Sign up for The Decision, a newsletter featuring coverage of the 2024 race and what comes next.
When President Joe Biden was running for a second term as president, he repeatedly ruled out granting a pardon to his son Hunter, who has pleaded guilty to tax fraud and lying on a form to purchase a gun. He was very clear, very up-front, obviously very definitive, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said of one of his many promises to this effect.
Biden professed a willingness to abide by the results of the justice system as a matter of principle. But in breaking his promise, and issuing a sweeping pardon of his son for any crimes he may have committed over an 11-year period, Biden has revealed his pledge to have been merely instrumental.
In a defiant statement issued tonight, Biden insisted that his sons prosecution was selective and unfair. No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunters cases, he wrote, can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was singled out only because he is my sonand that is wrong.
It is probably true that one of the crimes charged to Hunter Biden, lying on a form to obtain a firearm, is the sort of thing an average person would be unlikely to face charges over. (Hunter affirmed on the form that he was sober, but later admitted to having been in the throes of addiction.) The other charge, blatantly failing to pay millions of dollars in taxes, is routinely brought against people who are not political targets. That its true Hunter Biden was more likely to get caught than the average tax cheat is an indictment of the tax system. (It is also, ironically, an aspect of the system Joe Biden has set out to change by beefing up the IRSs enforcement capacity.)
President Bidens complaint about the higher standard applied to his son reflects the perspective of myopic privilege. Crimes by family members of powerful public officials are far more damaging to public confidence than similar crimes by anonymous people. Holding them to account through strict enforcement of the law is good and correct.
What the president fails to note in his self-pitying statement is that Hunter Biden for years engaged in legal but wildly inappropriate behavior by running a business based on selling the perception of access to his father. The only commodity Hunter had to offer oligarchs in Ukraine, China, and elsewhere was the belief, or hope, that he could put in a good word for them with his dad.
Joe Bidens defense in these cases was that he did not actually give Hunters clients anything of value. There is no proof to the contrary, and extensive Republican efforts to dig up evidence that Joe shared in the profits from Hunters access-peddling business came up empty.
But Joe Bidens defense of Hunters influence peddling by stressing its narrow legality merely serves to highlight the hypocrisy of his fatherly indulgence. The black letter of the law was a fence to protect Hunter from the consequences of his sleazy behavior. And when the law itself trapped him, he simply opened a door and walked through ita door no average American could access.
The most bewildering passage in Bidens pardon statement posits some amorphous conspiracy against him by Justice Department prosecutors: There has been an effort to break Hunter who has been five and a half years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, theyve tried to break meand theres no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.
Trying to break Hunter? And his father? To what end?
It would be tempting, but unfair, to draw a simple equation between Joe Bidens situational ethics and that of his successor. A willingness to evade the rule of law is the foundation of Donald Trumps entire career in business and politics, not a nepotistic exception. Still, principles become much harder to defend when their most famous defenders have compromised them flagrantly. With the pardon decision, like his stubborn insistence on running for a second term he couldnt win, Biden chose to prioritize his own feelings over the defense of his country.
More than six million new cancer cases could be diagnosed in England between now and 2040, according to leading charities.
This would equate to a diagnosis every two minutes, which is up from one every four minutes in the 1970s.
A coalition of more than 60 cancercharities, known as One Cancer Voice, is warning the government must take urgent steps to tackle cancer care in England – including faster diagnosis targets and better prevention policies.
The analysis carried out by the charities is based largely on pre-pandemic data and suggests cases will increase by 14.2% over the next 15 years, with diagnoses of some of the most common cancers reaching all-time highs.
This includes over a million new prostate cancer diagnoses, and more than 900,000 for breast cancer by 2040.
The research also finds regional variations:
• South East – over a million diagnoses
• North East – 865,000
• East of England and the South West – 722,000
• London – 714,000
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:56
Man loses voice box after late cancer diagnosis
Six key demands
These figures starkly set out the need for change, and the timing of their release is significant.
Later this autumn, the government is expected to publish its long-awaited National Cancer Plan.
These leading charities have combined forces to put pressure on ministers ahead of its publication, demanding six measures which they say must be implemented if cancer outcomes are to improve:
• A pledge to meet all cancer waiting times by the end of parliament in 2029
• A new earlier diagnosis target, with improved screening programmes
• The introduction of strong cancer prevention policies
• Addressing inequalities in patient care
• Improving access to clinical trials for cancer patients
• Better support for people to live well with and beyond cancer
‘A defining moment’
The pandemic had a huge impact on cancer care in the country, and an ageing population adds further pressures.
But the most recently available data, which is around a decade old, suggests the NHS is still lagging behind many comparable countries.
The chief executive of Cancer Research UK, Michelle Mitchell, described the national plan as a “defining moment”.
“If the UK government delivers an ambitious fully funded strategy, we could save more lives and transform cancer outcomes, propelling England from world lagging to among world leading when it comes to tackling this disease,” she said.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “This government is prioritising cancer care as we turn around more than a decade of neglect of our NHS.
“We’re already making an impact, with 95,000 more people having cancer diagnosed or ruled out within 28 days between July 2024 and May 2025, compared to the same period the previous year.
“This will soon be supported by our new National Cancer Plan, setting out how cancer care will improve over the coming years.
“We’re also making it easier for people to get tests, checks, and scans with DIY screening kits for cervical cancer, new radiotherapy machines in every region, and by creating the first smoke-free generation.”
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.
The mother of a baby whose stomach and bowel “moved into her chest” has hailed new research aimed at treating her daughter’s rare condition.
Amelia Turner was given life-saving surgery at Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) when she was a few days old.
She suffered from severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH) – a potentially fatal condition affecting one in every 3,000 babies.
The condition means the diaphragm – the muscle between the abdomen and the chest – has not fully developed.
As a result, organs that are supposed to sit within the abdomen could move into the chest space and crush fragile growing lungs. It means babies don’t have enough space to grow fully formed lungs.
Current treatment for severe CDH involves surgery while the baby is in the womb, with surgeons delicately placing a surgical balloon into the baby’s windpipe to stimulate the lungs to grow. This only increases survival odds to 50%.
Image: Amelia was born with severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Pic: Georgia Turner/PA
‘A complete whirlwind’
Amelia’s mother, Georgia Turner, 26, from London, said finding out she had the condition made her pregnancy “a complete whirlwind”.
“The team hoped Amelia’s condition would only be moderate,” she said. “Unfortunately, after Amelia was born, the clinical team told me how serious her condition was as her bowel and stomach had moved into her chest.”
Amelia spent four months recovering on the neonatal unit at GOSH, then another three months at her local hospital, before she could go home for the first time.
The “cheeky” 17-month-old needed a second surgery after her CDH reoccurred when she was 15 months old.
It’s hoped new research will not only make treatment less invasive and significantly increase survival rates but also lower the chances of relapses.
Image: Georgia Turner with her daughter Amelia. Pic: Georgia Turner/PA
Science-fiction made real
A system developed by experts at GOSH and University College London in the UK, and KU Leuven in Belgium, would see treatment delivered straight to a baby while still in their mother’s womb.
It would see nanodiamonds used to transfer a hormone, known as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), which stimulates lung growth.
It was tested on lab-grown mini-lungs, using 3D printing to simulate compression, as well as rats with the condition.
One of the experts, Dr Stavros Loukogeorgakis, a GOSH surgeon, said: “Nanodiamonds, 3D-printing and growth hormones in the womb all sounds a bit science-fiction. But this research is really showing us what is possible.”
He said the treatment could be available to families in as little as five years.
Ms Turner said: “New research like this is great to see how experts are trying to make the treatment for CDH more successful for all children, and less invasive.
“Hopefully better treatments will also prevent relapse cases like Amelia.”