Express Columnist

Esther McVey argues that modern equality, diversity and inclusion policies have damaged British institutions, citing controversy over Jason Arday’s Cambridge appointment, a police investigation into journalist Jack Groves, alleged failures involving anti-racist guidance, the Tavistock Clinic and the Valdo Calocane case. She traces the growth of EDI to New Labour’s Equality Act 2010, the expansion of American corporate diversity management, and later involvement by major accountancy firms and the World Economic Forum. McVey calls for the Equality Act to be radically revised, arguing that Labour will not undertake the change.

The column argues that public frustration with crime and perceived leniency toward offenders is growing, citing support for citizen pickpocket hunter Diego Galdino and approval of El Salvador's harsh CECOT prison despite its human-rights abuses. It criticizes London Mayor Sadiq Khan for opposing Galdino and warns that people may take the law into their own hands or seek revenge when they believe criminals escape consequences. The piece also dismisses polls suggesting young Britons would not defend the country as expressions of temporary frustration, and praises Andy Burnham's sincere and collaborative speech on addressing the social-care crisis, while noting that its funding remains unresolved.

Esther Krakue criticizes Amnesty International for including Edinburgh rape crisis service Beira's Place among 117 organisations allegedly undermining women's and gay rights. She argues that Amnesty has become focused on gender-critical groups while overlooking more serious threats to LGBT people, and praises J. K. Rowling for funding Beira's Place, challenging Amnesty's claims and offering to support other affected organisations legally. The piece also highlights a Charity Commission investigation and questions the charity sector's approach to sex and gender issues.

A High Court ruling dismissing privacy claims brought by Prince Harry and several high-profile figures is framed as a victory for press freedom and a setback for efforts to revive stricter media regulation. The decision is described as exposing the weakness of the allegations against Associated Newspapers, while broader concerns are raised about government proposals to elevate certain broadcasters and potentially reintroduce Leveson-style oversight. The piece warns that political and activist pressure to constrain the press continues despite the courtroom defeat, portraying these efforts as threats to editorial independence and public scrutiny of those in power.