Category: Uncategorized

Let me start with this: most bias isn’t loud. It doesn’t storm into the room or make a scene. It’s subtle. It hides behind compliments, casual comments, and unspoken assumptions. And that’s exactly why we need to prioritise talking about it. In today’s workplaces, many of us genuinely want to be inclusive. We pride ourselves on being
self-aware, open-minded, and fair. But bias isn’t always about conscious discrimination. More often, it shows up in the small things — in who we make eye contact with, who we defer to in conversation, or whose ideas we quietly overlook.
Bias doesn’t just live in hiring practices or performance reviews — it creeps into how we speak to each other, who we trust, and who we assume holds the authority in the room. And even when it’s unintentional, it’s no less powerful. In fact, that’s what makes it so difficult to address.
These small moments shape workplace culture. They influence how people feel — whether they feel heard, respected, and seen. And they have real consequences. Over time, they impact who gets invited to the table, who feels comfortable speaking up, and ultimately, who progresses.
What makes this even more complicated is how hard it can be to call out. When bias is subtle or unconscious, raising it can feel awkward or even risky. You’re often left wondering if you’re being too sensitive, or worse, made to feel like the problem for pointing it out.
I’ve experienced it firsthand. I’ve been in business conversations where I was leading the discussion — until my husband joined me. Suddenly, the conversation shifted toward him, as if the authority had walked in with him. I’ve had visitors to my company assume someone else — usually male — must be the owner. These aren’t isolated incidents. And I know many others, across genders, ages, and backgrounds, have similar stories.
Unintentional bias doesn’t discriminate. It affects women, yes. But it also affects younger professionals who are spoken down to, older colleagues who are overlooked for being “outdated,” introverts mistaken for lacking confidence, and people from diverse ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds whose voices may not fit the dominant culture of the room. It doesn’t always come from malice. Often, it comes from familiarity, habit, or a lack of exposure to difference.
Sometimes the bias shows up in meetings — where the same voices are heard over and over, while others remain on the margins. Sometimes it shows up in casual conversation — when assumptions are made about someone’s role, capability, or priorities. And sometimes, it’s in who we turn to for validation, feedback, or final decisions.
The challenge with these forms of bias is that they can feel so ordinary. They’re not big enough to warrant a complaint, but they chip away at people’s sense of belonging. When you experience these moments repeatedly, they become exhausting. You start to anticipate beingoverlooked, dismissed, or misunderstood. And that anticipation can hold people back from contributing, taking risks, or even staying in a role long-term.
So, what can we do?
First, we can listen more carefully. Not just to what’s being said, but to who is saying it — and who isn’t being heard. We can be aware of patterns: are certain people regularly interrupted?
Are some ideas dismissed until repeated by someone more senior or familiar? Second, we can challenge our own assumptions. Before making a judgement about someone’s ability or credibility, ask yourself: am I basing this on evidence, or on a stereotype I haven’t questioned? Am I hearing this person clearly, or filtering their voice through a bias I didn’t realise I had?
Third, we can be more intentional about inclusion. That means actively inviting quieter voices into conversations, giving credit where it’s due, and making space for different communication styles. It also means acknowledging when we get it wrong — and being open to feedback without defensiveness.
And finally, we can keep the conversation going. It’s easy to treat bias as a box to tick or a workshop to attend. But real inclusion is a daily practice. It’s built in every meeting, every interaction, every decision.
These efforts don’t have to be perfect to be meaningful. Sometimes it’s just about pausing before reacting. If someone raises a concern, instead of getting defensive, we can respond with curiosity: “Can you tell me more about what you noticed?” That small shift — from defensiveness to dialogue — can make all the difference.
It’s also helpful to understand that addressing bias doesn’t mean pointing fingers. It’s not about blame. It’s about learning. We all have blind spots. We’ve all absorbed messages, assumptions, or social cues that we didn’t even realise were shaping our thinking. The goal isn’t to be flawless — it’s to be willing to reflect and grow.
Leaders in particular have a crucial role to play. The way they handle feedback, distribute opportunities, and model inclusive behaviour sets the tone for the whole team. But you don’t have to be a manager to make a difference. Every one of us contributes to the culture we work in. Inclusion is everyone’s responsibility. Creating a more inclusive workplace doesn’t require sweeping reforms or complex HR
initiatives. It begins with awareness. With slowing down, paying attention, and having the humility to admit we all have blind spots. It’s in how we speak, who we notice, and whether we’re really listening.
Because when people feel seen and valued for who they truly are — not just who we assume they are — we create a workplace that works better for everyone.
Read more:
“Did You Mean That Like That?” Conversations – Recognising Unintentional Bias in Business

Tech companies including Google, Amazon, Microsoft and Palantir proposed a range of futuristic—and controversial—ideas for managing UK offenders at a closed-door meeting with the justice secretary, it has emerged.
According to minutes seen by The Guardian, representatives from over two dozen technology firms met with Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Prisons Minister James Timpson in London last month. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) is seeking “innovative” ways to address the crisis of overcrowded prisons and stretched probation services. One radical idea raised was the use of subcutaneous implants to track offenders in real time.
Other suggestions included using robots to manage prisoners, AI-powered rehabilitation assistants, and autonomous vehicles to transport inmates. Ministers framed the discussion as exploring what a “digital, data and technology-enabled justice system” might look like by 2050.
Mahmood reportedly told companies she wants “deeper collaboration between government and tech to solve the prison capacity crisis” and “scale and improve” offender tagging technologies to promote rehabilitation. The MoJ later said the session was intended to foster dialogue and not policy-setting.
Tech firms also floated the use of high-powered quantum computers to predict future criminal behaviour and automate sentencing calculations within the strained probation service. However, some at the meeting warned of “dystopian outcomes” if such tools were misapplied.
The meeting, hosted by the tech lobby group Tech UK, included representatives from IBM, Serco and tagging and biometric firms alongside major Silicon Valley players. Another session, dubbed an “innovation den”, is planned this week, where ministers will hear 20-minute pitches from technology companies.
Human rights groups expressed alarm at the proposals. “It is chilling to know that justice ministers have sat with the tech sector to discuss using robots to manage prisoners, implanting devices under people’s skin to track their behaviour, or using computers to ‘predict’ what they will do in future,” said Donald Campbell, director of advocacy at Foxglove, the non-profit that uncovered the meeting through a Freedom of Information request.
He added: “The idea that tech companies can produce tools to ‘predict’ crime has been discredited time and again – it is disappointing to see the MoJ so willing to listen.”
Mahmood has previously expressed openness to biometric surveillance tools, including gait recognition, which analyses people’s movement patterns to anticipate behaviour.
An MoJ spokesperson said: “As the public would rightly expect, we continue to explore technology that will help us cut crime, effectively monitor offenders and keep the public safe.”
Tech UK defended the initiative, saying it was part of efforts to “create a fairer, better and more effective justice system” and stressed that “transparency, accountability and public trust” must underpin any future use of technology.
Major tech companies involved—including Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM and Palantir—declined to comment on their involvement. Serco, which also attended the meeting, said: “We will not be commenting on this activity.”
Read more:
Tech giants propose under-skin tracking and AI policing in radical justice overhaul

UK food price inflation accelerated in June as soaring temperatures and extreme weather hit fruit and vegetable harvests, pushing up prices at supermarket tills.
New figures from the British Retail Consortium (BRC) show annual food price inflation climbed to 3.7% in June, up from 2.8% in May. This marks the first overall rise in shop price inflation in nearly a year, as consumers continue to feel the squeeze from climate-related crop disruptions and wider cost pressures.
Retailers have directly linked the increase to hot, dry weather reducing crop yields, in a sign that the climate crisis is beginning to exert a more visible and lasting impact on UK food prices.
Helen Dickinson, chief executive of the BRC, said: “We predicted a significant rise in food inflation by the end of this year, and this has been accelerated by geopolitical tensions and the impacts of climate change. Retailers have warned of higher prices for consumers since last year’s autumn budget and the huge rises to employer national insurance costs and the national living wage.”
The steepest increases in wholesale prices were seen in seasonal fruits, with gooseberries up 243% annually, blackberries up 25%, raspberries up 15%, and apples and strawberries up 7% and 3% respectively.
Volatile and extreme weather patterns are becoming increasingly costly for UK farmers. In addition to the effects of drought and high heat, wet weather during key planting seasons caused almost £1.2 billion in crop losses last year, according to industry estimates.
The impact of climate breakdown is now being felt globally, with poor harvests and geopolitical conflicts affecting supply chains and commodity prices. Earlier this year, high global temperatures led to a spike in chocolate prices as cacao crops in West Africa suffered, while coffee prices surged due to adverse weather in Brazil and Vietnam.
In the UK, the latest rise in food prices comes on top of significant business cost pressures. Retailers have repeatedly warned that recent fiscal policy decisions are forcing their hand on pricing. Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ autumn budget introduced a £25 billion increase in employer national insurance contributions and a 6.7% rise in the national living wage from April.
Mike Watkins, head of retailer and business insight at NielsenIQ, which helps compile the BRC’s monthly figures, noted that weather and wider supply chain changes were contributing to inflation. “While the current spell of good weather is helping to boost demand at many retailers, rising prices could become a concern if consumer willingness to spend declines later in the year,” he said. “Which means we can expect retailers to reinforce their value-for-money messages over the summer.”
Total shop price inflation, which includes non-food items, rose to 0.4% in June, up from a slight deflation of -0.1% in May. Analysts expect retailers to continue balancing price pressures with consumer demand, particularly as economic uncertainty and environmental volatility persist.
Read more:
UK food prices rise as hot weather slashes harvest yields, say retailers

The ninth day of the ongoing High Court trial between PPE Medpro and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) turned attention to the government’s handling of surplus PPE stock—specifically, why no effort was made to repurpose or sell the £122 million-worth of gowns supplied by PPE Medpro.
Two expert witnesses, Andrew New for the DHSC and Igor Popovic for PPE Medpro, gave conflicting views on what could—and should—have been done with the gowns once delivered.
Andrew New, chief executive of Supply Chain Coordination Limited (SCCL), the body tasked with managing PPE distribution during the pandemic, confirmed that by December 2020, the UK government held an excess of approximately 500 weeks’—or nearly 10 years’—worth of surgical gowns.
“That is correct,” New admitted, when asked whether the stockpile reached half a millennium of weekly demand.
Despite this oversupply, New confirmed that no effort had been made to repurpose or resell the PPE Medpro gowns, which were delivered to government agents in 2020. He argued that repackaging and relabelling would have been impractical and uneconomic, given the broader logistical challenges faced during the pandemic.
“It’s not just a question of would you pay the money,” he said. “Would you divert management attention to that activity whilst managing other complex tasks?”
Pressed further by PPE Medpro’s counsel Ashley Cukier, New conceded that any third-party buyer would require access to documentation on the product’s specifications and storage history. Yet DHSC has failed to disclose any such information in court — a core issue raised repeatedly throughout the trial.
“If I was buying the product… I would expect to be able to see those records if I needed it,” New acknowledged.
Economist and former NHS adviser Igor Popovic, appearing for PPE Medpro, laid out a very different scenario. In his expert valuation report, Popovic concluded that the gowns could have been sold on the UK market as non-sterile surgical gowns, even if they were not compliant with sterility standards.
After accounting for repackaging and relabelling costs, he estimated the net resale value at £85.8 million.
“Subtracting the cost of repackaging and relabelling (£16,250,130)… I arrive at the net value point estimate in this scenario of £85,816,820,” his report stated.
Popovic also criticised the government for waiting until 2022 to begin selling off excess PPE, by which point prices and demand had plummeted. He noted that earlier resale attempts—during periods of higher demand—could have recouped significantly more taxpayer money.
“It is not clear to me why the Claimant only began selling off excess stock… in 2022,” he wrote. “When the demand and price for PPE were significantly reduced, rather than at a time of high demand.”
The testimony builds on PPE Medpro’s broader argument that the DHSC failed to mitigate its own losses. Despite rejecting the gowns, the government made no attempt to assess their usability in non-sterile settings, explore resale options, or retrieve documentation to facilitate any onward use — all actions that might have reduced the alleged financial exposure.
That failure, PPE Medpro contends, not only undermines the government’s breach of contract claim but also points to a wider pattern of poor inventory management and missed opportunities to recover public funds.
As the High Court trial moves into its final stages, questions around the government’s decision-making, transparency, and post-delivery handling of PPE Medpro’s gowns continue to dominate proceedings.
The central question remains: was this a breach of contract by a supplier — or a failure of oversight by the state?
Read more:
DHSC accused of wasting PPE Medpro gowns as experts reveal missed £85m resale opportunity

Pottery Barn, the world’s largest digital-first and design-led sustainable home retailer, is set to enter the UK market for the first time, with an online launch planned for Autumn 2025.
The move marks a significant step in the global expansion of the iconic American brand and will bring its signature style of classic, high-quality home furnishings to British customers.
In an announcement today, Pottery Barn confirmed that its UK website will feature a curated selection of its most popular offerings, including furniture, bedding, lighting, décor, and gifting items. The collection has been carefully chosen to meet the needs and aesthetics of the UK customer, combining timeless design with functionality for modern living.
Laura Alber, President and CEO of Williams-Sonoma, Inc.—Pottery Barn’s parent company—said: “We are committed to long-term growth and expanding the reach of our brands where we see meaningful market opportunity. We believe great design and quality craftsmanship have universal appeal and we look forward to bringing Pottery Barn’s signature aesthetic to the UK.”
The UK launch will also include Pottery Barn’s complimentary design services, offering customers personalised interior styling both online and in-home. This service, already a key feature of the brand’s offering in North America, is expected to appeal to UK shoppers looking for expert guidance to create stylish, functional spaces at home.
Monica Bhargava, Pottery Barn President, said the launch has been tailored specifically for British homes and lifestyles. “Our curated assortment for the UK market celebrates Pottery Barn’s commitment to helping customers inspire great style for spaces small and large that are beautiful and functional,” she said.
“Whether furnishing a new flat, refreshing a family home, or entertaining with family and friends or thoughtful gifting, we are proud to be providing the UK market with thoughtfully designed pieces that meet the needs of modern living.”
Founded in 1949, Pottery Barn is known for its approachable luxury, sustainability-led design principles, and emphasis on quality craftsmanship. The brand has built a loyal following in the US and has expanded internationally in select markets. Its digital-first approach, combined with a focus on personalised service, positions it well to appeal to British customers looking for style, substance, and convenience when shopping for their homes.
The upcoming launch will also introduce UK shoppers to Pottery Barn’s seasonal collections and gifting ranges—just in time for autumn and winter interiors.
More details, including the official launch date and product range, will be announced closer to the launch at www.potterybarn.co.uk.
Read more:
Pottery Barn to launch in the UK in Autumn 2025, offering curated furniture and free interior design services

Barclays is back in court this week seeking to overturn a landmark Financial Ombudsman ruling concerning undisclosed commission payments in motor finance—a case that could open the floodgates to hundreds of millions of pounds in compensation claims.
The appeal comes after the bank lost a High Court challenge in December, when Mr Justice Kerr dismissed its application for judicial review and ruled against Barclays on all three grounds of its case. A costs order was also made against the bank at the time.
At the heart of the dispute is a complaint made to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) by a customer who purchased a second-hand Audi through Arnold Clark. The customer claimed they were not informed that their loan agreement with Clydesdale Financial Services, a subsidiary of Barclays, included a commission payment of nearly £1,600 to a credit broker.
The FOS upheld the complaint in 2021, stating that the commission was not clearly disclosed and therefore unfair under consumer credit rules. In response, Barclays sought a judicial review, fearing the ruling could set a precedent for widespread claims related to similar finance agreements made between 2010 and 2019.
Barclays has now returned to court, appealing Mr Justice Kerr’s decision. The appeal is being heard at the Court of Appeal over two days this week, with a judgment expected later in the year.
An analyst from RBC Capital Markets has estimated that the potential cost to Barclays could reach up to £250 million if the ruling leads to a wave of successful complaints and compensation payouts. The case is also being closely watched by other lenders, many of whom have offered similar commission-based finance arrangements.
The ongoing legal saga runs in parallel with an even bigger motor finance case that reached the Supreme Court in April. That separate case, concerning hidden commissions paid by car dealers and finance companies, could have even wider ramifications for the UK’s consumer credit industry. A ruling in favour of consumers could force lenders and motor dealers to pay out as much as £30 billion in compensation, according to some industry estimates.
In anticipation of potential losses, several high street banks and car finance companies have begun setting aside large financial provisions. Some lenders have temporarily suspended handling similar customer complaints pending the Supreme Court’s decision, which is expected next month.
Adding to the controversy, HM Treasury attempted to intervene in the Supreme Court case earlier this year but was rebuffed by the court in February. Government officials had raised concerns about the broader implications of a ruling against lenders, fearing it could destabilise the financial sector.
For Barclays, the latest legal challenge is part of a growing list of regulatory and reputational pressures. If the appeal is unsuccessful, it may further expose the bank—and the wider industry—to an avalanche of consumer complaints and financial liabilities tied to historic motor finance practices.
Read more:
Barclays launches appeal over motor finance commission ruling

Lotus has insisted it has “no plans” to shut down any of its UK manufacturing sites following reports it was weighing a potential production shift to the United States.
The carmaker, best known for its lightweight sports cars and deep-rooted British heritage, was reported by the Financial Times to be reviewing whether to move some production overseas—putting as many as 1,300 jobs at risk at its Hethel headquarters in Norfolk.
In a statement released on X (formerly Twitter), the company confirmed that it is “actively exploring” new global market opportunities but stressed that “Lotus Cars is continuing normal operations. There are no plans to close any factory.”
Sources at Lotus told the BBC the situation remains under review as the firm evaluates its international production footprint. A key factor driving discussions is the imposition of 25% tariffs on imported vehicles and car parts by the US, a significant market for Lotus. The tariff hike has temporarily disrupted production in Hethel and complicated transatlantic sales.
The Business Secretary, Jonathan Reynolds, is expected to hold talks with Lotus’s owners in a bid to reassure both the company and local stakeholders.
“Lotus remains committed to the UK, to our customers, employees, dealers, suppliers, as well as our proud British heritage,” the company said in a follow-up statement, emphasising the importance of its Norfolk roots.
The uncertainty has prompted local political intervention. Ben Goldsborough, Labour MP for South Norfolk, said he was “deeply concerned” by the rumours surrounding a potential closure of the Hethel plant.
Posting on Facebook, he said he had held “telephone conversations” with Lotus and government officials and vowed to fight to keep the facility open. “I want to be absolutely clear: I will do everything in my power to ensure that the Hethel facility remains operational and that Lotus continues to thrive in Norfolk,” he said.
Lotus’s Hethel site has been its manufacturing base since 1966 and recently underwent major investment as part of the company’s transition to electric vehicles. The firm, now majority-owned by China’s Geely, has been expanding its global ambitions, with a growing focus on North America.
While speculation about a US facility has reignited concerns about Britain’s competitiveness as an EV manufacturing hub, Lotus’s messaging remains consistent: the brand may be going global, but it is not abandoning its UK foundations—for now.
Read more:
Lotus denies plans to close Hethel factory amid US expansion talks

Supermarkets and food manufacturers in England will be expected to help tackle rising obesity rates by making it easier for customers to choose healthier food, under a new government initiative announced today.
Ministers have confirmed a partnership with major food retailers to improve the health of the nation through measures that could include promotions on healthy items, changes to shop layouts, tweaks to loyalty schemes, and product reformulation. While the precise steps will be left to individual retailers, the aim is to make healthy eating more accessible and affordable, particularly for families in lower-income areas.
Under the new strategy, large retailers will be required to report on the proportion of their sales that come from healthy food, with targets agreed in collaboration with the government. The move is designed to boost transparency and accountability across the sector.
The policy will form part of the NHS’s forthcoming 10-year plan for England, due to be published next week, and is seen as a key measure to reduce pressure on the health service.
“Unless we curb the rising tide of cost and demand, the NHS risks becoming unsustainable,” said Health Secretary Wes Streeting. “This government’s ambition for kids today is for them to be part of the healthiest generation of children ever. That is within our grasp.”
The intervention comes as new figures reveal that over one in five children in England are living with obesity by the time they leave primary school—rising to nearly one in three in the most deprived communities.
While health campaigners have welcomed the renewed focus, they have warned that success depends on action across the entire food industry. Andrew Opie, Director of Food and Sustainability at the British Retail Consortium, said the government’s flexible approach is “really positive” but stressed that “all food businesses” must be engaged.
“We consume around a quarter of our calories outside the home,” Opie said. “Unless we get supermarkets, food retailers, and restaurants on board, we won’t move the dial on obesity.”
He added that retailers are well placed to take action, given their detailed insights into consumer behaviour and preferences.
Katharine Jenner, Director of the Obesity Health Alliance, said it was right that the government was focusing on structural change rather than placing the burden on individuals. “The government has rightly identified the root cause of obesity-related ill health: a food system that makes healthy eating difficult,” she said.
The new strategy also includes:

Shopping incentives via a new app offering vouchers for healthy eating and physical activity

Expanded NHS support, with a doubling of spaces on the Digital Weight Management Programme

Tighter advertising restrictions on alcohol, bringing them in line with rules on junk food promotion

The government cited research showing that reducing calorie consumption by just 50 calories a day could prevent obesity in two million adults and 340,000 children. Cutting just 216 calories a day—the equivalent of a bottle of fizzy drink—could halve the UK’s obesity rate.
However, past attempts at voluntary reformulation have yielded mixed results. A 2015 target to reduce sugar in food by 20% by 2020 fell significantly short.
Sarah Woolnough, Chief Executive of The King’s Fund think tank, welcomed the initiative but warned its impact could be limited without broader changes. “A lot of less healthy food and drink is purchased from local convenience stores and takeaways,” she said. “Unless this is part of a wider, comprehensive strategy, it will not be enough.”
Anna Taylor, Executive Director of The Food Foundation, called the introduction of mandatory sales reporting for large food companies “a game changer”.
“This simple act of transparency delivers the opportunity for systemic change—informing better policy design and triggering boardroom conversations,” she said. “It will also clearly reveal to consumers which businesses are on their side and which are making it harder to eat well. The faster this is introduced, the better.”
The full details of the food industry partnership and the broader NHS 10-year plan are expected to be unveiled in the coming days.
Read more:
Government urges supermarkets to make healthy food more appealing in bid to tackle obesity crisis

Elite academic credentials are losing their dominance in graduate recruitment, as UK tech employers place growing emphasis on practical and interpersonal skills when hiring for entry-level roles.
According to new research from tech talent specialist mthree, 39% of hiring leaders now view graduates from all universities equally — a sharp increase from just 23% last year. The findings point to a significant shift away from traditional prestige-based hiring models, as companies focus on sourcing candidates who can contribute from day one.
The Diversity in Tech report, based on a survey of senior IT decision-makers across medium and large enterprises, highlights a widening disconnect between academic backgrounds and workplace readiness. While a degree is still widely seen as valuable, the specific institution attended is no longer the differentiating factor it once was — particularly in a sector grappling with rapid innovation and a growing digital skills gap.
The report reveals a dual concern among employers: nearly two-thirds (61%) say they face a significant shortage of specific technical skills, up from 41% a year ago, while 31% cite a lack of soft skills, including communication and problem-solving, as a barrier to effective onboarding — up from 25%.
These gaps are being exacerbated by the rise of generative AI and the fast-changing tech landscape, prompting firms to look beyond academic pedigree and prioritise attributes like adaptability, curiosity, and collaboration.
Alex Headley, CEO of mthree, said: “Employers are increasingly focused on what graduates can deliver from day one. As technological change accelerates across every major industry, the ability to source and develop adaptable, job-ready talent is critical.”
“This research reinforces the need for businesses to adopt skills-first hiring models that help close the gap between education and employment.”
mthree’s hire-train-deploy model is designed to address exactly this issue. The firm identifies high-potential graduates from diverse degree backgrounds, provides them with intensive training in both technical and workplace skills, and places them into roles at global companies.
The model ensures new hires are not only equipped to hit the ground running, but also reflect a broader talent pool — helping companies build more inclusive and resilient teams at a time of growing demand.
As the pressure to modernise recruitment intensifies, the findings suggest that the age of hiring by academic brand alone is giving way to a more inclusive, skills-led approach.
Read the full Diversity in Tech report and find out more at mthree.com/diversity-in-tech-report-2024.
Read more:
Top university degrees lose sway as tech employers prioritise job-ready skills