Friday, 14 August 2026

Credible Threat?

Congratulations are of course in order, but it would have been harder for Nigel Farage to have lost at Clacton. This time. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has reopened his investigation.

Lee Anderson has given a car crash interview to the BBC’s Charlie Stayt, and Richard Tice has given another to LBC’s Nick Ferrari, yet Farage’s and Anderson’s GB News colleague, Christopher Hope, has just tweeted: “I can confirm Essex Police were in touch with Nigel Farage’s office yesterday about a threat to him at the count but did NOT say he should not attend. That decision was taken by him.”

Still, Farage Fest or Clactonbury was a sign of times, and the surprise would have been if Farage had not intended to make it an annual event, since he never misses an opportunity to cash in. His following is becoming its own parallel popular culture. But while it had much closer ties to the main one, very largely so did Corbynism. Where is that now?

Gift Aid?

“The first Islamic Republic to have nuclear weapons is the Islamic Republic of Britain,” says Benjamin Netanyahu, whom we arm, to whom we provide nightly intelligence free of charge, who murders our unarmed veterans delivering aid, who is poised to recognise Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, whose critics we jail as terrorists pretty much for breathing in public, on whose behalf we have thrown one our own most distinguished lawyers under the bus, and whom we indulge to the extent of which Martin Williams writes:

British taxpayers funded “therapeutic healing” for Israeli soldiers who fought in Gaza, Declassified can reveal.

An Israeli organisation received the undisclosed sum via a UK charity, with 25% Gift Aid added on by the British government.

Emails obtained by Declassified show how the Yahalom Foundation – an Israeli veterans group – tells British supporters to channel their donations via its “registered partner platform in the UK”.

“Processing your donation through them ensures you receive full tax recognition and enabled Gift Aid, maximising the impact of your contribution,” it says.

“100% of your gift is routed directly to Yahalom to support our core mission.”

The Yahalom Foundation directs British supporters to a list of fundraising projects for Israel Defence Forces (IDF) veterans, claiming that donations would be eligible for the tax subsidy.

The list includes funding a £5,000 “therapeutic healing journey” for soldiers returning from Gaza, as well as “individual psychological treatments”.

The foundation is also raising money for a £100,000 memorial hall to commemorate fallen Israeli soldiers.

Additional records from two years ago show that British donations were made to fund equipment for serving Israeli soldiers – although it is not clear whether Gift Aid was added to these.

A fundraising page said: “With your help we can buy more specialized equipment and supply it to our soldiers.”

The Charity Commission has previously warned: “It is not lawful, or acceptable, for a charity to raise funds to support a soldier of a foreign military.”

‘Family of warriors’

Trained in explosives and “destroying terror tunnels”, Yahalom is the IDF’s elite engineering unit. It has had a key role in the Gaza genocide, with the destruction of civilian infrastructure.

“The Yahalom Unit is deployed everywhere in the Gaza Strip,” an IDF spokesperson has said, while one of the unit’s soldiers has spoken publicly about blowing up buildings in Gaza and operating in Palestinian hospitals.

Troops and veterans of the unit are supported by the Yahalom Foundation, which aims to be an “anchor” for Yahalom’s “family of warriors”.

As a foreign organisation, the Yahalom Foundation cannot directly benefit from UK Gift Aid.

But emails from the foundation’s Head of Fundraising suggest that a British charity called UK Toremet acts as a conduit for Gift Aid donations.

“UK Toremet is our registered partner platform in the UK that processes donations on our behalf,” the email said.

“Because UK Toremet is a registered UK charity, processing your donation through them ensures you receive full tax recognition and enabled Gift Aid, maximising the impact of your contribution.”

PTSD

Responding to Declassified’s investigation, UK Toremet confirmed it had given money to the Yahalom Foundation for “the provision of PTSD treatment to the association’s beneficiaries”.

It claimed: “UK Toremet’s monitoring of its grant to the Yahalom Foundation has confirmed that the funds were applied exclusively to the restricted purpose for which they were given.”

Toremet’s spokesman added: “The provision of mental-health treatment to an individual is welfare and medical relief, charitable under English law.”

The charity also denied being Yahalom Foundation’s “partner platform”, saying this description was “not accurate”. The trustees said they would “follow up with the Yahalom Foundation regarding its wording”.

A statement from UK Toremet added: “A donor may recommend a cause of their choosing; the trustees then assess, thoroughly but solely, whether a grant to that cause would be compliant with English charity and tax law.”

But the charity’s claims are at odds with those of the Yahalom Foundation, who say that “100%” of donations are “routed directly to Yahalom” to support its core mission.

And while UK Toremet claimed that Yahalom Foundation is merely an “alumni association” for IDF veterans, the foundation’s own website says it is dedicated to soldiers “who have served and are currently serving”.

Our findings follow the Charity Commission announcement last week that it had launched an inquiry into eight British charities working in illegal Israeli settlements. The regulator said it would examine whether funds are being used to further charitable purposes.

When questioned by Declassified, UK Toremet refused to confirm whether it is among those being investigated.

However, a spokesperson for the regulator said the inquiry followed “serious allegations” about “operating in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine”.

“All charities must be able to demonstrate that they are delivering on their charitable purposes, wherever in the world they operate and whatever they do,” they added.

UK Toremet

Declassified’s findings mark the latest in a string of controversies surrounding UK Toremet.

The charity was founded by Jonny Cline, a Briton who emigrated to Israel where he reportedly stood as a candidate for Jewish Home, which the BBC has called a “far-right” party, and was a spokesman for an illegal West Bank settlement.

In June, Labour MP Melanie Ward spoke out about UK Toremet, saying it was one of two British groups that had donated a combined £28m to illegal Israeli settlements.

Ward said that, if gift aid were claimed against the donations, it would mean British taxpayers had added £5.6m to the funding.

Her intervention followed Declassified’s investigation earlier this year which revealed how another Israeli charity, Shivat Zion, had invited supporters to claim UK Gift Aid when making donations, saying the money would “go through” UK Toremet.

Our undercover investigation revealed how Shivat Zion offered to help British citizens move to an illegal settlement in the West Bank, describing it as “awesome”.

Last year, The Guardian also alleged that UK Toremet had acted as a conduit for another charity, transferring approximately £5.7m to a high school in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank.

The Guardian said this had been done with the “endorsement” of the Charity Commission, who described the funding as “legitimate”.

More recently, an Al Jazeera documentary investigating UK complicity in settler violence drew links between UK Toremet and Regavim, an extremist pro-settler group that has been sanctioned by the EU for supporting the destruction of Palestinian homes.

In the documentary, Regavim’s international director, Naomi Linder Kahn, is secretly filmed saying: “We work through UK Toremet”.

Kahn explains: “UK Toremet donates to an Israeli charity called – it’s a sister organisation – called Giving. And Giving donated directly to us. That way, it doesn’t appear anywhere on the records of your family, or individuals, or organisations, or even UK Toremet, that they have donated to Regavim.” 

She added: “There’s no paper trail… There’s no actual connection between Regavim and any UK charity.”

The documentary also linked UK Toremet to Ateret Cohanim, an Israeli organisation that buys “ideological real estate” for illegal settlers. 

Its director, Daniel Luria, is filmed admitting that the group subsidises guns. “This is all about Jewish sovereignty,” he says. 

In a subsequent email, Luria claimed that UK Toremet had previously been used to “successfully transfer funds to us from the UK”, adding: “It was sent to our ‘sister’ non profit org under our auspices.” 

Meanwhile, UK Toremet has insisted that it operates fully within UK charity law. “UK Toremet’s grant-making, due-diligence and monitoring policies were developed with specialist legal advisers,” it told Declassified. 

But since 2016, the Charity Commission has undertaken three separate regulatory compliance cases about UK Toremet’s work in Palestine. The charity’s trustees were also issued with statutory guidance and an action plan, which warned it must comply with the Geneva Conventions Act 1957.

A spokesperson said the Charity Commission has also “communicated to the trustees the Government’s position that construction of settlements in Palestine is illegal under international law”. 

Reacting to our investigation into the Yahalom Foundation, Gearóid Ó Cuinn, director of the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), told Declassified that this appeared to be “another instance of the UK failing to abide by clear obligations under international law to stamp out financial links to international abuses. 

“The UK is not only dragging its feet on the ban on illegal settlement goods imports, but now there is serious concern that public gift aid funds could be used to support Israeli soldiers who have been committing genocide in Gaza and war crimes in the West Bank.” 

When questioned by Declassified, a spokesperson for HMRC, which is responsible for Gift Aid, declined to comment, saying that confidentiality rules prevented them from discussing the tax affairs of charities. 

The Yahalom Foundation did not respond to Declassified’s request for comment.

Taking Over The Asylum

How does anyone know that a particular local authority area contained no illegal immigrants? But of the 40 councils that were housing no asylum seekers, only five are even Labour-led, with numerous having no Labour councillors at all. “Move them in next door to you,” indeed.

Each of those areas may look forward to at least one of Edwina Currie’s brothels, each of which should be presided over by the character of Madam Edwina, who would of course be a man. Since there cannot be a “free” market in any of goods, services, capital or labour (i.e., people) unless there were a “free” market in all of them, then there must not be a “free” market in any of them, which is a political choice, not a law of nature. And since there cannot be a “free” market in general, but not in drugs, or prostitution, or pornography, or unrestricted alcohol, or unrestricted gambling, then there must not be a “free” market in general, which is a political choice, not a law of nature.

Snarling and spitting the contrary is Anna Turley, the last of the Hilary Armstrong Information Exchange, whose persistence in government, even if her demotion would rather suggest that she was going to be sacked next time, is a significant mark against Andy Burnham. But while it seems to have gone by the by that I used to be quite widely known as Speedboat, Let’s have a look at what you could have won, there are still those who call me The Cockroach because I would survive a nuclear war, so I welcomed the success of the Cockroach Janata Party in securing the resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan. That was a victory for cockroaches everywhere, our biggest since we outlived Alexei Navalny, whose proxy Nobel Laureate, Dmitry Muratov, is being fawned over by the BBC. Turley and her rabble will be a doddle.

Rob and Fab?

Another A-level results day, another screed of mean-spirited bitterness from people who peaked at 18, and it was a pretty low peak. And another day full of the infernal “uni”, which was unknown in this country until the mass popularity of Neighbours and Home and Away, both beloved of Jason Arday. “Juvi” is also creeping in. Must we become a republic to free ourselves of these Australianisms?

Arday has gone out of his way to look like a member of Milli Vanilli, who were never fooling anyone, nor even attempting to do so. They would apparently deliver that perfect California pop seconds after having given interviews in which they could barely speak English. We all knew that the faces and the voices belonged to different people. In the Europop disco world of Frank Farian, that was and is standard practice. The likes of GRAMMY knew that as well as anyone, but getting caught was spoiling the fun. Bringing us back to Arday.

Thursday, 13 August 2026

The Oprahfication of Antiracism


Christmas arrived early this year for right-wing keyboard warriors. Jason Arday, a Black British academic, resigned from a prestigious professorship at Cambridge University after a string of revelations about alleged plagiarism and outlandish claims, including that he wrote a book that doesn’t exist, ran 30 marathons in 35 days and played for Crystal Palace. It was a gift-wrapped triumph for those on both sides of the Atlantic who have long had Black academics, the humanities and universities in their sights, confirming their prejudices about everything from multiculturalism, progressive values and Equality, Diversity, and Inclusion initiatives (EDI), to “critical race theory” and the abilities of Black people. Choked with fury, they accuse the humanities and social sciences of propagating “grievance studies” and universities of being too “woke”, that is, too inclusive of women, sexual minorities and people of colour.

No surprise, then, that the whole chain of recent events was triggered by a blog by “anti-woke” researcher and self-described “race realist”, Nathan Cofnas.

Let go from a loose affiliation with a Cambridge college after he published a blog post entitled “A Guide for the Hereditarian Revolution”, Cofnas exudes victimhood even though his rights to free speech and racist views were fully upheld by Cambridge. He believes racial differences are a biological fact and has declared that in a meritocracy there would be “close to zero” Black professors at Harvard (and presumably Cambridge). Cofnas has also made the false racist observation that sports and entertainment are the only arenas where Black people can achieve highly.

Cofnas’ recent blog resurrects verbatim overlaps between Arday’s academic work and those of others. Credible questions around plagiarism had already been documented by others, including journalist Jack Grove, who was prevented from publishing by legal threats.

Culture warriors like Cofnas who obsessively target Black academics in particular, but also people of colour, women and sexual minorities, are really fighting over who gets to maintain demographic dominance in universities. Arday did face an “unrelenting level of public scrutiny and personal attack” from the right after he was appointed. For people who feel entitled to rule the roost, small moves towards equality and sharing institutional space feel like oppression. They justify their exclusionary views through discredited theories like “hereditarianism”, “race realism” or “scientific racism”, which posit race as a biological essence and claim innate differences of ability between races, for which there is no credible evidence.

This is why the supposed “diktats of critical race theory” are a particular bugbear for culture warriors. It simply states that race is a historical invention, and a relatively recent one, and that race and racial differences are social categories that have no fundamental biological basis, given that genetics show that human beings are more than 99.9% identical at DNA level. Perhaps the Human Genome Project and Genome Campus near Cambridge should be accused of wokeness.

There is, in fact, a more relevant criticism to be made of EDI as it operates at many institutions, including Cambridge. Under the reign of neoliberal economic ideologies, it has been rendered largely symbolic and superficial, fully compatible with the growing commodification of education. Arday’s public talks and accounts of his life largely fit in with this “Oprahfication” of antiracism. In one, he speaks of how he triumphed through “will not skill”. Cambridge also credited his success to exceptional character traits, adding that he intended to use his platform “to inspire more people from under-represented backgrounds into higher education”. It was the familiar and seductive story of an individual triumphing over difficult circumstances through “indomitable” grit. “Just do it!” could be the corporate slogan. Redolent of self-help and inspirational fables, this approach appeals to institutions deeply resistant to systemic change and easily threatened by genuine challenge.

It certainly looks like Cambridge got things badly wrong in rushing to appoint an early-career scholar with a fairly thin output to a highly prestigious and very senior post, making him the youngest-ever Black professor at Cambridge at 37. They made things worse by putting out an unusual amount of publicity stressing his race, youth and apparent victories over great adversity, including learning difficulties. The same media now tut-tutting over Arday were fully involved in parading him as a Black wunderkind on flagship programmes. But the very presentation of Black achievement as exceptional betrays troubling racial presumptions.

Academics at Cambridge, including me, have called for an independent investigation into what went wrong. Since the university is vulnerable to the charge that there are few Black British academics in its employ, some managers may have thought a high-profile Black hire might help cover a multitude of absences and bring kudos with it. That has backfired, not least since his research, which Arday has publicly said he doesn’t really like doing and finds difficult, appears to not have been scrutinised properly.

Roger Mosey, who was head of television news in a “hideously white” BBC, accused the university of a “hardline pursuit of diversity”. In fact, Cambridge may have done the exact opposite with one highly visible professorship taking the place of more wide-ranging institutional change.

A small group of former academics and managers believe universities are in decline since their far more homogenous time. What really needs to happen in order to foster Black excellence would give them a collective aneurysm. Conscientious mentoring and sustained institutional support for at least a generation of talented young Black scholars are needed so that very many more than one can aspire to secure academic jobs. Such scholars would be walking in the footsteps of respected British scholars of Caribbean or African origin like Stuart Hall, C.L.R. James, Gail Lewis, Margaret Ebunoluwa Aderin, Paul Gilroy or Kate Okikiolu.

Our universities need more, not fewer, opportunities to combine inclusion and excellence, which, sorry to say, is not the sole specialty of any one ethnic group or gender. A lone individual’s transgressions would not then be so prominent, and could not be weaponised to smear entire communities and disciplines. There have been several recent cases, at Cambridge alone, of white male scholars being accused of academic or sexual misconduct. Where is the rolling media coverage of these? White male and elite privilege have shielded many such men from consequences for a long time. Where was the furore when it was reported that the white associate professor of religion and Reform “kingmaker”, James Orr, was tasked with recruiting “hundreds” of highly able Cambridge students into the party?

As the likes of Boris Johnson and Elon Musk rush to denounce Cambridge and Arday, they remind us that the former professor is not our biggest problem. It is that we live in a world where shallow pep talk, falsehoods, and disinformation have become the norm for public and political discourse. Perhaps it’s time for all of us to be a little bit more critical and a lot more awake.

Material Contribution


On a recent visit to an elderly care home in Golders Green, Andy Burnham made an important observation about the long-running assisted suicide debate. Before we rush into providing drugs for terminally ill patients to end their lives on the NHS, he asked, shouldn’t we first aim to provide the care that they need to live out their last days well?

This is precisely the right question to ask, as Parliament soon returns from recess with yet another assisted suicide bill before it for a vote on 11 September. If this feels familiar, it’s because the same Members of Parliament have already spent numerous hours debating this issue during the last parliamentary session. During that time, the earlier version of the Bill, proposed by Kim Leadbeater, did not pass through the House of Lords. If Lauren Edwards’ almost identical Bill passes Second Reading, we once again face months debating the same issue that dominated headlines and divided colleagues and communities last year.

I opposed the Bill last time because I was not persuaded that the safeguards within it were strong enough to prevent vulnerable people from ending their lives due to feeling like a burden on either caregivers or the state. My concerns have not gone away. But the Prime Minister has made a broader point that should resonate beyond those of us who voted against the legislation.

Labour was elected on a manifesto promise to “rebuild our country”, with a strong emphasis on restoring broken public services. We promised to strengthen the NHS and tackle the social care crisis, restoring confidence that government stands alongside people when they are at their most vulnerable. The scale of the challenge is clear. Data from Hospice UK shows that two in five hospices had to plan on service cuts this year due to serious funding pressures. Meanwhile, two-thirds of people in rural and island communities are impacted by a postcode lottery as they struggle to access vital palliative and end-of-life care close to home.

It is difficult to talk about genuine “choice” and “autonomy” over death if people weighing up a potential suicide cannot access specialist palliative care; or if disabled people must still fight for the support that allows them to live independently. Andy Burnham is right: before Parliament changes the law, our first responsibility should be to fix the care system.

This is not just an abstract argument. One of my constituents, mother-of-four Michelle Anna Moffatt, died in June after becoming one of Scotland’s leading voices against assisted suicide. Following a catastrophic spinal injury that left her wheelchair-bound, Michelle believed her life was over. At her lowest point, she saved money to travel to Dignitas to end her life at Switzerland’s infamous clinic. Thankfully, she never went.

With the support of a GP who helped her combat her suicidality, a community at Spinal Injuries Scotland that helped her rediscover purpose, and a family determined not to give up on her, Michelle slowly rebuilt her life. She became an advocate for disabled people and inspired many by throwing herself into community life, raising four children, fundraising for charity, and even canoeing down the Zambezi River.

If Michelle could have been offered an assisted suicide at her lowest moment, she told friends she would have certainly taken it, cutting her life short by six years. Though her spinal injury itself was not “terminal”, in many jurisdictions where assisted suicide is permitted, she could easily have made herself fit the category required by the legislation. Indeed, it’s frighteningly easy to do so. If an anorexic refuses to eat; if a diabetic refuses insulin; if a paralysed person like Michelle refuses to change a catheter and invites infection that she refuses to treat, anyone could make themselves fit a very loose definition of “terminal”. Similar cases have already happened in places where assisted suicide is legal. But thanks to the law prohibiting assisted suicide at the time, Michelle emerged from that period of despair, grateful that she had been helped to live rather than helped to die.

Her experience reflects concerns repeatedly raised by disability organisations throughout this debate: that vulnerable people suffering coercion, depression or feelings of being a burden could be pushed into an early death under this proposal. The Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have echoed Burnham’s analysis: you can’t offer death to those who might have made a different choice if their care needs (be it palliative care, adaptive housing, mental health support or practical assistance) had not gone unmet.

Scotland has already wrestled deeply with these questions. When Holyrood considered Liam McArthur’s assisted suicide Bill earlier this year, a proposal very similar to the legislation now returning to Westminster, 85% of Scottish Labour MSPs opposed it, and the Bill ultimately failed. Their decision demonstrated Labour’s core values: support for the marginalised and safeguarding the vulnerable.

Being an MP in Scotland, I know how carefully Labour has sought to balance a shared UK-wide identity with the distinct political traditions that exist north and south of the border. Dragging the party, and the country, back into another divisive assisted suicide debate risks reopening divisions at precisely the moment when we should be unitedly focused on delivering for people.

Andy Burnham has offered Parliament a sensible way forward. When he says we should address hospice funding and strengthen social care before revisiting assisted suicide, he is reminding us what government is for. We should be remembered as a party which secured better help and care to those in need, not the party that simply offered them death.

The First Lord of the Treasury needs to clean his own house, as Maddison Frost writes:

HM Treasury ‘materially contributed’ to the suicide of its employee Chloe Moffat when she took her own life following an anonymous complaint at work.

In announcing her conclusion of an inquest into Moffat’s death at Surrey Coroners’ Court, assistant coroner Anna Crawford found that the Treasury did not follow its disciplinary procedure in informing Moffat that the outcome of the allegation, if true, would be a written warning and not dismissal.

Crawford said there may be a “wider issue” in government and that she would send a Prevention of Future Deaths (PFD) report to the civil service, Treasury and Acas. Recipients of a PFD report must provide a written response within 56 days.

Moffat, 26, worked as a personal assistant for nearly three years and had been on track for promotion. After the Treasury received a number of anonymous complaints, managers invited Moffat to a meeting. The complaints alleged that Moffat had informally shared information about her colleagues, which Moffat denied.

The court heard that when Moffatt asked if she would be losing her job, a senior manager told her she “couldn’t predict any outcome of any potential investigation”.

Moffat had her job responsibilities temporarily changed and access to her manager’s diary – despite the meeting being described as “informal”.

Crawford said that, instead of calling Moffat into the meeting, attended by her line manager and the Treasury’s head of global issues, she should have been given details of the allegations in a letter.

She added that Moffat’s state of mind, being afraid that she would be dismissed, likely contributed to her decision to end her life.

The inquest heard that following the meeting on 19 May 2025, Moffat sent a text message to her friend that said: “I am going to be fired”. The next day, Moffat was found dead by her father.

The court heard that the Treasury managers had followed advice given by HR, but the way the complaint was handled was not in line with policy.

The Treasury’s policy, which is in line with Acas guidelines, states that serious misconduct allegations have to be handled formally, so that the person is “not deprived of their rights”.

The coroner said this includes having a third party present during meetings, receiving five days’ notice of meetings, and providing information on a likely outcome if allegations are upheld.

Treasury staff previously described the meeting as “informal” and “fact-finding”, but internal emails revealed that they had already considered the level of misconduct as “serious”.

‘Sufficient information’

Crawford told the court that she believed the reason for the meeting was to see if Moffat would admit to the allegations so they could move to a formal disciplinary.

She added that before the meeting on 19 May, there was “sufficient information” available to determine the level of potential misconduct.

Ms Crawford said: “HM Treasury materially contributed to Ms Moffat’s death by not applying their written discipline policy and procedure in that they did not inform her that the likely penalty, if the allegations were proven, was a written warning and not dismissal.”

Crawford ruled that Moffat’s death was a suicide and that she was satisfied in finding that Moffat had intended to take her own life.

In a statement, Moffat’s parents said: “Chloe was a bright, caring and talented young woman who loved her family, her friends and her work. She had an exemplary employment record, was highly regarded by those who worked with her, and had a promising future ahead of her. As her family, we remain immensely proud of everything she achieved in her short life.”

A Treasury spokesperson said: “We continue to mourn Chloe’s passing as a colleague and friend. Our thoughts remain with her family and friends. We take the coroner’s concerns extremely seriously and recognise it is important to act quickly. We are now considering the findings carefully.

“We have introduced improvements to guidance, support and wellbeing arrangements, but recognise we must continue to take action to prevent this happening again.” 

Disciplinary code of practice

Last month, Acas launched a consultation on a new draft Code of Practice on disciplinary and grievance procedures that places a much stronger emphasis on resolving workplace concerns informally before they escalate into formal processes.

The revised code, the first full update since 2009, seeks to encourage employers and workers to address concerns early through informal conversations, with Acas arguing that effective informal resolution can reduce costs, improve workplace relationships and prevent unnecessary conflict.

Commenting on the Moffat case, an Acas spokesperson said: “This is an extremely distressing and upsetting case and our thoughts are with Chloe’s family. Acas has a disciplinary and grievance code of practice that sets out good practice advice for employers on how to handle disciplinary cases.

“Revisions to this code are currently being consulted on with a deadline for responses of 23 September. Our proposed revisions to the code include a new advice section for employers on how to handle concerns informally. We welcome any feedback on the revised code and will consider any recommendations for Acas from the coroner’s report.”

In July, the UK’s Faculty of Public Health argued that poorly conducted workplace investigations cause such harm that they should be seen as a threat to public health. By putting formal ways of handling workplace issues ahead of staff wellbeing, employers could be causing “unintended harm” where investigations are “poorly conducted or applied excessively”, it said.

The faculty called on policymakers, employers, HR, and public health professionals to recognise how disciplinaries can be a detriment to workforce wellbeing and ensure there are safeguards in regulation and policies.

Who Do Boys Like They’re Girls, Who Do Girls Like They’re Boys

The thirtieth anniversary of my A-level results has me in a mid-Nineties mood.


There’s a telling moment in one of the social media videos shared by New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez documenting her egg-freezing journey. The congresswoman sits on her sofa, about to give herself a hormone injection. She takes a deep, nervous breath in preparation. She then pulls up her shirt, pinches her stomach flesh, and gives herself the injection, looking incongruently vulnerable and alone. The moment will spark sympathy in many mothers: it’s a lonely, vulnerable process, and despite or because of generations of feminism, it hasn’t become any easier.

AOC is 36 years old and, for her, egg freezing is an insurance policy in case she wants to reproduce later. Her decision to do so in public has been widely lauded as normalising such decisions and bringing visibility to a taboo aspect of women’s reproductive health. The supporters aren’t wrong: all aspects of women’s fertility and reproductive choices remain difficult to discuss, even in a culture of overexposure. AOC’s decision to go public may be a PR stunt, but it will still resonate, making many women feel less alone with their choices. In the videos, viewers see the politician confidently fitting a process that many women find opaque and challenging into a brisk, professional life.

Since she posted the videos, it has come to light that the congresswoman split from her long-term fiancé Riley Roberts months before she began the egg freezing process. In this respect, she is even more representative of a category of women who could use support, as she faces a dwindling fertility window without a partner.

Statistically speaking, however, egg freezing isn’t an insurance policy but instead the end of the road. In contrast to glowing photos of happy celebrities who froze their eggs and now have babies, a UCLA study from 2025 revealed that from 2014-21 only 5.7% of women returned to use their frozen eggs within five years. The numbers are slightly higher for women who froze eggs between the ages 38-42, with around 8% returning. An unknown percentage of those who freeze eggs conceives naturally, of course. Numbers are also hard to come by on how many of the 8% who do return end up becoming mothers; at age 36, the chance of pregnancy per IVF cycle in general is around 30-40%.

For many women, then, the decision to freeze their eggs is really a decision not to have children at all. We can assume, possibly, that they didn’t really want to: an insurance policy in case you change your mind on the off-chance is really on the off-chance. Perhaps most brisk, confident fitters-in of children among other priorities don’t change their minds. But it’s also hard not to see that the narrative of brisk, confident fitting-in is inimical to the motherhood project, which is messy and totalising, even when you “do it all”. The real cultural demand revealed by AOC’s videos is for an appreciation of that vulnerability, and an encouragement of a woman’s willingness to risk it. This could be fostered by greater support for motherhood — and by a partner in the frame.

And Chuck Palahniuk writes:

Philadelphia, 2019. An Uber is hauling me to the nearest Alcoholics Anonymous meeting, and I ask the driver to name the best parts of Philly. A twenty-something black guy, he says, “I don’t think there are any good parts.” He clocks me in the rearview mirror and asks, “Are you the writer?” The young man pulls out his phone and hits a number, saying, “You have to talk to my mom. Her favourite movie is Fight Club.” He hands the phone to me in the backseat. 

In 2019, the film was already two decades old. This year, the book turns 30.

In 1999 the head of publicity at Twentieth Century Fox had told the director, David Fincher, “You’ve made a movie with so much male nudity that no man will want to see it, and so much blood that no woman will. You’ve made a movie that’s impossible to market.” Yet here I am laughing away with a middle-aged mother and her son who both came to love the story.

Maybe it’s because the story gave them permission to disregard all of the consumption and status static. “You are not your job.” “You are not your khakis.” These were memes before memes, and they flew in the face of a million Gap commercials. Lines like “May I never be perfect and complete” broke the stranglehold of demands the culture put on young people.

Maybe “self-improvement” as dictated by well-meaning cookie-cutter guidance councillors and college advisers never was the answer. Maybe “You are not a beautiful and unique snowflake” snapped readers out of the self-esteem messages they’d been force fed all their lives. Maybe they saw how such constant reassurances kept them from moving forward, and how emotional handholding came to stink of a lifelong panacea. Maybe “Deliver me from clever art” saved people from drowning in the era’s flood of David Letterman snark and irony and hinted that “clever” wasn’t enough.

National Public Radio once hosted me on a panel discussion where black academics and female academics dismissed Fight Club because it didn’t directly address the lives of racial minorities and women. Yet here I was in a car listening to a mother and her son who loved the story.

Another possibility? Fight Club was one of the few stories that told young people they’re mortal. You’re going to die. And the story didn’t just state that truth the way The Dead Poets Society took a bunch of prep school students and showed them old photos and declared, “These boys are all now food for worms.” No, Fight Club dropped us into the support group world of the Aids era, an age of mass dying, and made that sadness the “meet cute” of an old-school rom-com. The hero and heroine meet at the edge of an open grave, staring death in the face. Not since Harold and Maude had we seen Eros and Thanatos so romantically entwined.

To put all of this in a larger context: way back in 1949, the mythologist Joseph Campbell had given us the concept of “the hero’s journey”, the blueprint for so many movies, including Star Wars. Among Campbell’s concepts was the “secondary father”, the coach or teacher or boss or drill sergeant. After the first father, who must love and nurture the child, the secondary father can more sternly mentor the child toward greatness. For an example of the secondary mother, just watch The Devil Wears Prada and see how women fulfil the same role.

So Campbell gave us Star Wars and The Karate Kid, and, in 1990, Robert Bly gave us Iron John, the dry, sober seed for so much of the humourless men’s movement. Yet by the mid Nineties, Bly had thrown up his hands in surrender. Men were unruly, as were people in general nowadays, so in 1996 Bly wrote The Sibling Society to explain how all hierarchies of authority had broken down. No one stood above anyone else in the culture, and all teaching was now done peer-to-peer. Mind you, this is still a few years before social media, but Bly was already predicting “influencers” and “looksmaxxing” and the manosphere in general, where the flattened landscape of faceless “likes” does the teaching.

The year 1996 was also when W.W. Norton published Fight Club. It was the world of Maxim and Loaded magazines, football hooligans, Trainspotting and Snatch. So-called “lad culture”. In her 1991 book Backlash, Susan Faludi had described a male pushback against feminism, including a scene where she depicts Robert Bly as a cold tyrant, reinforcing traditional gender roles and abusing an elderly female acolyte of his. In 1996’s Sibling Society, Bly attacked Faludi’s version of events, and a public pissing match was on.

That was Nineties lad culture: the rowdy, moshing Backlash world became the kind of playpen that doesn’t want a stern secondary father. What the uncouth Sibling Society needed was… a trickster. We needed a Loki or Coyote or Hermes or Puck or Pan. And not the androgynous Pan of Disney’s Peter Pan, or a Pan played by tiny Mary Martin, what we needed was a reckless, wild, Dionysian Pan who could scare the pants off of you if you ventured into the forest at nighttime. 

Enter Tyler Durden. What my Uber driver and his mom loved was Tyler and his messaging and the knight’s errands of “homework” he assigned. Tyler was a buddy, not a father, and he acted on impulse. He spoke in memes, not the endless lectures of a Campbell or a Bly. Still, he nurtured without “mothering”, and he lived without the world’s approval and endless self-censoring. Tyler’s minions were the nameless “space monkeys” who were tired of aimless lives as atomised self-loving snowflakes. They no longer wanted to each be “beautiful and unique”. What they wanted was to be part of something.

In the Uber, on my way to Alcoholics Anonymous, laughing with the driver and his mom, didn’t I also want to be part of something? Clearly, drinking in my hotel room no longer worked. I wanted to surrender my will to a greater power.

Often, people most love the aspects of a story they can’t articulate. Years ago, for example, I asked the writer Ira Levin if his masterpiece Rosemary’s Baby wasn’t actually a metaphor for the generation of infants born deformed by Thalidomide? Wasn’t the horror people expressed in fact the horror they could not express over how the medical establishment had misled and mis-medicated so many trusting pregnant women? In the book, the baby is even described as having the classic features of a “flid”, as people shaped by Thalidomide often call themselves.

Levin was cagey. How could he answer truthfully? And perhaps he didn’t know what he’d written until after it was in print; often the best writers don’t. As Samuel Taylor Coleridge said, only a genius can combine the conscious and the subconscious. “In every work of art there is a reconcilement of the external with the internal… that is the genius in the man of genius.”

Which brings us to the oldest trick in the book, so to speak. A trick American readers adore, but only if it can be reinvented. Let’s call it the “martyr-murder-witness” trick. Of three main characters, the most obedient must commit suicide, the most rebellious must be killed, and the witnessing character must reject both those options and leave the scene to begin a new life. Think of Myrtle Wilson in The Great Gatsby, throwing herself in front of Gatsby’s speeding car. Myrtle is Jennifer North in Valley of the Dolls who overdoses, who is Billy Bibbit in One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest who cuts his wrists, who is Melanie Wilkes in Gone with the Wind who knows that birthing another child will kill her but gets pregnant anyway. The Good Boy or Girl always commits suicide. And that includes the doctor’s obedient son in The Dead Poets Society who shoots himself. Or the misled waif Terry Gionoffrio in Rosemary’s Baby, who leaps from a seventh-floor window.

Americans recognise this pattern and love it.

Immediately after the suicide, the most robust character is murdered. Sometimes, particularly when that character is female, she is banished, as Scarlett O’Hara and Neely O’Hara are banished in their stories, and the teacher played by Robin Williams is banished in Dead Poets. However, in most cases, the rebel, be he Jay Gatsby or Randle Patrick McMurphy or Edward Hutchins — or Tyler Durden — is murdered.

This leaves the witness to tell the tale. Nick Carraway hightails it back to the Midwest. Big Chief journeys back to his tribe. Rosemary Woodhouse embraces her strange-looking infant. For a heartbeat she weighs the idea of leaping from the window with the newborn, but finally surrenders herself to the cards she’s been dealt.

Whatever the case, Americans love the martyr-murder-witness formula, just so long as you tweak it to keep it fresh. And who can blame Americans? In a two-party political system, you’re either slave or master, so you’d better get accustomed to playing either. Those who can’t adapt to swift changes in power, they either kill themselves or they are killed. The magic in Fight Club was to distill this three-character formula down to a single character. The Good Boy narrator kills himself, thus murdering the Bad Boy, and leaving the fully integrated Witness.

A reconcilement of the external with the internal. The genius in the man of genius.

Maybe it’s that age-old formula — albeit tweaked — that’s made the book and film a classic. Whatever the case, it was a slow climb to the pantheon. Of the original five thousand hardcovers printed in 1996, most hadn’t sold by the time the film premiered in 1999. The film itself had a dismal theatrical run. Then 9/11 happened, and the image of skyscrapers crumbling cut too close to the bone. All puckish pranking and horseplay withered under the watchful eye of the newly formed Department of Homeland Security. The transgressive story, be it Fight Club or Trainspotting or The Monkey Wrench Gang, simply fell out of fashion.

Not that Fight Club resonated with everyone. On my first book tour in 1996, live on the radio, a male NPR host asked me, “Having written this book, Fight Club, what can you tell us about the state of the American woman in the world today?”

Colour me flabbergasted. I was silent for an eternity in live radio time. What did I know about being female or being black? My goal had been to write about the common experience of all my friends who were navigating into adulthood without either secondary mothers or fathers. The goal of Fight Club was never to depict an organisation that perpetuated its own power. Instead, I wanted to show how this little machine could create stronger individuals before the machine itself imploded. If just one person remained, stronger, more free, more self-determined, that would be worth all the Sturm und Drang.

The book was always about helping the individual. The little machine of Project Mayhem would be the secondary father.

In this world of constant poverty and addiction and injustice, to borrow a phrase, “I don’t think there are any good parts.”

But be that as it may, we can’t surrender to hopelessness or lash out in rage. That night in 2019 there were the three of us, this mother, her son and I, connected by a story. Each of us was doing their best, and we all had an imaginary friend in the form of Tyler Durden.

Maybe trickster Tyler is still around 30 years later to show us we always have options. If you’re reading this, you are still not dead.