Matthew Jeffery is one of Britain’s most experienced global talent and recruitment leaders, with more than 25 years advising boards and C-suite executives on workforce strategy, skills, and productivity.

A life lived in defence of freedom, friendship and conviction.

The passing of Simon Richards, former Chief Executive of The Freedom Association and Chairman of Better Off Out, marks the loss of a man whose life was guided by principle, kindness and an enduring belief in freedom.

Simon was never drawn to politics for recognition or personal advancement. Instead, he devoted decades to ideas he believed strengthened democratic life: freedom of speech, national sovereignty, individual responsibility and respectful debate. For those who knew him, these were not abstract political concepts, but values he lived by every day.

A Lifelong Commitment to Liberty

Simon’s connection with The Freedom Association began when he was still young, inspired by its mission to defend liberty and democratic accountability. What began as early enthusiasm grew into a lifelong vocation. Over many years, he helped guide the organisation through changing political landscapes, ensuring it remained a home for open discussion and principled advocacy.

He worked tirelessly behind the scenes, creating forums where people could meet, argue, laugh and learn from one another. Simon believed politics worked best when it brought people together rather than pushed them into opposing camps. His calm temperament and genuine curiosity allowed conversations to flourish even among those who disagreed.

Many recall that he created something rare in modern politics: a broad “umbrella” under which people of centre-right and freedom-minded views could collaborate beyond party loyalties. He valued shared principles more than tribal divisions, and his approach helped make political engagement feel welcoming rather than exclusionary.

Champion of Sovereignty and Democratic Debate

As Chairman of Better Off Out, Simon became one of the early and steady voices advocating for Britain’s democratic independence. Long before the issue dominated national conversation, he travelled the country speaking thoughtfully and patiently to audiences large and small.

His style was never confrontational. He preferred persuasion to rhetoric and dialogue to division. Even political opponents recognised the sincerity and courtesy with which he advanced his arguments.

A Thatcherite in Principle and Practice

Simon was a sincere admirer of Margaret Thatcher and the values she represented: enterprise, responsibility and freedom under the rule of law. His support extended beyond admiration into action. He was a committed backer and friend of the project to establish the Margaret Thatcher statue in Grantham, recognising it as an important tribute to a figure who shaped modern Britain.

After stepping down as Chief Executive of The Freedom Association in 2020, Simon did not retreat from public life. Instead, he continued quietly supporting causes aligned with his beliefs, including advising and encouraging initiatives such as the Margaret Thatcher Centre. Characteristically, he remained active not for prominence, but out of loyalty to ideas and to the people working to preserve them.

The Man Behind the Politics

Those closest to Simon remember not only his convictions but his warmth. He was unfailingly courteous, thoughtful and generous with his time, particularly with younger activists finding their way into public life. He listened carefully, disagreed respectfully and never allowed politics to overshadow personal decency.

In an era often defined by sharp division, Simon represented a gentler tradition of political engagement, one grounded in civility, friendship and mutual respect.

A Lasting Legacy

Simon Richards leaves behind a legacy measured not simply in campaigns or institutions, but in people. He helped build communities of thought, encouraged cooperation across boundaries and showed that firm beliefs could coexist with kindness and humility.

His influence will endure in the organisations he strengthened, the causes he supported and the many individuals who found encouragement under the inclusive political spaces he helped create.

He will be remembered not only as a committed defender of freedom, but as a good man who made public life a little more thoughtful, a little more welcoming and a great deal more humane.

Rest in peace, Simon. Your quiet dedication and generous spirit will long be remembered.

Brandon To is a Politics graduate from UCL and a Hong Kong BN(O) immigrant settled in Harrow.

A few days ago I organised a community forum in Parliament. Over 60 local constituents met our MP to discuss the proposed changes to settlement rules and how it affects Hong Kongers.

The discussion was not about open borders. It was not about special treatment. It was about something more fundamental:

What kind of immigrants does Britain actually want?

For years, our national debate has swung between two extremes. On one side, an open-door policy that forces Britain to accept everyone, including poorly integrated immigrants. On the other, a rising frustration that sees all immigration as inherently destabilising.

Conservatives should reject both.

If we believe in social cohesion and responsibility, our immigration policy must be selective, with benchmarks for integration and contribution.

And judged against that, Hong Kongers are not the problem, but rather the model immigrants that Britain should welcome.

Since the BN(O) route opened in 2020, Hong Kong arrivals have shown high employment rates, low (to almost none) welfare dependence, low crime involvement and rapid civic participation. Many have joined churches. Others have volunteered locally. I personally joined the Harrow Litter Pickers shortly after arriving because I see Harrow as my home now.

We do not march demanding Britain change for us. We adapt to Britain.

Yet the Government’s proposed changes risk unintentionally penalising Hong Kongers.

While the government claims that Hong Kongers remain on their 5-year to ILR route, the devil lies between the lines. Changes to income thresholds (from none to £12,570) and eligibility criteria (from B1 to B2 English) when many Hong Kong families are almost reaching settlement status are essentially punishing immigrants who followed the rules in good faith.

Salary is one proxy for economic integration, but it’s not the only one. The BN(O) route was never designed as a low-wage labour scheme. Many Hong Kong arrivals came with life savings, have invested in property, started small businesses, or are supporting children in British schools as full-fee payers. Others are elderly retirees with independent means. Some mothers have stepped back from employment due to caring responsibilities — a choice that British society has never treated as non-contribution when made by citizens.

A rigid income threshold risks mistaking administrative simplicity for serious policy design. It may filter out precisely the kinds of law-abiding, asset-holding households that Britain strives to welcome.

This is not a plea for leniency. It is a plea for predictability. That Hong Kong families will not be punished alongside other poorly integrated immigrants.

However, there seems to be a lack of such rhetoric in the party that introduced the BN(O) scheme back in 2020.

In the current political climate, many Conservative MPs are understandably cautious. With Reform polling strongly in parts of the country, any public support for a migrant group, risks being caricatured as weakness. But a confident Conservative Party should be able to distinguish between blanket hostility and selective endorsement.

Reform’s instinct is blunt opposition to migration in all forms. Labour’s approach is bureaucratic rigidity that fails to recognise contribution.The Conservative approach should be different: firm control overall, but clear differentiation between those who integrate and those who do not.

There are already colleagues who understand this.

I have had the privilege of meeting Sir Iain Duncan Smith (MP for Chingford and Woodford Green) and Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (MP for Solihull West and Shirley), both of whom have been consistent voices of support for Hong Kongers. Their backing has never been rooted in sentimentality. It is rooted in principle: that Britain should stand by those who integrate, contribute and align with our values.

They understand that support for Hong Kongers is not a contradiction of conservative immigration policy, but rather an expression of it.

Kemi Badenoch has similarly indicated that routes such as BN(O) should remain protected. That instinct is correct. It reflects a broader truth: firmness on illegal or non-integrating migration must sit alongside clarity about the types of migrants Britain actively welcomes.

If we fail to make those distinctions, we leave the field to those who argue all migration is harmful, or to those who refuse to recognise legitimate public concern. But if we have the confidence to say that some migration strengthens Britain, and to defend that position, we reclaim the intellectual ground. Hong Kongers are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for consistency with the very principles Conservatives claim to uphold.

If the Party believes in contribution and integration, then Hong Kongers are not liabilities. We are the case study.

The question is whether the Conservative Party has the confidence to say so?

3 min read7 min

This week, we will see the Welsh Senedd vote on the Legislative Consent Motion for the Assisted Dying Bill. It is a bill that changes the criminal law but predominantly focuses on establishing a system for doctors to provide lethal substances to terminally ill patients as a matter of healthcare, changing the relationship between patients, doctors and the NHS.

This means a vote on something that would normally be under the Welsh government’s control, and which has been under Welsh control for almost three decades.

Under a Labour government, I never thought I’d see Wales being railroaded into such a profound change without the consent of the Senedd. A change like this would never happen for a government policy, so why should we let it happen by stealth through a Private Members’ Bill?

The Senedd has already voted against the principle of assisted dying (19 in favour, 26 against) once. Yet the Bill was introduced, extending measures to Wales. Amendments to give Welsh ministers a genuine choice on whether to implement an assisted dying service were stripped out; as it stands, the criminal law will be repealed, leaving Wales in legal limbo, and putting pressure on Wales to catch up with England.

These concerns are particularly acute for me as a Welsh MP and as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Select Committee. No matter what one feels about the principle, Wales, devolution, and the opinion of the Senedd cannot be disregarded just because it is convenient for Westminster’s Private Members’ Bill process.

As both the Senedd’s Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and Health and Social Care Committee have pointed out, there are serious concerns about the practical readiness of the Welsh NHS, including the risk of diverting funding from palliative and end-of-life care, workforce shortages, training demands, and the availability of Welsh-language provision. A decision in this area has significant ramifications for the delivery of broader health and social care policy.

What message have we sent the Welsh people, Welsh voters, ahead of the Senedd elections in May? We cannot send a message that we simply don’t care what they think, that their opinion doesn’t matter, and that it will be imposed on them anyway.

Devolution matters. The voice of Wales matters. 

If Welsh members exercise their right and vote against this week, Westminster must listen – it cannot be right that they are forced to implement a policy that they do not agree with.

To railroad the NHS in Wales into delivering a service that Wales doesn’t believe in would be against everything that we stand for.

When we look at other jurisdictions that have approved similar legislation, many have found themselves on a slippery slope when it comes to scope. A badly-drafted law being imposed on a devolved nation in this way isn’t right, particularly given that it is a Private Members’ Bill that has been brought forward with the bare minimum of scrutiny or preparation. 

Normally, a government bill would include significant preparatory work, pre-legislative scrutiny, impact assessments, and indeed consideration as to the impact on the devolved nations, and careful intergovernmental work. This Bill hasn’t had that, and we run the real risk of putting in place an unworkable and unsafe law that will be damaging to some of the most vulnerable people in our society. 

Wales deserves better than being railroaded into a life-or-death policy change that it has voted against. 

Ruth Jones is Labour MP for Newport West and Islwyn

Scandal broke at the 2026 British Academy Film Awards (BAFTAS) as actors Michael B Jordan and Delroy Lindo during the presentation for Best Visual Effects award to Avatar: Fire and Ash were heckled by Tourettes campaigner John Davidson in which Davidson was heard calling both actors the n-word, with a hard r.

Whether many of us would like to admit it or not, we live in a highly contradictory society. The story that a country like Britain often tells itself (particularly from the right wing but also in some liberal circles) is that racism isn’t significant in our so-called progressive liberal society. Every so often cracks in those sentiments expose what has for a long time been part of the underbelly of British culture.

Criticism of the BBC

Across social media there has been a mixture of shock, disgust and an outpouring of sympathy towards Jordan and Lindo. There were criticisms aimed at the BBC who aired the slur being yelling out in their delayed broadcast, but edited out Akinola Davies Jr saying ‘free Palestine’:

With a two-hour delay, the BBC could’ve removed the N-word slur from its BAFTA coverage, and chose not to.

Meanwhile, it cut Akinola Davies Jr saying “Free Palestine”.

Advertisement

A clear editorial decision driven by fear of pro-Israel lobby groups. Shame on them.

pic.twitter.com/YmaVwOTUQx

— Zarah Sultana MP (@zarahsultana) February 23, 2026

And, one cultural critic did what many refused and failed to do, summed up both the reality of Tourettes and the painful experience suffered by Michael B. Jordan, Delroy Lindo, and Black people in audiences both in the studio and at home:

Too many people are looking at the MBJ Delroy Lindo instance in pure black and white thinking and acting like they know anything about Tourettes disability. They both showed grace at such an unfortunate moment which should be a reminder that black creatives no matter how…

— Zak (@zakfilm) February 22, 2026

The full tweet above reads:

Too many people are looking at the MBJ Delroy Lindo instance in pure black and white thinking and acting like they know anything about Tourettes disability. They both showed grace at such an unfortunate moment which should be a reminder that black creatives no matter how successful they get can still face these type of slurs or remarks anywhere, but there needs to be a space to have these conversations with nuance and seek to learn disabilities that most of us do not know about let alone understand. If anything the organisers are to blame for not giving a thorough statement and providing more context to the artists that go on stage in case things like this happen to them.

The BBC’s pro genocide and pro racist agenda is too clear today, they had time to clip out Free Palestine but not literal slurs, and there’s been no apologies, why should Black people turn the other cheek?

The BBC’s pro genocide and pro racist agenda is too clear today, they had time to clip out Free Palestine but not literal slurs, and there’s been no apologies, why should Black people turn the other cheek?

— princess thighana of wales (@lidlkim_) February 22, 2026

Advertisement

Contextual understanding

However, beyond these criticisms was a much deeper and broader debate about where the line between neurological disorder and racism begins and ends. There were some people online who argued that John Davidson’s outbursts should be understood properly in the context of a disability that he cannot control and that it wasn’t a product of racism as argued here:

I understand this might be shocking but please try to understand he didn’t mean it and can’t control I have it and I promise you it doesn’t make you shout what you think like some people believe

— Flynn 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🏳️‍🌈 (@TorchwoodTales) February 22, 2026

This was reinforced by the BAFTAS host Alan Cumming who took an opportunity at the show to tell the audience about Davidson’s tourettes and to thank the audience for “their understanding and helping create a respectful space for everyone.” These sentiments largely failed to land with many Black audiences who have argued that Black people should not have to deal with racist abuse under any circumstances. Moreover many found the defense of Davidson as yet another chapter in the act of diminishing the seriousness of anti-Black racism:

look, i’m finna b real w/ u. nobody cares. at the end of the day, he said the worst word in the english lexicon. the least he could’ve done was provide a meaningful apology… and he didn’t. black ppl are expected to get over everything.

— ;!juggie$t . (@chvnchilla) February 22, 2026

Advertisement

What tourettes can tell us about racism in British society

While arguments about the need to understand Tourette’s syndrome have validity, this incident is very revealing about the presence of racism in our culture. Tourette’s syndrome is defined as a motor disorder characterised by involuntary tics. It is very likely that John Davidson’s Tourette’s is classified as coprolalia which is expressed in the form of tics that are involuntarily obscene, derogatory and offensive. While I accept that Tourette’s syndrome itself is not intrinsically racist in any neurological way, what was expressed came from something environmental. At the end of the day John Davidson saw two Black men and his Tourette’s syndrome drew upon the association of the term ‘n****r’ and Black people.

It is not known if Davidson is racist or not and it probably doesn’t matter, because his Tourettes drew on a social artifact to express itself as a racist outburst. What John Davidson’s Tourette’s syndrome tells us is that racism exists very much in our society and culture and if it didn’t then Davidson would have likely said something else that would not be rooted in an anti-Black racism.

 Featured image via the Canary

Which sleeping positions were most popular?

What did couples’ sleeping positions say about their relationship satisfaction?