Paradise News

Tag: United Kingdom

  • Leigh Ingham: ‘No child should be denied the opportunity to benefit from sport and PE’

    “Exercise doesn’t just chemically make you feel good — it’s great for socialising, raising self-esteem and coping with losing.”

    These are the words of a young constituent of mine, Tane, who wrote to me after I met him at Sir Graham Balfour School in Stafford. It was his ideas that inspired my recent Backbench Business debate on Access to Sport: PE in Schools. 

    This debate was not simply about a few more hours of PE, it was about addressing the fundamental role that physical activity plays in the development of our young people, and about how we can meet the challenges we face as a society, particularly in the aftermath of the Covid-19 pandemic.

    Access to sport and physical education is about more than keeping children physically fit; it is about giving them skills, resilience and the confidence to navigate life’s challenges. It is about their mental health, their ability to form friendships and their capacity to overcome obstacles. It is about ensuring that no child is denied the chance to benefit from opportunities because of their background or gender, or any other barriers to opportunity that they face in life.

    The timing of this debate is important, with the curriculum review presenting a crucial opportunity for reform. Currently, there’s no guarantee that every child receives quality physical education throughout their time in school.

    The debate was heartening — and at times entertaining — as MPs shared stories from school and reflected on the importance of physical education. Whether they loved PE, or were last to be picked for the team, everyone was united by their shared passion for supporting young people’s wellbeing through sport. Some key themes included girls’ access to sport, SEND and inclusivity, the link between sport and attainment, and how much fun it is to play wheelchair basketball.

    But the most welcome moment of the debate came from the minister herself, Catherine McKinnell, who shared the government’s upcoming plans for funding – which was followed by a formal announcement for School Games Organisers for 2025/26 later that day.

    I am grateful for this announcement and the reassurance it brings to schools and sports organisations. It will allow them to continue delivering structured, inclusive sport programmes, which for many young people represent their only chance to be active in a safe and supportive environment.

    I know just how seriously this government takes children’s access to sport. That said, this is not the end of the conversation. While a one-year extension is a step in the right direction, it does not offer the long-term security that schools need to plan and grow their provision. Too many of our schools have been operating under uncertainty for far too long, unable to commit to full-time staff or invest in new equipment because they simply don’t know what the next year holds.

    What we need is a sustainable, multi-year funding framework for PE, School Sports Organisers, and the Pupil Premium. We must move away from short-term thinking and start treating sport and PE with the same seriousness we afford to english, maths, or science, because of the proven health benefits and social value of sport.

    More broadly, this debate reaffirmed my belief in the importance of listening and giving voice to young people. Tane’s letter was not a one-off. Across the country, young people are calling out for spaces to be heard on issues that matter to them. Whether it’s sport, mental health, education, or climate change, their insights are often the most urgent and authentic.

    As politicians, it’s our responsibility not only to represent but to listen. To enfranchise young voices not just at the ballot box but in every policy conversation that shapes their lives. Holding this debate, in some small way, was my attempt to centre those voices in parliament.

    Because ultimately, when we empower young people to speak up and when we act on what they tell us, we build a better, fairer society. One where every child, no matter their postcode or ability, has access to the physical, emotional and social benefits that sport brings.

    There is more work to do. But last Thursday’s debate showed the best of what parliament can be — cross-party collaboration, evidence-led discussion, and real-world impact. I am proud to have started this conversation, and even prouder to help carry it forward.

    We must listen to young people like Tane, who have articulated so clearly the need for action, and we must respond with real change. As Tane said when he wrote to me:

    “This seems like quite a simple solution to a lot of problems.”

    Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

    Source: Politics

  • Aussie lawyer who pulled sickie to watch football loses unfair dismissal claim

    Ultimately undone by Instagram pics

    A lawyer who emailed in sick to spend time with friends at an Aussie Rules football game has lost his unfair dismissal claim against his former firm.

    Mitchell Fuller was fired from the Melbourne firm Madison Branson Lawyers in August last year after his skiving came to light. A freelance HR consultant was hired by the firm in July to investigate concerns about Fuller’s performance. “On her own initiative”, she discovered posts on Fuller’s Instagram account from the Gather Round weekend — an Aussie Football League festival comparable to the US Super Bowl.

    Since his dismissal, Fuller has pursued an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), the Australian equivalent of the Employment Tribunal. However, Deputy President Andrew Bell found that the photos showed “a connection to football” whilst “others were Mr Fuller and his friends socialising, such as at the beach or with beers at a pub” — behaviour he said amounted to dishonest conduct, given Fuller had emailed in sick.

    In an email sent on the morning of Friday, 5 April last year, Fuller said he “had a tough time sleeping last night and [was] not feeling up to coming into the office”. In reality, he was at the Gather Round with his mates, having taken a 90-minute flight from Melbourne to Adelaide the night before. Deputy President Bell found the trip had been “planned and partly paid for four days earlier”.

    The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    On Monday morning (8 April), Fuller followed up with another email to his firm: “Hey team, unfortunately I’m still in a bit of discomfort today and don’t think I can hack taking public transport quite yet. I’ll speak to a doc and get a medical certificate when I can, hopefully will be OK tomorrow morning.” He was actually driving some eight or more hours from Adelaide back to Melbourne with friends, according to the ruling.

    Deputy President Bell held Fuller was not unfairly dismissed and his conduct at the firm and before the FWC was “dishonest” and “utterly incompatible” with ongoing employment as a solicitor at Madison Branson Lawyers “where integrity and honesty are paramount”.

    The post Aussie lawyer who pulled sickie to watch football loses unfair dismissal claim appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Kemi Badenoch opens door to Conservative deals with Reform UK at local level

    Kemi Badenoch has appeared to condone the prospect of Conservative councillors forming coalitions with local counterparts in Reform UK. 

    The Conservative leader has consistently ruled out any national deal with Reform, citing leader Nigel Farage’s pledge to “destroy” the Tories.

    But Badenoch has now suggested that the picture is different for Conservatives at a local level. 

    Asked if she would rule out any deals at national or local level between the Conservative Party and Reform, Badenoch pointed to her “categorical” position that she would not negotiate any kind of pact with the right-wing party as leader. 

    “When someone says they want to destroy you, don’t invite them into your house and ask to do a deal”, she said.

    But speaking to BBC Breakfast ahead of the local elections on 1 May, Badenoch added: “At local level, we end up with various coalitions. I’ve seen Conservatives go into coalition with Labour, with Liberal Democrats, with independents. You don’t get to have a rerun of an election at local level.

    “So what I’m telling local leaders across the country is they have to do what is right for the people in their area, and they must stick to conservative principles, make sure that they’re not compromising on our values and on the things that we believe in – sound money, for example, not excessive government intervention.

    “So local leaders are voted by the people in a particular community. They will have to make the choice about what is right for their councils.

    “But at national level, no, I was not made leader of the Conservative Party to give it away to Reform.”

    ***Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.***

    Challenged on this point further, Badenoch continued: “I have said [we are] not doing a deal with Nigel Farage at national level.

    “[But] at local level people need to run their councils, local leaders need to decide what to do to run their councils. At national level if we can’t form a government we get to rerun an election. We can’t keep doing that for every single council.”

    The remarks risk playing into the Labour Party attack line that Farage’s party and the Conservatives are similar political forces. 

    A recent social media advert shared by Labour said: “Reform and the Tories are closer than you think. No plans, no solutions, just more chaos.

    “Labour is bringing change to Britain. Vote Labour on Thursday 1 May.”

    Ellie Reeves, chair of the Labour Party, said that Badenoch’s comments confirm that a vote for Reform is an endorsement of “more of the Tory chaos”.

    She said: “Now it’s crystal clear: if you vote Reform or Conservative, you’re opening the door to more of the Tory chaos that held our country back over the past 14 years.

    “Kemi Badenoch and her Conservative Party left our NHS at breaking point and Nigel Farage wants to make patients pay for healthcare when they’re sick. Just imagine what they’d do together.

    “Only this Labour Government has a Plan for Change that is turning our country around delivering security for working people and renewal for our country.”

    Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Bluesky here.

    Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

    Source: Politics

  • Johanna Baxter: ‘There can be no true peace in Ukraine without the return of the children Putin has stolen’

    Imagine every seat at the O2 Arena in London filled by a child. Now, imagine an invading force stealing every single one of those children, deporting them from their homeland, sending them to re-education camps, forcing them to live with the very same invading soldiers, and even conscripting them to fight against the country they were born in. What would the outrage be in Britain to such an atrocity?

    When I visited Kyiv, last month, to mark the third bloody anniversary of Putin’s illegal invasion, I didn’t have to imagine this. Speaking to Ukraine’s Parliamentary Commissioner for Human Rights, I heard firsthand how this nightmare is very much a reality for Ukrainian mothers and fathers today.

    Since Putin’s illegal invasion began on 24th February 2022, at least 19,546 Ukrainian children have been forcibly taken from their families and their homeland, although the true figure is likely to be much higher because Russia frequently targets vulnerable children without anyone to speak for them. Yale’s Humanitarian Research Lab, which recently had its funding cut by the United States’ so-called Department of Government Efficiency, have placed the number of stolen children closer to 35,000.

    The commissioner told me how children as young as eight months old have been ripped from their homes by Russian forces, with Russia denying the very existence of this child and many thousands more. Many have been placed with citizens of Russia or placed in institutions. Some have been listed on child placement databases, naturalised into Russia, as if they were children born in Russia. Some are conscripted to the so-called All-Russian Young Army Military Patriotic Social Movement — the Kremlin’s attempt to mobilise young Russian children and provide them with basic military skills before later joining Putin’s meatgrinder in the occupied territories in Ukraine.

    The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for president Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Russia’s commissioner for children’s rights for allegedly establishing and sanctioning Russia’s program of coerced adoption and fostering these stolen children — a war crime as defined in international law. There is strong evidence to support their direct involvement in the allegations. A report in December 2024 by Yale Humanitarian Research Lab, which has been undertaking vital work to track these children and document the war crimes exposed between May and October 2022, Russian Aerospace Forces — under the direct control of President Putin’s office — transported multiple groups of Ukrainian children to Russia on Russian Federation- flagged military transport plane.

    The United Kingdom rightly recognises these crimes and the importance of the International Criminal Court in prosecuting those responsible. Indeed, we are also playing our part in funding the Bring Back Kids Initiative through the Partnership Fund for a Resilient Ukraine. The initiative launched by president Zelenskyy is uniting international agencies and organisations with the Ukrainian government to bring Russia’s crimes against humanity to an end by reuniting the stolen children of Ukraine with their families.

    We must ensure that Russia provides a full register of all Ukrainian children currently in its custody, as mandated by the Geneva Conventions, and that Ukraine, with support from its allies and partners, secures a proper framework for their return, with housing, psychosocial, financial and other forms of support for their reintegration.

    To achieve this, it is vital to ensure that there remains a focus on this critical issue, which has too often been forgotten in the national and international discourse of this conflict. That is why I have written to the foreign secretary, David Lammy, and defence secretary, John Healey, calling on them to recognise 17th July as a National Day of Action for the Stolen Children of Ukraine. The National Day of Action will be a day of significance that will seek to raise awareness of the issue and set out what more the United Kingdom can do to ensure that justice is served, and the stolen children of Ukraine are not forgotten. Befittingly, the 17th July is also ‘International Criminal Justice Day’ which aligns the national day of action with the need for accountability mechanisms within the international community.

    There can be no true peace in Ukraine without the return of the children that Putin has stolen. Until those children are back with their families, no victory, no peace settlement, and no resolution can truly be considered complete. It is only when they are safely reunited that Ukraine can begin to heal.

    Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

    Source: Politics

  • Ben Goldsborough: ‘If you care about British farming, don’t fall for Reform UK’s dangerous delusion’

    We’ve all been there growing up — desperate to fit in with the cool kids. You laugh at their jokes, pretend to like things you don’t, and say whatever you think will get you a seat at the table. Most of us grow out of it. We learn that real respect comes from being genuine, not from selling out to impress someone else. But some people never quite shake it off. They take that same try-hard energy into adulthood, and before you know it, they’re flogging off the British farming industry for a few thousand tonnes of chlorinated chicken and a shot at being Donald Trump’s new best mate.

    Well — that’s exactly what happened this week with Reform UK.

    Nigel Farage now struts about like a country gent, wrapped head to toe in pristine Barbour and brand-new tweed. But ask him what our farming communities actually need, and you’ll get little more than a blank stare — unless there’s a camera involved. He’s cosplaying the countryside, not fighting for it. In truth, he’s doing everything he can to undermine British agriculture for the sake of a few awkward photo ops with America’s Commander-in-Chief.

    And it’s not just him. Lee Anderson, Reform UK’s man in Ashfield, posted a photo of a salad last weekend and claimed “millions” already eat food with chlorine in it — so what’s the fuss? Jacob Rees-Mogg (still technically a Conservative, but let’s be honest, probably eyeing up a Reform rosette) chimed in too, saying it’s “pure protectionism” to ask shoppers to pay more for decent, UK-farmed chicken. Instead, he wants cheap American imports on the shelves. This is their grand plan for British agriculture? Throwing our high standards out the window for a quick trade deal and a nod from Washington?

    With the global order wobbling in the midst of a US-led trade war, it’s tempting to look to those who shout loudest and claim to have all the answers. But here’s the truth: Reform UK haven’t got a clue.

    In Norfolk, we’re not fooled by bluster. We prefer practical solutions over pompous pontification. And while Reform UK might sound like they’ve got ideas, once you look past the noise, there’s nothing there — no plan, no detail, just chaos in waiting.

    Take farming support. Instead of working to replace the Common Agricultural Policy with grants that reward sustainable, climate-friendly land management, Reform UK want to scrap the lot. And replace it with what? They’ve no idea. It’s recklessness pretending to be reform.

    Meanwhile, many of us are doing the real work to put profit back into farming. Just last month, I hosted South Norfolk’s first-ever Farmer’s Advice Surgery. Over 60 farmers squeezed into Bramerton village hall (yes, I underestimated the turnout — lesson learned) to talk about their hopes and fears. And guess how many said chlorinated chicken from the US was the answer? None. Not one.

    I’ve spoken repeatedly about the biosecurity threats facing UK agriculture. What’s Reform UK’s position? Total silence. And what about the red tape stopping farmers from building the reservoirs we desperately need? We’re facing more droughts than ever, but like those parched fields, there isn’t a drop of evidence that Reform UK know what they’re doing.

    So here’s my message: if you care about British farming — about animal welfare, food standards, and keeping our countryside alive — don’t fall for Reform UK’s dangerous delusion. They want all the power, none of the responsibility, and they’ll leave our farmers to deal with the mess.

    Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

    Source: Politics

  • Likes, shares and legal affairs: Can social media influence your career in law?

    Law grad and real estate paralegal, Dara Antova, shares the benefits and risks of embracing social media in the legal industry

    Over the past decade, a new breed of legal professionals has emerged — ‘lawfluencers’. These modern-day legal commentators have amassed thousands of followers across platforms like LinkedIn, Instagram, and TikTok, and their numbers only continue to rise. From sharing insights into their daily work routines to documenting their journeys into the legal profession and discussing legal concepts, lawfluencers are reshaping how the industry interacts with the public.

    When used strategically, social media can be a powerful tool for legal professionals, revolutionising the way they promote themselves and their firms. It provides a platform for networking, education, and community, allowing lawyers to cultivate a personal brand and expand their professional reach. Firms, too, can leverage their employees’ online presence to showcase their workplace culture and unique strengths. However, social media is a double-edged sword – while it offers substantial benefits, it also comes with risks that legal professionals cannot afford to ignore.

    Many perceptions of lawyers are shaped by television shows like Suits and endless Quora discussions debating whether the legal profession is as glamorous as it appears on screen further supports this portrayal. The reality, at least in the UK, is starkly different. While the legal profession remains fascinating and rewarding, it is far from the fictional courtrooms. More importantly, in an era where every online action is scrutinised, real-life lawyers-especially those with an active social media presence-have far less room for error than their TV counterparts.

    Social media is constantly evolving, making it difficult to pinpoint what is definitively right or wrong when it comes to online behaviour. While the internet offers a range of courses on professional social media etiquette, tailored even to the legal profession, the lines remain blurred. These courses encourage lawyers to think critically about their online presence and highlight the professional and ethical dilemmas that can arise from seemingly harmless posts.

    The benefits

    LinkedIn, for example, has cemented itself as the go-to platform for professional networking, career growth, and industry discussions. It allows lawyers to connect with colleagues, find job opportunities and establish business relationships. Some legal professionals have become so influential on LinkedIn that their engagement levels rival those of mainstream social media celebrities.

    Join the conversation on Legal Cheek‘s TikTok

    In a previous Legal Cheek article, Simon Marshall, CEO of TBD Marketing, describes this phenomenon: “Super-influencers are rewriting the rulebook, turning personal engagement into measurable business value. Rather than holding these rising stars back with corporate communications rules and strict brand guidelines, firms should see them as brand ambassadors, harnessing their influence to amplify the company’s reach.”

    In today’s digital landscape, a strong social media presence can be an asset, helping lawyers distinguish themselves and showcase their passions, interests, and values. While law firms are ultimately businesses focused on profitability, they also recognise the value of individuality. A robotic, personality-free workforce is hardly appealing. Lawyers who can voice their opinions-within reason-on relevant topics and use their platforms to inform and assist others are increasingly valued.

    The risks

    Despite the many advantages of social media, lawyers must tread carefully. Under the SRA Code of Conduct, legal professionals are expected to uphold the highest standards of professionalism. The code outlines the ethical expectations placed on solicitors. Even though social media is often considered a personal space, if a lawyer’s online activity breaches the SRA’s standards, the consequences can be severe-whether fairly or unfairly.

    In some cases, social media missteps have led to disciplinary action, including dismissals. Importantly, this applies even if the content was posted outside of working hours. If your firm has a social media policy, following it to the letter is essential. If they don’t have one, you might want to suggest they implement one-for their sake and yours. A well-defined policy protects both employees and the firm’s reputation. However, even in the absence of an official policy, certain online behaviours can still lead to disciplinary consequences.

    If you aspire to be a lawfluencer, or already are one, think before you post. Ask yourself: Could your social media activity be considered serious enough to damage your firm’s reputation? Are you unintentionally providing legal advice online? This could land you in trouble.

    Another misconception is that privacy settings provide complete protection. They don’t. Once something is posted online, you lose control over where it may end up. Screenshots, reposts, and shares mean that even deleted content can continue to circulate indefinitely.

    Memes, mentions and more: Legal Cheek‘s Instagram

    In the UK, employees who believe they have been unfairly dismissed due to social media activity can take their case to the Employment Tribunal (ET). The ET evaluates whether the dismissal was justified by considering factors such as the employer’s social media policy, the severity of the post in question, and whether proper disciplinary procedures were followed.

    Past tribunal cases have produced mixed outcomes. In some instances, dismissals were upheld when employees’ posts were deemed damaging to the employer’s reputation. In others, the tribunal ruled in favour of employees, finding that the employer had overreacted or failed to follow a fair disciplinary process.

    How to embrace the trend

    Regardless of your stance on lawfluencers, they are undeniably on the rise. For law firms, this presents an opportunity to position themselves competitively by embracing the trend rather than resisting it. For individual lawyers, the decision to build an online presence is personal. You won’t necessarily miss out on career growth if you choose to remain offline, but for those interested in speaking engagements, networking events, or industry recognition, social media can be a game-changer.

    However, lawfluencers must remain honest and transparent. Some portray a picture-perfect legal career, showcasing an effortless work-life balance that may not reflect reality. While success stories are inspiring, it’s crucial to acknowledge that not every experience is smooth sailing. Aspiring lawyers often look up to these influencers, so maintaining authenticity is essential.

    To post or not to post? Social media is a powerful tool that can either elevate or jeopardise a legal career. It offers incredible opportunities for business development and personal branding, but it also comes with responsibilities. Lawyers must strike a balance between engaging with their audience and ensuring their online activity aligns with professional standards.

    So, before you hit post, ask yourself: Would I be comfortable defending this post or comment in front of my firm’s managing partner- or worse, in a disciplinary hearing? If the answer is no, it’s probably best left in the drafts.

    Dara Antova is currently a real estate paralegal, after graduating from her LLB with first class honours last summer.

    The post Likes, shares and legal affairs: Can social media influence your career in law? appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Judges to receive new guidance on emotional support animals in court

    Following reports of disruptions

    Judges and court officials are set be issued with new guidance on allowing emotional support animals in court, following reports of disruptions caused by barking, growling, and even defecation.

    An alert on the handling of emotional support animals was recently circulated to judges and will be followed by an official update to the court officials’ rulebook.

    According to The Telegraph, the alert notes that emotional support animals are “not regulated, have not necessarily undergone any training nor serve a specific function, and in some instances may be little more than family pets; there have been examples of people bringing cats and lapdogs into courts and tribunals, without making any advance requests.”

    The newspaper also reports incidents involving dogs jumping at or ‘attacking’ witnesses, while other parties have been affected by allergies and phobias. In one case from 2017, a defendant’s Staffordshire terrier reportedly urinated and defecated in the court’s foyer after sentencing.

    Currently, the Equal Treatment Bench Book includes rules on guide, hearing, and other medical dogs — which are covered under equality legislation — ensuring they are allowed into courtrooms and given breaks and access to water. There is no guidance on emotional support animals, however.

    A district judge, Clare Jane Hockney, recently wrote “there is concern that allowing the court users to bring in potentially untrained pets, claiming them as ESAs, could cause disruptions and significantly impact on the fairness of the hearing and the rights of others”. Hockney further noted “untrained pets” could “interfere with genuine assistance dogs by barking, jumping at or even attacking them. There is of course no requirement [for the court] to admit a regular pet.”

    Until the Equal Treatment Bench Book’s next edition addresses this situation, court officials have been advised to follow Hockney DJ’s advice. Judges will ask parties to explain how the emotional support animal might assist their mental health and participation, usually via a medical or psychological report, plus request evidence of training – such as certificates.

    Even then, the bench will balance this need with all the parties’ rights in the courtroom, retaining the right to exclude any animal not protected under equality law. Hockney DJ added: “A pet that is untrained and meets no evidenced mental health needs should not be permitted. Judicial oversight is vital as abuse of the use of ESAs could impact on those with genuine needs, and even lead to a general scepticism of genuine assistance dogs.”

    Legal Cheek has previously reported on animals being brought to court, from an accused man stroking his cat whilst in the dock, to a small horse which defecated in a courtroom.

    The post Judges to receive new guidance on emotional support animals in court appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Gavin Williamson: ‘The time to recognise Somaliland is now — before it’s too late’

    The worldwide recognition of Somaliland cannot be ignored for even a second longer. Somalia is a failed state. The president is already proving a liability — failing to combat terrorism, lawlessness on the streets, and presiding over an appalling human rights record. Baseless and damaging claims regarding the legitimacy of critical infrastructure such as Berbera Port and Berbera Airport, represent nothing more than a land grab and a desperate attempt to laud power over a sovereign state in Putin-like fashion.

    Therefore, the world, including the United Kingdom, must wake up and recognise Somaliland to not only reward a key ally, but also for the crucial benefit of Western intelligence including a say over one of the most strategic maritime checkpoints in the world.

    China, Iran, and Russia are watching with eagle eyes. They are hoping that Western nations miss a crucial opportunity to fill a vacuum and allow their totalitarian regimes to form a destructive coalition with Somalia that will have devastating consequences for global trade.

    We have already seen Chinese, Iranian, and Russian aggression in shipping lanes as they seek to exert their influence, disrupt supply chains, and damage the economy of democratic nations. Failing to recognise Somaliland would allow this to continue at pace. Somaliland’s Berbera Port presents a direct line of access into the Gulf of Aden and the Bel el-Mandeb Straight, a passage through which almost 12% of global trade flows. China has been flooding the region to form economic and military alliances, whilst Iran’s proxy war with Yemen has crashed economies and held goods at ransom.

    Expansionist rhetoric and propaganda can only be combatted by recognising Somaliland — a stable, functional, and successful nation with a strong record of holding democratic elections. In stark contrast, Somalia is wracked with in-fighting and provides a haven for piracy with a president willing to use his own people as collateral in a never-ending campaign of self-promotion and regional dominance. As war ravages in Somalia, peace prevails in Somaliland. Therefore, it is simply astonishing that governments across the world are making a conscious decision to put Somaliland’s future in the hands of the despots that are running Somalia into the ground.

    Figures from the United Nations lay bare the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Somalia. The recent poverty report shows that 52% of Somalis are living well below the poverty line, with the government failing to put sufficient measures in place to combat natural disasters and alleviate the severe deprivation across the country. Somalia was the lowest ranked African country in the Human Development Index — ranking 193 in the worldwide standing. The Index itself was created to demonstrate how a country supports the wellbeing of its citizens and thus Somalia’s positioning makes for sobering reading. The only conclusion that can be drawn is Somalia’s president does not care about his people, infrastructure, or development of human rights.

    The litany of abuses that Somalia’s president has presided over is endless. His direction of travel is creating international turmoil and the only way to achieve stability as well as to prevent rogue nations dictating strategic territories, is to recognise Somaliland. Dithering will only worsen an already dire situation. The time to recognise Somaliland is now before it’s too late.

    Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

    Source: Politics

  • Legal exec faked letter claiming defendant’s liability

    Barred by regulator

    A chartered legal executive has been barred from the profession after fabricating documents — including a medical report, a witness statement, and even a letter that falsely claimed a defendant had admitted liability in a case she was handling.

    Personal injury outfit Hodge Jones & Allen (HJA) launched an investigation into Claire Sadler while she was on annual leave amid concerns of “dishonesty”. This related to both documents and entries on the firm’s case management system (CMS). She resigned three days later.

    The SRA’s decision highlights misconduct by Sadler in relation to four client matters.

    In the first case, Sadler is said to have “fabricated” a letter and medical report, allegedly from a medico-legal company, and “falsely recorded” both documents in the firm’s case management system.

    The 2025 Legal Cheek Firms Most List

    In a second matter, the SRA found that Sadler uploaded to the CMS a letter that was “not genuine”, purporting to be from a defendant admitting liability in a claim. The decision notes that Sadler then informed her client about the letter. In an “apparent follow up”, she also falsely recorded in the CMS that she had sent a request for medical records from the client’s GP.

    A third matter is highlighted, where she “recorded false information” in an attendance note uploaded to the CMS, stating a defence had been received from a respondent’s solicitors — even though the firm had not been instructed on the matter and had not filed a defence. Sadler later recorded false information on the CMS showing court proceedings had been posted to the firm — when it had not been instructed.

    Sadler also fabricated a witness statement based on correspondence — of which there is “no record” — which had never been approved or signed, and disclosed it to a defendant, in a fourth matter.

    The decision provides no explanation nor mitigation for Sadler’s conduct.

    The SRA said Sadler “breached relevant duties”. Given she was not a solicitor, she could not be struck off, but has been barred from being employed by any law firm. She was directed to pay £3,375 in costs.

    The post Legal exec faked letter claiming defendant’s liability appeared first on Legal Cheek.

    Source: Legal Cheek

  • Tom Gordon: ‘Adoption breakdown in the UK is a silent crisis demanding urgent reform’

    Adoption is often viewed as the happy ending in a child’s journey through trauma and instability, but for many families across the UK, it marks the beginning of a far more complex and challenging chapter. The issue of adoption breakdown — when adopted children leave the family home prematurely — is a crisis that continues to grow, largely hidden from public view and governmental action.

    While adoption is intended to offer children a stable, loving home, the reality for many is far more difficult. Once the legal adoption order is signed, families often find themselves alone, navigating a complex web of trauma, behavioural challenges, and inadequate support.

    Since being elected, I’ve spoken to parents in my constituency and beyond who share the same story: exhaustion, isolation and a sense of abandonment by the very system meant to support them.

    In recent weeks, uncertainty over the future of the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund (ASGSF) for 2025/26 has only added to their stress. The adjournment debate I led last week on the issue of adoption breakdown could not have come at a more critical time.

    What is undeniably clear is that post-adoption support in this country is falling short. Accessing services is an uphill battle — families often wait months for help, by which point situations have already escalated. The ASGSF, while a crucial lifeline, is stretched thin. Its limited scope, strict eligibility criteria, and precarious year-by-year renewal make it unreliable at best. For families already at breaking point, that instability can be the tipping point. That is why the fund must be made permanent and reliably accessible — before crisis hits.

    The need for better support systems is overwhelming. Adopted children often come from deeply traumatic backgrounds, and the impact of that trauma is long-lasting. According to Adoption UK, 70% of adoptive families report significant emotional and mental health needs in their children. Conditions like foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, ADHD, PTSD, and attachment issues are common, and their manifestations can be severe. These realities underscore just how essential the ASGSF is – and how many families urgently depend on it.

    This is all happening in the absence of up-to-date, reliable data. The last government study into adoption disruption was in 2014, estimating breakdown rates between 2% and 9%. Local authorities and regional adoption agencies record cases inconsistently, leading to serious discrepancies. For example, while national averages suggest 0.2 breakdowns per constituency annually, my local authority reported three in my constituency in one year. Without accurate, up-to-date data and a true understanding of the scale of the problem, targeted policies are impossible to implement, and families will only continue to fall through the cracks.

    The personal stories that have been shared with me highlight the deeply human cost of a system that isn’t working. One mother told me how her son, after surviving horrific abuse, became violent and unmanageable. Instead of receiving the help they so desperately needed, the family was left to cope alone – until things reached a breaking point and the adoption collapsed. Another family spent ten years together before the pressures of adolescence, trauma, and inadequate school support pushed them past breaking point. Both children returned to care and both parents suffered breakdowns. Despite everything the two families gave, the system failed them.

    Tragically, there’s a culture of blame rather than support – where adoptive parents are too often held accountable for challenges far beyond their control. Many have told me they were never fully informed about the extent of their child’s needs. When those needs later surface as complex or difficult behaviours, instead of receiving support, they are met with criticism and suspicion. Advocacy group PATCH has highlighted a troubling trend: local authorities shifting blame onto parents, rather than recognising the trauma driving a child’s struggles.

    Adoptive families are not asking for miracles. They are asking for the system to work with them, not against them. They have taken on one of the most selfless and challenging roles in society — offering love and stability to children who have already suffered too much. In return, they deserve support they can rely on — not endless bureaucracy, judgement, or silence.

    There is a long road ahead, but change must start now. The government must commit to making the Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund permanent, introduce a national statutory post-adoption support policy, and urgently begin collecting accurate, up-to-date data on adoption breakdowns to guide future policy improvements.

    Behind every statistic is a real child, and a real family doing their best to heal wounds that others inflicted. As a society, we owe them more than just gratitude — we owe them action. It is time for the government to listen, to learn and to act.

    Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website. Subscribe to our daily newsletter for all the latest news and analysis.

    Source: Politics