The shortlist has today been announced for the @EditorsUK Media Freedom Awards 2026. Congratulations to all those shortlisted and we look forward to celebrating with you on the 11 November in London #pressfreedom #mfa2026 societyofeditors.org/soe_new…

The UK has warned China that attempts to "intimidate" individuals on UK soil will not be tolerated trib.al/BnQT7Jf

A glorious day for opponents of transparency in public life. MPs have removed the names of their parliamentary staff from a decades-old public register - meaning we do not know who these people are and are left to accept the word of their employer when they say (as in the case of the prime minister, here) that said staff do not have any outside earnings or private interests. "All staff have confirmed they have no registrable interests": oh, well that's that then. No way of determining if true; no way of finding out if MPs employing family members; no way for anyone other than MPs themselves to uphold standards or examine who is operating in the Palace of Westminster on their behalf. The decision was driven by ... you guessed it ... MPs themselves, following behind-closed-door consultations with staff trade union representatives - not media or anti-corruption organisations. Echoes of the time that decided among themselves - with nil meaningful debate - to exempt themselves from the centuries-old system by which those arrested would be named before the Commons. Parliament being sovereign it is always free to take such steps without consultation or engagement with the public - the hope is they decide not to abuse their positions and proactively seek criticism or counter-views. In this instance, sadly, MPs have demonstrated they cannot be trusted to do so - they have put us out of step with comparable democracies without anything approaching scrutiny:

2/ If you’re hunting for undeclared interests and outside influence in Westminster, we can confirm you won’t find them in the 23-year-old caseworker on £24k, booking surgeries and fielding abuse from constituents. But it was their name about to go on a public list.

A glorious day for opponents of transparency in public life. MPs have removed the names of their parliamentary staff from a decades-old public register - meaning we do not know who these people are and are left to accept the word of their employer when they say (as in the case of the prime minister, here) that said staff do not have any outside earnings or private interests. "All staff have confirmed they have no registrable interests": oh, well that's that then. No way of determining if true; no way of finding out if MPs employing family members; no way for anyone other than MPs themselves to uphold standards or examine who is operating in the Palace of Westminster on their behalf. The decision was driven by ... you guessed it ... MPs themselves, following behind-closed-door consultations with staff trade union representatives - not media or anti-corruption organisations. Echoes of the time that decided among themselves - with nil meaningful debate - to exempt themselves from the centuries-old system by which those arrested would be named before the Commons. Parliament being sovereign it is always free to take such steps without consultation or engagement with the public - the hope is they decide not to abuse their positions and proactively seek criticism or counter-views. In this instance, sadly, MPs have demonstrated they cannot be trusted to do so - they have put us out of step with comparable democracies without anything approaching scrutiny: