What it’s like to live with cancer – when it’s your wife’s diagnosis

If there’s a correct reaction to your wife telling you she has cancer, I’m still not sure what it is. Tears? Fainting? Complete denial? One evening in February this year, it was my turn to find out. “I’m so sorry,” Hannah says, as if she’s somehow “caught cancer” on purpose.

She’s still shell-shocked. I’m not sure I’ve taken a breath; I feel numb. I instinctively put my hands to my temples, applying pressure as if I’m trying to reboot my brain. She doesn’t seem ill at all. She had an appointment with the urologist after spotting a tiny bit of blood in her wee, and we thought nothing of it. But now she has bladder cancer. The kids are downstairs waiting to be fed; we don’t have much time to talk.

“So… like, you mean, definitely? They don’t need to…?” I say, trailing off. “When?” I add, for further confusion – because let’s be honest, “When?” doesn’t make a whole lot of sense in this context. When what? When did this happen? “When?” as in “How long have you got?”

In the weeks following this clunky exchange of information, I’ve realised that nailing the appropriate response to someone telling you they have cancer really doesn’t come naturally to many of us.

“S***! The beans!” I say suddenly, remembering the saucepan on the hob downstairs in the kitchen. The side dish for the kids’ next culinary adventure. I’ve got to stop them coagulating into an inedible mush (the beans, not the kids). They’re 10 and seven (the kids, not the beans) and I’ve no idea what we’ll tell them. We hug each other.

“Everything’s going to be fine,” I say, even though I wouldn’t confidently swear that in a court of law. Everything might not be fine at all; everything might be awful. My wife has cancer.

We somehow navigate the evening routine of dinner/bath/bedtime as if the world hasn’t just been knocked off its axis. I talk to the kids about whatever nonsense we talk about, but it’s through a fogginess; I feel like I’ve got sudden-onset tinnitus – the shock of bad news has muffled everything around me and now there’s just a high-pitched hissing sound where rational thought should be.

My wife and I occasionally catch one another’s eye as if caught in a conspiratorial web. She has cancer, I keep reminding myself. We’re in our forties, and my wife Hannah, whom I love more than anything in the world, has cancer. This categorically wasn’t supposed to happen.

“Have you told your parents?” I ask later, once the kids have gone to sleep.

“I’ll do it tomorrow, I don’t want to upset them before bedtime,” she says, thoughtfully.

I nod in sage agreement, desperately attempting to appear stoical. Styling it out, even though I’m fully aware that I’m fraying at the seams. I then burst into tears and don’t stop crying for a good while after.

Over the next few days, the floodgates remain very much ajar. In an ideal world, I’d be supporting Hannah through the early days of her cancer ordeal like I’m channelling the titan Atlas holding up the heavens. But instead, I find myself weeping in secret between Teams meetings for work, and crying mid-run on a treadmill, thankful to be sweating enough that no one would guess.

And though I’m conscientiously attempting to mask my sorrow from the kids (whom we’ve chosen to keep in the dark), some of the noises emanating from my office must surely be a massive giveaway – honking, squealing, occasional howling.

One morning I splutter “What’s happening?” over and over again, from nowhere, as if attempting to break the fourth wall in search of divine intervention. The whole thing feels insane and my emotions are running riot.

What’s worse is that, throughout this barely concealed meltdown, I’m increasingly aware that I’m not the one who’s ill. This is her affliction, not mine. She’s the one having to go into battle against her body.

Yet whenever I attempt to figuratively fix my mascara and reapply my war paint, along comes another emotional trigger to knock me down. A song will come on (big shout out to “No More I Love You’s” by Annie Lennox, that absolutely floored me), or suddenly the word CANCER will appear in multiple headlines. Every time I look at the kids, I have premonitions of them being lumbered with the parental short straw for the rest of their lives. I see photos of Hannah and it feels like she’s already a memory.

The whole thing reminds me of how it was when we found out Hannah was pregnant (over 10 years ago). Suddenly, babies appeared to be everywhere. You’d not really noticed them before, but now all there was in the world was babies, babies, babies. You couldn’t move for them. And this is like that, but with morbid thoughts and intense sadness instead of glorious newborns.

Challenging scenarios play out in my head – visions of Hannah, months/years down the line, hollowed out, gasping and frail, having been blitzed by chemotherapy, or lying withered on her deathbed clutching my hand and lamenting that we never got old together.

Since her diagnosis in February she’s had an operation to remove two tumours from her bladder, and now we’re in the hinterland – waiting for information on what stage, what treatment, what’s next, and whether the various holiday destinations we’ve found over the years might now become the backdrop to unhappy future pilgrimages.

I think about the prospect of her not being at the other end of the sofa or on the other side of the bed. I think about the plans we’ve made for our home/future, or the times I’ve asked her to bear with me while I spend weeks working fruitlessly on script ideas, promising her that one of them will pay off eventually (still waiting on that) and how none of that means anything if she’s not here to enjoy the spoils. I think about how we’ve perfected the mundane ballet of parenting without ever missing a step, and how I can’t possibly do any of it without her. We’ve too many loose ends to tie up; this can’t end now.

“I promise I won’t be doing this the whole time,” I insist pre-emptively as I burst into tears for the umpteenth time. “I just need to get it out of my system.”

She laughs, and hugs me again. “You’ll be OK,” she says.

Christ, I hope so.

Oak felled by Toby Carvery owners had ‘few hundred years’ more to live

An ancient oak that was felled by the owners of Toby Carvery could have lived for “another few hundred years”, the outraged head of the local council claims as he vows legal action.

Reports were made to Enfield Council in London earlier this month after a roughly 400-year-old oak tree on the edge of Whitewebbs Park, in the north of the capital, was felled. The tree was thought to be in the top 100 of London’s 600,000 oak trees in terms of its size, and was believed to have “more ecological value than the Sycamore Gap”.

Hospitality group Mitchells and Butlers, which operates the Whitewebbs House Toby Carvery on parkland owned by the council, owned up to chopping down the ancient oak, saying they were advised by arboriculture experts that it caused a “serious health and safety risk”.

Mitchells and Butlers said they had been told the tree was dead and cut the tree down as an “important action to protect our employees and guests as well as the wider general public, to whom we have a duty of care”.

“We took necessary measures to ensure any legal requirements were met. We are grateful to our specialist arboriculture contractors for warning us of this potential health and safety risk, allowing us to act swiftly to address it.”

But Enfield Council leader Ergin Erbil said the ancient oak was not only alive, it could have lived “for another few hundred years”.

“I completely oppose the argument from the leaseholder that this posed a health and safety risk,” Mr Erbil told the BBC.

In a statement to The Independent, Mr Erbil said that the council was seeking advice to take appropriate legal action against the hospitality group for violating the terms of their leasehold.

“I am outraged that the leaseholder has cut down this beautiful ancient oak tree without seeking any permissions or advice from Enfield Council,” he said.

“We have evidence that this tree was alive and starting to grow new spring leaves when this action was taken. Our team of experts checked the tree in December 2024 and found it was healthy and posed no risk to the neighbouring car park and its users.”

The police received a report of criminal damage to the tree on Saturday. After making enquiries, they found no evidence of criminality and closed their investigation on Tuesday, treating it as a civil matter.

Mr Erbil said: “As the land owner, we believe this action has broken the terms of the lease, which requires Toby Carvery to maintain and protect the existing landscape. The tree was the oldest one on site and cutting it down seems to be a clear breach of this condition.

“This tree would have been home to countless wildlife, fungi, and pollinators. This tree is a part of our ecological and cultural heritage.

“We’re therefore seeking advice and will take appropriate legal action. If any criminal activity is found during our investigation, we will not hesitate to report this to the police again.

“As the tree shows clear signs of life, we will also do everything we can to help the tree regrow.”

Mitchells and Butlers CEO Phil Urban sent an open letter apologising for the anger and upset caused by the incident.

“As a business and more importantly as human beings, we are obliged to act on all health and safety issues where expert advice warns us of a direct risk to life or serious injury. The penalties, legally, financially and more importantly, emotionally, for failing to do that when something subsequently happens, are too great to contemplate.

“We cannot undo what has been done, and none of us will ever know whether the felling of this beautiful old tree has prevented a future tragedy,” he said, adding that the company had tried to be “good neighbours” by planting over 90,000 trees so far since 2022 along with its partners.

The company said it would complete a thorough review to ensure that in the future, “exceptional situations are treated differently to the more regular health and safety issues that arise on a day-to-day basis”.

Mr Urban then said that someone on social media had been claiming to be a Toby Carvery manager and using “distasteful social media dialogue” surrounding the incident. He said the individual was not a Mitchells and Butlers employee, and that this was an example of social media trolling.

The felling of the tree has “devastated” the local community, who told The Independent they feared what it might mean for the rest of the park.

Sean Wilkinson, who has lived in the area since 1980 and chairs Friends of Whitewebbs Park, called the felling “an absolute piece of vandalism”.

He added: “It was a disgrace, and it’s symbolic of the lack of care that’s been put into the environment of this park.”

Vicky Gardner, who has lived in Enfield for 55 years, said she was “devastated” by the felling of the tree.

“It’s such a shame, I think it’s so typical of the behaviour of some of these organisations,” she said. “They don’t think about their actions, they don’t think about the consequences, and I do wonder where they got their information from.”

Sue Barrett, an Enfield resident since 1990, was “absolutely appalled” by what happened to the ancient oak.

“Any decent tree surgeon would have known you don’t cut down trees like that. It’s an oak tree, and it’s an ancient oak tree. Anybody worth their salt would know,” she said. “It wasn’t doing anybody any harm. None whatsoever. It was a beautiful tree, and they preserved the stump. I think that’s an insult, don’t you?”

She said that the park had been a “saviour” to the local community because it became a hub for people to meet together.

Freddie Flintoff’s horror Top Gear crash shown in documentary trailer

Images of Freddie Flintoff’s terrifying Top Gear accident have been released as part of the forthcoming Disney+ documentary about his horror crash.

The former cricketer, 46, was involved in a near-fatal incident that left him with significant facial injuries and broken ribs while filming the motoring show Top Gear in December 2022.

The crash led the BBC to suspend production for the “foreseeable future”, deeming it inappropriate to continue. He received £9m in compensation as a result of his injuries.

In the trailer for new documentary Flintoff, the sportsman reflected on the horrifying crash, which saw him retreat from public life for over half a year.

“I’ve lived under [the] radar for seven months,” Flintoff said in the preview. “One of the real frustrations was the speculation – that’s why I’m doing this now. What actually happened.”

Speaking about his “life-altering” injuries, the cricketer said: “I’m not saying I’m embracing them, but I’m not trying to hide my scars.”

He added: “It’s almost like a reset. I’m trying to find out what I am now. I’ve always seemed to be able to flick a switch, I’ve got to find that switch again.”

Flintoff will explore the ramifications of his accident in the new documentary, which will premiere in the UK and Ireland on 25 April.

His wife Rachael Wools, will also appear in the film. The pair married in March 2005 after they met at Edgbaston Cricket Ground three years earlier.

Also being interviewed for the documentary are the sportsman’s close friends: cricketer Michael Vaughan, presenter James Corden and comedian Jack Whitehall.

Flintoff returned to screens last year with a BBC series titled Freddie Flintoff’s Field of Dreams on Tour, in which he opened up about that crash. He revealed that he still suffers nightmares, flashbacks and anxiety.

Speaking in Field of Dreams, he said: “I don’t want to sit and feel sorry for myself. I don’t want sympathy. I’m struggling with my anxiety, I have nightmares, I have flashbacks – it’s been so hard to cope,” he said in a trailer for the show.

“But I’m thinking if I don’t do something, I’ll never go. I’ve got to get on with it.”

Flintoff admitted that the after-effects of the crash might follow him “for the rest of my life” and said he believes he is lucky to be alive after he flipped the Morgan Super three-wheeled car while filming Top Gear.

He said after the crash: “It’s going to be a long road back and I’ve only just started and I am struggling already and I need help. I really am.”

He added: “I’m not the best at asking for it. I need to stop crying every two minutes. I am looking forward to seeing the lads and being around them. I really am.”

Flintoff will premiere exclusively on Disney+ in the UK and Ireland on 25 April.

Menendez brothers fight for early release at resentencing hearing

The resentencing hearing for Erik and Lyle Menendez, who are currently serving life in prison for the 1989 murder of their parents, has begun in Los Angeles.

The Menendez brothers, who killed their parents Jose and Kitty Menendez in Beverly Hills more than 30 years ago, are set to appear in Los Angeles court at 9:30 a.m. local time to determine if they should receive a lesser sentence.

Today’s hearing will focus on the Menendez brothers’ claim of self-defense, Los Angeles District Attorney Nathan Hochman said Thursday. The brothers have claimed they killed their parents in self-defense following years of childhood sexual abuse at the hands of their father.

Erik and Lyle joined virtually on Thursday from a prison near San Diego. Relatives, including Kitty Menendez’s niece Diane Hernandez and cousin Anamaria Baralt, arrived to watch the hearing early Thursday.

The brothers have also argued they have shown remorse and undergone rehabilitation while in prison.

Hochman filed a request to delay the hearing late Wednesday, arguing state prison and parole officers first need to complete risk assessments of the brothers. The judge denied his request in court Thursday, and the hearing is set to move forward.

Why ‘Disagreeing Well’ Could Save Us All

You’re laughing with friends, perhaps enjoying a few drinks down the pub, when all of a sudden, one of those friends drops a clanger of a comment that hits you sideways. Maybe it’s political, maybe it’s personal, but whatever it is it’s a gut punch that lands in direct opposition to something you strongly believe in.

An awkward silence. Your jaw tightens. You scan their face for a trace of irony, but there’s none to be found. Now what?

In that moment, you have a choice. Do you launch into a rebuttal, flinging facts and stats like ninja stars, risking an evening of tension and raised voices? Or do you shut down, politely nod, change the subject, and leave the disagreement to fester quietly beneath the surface?

This moment, with all its visceral discomfort, is something we all recognise. The physical response to conflict is real: adrenaline surges, heart races, breath quickens. We’re wired for fight or flight, and difficult conversations trigger both instincts. Either we go to battle or we retreat.

And therein lies the problem: we’re losing the ability to do anything in between.

Nuance versus viral outrage

Social media supercharges this dynamic. Platforms supposedly designed to connect us can drive individuals further apart, with disagreement online becoming less about discussion and more about demolition. A 2021 study by the Pew Research Center found that 64% of people say social media has a mostly negative effect on how things are going in their country, with political division and misinformation topping the list of concerns. It’s a space where nuance is drowned out by viral outrage and where algorithmic echo chambers reinforce rather than challenge our views.

In this climate, it’s easy to point fingers; to blame “them” for being unreasonable, misinformed, or even dangerous. But the hard truth is, it’s not just them, it’s all of us. We’re all participants in this culture of binary thinking whether we realise it or not. And if we want things to change, we have to start by looking inward and recognising our own reflexes and assumptions, and then choosing to engage rather than to avoid.

The stakes are too high not to. We’re living through volatile, uncertain and complex times. From the cost-of-living crisis and global conflicts to the climate emergency and the rise of fake news, the challenges we face require cooperation, not competition. We need solutions, not slogans, and we sure won’t find those solutions by shouting past each other or retreating into ideological corners.

A fractured global landscape

The World Economic Forum’s Global Risks Report 2025 paints a sobering picture of our current trajectory. Societal polarisation ranks as the fourth most severe risk over the next two years, closely tied to inequality, which holds the seventh spot. These fractures are not just social, they’re systemic, threatening to destabilise political and economic institutions worldwide.

What’s more, nearly one in four experts surveyed identified armed conflict as the most pressing global risk for 2025, surpassing concerns like extreme weather and economic instability. This escalation underscores how deeply divisions, be they ideological, political, or social, can erode the foundations of global cooperation.

Time to lean in

So what’s the answer? It all starts with accepting the discomfort of disagreement, asking better questions and listening with the aim of understanding rather than winning. That doesn’t mean compromising our values or avoiding difficult truths. It means being curious about how others see the world, recognising the humanity behind every opinion, and searching for common ground, however small. It means moving forward together, even – maybe especially – when we don’t see eye to eye.

This isn’t a new idea, of course. More than 2,000 years ago, Socrates was already showing us how it’s done. He understood that disagreement “done well” was essential to the pursuit of truth. His method of asking questions, challenging assumptions and encouraging others to do the same, wasn’t about scoring points. It was about progress, growth and building something better through conversation. Although we’ll never know how long old Socrates might have lasted on X before begging Zeus to lightning bolt the lot of us…

The spirit of open, critical dialogue has long been associated with universities. They are, in many ways, the heirs to Socrates’ legacy; spaces where ideas are tested, where disagreement is part of the learning process, and where diverse perspectives are meant to coexist in meaningful tension.

In today’s climate, that ideal is being tested. Protests, polarisation, and real concerns about safety, speech, and belonging have created complex and often painful challenges on campuses around the world. But in spite of these difficulties, and in many ways, because of them, universities remain among the best places we have to model what it means to disagree well: to be rigorous but respectful, passionate but principled, open but discerning.

They remind us that the goal isn’t to be right all the time, but to get it right eventually. It’s a process, and it requires courage, humility, and a willingness to sit across from someone who sees the world differently and still choose to talk.

Moving forward together

And that’s what we need more of right now. Not more dead certainty, outrage, or noise, but more conversation. Messy, thoughtful, honest conversation, whether it’s in the pub with friends, across the seminar hall or being represented on our screens and streets.

Disagreeing well isn’t about who wins, it’s about how we move forward together. In an age defined by division, the ability to sit with difference, to challenge without contempt, and to talk without tearing down isn’t just a nice-to-have, it’s essential. “Why disagreeing well could save us all” isn’t hyperbole or just a catchy headline; it’s a quiet truth hiding in plain sight.

Civil debate – honest, open, and grounded in respect – might just be one of the most powerful tools we have. The question is: are we ready to use it?

Fyre Festival 2 postponed just weeks before event was due to start

Fyre Festival 2 has been postponed indefinitely by its organiser, convicted fraudster Billy McFarland, just over a month ahead of its scheduled kick-off date.

McFarland has been attempting to orchestrate a more successful version of the initial Fyre Festival, the notorious event that went viral in 2017 after guests who had paid thousands of dollars for tickets ended up stranded in the Bahamas with limited food and shelter, and none of the promised headliners.

However, the new festival, which was supposed to take place on the Isla Mujeres, Mexico, between 30 May to 2 June, has now been indefinitely postponed, with ticket-holders informed that they had been issued refunds.

“The event has been postponed and a new date will be announced,” a message sent to a ticket-holder and seen by ABC News said.

“We have issued you a refund. Once the new date is announced, at that time, you can repurchase if it works for your schedule.”

Tickets for Fyre Festival 2, which was marketed under the slogan “FYRE Festival 2 is real”, went on sale in February at a starting fee of $1,400 and up to $25,000, while premium packages were also being sold for as much as $1.1m.

At the time, McFarland said a statement, “I’m sure many people think I’m crazy for doing this again. But I feel I’d be crazy not to do it again.”

“After years of reflection and now thoughtful planning, the new team and I have amazing plans for FYRE 2,” he added.

As with the doomed original event, McFarland’s festival promised an “electrifying celebration of music, arts, cuisine, comedy, fashion, gaming, sports, and treasure hunting — all set in the stunning location of Isla Mujeres, Mexico”.

“Experience unforgettable performances, immersive experiences, and an atmosphere that redefines creativity and culture,” the festival’s website said.

Leading up to the festival, Mexico officials with the Quintana Roo Tourism Department and the Playa Del Carmen government said “no event of that name” was to be held there.

Bernardo Cueto, tourism secretary of the State of Quintana Roo, where Isla Mujeres is located, told ABC News that his agency was responsible for handing out permissions for events of this kind. However, Fyre Fest 2 was not something he was informed about, he said, nor was an event by that name happening in Playa del Carmen or Isla Mujeres.

On 4 April, McFarland shared a timeline of apparent conversations with the government of Playa Del Carmen to the festival’s Instagram account, including screenshots of purported conversations and permits.

“All media reports suggesting our team has not been working with the government of PDC are simply inaccurate and based on misinformation,” he said. “FYRE has operated as a good partner with PDC government and has followed the proper processes and procedures to lawfully host an event.”

Eagle-eyed followers then pointed out that the terms of the permits McFarland had posted limited the event to 250 attendees max, far below his proposed 1,800 guests, and also limited the event of 12 hours of music across the weekend with a noise limit of 100 decibels.

The festival had yet to announce a lineup but McFarland told the Today programme: “We’re going to have artists across electronic, hip hop, pop and rock. However, it’s not just music. We might have a professional skateboarder do a demonstration. We might have an MMA champion teach you techniques in the morning.”

Electronic producer and DJ deadmau5 has responded to the news of the event’s postponement, sharing a screenshot of the announcement on his Instagram account along with the caption: “Well that sucks”.

McFarland served four years of a six-year sentence in prison after being convicted of wire fraud in connection with the failed 2017 festival.

Britain must not trade away its values for a deal with Trump

President Trump began by waging economic war on Britain with his punitive tariffs, designed to make UK exports to the US uncompetitive. He apparently couldn’t care less if this results in our companies folding and our workers losing their jobs. His grand plan seems to be to bully the UK into submission to ensure US economic domination.

Seeing the feeble response of the British government to his tariffs, Trump has, by all accounts, been emboldened to now embark on what is tantamount to ideological war against the UK’s human rights laws.

According to people close to the vice-president, JD Vance, the Trump team is insisting that to secure a trade deal with the US, Britain will have to repeal its laws against hate speech that protect LGBT+ people – and presumably also ditch similar laws that protect other minorities and women.

Vance falsely claims these laws are an attack on free speech. He and others in the Trump administration allege that UK people are being arrested over tweets. Yes, some people were arrested for tweets that incited violence against refugees during last summer’s riots. Quite right, too. What they tweeted was not free speech, but criminal incitement.

Taking Vance’s free speech absolutism to its logical conclusion would mean making it lawful to abuse the LGBT+ community as “f******” and Black people as “n******.” No thanks!

A source close to the vice-president warned: “No free speech, no deal. It is as simple as that.” This amounts to cultural imperialism – an attempt by the White House to use a trade deal to impose its cultural values on the people of the UK.

That Britain may be asked to dilute its protections against hate speech in exchange for economic benefits is typically Trumpian – putting commerce and profits over people. But to demand that another allied sovereign country change its values and laws escalates US hegemony to a dangerous and shameful level of intimidation and bullying.

UK legislation against hate is not a mere policy choice; it reflects our values of inclusivity, dignity and respect for others. These laws have been instrumental in fostering a kinder, more tolerant and cohesive society. Rolling them back would signify a regression in our nation’s ethical and legal standards.

The Trump regime is pushing a particularly hardline interpretation of “free speech” – one that disregards the harm caused by hate speech and how it can be a gateway to subsequent harassment, discrimination and violence. There is strong evidence that homophobic hate speech can cause psychological and emotional damage to vulnerable LGBT+ people, including fear, anxiety, depression and – in extreme cases – self-harm.

While freedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic societies, it must be balanced against the right of people to live free from hate and its devastating consequences. The UK’s approach seeks to maintain this balance, ensuring that speech does not become a weapon of oppression and harm.

Compromising on these values for the sake of a trade deal would set a dangerous precedent that reduces fundamental rights and protections to the status of negotiable commodities.

I have news for Trump and Vance: our values are not things that should be traded according to the whims of economic interests and international bargaining. To do so would undermine the UK’s standing as a nation pledged to uphold human rights. It would erode our credibility and influence on the global stage. How could we call out Putin, Xi, Orban and Erdogan over the hate they stir if we were not willing to maintain legislation against hate in our own country?

The UK government claims that scrapping hate speech laws is not part of the trade negotiations with the US. However, the fact that sources say such a demand is being made by Vance casts doubt on that claim. It necessitates a firm and unequivocal response. The UK must make it clear that its commitment to protecting vulnerable communities is non-negotiable.

In the pursuit of economic prosperity, the UK should not lose sight of the humanitarian principles that define our society. Trade deals should enhance them, not compromise them. Moreover, protecting people against hate speech is not only morally right but also essential for an optimal economy. People who feel safe, protected and valued tend to be more productive. Fairer, more equal societies tend to be happier and more successful.

This is not the time to sacrifice our principles for short-term economic gains. Trade negotiations should not become an excuse for watering down our values and laws. The strength of a nation lies not only in its economic prowess, but also in its dedication to the principles of justice, inclusivity and respect for all.