The Royal Air Force illegally discriminated against white men in a recruitment drive aimed at boosting diversity, an official inquiry has found.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton, the new head of the RAF, said he “apologised unreservedly” to all those affected, including the former head of recruitment who was forced to resign rather than implement an order she believed – correctly – to be unlawful.
Despite the damning findings, the chief of the air staff said that none of the RAF’s senior leadership, including his predecessor Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston, on whose watch this happened, would face any kind of sanction.
Instead, he blamed the debacle on legal advice that incorrectly said a push in 2020 and 2021 to fast-track ethnic minority and female recruits into training slots was positive action – which is a legal way to improve diversity – when it was actually positive discrimination, which is illegal.
“We accept that some men were discriminated against,” Air Chief Marshal Knighton said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:46
Wallace: RAF diversity recruitment policy ‘wrong’
Thirty-one men have already been identified as having missed out on a potential £5,000 “golden handshake” to start cyber roles in the RAF.
Air Chief Marshal Knighton acknowledged that there could be more cases and said that the RAF would compensate anyone found to have suffered discrimination.
Wallace concerned by ‘significant error’
Advertisement
Ben Wallace, the defence secretary, described what happened as a “significant error” and a “cause for regret” for the RAF.
But he insisted that entry standards were never lowered.
Image: Ben Wallace
Yet he said the treatment of Group Captain Lizzy Nicholl, the then head of recruitment who raised the alarm about the illegal activity and ended up losing her career, needed to be “looked at considerably”.
He said scrutiny was needed of “why she was ignored, why indeed she was put under that pressure. And I don’t want to see anyone put under pressure to do something like what we’ve seen in the RAF”.
The admission marks a stunning U-turn by the RAF on a scandal first exposed last August by Sky News when it was revealed that Group Captain Nicholl had resigned after refusing to carry out an order to discriminate against white men.
She was put into this position after her chain of command, under Air Vice Marshal Maria Byford, who reported to Air Chief Marshal Wigston, insisted that the order was to be carried out despite Group Captain Nicholl saying she had received new legal advice that it was illegal.
Only last September, in evidence to parliament, Air Chief Marshal Wigston assured MPs that there was no illegal discrimination against white men.
Image: Mike Wigston
‘Uncomfortable reading’
A 72-page report – the result of a non-statutory inquiry ordered by Air Chief Marshal Wigston in the wake of the furore – found that the then head of recruitment had been right.
It also criticised senior leaders for not relying on reliable forecasts when setting ambitious targets to increase the ratio of women and ethnic minority recruits.
Air Chief Marshal Knighton admitted that the report made “pretty uncomfortable reading” but said that the RAF would learn lessons and this would never happen again.
The report sought to find out what happened in the lead up to Group Captain Nicholl’s resignation.
It also looked into allegations by the officer that she was the victim of institutional bullying because she had been forced to chase impossible diversity targets.
The report cleared the RAF of the bullying allegations but concluded that Group Captain Nicholl had been right to call out the illegal recruitment practices.
The whole affair is framed by an ambition set by Air Chief Marshal Sir Mike Wigston to significantly improve the RAF’s diversity – a defining goal of his tenure.
But this was translated down the chain of command into impossible recruitment targets.
The illegal activity happened in that climate under a previous head of recruitment before Group Captain Nicholl took up her role in March 2021.
In the recruitment year to March 2020 and the year to March 2021, a total of 161 ethnic minority and female recruits were “pulled forward” onto initial training ahead of white men.
“We found that concerns were raised at the time by R&S [recruitment and selection] staff but that those who led the initiatives believed that they were ‘pushing the boundaries’ of positive action rather than acting unlawfully,” the report said.
Group Captain Nicholl, however, sought new legal advice in May and June 2022 that clearly said these activities were “contrary to the Equality Act 2010, which provided reasonable justification for the Former Group Captain R&S to state that acts of positive discrimination had taken place in RY20/21 [recruitment year 2020-21]”.
Despite this advice, she was still under pressure to prioritise women and ethnic minorities ahead of white men.
The report described how this advice was “either not seen or understood” by the most senior echelons of the RAF – two-star officers and above.
There was also resistance from the top to the challenge that Group Captain Nicholl made.
The report said: “We found that the chain of command’s reaction to the former Group Capt R&S was overly defensive and not properly considered whether she might have been justified in what she said regarding previous acts of positive discrimination or the legality of what she was asked to do; and that insufficient effort had been made to determine the facts.”
How often do migrants successfully fight their removal from Britain on the basis of their human rights?
The clamour from the right for the UK to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights has been growing – even some high-profile Labour figures say it needs reform.
So, I’ve come to an immigration appeal court – unannounced – to find out how it is used by migrants and their lawyers here.
Decisions delayed, outcomes unpublished
I get to the fourth floor of a large court building in Birmingham.
The first case I’m ushered into to see is a 38-year-old Nigerian man. He came on a student visa – but that ran out.
Just before he did, he put in a claim to stay on the basis of his relationship with a woman, who is originally from Barbados but has lived and worked in Britain since 2015.
The judge, who will decide their fate, dials in via video link. He hears the man’s partner has a 17-year-old daughter.
She lives with her biological father, but the couple insist she is so close to the Nigerian man she calls him “Dad”. This is an appeal being made under Article 8 of the ECHR – the right to a family life.
The following day, it’s a different judge – this time he’s here in person.
The man in front of him is appealing against deportation to Kenya. He came to the UK as a baby with his mother and siblings.
As a teenager, he was jailed for almost 10 years for stabbing a man, causing serious injuries.
It emerges that his case is also based on Article 8 of the ECHR. Since leaving prison, he’s fathered a child who has just turned two.
There are arguments made too under Article 3 of the ECHR – which protects against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment – due to the man being diagnosed with “generalised anxiety” and depression.
It will be a few weeks before decisions are made on these cases – and the results won’t be published by the court.
I leave, thinking how opaque the process feels.
It’s also easy to see why some politicians are pointing to the ECHR – a treaty signed after the Second World War to protect the rights of everyone in the Council of Europe – as a barrier to removing more migrants.
Image: Between April 2008 and June 2021, 21,521 foreign nationals were due to be deported because of crimes they’d committed
Is the ECHR really a barrier to deportation?
“I think there’s a strong kind of political dynamic there which has led to, in some ways, you might say, a kind of scapegoating of the European Convention,” says Alice Donald, Professor of Human Rights law at Middlesex University, London.
She’s not convinced that withdrawal from ECHR would make a big difference to the number of people the UK is able to remove or deport.
“The honest answer is we don’t know, we don’t have enough data to say that,” she says.
“The data that we do have, for example, in relation to the number of human rights appeals against deportation by foreign national offenders, which has been very much in the news this year, suggests that it would really make only a marginal difference.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:11
‘What did we do wrong?’ – Asylum seekers on protests
Those figures, published by the Home Office, reveal that between April 2008 and June 2021, 21,521 foreign nationals due to be deported because of crimes they’d committed appealed, and 2,392 were successful on human rights grounds only. That’s around 181 on average per year.
We don’t have figures for how many other types of immigrants are allowed to stay on the basis of human rights. Small boat migrants who claim asylum would usually rely on another convention.
“In terms of asylum claims, it is governed by the 1951 Refugee Convention as a different treaty,” Prof Donald explains.
“There is, of course, overlapping protection with the prohibition of torture in the European Convention… so if the Refugee Convention were still in place, then of course people seeking asylum would rely on that.”
She also believes there have been “a number of erroneous stories or exaggerated stories”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
6:08
Reform would deport legal migrants
Debunking the chicken nugget myth
In February 2025, it was widely reported that an Albanian criminal’s deportation was halted over his son’s dislike of foreign chicken nuggets.
“What actually happened in that case is that it went to the upper tribunal (second-tier immigration appeal court) which ordered that he could be deported. And also specifically said that the evidence to do with chicken nuggets was nowhere near the level required,” Prof Donald says.
What leaving the ECHR would mean
Withdrawal from the ECHR would mean the guarantees it provides would be removed for everyone in the UK, not just migrants.
It not only protects the rights to life, liberty, fair trial and freedom of expression among others, but also prohibits torture, slavery and discrimination.
Pulling out of the treaty could also breach the Belfast Good Friday Agreement – though some say such an outcome is avoidable.
However, in a country where immigration is the top issue of concern for voters, there are some who now think that is a price worth paying.
The King and Queen will meet the new Pope during a state visit to Vatican City next month.
The couple will join Leo XIV, who was elected pope earlier this year after the death of Pope Francis, in late October to celebrate the 2025 jubilee year, Buckingham Palace said.
The Catholic Church typically marks a papal jubilee every 25 years.
Charles and Camilla‘s visit is expected to celebrate the ecumenical work by the Church of England and the Catholic Church, reflecting the Jubilee year’s theme of walking together as “Pilgrims of Hope”.
The King is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, a role which dates back to Henry VIII, who named himself Supreme Head of the Church of England after he was excommunicated by Pope Paul III and broke from the Catholic Church in the 16th century to marry Anne Boleyn.
State visit has diplomatic and spiritual significance
Postponed from the Italian state visit earlier this year, the King’s invitation to the Holy See has both diplomatic and spiritual significance.
It symbolises a shared desire from the King and Pope Leo to overcome denominational divisions of the past.
The King has a deep respect for religious diversity. Five hundred years ago, it was another Pope Leo – Leo X – who gave Henry VIII the title Defender of the Faith.
King Charles has long reflected on the meaning of this title within our modern, multi-faith and increasingly secular society.
This has been a year of change for many Christians. Very soon, a new Archbishop of Canterbury will be announced. A protracted process compared with the two-day conclave in Rome. As the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, the King will approve the appointment.
The King’s recent presence at Westminster Cathedral, attending the requiem mass of the Catholic Duchess of Kent, was seen as an important moment of Christian unity.
This state visit will be another example of the continued commitment between the Church of England and the Catholic Church.
The King and Queen had a meeting with Pope Francis just 12 days before he died.
Image: The King and Queen meeting Pope Francis before his death. Pic: PA
Their historic state visit to the Vatican in early April was cancelled due to the then-pontiff’s poor health, but they managed to visit him privately during their trip to Italy.
More on Pope Leo
Related Topics:
The meeting with Francis, in what would be the final weeks of his life, was arranged at the last minute and took place on their 20th wedding anniversary on 9 April, with the pontiff wanting to personally wish them a happy anniversary.
Hackers who claimed to have stolen pictures, names and addresses of over 8,000 children in a cyber attack on a nursery chain have told Sky News they will release the profiles of more children and employees.
The group, calling itself Radiant, had posted images of children attending the Kido nursery chain in London on the dark web and demanded a ransom from the company.
So far, the information released has been restricted to the personal contact details of children who attend the nurseries, as well as their parents and carers.
Radiant has told Sky News they intend to imminently release a new set of data, including the profiles of 30 more children and 100 employees.
It said the release would include the personal information of the employees including “full names, national insurance numbers, DOBs [date of births], full addresses, employment start date, email addresses and more”.
The stolen information on the children includes medical records, incident reports and the allocation of drugs and medicine given to the children.
The group claimed it typically demands around 1.5% of a company’s yearly revenue in ransom.
Sky News understands the group has not received any money from the Kido nursery group.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:18
Children’s pictures stolen in nursery cyber attack
On Thursday, parents whose children attend a Kido nursery branch told Sky News they had received an email confirming the data incident and had been offered reassurance by the company.
An Information Commissioner’s Office spokesperson said: “Kido International has reported an incident to us and we are assessing the information provided.”
The Metropolitan Police said they “received a referral on Thursday, 25 September, following reports of a ransomware attack on a London-based organisation”.
They said enquiries are at the early stages and no arrests have been made.
Ciaran Martin, former chief of the National Cyber Security Centre, which is part of the GCHQ spy agency, told Sky News presenter Samantha Washington he believes the nursery chain should not pay the ransom.
“This data is not coming back. That’s the bit that isn’t reassuring. There is no way of guaranteeing the suppression of this data,” he said, adding hacking groups often sell the data on to other criminals or use it for scams or fraud.
“And when law enforcement get to this group, even if the nursery pays the ransom, they’ll find the data – they won’t delete it. They never do. So it won’t achieve anything.”
Recent high-profile victims of cyber criminals in the UK include retail giant Marks and Spencer, which lost an estimated £300m in a ransomware attack earlier this year.
Meanwhile, the government has been urged to step in this week to support suppliers affected by a cyber attack on Jaguar Land Rover, after the car-making firm was forced to halt production at the end of August.
A Kido spokesperson said: “We recently identified and responded to a cyber incident. We are working with external specialists to investigate and determine what happened in more detail.
“We swiftly informed both our families and the relevant authorities and continue to liaise closely with them.”