible working is expected to be introduced for NHS employers in April as part of the government’s 10-year workforce plan.
Trusts who sign up and meet the commitments of the Get Ahead on Flex pledge will already have a head start on implementing the new standards, say the unions.
And in 2027, tougher statutory requirements on flexible working are due to come into force for all employers.
Chair of the NHS unions and UNISON head of health Helga Pile said:
Advertisement
Too many NHS staff are struggling to balance work with other parts of their life including caring commitments. This affects their health and well-being, and forces many to consider jobs elsewhere.
The NHS has long talked about the importance of improving flexible working options. However, old-fashioned attitudes and rigid one-size-fits all shift patterns are still getting in the way.
This pledge provides a real opportunity to improve working life for staff and give patients a better service.
Campaign lead for the NHS unions on flexible working and Society of Radiographers head of industrial relations Leandre Archer said:
Flexible working shouldn’t depend on which employer you work for or who your manager happens to be.
NHS staff deserve fair, consistent access to flexibility so they can deliver the best possible care without sacrificing their own wellbeing.
Advertisement
The Get Ahead on Flex pledge is a vital step towards ending the postcode lottery and making flexible working a genuine reality across the NHS.
The number of parties who got MSPs elected at the last election is… five. (Though in fairness there are now six, Reform having a single MSP after Graham Simpson defected from the Tories. The Lib Dems are even outnumbered by independents, of whom there are seven.)
Also in arithmetic news, recent figures suggest that Labour and the Lib Dems will have a total of 23 seats combined, more than 40 short of the number required to elect a First Minister with a majority. So, y’know, good luck with that, lads.
More than 50 organisations, including national trade unions, tenants’ unions and the Green Party, have announced the National Housing Demonstration in Central London on Saturday 18 April. They’re demanding urgent rent controls and a new generation of accessible council homes.
In what is set to be the largest coming-together of housing campaigners in a decade, thousands of tenants from across England and Wales are expected to take to the streets in protest of the government’s refusal to tackle runaway rents.
Major unions the National Education Union, Public and Commercial Services Union, Fire Brigades Union and others are joining forces with the Green Party, the London Renters Union, the Greater Manchester Tenants Union, Generation Rent and dozens of grassroots campaigns from across the country.
Housing developers first, tenants last
Asking rents for private tenants have risen by 44% since the pandemic, while social rents and service charges continue to climb. The consequences are stark.
Despite the scale of the crisis, Keir Starmer’s government is prioritising private housing developers and institutional investors over working-class renters.
Instead of introducing rent controls or launching a serious programme of council housebuilding, ministers are focusing on market-rate developments. But these remain out of reach for those in greatest need and would fail to reverse recent price hikes.
The result is a system where working-class tenants are priced out and pushed into temporary housing while luxury flats rise in their neighbourhoods.
Advertisement
A united front on 18 April
On Saturday 18 April, tenants, trade unionists and housing activists will gather in central London to demand:
Immediate rent controls.
Mass investment in accessible and good-quality council homes.
Elyem Chej, spokesperson for London Renters Union, said:
Tenants need an alternative to our rigged housing system. Soaring rents are pushing us into poverty and out of our neighbourhoods while corporate giants build luxury flats we can’t afford.
Keir Starmer’s government is making the housing crisis worse, putting developer profits before our communities. That’s why unions and grassroots groups nationwide are uniting for housing justice on 18 April.
Rent controls would cut rents now and give ordinary people more control over our lives and our homes.
We had these rights before. Now it’s time for renters to take them back.
Advertisement
Grace Brown, spokesperson for Greater Manchester Tenants Union, said:
Tenants are in crisis. Areas of Greater Manchester have seen rents increase by more than 50% since 2016, and the developer-led investment model followed in our city, like many others, is hollowing out communities beyond recognition.
Across Greater Manchester, tenants are organising against estate demolition, against rent hikes and evictions. We demand justice for every tenant.
Martin Wicks, spokesperson for Defend Council Housing, said:
The government’s strategy of planning liberalisation and reliance on the large volume private builders is doomed to fail.
Home ownership is not an option for the more than 130,000 households in temporary accommodation, the 1.3 million households on the waiting lists, and many more imprisoned in the expensive and often poor quality private sector.
Advertisement
Social rent council housing is the key to resolving the housing crisis. The government needs to fund 100,000 social rent council homes a year and end Right to Buy. Market mechanisms will never resolve the housing crisis.
A Labour MP has condemned David Lammy’s plan to scrap most jury trials after revealing for the first time that she had been raped.
Charlotte Nichols accused the justice secretary of using victims as a “cudgel” to force the controversial reforms through.
The government wants to get rid of juries in cases where the sentence is expected to be less than three years.
Ministers say the move is necessary to clear the huge backlog of court cases in England and Wales.
Advertisement
But critics say the planned reforms, contained in the Court and Tribunals Bill, will remove a fundamental right while not actually solving the problem.
During a Commons debate on the bill, Nichols said she had waited 1,088 days for her case to get to court.
The MP for Warrington North said: “Every single one of those days was agony, made worse by having a role in public life that meant that the mental health consequences of my trauma were played out in public, with the event that led to my eventual sectioning for my own safety still being something that I receive regular social media abuse from strangers about to this day.
“But here’s the kicker, in this debate, experiences like mine feel like they’ve been weaponised and are being used for rhetorical misdirection, for what this bill actually is.
Advertisement
“The violence against women and girls sector haven’t had the opportunity to come together to discuss it, and the government’s framing and narrative has been to pit survivors and defendants against each other in a way I think is deeply damaging.
“We have been told that if we have concerns about this bill, it is because we have not been raped or because we don’t care enough for rape victims.
“The opposite is true in my case, it is because I have been raped that I am as passionate as I am about what it means for a justice system to be truly victim focused.
“It is because I have endured every indignity that our broken criminal justice system could mete out that I care what kind of reform will actually deliver justice for survivors and victims of crime more widely.”
Advertisement
She added: “There is so much that we can be doing for rape victims that isn’t [David Lammy] using them as a cudgel to drive through reforms that aren’t directly relevant to them.”
A sitting member of the London Assembly – an elected body considered the ‘eyes and ears of Londoners‘ – delivered a blistering critique of London mayor Sadiq Khan. They have described him as “part of the problem” when it comes to racialised stop-and-search powers. Notably, these powers overwhelmingly target black Londonders.
“Vital policing tool,” Khan claims
New research from the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime (MOPAC) and King’s College London shows black people are up to 48 times more likely to be stopped and searched in London’s richest areas. The study — based on 150,000 Metropolitan Police interactions — purports to be the largest-analysis of stop-and-search practices.
Khan has in fact rubber-stamped these very practices. In addition, Green Party councillor, Zoë Garbett, has spoken out against these double standards from the London mayor:
The Mayor has called stop and search a ‘vital policing tool’ despite its disproportionate targeting of Black Londoners, which makes him part of the problem by assuming that stop and search is an inevitable aspect of policing.
What we need to see is the Mayor ending the routine use of Section 60 powers, decriminalising cannabis to stop low-level drug searches that drive racial disparities and providing transparency around the use of live facial recognition.
Advertisement
Excusing white people
The MOPAC found strong evidence of racialised policing. They found that police officers had used “vague” grounds to justify stopping black Londoners, compared to the reasons given for white Londoners.
Black people were stopped for things like clothing or simply going about their business in high-crime areas. In contrast, white people were more likely to be stopped for stealing or admitting possession of drugs.
The report advised that improving the criteria for when people should (or should not) be stopped and searched would reduce racial disproportionality by 11 to 19 percent.
Commenting on this the greens councillor, Garbett said:
Advertisement
Report after report has confirmed what many Black Londoners have known for decades: stop and search is an inherently racist and discriminatory policing power.
This latest research simply adds to the growing body of evidence showing the staggering scale of disproportionate policing in London, spanning a wide range of tools and tactics.
For example, research I disclosed revealed that over half of live facial recognition deployments were in areas with higher-than-average Black populations, including Thornton Heath, Croydon (40%), Northumberland Park, Haringey (36%), and Deptford High Street, Lewisham (34%).
We also know that Black Londoners are 5.1 times more likely to be stopped and searched for drug offences than white people highlighting how cannabis criminalisation is inherently discriminatory by design.
Punitive policing
King’s College researchers also found that Black Londoners are subjected to a troubling 4,300 extra stops by police each year – almost one every two hours. These statistics are difficult to square against Khan’s sheepish support for punitive policing practices.
Advertisement
Across 24 London wards (districts) with higher racial disproportionality, Black people could be up to 48 times more likely to be stopped and searched than White people.
These problem areas include Ealing, Hillingdon, and Hackney, where Garbett serves as a councillor for the Dalston ward.
She spoke about the human impact of these discriminatory practices, sanctioned by the mayor.
Constituents and community groups I’ve spoken to describe stop and search as an invasive and degrading tactic and they say it causes real and long-lasting harm that undermines trust and confidence in the police.
What we need is for the Met to genuinely listen to communities and take on board their input and act on it rather than pushing back or assuming they know better.
The world’s largest pension fund has revealed that it sold its shares in the Bolloré group, a powerful French conglomerate. This was due to unresolved concerns about “serious human rights violations” at a plantation company which Bolloré partly owned.
A report from the Norwegian Bank Investment Management (NBIM) made the decision public on 26 February. The report states that after years of dialogue with Bolloré SE and Compagnie de l’Odet SE on “their management of human rights risks, sexual violence, harassment and labor rights abuses” at the plantations of the Luxembourg-based company Socfin, in which the Bolloré group holds a “significant share”, NBIM decided to exclude them from its investment portfolio.
Affected communities have long denounced the violations and abuses. The Socfin group dates back to 1909. It controls 370,000 hectares for the production of palm oil and rubber in ten countries of Africa and Asia.
Plantations on stolen land
In many of these countries, Socfin acquired the lands without community consultation or consent. As a result, the communities feel their lands were robbed from them. The plantations often surround villages and pollute their water sources, such that villagers cannot grow their own food crops.
Advertisement
When villagers gather fallen palm nuts or speak out about their conditions, they regularly face harassment. For women villagers and girls, sexual violence and even rape by plantation labourers or security forces is a common occurrence.
In 2024, after years of complaints from communities and civil society, Socfin hired the Swiss-based Earthworm Foundation to investigate these issues. The results were appalling: 59% of the complaints were said to be founded, to one degree or another, and 85% of these were judged to be the responsibility of the company.
Norway’s move follows a similar decision by Switzerland’s largest pension fund, BVK. The Swiss spent three years discussing these issues with the Bolloré group, which argued that it held no responsibility for what happens at the Socfin plantations. This was despite Bolloré being a major shareholder and sitting on the board of directors of several Socfin holdings and plantation companies.
Félicité Ngo Bissou of the Association des Femmes Riveraines de Socapalm Edéa in Cameroon said:
Advertisement
It’s about time that investors take action against Socfin and Bolloré. For too long, the Bolloré group has claimed it’s not responsible for the abuses we face around the Socfin plantations and as a result, the abuses have continued. This cannot go on.
Rizal Assalam of the Transnational Palm Oil Labour Solidarity, in Indonesia, agreed:
For us, Norway’s decision, like that of the Swiss, means that someone is listening to the communities and the workers, even if it’s not Bolloré.
The European Commission invited Socfin last week to be a key partner and speak at the EU-Liberia Business forum in Brussels. Yet Liberian communities are to this day denouncing Socfin’s lack of action on their long standing complaints!
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.
Yes, that’s right, Mother’s Day is indeed coming up, and fast.
Don’t feel bad if you let it creep up and surprise you – it tends to do that.
The good news is it’s definitely not too late to get your lovely ma the gift she deserves.
Advertisement
I have put my cholesterol levels on the line (willingly, don’t worry) to try and test the very best gift-friendly boxes of chocolates so that you don’t have to.
From pralines to truffles to whisky-infused delights, here’s my list of the best of the best.
The government has launched its long-awaited consultation on digital ID. Here is what we learned, as well as questions that remain unanswered.
Advertisement
Speaking at a Downing Street press conference on Tuesday afternoon, the cabinet minister tasked with leading the rollout of digital ID, Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones, said that the planned scheme could save “tens and tens of billions every year”.
The government has said that the consultation, which is expected to last for eight weeks, will go further than those before it. It will include engaging with a ‘People’s Panel’, which Jones himself today admitted was “a gamble”.
The Keir Starmer administration is trying to rebuild public support for the policy after the initial announcement last year had a rocky landing.
Advertisement
Legislation implementing digital ID is expected to be put to Parliament later this year, with work on the app to begin in 2027.
Will digital ID be compulsory?
In January, PoliticsHome revealed that the government was scrapping plans to make the new digital ID scheme mandatory amid warnings, including from many Labour MPs, that going ahead with the compulsory element would be strongly opposed by the public.
While the public will still be required to carry out some digital right-to-work checks, they will be able to do so using other documents, like a passport of eVisa.
Advertisement
The consultation being launched today will ask the public how the government can ensure that everyone who wants to use the scheme can do so after concerns were raised about accessibility.
Jones today told the House of Commons that it “must be for everyone” and the government “will help those who are less confident with technology or don’t have other forms of ID like a passport”.
Ministers are consulting on at what age someone should be able to obtain a digital ID.
What will a digital ID look like?
The digital ID will be held in an app on a smartphone or tablet, with the government today publishing a working prototype of the digital ID system, pictured below.
Advertisement
Government prototype of digital ID app (Cabinet Office)
Jones also said on Tuesday that the NHS app “will be separate” from the government’s digital ID, as the NHS app is “already pretty well developed”.
Ministers are also consulting the public on what information digital ID should contain, which will go a long way to determining how it will appear on a user’s screen.
Digital ID will make processes “fairer”
While the government initially focused on digital ID as a way of tackling illegal migration, since then, the emphasis has shifted to making aspects of everyday life easier, with ministers using examples like filing a tax return and managing free childcare.
“The status quo is a legacy system of call centres, paperwork, and the need to tell your story, multiple times, to the different parts of government, with hours on hold and not knowing where you are in the process,” Jones said today.
“The whole point with this is that it should be easy, simple, and accessible to everybody.”
Advertisement
Jones claimed that digital public services could also be cheaper to run and more efficient.
“We cannot continue on this two-track process where services in the private sector, in banking and shopping, and all the other things that we do in our day-to-day lives are fast, easy, and digital, and then when you come to the public sector, they’re slow, clunky, and disjointed.”
What will the scheme cost?
It is still unclear how much the digital ID system will cost to develop, with today’s consultation claiming it was “not yet possible to quantify or assess the full impacts of the system”.
The government has previously pushed back against the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast that the policy would cost £1.8bn over the next three years, arguing that the design of the scheme is yet to be decided on.
Advertisement
Today, Jones said the government had already carried out estimates showing that digitising customer services could save “tens and tens of billions of pounds every year” that is currently being spent on “very unproductive call centres, lots of paper shuffling, slow processes”.
Jones claimed that a digital ID could “free up taxpayers’ money” to go on frontline services like the NHS or “give back to taxpayers in the years ahead”.
‘People’s Panel’ to “help debate difficult questions”
Jones also confirmed that the government will go beyond a typical consultation, announcing the creation of a ‘People’s Panel’ on digital ID, with 100-120 people to be randomly selected, bringing together people across the country from different backgrounds.
Jones told reporters that the panel was a “gamble” as it would mean the government “kind of giving up control of it around the process”.
Advertisement
He said the panel would “help us debate the difficult questions, find ways forward and help us build a system that will win the trust and support of the public at large”.
Speaking at an event hosted by the Institute for Government think tank (IFG) in January, Jones said he believed the policy would grow in popularity over the next 12 months as people realised how it would positively impact their day-to-day lives.
The Minas Gerais State Championship football final in Brazil turned into a historic scene of on-field violence after a mass brawl erupted between players from Cruzeiro and Atlético Mineiro in the final moments of the match, resulting in 23 players being sent off at once after the final whistle.
These events occurred after Cruzeiro defeated their rivals Atlético Mineiro 1-0 in the match held in Belo Horizonte, securing their first championship title since 2019.
Football match erupts
The chaos didn’t end with the final whistle. The celebrations turned to an uproar after the match, when a violent confrontation broke out in stoppage time. Cruzeiro player Cristian rushed towards Atlético goalkeeper Iverson while chasing a rebound inside the penalty area. His legs collided with the goalkeeper, who fell to the ground. Iverson retaliated by pushing Cristian and placing his knee on Cristian’s chest, which sparked a full-blown brawl involving the entire Cruzeiro team.
Tensions escalated dramatically when Cruzeiro’s Matheus Pereira attempted to capitalise on a weak ball inside the penalty area, colliding with goalkeeper Iverson. Veteran player Hulk (39 years old) then joined the fray, being struck by Atlético defender Lucas Villalabá. He retaliated with a powerful blow to midfielder Lucas Romero, amidst chaos that lasted for several minutes despite the intervention of security personnel and military police to separate the players.
Advertisement
According to the BBC, referee Matheus Delgado Candansan did not issue any red cards during the match itself, despite the tense atmosphere and nine yellow cards. However, the intensity of the brawl led the referee to later record 23 official dismissals in his report, a record number in the history of the domestic leagues. These included 12 Cruzeiro players, among them Caio Jorge, and 11 Atlético Mineiro players, most notably Hulk.
Between the joy of Cruzeiro’s historic victory and the players falling in the middle of the brawl, the final turned into an event that will be recorded in the annals of Brazilian football as one of the most controversial matches, highlighting the impact of emotion and collective violence on the reputation of the game even during times of great celebration.
Jamaican club Mount Pleasant suffered a major blow ahead of their highly anticipated match against Los Angeles Galaxy in the The Confederation of North, Central America and Caribbean Association Football (CONCACAF) Champions Cup. The United States refused to issue visas to ten of their players, preventing them from participating in the first leg of the Round of 16 match against LA Galaxy on Wednesday.
The Jamaican team traveled to Los Angeles on Sunday with a squad of only 18 players, including five from the academy, to compensate for the absences caused by the visa crisis.
CONCACAF throws up inevitable problem
This incident highlights the restrictions imposed on citizens of certain countries entering the racist regime of the United States. Mount Pleasant has seven players who hold Haitian citizenship, and Haiti was among the 19 countries targeted by US President Donald Trump’s executive order as part of his campaign to tighten immigration procedures.
While athletes participating in major sporting events like the 2026 World Cup or the Olympics usually receive exemptions from such restrictions, the United States refused these exemptions, highlighting the depth of their commitment to racist border policies.
Visa obstacles.
The club’s sporting director, Paul Christie, said the visa obstacles put his team at a disadvantage before facing the 2024 MLS champions.
