'No Debate' Is Dead - What Now? (Ft. Nick Wallis)

New legislation claims to protect ‘trans’ people in the UK - but could it accidentally kill their career prospects? Tanya de Grunwald is joined by Dennis Kavanagh, a criminal barrister and director of the Gay Men’s Network, to look at the government’s draft conversion practices bill - and what it means for employers (and employees). The pitch is that the bill bans electrocution, exorcisms and other horrors aimed at gay people. But Dennis says the drafting goes much further. It criminalises any conduct, including words, intended to change someone’s sexuality or “transgender identity”, if a jury later decides it was abusive and caused serious distress. You don’t need to have intended any harm - and the maximum sentence is five years imprisonment. For employers, the most worrying part is Clause 5, which brings in corporate liability. That means companies face unlimited fines, and directors can be prosecuted for failing to take “reasonable steps” to prevent an offence.  Most of the public debate has been about families, faith and free speech. Almost nobody is talking about what this means for employers. Until now. Tanya and Dennis ask: - What evidence is there that conversion therapy is still happening in the UK? If the practices are already considered to be crimes, why is new legislation needed? - What risks does Clause 5 create for organisations when managing trans-identified employees, and creating lawful policies to accommodate them? Could a manager telling a male employee to use the men’s toilets, as the For Women Scotland ruling and EHRC guidance allow, be reported as a “conversion practice”? - How can gender-critical beliefs be protected under the Equality Act in a civil court, yet potentially a criminal offence in another? - Who can report whom, and for how long? Dennis explains why there’s no need to show the issue affects you, no statute of limitations, and the possibility of private prosecutions. - What is a “reverse burden”, and why could it create a temptation for employers to over-comply with whatever template policies Stonewall and other activist groups produce next? - Could “economic pressure”, one of the bill’s vaguest terms, catch employers who have these staff on their payroll? - After the Supreme Court ruling opened up honest workplace conversations, will this bill chill them again, just as private-sector employers had started getting it right? - And the big one: if hiring someone with a trans identity brings criminal risk as well as civil risk, will employers quietly stop hiring them? Tanya shares what she heard from HR directors and recruiters. One called the bill “an absolute car crash”. A headhunter warned that, in the worst case, people simply won’t hire trans people.  Tanya fears the real casualties will be young people. Many are autistic or same-sex attracted, some are estranged from their families, and they were told the world would welcome them and their identity should be front and centre at interview.  Dennis explains why they’d have almost no chance of proving discrimination in the recruitment process. The employer holds all the cards, and savvy ones don’t leave a breadcrumb trail. Concerned employers still have time to act. With pre-legislative scrutiny underway, Dennis urges employers, lawyers, recruiters and risk professionals to submit evidence on Clause 5. That means explaining the compliance costs, the risks - and the ironic, foreseeable result that a bill launched with “rainbow fanfare” could end up causing direct discrimination. Enjoy the episode... Draft Conversion Practices Bill - Submit evidence your here https://committees.parliament.uk/submission/4010/#/evidence/4010/call-for-evidence More info about the bill Sex Matters https://sex-matters.org/posts/updates/conversion-practices-bill-who-is-at-risk-of-criminalisation/ Gay Men's Network https://www.gaymensnetwork.co.uk/ Double Jeopardy podcast (Ft. Sarah Vine KC) https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-conversion-practices-bill-necessary-or/id1633485236?i=1000793564077 Follow Dennis Kavanagh on X https://x.com/Jebadoo2

Who should we blame for cancel culture in the arts - the political activists, or the leaders who allowed them to take over? If the problems began many years ago, why were they ignored - and will arts bosses face the music before it's too late? Tanya de Grunwald is joined by Rosie Kay, the dancer, choreographer and co-founder of Freedom in the Arts, who knows the territory first-hand. After her own brutal brush with cancellation, she resigned from her dance company, went public, and was promptly flooded with messages from artists being silenced behind the scenes.  Freedom in the Arts’ first report, Afraid to Speak Freely, found that nearly 84% of people working in the arts rarely, never or only sometimes speak freely. That isn’t just a chilling effect. Rosie calls it a deadening one. From JK Rowling to Róisín Murphy (whose private comment on puberty blockers cost her a BBC 6 Music launch day), the casualties keep piling up. Now even Ed Sheeran has been forced to apologise, for the crime of not stating a political opinion.  But Tanya wants to look upwards as well as downwards, at the leaders who were meant to stop this happening and didn’t. Tanya asks Rosie: - Which topics are now most likely to get an artist cancelled, and why has Israel-Palestine eclipsed everything else? - Why is the pressure now coming from inside the arts, with artists cancelling artists, and staff, volunteers and front-of-house teams pushing venues to drop performers?  - How have arts schools become a training ground for activism? And what happens when students who’ve dropped Shakespeare and mastered anonymous 'snitch culture' enter the workforce?  - Was the failure to safeguard social mobility a big mistake? Did the sector's mistakes around class make 'DEI' an appealing sticking plaster to cover a lack of class diversity, and a decline in discipline and talent?  - Why were arts leaders so slow to see the problem? Were they complacent after years of plentiful lottery money, or were they true believers themselves? - When did artists stop running arts organisations, and what was lost when administrators and marketing types took over? - Has Arts Council funding become, in Rosie’s words, a kind of “beauty contest”, rewarding social purpose over artistic excellence? - If progressive activists are about 8% of the population but over 40% of the arts workforce, who exactly is this art being made for - and why hasn't audience appetite corrected the problem already? - Why does appeasement always make a crisis worse, and what should a venue do in the first 48 hours when the mob comes calling? The arts sector faces big problems - but there are signs of hope. Some leaders are waking up to the fact that a crisis is a matter of “not if, but when”. Freedom in the Arts’ Art Beyond Boycotts toolkit offers venues, agents and artists a playbook for standing firm, with lessons that apply well beyond the stage. Enjoy the episode! Freedom In The Arts https://www.freedominthearts.com/ Report: Afraid To Speak Freely https://www.freedominthearts.com/afraid-to-speak-freely Report: The New Boycott Crisis https://tinyurl.com/new-boycott-crisis Toolkit for Artists, Promoters and Venues: https://toolkit.freedominthearts.com/ More In Common Research: Who are the Progressive Activists? https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/research/progressive-activists/ 00:00 Introduction to Activism in the Arts 02:42 The Role of Activists vs. Artists 05:35 Freedom in the Arts: A Response to Cancel Culture 08:24 High-Profile Cases of Censorship 08:56 The Artist's Dilemma: Privacy vs. Public Discourse 12:31 The Ideological Stranglehold on Art and Expression 13:19 Unity in the Face of Oppression: A Call to Action 16:48 The Chilling Effect on Creativity 17:00 Unity in the Face of Oppression: A Call to Action 19:04 Current Issues in the Arts 20:46 The Impact of Leadership on the Arts 23:46 The Changing Landscape of Arts Education 26:38 The Future of the Arts: Challenges Ahead 32:27 Leadership Challenges in Art Schools 38:27 The Dichotomy of Creation and Destruction in Art 41:52 The Role of Leadership in the Arts 46:57 Generational Shifts in Arts Leadership 50:10 Misunderstanding the Role of Arts Leaders 56:41 Navigating Crisis in Arts Organizations 59:40 Navigating Workers' Rights in the Arts 01:00:44 Class and Diversity in the Arts 01:03:06 Crisis Management in the Arts 01:07:47 The Future of Artistic Freedom

Female employees are often the most vocal champions of extreme workplace ‘inclusion’ – but how much power have they really held? Do we risk letting men off the hook, for allowing bad ideas to infect organisations? And are we in danger of erasing the vital role played by all the women who have risked everything to push back on ‘woke’ at work? In this special live episode, recorded in front of an audience at the Battle of Ideas festival in London on 17 October 2026, Tanya de Grunwald is joined by author and academic Joanna Williams, whose book How Woke Won charted the takeover of our institutions by identity politics. Together, they take on the fashionable theory that women alone are responsible for the rise of ‘woke’ at work, and argue that the truth is far more interesting. They ask: - What does a ‘woke’ workplace actually look like? Rainbow lanyards, pronouns in email signatures and posters for menopause awareness training are the obvious giveaways. But Jo argues the real tell is who sets the priorities: the people who do the core work, or a DEI team and a professional managerial class with very different concerns. - What is the ‘feminisation’ theory, and does it stack up? American writers Helen Andrews and Heather Mac Donald argue that around 2015, women tipped into the majority in professions like law, medicine, academia and journalism, bringing with them values that put consensus before confrontation and emotion before reason. Jo agrees the timing fits, but warns that correlation is not causation. - Does it matter that HR is so female-dominated? As a survivor of the CIPD’s Festival of Work, Tanya estimates the crowd is 95% women. But Jo says HR’s growing power, not just its headcount, is the real story, and the seeds were sown long before 2015. - Was a crisis of purpose the real culprit? Jo argues institutions were hollowed out first, and ‘woke’ rushed in to fill the gap. Why could universities no longer simply say they exist to educate, the NHS to treat the sick, or the BBC to report the news? - Did feminism’s blind spot on class make things worse? Jo contrasts BBC presenters in posh suits fighting over the gender pay gap with the women cleaning, catering and doing hair and make-up behind the scenes. Tanya points out that industries which let their talent pipelines narrow, such as publishing, journalism, charities and fashion, have fallen hardest for ‘woke’. - Where were the men? Finance, law, comedy and the unions are all male-dominated, yet ‘woke’ thrives there too, and most leaders are still men. Tanya asks why so many women who stood up to this stuff found no backup from male colleagues, and why so few men were willing to take on other men pushing gender ideology at work. - Why couldn’t leaders just say what their organisation is for? Jo’s answer to ‘woke’ is disarmingly simple: a university’s job is to teach, a bank’s is to make money. Activism is fine, but do it on your own time, not your employer’s. What’s needed now is a return to prioritising purpose. - The audience joins in too, with Kate Harris of LGB Alliance renewing her call for a public inquiry into Stonewall’s grip on UK workplaces, a lively debate on the ‘diversity equals profit’ myth and why ‘bring your whole self to work’ was never as simple as it sounded.  Tanya closes with a challenge: the UK’s organisations don’t have a courage deficit, she argues, they have a courage problem at the top. Lower down, we’ve simply taught people that speaking up doesn’t pay and keeping quiet does. Enjoy the episode!

Should people have to pretend their male colleague is female (or vice versa) just to keep their job? Until now, 'trans inclusion' has asked employers to put the comfort of trans-identifying staff first. But is it time for a more balanced approach, considering the impact on everyone around them, and the productivity of the organisation that employs them?  Is using someone's preferred pronouns really a small courtesy, or is it a greater imposition than it seems? And is affirming trans-identifying people actually helping them, or are their colleagues unwittingly digging them deeper into a belief that's doing them harm? To explore these questions, Tanya de Grunwald is joined by Dionne Joseph, a London-based clinical psychologist with more than 30 years' experience who writes as 'Dr P' on X.   They ask: - Did employers get so fixated on pronouns and toilets that they missed the bigger picture? Dionne argues they 'made a molehill out of a mountain', when the real question was whether some of these colleagues' needs could ever be met in a workplace. - What happens to a team's productivity when everyone in the meeting is asked to pretend John is Jane? Drawing on the classic Stroop experiment, Dionne makes the case that asking people to override their instinct to recognise sex slows thinking, dampens performance and puts staff on edge, which is hardly a 'small courtesy.' - Is 'I don't mind a man wearing a dress to work, as long as I don't have to pretend he's a woman' really a workable compromise? Tanya describes the unspoken power dynamic of small talk at the biscuit table. Dionne sees cross-dressing at work as a boundary violation and warns that every concession an employer makes will simply be followed by the next demand. - Are employers doing trans-identifying staff any favours by affirming them? From office crowdfunders for top surgery to unsupervised staff network lunches, Dionne argues that every colleague who plays along risks digging the person deeper into what she sees as a mental health problem rather than an identity. - Has the 'kind' employer quietly become a coercive controller of its female staff? Dionne says she is inundated with messages from women dreading Monday morning. She argues that mandatory lanyards, training and Pride screensavers impose a belief system on the very people expected to keep quiet about it. - Why can't staff admit that a colleague's presentation gives them 'the ick'? Tanya tackles the argument that any such reaction is on a par with racism. Dionne, who is black, explains why she finds that comparison profoundly insulting. - Should employers be asking whether staff on high doses of cross-sex hormones are fit for safety-critical roles? Dionne argues the effects of these hormones on mood and cognition have never been properly studied. She says she'd want anyone taking them in a high-risk job, such as pilots, air traffic controllers or surgeons, to have regular neuropsychological testing. Tanya isn't asking Dionne to write anyone's HR policy. As she says, that's a job for employers and their lawyers, and a follow-up is already on the cards over at her new business network platform This Is Working (ThisIsWorking.net). But she's convinced this is a conversation sensible employers are already having behind closed doors, about who they hire, what they're asking colleagues to go along with, and who is really paying the price for 'inclusion.'  This is not one for the faint-hearted, but it might just be the conversation everyone's having out loud a year from now. Enjoy the episode... Join Our New Network: This Is Working https://thisisworking.net Dr P on X https://x.com/Psychgirl211

President Trump sent DEI to the woodchipper in 2025, right? Job done, and America moved on? This episode exposes the truth: that the real story is more complex – and much more interesting. This week, Tanya de Grunwald is joined by Andrew Crapuchettes, the man behind a 2022 ad mocking woke workplace culture that, four years on, has just gone viral all over again – for reasons the pair discuss. A successful businessman with a fascinating back story, Andrew is also the founder of RedBalloon.work, the US job board connecting employers and employees who value merit and hard work, and reject identity politics, speech policing and ‘woke’ workplace culture. Andrew and Tanya ask:   - Has America really dumped DEI - or have the biggest employers simply renamed the department, kept the same people, and waited for the culture to swing back their way? - Why are well-run, confident businesses now the ones rejecting DEI initiatives outright — not out of ideology, but because it is bad business? - How does ‘be kind’ office politics and selective ‘inclusion’ quietly strangle innovation and teamwork? - Why did so many companies ‘lose their mind’ in 2020 – and what happened when Andrew refused to join them? - What does it cost a person, day after day, to compromise on their own values at work? - Why do pronouns on a CV read as a ‘dog whistle’ to so many US employers now – and given that hiring is, by definition, discriminating between candidates, why shouldn't employers be free to do exactly that? - Is ‘bring your whole self to work’ actually the answer, or does it just mean some people get permission to perform their identity at work while everyone else has learned to keep quiet? - Why are ambitious, conscientious, hard-working employees who leave identity politics at home likely to be the winners in the job market of the future? Andrew’s unapologetically pro-business perspective makes for bracing listening for any This Is Working fans still suffering in a workplace where the culture got stuck in 2020. When will organisations finally stop apologising for wanting the best person for the job - and understand the benefits of appreciating their most valuable employees? Enjoy the episode! This Is Working - Our new network for employers www.thisisworking.net Red Balloon www.RedBallon.Work On X: @ACrapuchettes @RedBalloonWork XX-XY Athletics www.xx-xyathletics.com On X: @JenniferSey @xx-xyathletics

What happens when the smartest employers finally stop being afraid to talk? In a format flip, journalist Nick Wallis turns the microphone on Tanya de Grunwald herself, pressing her on the launch of her new online platform, This Is Working. For years, the mantra "no debate" silenced essential discussion, not just around the trans issue, but on race, identity, politics and almost anything that touched the culture wars. But Tanya has spent three years watching that silence crack, quietly normalising calm, professional debate on the subjects that employers needed to discuss five (or more) years ago. Now she's convinced the freeze is over, and that the private sector is already leading the thaw. Nick asks: - What exactly is This Is Working, and why is Tanya so sure there's demand for an online space where professional people can have meaty, unfiltered discussion about workplace dysfunction? - What's the mood among employers right now — and who's showing the greatest enthusiasm for fixing the problems that "no debate" created? - What does global demand for this discussion look like — why are there so many overlapping themes, and which countries are hungriest for it? - Why does Tanya think the private sector is leading this shift, when the loudest complaints about broken workplace culture have historically come from elsewhere? - Why have so many organisations lost their way on DEI, leadership and cancel culture — and how did well-meaning people end up doing so much damage? - What solutions are actually emerging, and which employers are furthest ahead in working them out? Drawing on his own investigations into the UK's Post Office scandal, Nick also asks Tanya for her view on whether moralising is misplaced in a workplace setting, and what she predicts will be the two big forces that will make sure common sense overrules the nonsense... Enjoy the episode! This Is Working Check out the new platform https://thisisworking.net/ Freedom In The Arts https://www.freedominthearts.com/ Mathias Dopfner, CEO of Axel Springer on 'The Essentials' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ya1eUc8-L4E  

What questions does Jason Arday's death raise for the UK's HR industry, and why is no-one even asking them? In what's likely to be the only podcast to drill into this hot-button topic, Tanya de Grunwald is joined by returning guest Jaco van Zyl, a psychotherapist with an interest in large group social phenomena. Jason Arday's story has been picked apart everywhere — on the front pages, on LinkedIn, at a vigil in Trafalgar Square attended by thousands. Everywhere, that is, except the one industry that arguably has the most to answer for.  Tanya went looking for reflection, accountability, or even just discussion from the UK's HR and DEI establishment. She found almost nothing. Tanya and Jaco ask why an industry facing what should be an existential reckoning has instead gone completely quiet — and what that silence says about where HR really stands on diversity, hiring, and truth-telling. They ask: - Why did the tone shift so violently the moment Jason Arday's death was announced — from hard questions about his story to instant, uncritical sainthood? - What is "narcissistic large group regression," and does it explain the language of assassination, lynching and retribution aimed at journalists that Tanya heard at his vigil? - Has HR lost the public's trust in meritocratic hiring and promotion so badly that the phrase "DEI hire" was inevitable — and why did the industry fail to engage with the reason it was coined in the first place? - Why has the CIPD and the wider HR trade press stayed almost silent on all this, with just one article on Jason Arday published across HR Magazine, Personnel Today and People Management? Is this failure further proof that the CIPD's reputation is in tatters? - Did McKinsey's now-widely-disputed "business case for diversity" reports give HR the cover it needed to avoid a harder, more honest debate about race in the workplace? - If HR professionals were having these conversations privately, why weren't they happening in public — and whose job was it to create that space? Tanya doesn't let anyone off the hook — including herself, revisiting her own early, well-meaning naivety about diversity and inclusion work back in 2017 and 2018. But her sharpest fire is reserved for an industry body she says dropped the ball entirely, choosing advertising revenue over difficult conversations, and for a wider HR world too frightened of what lay beyond its own echo chamber.  Jaco brings the psychotherapist's lens — on doctrine, groupthink, and what happens when institutions lose their nerve — to a story he warns is a symptom of something much bigger still to come. Enjoy the episode...   JOIN 'THIS IS WORKING' Our new business network launches *very soon* (think days, not weeks!) https://tinyurl.com/2t3396yw Jaco van Zyl Critical Therapy Antidote  www.criticaltherapyantidote.org On YouTube @ctapodcast On X @Jaco_v_Z @TherapyAntidote

The rainbows are coming down, the bunting's looking tired, and the UK's biggest brands are quietly stepping away from the 'Pridemania' we have seen in the last five years. So what's really going on behind the scenes? In this episode of This Isn't Working, host Tanya de Grunwald asks why Pride has died in 2026 — looking at it squarely from an employer's perspective. With clear evidence that the UK's biggest brands are losing their appetite for rainbows and drag queens, Tanya breaks down the conversations, calculations, and power struggles happening behind the scenes at the organisations who've bailed — or, as they might put it, "decided to go in a different direction" this year. Are they stepping away because so-called 'LGBT' rights has become too political? Have they simply worked out it's bad for business as they sharpen their focus on productivity and profit? Or is it just that rainbows and drag queens are no longer fashionable? This isn't a claim that Pride is dead everywhere — plenty of brands showed visible support in stores, advertising and on social media, and turned up at the Pride in London parade again this year. But Tanya argues those big spenders are starting to look like outliers who either didn't get the memo — or know there is dissent but doubled down anyway. Adding to Tanya's analysis is James Roberts, managing director of Human Gay Male, who has also been watching the mood shift from the inside. Between them, they count seven reasons why 2026 might be the year corporate Pride sponsorship finally ran out of road — from cold, hard commercialism and fear of reputational backlash, to the "ick factor," the unreliable partners who oversold their credibility, and the sheer amount of box-ticking admin now required just to be allowed to march. We ask: - Is this genuinely a values-driven retreat — or just brands following the money as budgets tighten and "go woke, go broke" becomes boardroom shorthand? - Why has showing support for Pride month become a reputational liability rather than an easy PR win — and what does the protest against tech giant Cisco last year tell us about the risks of standing under a rainbow flag? - Did the Pride parade organisers' decision to ban political parties backfire by proving the very point they were trying to play down — that this has always been political? - What happens when the external "partners" — activist groups, DEI consultants, staff networks and suppliers like Trans in the City — that employers trusted turn out to be far less reliable, and far more combative, than advertised? - Has Pride simply become too expensive, too risky, and too much hassle for what employers actually wanted all along: an easy, cheap, feel-good bit of branding? Sharp, unflinching, and unafraid to describe exactly what she's hearing from employers this year, Tanya makes the case that no single scandal killed corporate Pride month — it was death by a thousand convenient, respectable-sounding excuses. NOTES FOR EMPLOYERS: Want more information about Tanya's new business network This Is Working? Sign up here for updates https://tinyurl.com/2t3396yw See photos of our latest This Is Working event here https://tinyurl.com/4r7d7wch

Can you feel it? Change is happening — culturally, politically, and inside the workplace. Orthodoxies that shaped the last decade of daily life are being questioned and dumped. Which employers have noticed the 'vibe shift' and which have missed it?  In this episode of This Isn’t Working, host Tanya de Grunwald is joined by journalist Brendan O’Neill - chief political writer at Spiked, and author of the new book 'Vibe Shift' - to examine why workplaces are both vibe shift battlegrounds, and some of the last places to formally recognise what's happening. Together, they explore how years of values-driven management, DEI orthodoxy, and risk-averse corporate decision-making have reshaped professional life — and why dismantling or reforming these systems may prove far more painful than building them.  If a cultural correction is underway, employers could soon find themselves caught between competing expectations from employees, leadership, and the wider public. This conversation goes beyond headlines and culture war slogans to ask deeper questions about power, conformity, class, and institutional inertia.  Why do organisations struggle to reverse course once a moral consensus has taken hold? And what happens when employees begin to sense that the rules are changing — but leadership hasn’t caught up yet? Brendan argues that entire industries and professional identities have grown around enforcing particular cultural norms, meaning any shift away from them is unlikely to be smooth or quiet. Instead, employers may face resistance, confusion, and fierce internal pushback as expectations collide with a rapidly evolving social mood. We ask: - Why are so many people talking about a “vibe shift” — and what concrete changes are actually driving the feeling that the cultural pendulum is swinging back? - Have employers become trapped by policies and workplace ideologies they adopted too quickly, without fully understanding their long-term consequences? - Why do large organisations struggle to adapt when social attitudes change — even when employees themselves can sense the mood shifting? - What role have HR departments and corporate leaders played in embedding cultural norms that may now be losing public support? - Will workplace conflict intensify before things stabilise, and how should leaders prepare for backlash from staff who feel invested in the old consensus? Provocative, timely, and often darkly funny, this episode explores the growing gap between cultural reality and workplace practice — and asks whether employers are ready for what comes next... Enjoy the episode! Buy Brendan's new book Vibe Shift: The Revolt Against Wokeness, Greenism And Technocracy https://www.amazon.co.uk/Vibe-Shift-Wokeness-Greenism-Technocracy-ebook/dp/B0G72K3PH8 This Is Working (new business network) https://thisisntworkingpodcast.co.uk/contact-2/ Photo gallery from last This Is Working event https://bit.ly/4qOtwrP0 The Brendan O'Neill Show https://www.spiked-online.com/podcast/the-brendan-oneill-show/ Freedom In The Arts https://www.freedominthearts.com/  

HR is under fire – and we need to talk about why. This blistering episode explores what's gone wrong, who's to blame – and how mistakes can be fixed.  Recorded in London on 10 February 2026, this video shows what happened at our second 'This Is Working' event - an evening of frank discussion and clear-eyed analysis with senior business professionals from across the private sector.  Host Tanya de Grunwald welcomed a panel of special guests: Neil Morrison - HR Director, Severn Trent Octavius Black CBE - Founder, MindGym Akua Reindorf KC - Employment and discrimination barrister Steve Harrison - Author of Adland’s Progressive Gaze: How UK Advertising Lost Sight Of The People And Things That Matter Most ** Want to attend our next This Is Working event? Keen to see the report from the second half of this evening? Drop us a line to say hello https://bit.ly/44jT7AW 00:00 Welcome - Tanya de Grunwald 11:26 Neil Morrison - HR director, Severn Trent 20:11 Octavius Black CBE - Founder, Mind Gym 35:30 Steve Harrison - Author, 'Adland's Progressive Gaze' 45:50 Akua Reindorf KC - Employment and discrimination law barrister