Category: Uncategorized

Forma-Care (UK) Ltd, a leading supplier of continence care products to the NHS, has secured a significant funding package with the support of Leonard Curtis.
The arrangement marks over £5m of funding raised in recent years, ensuring the Durham-based firm can accelerate its growth strategy, invest in product innovation, and strengthen supply chains amid market pressures.
The partnership between Forma-Care and Leonard Curtis goes back six years, when the business was first established. Its unique ‘single-debtor’ financing model, structured without personal guarantees, required a bespoke solution underpinned by proven ledger performance and clear future potential. Working in close collaboration with funders including Cynergy Business Finance and Abcor Finance, Leonard Curtis secured an initial credit line, with an additional facility to follow.
Wayne Dobson, managing director of Forma-Care, said: “Leonard Curtis has been with us since the very start, and the team’s unwavering support has been instrumental to our success. This funding package will allow us to continue growing, innovating, and meeting the evolving needs of our customers.”
Phil Trueman of Leonard Curtis added: “The package we have helped the business secure puts them on a firm financial footing to continue its development journey.”
Read more:
Durham medical supplier clinches multi-million pound funding boost

Ed Miliband, the Energy Security and Net Zero Secretary, has declined to reveal his personal view on the controversial third runway at Heathrow, despite Labour’s public backing of airport expansion.
Under Chancellor Rachel Reeves’s push for economic growth, the Labour government last month confirmed its support for a larger Heathrow. Yet when pressed on whether his personal position had shifted since he blocked a similar move in 2010, Mr Miliband invoked collective responsibility, calling himself “part of the decision-making process” and insisting he “abides by” the government line.
Mr Miliband emphasised that approval for Heathrow’s expansion may still be “some years off”, pending strict assessments of carbon budgets and local environmental standards. Speaking on Sky News, he added that Heathrow must present viable plans if a third runway is to go ahead. The issue highlights the government’s struggle to reconcile economic ambitions with its environmental agenda, while Mr Miliband himself refused to reiterate his past opposition.
Questions over the proposed Rosebank oil field – a project Mr Miliband previously called “a colossal waste of taxpayer money” – saw him again refrain from giving his personal opinion. Instead, he argued that ministers must follow “proper process”, with decisions taken “in a fair and objective manner”.
Rejecting the idea that the UK faces a stark choice between economic growth and the pursuit of net zero, Mr Miliband portrayed clean energy as “the biggest economic opportunity of the 21st century”. He also announced a consultation aimed at ensuring all rental properties achieve at least a C rating for energy performance. Landlords could face higher renovation costs, which might be passed on to tenants, but Mr Miliband defended the policy as “fair” and essential for tackling damp, mould and spiralling energy bills.
Read more:
Miliband refuses to reveal his personal view on controversial third runway at Heathrow

Headteacher Katharine Birbalsingh has said Bridget Phillipson had ‘no interest’ in finding out why Michaela Community School was so successful.
Speaking on GB News, Katharine Birbalsingh said: “Academies have raised standards in England so enormously that on international league tables like Pisa, we’ve moved from 27th to seventh in maths. Or on Pearls, we are now considered to be best in terms of reading, having been way down the international charts 15 years ago.
“All of these reforms that happened in the last decade and a half, making schools into academies, are responsible for that success.
“We get 800 visitors a year at Michaela from all over the world, and so do lots of really good schools in England because of the amazing work we’re doing, thanks to the freedoms we’ve got.
“That’s what makes an academy. The school leaders have freedoms that allow them to give a bespoke and tailored offer to their particular community.
“Bridget Phillipson is now going to take those freedoms away from our academies, which essentially makes them into schools.
“So when she claims to say, ‘I love academies’, but then, at the same time, is taking away the freedoms from academies that makes them academies, she’s essentially turning us into schools.
“So it’s just not true, she doesn’t love academies.
“[The meeting] was very disappointing. She wouldn’t name a single top school that she’s been to visit. She said that the record of her school visits was for public knowledge, and you could find it. I can’t find it.
“I don’t know what school she’s ever been to, and I don’t know why she couldn’t just say, ‘I’ve been to these top schools.’ I presume it’s because she’s never visited any of the top schools.
“She seemed quite proud of the fact that she’d been to schools that were underperforming and I have no problem with her going to those schools.
“But I’ve invited her three times to come and see Michaela. Why not come and see what we’re doing and learn from what we’re doing?
“My deputy, who was with me, spoke about how last year, we got 52% grade nines, and how Eton got 53% grade nines. So we’re basically matching Eton.
“At no point did she probe and say, ‘Tell me, what is it you did exactly? Was it your teaching methods? Was it your strictness, because you’re known as the strictest Headmistress? Is it your values?’
“There was no interest at all in what we’re actually doing and finding out what are those key ideas that could be rolled out across schools.
“We talked about the curriculum, and she said ‘it’s a floor, not a ceiling.’
“And I said, ‘So which school is it that does not meet your floor core curriculum and does not offer a core curriculum to children?’ She couldn’t name that school, because I don’t believe that school exists.
“All schools offer a floor core curriculum. So what is the problem she’s trying to fix?
“What she wants is uniformity across the school system, which is owned by central government. When I call her a Marxist, what I mean is she’s taking the few freedoms we’ve got as head teachers and as school leaders and is returning them to government.
“Because she, as Education Secretary, knows better what my children need than I do, and I disagree with her. We offer the tailored approach with regard to our curriculum, with regard to the way in which we hire teachers, with regard to our pan (pupil admission numbers).
“We have 120 kids coming into our school every year. If the local school next door is not very good and has 100 kids instead of 120, with the changes she’s making, she could take 20 of our places and put them with that other school.
“I said to her, ‘What would you say to a mother who is desperate to get her child into a good school that used to have 120 places, but you’ve now made it 100 places in order to help out that other school that isn’t very good. What do you say to this woman?’
“Well, the answer she gave was completely inadequate. There is no other answer. You’re reducing the number of places in good schools.
“The point is that these ideas do work for everybody. Having good discipline in your school works for everyone. Having teachers lead the learning works for everyone.
“I understand different intakes are different, and it’s precisely that that I’m arguing. But there are certain basics that work.
“And the only way you can get those basics happening everywhere is not by her telling people what we should do from central government, it’s by giving school leaders freedoms, so they have a sense of responsibility and ownership for their schools, and then they can be held accountable for what they deliver.
“If, on the other hand, she makes us all be exactly the same, there is no accountability and there’s no sense of responsibility.”
Read more:
Bridget Phillipson thinks she knows better than successful head teachers

The traditional five day work week has been the standard for over a century, but recent shifts in the workplace culture and employee expectations have sparked interest in a shorter work schedule.
The concept of a four day work week gained traction, with companies across the globe experimenting with different models to boost productivity, improve employee well-being, and even reduce operational costs. While some businesses have reported great success, others have encountered challenges. So, there’s a question as to whether the four day work week is really a sustainable choice.
One of the most significant benefits of a four day work week is the improved work life balance it offers employees. By working fewer days, employees have more time to spend with family, put time into their personal hobbies, or simply relax and have down time.
Companies that priorities a work life balance can see increased job satisfaction among their employees when adopting the idea of a four day work week. Thinking about this from a business owners’ perspective this could lead to a lower turnover rate and a more engaged workforce that are able to work more efficiently and work to a higher standard. In today’s market there is especially high competition to gain the best skilled employees for your team and offering an additional day off could make a company more attractive to top talent.
It may sound counterintuitive, but studies have suggested that working fewer days can actually enhance productivity. Microsoft Japan experimented with a four day work week and saw a 40% increase in the productivity of their employees. The reasoning for this was simple: when employees had less time to complete their work, they had to focus more, eliminate distractions, and work more efficiently.
For companies, implementing a four day work week can translate into significant cost savings. Fewer office days mean lower electricity bills, reduced office supply usage, and even savings on amenities. However, it would be silly to ignore the flip side of this and see how it could cost your company significant losses. While some industries could thrive under a four day structure, others may struggle. Customer service, healthcare, retail, and other sectors that require constant availability may find it challenging to operate on a reduced schedule meaning customers may become dissatisfied and choose to go elsewhere for their goods. You could stagger employee schedules to help manage this although that may prove a challenge when dealing with operations and not fully resolve the issue.
I’d say one of the most appealing qualities of a four day work week would be to attract and retain top talent that is proving to be a major challenge for employers. Offering a four day work week can be a significant incentive for potential hires. It demonstrates that the company values their employees’ work life balance and is willing to innovate to create a better workplace.
Although there are some pros to the idea of a four day work week and it’s sounding pretty positive at the moment there are some issues with the reality.
One of the biggest challenges of implementing a four day work week is the need to condense your current 40 hours into four days. A reality of this would be longer work days which could be mentally exhausting for your employees, longer working days could have the opposite effect of a shorter work week and cause decreased concentration leading to lack of productivity.
In some cases, companies implementing a four day work week reduce employee salaries to reflect fewer working hours. While this isn’t always the case, it can be a drawback for workers who rely on a salary that reflects full time pay. Any company that wishes to consider a four day model would need to be transparent about salary adjustments and ensure employees are not unfairly penalised for working fewer days. Some businesses choose to maintain salaries while reducing hours, but this would require careful financial planning to ensure this is sustainable for your business.
While many companies report increased productivity, not all businesses see the same benefits. Employees can feel rushed to complete their tasks in fewer days, which could lead to a higher stress level when thinking about work which may lead people to decide that a company with a four day work week isn’t for them.
Many businesses operate on a five day schedule and some a seven days to meet customer demands. Reducing the work week could create gaps in customer service, leading to client dissatisfaction which would create a strain on the customer relationships that we work hard to maintain. Businesses need to carefully consider how reduced hours may impact their client relationships.
The answer isn’t black and white. The success of a four day work week depends on the industry, company culture, and how well the transition is managed. Some businesses could thrive under this model, whilst others may struggle to maintain efficiency and customer satisfaction.
However, the growing conversation around flexible work arrangements suggests that change is inevitable. Hybrid work models, remote work, and reduced-hour schedules are already reshaping our traditional employment structures. Organisations that prioritise flexibility and employee well-being will likely have a competitive edge in attracting and retaining top talent.
Read more:
The Four Day Work Week: A Game Changer or Just a Trend?

The Bank of England has reduced its base rate to 4.5 per cent — the third such cut in six months — as policymakers seek to shore up Britain’s weakening economy.
In a 7-2 vote, the nine-member monetary policy committee opted for a 0.25 percentage point drop, though two members advocated a sharper 0.5 percentage point reduction. Governor Andrew Bailey called the move “welcome news” for borrowers, while stressing that the Bank will continue to strike a “gradual and careful approach” to any further cuts.
Although inflation sits at a more moderate 2.5 per cent, the central bank warned that the headline rate will rise temporarily to around 3.7 per cent this summer, due in part to higher energy bills and increased employer National Insurance contributions taking effect in April. Despite that near-term inflation bump, the Bank’s latest forecasts suggest the UK will narrowly avoid a technical recession as GDP inches back into positive territory in early 2025. However, it now expects inflation to stay above its 2 per cent target until late 2027.
The rate cut comes against a backdrop of global economic uncertainty, notably US President Donald Trump’s expansion of import tariffs on countries such as China, Canada and Mexico. While the resulting trade tensions could raise costs worldwide, Bank officials say the immediate impact on UK price levels remains “highly uncertain”. A key factor influencing future rate decisions could be wage growth, which some policymakers fear could reignite inflation if it outpaces productivity.
Financial markets had already priced in the likelihood of a 0.25 percentage point cut, pushing the FTSE 100 to a record high above 8,700 points and nudging sterling lower against the dollar. Homeowners and prospective buyers may see mortgage rates come down in the wake of the decision, but the Bank’s slower pace of cuts contrasts with more aggressive moves seen during previous downturns. In a sign of greater caution, the Bank also revised down its UK growth forecast for 2025 to 0.75 per cent, warning that escalating trade conflicts, falling consumer confidence and looming domestic tax rises could all weigh on the recovery.
Read more:
Bank of England trims rates again to 4.5% as economic growth falters

A growing gap between private and public sector salaries for cybersecurity professionals is undermining the UK’s national security, according to new research by Naoris Protocol.
The blockchain-based cyber firm warns that talented cyber experts are turning away from government roles due to lower pay, just as emerging technologies — from AI and quantum computing to the metaverse — are expanding the scale of cyber threats facing critical national infrastructure.
Naoris Protocol’s analysis highlights that mid-tier private sector cybersecurity positions, such as Cyber Security Analysts or Penetration Testers in London, can command annual salaries of £50,000 to £70,000. Senior roles, including Security Managers and Cyber Security Architects, often exceed £120,000. By contrast, a Cyber Security Adviser at the Ministry of Defence was recently advertised at only £36,530 a year, while a Head of Cyber Governance, Risk, and Compliance post started at £67,820.
The research cites a Spotlight on Corruption report revealing that low pay has resulted in unfilled cyber roles within the National Crime Agency, driving skilled employees into better-paying positions with the police or in the private sector. Further concerns come from the National Audit Office (NAO), which found “significant gaps” in the cyber resilience of 58 government IT systems and warned that one in three cybersecurity posts remained vacant or staffed by temporary workers in 2023/24.
David Carvalho, Chief Executive and Founder of Naoris Protocol, believes closing the pay gap is critical to defending the UK’s digital assets. “The risks to UK national security from cybercrime are real, and the potential damage to critical national infrastructure is staggering,” he said. “Competitive pay is essential to attract the talent needed to combat these evolving threats.”
With government agencies competing directly against the private sector for highly specialised skills, experts say the UK’s broader economic and security interests depend on boosting salaries to secure the nation’s cybersecurity defences.
Read more:
Public sector pay gap endangers UK’s cybersecurity, experts warn

Citigroup has confirmed it will press ahead with hybrid working for most of its global workforce, bucking a growing shift among Wall Street rivals towards five days a week in the office.
The US banking giant’s chief executive, Jane Fraser, recently assured managing directors that Citi staff may continue working up to two days a week remotely.
The decision contrasts sharply with other major institutions such as JPMorgan Chase, which last month ordered employees to return to full-time office attendance. Barclays has also followed suit, stipulating three days a week at its London headquarters, up from two.
Despite Citi’s flexible stance, the bank is stepping up scrutiny of staff attendance, using security pass data to ensure they come in at least three days a week. It employs 229,000 people globally, including 14,000 in the UK. Citigroup’s long-term commitment to office space is underscored by a £1bn renovation of its Canary Wharf skyscraper, due for completion in 2026.
The hybrid model stands in stark contrast not only to many peers in finance but also to sectors beyond banking. The Trump administration recently offered redundancy packages to a large share of US government workers refusing a full-time office return, while Amazon chief executive Andy Jassy has insisted on five days in the office for his workforce since January.
Jane Fraser says the hybrid policy gives Citi an edge in recruiting talent and supporting a healthy work-life balance, though critics argue in-office proximity fosters better collaboration and mentorship. Citigroup declined to comment beyond Fraser’s earlier statements.
Read more:
Citigroup bucks ‘return to office’ trend by committing to hybrid working

Google has quietly abandoned its long-held promise not to use artificial intelligence for weaponry, declaring that “free countries” should be able to harness the technology for national security purposes.
The policy shift emerged when two senior figures, James Manyika (Google-Alphabet’s senior vice-president) and Sir Demis Hassabis (chief executive of Google DeepMind), co-authored a blog post confirming the technology giant’s commitment to “support national security” in an increasingly tense geopolitical race for AI leadership.
The new stance marks a reversal of Google’s 2018 assurance that it would never use AI tools “whose principal purpose or implementation is to cause or directly facilitate injury to people”. That vow was adopted after staff walked out in protest against a Pentagon drone project. In the wake of the latest announcement, critics argue that Google risks undermining its values, noting that the company also removed its “don’t be evil” motto from its code of conduct when it restructured under parent entity Alphabet in 2015.
Manyika and Hassabis justified the change by highlighting the accelerating pace of AI innovation and pointing to the threat posed by China’s growing military interest in the technology. Beijing has earmarked AI as the future “revolution in military affairs” and is reportedly using the technology to develop advanced autonomous weapons systems. DeepSeek, a Chinese-developed AI chatbot, has already achieved results that in some tests surpass western competitors, fuelling concerns of a “Sputnik moment” in the sector.
Since the onset of generative AI, Google has faced internal strife over its links to the defence sector. In 2018, staff petitioned executives to withdraw from a US military drone initiative. There has also been friction over partnerships with foreign governments, notably in Israel. Adding to the debate, Geoffrey Hinton – dubbed the “godfather of AI” – quit Google in 2023, warning the technology could one day threaten humanity itself.
While critics lament Google’s apparent climbdown, company chiefs maintain that democracies must lead in AI development. They argue that collaboration between companies, governments and organisations that “share these values” will help ensure AI is harnessed responsibly – including for national defence.
Read more:
Google reverses pledge against AI-driven weapons to champion ‘free world’ security

The US Postal Service (USPS) has ceased accepting parcels from mainland China and Hong Kong “until further notice,” as fresh rules have shut a loophole allowing duty-free imports of low-value goods.
The suspension comes amid rising tensions between the US and China, sparked by former President Donald Trump’s announcement of an extra 10% tariff on all imports from the country.
A policy known as “de minimis” previously permitted parcels worth under $800 (approximately £640) to enter the US tax-free. Chinese fast-fashion giants such as Shein and Temu have used this exemption to fuel explosive growth, shipping inexpensive items to millions of US customers without incurring customs charges. Similar de minimis rules also apply in the UK, where the import threshold is £135, and within the EU for goods below €150 (£124).
However, surging parcel volumes—half of which originate from China—have prompted officials to clamp down, citing heightened risks of illegal or unregulated goods slipping through customs. USPS said letters remain unaffected by its suspension but declined to provide a detailed explanation.
The shift in US policy echoes similar moves around the globe. The EU has announced plans to strengthen checks on goods from e-commerce sites, naming Shein and Temu as liable for any unsafe or substandard products sold on their platforms. It has also launched a coordinated probe into Shein’s compliance with European consumer laws.
This crack-down on duty-free imports forms part of a wider escalation in trade tensions. Beijing, in turn, has threatened to impose retaliatory levies on select US brands, including PVH (the parent company of Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger). Meanwhile, China has been advancing its own AI-driven and autonomous weapons capabilities, prompting Western authorities to voice concerns over trade imbalances and security threats.
Nick Stowe, chief executive of British brands Monsoon & Accessorize, welcomed the changes in US rules, arguing that the old system unfairly advantaged online retailers who could ship goods duty-free. “It has long been a complaint of UK and European retailers that Shein exploits the loophole, not paying customs duty, and built a business at an industrial scale,” he said.
The tumultuous state of US-China trade shows little sign of easing. Talks between Trump and Chinese president Xi Jinping have stalled, with the former US leader saying he was in “no rush” to open new negotiations. Increasing cross-border tensions are fuelling concerns about a potential broader trade war with consequences that extend far beyond just fast fashion.
Read more:
US Postal Service halts china parcels following new Trump trade measures