Many people will be thinking £2000 over 4 years isn't as bad as their feared - that was Mrs Eek's reaction..
I had assumed it was over a year and was still like "well if that means the wait in A&E isn't 8 hours that's still worth it"... Though, tbf, I'm on less than the median income so also assumed I wouldn't be looking at that full £2000.
"Considering". Oh, the manliness just seeps off the page, does it not?
If he was that attracted to Farage and Reform he’d just do it. By letting sources know he’s toying with defecting he’s proving that it’s calculation that is determinative. Odd little boy.
The burghers of Ipswich deserve a better choice than a spoilt manchild who can’t make his mind up which way he swings.
Many people will be thinking £2000 over 4 years isn't as bad as their feared - that was Mrs Eek's reaction..
Maybe on PB that is fiddling small change but it is a lot to many people.
Of course it is likely that the many people to which it is a lot won't be the ones paying it.
Even if hadn't been made up, it makes it nearer to £250 per tax payer - and that's before you take into account that higher rate tax payers will be paying more, and that not all taxes come from individuals.
So, you're probably talking nearer £100 a year for an actual "average" earner - and compared to the actual tax rises already baked in with the freeze on allowances for the next few years - it wouldn't even be the biggest tax rise they'd face.
I know all the focus is on the GE at the moment, but it feels that Labour in Wales "ought" to be beatable in 2026 as they've been in power even longer than Con in Westminster and SNP in Holyrood
They've just rigged the electoral system to make that damn near impossible. Thread header intended to follow when I have a moment.
No it's not impossible to beat Labour in Wales. All the Conservatives or Plaid Cymru need to do is get more people to vote for them.
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
My expectation for the 7 way is that Reform will attack Con for not being right wing enough, LD will attack Con for being too right wing, while Green, Plaid and SNP will attack Labour for not being left wing enough. Lab and Con will mainly attack each other and ignore the rest.
With Mordaunt and Rayner in it could be quite interesting. I am out on Friday at a gathering of the WI. They have an annual BBQ that permits men, and there will be both LD and Con local councillors present so may come back with some anecdata.
The deputies will alter the dynamic. Penny is a good speaker generally, but I was surprised how poor she was in the leadership debates. Rayner has charisma and humour, but can be a loose cannon. Worth watching on catch up.
The debate on Friday clashes directly with the England football match, which is live on terrestrial TV and after which Southgate has to name his final squad. Which utter clown is responsible for such moronic scheduling?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Point of order
The Friday debate is between Mordaunt and Rayner plus other leaders - Sunak and Starmer will not be there
Will be more interesting, I think. Mordaunt versus Rayner would be interesting, somewhat diluted by the others.
Rayner v Sunak would be a massacre, I think. Possibly also Mordaunt versus Starmer, but to a lesser extent. In both I think the women would come out comfortably on top.
Are there any other ladies on Friday or are the rest all blokes?
Assuming it's otherwise all leaders then it depends which one the Greens put up, I think?
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt.
Thanks
Not sure.
Thanks (and thanks all). My aunt is v happy to make amends, even if legally she was in the right (which it seems she wasn't by the comments here).
My question I suppose was what was the mechanism of the legal/insurance process.
The cyclist has written to her saying she was in the wrong, right of way, etc, and is going to get the bike assessed and expects to be made good. No one has yet mentioned insurance or police.
I would snap that offer up!
However, I think you have to report the collision to the police if anyone was injured - I think that must be quite likely? And the insurer will likely require that they are informed too.
Long answer, which I hope is helpful. I think all 3 parties made mistakes.
The bus driver wove (waved?) a party across a traffic lane (the cycle lane) he could not control, giving her false reassurance (was he mislead by looking in his NS mirror?). Since it is a backed up box junction the bus driver wasn't allowed to enter it anyway - the exit has to be clear to enter, unless they will be waiting to turn right.
The cyclist riding up the cycle lane has priority over oncoming turning traffic, in the same way as any other vehicle driving along a road does. If he was going as fast as stated, then I'd consider his cycling to be on the scale somewhere between insufficiently cautious and negligent, due to the difficulty he created for himself of seeing round the bus in time to stop.
My comments on your aunt would be similar - she should imo have paused halfway across to have a look round the bus, and the fact of the collision is that she went across oncoming traffic.
Plus there is the Duty of Care to vulnerable road users under the Hierarchy of Responsibility.
If it comes to Civil Court or insurance negotiations I'd expect any assessed amount to be reduced modestly or substantially due to contributory negligence by the cyclist.
On what should be reported, it is more extensive than I realised but I suspect non-injury accidents are not always reported. May be worth reporting mentioning "non-injury but damage accident" as a way of getting an official record of "non-injury"? https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/collisions/
In the circs either snap up that offer or hand it over to the insurance company to deal with, perhaps in dialogue with the cyclist's insurer, and consider whether there is a need to report to the police. Hope both are well and your mum has protected no claims. Most cyclists have 3rd Party Liability via at least household insurance, though many do not know it - this one may have specialist insurance too. Bike damage could be several k.
Obvs if she takes up the offer don't admit total fault in writing as that could undermine future positions, and sound fluffy but straight forward ("I am glad to hear that you have no injuries"). But we all know that type of thing here.
Get your mum to make written contemporaneous notes, dictating to you if necessary.
I'd say consider getting the CCTV from the cameras on the bus (Service Access Request under Data Protection Act, mentioning time / date / location and describing your mum's car), and/or preserve dashcam footage from your mum, just in case.
There was a recent cyclist-on-cyclist one in Scotland where civil legal action was not initiated for a considerable time (2 years iirc), so capture and file the data as an insurance policy.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
Great!
But don't you think everyone should be able to have an urgent scan, not just those who have the disposable income/savings to afford it?
The reason the NHS is failing rich people is that too few poor people are getting early interventions. Doom loop.
I'm sceptical private healthcare improves the overall provision. If a system is capacity constrained anyone bumped up the queue ipso facto pushes everyone else back. Possibly private medicine brings more money and investment into the system. Overall people care that they get the treatment and it's affordable and probably don't care whether they fund it through taxation or pay for it separately.
Fundamentally I think private healthcare pushes provision towards ability to pay than to need. The American system is an extreme example of an inequitable and inefficient system like this.
Private healthcare also provides examples of what is possible. My daughter had an issue. NHS slow motion ensues. Each specialist ordered a single test. Wait. Rule something out.... Waaaaait.
The private chap ordered the MRI, Xray etc in advance. Then called us in. Then gave a diagnosis that turned out to be correct on the spot.
The hypothesis to test here I think is that multiple tests are deemed not the best value use of a very limited budget. As you have plenty of spare money you are less constrained in your vfm calculation. So the question I think is whether multiple tests would be a good use of additional money being made available. I totally get your wanting the best for your daughter but someone aiming to get the best medical outcomes for a whole population needs to make trade offs. Treatment according to ability to pay rather on need undermines the objective of best medical outcomes for a population.
The NHS way of doing it was to
1) See a consultant 2) He ordered a a test 3) See the consultant 4) Another test 5) etc
Test data is cheap compared to consultants time - and it is cheap (relatively) to buy more MRI machines, X ray machines and find the staff to run them. Consultants are *rare* and it takes a decade to make a new one.
Tests *used* to be far more expensive.
This is classic OR stuff.
EDIT: The other classic NHS thing is joined up behaviour. Or lack of it. A relative, in hospital, just nearly died from neglect. The operation was a brilliant success - but the patient nearly died. It took a letter to the head of the Trust to get someone to pull their finger out.
I know all the focus is on the GE at the moment, but it feels that Labour in Wales "ought" to be beatable in 2026 as they've been in power even longer than Con in Westminster and SNP in Holyrood
They've just rigged the electoral system to make that damn near impossible. Thread header intended to follow when I have a moment.
No it's not impossible to beat Labour in Wales. All the Conservatives or Plaid Cymru need to do is get more people to vote for them.
You think Plaid will back the Tories over Labour?
I'm inviting offers for the Prince of Wales Bridge. Will you bid?
I know all the focus is on the GE at the moment, but it feels that Labour in Wales "ought" to be beatable in 2026 as they've been in power even longer than Con in Westminster and SNP in Holyrood
They've just rigged the electoral system to make that damn near impossible. Thread header intended to follow when I have a moment.
No it's not impossible to beat Labour in Wales. All the Conservatives or Plaid Cymru need to do is get more people to vote for them.
You think Plaid will back the Tories over Labour?
I'm inviting offers for the Prince of Wales Bridge. Will you bid?
That's not what I'm saying in the slightest. I'm saying that the electoral system isn't rigged in favour of Labour. If the Conservatives get more votes in a Senedd election than Labour then they will win more seats than Labour. I would have thought there was no need to say that.
Hopefully one of the lessons learned during Brexit was that impartiality doesn’t mean presenting a lie and the truth as if they are the same and letting viewers decide which is which for balance. If something is demonstrably and unequivocally untrue, it’s ok to report that.
“Rishi Sunak lied to the British public” - Labour on the £2k tax claim.
I listened to a conservative adviser this morning who said that the party is delighted with the row as it takes Labour's NHS arguments off the table and highlights Labour and taxation and the longer it is drawn out the more they are content to discuss it
Looks as if you are playing into their hands on this
"Considering". Oh, the manliness just seeps off the page, does it not?
If he was that attracted to Farage and Reform he’d just do it. By letting sources know he’s toying with defecting he’s proving that it’s calculation that is determinative. Odd little boy.
The burghers of Ipswich deserve a better choice than a spoilt manchild who can’t make his mind up which way he swings.
He's been a bit special since having no ID at the locals and then penning a weird article for Conhome about Susan Hall actually having been vg....
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
Great!
But don't you think everyone should be able to have an urgent scan, not just those who have the disposable income/savings to afford it?
The reason the NHS is failing rich people is that too few poor people are getting early interventions. Doom loop.
I'm sceptical private healthcare improves the overall provision. If a system is capacity constrained anyone bumped up the queue ipso facto pushes everyone else back. Possibly private medicine brings more money and investment into the system. Overall people care that they get the treatment and it's affordable and probably don't care whether they fund it through taxation or pay for it separately.
Fundamentally I think private healthcare pushes provision towards ability to pay than to need. The American system is an extreme example of an inequitable and inefficient system like this.
Private healthcare also provides examples of what is possible. My daughter had an issue. NHS slow motion ensues. Each specialist ordered a single test. Wait. Rule something out.... Waaaaait.
The private chap ordered the MRI, Xray etc in advance. Then called us in. Then gave a diagnosis that turned out to be correct on the spot.
The hypothesis to test here I think is that multiple tests are deemed not the best value use of a very limited budget. As you have plenty of spare money you are less constrained in your vfm calculation. So the question I think is whether multiple tests would be a good use of additional money being made available. I totally get your wanting the best for your daughter but someone aiming to get the best medical outcomes for a whole population needs to make trade offs. Treatment according to ability to pay rather on need undermines the objective of best medical outcomes for a population.
The NHS way of doing it was to
1) See a consultant 2) He ordered a a test 3) See the consultant 4) Another test 5) etc
Test data is cheap compared to consultants time - and it is cheap (relatively) to buy more MRI machines, X ray machines and find the staff to run them. Consultants are *rare* and it takes a decade to make a new one.
Tests *used* to be far more expensive.
This is classic OR stuff.
So why don't they order more tests in the state system? I am interested in the actual constraint, not private/public good/bad.
There’s nothing like being in a city with no mains electricity to really make you appreciate… electricity
Eg. No traffic lights
My hotel’s private generator packed in this morning so we’ve had no power since 9am. No idea when it is returning
How long can a society function like that?
As long as it takes.
As long as it takes to…. What? Neither side can win
Putin’s offensive is no more effective than Ukraine’s offensive last year. And arguably more costly
So a lot of people are dying for a war that seems to be going nowhere. My argument remains what it was last June. Seek an armistice. Divide Ukraine like Korea and then tool up so Putin doesn’t try this anywhere else
And coming to Odessa you realise
1. Thank god we have nukes. Build more nukes 2. We need to be spending 3-4% on defence. It’s just a fact. The world is a more dangerous neighbourhood. Cut the pensions of the grasping old boomers and send the asylum seekers to Ireland
I think either side can still win. At a minimum, Putin can win by getting the US to cut support then waiting until Ukraine runs out of ammunition. Ukraine can win the same way Vietnam, Afghanistan, Algeria and basically everyone else who gets invaded by a large country in the last 80 years wins, survive until the other side isn't prepared to pay the costs of invading someone else's country any more. I think each side also believes their version of this, which is why they're not negotiating.
I'm not saying it's not worth talking but I think "Seek an armistice. Divide Ukraine like Korea and then tool up so Putin doesn’t try this anywhere else" doesn't work for Ukraine, because Russia will try this again *in the rest of Ukraine*. For this to work for Ukraine the Ukrainians need to be confident that he isn't going to restart the war in Ukraine. If all Russia wanted was some more territory then this might be doable by external parties (realistically the US) providing military support, but the problem here is that avoiding western militaries in Ukraine is *Russia's biggest objective for the entire thing*.
I suppose you might be able to square it by sending NATO troops into Ukraine first, then negotiating with Putin to scale them back again. But if the US is going to be that gung-ho about risking turning a Ukraine-Russia war into a World War then they may as well just go ahead and win the war for Ukraine.
“Rishi Sunak lied to the British public” - Labour on the £2k tax claim.
I listened to a conservative adviser this morning who said that the party is delighted with the row as it takes Labour's NHS arguments off the table and highlights Labour and taxation and the longer it is drawn out the more they are content to discuss it
Looks as if you are playing into their hands on this
I am happy to repeat “Rishi Sunak lied to the British public” for as long as Tory advisers want me to
Tory Gain in Montgomeryshire in Tuesdays by election, they are 2 for 2 during the campaign. Lolz Rhiwcynon AMY, Richard Edward, Welsh Liberal Democrats 74
NEW: UK statistics watchdog confirms the Office for Statistics Regulation is investigating Rishi Sunak's claims that Labour's tax rises will cost families £2000 each.
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
Great!
But don't you think everyone should be able to have an urgent scan, not just those who have the disposable income/savings to afford it?
The reason the NHS is failing rich people is that too few poor people are getting early interventions. Doom loop.
I'm sceptical private healthcare improves the overall provision. If a system is capacity constrained anyone bumped up the queue ipso facto pushes everyone else back. Possibly private medicine brings more money and investment into the system. Overall people care that they get the treatment and it's affordable and probably don't care whether they fund it through taxation or pay for it separately.
Fundamentally I think private healthcare pushes provision towards ability to pay than to need. The American system is an extreme example of an inequitable and inefficient system like this.
Private healthcare also provides examples of what is possible. My daughter had an issue. NHS slow motion ensues. Each specialist ordered a single test. Wait. Rule something out.... Waaaaait.
The private chap ordered the MRI, Xray etc in advance. Then called us in. Then gave a diagnosis that turned out to be correct on the spot.
The hypothesis to test here I think is that multiple tests are deemed not the best value use of a very limited budget. As you have plenty of spare money you are less constrained in your vfm calculation. So the question I think is whether multiple tests would be a good use of additional money being made available. I totally get your wanting the best for your daughter but someone aiming to get the best medical outcomes for a whole population needs to make trade offs. Treatment according to ability to pay rather on need undermines the objective of best medical outcomes for a population.
The NHS way of doing it was to
1) See a consultant 2) He ordered a a test 3) See the consultant 4) Another test 5) etc
Test data is cheap compared to consultants time - and it is cheap (relatively) to buy more MRI machines, X ray machines and find the staff to run them. Consultants are *rare* and it takes a decade to make a new one.
Tests *used* to be far more expensive.
This is classic OR stuff.
EDIT: The other classic NHS thing is joined up behaviour. Or lack of it. A relative, in hospital, just nearly died from neglect. The operation was a brilliant success - but the patient nearly died. It took a letter to the head of the Trust to get someone to pull their finger out.
Actually MRI's are restricted with say 1 per hospital while there is more than 1 consultant in a hospital.
I noticed this last week were Clinical Decisions had a sign saying they had 1 MRI slot a day (because otherwise it's fully booked x weeks in advance).
Now the fix is definitely more MRI machines but they are expensive to purchase maintain and run...
“Rishi Sunak lied to the British public” - Labour on the £2k tax claim.
I listened to a conservative adviser this morning who said that the party is delighted with the row as it takes Labour's NHS arguments off the table and highlights Labour and taxation and the longer it is drawn out the more they are content to discuss it
Looks as if you are playing into their hands on this
I am happy to repeat “Rishi Sunak lied to the British public” for as long as Tory advisers want me to
Of course you are and keeping Labour and taxes on the agenda works for the conservatives
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt.
Thanks
Not sure.
Thanks (and thanks all). My aunt is v happy to make amends, even if legally she was in the right (which it seems she wasn't by the comments here).
My question I suppose was what was the mechanism of the legal/insurance process.
The cyclist has written to her saying she was in the wrong, right of way, etc, and is going to get the bike assessed and expects to be made good. No one has yet mentioned insurance or police.
I would snap that offer up!
However, I think you have to report the collision to the police if anyone was injured - I think that must be quite likely? And the insurer will likely require that they are informed too.
Long answer, which I hope is helpful. I think all 3 parties made mistakes.
The bus driver wove (waved?) a party across a traffic lane (the cycle lane) he could not control, giving her false reassurance (was he mislead by looking in his NS mirror?). Since it is a backed up box junction the bus driver wasn't allowed to enter it anyway - the exit has to be clear to enter, unless they will be waiting to turn right.
The cyclist riding up the cycle lane has priority over oncoming turning traffic, in the same way as any other vehicle driving along a road does. If he was going as fast as stated, then I'd consider his cycling to be on the scale somewhere between insufficiently cautious and negligent, due to the difficulty he created for himself of seeing round the bus in time to stop.
My comments on your aunt would be similar - she should imo have paused halfway across to have a look round the bus, and the fact of the collision is that she went across oncoming traffic.
Plus there is the Duty of Care to vulnerable road users under the Hierarchy of Responsibility.
If it comes to Civil Court or insurance negotiations I'd expect any assessed amount to be reduced modestly or substantially due to contributory negligence by the cyclist.
On what should be reported, it is more extensive than I realised but I suspect non-injury accidents are not always reported. May be worth reporting mentioning "non-injury but damage accident" as a way of getting an official record of "non-injury"? https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/collisions/
In the circs either snap up that offer or hand it over to the insurance company to deal with, perhaps in dialogue with the cyclist's insurer, and consider whether there is a need to report to the police. Hope both are well and your mum has protected no claims. Most cyclists have 3rd Party Liability via at least household insurance, though many do not know it - this one may have specialist insurance too. Bike damage could be several k.
Obvs if she takes up the offer don't admit total fault in writing as that could undermine future positions, and sound fluffy but straight forward ("I am glad to hear that you have no injuries"). But we all know that type of thing here.
Get your mum to make written contemporaneous notes, dictating to you if necessary.
I'd say consider getting the CCTV from the cameras on the bus (Service Access Request under Data Protection Act, mentioning time / date / location and describing your mum's car), and/or preserve dashcam footage from your mum, just in case.
There was a recent cyclist-on-cyclist one in Scotland where civil legal action was not initiated for a considerable time (2 years iirc), so capture and file the data as an insurance policy.
Thank you so much fantastic points and will be conveyed. To my aunt btw (not that it affects the advice at all - my mother is 94 and if she took to a car I would press the red button and get all other road users off the road up to a 1,000 mile radius).
I'm not convinced Reform won't take most of their votes from Labour.
But whatever happens, I can't see the Sun backing the Tories right up until the morning of election day and then Labour winning a landslide.
I think the only election where they backed a loser was 1970, but that was part of the deal when Murdoch bought it in 1969 - that it would continue to support Labour for ten years, even though having read their 1970 election coverage they did it rather reluctantly.
But the Sun is not the force it was.
And it's very likely that the Sun will (reluctantly) change it's mind on July 3rd / 4th because it wants to say it won it.
The Wednesday is more important than the Thursday. It's possible they will only come out in favour of voting Labour just before election day, but my feeling is that if the polls stay constant (which they won't) they'll be backing Labour somewhat earlier.
But they won't say they won it. They got their fingers rapped for saying that.
The media landscape has changed. They want to be able to pitch themselves as an insurgent a la GBeebies. There’s nothing for them in backing Labour. The run of backing the winner has to end sometime. There’s no immutable law that says it has to be so.
Nigel Farage today calls for a full inquiry into covid vaccine harms following the telegraph article yesterday. Reform to run on the tories poisoned ypu and your kids with a dangerous vaccine
This from Farage
"Today the Telegraph reported Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.
At last others are waking up to the need for a full, immediate inquiry into vaccine harms"
“Rishi Sunak lied to the British public” - Labour on the £2k tax claim.
I listened to a conservative adviser this morning who said that the party is delighted with the row as it takes Labour's NHS arguments off the table and highlights Labour and taxation and the longer it is drawn out the more they are content to discuss it
Looks as if you are playing into their hands on this
I think it will depend how it plays out.
I suspect that after the £350m on the side of a bus, it's a dangerous tactic. That really cut through at the time, despite it being obviously wrong, but the fact that it didn't happen is also pretty well known.
If it becomes a debate about the facts of the £2000, the Tories will be happy. However, it's looking like it will come down to a debate about Rishi lying, and I don't think he has the bluster of Gove, Farage or Johnson, that can easily bat away that accusation.
Many people will be thinking £2000 over 4 years isn't as bad as their feared - that was Mrs Eek's reaction..
I had assumed it was over a year and was still like "well if that means the wait in A&E isn't 8 hours that's still worth it"... Though, tbf, I'm on less than the median income so also assumed I wouldn't be looking at that full £2000.
Yes I would happily pay an extra £400pa taxes if public services benefit.
Unfortunately not everybody thinks like that and most of SKS's plans to improve matters dont stand up to even a tiny amount of scrutiny.
From using private healthcare to improve waiting lists to using GB Energy to reduce energy prices when all it is, is a PFI private sector benefit investment scheme to building new buildings that already existed since 2021.
The list goes on and on.
How much any of that will matter is open to debate as the one word CHANGE after 14 yrs is very persuasive for your less picky voter
I think a 20 to 50 Maj now looks likely as a bare minimum which is a pity because i have a lot to win on NOM
This is a serious report, published by serious people. The potential link between Covid vaccines and excess deaths needs to be properly investigated, in the interest of public health and forming the best vaccine strategy for future pandemics.
Nigel Farage today calls for a full inquiry into covid vaccine harms following the telegraph article yesterday. Reform to run on the tories poisoned ypu and your kids with a dangerous vaccine
This from Farage
"Today the Telegraph reported Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.
At last others are waking up to the need for a full, immediate inquiry into vaccine harms"
Tory Gain in Montgomeryshire in Tuesdays by election, they are 2 for 2 during the campaign. Lolz Rhiwcynon AMY, Richard Edward, Welsh Liberal Democrats 74
JONES, Ann Plaid Cymru 286
JONES, Richard Breese, Independent 110
LEWIS, Oliver, Reform UK 18
MARKINSON, David, Independent 4
PARFITT, Rhodri, The Green Party 13
WIXEY, Paul, Welsh Labour 25
YEOMANS, John Welsh, Conservative 352 (Elected)
The interesting thing about Welsh politics is not the terrible prospects for conservative mps on the 4th July but just what's happens in the Senedd in 2026 when Welsh Labour cannot blame Westminster for its woes
Tory Gain in Montgomeryshire in Tuesdays by election, they are 2 for 2 during the campaign. Lolz Rhiwcynon AMY, Richard Edward, Welsh Liberal Democrats 74
JONES, Ann Plaid Cymru 286
JONES, Richard Breese, Independent 110
LEWIS, Oliver, Reform UK 18
MARKINSON, David, Independent 4
PARFITT, Rhodri, The Green Party 13
WIXEY, Paul, Welsh Labour 25
YEOMANS, John Welsh, Conservative 352 (Elected)
Conservative gain from Independent in a ward that they only lost by 8 votes in 2022 and with a reduced share of the vote.
I know all the focus is on the GE at the moment, but it feels that Labour in Wales "ought" to be beatable in 2026 as they've been in power even longer than Con in Westminster and SNP in Holyrood
They've just rigged the electoral system to make that damn near impossible. Thread header intended to follow when I have a moment.
No it's not impossible to beat Labour in Wales. All the Conservatives or Plaid Cymru need to do is get more people to vote for them.
You think Plaid will back the Tories over Labour?
I'm inviting offers for the Prince of Wales Bridge. Will you bid?
That's not what I'm saying in the slightest. I'm saying that the electoral system isn't rigged in favour of Labour. If the Conservatives get more votes in a Senedd election than Labour then they will win more seats than Labour. I would have thought there was no need to say that.
The new electoral system would not guarantee that. In any way whatsoever.
I really need to find time for that thread header...
Tory Gain in Montgomeryshire in Tuesdays by election, they are 2 for 2 during the campaign. Lolz Rhiwcynon AMY, Richard Edward, Welsh Liberal Democrats 74
JONES, Ann Plaid Cymru 286
JONES, Richard Breese, Independent 110
LEWIS, Oliver, Reform UK 18
MARKINSON, David, Independent 4
PARFITT, Rhodri, The Green Party 13
WIXEY, Paul, Welsh Labour 25
YEOMANS, John Welsh, Conservative 352 (Elected)
The interesting thing about Welsh politics is not the terrible prospects for conservative mps on the 4th July but just what's happens in the Senedd in 2026 when Welsh Labour cannot blame Westminster for its woes
Not really relevant. WL claims to be a separate entity from the Labour one in Westminster, with some autonomy, same as ScotLab do. So that will still play.
"Considering". Oh, the manliness just seeps off the page, does it not?
If he was that attracted to Farage and Reform he’d just do it. By letting sources know he’s toying with defecting he’s proving that it’s calculation that is determinative. Odd little boy.
The burghers of Ipswich deserve a better choice than a spoilt manchild who can’t make his mind up which way he swings.
He's been a bit special since having no ID at the locals and then penning a weird article for Conhome about Susan Hall actually having been vg....
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
My expectation for the 7 way is that Reform will attack Con for not being right wing enough, LD will attack Con for being too right wing, while Green, Plaid and SNP will attack Labour for not being left wing enough. Lab and Con will mainly attack each other and ignore the rest.
With Mordaunt and Rayner in it could be quite interesting. I am out on Friday at a gathering of the WI. They have an annual BBQ that permits men, and there will be both LD and Con local councillors present so may come back with some anecdata.
The deputies will alter the dynamic. Penny is a good speaker generally, but I was surprised how poor she was in the leadership debates. Rayner has charisma and humour, but can be a loose cannon. Worth watching on catch up.
The debate on Friday clashes directly with the England football match, which is live on terrestrial TV and after which Southgate has to name his final squad. Which utter clown is responsible for such moronic scheduling?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Point of order
The Friday debate is between Mordaunt and Rayner plus other leaders - Sunak and Starmer will not be there
Will be more interesting, I think. Mordaunt versus Rayner would be interesting, somewhat diluted by the others.
Rayner v Sunak would be a massacre, I think. Possibly also Mordaunt versus Starmer, but to a lesser extent. In both I think the women would come out comfortably on top.
Are there any other ladies on Friday or are the rest all blokes?
Assuming it's otherwise all leaders then it depends which one the Greens put up, I think?
I think that assumption is wrong and that Daisy Cooper is the Lib Dem on this one.
Quite a range across the different methodologies/firms:
I've just spent the first part of my lunch break counting up how many seats have the same winner in all 7. Sad, I know.
Lab -347 Con - 33 LD - 15 SNP - 9 PC- 2
I may have miscounted slightly, especially Labour, (I just eyeballed it) but that means between the models, 226 constituencies are in play - that is an astonishingly large number.
Between them, the wide variations in overall methodologies and changes in support in multiple directions since 2019 mean that nobody can be really sure what's going on and it wouldn't surprise me if we get some very strange results if the polls don't change significantly.
EDIT - I didn't even count up how many surveys there were correctly. So treat my numbers accordingly.
major new peer-reviewed study into the “unprecedented” global excess deaths figures has concluded that Covid mRNA shots are directly responsible.
The large-scale study analyzed the mortality data from 47 individual countries and was published in the world-renowned British Medical Journal (BMJ).
The scientists concluded that the Covid mRNA injections are to blame for the soaring excess deaths seen around the world since the pandemic.
Researchers from The Netherlands analyzed data from 47 Western countries and discovered there had been more than three million excess deaths since 2020.
They found that the trend continued despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures which were meant to protect the public from COVID-19.
They said the “unprecedented” figures “raised serious concerns.”
They are now calling on governments to fully investigate the role of vaccines in the mass deaths of humans on a global scale.
Writing in the BMJ Public Health, the authors from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, said:
“Although COVID-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the COVID-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well. “Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”
They added: “During the pandemic, it was emphasised by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines.
“In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply.”
The study found that across Europe, the U.S., and Australia there had been more than one million excess deaths in 2020, at the height of the pandemic.
Thrill-seeking Lib Dem leader Sir Ed Davey landed himself in court for a speeding conviction after admitting he is “super-busy” and blundered when giving his details to police
"Keir Starmer’s disdain for Sunak does him no favours Yet as Sunak will know from his jousts with Liz Truss, winning a debate does not necessarily guarantee success at the ballot box
I know all the focus is on the GE at the moment, but it feels that Labour in Wales "ought" to be beatable in 2026 as they've been in power even longer than Con in Westminster and SNP in Holyrood
They've just rigged the electoral system to make that damn near impossible. Thread header intended to follow when I have a moment.
No it's not impossible to beat Labour in Wales. All the Conservatives or Plaid Cymru need to do is get more people to vote for them.
You think Plaid will back the Tories over Labour?
I'm inviting offers for the Prince of Wales Bridge. Will you bid?
That's not what I'm saying in the slightest. I'm saying that the electoral system isn't rigged in favour of Labour. If the Conservatives get more votes in a Senedd election than Labour then they will win more seats than Labour. I would have thought there was no need to say that.
The new electoral system would not guarantee that. In any way whatsoever.
I really need to find time for that thread header...
major new peer-reviewed study into the “unprecedented” global excess deaths figures has concluded that Covid mRNA shots are directly responsible.
The large-scale study analyzed the mortality data from 47 individual countries and was published in the world-renowned British Medical Journal (BMJ).
The scientists concluded that the Covid mRNA injections are to blame for the soaring excess deaths seen around the world since the pandemic.
Researchers from The Netherlands analyzed data from 47 Western countries and discovered there had been more than three million excess deaths since 2020.
They found that the trend continued despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures which were meant to protect the public from COVID-19.
They said the “unprecedented” figures “raised serious concerns.”
They are now calling on governments to fully investigate the role of vaccines in the mass deaths of humans on a global scale.
Writing in the BMJ Public Health, the authors from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, said:
“Although COVID-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the COVID-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well. “Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”
They added: “During the pandemic, it was emphasised by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines.
“In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply.”
The study found that across Europe, the U.S., and Australia there had been more than one million excess deaths in 2020, at the height of the pandemic.
Nigel Farage today calls for a full inquiry into covid vaccine harms following the telegraph article yesterday. Reform to run on the tories poisoned ypu and your kids with a dangerous vaccine
This from Farage
"Today the Telegraph reported Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.
At last others are waking up to the need for a full, immediate inquiry into vaccine harms"
One of Sunak's better moments was the way he dealt with the gotcha question on private medical treatment with a straightforward "yes". Starmer's answer sounded like it belonged to another era and will be a hostage to fortune.
I am still struggling with why Starmer would even dream of saying no to a question that most people like Sunak would not have even hesitated to say yes too, and I think there will be some cut through with that bizarre answer with those that were watching the debate.
The correct answer for someone responsible for providing healthcare to the population is "if it's good enough for you, it's good enough for me." Starmer gave the correct answer; Sunak gave the incorrect answer.
The issue I suppose is whether it's better to be believable than correct. As this is a political debate I'm not sure it is better.
Good morning
I simply do not believe Starmer would not put his family first in the circumstances of a medical emergency and his answer was simply political and dishonest
Private care isn't about emergencies though. Emergency care is pretty much only via the NHS, which is why it matters to us all. A multimillionaire acquaintance of mine found this out when his mum fractured her hip. There is no alternative to the local Emergency Dept in that situation (Bangor in that case).
If it was a requirement that all elected politicians could only use the NHS and State Schools then I suspect that this would concentrate their minds on improving things for the rest of us quite noticeably!
Private healthcare is not without risk. After a close family member picked up a life threatening infection at a luxurious private hospital, which then had to be fixed by the NHS, I think it’s perfectly reasonable to reject the allure of quick fixes in the private sector and believe the NHS option is best.
Because of course the NHS never has problems with its care. :
Sure, but the point is that it’s perfectly reasonable to believe that private medicine is not the answer, nor the best option.
Several members of my family have use private medical care and it most certainly in their cases was the best option not least my daughter who had an urgent private scan that ruled out cancer
Great!
But don't you think everyone should be able to have an urgent scan, not just those who have the disposable income/savings to afford it?
The reason the NHS is failing rich people is that too few poor people are getting early interventions. Doom loop.
I'm sceptical private healthcare improves the overall provision. If a system is capacity constrained anyone bumped up the queue ipso facto pushes everyone else back. Possibly private medicine brings more money and investment into the system. Overall people care that they get the treatment and it's affordable and probably don't care whether they fund it through taxation or pay for it separately.
Fundamentally I think private healthcare pushes provision towards ability to pay than to need. The American system is an extreme example of an inequitable and inefficient system like this.
Private healthcare also provides examples of what is possible. My daughter had an issue. NHS slow motion ensues. Each specialist ordered a single test. Wait. Rule something out.... Waaaaait.
The private chap ordered the MRI, Xray etc in advance. Then called us in. Then gave a diagnosis that turned out to be correct on the spot.
The hypothesis to test here I think is that multiple tests are deemed not the best value use of a very limited budget. As you have plenty of spare money you are less constrained in your vfm calculation. So the question I think is whether multiple tests would be a good use of additional money being made available. I totally get your wanting the best for your daughter but someone aiming to get the best medical outcomes for a whole population needs to make trade offs. Treatment according to ability to pay rather on need undermines the objective of best medical outcomes for a population.
The NHS way of doing it was to
1) See a consultant 2) He ordered a a test 3) See the consultant 4) Another test 5) etc
Test data is cheap compared to consultants time - and it is cheap (relatively) to buy more MRI machines, X ray machines and find the staff to run them. Consultants are *rare* and it takes a decade to make a new one.
Tests *used* to be far more expensive.
This is classic OR stuff.
So why don't they order more tests in the state system? I am interested in the actual constraint, not private/public good/bad.
I've used the NHS a lot - both my daughters had lots of medical fun as small children. My brother has had some in depth experiences as well.
The NHS culture seems to be very anti "order all the tests in advance". This in turn seems to be rooted in a belief that testing is expensive and complex.
The private consultant in my eldest daughter's case said that he pretty much knew what the answer was before he saw us - because all the tests were negative.
Nigel Farage today calls for a full inquiry into covid vaccine harms following the telegraph article yesterday. Reform to run on the tories poisoned ypu and your kids with a dangerous vaccine
This from Farage
"Today the Telegraph reported Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.
At last others are waking up to the need for a full, immediate inquiry into vaccine harms"
Tory Gain in Montgomeryshire in Tuesdays by election, they are 2 for 2 during the campaign. Lolz Rhiwcynon AMY, Richard Edward, Welsh Liberal Democrats 74
JONES, Ann Plaid Cymru 286
JONES, Richard Breese, Independent 110
LEWIS, Oliver, Reform UK 18
MARKINSON, David, Independent 4
PARFITT, Rhodri, The Green Party 13
WIXEY, Paul, Welsh Labour 25
YEOMANS, John Welsh, Conservative 352 (Elected)
The interesting thing about Welsh politics is not the terrible prospects for conservative mps on the 4th July but just what's happens in the Senedd in 2026 when Welsh Labour cannot blame Westminster for its woes
Not really relevant. WL claims to be a separate entity from the Labour one in Westminster, with some autonomy, same as ScotLab do. So that will still play.
Drakeford blamed the conservative government for all the woes but of course in 2026 Labour will be the government
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
My expectation for the 7 way is that Reform will attack Con for not being right wing enough, LD will attack Con for being too right wing, while Green, Plaid and SNP will attack Labour for not being left wing enough. Lab and Con will mainly attack each other and ignore the rest.
With Mordaunt and Rayner in it could be quite interesting. I am out on Friday at a gathering of the WI. They have an annual BBQ that permits men, and there will be both LD and Con local councillors present so may come back with some anecdata.
The deputies will alter the dynamic. Penny is a good speaker generally, but I was surprised how poor she was in the leadership debates. Rayner has charisma and humour, but can be a loose cannon. Worth watching on catch up.
The debate on Friday clashes directly with the England football match, which is live on terrestrial TV and after which Southgate has to name his final squad. Which utter clown is responsible for such moronic scheduling?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Point of order
The Friday debate is between Mordaunt and Rayner plus other leaders - Sunak and Starmer will not be there
Will be more interesting, I think. Mordaunt versus Rayner would be interesting, somewhat diluted by the others.
Rayner v Sunak would be a massacre, I think. Possibly also Mordaunt versus Starmer, but to a lesser extent. In both I think the women would come out comfortably on top.
Are there any other ladies on Friday or are the rest all blokes?
Assuming it's otherwise all leaders then it depends which one the Greens put up, I think?
I think that assumption is wrong and that Daisy Cooper is the Lib Dem on this one.
Ah, be interesting to see more of her. A little surprised that Davey wouldn't take the chance to boost his profile, though it may be that Cooper would be the better performer in a debate.
Nigel Farage today calls for a full inquiry into covid vaccine harms following the telegraph article yesterday. Reform to run on the tories poisoned ypu and your kids with a dangerous vaccine
This from Farage
"Today the Telegraph reported Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.
At last others are waking up to the need for a full, immediate inquiry into vaccine harms"
In the Culture novel, Excession, there is a scene where one ship tells another "Goodbye", after being told the other is going to do something stupid. When questioned, the first ship says "*I'm* not going anywhere"
There's Really no Way to Rescue the Situation Here.
John Mearsheimer: But my sense is that deep down at this point in time, most people fully understand that Ukraine is doomed. The only interesting question at this point in time is how much territory are the Russians going to capture before this turns into a frozen conflict? But there's really no way to rescue the situation here. The Ukrainians are simply doomed. They can't fix the manpower problem. And with regard to the weaponry problem, we don't have the weaponry to give them. And we're not going to be able to spin up the industrial base to provide them, even in 2025, with enough weaponry to rescue the situation. But, again, even if we give them the weaponry, they have a huge manpower problem. And the Russians just get stronger and stronger. Putin is on a roll. The Russians are on a roll. So I think that what you're going to see here is what I call an ugly russian victory.
Cumulative immigration to UK since 2021: India: 670k Nigeria: 310k China: 274k Pakistan: 166k HK: 131k Ukraine: 108k Even if u subtract students you're talking abt 301k from India & 103k from Nigeria. Whatever your priors on migration, there's no disputing these are BIG numbers.
Just watched the debate. My take was Starmer was surprisingly crap and Sunak surprisingly good.
No wonder Jonathan (Super Lightweight) Ashworth was squirming on TV this morning.
I doubt it will move the dial much, but there is no harm in the electorate being reminded that Labour always likes to put up taxes, and not just on "the rich" (whoever they are).
Nigel Farage today calls for a full inquiry into covid vaccine harms following the telegraph article yesterday. Reform to run on the tories poisoned ypu and your kids with a dangerous vaccine
This from Farage
"Today the Telegraph reported Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.
At last others are waking up to the need for a full, immediate inquiry into vaccine harms"
In the Culture novel, Excession, there is a scene where one ship tells another "Goodbye", after being told the other is going to do something stupid. When questioned, the first ship says "*I'm* not going anywhere"
Yes, I read that one in the last year. I think our new friend is about to encounter an outside context problem of his own.
Nigel Farage today calls for a full inquiry into covid vaccine harms following the telegraph article yesterday. Reform to run on the tories poisoned ypu and your kids with a dangerous vaccine
This from Farage
"Today the Telegraph reported Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.
At last others are waking up to the need for a full, immediate inquiry into vaccine harms"
Cumulative immigration to UK since 2021: India: 670k Nigeria: 310k China: 274k Pakistan: 166k HK: 131k Ukraine: 108k Even if u subtract students you're talking abt 301k from India & 103k from Nigeria. Whatever your priors on migration, there's no disputing these are BIG numbers.
I mean, when was the meeting? When did the Tories sit down and say, right, we won the Brexit vote, which was mainly about controlling migration, how can we get 5 million Nigerians into the country in under 2 years?
There's Really no Way to Rescue the Situation Here.
John Mearsheimer: But my sense is that deep down at this point in time, most people fully understand that Ukraine is doomed. The only interesting question at this point in time is how much territory are the Russians going to capture before this turns into a frozen conflict? But there's really no way to rescue the situation here. The Ukrainians are simply doomed. They can't fix the manpower problem. And with regard to the weaponry problem, we don't have the weaponry to give them. And we're not going to be able to spin up the industrial base to provide them, even in 2025, with enough weaponry to rescue the situation. But, again, even if we give them the weaponry, they have a huge manpower problem. And the Russians just get stronger and stronger. Putin is on a roll. The Russians are on a roll. So I think that what you're going to see here is what I call an ugly russian victory.
Thanks for the confirmation that you are today's Russian troll.
BTW due to lack of Moderators you will probably be able to post more posts than previous trolls (great for your performance review) but I suspect most of us will be ignoring you...
Nigel Farage today calls for a full inquiry into covid vaccine harms following the telegraph article yesterday. Reform to run on the tories poisoned ypu and your kids with a dangerous vaccine
This from Farage
"Today the Telegraph reported Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.
At last others are waking up to the need for a full, immediate inquiry into vaccine harms"
In the Culture novel, Excession, there is a scene where one ship tells another "Goodbye", after being told the other is going to do something stupid. When questioned, the first ship says "*I'm* not going anywhere"
Yes, I read that one in the last year. I think our new friend is about to encounter an outside context problem of his own.
Got the signed hardcopy.
@{ @rcs1000 turns into a fleet of 50,000 warships }
Aunt last night driving home was waiting at a traffic light junction to turn right across traffic. Opposite direction traffic backed up and static leaving a gap for the right turn. Lights green. Bus is first in the line ahead of the junction and waves her on. She moves across and is hit head on by a cyclist undertaking the bus. Chaos ensues. My aunt says the cyclist was going very fast but his (and her) light was green.
Who's at fault.
Picture showing junction and from direction of travel of aunt (my one of the month).
Your aunt.
Thanks
Not sure.
Thanks (and thanks all). My aunt is v happy to make amends, even if legally she was in the right (which it seems she wasn't by the comments here).
My question I suppose was what was the mechanism of the legal/insurance process.
The cyclist has written to her saying she was in the wrong, right of way, etc, and is going to get the bike assessed and expects to be made good. No one has yet mentioned insurance or police.
I would snap that offer up!
However, I think you have to report the collision to the police if anyone was injured - I think that must be quite likely? And the insurer will likely require that they are informed too.
Long answer, which I hope is helpful. I think all 3 parties made mistakes.
The bus driver wove (waved?) a party across a traffic lane (the cycle lane) he could not control, giving her false reassurance (was he mislead by looking in his NS mirror?). Since it is a backed up box junction the bus driver wasn't allowed to enter it anyway - the exit has to be clear to enter, unless they will be waiting to turn right.
The cyclist riding up the cycle lane has priority over oncoming turning traffic, in the same way as any other vehicle driving along a road does. If he was going as fast as stated, then I'd consider his cycling to be on the scale somewhere between insufficiently cautious and negligent, due to the difficulty he created for himself of seeing round the bus in time to stop.
My comments on your aunt would be similar - she should imo have paused halfway across to have a look round the bus, and the fact of the collision is that she went across oncoming traffic.
Plus there is the Duty of Care to vulnerable road users under the Hierarchy of Responsibility.
If it comes to Civil Court or insurance negotiations I'd expect any assessed amount to be reduced modestly or substantially due to contributory negligence by the cyclist.
On what should be reported, it is more extensive than I realised but I suspect non-injury accidents are not always reported. May be worth reporting mentioning "non-injury but damage accident" as a way of getting an official record of "non-injury"? https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/collisions/
In the circs either snap up that offer or hand it over to the insurance company to deal with, perhaps in dialogue with the cyclist's insurer, and consider whether there is a need to report to the police. Hope both are well and your mum has protected no claims. Most cyclists have 3rd Party Liability via at least household insurance, though many do not know it - this one may have specialist insurance too. Bike damage could be several k.
Obvs if she takes up the offer don't admit total fault in writing as that could undermine future positions, and sound fluffy but straight forward ("I am glad to hear that you have no injuries"). But we all know that type of thing here.
Get your mum to make written contemporaneous notes, dictating to you if necessary.
I'd say consider getting the CCTV from the cameras on the bus (Service Access Request under Data Protection Act, mentioning time / date / location and describing your mum's car), and/or preserve dashcam footage from your mum, just in case.
There was a recent cyclist-on-cyclist one in Scotland where civil legal action was not initiated for a considerable time (2 years iirc), so capture and file the data as an insurance policy.
If the cyclist was going as fast as stated and was involved in a collision with a car, it must be vanishingly unlikely that they came away without an injury. Must be at least a bruise or two, a graze.
There are also plenty of incidents where people sustain concussions and don't realise until later. A difficult risk-reward decision but I think Topping's aunt should consider a quick note to the police via 101.
Not having a horse in the race, I didn't bother watching the debate, and overall it seems to have been a wash, with pretty much everyone without a starting bias rating it as a draw.
On the one hand that seems almost a victory for Sunak: I expected him to be dreadful in this, so not being dreadful is a bit of a win. He probably should be quietly pleased with that bit of it.
On the other hand, a draw isn't going to do the Cons much good - when even Con supporters are now presenting a potential 1997 scenario as a 'good' result, then you know they're in dire straits, and what the Cons need from their leader is a massive win, both to boost their own confidence and to draw some undecided voters their way. Under the headline 51/49 or 50/50, Sunak (and the Tories) are still rated as worse in every policy area tha Starmer and Labour. And this morning's unravelling of the £2000 tax claim is another advent calendar window for me.
I feel a slight temptation to watch the 7-way debate now - not for either of these two, but to see how the smaller parties aim their fire - firing squad for Rishi, or carving out their own territories around the edges of the imminent Empire of Labour?
My expectation for the 7 way is that Reform will attack Con for not being right wing enough, LD will attack Con for being too right wing, while Green, Plaid and SNP will attack Labour for not being left wing enough. Lab and Con will mainly attack each other and ignore the rest.
With Mordaunt and Rayner in it could be quite interesting. I am out on Friday at a gathering of the WI. They have an annual BBQ that permits men, and there will be both LD and Con local councillors present so may come back with some anecdata.
The deputies will alter the dynamic. Penny is a good speaker generally, but I was surprised how poor she was in the leadership debates. Rayner has charisma and humour, but can be a loose cannon. Worth watching on catch up.
The debate on Friday clashes directly with the England football match, which is live on terrestrial TV and after which Southgate has to name his final squad. Which utter clown is responsible for such moronic scheduling?
Really - mind you it can be recorded
I'll record it. But to do so really is the domain of ultra political nerds. Most people will watch the football – it's a friendly, but as it might well determine Southgate's final squad, it really matters.
Not sure most people will watch England in a friendly, different if in competition
Wanna bet?
I don't particularly enjoy watching men's football, and find the England men's team irritating. And I'm well above average in my interest in politics. But I'm still more likely to watch a meaningless friendly which I MIGHT be irritated and unentertained by than a debate which I know I will find irritating and unentertaining. Basically, who do I want to invite into my house - Gareth Southgate or Rishi Sunak and the rest of the weirdos? Clearly Gareth. Even if he does make some tediously unadventurous tactical choices and even if he is tediously woke.
Generalising wildly from myself therefore, more people will watch a meaningless football match than a debate among political party leaders.
All academic in my case as I'll be at Old Trafford watching cricket. But still.
Point of order
The Friday debate is between Mordaunt and Rayner plus other leaders - Sunak and Starmer will not be there
Will be more interesting, I think. Mordaunt versus Rayner would be interesting, somewhat diluted by the others.
Rayner v Sunak would be a massacre, I think. Possibly also Mordaunt versus Starmer, but to a lesser extent. In both I think the women would come out comfortably on top.
Are there any other ladies on Friday or are the rest all blokes?
Assuming it's otherwise all leaders then it depends which one the Greens put up, I think?
I think that assumption is wrong and that Daisy Cooper is the Lib Dem on this one.
Ed Davey too busy sitting in a bath of custard out on the campaign trail?
I've only skimmed, but there's a notable lack of any obvious link between vaccines and excess deaths (not to mention the issues with excess deaths as a measure, after lockdowns). They have some interesting data, but they oversell it quite badly - I'd have had plenty of objections at peer review. If they'd found anything substantive this would be in bmj or Lancet or somewhere reputable like NEJM. Even having said that, the Telegraph, Farage and other loons are overselling it way beyond even what the authors are saying.
There's also the outright untruth that governments don't make detailed death data available. The UK does. I've used it - full cause of death and underlying causes are available. The data aren't always great due to different interpretations of recording, but they are there.
There's Really no Way to Rescue the Situation Here.
John Mearsheimer: But my sense is that deep down at this point in time, most people fully understand that Ukraine is doomed. The only interesting question at this point in time is how much territory are the Russians going to capture before this turns into a frozen conflict? But there's really no way to rescue the situation here. The Ukrainians are simply doomed. They can't fix the manpower problem. And with regard to the weaponry problem, we don't have the weaponry to give them. And we're not going to be able to spin up the industrial base to provide them, even in 2025, with enough weaponry to rescue the situation. But, again, even if we give them the weaponry, they have a huge manpower problem. And the Russians just get stronger and stronger. Putin is on a roll. The Russians are on a roll. So I think that what you're going to see here is what I call an ugly russian victory.
Thanks for the confirmation that you are today's Russian troll.
BTW due to lack of Moderators you will probably be able to post more posts than previous trolls (great for your performance review) but I suspect most of us will be ignoring you...
As I said before we should all just ignore the posts and not give any oxygen to them
Comments
The burghers of Ipswich deserve a better choice than a spoilt manchild who can’t make his mind up which way he swings.
So, you're probably talking nearer £100 a year for an actual "average" earner - and compared to the actual tax rises already baked in with the freeze on allowances for the next few years - it wouldn't even be the biggest tax rise they'd face.
@e_casalicchio
NEW: UK stats watchdog looking into Conservative claim about their tax attack on Labour being from independent HMT civil servants
“Rishi Sunak lied to the British public” - Labour on the £2k tax claim.
The bus driver wove (waved?) a party across a traffic lane (the cycle lane) he could not control, giving her false reassurance (was he mislead by looking in his NS mirror?). Since it is a backed up box junction the bus driver wasn't allowed to enter it anyway - the exit has to be clear to enter, unless they will be waiting to turn right.
The cyclist riding up the cycle lane has priority over oncoming turning traffic, in the same way as any other vehicle driving along a road does. If he was going as fast as stated, then I'd consider his cycling to be on the scale somewhere between insufficiently cautious and negligent, due to the difficulty he created for himself of seeing round the bus in time to stop.
My comments on your aunt would be similar - she should imo have paused halfway across to have a look round the bus, and the fact of the collision is that she went across oncoming traffic.
Plus there is the Duty of Care to vulnerable road users under the Hierarchy of Responsibility.
If it comes to Civil Court or insurance negotiations I'd expect any assessed amount to be reduced modestly or substantially due to contributory negligence by the cyclist.
On what should be reported, it is more extensive than I realised but I suspect non-injury accidents are not always reported. May be worth reporting mentioning "non-injury but damage accident" as a way of getting an official record of "non-injury"?
https://www.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rs/road-safety/collisions/
In the circs either snap up that offer or hand it over to the insurance company to deal with, perhaps in dialogue with the cyclist's insurer, and consider whether there is a need to report to the police. Hope both are well and your mum has protected no claims. Most cyclists have 3rd Party Liability via at least household insurance, though many do not know it - this one may have specialist insurance too. Bike damage could be several k.
Obvs if she takes up the offer don't admit total fault in writing as that could undermine future positions, and sound fluffy but straight forward ("I am glad to hear that you have no injuries"). But we all know that type of thing here.
Get your mum to make written contemporaneous notes, dictating to you if necessary.
I'd say consider getting the CCTV from the cameras on the bus (Service Access Request under Data Protection Act, mentioning time / date / location and describing your mum's car), and/or preserve dashcam footage from your mum, just in case.
There was a recent cyclist-on-cyclist one in Scotland where civil legal action was not initiated for a considerable time (2 years iirc), so capture and file the data as an insurance policy.
1) See a consultant
2) He ordered a a test
3) See the consultant
4) Another test
5) etc
Test data is cheap compared to consultants time - and it is cheap (relatively) to buy more MRI machines, X ray machines and find the staff to run them. Consultants are *rare* and it takes a decade to make a new one.
Tests *used* to be far more expensive.
This is classic OR stuff.
EDIT: The other classic NHS thing is joined up behaviour. Or lack of it. A relative, in hospital, just nearly died from neglect. The operation was a brilliant success - but the patient nearly died. It took a letter to the head of the Trust to get someone to pull their finger out.
I'm inviting offers for the Prince of Wales Bridge. Will you bid?
Still a good working Maj.
Reeves makes it up on school fees. This has all the hallmarks of David Willetts on Uni fees.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/06/04/rachel-reeves-reassure-scottish-parents-private-school-vat/
@wizbates
Hopefully one of the lessons learned during Brexit was that impartiality doesn’t mean presenting a lie and the truth as if they are the same and letting viewers decide which is which for balance. If something is demonstrably and unequivocally untrue, it’s ok to report that.
Looks as if you are playing into their hands on this
I'm not saying it's not worth talking but I think "Seek an armistice. Divide Ukraine like Korea and then tool up so Putin doesn’t try this anywhere else" doesn't work for Ukraine, because Russia will try this again *in the rest of Ukraine*. For this to work for Ukraine the Ukrainians need to be confident that he isn't going to restart the war in Ukraine. If all Russia wanted was some more territory then this might be doable by external parties (realistically the US) providing military support, but the problem here is that avoiding western militaries in Ukraine is *Russia's biggest objective for the entire thing*.
I suppose you might be able to square it by sending NATO troops into Ukraine first, then negotiating with Putin to scale them back again. But if the US is going to be that gung-ho about risking turning a Ukraine-Russia war into a World War then they may as well just go ahead and win the war for Ukraine.
Rhiwcynon
AMY, Richard Edward, Welsh Liberal Democrats 74
JONES, Ann Plaid Cymru 286
JONES, Richard Breese, Independent 110
LEWIS, Oliver, Reform UK 18
MARKINSON, David, Independent 4
PARFITT, Rhodri, The Green Party 13
WIXEY, Paul, Welsh Labour 25
YEOMANS, John Welsh, Conservative 352 (Elected)
@TomSwarbrick1
NEW: UK statistics watchdog confirms the Office for Statistics Regulation is investigating Rishi Sunak's claims that Labour's tax rises will cost families £2000 each.
I noticed this last week were Clinical Decisions had a sign saying they had 1 MRI slot a day (because otherwise it's fully booked x weeks in advance).
Now the fix is definitely more MRI machines but they are expensive to purchase maintain and run...
Thanks again
Will they be looking into everything Starmer says too?
Reform to run on the tories poisoned ypu and your kids with a dangerous vaccine
This from Farage
"Today the Telegraph reported Covid vaccines may have helped fuel rise in excess deaths.
At last others are waking up to the need for a full, immediate inquiry into vaccine harms"
https://x.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1798289552232341860
I suspect that after the £350m on the side of a bus, it's a dangerous tactic. That really cut through at the time, despite it being obviously wrong, but the fact that it didn't happen is also pretty well known.
If it becomes a debate about the facts of the £2000, the Tories will be happy. However, it's looking like it will come down to a debate about Rishi lying, and I don't think he has the bluster of Gove, Farage or Johnson, that can easily bat away that accusation.
🔴 Labour challenges Tories to TV debate over £2,000 tax claim
Unfortunately not everybody thinks like that and most of SKS's plans to improve matters dont stand up to even a tiny amount of scrutiny.
From using private healthcare to improve waiting lists to using GB Energy to reduce energy prices when all it is, is a PFI private sector benefit investment scheme to building new buildings that already existed since 2021.
The list goes on and on.
How much any of that will matter is open to debate as the one word CHANGE after 14 yrs is very persuasive for your less picky voter
I think a 20 to 50 Maj now looks likely as a bare minimum which is a pity because i have a lot to win on NOM
This is a serious report, published by serious people. The potential link between Covid vaccines and excess deaths needs to be properly investigated, in the interest of public health and forming the best vaccine strategy for future pandemics.
https://x.com/DavidDavisMP/status/1798031815745368229
They got a debate about honesty.
Oops.
I really need to find time for that thread header...
Facebook is in BIG TROUBLE.
It has just been discovered that the Facebook Covid vaccine Fat-Checkers are funded by vaccine companies
https://x.com/myhiddenvalue/status/1798256358619537896
The last three polls this time have Labour leads of 23%, 14% and 17%.
The campaign topic of the day is the tax-increasing policies of the party with a large poll lead.
Deja vu?
Lab -347
Con - 33
LD - 15
SNP - 9
PC- 2
I may have miscounted slightly, especially Labour, (I just eyeballed it) but that means between the models, 226 constituencies are in play - that is an astonishingly large number.
Between them, the wide variations in overall methodologies and changes in support in multiple directions since 2019 mean that nobody can be really sure what's going on and it wouldn't surprise me if we get some very strange results if the polls don't change significantly.
EDIT - I didn't even count up how many surveys there were correctly. So treat my numbers accordingly.
The large-scale study analyzed the mortality data from 47 individual countries and was published in the world-renowned British Medical Journal (BMJ).
The scientists concluded that the Covid mRNA injections are to blame for the soaring excess deaths seen around the world since the pandemic.
Researchers from The Netherlands analyzed data from 47 Western countries and discovered there had been more than three million excess deaths since 2020.
They found that the trend continued despite the rollout of vaccines and containment measures which were meant to protect the public from COVID-19.
They said the “unprecedented” figures “raised serious concerns.”
They are now calling on governments to fully investigate the role of vaccines in the mass deaths of humans on a global scale.
Writing in the BMJ Public Health, the authors from Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, said:
“Although COVID-19 vaccines were provided to guard civilians from suffering morbidity and mortality by the COVID-19 virus, suspected adverse events have been documented as well.
“Both medical professionals and citizens have reported serious injuries and deaths following vaccination to various official databases in the Western World.”
They added: “During the pandemic, it was emphasised by politicians and the media on a daily basis that every COVID-19 death mattered and every life deserved protection through containment measures and COVID-19 vaccines.
“In the aftermath of the pandemic, the same moral should apply.”
The study found that across Europe, the U.S., and Australia there had been more than one million excess deaths in 2020, at the height of the pandemic.
https://x.com/newstart_2024/status/1798072768757637491
Yet as Sunak will know from his jousts with Liz Truss, winning a debate does not necessarily guarantee success at the ballot box
John Curtice"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/06/05/keir-starmers-disdain-for-sunak-does-him-no-favours/
That’s quite the test for a modern society
The NHS culture seems to be very anti "order all the tests in advance". This in turn seems to be rooted in a belief that testing is expensive and complex.
The private consultant in my eldest daughter's case said that he pretty much knew what the answer was before he saw us - because all the tests were negative.
Rishi Sunak lies. This is about his character 👇
https://x.com/UKLabour/status/1798308912459911404
Hard to dispute your conclusion.
There's Really no Way to Rescue the Situation Here.
John Mearsheimer:
But my sense is that deep down at this point in time, most people fully understand that Ukraine is doomed.
The only interesting question at this point in time
is how much territory are the Russians going to
capture before this turns into a frozen conflict?
But there's really no way to rescue the situation here.
The Ukrainians are simply doomed.
They can't fix the manpower problem.
And with regard to the weaponry problem, we
don't have the weaponry to give them.
And we're not going to be able to spin up the industrial base to provide them, even in 2025, with enough weaponry to rescue the situation.
But, again, even if we give them the
weaponry, they have a huge manpower problem.
And the Russians just get stronger and stronger.
Putin is on a roll.
The Russians are on a roll.
So I think that what you're going to see here is what I call an ugly russian victory.
https://x.com/ivan_8848/status/1797783864607195599
Just responding only keeps the post active
India: 670k
Nigeria: 310k
China: 274k
Pakistan: 166k
HK: 131k
Ukraine: 108k
Even if u subtract students you're talking abt 301k from India & 103k from Nigeria.
Whatever your priors on migration, there's no disputing these are BIG numbers.
https://x.com/edconwaysky/status/1798005491672678768?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Absolute fucking insanity. May the Tories die in their stupid ditch and never recover
No wonder Jonathan (Super Lightweight) Ashworth was squirming on TV this morning.
I doubt it will move the dial much, but there is no harm in the electorate being reminded that Labour always likes to put up taxes, and not just on "the rich" (whoever they are).
BTW due to lack of Moderators you will probably be able to post more posts than previous trolls (great for your performance review) but I suspect most of us will be ignoring you...
@{ @rcs1000 turns into a fleet of 50,000 warships }
Women is the only power which he cannot control.
Men can be mobilised, imprisoned, killed.
He is afraid that a day will come when these women will unite, storming the Office of the President to win back their husbands.
I receive letters from Ukrainian women daily. Their patience is wearing thin.
https://x.com/Panchenko_X/status/1798088455768940835
There are also plenty of incidents where people sustain concussions and don't realise until later. A difficult risk-reward decision but I think Topping's aunt should consider a quick note to the police via 101.
I've only skimmed, but there's a notable lack of any obvious link between vaccines and excess deaths (not to mention the issues with excess deaths as a measure, after lockdowns). They have some interesting data, but they oversell it quite badly - I'd have had plenty of objections at peer review. If they'd found anything substantive this would be in bmj or Lancet or somewhere reputable like NEJM. Even having said that, the Telegraph, Farage and other loons are overselling it way beyond even what the authors are saying.
There's also the outright untruth that governments don't make detailed death data available. The UK does. I've used it - full cause of death and underlying causes are available. The data aren't always great due to different interpretations of recording, but they are there.