As Pride Month comes to a close—though many events continue throughout the summer across the UK—something feels noticeably different.

Several major brands that once sponsored parades or made bold public statements have stepped back. No logos, no campaigns, no posts. The change is hard to ignore.

We’re halfway through 2025, and it’s a reminder that DEI is still on uncertain ground.

Some organisations are deepening their work, investing in inclusive leadership, strengthening equity strategies and asking tougher internal questions. Others are going quiet. Diversity roles are being deliberately removed, budgets cut, and once-clear commitments are now vague or being dropped altogether.

It’s easy to call this a backlash, but that implies something loud. More often, it’s a slow retreat, with less visibility, less urgency and less accountability.

This newsletter exists to keep inclusion on the agenda, even when fewer people are talking about it. Whether you’ve been reading for years or just joined us, thank you for sticking with it.

Oliver Gilbody, Director of Marketing

QUICK FIRE NEWS 🧨

🇬🇭 Hackney teacher honoured for helping Ghana school

🪮 Black women demand action on cancer-linked hair products

☎️ Trump administration to cut funding for LGBTQ+ suicide hotline

📱 Concerns raised over period tracker app safety

💒 Inclusive London church to welcome drag queens for Pride

LET'S GET INTO IT 👇

Lack of diversity in genetic research is harming cancer care

A new study by Genomics England has shown that people from non-European backgrounds are less likely to benefit from cutting-edge cancer treatment based on genetic screening—simply because they’ve been historically left out of the research.

Genetic screening works, just not equally for everyone

The study looked at over 14,000 people with cancer in the UK and found that whole genome sequencing identified fewer treatment-relevant genetic changes in people of South Asian ancestry (26%) compared to those of European ancestry (16%).

The reason? Genetic changes commonly found in minoritised groups haven’t been studied enough, making it harder to spot which ones are genuinely linked to cancer and which are harmless.

Representation in research is a matter of survival

This is the first study of its kind to explore how ancestry affects access to precision medicine in a national cancer screening programme. Genomics England says more diverse participation in genetic research is critical—not only to improve health outcomes for everyone, but to avoid making existing health inequalities worse.

As Professor Karoline Kuchenbaecker, lead author of the study, put it: “Genetic research needs to be more representative of the world’s population if we want to help make our understanding of cancer and treatment more reliable for everyone.”

EHRC officially scraps single-sex toilet requirement

After weeks of confusion following the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on the definition of “woman,” the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has now formally abandoned its claims about single-sex toilets in workplaces, raising concerns about clarity in public guidance.

Did the EHRC overstep?

The EHRC’s initial update, published after the Supreme Court’s judgment on the Equality Act, stated that employers were required to provide “sufficient single-sex toilets” in workplaces. This caused alarm among employers, many of whom took action affecting trans employees.

Following legal pressure from the Good Law Project, the EHRC revised its position. The EHRC now describes its original guidance as “brief and high-level observations” and separate from its official advice.

So… what are the rules now?

The EHRC's updated stance confirms that employers no longer need to provide single-sex toilets. Instead, the relevant law simply requires separate, lockable rooms for mixed-sex facilities.

This clarification follows cases where trans employees faced distress due to the original guidance, including one case where a woman, told to use men’s toilets, attempted to take her own life.

The revision highlights the need for clear, accurate guidance that protects everyone’s rights, particularly those of vulnerable groups like trans people.

Abortion is decriminalised in landmark vote

MPs have voted to remove criminal penalties for women who end pregnancies outside the existing legal framework—marking the most significant shift in abortion rights in England and Wales in nearly 60 years.

What the new amendment changes

The change came through an amendment to the crime and policing bill, led by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi. It means women who take abortion pills outside the legal process—for example, after the time limit or without seeing a doctor—will no longer face arrest or prison.

Abortion itself remains legal under the 1967 Abortion Act, which still requires sign-off from two doctors. That framework isn’t changing. Doctors who carry out procedures outside those rules will still be liable for prosecution.

What’s changing is the removal of the criminal offence of “procuring a miscarriage,” which currently carries a maximum sentence of life in prison. The vote passed by a large margin: 379 MPs in favour and 137 against.

Why this matters

This decision follows years of concern about how the law has been used. Women in difficult situations, like Carla Foster, jailed for a lockdown abortion, and Nicola Packer, investigated for years, have faced police action instead of support.

Medical bodies and campaigners say the law wasn’t fit for purpose. Vulnerable women were being criminalised, even when acting out of desperation. This vote is a step towards treating abortion as a healthcare issue, not a criminal one.

THIS MONTH WE'RE LOVING 🥰

👩🎓 Russell Group unis to boost support for care leavers in higher education

❤️ UK AIDS Memorial Quilt displayed at Tate Modern

🔵 Blue plaque honours London’s first Black headteacher