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.

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.

Man Utd salvage their season with breathtaking comeback for the ages

It was Bilbao or bust. Just when it seemed it would be bust, Manchester United condemning their season to utter failure, they instead salvaged it. They produced one of their latest and greatest comebacks. Harry Maguire headed them to Bilbao, for a Europa League semi-final against Athletic, perhaps for a return to the Basque Country for the final. They may yet get Champions League football, some £100m in broadcast, matchday and commercial income.

They may yet get redemption. It will be quite a rescue act as they seemed to capitulate when Lyon scored four unanswered goals. Then came the United response, three of their own, deep into extra time. After conceding two goals in seven minutes, United scored three in eight. Six-four down on aggregate after 113 minutes of an epic tie, they prevailed 7-6.

The late rally was led by the outstanding Bruno Fernandes, the captain coolly slotting in a penalty that may have been generously awarded after Casemiro went to ground under Thiago Almada’s challenge.

Then Kobbie Mainoo, sent on as an emergency striker, finishing like a centre-forward, taking Casemiro’s pass and curling a shot into the corner. Then Maguire, the 121st-minute hero heading in a cross from Casemiro. Him again, the Brazilian, the serial Champions League winner taking himself closer to Europa League glory. It threatened to be the last European night at Old Trafford, potentially for years. It became a special occasion. “In this stadium, in this club, you always have the feeling anything can happen,” said Ruben Amorim. So it appeared on a night of credibility-defying drama. “That is why we like this sport so much and all the frustration the coach has, the bad moments, when you have moments like this it is all worth it. We can forget for a few minutes what kind of season we are having.”

And yet, perhaps, they are saving their season. Galvanised by their plight, motivated by the prize, United played with the air of men who knew what was at stake. When ignominy beckoned, they responded. For Amorim, spurred on by a glimpse into United’s past, there was a night to make history. “I was watching the 1999 [Treble] documentary to have some inspiration for these moments,” he said. As the watching Sir Alex Ferguson may have again remarked, football, bloody hell.

For Lyon, it was merely hell. They could be forgiven for wondering what had hit them. They had mustered a terrific fightback of their own. At 2-0, they were seemingly down and out. At 4-2 up, they only had 10 minutes to see through. Yet there was a cruelty for Paulo Fonseca and his team. United may be 14th in the Premier League but they are the only unbeaten team in the Europa League, a different beast in Europe. When embarrassment was on the cards, they produced excitement.

Where to start? For an hour or so, this was one of United’s best performances of the season, leaving everyone wondering where this kind of football had been all year. They began well. They were rewarded with a goal. The dynamic Alejandro Garnacho took Fernandes’s pass and turned sharply in the penalty area to cut the ball back. Manuel Ugarte sidefooted in his second United goal.

As United continued to push, Casemiro had a low shot pushed just past the post by Lucas Perri. It was terrific goalkeeping, but the Brazilian was beaten again on the stroke of half-time. Dalot latched on to Maguire’s long pass to angle a low shot beyond Perri. A wing-back in the box, scoring goals: this may be part of Amorim’s vision.

Meanwhile, Fernandes was brilliant, almost scoring one of the great United goals when he volleyed Dalot’s long pass against the bar, twice also coming close to spectacular goals.

For Fonseca, barred from the touchline for nine months in French football for an altercation with a referee, the view from the technical area surely was not enjoyable initially. Yet he took advantage of his greater involvement to change the game with his substitutes. In particular, the introduction of Alexandre Lacazette provided a lifeline. He gave Lyon a focal point in the box. United creaked under pressure.

Corentin Tolisso headed in from six yards after Casemiro failed to clear a free kick and the substitute Lacazette glanced the ball into the midfielder’s path. Six minutes later, Lyon struck again, Nicolas Tagliafico angling in a shot from Ainsley Maitland-Niles’s cross before Andre Onana could claw it back from behind the line. Lacazette followed up to make sure anyway. For Onana there could, eventually, be the relief that his first-leg errors did not cost United; premature as his dancing celebrations of Ugarte’s opener proved, he ended the night jumping into Amorim’s arms in delight.

Others crossed the divide between hero and villain. Tolisso departed, a trip on the raiding Leny Yoro bringing him a second yellow card. It gave United a man advantage, yet, a quarter of an hour later, Lyon had a goal advantage, the excellent Rayan Cherki drilling the ball into the bottom corner after a burst from the replacement Malick Fofana. Scorer of a 95th-minute equaliser in Lyon, he struck even later, leaving Onana motionless.

For a while, Lyon were magnificent with 10 men. Then the dynamic Fofana was tripped by Luke Shaw, a United substitute, and Lacazette converted the penalty. So it was 4-2, with United heading out, with Fonseca’s changes working better than Amorim’s.

Until they weren’t. Until the substitute Mainoo scored and Casemiro starred and Maguire wrote his name into Old Trafford folklore. Like Teddy Sheringham and Ole Gunnar Solskjaer in 1999, but as a centre-back shunted into attack because of his aerial ability. “I just see one guy who is good in the box,” said Amorim. And the midfielder Mainoo proved another who was good in the box. “A win like that can bring so much momentum,” said the 120th-minute scorer. “We’re rolling the snowball and it could get bigger and bigger.” And now the snowball rolls on to Bilbao.

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. 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.

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?

Boris Johnson’s cycling vision stutters as bike journeys fail to rise

Boris Johnson’s vision to “unleash a nation of cyclists” appears to be stuttering with new annual figures showing the number of cycle trips made per person in England remains stagnant despite major work taking place.

The former prime minister pledged thousands of miles of new protected cycle lanes, training for adults and children and bikes on prescriptions as part of a whirlwind announcement for £2bn of funding for cycling and walking in the summer of 2020.

As head of a previous government, Mr Johnson also set an ambitious target for half of journeys in towns and cities to be cycled or walked by 2030.

However, funding for Active Travel England, responsible for managing the active travel budget in support of local authorities on projects, was significantly cut in 2023.

And despite levels of walking rising, according to new figures released by the Department for Transport, the average number of bike journeys per person has remained stagnant since a peak at the height of the Covid pandemic in 2020.

In 2019, people made an average 16 bike trips, including e-bikes, according to the transport survey of 16,000 individuals. That increased to 20 in 2020, but then fell back to pre-pandemic levels with 15 in the years 2021, 2022 and 2023.

Latest data for the year ending June 2024 showed people made an average 15 bike trips, down slightly from 16 in the year ending June 2023.

Meanwhile, the average number of walking trips per person increased from 250 in 2019 to 263 in 2023. Latest data for the year ending June 2024 suggests a further rise with 267 compared to 261 in the year ending June 2023.

The average number of car journeys rose to 364 in the year ending June 2024, from 346 in the year ending June 2023 – however, this was down from 380 in 2019.

The DfT has highlighted that the total number of trips across all modes of transport has fallen since 2019 – however, some in the bicycle industry say more needs to be done to encourage more people to ride.

Sarah McMonagle, director of external affairs at Cycling UK, said councils were not getting enough sustained central government funding to build cycling networks. “That’s why we often see a patchwork of cycle routes rather than a holistic network,” she said.

As well as increased calling for better funding, the charity has recently revealed a gender gap in cycling with it claiming just a third of cycling trips are done by women, and safety a major factor.

“If we’re serious about providing healthier, more sustainable travel options, then we need to invest in safe, accessible cycle networks,” said Ms McMonagle.

The high number of cycling trips made in 2020 reflect people’s lifestyles during Covid, said Kiron Chatterjee, professor of travel behaviour at the University of West of England. Latest figures on cycling could also be impacted by fewer people now commuting due to the introduction of flexible working post-pandemic, he added.

But he said: “It [the data] confirms the picture we have seen since Covid that cycling trips have reverted back to pre-pandemic levels and the progress that has been wished for to assist any rise is not on track at the moment.”

The lack of an increase in bicycle rides is reflected in sales data. In March, the Bicycle Association said sales of bikes in the UK fell 2 per cent last year, compared to 2023.

Simon Irons, data and insights director, said: “The continued decline in kids’ cycling participation and kids’ bike sales is particularly concerning, given these are our cyclists of the future.”

Active Travel England’s commissioner Chris Boardman told MPs on a transport committee in January that the biggest barrier faced was cyclists’ fear for safety, particularly for women.

He said despite success in overseeing more than £500m in investment and training thousands of council officials, the target for walking and riding bikes for 2030 was looking increasingly challenging due to the changes in funding.

He said: “It has made it extremely hard to hit those targets, and there would have to be some significant changes in policy or funding to be able to meet it by 2030.

“We still have a massive pipeline of schemes with local authorities. They still have their network plans. We have just slowed right down on the delivery without the commitment to deliver it—the commitment in consistency and the funding itself.”

A month later, in February, the government announced 300 miles of new walkways and cycle ways would be created with £300m in new funding over the next two years.

A Department for Transport spokesperson said: “Cycling did not decrease between the end of 2023 and June 2024, with cycling distance going up by 9 per cent. Walking trips and walking distance have both gone up significantly from pre-pandemic levels, while car trips are down more than 4 per cent compared to 2019.

“We want to give more people the freedom, opportunity, and choice to cycle, wheel and walk anywhere, and that’s why we’re investing nearly £300m to build up to 300 miles of new cycle tracks and footways.”

An Active Travel England spokesperson said the body would continue its work with local authorities to help them make walking, wheeling and cycling a safe and attractive choice for everyday trips.

They said: “Walking and wheeling, underpins all journeys, particularly for public transport and the increase identified in these statistics is great news and just the start. Many of the schemes we have funded are still being built and we know that safe and high quality infrastructure is used more by all kinds of people.”

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.