JBMauney

I bought my house without getting a survey

by

In our bi-weekly series, readers can email in with any questions about property to be answered by our expert, Jonathan Rolande. Jonathan is a professional property-buyer and housing commentator who has bought and sold over 1,000 properties. If you have a question for him, email us at money@theipaper.com.

Question: I bought my first house last year without doing a survey. We were in a rush to buy before the stamp duty holiday deadline – as first-time buyers. I know this is not ideal and to be frank it makes me quite stressed thinking about it. Is it worth us getting a survey now retrospectively, or if not, is there anything we should now do?

Answer: In today’s subdued property market, it is easy to forget the frenzy at the end of the stamp duty holiday. Plenty of buyers completed without a survey, not because they were reckless, but because the system was buckling under pressure. Offers were flying in, solicitors were overwhelmed and surveyors were booked up months ahead.

It was an understandable, if not ideal, decision. My advice is simple – don’t panic.

You don’t mention whether you had a mortgage valuation. If you did, even this most basic of “surveys” would highlight anything suspicious. If you bought without any inspection whatsoever, the question now is whether a survey is worth it.

The answer – in some cases, yes.

That’s because a survey is primarily a pre-purchase negotiating tool. It helps you identify defects before exchange so you can renegotiate, request repairs, or simply walk away.

Now you own the house, the seller isn’t coming back to refund you because an issue has arisen or because something that was always there is now in writing, but that doesn’t mean a survey is pointless.

It’s now a health check rather than a deciding factor for a purchase.

If your home is older, unusual, listed, timber-framed, heavily extended, or has not been updated in decades, a Level 2 or Level 3 survey can still be useful. It can help you understand what you have bought, prioritise maintenance and plan spending over the next few years.

If you are seeing cracks that are worsening, damp patches or persistent mould, doors and windows starting to stick, sloping or bouncy floors, roof leaks or staining after rain, heavy condensation problems, unexplained smells, or wiring that looks old or suspect, you shouldn’t ignore it.

If there are warning signs, get the right professional in. That might be a surveyor, but it could just as easily be a structural engineer if you are worried about movement, an electrician or a roofer if the problem is clearly coming from above. The point is to match the inspection to the symptom.

The problem with retrospective surveys is this.

If the house has been broadly fine for a year, and you are mainly driven by hindsight, a full survey can be an unnecessary expense and worry.

Survey reports are cautious by design. Even decent houses produce lines such as “further investigation recommended” or “potential risk of movement”. Read cold, those phrases sound ominous. In reality, they often mean: “I cannot see the full detail, so I am covering myself”.

I have seen buyers panic over historic settlement in Victorian terraces that have stood perfectly well for 150 years.

By all means, instruct a survey; an average cost is around £700. Or, if you want to reduce risk and sleep better at night, consider one of the following:

  • An EICR. If you have not had an electrical installation condition report, book one, particularly for older properties. Electrical faults are one of the few hidden issues that can be genuinely dangerous.
  • Service the boiler annually. Unexciting, but essential.
  • Check the loft
  • Insure well. A top buildings-and-contents package is essential. Home emergencies cover is worth considering.

Look for leaks, damp insulation, daylight through tiles, and signs of pests. Insulation on the underside of tiles is a red flag.

One thing I would not recommend is commissioning every specialist just in case, or starting to open up walls and floors without a clear reason. That route gets expensive quickly and often creates problems that weren’t there in the first place.

Instead, match the inspection to the concern.

Suspect damp? Independent damp surveyor. Worried about movement? Structural engineer. Concerned about the roof? Roofer inspection. Targeted inspections are usually more useful than a generic survey after completion.

When all is said and done, if the house has behaved well, focus on sensible maintenance and targeted checks instead. Home ownership always carries uncertainty. The goal is not to eliminate risk completely, because that is impossible.

Most importantly, houses are resilient. Britain is full of homes built long before modern materials and standards and they’re still standing. Yours probably will be too.

I’m so disappointed in England’s squad to face New Zealand

by

There’s a lot to like about England’s squad for the first Test against New Zealand. But don’t be dazzled by the headline omission of Zak Crawley or the call-ups for uncapped trio Emilio Gay, James Rew and Sonny Baker. This is the same old Bazball.

Crawley was always going to be the sacrificial lamb for England’s sins in Australia last winter once it was confirmed that head coach Brendon McCullum and managing director Rob Key were going to keep their jobs in the wake of the 4-1 Ashes mauling.

After 64 Tests in which he averaged 31, Crawley can have no complaints about being replaced by Gay, whose fine start to the season for Durham has earned him an opening spot alongside Ben Duckett for the first Test that starts at Lord’s on 4 June.

Along with Rew, confirmed as the spare batter in the 15-man squad, and fast bowler Baker, England have made three progressive picks that offer a nod to county cricket and present the impression of a fresh start following that Ashes nightmare Down Under.

Dig a little deeper, though, and you’ll see not that much has changed. That’s because the decision to overlook Sam Cook, the leading English wicket-taker in Division One of this year’s County Championship, is typical of a set-up that still too often picks players more by gut feeling than on-field performances.

CHRISTCHURCH, NEW ZEALAND - OCTOBER 17: Sonny Baker of England bowls during an England Net session at Hagley Oval on October 17, 2025 in Christchurch, New Zealand. (Photo by Joe Allison/Getty Images)
Sonny Baker is seen as a star of the future (Photo: Getty)

That’s not to say recalling Ollie Robinson, who Key confirmed would take the new ball at Lord’s, or taking a punt on Baker, whose inexperience is trumped by the raw pace that marks him out as a star of the future, is wrong. Both deserve their places, as does Josh Tongue, the outstanding English bowler in Australia last winter.

Yet how there is no room for the best county seamer of his generation just weeks after Key promised to place greater weight in terms of selection on domestic performances is a nonsense.

At 28, Cook’s chances of adding to his sole cap earned against Zimbabwe at Trent Bridge last summer are looking slim. Indeed, this looks like a sliding-doors moment. This was his opportunity to be given another chance, especially with Jofra Archer being rested for the first Test against New Zealand.

Gay, Rew, Baker and Robinson have all rightly been rewarded for strong starts to the season. But few have started the summer stronger than Cook, who has 21 wickets at 20.66 for Essex.

Yes, his Test debut against Zimbabwe was poor. Yet it came in a generally poor, injury-hit summer in which Cook only took 16 wickets at 35 for Essex.

Over the previous four summers since the pandemic he took 200 wickets at 16.89. No other English seamer comes close. And given England are struggling for new-ball bowlers, this decision looks even more bizarre.

The days of the Bazball regime picking players on vibes was meant to have been a thing of the past following that wretched Ashes series in Australia.

The rebuild that begins now will ultimately be judged on the result of next summer’s home Ashes. Surely Cook had to be given a chance to be part of that ahead of Matthew Fisher, a game but relatively inexperienced seamer.

Asked why Cook was overlooked, Key told The i Paper: “I spoke to Sam Cook earlier. They’re hard conversations to have because there’s not much more you can say. He’s bowling well, getting wickets. 

“We felt last year after Zimbabwe it wasn’t his best year. Whereas this year he looks back somewhere close to his best. It’s one of those.”

Read more

One of what? Decisions that doesn’t make sense?

Key went on: “He’s in that group of new-ball bowlers with the likes of Matt Potts, Fisher, who was out in Australia as well so we felt it’s his chance. He bowled really well in the last game he played for Surrey… Unfortunately for Sam it’s just keep doing what you’re doing.””

Fisher took six for 144 against Sussex last week, Cook six for 108 against Hampshire – both Division One fixtures.

The argument that McCullum, Key and the rest of the selection panel, including new national selector Marcus North, have created a level playing field for all outstanding county performers following the Ashes debacle has been shown up for what it is – a mirage.

UK airport e-gates open to children aged eight and over to ease summer queues

by

Families returning to the UK with young children this summer could see airport border queue times cut under Government plans to lower the age required to use passport e-gates.

As many as 1.5 million more children will be able to use electronic passport gates at airports like Heathrow, Gatwick, Birmingham and Manchester from July as part of a travel rule change to ease congestion.

For the first time, eight and nine-year olds who are at least 3ft 11in tall and travelling with an adult will be eligible to use the self-service barriers to scan their passports. Currently, they must have their passports checked manually by border officers.

Shorts – Quick stories

The current minimum age is 10, with access for younger children due to start on 8 July ahead of the peak school summer holiday travel season.

There are more than 290 e-gates at 15 airports and ports, including London City, Luton, Bristol, Cardiff, East Midlands, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Stansted and Newcastle, and at British border posts in Brussels and Paris.

British passengers with a biometric symbol on their passport cover can use the e-gates, which are run by the Home Office’s Border Force.

They can also be used by EU nationals or citizens of Australia, Canada, Iceland, Japan, Liechtenstein, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland or the US.

Karen Dee, Chief executive of Airports UK, the trade body for UK airports, said: “This is a welcome development as it will give more families the ability to take advantage of this technology, speeding up the border process and reducing waiting times for many.”

The minimum age for children using e-gates was previously set at 12, before it was cut by two years to 10 in 2023.

Minister for migration and citizenship, Mike Tapp said: “By expanding eGate access, more families can experience a swifter and smoother journey home – freeing up precious time this summer holiday season.”

He added it would help with “keeping our borders safe and secure”. 

It comes after the first UK trials of  facial comparison technology at Manchester Airport, as part of a move towards a “contactless” border that will remove the need to present a passport.

The Home Office said using an e-gate usually takes just minutes and that expanding access to younger children will speed up airport waiting times.

In 2024, travellers faced lengthy delays at airports across the UK due to a technical issue which hit e-gate passport checks.

More than 270 e-gates failed, leaving staff to manually process arriving passengers at major hubs, with the chaos blamed on problems within the Home Office network.

Last year, Sir Keir Starmer announced a deal with the EU to end long queues at passport control by allowing British nationals to use e-gates in Europe.

But most airports are still not allowing British nationals to scan their passports at e-gates, although Alicante in Spain, Lisbon and Faro in Portugal, and Rome Fiumicino in Italy are among those that do.

E-gates are separate to the new Entry-Exit System (EES) checks, which require non-EU nationals to have facial photos and fingerprint scans taken at European airports.

EES has led to delays of several hours at some airports, with warnings of potential chaos as millions of holidaymakers head to the continent this summer.

There have been calls for the checks, which will replace manual passport stamping, to be suspended, with Greece announcing last month it was axing EES for British nationals.

The European Commission insists the system, which tracks non-EU nationals to make sure they don’t stay more than 90 days in any 180-day period in Schengen countries, has been working “very well” in the “overwhelming majority” of member states since its full launch on 10 April.

But ACI Europe, a body representing over 600 airports, warned this month passengers were facing delays of up to three hours during peak travel periods and said “major concerns are now a reality”, with some passengers missing flights due to prolonged border processing times.

Eurovision is broken – this is how to fix it

by

Even the Eurovision Song Contest’s wilfully ignorant organisers couldn’t deny that the vibes of Tuesday’s first-semi final were distinctly off. And not just because of hosts Austria’s torturous “comedy’” interval. Israel’s continued participation amid the country’s long-running conflict with Palestine, of course, famously caused the biggest boycott in the event’s 70-year history last December. And despite producers’ best efforts, there were several reminders of how the competition designed to bring Europe together had instead torn it apart.

The performance from Israel’s contestant Noah Bettan, for example, was briefly overshadowed by the protestors shouting “Free Palestine! Stop the genocide!” The regular references to the downsized “Big Four” brought home how Spain, alongside the Netherlands, Iceland, Ireland and Slovenia, were no longer in attendance. And there was a notable drop in the quality of entries, suggesting a smaller-than-usual pool of songwriters/artists were willing to put their heads above the parapet in such a controversial year.

Many of the longtime fans who gave Tuesday’s underwhelming semi a miss – the BBC’s ratings were down 0.3 million – would claim the contest is now already ruined beyond repair. Nevertheless, here’s a look at five potential ways in which the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) can claw back at least a few respectability points on the scoreboard.

Vote on Israel

Okay, so it would be naive to think it would actually change anything. After all, the EBU stated that by agreeing to the other rule changes implemented at last December’s crisis meeting in Geneva, each broadcaster was essentially also approving of Israel’s participation, too. Still, at least an official vote would be a more transparent and, contrary to EBU president Delphine Ernotte Cunci’s bizarre logic, the most diplomatic way of deciding the country’s Eurovision fate.

The organisation had initially vowed to stage one in a September letter addressed to members in which they admitted to having “never faced a divisive situation like this before”. But a new political ceasefire agreement soon after allowed them to push the thorny matter aside and eventually ignore it altogether. Furthermore, a study of broadcasters’ opinions on Israel’s involvement was commissioned yet never released in full. It’s little wonder, therefore, that the EBU are deemed as both overly secretive and completely toothless.

ATHENS - MAY 18: Monster rocker Lordi of Finland performs at the semi-finals of the 2006 Eurovision Song Contest May 18, 2006 in Athens, Greece. (Photo by Sean Gallup/Getty Images)
Lordi of Finland performs at the semi-finals of the 2006 Eurovision Song Contest in Athens (Photo: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

Further limit phone votes

The EBU did, however, issue a new rule that has reduced the number of paid phone votes per person from 20 to 10. But a recent New York Times investigation into the figures behind 2025’s contest proves even this number is open to manipulation.

An analysis of Spain’s votes, for example, showed Israel received 47,570 and a 33.3 percent share, a result massively at odds with the country’s general pro-Palestine stance. Second-placed Ukraine, meanwhile, racked up 9,620 votes, meaning Israel only needed approximately 500 supporters voting 20 times to finish first, and only 1,000 using the new system. Considering their concerted promotional methods, these are clearly achievable numbers. In fact, several diaspora groups, including With Israel for Peace, have confirmed such tactics.

Of course, the EBU are unlikely to change anything that will impact profits and they’re continuing to insist that with 10 chances to vote, they’re simply allowing the love to be spread around. But in a 25-strong final – and two semi-finals of just 15 – rewarding nearly half or more than half of all entrants makes a mockery of the whole competition. Shouldn’t the winner be based on how many individuals vote, rather than how many hardcore fans?

Ukranian Verka Serduchka sings "Dancing Lasha Tumbai" during the final of the Eurovision Song Contest 2007 final in Helsinki, Finland, 12 May 2007. Serbia, Ukraine and Belarus top bookies' list of favourites for tonight's contest as acts from 24 countries strut their stuff tonight at the Hartwall Areena in front of 12,000 spectators and up to 100 million television viewers across Europe, vying for their votes in the kitsch glamour contest created in 1956. Swedish superstars ABBA made their international breakthrough after winning in 1974 with the hit Waterloo, Italian Toto Cutugno won in 1990, and pop diva Celine Dion won in 1988. AFP PHOTO - SVEN NACKSTRAND (Photo by SVEN NACKSTRAND / AFP) (Photo by SVEN NACKSTRAND/AFP via Getty Images)
Ukranian Verka Serduchka sings ‘Dancing Lasha Tumbai’ during the 2007 Eurovision final in Helsinki, Finland (Photo: Sven Nackstrand/AFP)

Punish rule-breakers

The EBU also promised to “discourage disproportionate promotions,” during their Geneva summit, another rule change believed to have been enacted because of Israel. According to The New York Times, the country’s government began splashing the cash on marketing in 2018 – $100,000 to be precise – the year when Netta’s “Toy” stormed to victory. They upped this figure to $800,000 in 2024 and then a colossal $1 million in 2025, undoubtedly with the mindset that a strong Eurovision showing would represent a strong European support.

Although he insisted the seven-figure sum didn’t play a part in Yuval Raphael’s “New Day Will Rise” finishing runner-up, Eurovision director Martin Green acknowledged it was excessive. And the EBU subsequently vowed to crack down on such campaigns.

Once again, the organisation has failed to deliver. Only last week, Israel’s public broadcaster Kan and Bettan encouraged audiences across Europe to vote 10 times for their entry “Michelle” with online promos in multiple languages, a clear breach of the new rules. Instead of any notable penalty, though, they were punished by nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

Drop the message

Coined by the BBC, “United by Music” was the perfect sentiment for the 2023 contest in which all competitors expressed solidarity with the war-torn Ukraine. Less so when Eurovision itself adopted the slogan for the following year, when the joy and camaraderie was replaced by tension, toxicity and so much trauma that multiple acts ended up requiring therapy. And the ongoing controversy surrounding Israel’s inclusion ensured 2025 was similarly fraught, too.

Tuesday’s hosts Victoria Swarovski and Michael Ostrowski were obviously ordered to keep spreading the message that harmony could be achieved with a little bit of Serbian emo-rock or Swedish techno-pop. Even they looked thoroughly unconvinced. The contest has been irrevocably tarnished by its determination to stay apolitical at all costs. So, let’s stop the patronising pretense that deep down, Eurovision is one big happy family.

1st February 1958: Sicilian composer and singer Domenico Modugno performing at the eighth Italian Song Festival, held in the casino of San Remo. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)
Sicilian composer and singer Domenico Modugno performing at the eighth Italian Song Festival, in 1958 (Photo: Keystone/Getty Images)

Consider downsizing

The first semi-final also highlighted several issues on a creative level. A worrying reliance on AI, underwhelming postcard sequences and further proof that only Sweden and the UK can make Eurovision skits funny (seriously, the quiz show was the kind of filler you’d expect from a local radio show, not one of the world’s biggest entertainment spectacles).

Yet the most glaring problem, like many Eurovisions of the recent past, was the venue. The staging often appeared to dwarf the performers, with many either unwilling (San Marino) or struggling (see poor Georgia) to utilise the oversized runway.

And despite getting rid of the anti-booing technology that’s been deployed in recent years, the atmosphere still felt muted. No-one’s clamouring for a return to the likes of the Harrogate International Centre, but bigger doesn’t always mean better. We still want to see Finnish violinists performing atop burning chairs and hyperactive Greeks dancing with knitting grannies.

But perhaps the Eurovision Song Contest could, just maybe, go back to focusing a little bit more on the song.

I’ve gifted over £500,000 to my six children so they can avoid £1m inheritance tax

by

When he dies, Jeremy Stern believes his family could face an inheritance tax (IHT) bill exceeding £1m.

The 65-year-old Londoner, who still works four days a week in marketing, is married and has six children – three of his own and three stepchildren.

To spare them not only a substantial tax burden but also additional stress during an already difficult time, he has been gradually gifting away his wealth in an effort to reduce the amount liable for what is often described as Britain’s most unpopular tax.

Giving gifts during your lifetime is one of the simplest ways to bring down the value of your estate so it falls within the tax-free allowances.

So far, Jeremy has passed more than £500,000 onto his children with guidance from a financial adviser.

Speaking to The i Paper, he said: “I have helped all of my kids get on the property ladder. In fact, I now own and rent out a flat in Brighton that my daughter lived in whilst at university.

“But I have always tried to make them get what they wanted first, themselves, and I only helped out with that final bit that might have been just out of reach.

“Gifting should not stop them from striving. But when one of them gets divorced or is a single mum living in Australia, helping becomes natural. I would not feel good enjoying myself, whilst my kids were sweating about grocery bills or rent.”

The same applies to charitable gifting, he said, which was instilled in him by his parents. He has over a dozen monthly subscriptions to charities and gives on an ad hoc basis to many more.

What are the rules on gifting money to your children?

If on death your estate is worth more than the £325,000 tax-free allowance – the nil-rate band – anything above this threshold will be subject to IHT, charged at 40 per cent.

If your home is included in your estate and a direct descendant inherits it, your tax-free allowance will be £500,000 because of the £175,000 residence nil-rate band.

Married couples can get a combined allowance of up to £1m but if your estate exceeds this, there could be tax to pay. The £175,000 extra allowance for your home only applies if the estate is worth less than £2m. On estates worth more than this, the allowance will decrease by £1 for every £2 above £2m that the estate is worth.

There are several ways you can give tax-free, including:

  • Annual gift allowance – a £3,000 annual IHT exemption for gifts to use during your lifetime. Sums up to this cap will not be included when IHT is calculated. You can carry forward any unused allowance and there is also a £250 small gifts allowance per tax year.
  • Wedding or civil partnership gifts – you can give up to £5,000 to a child or £2,500 to a grandchild for a wedding each tax year. This can be combined with the standard £3,000 annual allowance if it is all for the same person, but you can’t combine it with the small gifts allowance.
  • Seven-year rule – gifts of any value made seven years or more before death will not be considered part of your estate and will be in no danger of IHT.
  • Gifting out of surplus income – this allows any taxpayer to give away unlimited sums of money without getting caught by IHT. If you have income left after covering your usual living expenses, you can gift this to family or friends without it counting towards your estate for IHT purposes.
  • Trusts – setting up a trust allows you to give away money without relinquishing all control. Money put into a trust falls out of your estate for IHT after seven years. But a 20 per cent tax charge may apply when setting up a trust with money that exceeds the IHT nil-rate band – £325,000 per person.

Jeremy, who lives in a four-bed house with no mortgage costs, takes a blended approach when deciding how much to gift each child. They get equal amounts initially but then additional top-ups for specific needs.

He added: “We give a base level each year equally and then top it up based on individual circumstances, for example, if one is pregnant and their income has dropped, or another is moving house.

“But these variations are recorded, and in the final reckoning, via our will, they will be factored into the final distribution, post our deaths, so that they will all then [have received] equal amounts.”

He hasn’t gifted directly to his wife, he said, but he has funded her pension.

Despite the large amount of gifting he has done, he has managed to build a large private pension worth £750,000 that will “sustain” him in later life. He said it is spread across several investments to spread the risk and maximise the gain.

But he is “very disappointed” about the move to include unused pensions in the IHT net from April 2027.

Jeremy said: “IHT is bad enough. We were taxed on it initially and then if we haven’t actually spent it on death, we are taxed again.

“Income tax is 40 per cent for high taxpayers, so if you earn £100,000 – which is above the threshold – you might only keep £60,000 of it.

“Assuming you saved all of it – above the £325,000 threshold – and then died, there would be a further tax of 40 per cent on those savings.”

Jeremy said he will continue gifting and working, but plans to halve his hours next year and perhaps take a non-executive role in his company from 2028.

I had doubts about my husband from the start

by

Divorce, once rare and stigmatised, has become mainstream – 42 per cent of marriages now end this way, meaning nearly half of us who get married can expect to experience it in our lifetime. Just as every marriage is different, so is every divorce. In this column, divorcees reflect on their life-changing experience. Helped by the benefit of hindsight, they’ll share advice and reflections.

My ex-husband and I met through work: we were both doctors in an emergency department. We worked long hours in an incredibly stressful environment, and the opportunity to meet anyone outside of that world is very limited.

I was 28 at the time, and he was 39 – 11 years older than me. In hindsight, I was definitely on the rebound when I met him. I’d been in a long-term relationship with my university boyfriend. I had fully expected we’d get married and start a family together. So, when he announced out the blue one day that he wasn’t up for that anymore, I was shellshocked.

I felt adrift, and then along came this older guy who was in the same head space as me. He had a child from a previous relationship (though had never married), so I thought I knew he was good father material. We jumped straight into a serious, committed relationship. We moved in together after three months, and got engaged within nine months – I think we were both very much in love with the idea of settling down, more than we were with each other.

We had a long engagement, and it was over that couple of years I slowly came to the realisation that he was an alcoholic. He was in complete denial about it. In a way, I was too. I’ve always been an over-achiever, and felt like this was something I just had to fix. I should have taken the chance to walk away, but a combination of societal expectations, family pressures and my own insecurities made me feel too ashamed to do it. I didn’t tell anyone about his drinking or my doubts around the relationship.

Coming from an Asian immigrant background, my family was very much against divorce. Anyone who was divorced was regarded with pity and shame, and with this, I worried being in my thirties meant it was too late to start over again. I was so desperate to have a family, I was willing to ignore the problems.

I convinced myself into believing that things weren’t so bad. He was a high-functioning alcoholic, and never mixed drinking with his work. We’d have stretches of time when he’d be fine, and wouldn’t touch a drink for weeks. He could be a great partner and a wonderful father.

A couple of years into our marriage, we welcomed our first child, and this initially improved things – he promised me he wouldn’t carry on drinking once the baby arrived. We had our second child two years later, but it was clear he hadn’t changed at all.

There were some awful incidents – he split his head open once on a work night out, and ended up discharging himself from hospital as it was his workplace. When he got home, I had to suture his head myself.

There was an incident where he strangled me, and I went to his parents for help – only to have it brushed off and minimised. In the end, I was on tenterhooks all the time; I never knew where he was or what kind of state he’d be in when he got home.

Seven years into our marriage, I went to a conference for work on domestic abuse. It hit me that I was in an abusive relationship. I confided in a colleague about it, and she pointed out to me that he was, in fact, making a choice to behave in certain ways. He controlled his drinking when he needed to work, but chose not to around me. I finally realised that none of it was my fault.

The final straw was when he went on a three day bender at a music festival and I was unable to contact him. He’d gone alone, so I had no idea if he was alive, or lying somewhere in a ditch. When he eventually returned home, I was livid. We had a tussle over a bottle of vodka, and I managed to pour it all away. He exploded, smashed the bottle and threatened me with it.

I was terrified, and called the police. He was arrested and taken into custody. I still didn’t end the marriage – I still felt so much shame, especially around the abuse. He was the one who suggested we have a trial separation.

The children were five and three when we split up. Once we’d separated and had some space from the situation, I quickly became so, so angry. I remember completing the divorce form and writing down all the incidents that had occurred over the years, and his response was that I’d been a bit harsh on him – he still took no accountability for his behaviour.

We settled everything out of court, and we share custody of the children 50/50. I found this really tough in the beginning; I was constantly anxious that he was going to do something stupid or neglectful due to his drinking, and I tried to involve social services, but honestly, they didn’t seem to care. It was as though we weren’t troubled enough to meet their threshold.

Now that the children are a little older and can advocate for themselves I find it easier to let them see him, but it’s still difficult. My eldest doesn’t trust him as he’s let them down so many times. Both of the kids have considered cutting contact with him, but are too mindful of his feelings to follow through. He is still drinking. While things are mostly fine between us now, he has had some significant alcohol-related health problems. He has a new partner, and to be honest, I’m just happy that there’s someone responsible in my children’s lives.

I was so guilty and worried about what this would do to our children, but they have been fine. I was pretty much already solo parenting most of the time anyway, so it wasn’t a hugely difficult transition when he was no longer at home. Ironically, the kids were completely fine, and didn’t really bat an eyelid about the divorce.

Surprisingly, my parents were also incredibly supportive – especially my mum, who was clearly relieved that the relationship was over. I think she recognised herself in me: my parents probably should have split up, but the stigma and shame was too much for them, in their generation, and she had no financial independence.

I’ve since remarried and had another child with my new husband and our marriage is so different. I’ve learned how to communicate my wants and needs to another person for the first time, and I’m so much better at being open and honest now.

Having been through it, and coming out the other side, I’m now in a place where I can confidently say to my friends who are going through the divorce process that they will be fine – it’s the best thing I’ve ever done.

Britain’s most important spies are uniquely vulnerable to Trump

by

Are we ready for war? Welcome to The i Paper’s opinion series in which our writers tackle a question that, until recently, few had thought to consider.

• Britain is closer to nuclear war than you think. This is how it will unfold
• This generation of Britons couldn’t handle the death toll of a modern war
• Russia is aiming to control the UK. It would tear society apart
• Britain’s tanks would be eviscerated in a war with Russia. Here’s how to fix them
• The UK’s plan for civilians in a war is terrifying – you’re on your own
• World War 3 is closer than you think. And still Britain is half asleep
• The cascading catastrophe that would push our military to breaking point

Donald Trump’s second turn as president has turbo-charged worries for states who see themselves as America’s natural allies. While much has been said about Nato, less has been said about Trump’s impact on a more secret partnership: intelligence-sharing between the US and Britain under the UK-USA agreement, much better known as Five Eyes.

The partnership’s closeness is eyed jealously by other US allies, hence periodic stories about which country – Japan, perhaps – might aspire to be the sixth pair of eyes. The exceptional nature of the partnership, stitched together by a culture of eighty years of inter-organisational collaboration, makes it difficult to imagine it adding new members. The upheaval of Trump’s second term poses a sharply different question: could the partnership break down?

The deep organisational ties that breathe life into the partnership are not immune from politics. With the Mueller Report and furore about Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, it isn’t a mystery why the Trump administration has a more adversarial relationship with America’s “deep state” than previous presidencies. Unlike during his more constrained first term, this time Trump has moved early to exert his control over the intelligence community, selecting senior leaders less on competence than perceived personal loyalty and shared scepticism about the status quo.

But US political controversies about intelligence powers clearly did not begin with Trump. There is FISA Section 702, which authorises the interception of foreign communications but has caused long-running controversies over its reported misuse to search the data of US citizens.

There have been tensions within Five Eyes before. Where the US and UK disagree, it isn’t unheard of for this to have an impact on specific lines of intelligence sharing – such as reported UK reaction to Trump’s campaign to sink alleged drug boats in the Caribbean. Similarly, Henry Kissinger wanted to disrupt intelligence sharing with Britain when the Nixon and Heath governments were at odds in 1973 – arguably a more challenging time for Five Eyes than anything Starmer has yet faced with Trump. And the obvious point is that, while both countries can withhold information from each other, the relationship is one-sided: today the total UK intelligence budget is around five per cent of the US budget. The UK stands to lose much more if the US were to expand and prolong such cut offs.

Trump’s foreign policy highlights a trivial but important truth: nothing is guaranteed to last forever. The inter-institutional ties between Britain’s GCHQ and the US National Security Agency (NSA) are arguably deeper than any other collaboration in intelligence history. But they depend on a shared strategic outlook. Developments in US politics – developments that will outlast Trump himself – could lead to the US and UK drifting further apart. An America less committed to European security would call into doubt the sense of common purpose behind the partnership.

The Five Eyes partnership is not a grounded in a treaty. There is a lot that any given president could do, unilaterally, that would undermine it. But equally, a partnership that has endured for so long is not something that any of the national intelligence communities would give up on lightly. For the UK and other non-US members, “Plan A” will inevitably be how to survive the Trump storm any way they can.

The nightmare scenario rests on the fact that there is very little, in theory, that could stop Trump from suspending any partner’s continued participation – if he was sufficiently angry (and he does get angry) and sufficiently persistent (a less obvious character trait). If history is a reliable guide, expect pushback from within the US intelligence community. But, given Trump’s willingness to reshape the federal government to do his bidding, it is by no means certain that “deep state” resistance would stop him.

Could Britain cope with a possible future in which it had to go without US intelligence-sharing? Yes, but not without real loss. US intelligence spending dwarfs all the other partners combined. A rump Four Eyes could carve out a smaller partnership, but would each need to spend more to achieve less. Fewer geographical missions and patchier coverage would be the reality. It is easy to imagine how Britain might adjust, focusing more narrowly on its top priorities, and by pursuing narrower collaborations with European allies. But any solution that involved spending more would inevitably be a smaller version of the current political debates about how to pay for more defence spending.

Britain could survive without Five Eyes, but the new normal would be more constrained than ever. The example of France is instructive: middle powers can pursue their core interests without such a close relationship with the United States. But France’s greater commitment to Europe also points to the reality that middle powers will always need allies.

Britain benefits much more from the existing partnership than the United States. That’s ultimately not a healthy position to be in. One way of improving its chances of surviving the Trump storm is to demonstrably increase the UK contribution to the partnership. The more Britain brings to the table, in theory at least, the more secure it will be.

I hid the fact I had children in job interviews

by

When author and mother-of-two Davina Quinlivan was interviewing for new roles online five years ago, she would hide all evidence of her two children, moving Mother’s Day cards, their artwork and stray Pokemon cards.

Quinlivan, author of recently published Possessions: A Memoir of Transformation in an Era of Precarity, felt she needed to give each interview “the best shot” and couldn’t take the risk of motherhood “impacting me, even a small amount”. As an academic who has spent much of her career teaching feminist theory, she found it deeply conflicting.

“It’s a difficult feeling, because why would I do that? It’s so painful to pretend to vanish [my children] away. Yet I know on some unconscious level that people interviewing are thinking: ‘Well, if this child is unwell, our teaching schedule goes down.’ Of course, there is support for working carers, but you have to jump through the hoops of getting the job in the first place,” she explains. “I wanted to give myself opportunities. I don’t think there were vast numbers of mums being interviewed for these jobs, and I knew who would get those jobs in the end – and they weren’t mums.”

She’s one of an increasing number of women who have felt the need to hide motherhood during job interviews. Peanut, the world’s largest community app for mums, ran a poll exclusively for The i Paper and found that the majority of mothers – 60 per cent – don’t mention caring responsibilities during job interviews, while six per cent actively hide any trace of motherhood until they are offered a role. This compares with 34 per cent of mums who actively mention their children in interviews, the poll of 580 mothers found. “We’re seeing more mothers concealing their children from interviewers, which underscores the need for our working culture to catch up. When honesty becomes a hiring risk, the problem isn’t with the candidate – it’s with the system,” Michelle Kennedy, CEO of Peanut, believes.

You might think caring responsibilities should never be discussed in a job interview. But research consistently shows that men can actually experience a “fatherhood premium” – where having children actually increases their chances of getting hired. In one study, professor Stephen Benard at Indiana University sent identical fictionalised CVs to companies from female and male job “candidates”, some mentioning their volunteer work for the Parents Teacher Association. Fathers received a slightly higher callback rate than childless men, while employers were 100 per cent less likely to call back mothers than childless women.

Lana Phillips, who works in marketing, says a job interview went ‘sour’ once the employer learned she had young children

Lana Phillips, a marketing assistant from Derby with two children, aged six and four, learnt to hide motherhood after a job interview went wrong. “My children were three and one at the time. The interview was going well and it came up naturally that I had kids. The head of operations asked how old they were. When I told her, she replied, ‘They need their mummy at home with them at this stage.’ Then explained she stayed at home with her three children until they were school age. I was already back at work. I found it especially shocking that a woman was making this judgment. The interview went sour and ended five minutes later. I received an email saying I hadn’t got the job,” she remembers.

Since then, she has avoided mentioning her children in interviews. “Then, if I’m turned down, I know it’s because of me, not because I have children,” she says. She is relieved her employer is supportive and offers flexibility if she wants to watch a school show.

Discrimination against mothers is something that charity Pregnant Then Screwed has been campaigning against for a decade. CEO Rachel Grocott says: “The reality is that many bosses still see motherhood as a burden to business. Women have faced this discrimination for decades – from assumptions they might become parents, to the belief they ‘won’t come back’ from maternity leave, to the stereotype that mothers are less passionate, less talented and less productive. Anyone experiencing it should seek advice on their rights and protections. Mothers are some of the most talented, productive employees and when you discriminate or push them out, you pay the cultural and financial price as parents move to employers who support them. That’s the economic truth.”

Joeli Brearley, founder of Growth Spurt which gives advice to women returning to work after becoming parents, says: “I spoke to a recruitment consultant who was told by 80 per cent of his clients not to put forward women with children under the age of five. We are seeing pregnancy and maternity discrimination rising year on year. When the economy gets tricky, people feel uncomfortable and revert back to old biases,” she explains. “Things are taking a step backwards but we have a government that is making positive changes with the Employment Rights Act last year and the Parental Leave review currently underway.”

Many mothers have experienced “ghosting” from recruiters. Florence, who has three children under five, recently started interviewing. “I have multiple childcare options, from nursery to family living closeby,” she explains. “I had one recruiter contact me saying I was a perfect fit for a role. They were really positive until I mentioned children, when he asked how I’d manage work and my childcare responsibilities. I never heard from him again.”

Brearley says in a job interview it’s not illegal to ask a candidate if they are a parent, but it is illegal if an employer acts on that information. “We cannot prove that is the reason for discriminating, though,” she says. “More often than not, interviewers ask subtle questions about candidates’ personal lives, such as: ‘How do you manage your personal life alongside work?’ How to react to this depends on where you are in your career; we know that bias exists. For the majority of people, it is better to wait until you are offered a job to ask for flexible working or mention children, then you can prove discrimination. But if you’re very senior, have privilege [to choose your role] and power, then ask the questions you want.”

She says this is the opposite for men: mentioning children in an interview – as long as there is no request for flexible working – boosts their chance of success as they are seen as “responsible and better employees”. Fathers are perceived as five percentage points more committed than childless men at work, according to research by Harvard Kennedy School, while mothers are seen as 12 percentage points less committed than non-mothers.

Sophie Catto, managing director of AllBright everywoman, which supports development of women in leadership roles, and whose children are seven and five, says: “No woman should ever feel she has to hide being a mother in a job interview. There is no lack of ambition in women who are mothers. Motherhood builds skills from prioritisation and decision-making under pressure to resilience, adaptability and problem solving. It strengthens emotional intelligence, empathy and communication, while also sharpening efficiency and the ability to manage competing demands. When businesses recognise and value this, it has a direct impact on confidence, progression and retention, something we have positively experienced in our office.

“I recommend training for line managers who aren’t parents and an open calendar policy from business leaders: I have sports days and parents evenings in my diary and this inspires others to do the same. When working flexibly feels normal and doesn’t come with a hidden career trade-off, we see stronger retention, deeper engagement and more sustainable long-term progression.”

Quinlivan, whose children are now 13 and 10, found the experience of “vanishing” her children so painful that she will never do it again. “It seemed impossible [at that time] to think I had choice. But I did: by giving myself the tools so that I could make my own work,” she says. She’s built her self-employed creative career over the past four years, while remaining in academia running an online course with the University of Bristol and holding a Research Fellowship.

“Luckily, I’ve been treated brilliantly – sometimes my children come along and sit at the back in seminars. I now display motherhood in a way that makes it easier [for employers] to understand how my skills are immensely important and translatable to any kind of professional life. Anyone who is a carer knows the amount of creative power, care, love and challenge that goes into raising a human. I bring all those skills to the workplace.”

The lost Morecambe & Wise episode will delight fans

by

The BBC’s thrifty but short-sighted 1960s habit of scrubbing shows to reuse videotape has spurned a modern hobby of television archaeology. Doctor Who fans have benefitted from these telly detectorists, while several episodes of The Morecambe and Wise Show have also resurfaced in recent years, including now this black-and-white offering from September 1968.

It should delight fans of the beloved comedy duo, Ernie Wise being the straight man and butt of many of Eric Morecambe’s jokes and jibes – including the idea that Ernie had “short, fat, hairy legs” and wore a wig (“You can’t see the join”). Among their popular catchphrases was to ask the audience, “What do you think of the show so far?”, to which the ritual reply was “Rubbish!”. And of course there was their trademark song, “Bring me sunshine”, which they inevitably did with a peerless patter honed on the variety show circuit.

The Morecambe & Wise Show, Series 8, Episode 4, and it was originally broadcast on BBC One in October 1974. tape player episode https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLa7xVAC7Yo
The episode is from the first series that the duo made for the BBC after moving from ITV, and is the last series written by Dick Hills and Sid Green (Photo: BBC)

The newly unearthed 25-minute episode was discovered in the estate of a deceased television professional, and while the show is very much of its time – the springtime of the so-called permissive society – there’s nothing here to get Eric and Ernie retrospectively cancelled. The only people baring skin in a sketch about a nudist camp, for example, are Morecambe and Wise themselves. In fact, the most shocking sight to modern audiences who have grown used to the spray-tanned, gym-sculpted bods of Love Islanders might be Eric’s formless, dough-pale torso.

Also of its time is Eric smoking cigarettes on-screen – a habit he was to give up just two months after filming this, following a near-fatal heart attack. This newly discovered episode is being shown on what would have been his 100th birthday, a third heart attack in 1984 carrying him away at the tender age of 58.

The episode is from the first series that the duo made for the BBC after moving from ITV. It was also the last series written by Dick Hills and Sid Green, before the great Eddie Braben took over and transformed their act into the ratings colossus whose 1970s Christmas specials would become legendary.

It was Braben who introduced the song-and-dance numbers, Ernie’s literary pretensions and having the duo share a bed (something Eric famously baulked at until it was pointed out that Laurel and Hardy had a similar nocturnal arrangement).

Morecambe and Wise Table Football. The sketch originally aired in the 1976 Christmas Show. In the scene, Eric Morecambe and Ernie Wise play game pieces from a tabletop football gam https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1425880130778683
Crucially the episode is funny despite missing the colour and glitz of those more polished 70s series (Photo: BBC)

In this pre-Braben episode, Eric and Ernie are playing to the studio audience, whereas later, Eric would make his trademark grin and wiggle his glasses at the camera. The duo’s music hall roots are also evident in an extended introductory sketch where Eric gives Ernie detailed (and inevitably misleading) directions for driving to his home in Harpenden. It may be nearly eight minutes long, but their comedic patter doesn’t drag for a second.

And crucially, the episode is funny despite missing the colour and glitz of those more polished 70s series. Rather more underpowered (but interesting from a cultural history point of view) are the musical guests. Whereas the likes of Elton John, Shirley Bassey, Tom Jones and (of course) André Previn would appear in the later series, here we had The Paper Dolls – a long-forgotten British female trio in miniskirts and Twiggy-style baby-doll false eyelashes. Trio Athenée were meanwhile a cheery, equally long-forgotten guitar-playing Greek threesome who sang in French, like a Fast Show pastiche of Eurovision.

The final sketch returned to the era’s delight in exposing flesh for the first time since the Victorians clamped down on bare skin. This featured Jenny-Lee Wright, a future regular on The Benny Hill Show, as a ‘balloon dancer’ (a naked entertainer who would retain their modesty with a cunning placement of balloons), who is also supposed to be Eric’s niece. But if that sounds icky on paper, the sketch is pretty innocent and with none of the leering male gaze of Benny Hill’s series.

The BBC obviously had little confidence in this early iteration of The Morecambe and Wise Show, plonking it on BBC Two, and only moving it to the more popular channel in 1971. Six years later, their Christmas specials would attract 21 million viewers. But those specials have been so endlessly repeated (not least on BBC Four), it’s a treat to have some fresh material.

The new episode of The Morecambe and Wise Show will be broadcast on BBC Four and available on iPlayer at 8pm on Thursday 14 May

Ex-Special Forces colonel tipped for PM claimed £36,000 from taxpayer for PR and comms

by

An ex-Special Forces colonel tipped as a future prime minister has claimed almost £36,000 in taxpayer money for communications and PR services since he was elected in 2024 — more than all other ministers combined.

Al Carns, the Armed Forces minister who has been talked up as a possible candidate in any future Labour leadership race, has filmed a string of promotional videos showing off his constituency work, including one of himself in a pull-ups competition with a local firefighter.

The MP for Birmingham Selly Oak claimed £20,900 for communications and media expenses in 2024-25 and £14,900 in 2025-26, according to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa).

Shorts – Quick stories

According to The i Paper‘s analysis, his spending on communications is the second highest of any MP in the country — and is far ahead of his ministerial colleagues at all levels of Government.

A former Royal Marine colonel who served multiple tours in Afghanistan, Carns is understood to have commanded the Special Boat Service — the Special Forces unit of the Royal Navy — though he has neither confirmed nor denied this.

He was awarded an OBE in 2022, and since entering Parliament, he has climbed Everest in five days without acclimatising on the mountain and undertaken reserve training with British Commando Forces in the Arctic.

Within Westminster, Carns’s profile is rising fast, and there has been increasing speculation over whether or not he could run for the Labour leadership if a race was triggered. He penned a 1,000-word piece for The New Statesman, published on Wednesday, titled: “How Labour can win again”. Carns argued that “too many people in this country work hard and still feel like they’re losing”.

“Working-class voters have not simply left Labour,” he wrote. “Many feel Labour stopped understanding their lives, and so they looked elsewhere.”

Pictured: Minister for the Armed Forces, Alistair Carns OBE MC MP using a Oversnow Reconnaissance Vehicle (ORV) in Norway The UK Minister for the Armed Forces Alistair (Al) Carns OBE MC MP, met up with 30 Commando?s Surveillance Reconnaissance Squadron (SRS). A Colonel in the Royal Marines Reserve, he took part in ice climbing, cross-country skiing and drove an Over Snow Reconnaissance Vehicle (OSRV). The Surveillance and Reconnaissance Squadron (SRS) is an elite Royal Marines unit within the 30 Commando Information Exploitation Group; they act as the
The former colonel has undertaken military training in the Arctic recently (Photo: MoD)

Reports in The Times previously suggested Carns has been in conversation with Angela Rayner about defence policy, with one ally touting him as a potential “defence or foreign [secretary]”.

Speaking to The i Paper, allies described him as a potential “antidote to Reform” and one of the few frontbenchers capable of reconnecting with “Red Wall” voters.

‘Constituency engagement, not personal promoton’

Carns told The i Paper the claims were “made in full compliance with Ipsa rules” and that the work related to constituency engagement rather than personal promotion.

A series of professionally produced constituency films — funded through his Ipsa expenses — have included a pull-up challenge with firefighters at Kings Norton Fire Station, and a visit to a local brewery where he discussed the importance of Government support for small businesses.

It is not unusual for MPs to use their Ipsa allowance to fund independent contractors who do communications and constituency engagement work.

The allowance exists to help members communicate with constituents, independently of their ministerial or party political roles — unlike government communications budgets, which are funded separately and used for official announcements and policy campaigns.

But the scale of Carns’s spending goes significantly beyond what his colleagues are doing. In 2024-25, every other minister on the Ipsa register — spanning Cabinet and junior ministerial level — combined spent £24,600 on communications and media, only £3,700 more than Carns claimed alone.

Minister for Veterans and People, Al Carns speaking to cadets as he launches the '30-by-30' Cadet campaign during a visit to the National Air & Space Camp 2025, the RAF Air Cadets' flagship training event at RAF Syerston in Newark. Picture date: Wednesday August 20, 2025. PA Photo. Photo credit should read: Jacob King/PA Wire
Carns was appointed as a defence minister shortly after the 2024 general election (Photo: Jacob King/PA)

In 2025-26, he spent more than all six other ministers who made claims for communications work combined, who together claimed £9,600. The average MP claims around £4,251 a year.

Of the ministers who claimed for communications and media expenses in 2024-25, five claimed less than £2,000 for the entire year, less than Carns spent in a single month.

Since April 2024, his claims for communications and media expenses have been the second-highest of any MP, coming behind independent MP Rupert Lowe, who claimed around £39,200 over the same period.

Carns’s spending funded a monthly fee paid to a Birmingham-based PR specialist and a series of professionally produced constituency short films made with a videographer, who was paid around £4,000.

The films — at least 24 in total across 22 months — covered visits to local businesses, community hubs, a hospital liver care unit, a fire station and a school democracy day.

The PR specialist’s past clients include an internationally renowned ballet company, a Michelin-starred restaurant and multiple arts organisations.

Carns said the majority of her work related to “day-to-day constituency office support, including diary and administrative work, engagement with local organisations and outreach on behalf of myself and constituents” – and that this was listed under communications and media work due to Ipsa rules.

He said his overall staffing spend of £111,000 in 2024-25 was “significantly below typical levels for MPs” and that the video content “very clearly focuses on engagement and transparency, not personal promotion”.

The PR specialist’s LinkedIn profile lists her occupation as a “Communications, Media and PR Consultant” with more than 20 years of experience in media, PR and marketing.

The i Paper understands that under the Ipsa rules, bought-in services categorised under communications and media can include work to update constituents on parliamentary work, and that each MP has flexibility in the day-to-day responsibilities assigned to individual workers.