RAF chief set to be new head of armed forces
The head of the RAF is set to be appointed as the new chief of the British armed forces, according to reports.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton is thought to be in line to be the next Chief of Defence Staff.
The position is currently held by Admiral Sir Tony Radakin, who has been in the role since 2021.
According to his biography on the Government website, Sir Richard joined the RAF in 1989 as a university cadet, and served as deputy chief of the defence staff from 2019 to 2022.
The appointment comes as the Government has pledged to increase defence spending in the UK to 2.5% of gross domestic product on defence from April 2027, with a goal of increasing that to 3% over the next parliament, a timetable which could stretch to 2034.
The Ministry of Defence said: 'This is speculation. The appointment process is ongoing and any announcement will be made in the usual way.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
19 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Cancel military aid to Ukraine, says transport union
The RMT transport union has called for Britain to stop giving military aid to Ukraine. A motion titled The Labour Movement Stands for Peace was submitted by the union's Paddington branch, urged Labour ministers to 'commit to work for a diplomatic, negotiated, lasting peace settlement'. Passed at the RMT's annual meeting last week in Manchester, it said: 'Despite the defeat of the Conservative government by the Labour Party at the 2024 general election, Britain continues to play a belligerent role in international relations by supplying British-made weapons, military support, credit and billions of pounds in public funding in trying and failing to achieve a military defeat for Russia in Ukraine. 'We reject the politics of lower living standards and cuts in living standards to fund a policy of unending and escalating war that last year took us to the brink of nuclear Armageddon.' The Ukraine Solidarity Campaign said news of the motion passing was 'very bad' and added on X: 'This is a union with an unusually strong Stop the War and particularly Communist Party of Britain influence in its leadership and apparatus. 'In the run-up to the AGM, we helped pro-Ukraine RMT members renew and extend contacts with rail workers in Ukraine.' A spokesman for the RMT said: 'The motion was calling for a de-escalation of war zones across the world from Gaza, Yemen and Iran as well as Ukraine. 'As many commentators from Left and Right have commented, pouring billions into the Ukraine war zone will not create the conditions for peace negotiations but simply make them harder to achieve. 'The RMT does not support the Russian invasion of Ukraine but pouring weapons into one side against the other is counterproductive to creating the conditions for a peaceful solution.' Posing with pro-Putin separatists Eddie Dempsey, who replaced Mike Lynch as general secretary earlier in 2025, has faced questions after posing with pro-Putin separatists in eastern Ukraine. Mr Dempsey visited eastern Ukraine in 2015, where he posed for a picture with Aleksey Mozgovoy, a commander in the 'Ghost Brigade' of pro-Russian separatists branded a terrorist organisation by Ukraine's supreme court. At the time, an RMT spokesman said: 'The union does not support either Vladimir Putin or his actions in Ukraine, and we are backing global union pressure for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.' Mr Dempsey said: 'I fully agree with the union's position.' Meanwhile, Mr Lynch was in 2024 accused of peddling Kremlin propaganda after he claimed the EU had provoked trouble in Ukraine before Russia's invasion. In an interview with the New Statesman, he said: 'There were a lot of corrupt politicians in Ukraine. And while they were doing that, there were an awful lot of people [in Ukraine] playing with Nazi imagery, and going back to the [Second World] War, and all that.'
Telegraph
34 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Broadcasters must air views that trans women are women, says Ofcom
Broadcasters must give airtime to claims that biological men are women when covering trans issues, Ofcom has said. The media regulator warned GB News in a letter seen by The Telegraph that it could not treat the controversy as settled, despite the landmark Supreme Court victory for women's rights campaigners in April 2025. The Supreme Court ruled that under the Equality Act, the word 'woman' means a biological woman rather than a person's self-identified gender. As a result, women-only spaces have a legal right to be protected. However, Ofcom has said that the judges' ruling does not mean the matter is 'settled'. In the past, the regulator has said that it considers it 'settled' that climate change is real and a man-made phenomenon. Therefore, in situations discussing climate change, broadcasters do not have to provide an opposing view such as a climate change sceptic. GB News wrote to Ofcom asking it to confirm that the ruling had settled the matter of the definition of a woman by saying it was defined by biological sex and not gender identity. The station also asked the regulator to confirm that television companies would be able to refer to people such as sports stars solely by their biological pronoun. But Ofcom said the Supreme Court only ruled on the definition of a woman in terms of the Equality Act and not on its meaning in other contexts. Believe sex can change The decision suggests broadcasters will continue to have to present both sides of the debate: those who believe there are only two sexes and those who believe a person's gender identity can change their actual sex. Ofcom's response also suggests that broadcasters should use a person's preferred pronoun. In its letter, GB News wrote: 'We would be grateful if Ofcom could confirm that in light of the Supreme Court judgment, it is now a settled matter that the terms 'man', 'woman' and 'sex' can only be understood to mean biological sex, biological woman and biological man and, as a consequence, it is also a settled matter that a 'trans woman' is not a biological female, and a 'trans man' is not a biological male.' It added: 'Following the Supreme Court judgment we are of the view that (provided there is no deliberate intention to cause harm or offence), contributors should generally be able to use biological pronouns.' In its reply, Ofcom said that it could not agree with the broadcaster's 'dogmatic' pronouncements. It said it did not follow the premise that assumes 'the judgment should also be understood to have effectively 'settled' wider debate about the appropriate meaning, usage and effect of such terms in all contexts outside the scope of the Equality Act, including in broadcast programmes in which issues relating to sex and gender-based rights are discussed generally'. It added: 'The judgment does not purport to do so.' Requires nuanced decision-making The letter went on to say that Ofcom 'does not consider that it is helpful or appropriate to endorse the dogmatic propositions' made by GB News, adding that it worked on a case-by-case basis because such issues 'require nuanced decision-making'. 'Our assessment will of course also take account of all applicable Convention rights, including the broadcaster's and audience's rights to freedom of expression, as well as the latitude for editorial discretion which uncontroversially accompanies the exercise of those rights on issues of significant public interest.' A spokesman for the regulator said: 'Ofcom is a post-broadcast regulator. 'In line with the rights of broadcasters and audiences to freedom of expression, our rules allow broadcasters editorial freedom to choose how to cover issues in their programmes subject to the Broadcasting Code. 'Our assessment of whether content complies with the Broadcasting Code is always fact-specific and takes into account all relevant contextual factors, requiring nuanced decision-making, and not a 'one size fits all' approach.'
Times
42 minutes ago
- Times
Brian Bond obituary: pioneering academic at war studies school
English and geography once struggled to gain acceptance as degree subjects but war studies struggled longer. In 1966 Brian Bond joined the newly formed department at King's College London (KCL) as a lecturer, giving up his more 'respectable' post in the history department at Liverpool. A department of military science had existed at KCL since the college's early years in the 19th century but it was not until 1962 that a separate, permanent department was established for the study of war and its impact on the world. Sir Michael Howard (obituary, December 2, 2019) was its founder and, thanks in the main to his support, Bond would go on to become reader and then professor of military history, writing numerous books and papers specialising in the late 19th century and the two world wars. He was first encouraged in the subject by no less a figure than Sir Basil Liddell Hart, the former Great War soldier, interwar strategist and apostle of 'the indirect approach', although perhaps studied more in Nazi Germany than in Britain. While reading history at Worcester College, Oxford, in the late 1950s, Bond met Liddell Hart at home in Buckinghamshire, where the latter had recently settled and Bond's father had become his gardener. At Oxford, Bond had elected to take the special subject paper on Napoleonic military history taught by Norman Gibbs, Chichele professor of the history of war. Liddell Hart, impressed by his gardener's son's scholarship, gave him access to his library and private papers and introduced him to visiting prominenti including Howard, who encouraged him to take an MA in war studies. This he completed in 1962 while lecturing at Exeter and then Liverpool. Brian James Bond was born in Marlow, Buckinghamshire, in 1936 to Edward Bond and Olive (née Sartin). He was an early beneficiary of the 1944 (Butler) Education Act, gaining a free place at Sir William Borlase's Grammar School in 1947. Leaving school in 1954 he elected to do his two years' National Service first, rather than deferring it to take up his place at Oxford, and was commissioned into the Royal Artillery. Although hardly the same as Howard's decorated active service in Italy with the Coldstream Guards, it did at least give him an insider's understanding of military culture and some credibility with serving officers looking to KCL for professional development. In 1962 he married Madeleine Joyce Carr. She died in 2023. They had no children. Bond's first book, as the editor of Victorian Military Campaigns, with each campaign written by a different historian, including Sir John Keegan, was published in 1967. Next came a serious study of the Victorian army and the staff college before two books on the Second World War and a highly regarded study of British military policy between the wars. He was disappointed not to be Liddell Hart's official biographer, the job going instead to one of his former doctoral students. Evidently Liddell Hart's widow, Kathleen, had wrongly believed that Bond had said that her husband had been a fascist. To an extent, honour was satisfied when, with the diplomatic intervention of Howard, he was allowed to write an interim study of Liddell Hart's ideas, but not touching on his life as a whole: Liddell Hart: a Study of His Military Thought (1977). Unfortunately, two reviews focused not on the book but on Liddell Hart himself — and disobligingly — which further upset his widow. Bond then turned, as eventually all British military historians must, to the First World War and in particular to the Western Front, which meant Field Marshal Haig. Undoubtedly the pendulum had swung beyond all balance with the publication in 1961 of Alan Clark's The Donkeys, a book that Howard dismissed as being almost entirely worthless. Some rebalancing was needed but Bond's revisionism was considered by many to be almost as unbalanced as Clark's diatribe. It was ironic, too, that Bond's revisionism disputed Liddell Hart's own assessment of the British high command in the First World War. One review of Haig: A Reappraisal said that Bond wrote with blinkers on: '[His] Haigiography testifies to the power of British patriotism and loyalty into which, as a British general, Haig tapped. Bond's defence of Haig's asininity horsed cavalry convictions is only exceeded by defence of Haig when he was faced by the evidence that his major push into the Somme had failed.' A later book, The Unquiet Western Front: Britain's Role in Literature and History (2002), which tried to unpick the myth, as he saw it, from the 'reality', brought a sharp retort from the other side of the Atlantic that Bond was trying to 'set up traditional military history in the mansion while relegating art to the little shed out back'. Disappointed not to have become head of the war studies department, Bond knew that his strength lay principally in teaching, which he did at KCL for 35 years. He was also a visiting professor at the University of Western Ontario, visiting lecturer at the US Naval War College, visiting fellow at Brasenose and briefly at All Souls colleges, Oxford, and for 20 years was president of the British Commission for Military History. In 2001 he retired to Buckinghamshire to watch cricket, a lifelong passion, to tend his garden and to visit country houses. He was, too, a strong supporter of wildlife conservation, especially of foxes, not a species usually thought to require protection, unlike Field Marshal Haig. Brian Bond, pioneering war studies academic, was born on April 17, 1936. He died on June 2, 2025, aged 89
