A Fit And Healthy Student ‘Treated As A Time-Waster

A 20‑year‑old law student, Libby Instone, died after being repeatedly dismissed as a ‘time‑waster’ while hospital staff were watching the Lionesses’ World Cup final, according to multiple inquest reports.

The case is one of the most obvious and startling examples of NHS negligence, and it infuriates me greatly because young, ill individuals are being horrifically let down by staff members’ lack of concern.

Libby Instone, from Billingham, Teesside, became violently sick after returning from London in August 2023. Over three visits in just over 24 hours, she was constantly told she had gastroenteritis despite days of vomiting, agonising abdominal pain, vomiting black fluid, which is a red-flag sign for internal bleeding, and collapsing from exhaustion.

Staff at North Tees Hospital’s Urgent Care Centre did not examine her properly, did not order imaging, and did not escalate her case; she, in fact, had a blocked small intestine that could have been treated with surgery if detected in time, but the most distrubing detail of all was that during her critical period of decline, nurses were assembled around a TV watching the Women’s World Cup final. When her parents asked for help, they were reportedly told, ‘You won’t get anywhere with them until the match is over.’

It took 15–20 minutes before anyone even checked on her.

Teesside Coroner Clare Bailey ruled that Libby died from intestinal infarction, which is a loss of blood supply to the bowel.

There were gross failures in basic medical care; the staff failed to consider anything beyond gastroenteritis despite four days of agonising symptoms, and this contributed directly to her death. This wasn’t a tragic mistake; it was systemic neglect.

This is precisely the kind of NHS failure that needs to be called out because a young, fit woman was ignored, undervalued, and left to deteriorate while staff prioritised a football match.

She vomited black liquid in the car park after being discharged at 1:30 am.

A staff member subsequently admitted they ‘thought she was a time‑waster.’

She was so weak she could hardly stand, yet she was still sent home.

This wasn’t subtle. It was evident, escalating, and repeatedly dismissed, and it beggars belief, but the horrible reality is that it’s not unbelievable anymore; it’s predictable, it’s familiar, and that’s the part that makes my disgust so pungent because we see this pattern again and again.

It’s not even about football; it’s about attitude.

It’s about staff who behave as if patients are interruptions, not responsibilities.

It’s about a workplace where nobody steps in and says, ‘Oi, this girl is seriously unwell — stop watching the telly and do your job,’ and that silence is the actual killer, and this isn’t a one-off, it’s part of a wider pattern — paramedics ignoring red flags, GPs dismissing serious symptoms, A&E staff assuming ‘anxiety’, ‘gastro’ are time-wasters.

Young people dying of treatable conditions, families being told they’re ‘overreacting’, and staff being more focused on breaks, phones, or social chatter than patients, and every time the coroner says the same thing, ‘missed opportunities. Neglect, and avoidable death.’ And nothing ever changes.

There are brilliant NHS staff — of course, there are — but the system now shields the worst, not the best.

The lazy ones. The indifferent ones. The ones who roll their eyes at patients. The ones who treat pain as an inconvenience. The ones who think ‘time‑waster’ before they think ‘what if this is serious?’ And because they face no consequences, they keep doing it. That’s why these stories keep happening.

Under NHS Reform, Appointments Will Change

The “major NHS reform” changing hospital appointments is the government’s shift to move most outpatient care out of hospitals and into neighbourhood health centres — a structural overhaul that ministers are calling a “fundamental rewiring” of the NHS. This is being presented as a win for patients because it promises faster access, fewer hospital trips, and more joined‑up care.

Based on official NHS plans and current reporting, this is what the change truly entails.

What’s changing for hospital appointments?

Most outpatient appointments will move out of hospitals by 2035, and the majority of routine care, such as eye care, cardiology, respiratory care, and mental health, will be delivered in community settings rather than in hospital clinics.

Neighbourhood health centres will offer tests, post-op care, nursing, mental health support, and even social care services closer to home.

To free up space and shorten wait times for specialised care, hospitals will prioritise the sickest patients.

All clinicians will be able to see your full medical history anywhere in England, cutting duplication and saving 500,000 doctor hours a year.

Why the government calls it a “huge win”

Fewer hospital trips — Routine follow‑ups, monitoring, and diagnostics will be done locally.

Shorter waits — The NHS expects 2.5 million fewer people waiting over 18 weeks for planned care by 2029.

Faster cancer treatment — 190,000 more patients starting treatment within two months of referral over the next three years.

Better GP access — Ending the 8 am scramble through online booking and contract reforms.

The catch: this reform sits alongside the controversial GP “Plan B” ballot

While the hospital‑appointment reform is framed as a win, GPs are simultaneously being balloted on a Plan B model that could introduce means‑tested or subscription‑based GP access — something patients are already furious about.

That’s a separate issue, but it’s happening at the same time — and it could shape how these reforms feel on the ground.

If Plan B ever becomes a reality, even partial implementation, such as subscription tiers, admin fees, and private add-ons, would hit people on benefits the hardest because benefits do not include money for GP fees. DWP will still demand medical evidence, chronic illness requires frequent monitoring, and disabled people use GP services more frequently.

This will create a two-tier system, and the poorest will fall through the cracks first. The impact on disabled people under the new NHS reform is deep, structural, and in many cases negative, unless significant modifications are made. This isn’t scaremongering; it’s what happens when you shift enormous amounts of care into community settings without fixing GP capacity, social care, or accessibility first.

A lot of people feel like the NHS is crumbling on the backs of the public, while staff keep striking, and whilst this sounds fantastic on paper, the overriding reason for this is to shorten appointment times, lower the number of doctors and cut costs, but they spin it like it’s best for patients.

So, let’s strip away all the PR gloss and talk about what this reform is actually designed to do because the spin ‘better access,’ ‘closer to home,’ and ‘joined up care’ is not the motive.

What the reform is there to do is cut costs, not improve care.

They dress it up as ‘modernisation,’ but the underlying driver is money.

The NHS is £30–40 billion short of what it needs by 2030. This reform is their endeavour to plug the gap without admitting it, and at the moment the current average GP appointment is 7-9 minutes, but under the new model there will be more patients, more urgent same-day demand, more outpatient work dumped on GPs and fewer clinicians, so that appointment time will inevitably drop to 4 minutes, and that’s not an exaggeration, it’s the direction of travel.

Jules Trigg, Mother Of three, 41, Is Diagnosed With Stage Four Cervical Cancer

A 41‑year‑old mother of three, diagnosed with stage‑four cervical cancer only after 21 GP visits, fits an extremely disturbing pattern already documented in the UK: women constantly seeking help, being told their symptoms are “infection‑related,” “hormonal,” or “nothing serious,” only to discover cancer far too late.

This is a clear pattern of missed opportunities. Jessica Brady, 27, of Stevenage, contacted her GP about 20 times over six months with abdominal pain, vomiting, coughing, weight loss and was repeatedly told it was infections, long COVID, or ‘nothing serious.’ She was only diagnosed with widespread cancer after her mother paid for a private consultation, but she died three weeks later.

Sarah Roch, 43, of Plymouth, had symptoms repeatedly dismissed as constipation for almost ten years before learning she had late-stage cervical cancer during a hysterectomy.

So, why does this keep happening? Because symptoms are frequently overlooked or misattributed to infection, constipation, long COVID, or ‘you’re too young for cancer.’

Since COVID, there has been an over-reliance on remote appointments, failure to escalate after repeated visits — something Jess’s Rule now endeavours to address, but also women’s pain and symptoms are being minimised, which has been a long-documented problem in UK healthcare.

Jess’s Rule — a new national policy — now requires GPs to “think again after three appointments” with no diagnosis or worsening symptoms, but sadly, this rule came after many women died unnecessarily.

Vaginal bleeding between periods or after sex, unusual discharge, pelvic or lower back pain, pain during sex, and persistent abdominal discomfort are symptoms that need to be investigated immediately, according to Macmillan and Cancer Research UK, but these are precisely the symptoms numerous women frequently reported before being misdiagnosed.

The tragedy in all these stories is the same: Women did everything right — attended appointments, reported symptoms, pushed for answers — and were still failed.

What is happening to these women is simply tragic, and what makes it even more difficult to swallow is that it was preventable.

Twenty‑plus GP contacts, worsening symptoms, and being constantly ignored is not “one of those things” — it is a breach of the duty of care. And yes, in cases like this, there can be grounds for a negligence claim.

The GP system used to be filled with highly trained, dedicated medical professionals – but apparently today’s lot are too busy doing lunch, and instructing their receptionists to do everything feasible to obstruct patients in need.

This makes me furious because what I’m describing isn’t some exaggerated tirade, it’s what millions of people across the UK are experiencing every single week, and it’s not about one bad GP or one rude receptionist, it’s a structural collapse that leaves patients feeling stonewalled, overlooked and treated like an inconvenience rather than human beings in pain.

When a trained paramedic, someone who literally deals with emergencies, trauma, cardiac arrests, strokes, and life‑threatening situations every day, can’t get a GP to take them seriously, what chance does an ordinary patient have?

When you look at case after case of people going back to their GP 10, 15, 20 times and being brushed off, it’s no wonder people have lost faith, and we have a system that shields them from consequences, even when they make catastrophic mistakes, and that is the unforgivable part.

When someone has to seek help twenty‑one times, the belief that the best the system can now offer is to “try to extend her life” feels like a punch to the stomach. It feels like they only started caring once the situation became hopeless. And that is precisely why this hits so hard.

GP Ballot Could Result In Costly Appointments Under ‘Plan B’

UK patients are furious because the BMA’s proposed “Plan B” ballot could open the door to paid GP appointments, something that strikes at the heart of the NHS principle of free care at the point of use. The frustration is real — and the reasoning behind it is clear once you look at what’s being proposed and why.

The British Medical Association (BMA) intends to ballot GPs before June 2027 on an alternative GP contract model that would allow means-tested subscription fees for GP services, more private work within GP practices, and a model comparable to NHS dentistry, where patients already pay for numerous treatments.

This is being described as a “Plan B” because GPs say the current NHS contract is financially unsustainable and restricts what they can safely deliver.

According to reporting, patients fear that paying to see a GP for the first time in NHS history will mean high costs for people with chronic illness, who use GP services the most. There will be deepening health inequalities, since poorer patients would be hit the hardest, and this would slide toward a two-tier health system like dentistry, where those who can pay get fast access.

A pharmacist warning the public said this shift could “disproportionately affect” people with long‑term conditions and worsen existing inequalities.

GPs said that they are being pushed into a corner because their workload has exploded, but funding hasn’t kept pace. They have to deal with staff shortages, which means fewer GPs handling more patients. Government restrictions limit what services they can provide under the NHS, and many practices say the current model is not financially sustainable.

The BMA argues that politicians have ignored warnings for years, leaving GPs ‘deeply frustrated’ and with ‘no choice but to explore alternatives.’

However, the Department of Health and Social Care has strongly rejected the idea, ‘We do not believe that moving towards private, means‑tested or subscription‑based GP services is in the interests of patients or the NHS.” “A two‑tier system would deepen health inequalities.’

They insist the founding NHS principle — free at the point of use — must be protected.

This ‘Plan B’ threat comes after GPs overwhelmingly rejected the government’s 2026-27 contract changes, which 98.9 per cent voted against. The new contract would force GPs to deliver unlimited same-day urgent access, even when already at capacity. Still, GPs say this is unsafe and impossible without more staff and funding.

And guess what? We will still have to pay National Insurance because that pays for our State Pension, which we will probably never see, New-style ESA, New-style JSA, maternity allowance, and part of the NHS budget, but not all of it.

What impact will this have on those receiving benefits?

Benefit recipients will be more severely affected than anybody else, as they are the group most dependent on GP access and have the smallest financial safety net. In actuality, none of the benefits system’s safeguards is intended for a future where GP visits are expensive.

People on benefits would face a ‘double penalty,’ because if GP appointments became paid or subscription-based, people on Universal Credit, ESA, PIP, Carer’s Allowance or Pension Credit would still be expected to meet all the same health-related requirements, but with less access to the healthcare they need to stay compliant, and that’s the trap!

For example, if someone with a chronic illness can’t afford a GP appointment, they can’t get fit notes, medication reviews, referrals and condition monitoring, and without those, the DWP can say they’re ‘non-compliant’ or ‘not providing evidence.’

No benefit currently includes money for GP fees. There is no line Universal Credit, ESA, or PIP that covers GP appointment charges, subscription fees or private assessments, and that will risk putting people into crisis for people on benefits because if they cannot pay for a doctor, their conditions will worsen, there will be more A&E visits, more hospital admissions, and more deaths.

So, the darker side is that people will die; now there’s a plan with no drawback, but evidently, there is no UK government, regulator, or medical body that is planning any such thing, but this is why people are enraged because the consequences are obvious, even if nobody says them out loud.

There is now fear of abandonment, and what people are really feeling is that the system doesn’t care if they live or die.

Jewish Boy Creates ADHD Awareness Clothing

Eight‑year‑old Nate Zilberkweit Lewy, a Jewish schoolboy from north London, has launched a clothing brand called ADHAA – Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Awesome Ability — a project designed to flip the narrative around ADHD and celebrate neurodiversity.

What he has done is create a positive rebrand of ADHD by replacing ‘disorder’ with ‘Awesome Ability,’ to highlight strengths like creativity, energy and original thinking, and he has designed clothing such as T-shirts, hoodies, caps and vests, each featuring ADHAA branding and has produced them to order.

He raised the money for charity, donating £5 from every item to ADHD UK. The project has already raised £230.

He told Ham & High, ‘I started ADHAA because I wanted to do something really cool: make some awesome clothes that also help people… Sometimes it can be tough to focus… but it’s definitely not a disorder.’

This isn’t just a cute kid project; it’s a powerful example of neurodivergent children reclaiming their identity, community-driven awareness, especially within the Jewish community, and grassroots activism that actually raises funds and shifts perceptions.

This fits well with my main interest in housing inequality, ADHD advocacy, and how society handles individuals with unmet needs: a youngster rejecting stigma and forging his own story, something that adults in positions of authority frequently fail to accomplish for children.

Children influence neurodiversity movements in three main ways: by reshaping the narrative, exposing systemic failures, and driving cultural change through their lived experience. Their influence is not symbolic — it is structural, political, and transformative, and young people’s lived experiences are the raw material that shapes how society understands neurodivergence.

Schools are frequently built around neurotypical norms, and children reveal where those methods fail. Numerous neurodivergent children feel unsupported in school settings designed without them in mind, and they frequently resort to masking, suppressing stimming, rehearsing conversations, and copying peers to avoid punishment or bullying.

Their difficulties highlight the need for neurodiversity-affirmative education, in which schools modify their surroundings rather than making kids change, and children’s experiences have historically sparked entire movements. The neurodiversity movement itself grew when autistic people, many echoing on their childhood experiences, connected online in the 1990s and began organising.

Today, young people use social media, school councils, youth groups, and creative projects (like clothing brands, art, TikTok advocacy) to challenge stigma.

Their voices push researchers and clinicians to reconsider intervention models, shifting from ‘normalising’ children to supporting autonomy, coping strategies, and well‑being.

What stands out about Nate is that his brilliance isn’t just academic; it’s emotional, intuitive, and socially aware. That combination is rare in adults, never mind a child.

He understands how ADHD feels from the inside and can articulate it in a way that helps others, and he’s not just thinking about himself; he’s thinking about every kid who’s ever been shamed for sensory needs or attention differences. He’s turned his lived experience into a clothing brand, which is a level of imagination most adults never reach.

He recognises stigma and is actively attempting to change it, and what’s more, he has the courage to speak openly about neurodivergence, and at that age, it takes guts, especially in a world that still misunderstands it.

Huw Edwards: I Was Mentally Ill And Blackmailed By A Lowlife’

Huw Edwards is telling friends he was ‘mentally ill and blackmailed by a lowlife’ and is now preparing a revenge‑style public comeback, including a documentary that he claims will expose his accuser and justify his behaviour.

Edwards has a well-documented history of severe anxiety and depression, including hospital stays.

He now seems to be using this as a central part of his defence and recovery strategy, and according to The Independent, he’s planning a documentary that will argue mental illness was a significant factor in his behaviour.

His publicist, Barry Tomes, is reportedly helping him shape this ‘full account.’

Edwards entered a guilty plea to three charges of creating offensive pictures of minors.

He paid a university student, Alex Williams, between £1,000–£1,500 over time, and Williams sent him both legal adult images and illegal child abuse material.

He was added to the sex offenders’ register for 7 years and given a six‑month suspended sentence. These are established facts, not part of his counter‑narrative.

Edwards’s current claims regarding his accuser. According to the NetFM story, Edwards told friends that the accuser had blackmailed him, that the accuser had harmed his kids in ways that weren’t included in the article, and that he planned to reveal this in his comeback project.

Neither independent reporting nor court filings mention any of these counterclaims. These are his claims, not substantiated facts.

His ‘next move’ based on combined reporting is going to be a documentary giving his interpretation of events, a public campaign to reframe himself as a victim of mental illness and blackmail, a possible endeavour to legally or publicly challenge his accuser, and a more comprehensive PR effort to ‘rise from the ashes’ and rebuild his reputation.

I’m more concerned about the welfare of the children in the images he knowingly downloaded, and I would like to centre on the children because in cases like this, they are the only people who had no choice, no agency, and no protection. Everything else, excuses, PR spin, mental-health framing, ‘revenge narratives’, this is all bluster compared to the harm those children suffered.

The whole ‘poor me, I was mentally ill, I was blackmailed’ routine isn’t landing with the public for one simple reason. He wasn’t the victim; the children were, and people can smell it a mile off when someone attempts to flip the script.

Here’s the thing: if you don’t do something exploitive, illegal, or morally rotten, nobody can blackmail you, and he doesn’t appear to understand the word accountability, and that’s the one word he keeps dancing around, rewriting, reframing, and trying to evade, and this is why all his PR spin is falling flat. He got caught, he got sacked, he doesn’t get to rewrite the story. End of!

People Who Think They Can Survive On Sunlight

Breatharianism is a harmful pseudoscience, and every credible medical source agrees that humans cannot survive on sunlight, “prana,” or air alone — and multiple people have perished trying.

Breatharians say they can live on ‘prana,’ a supposed universal life-force, ‘sunlight,’ often via sun-gazing, and ‘air alone,’ sometimes called living on light.

Modern promoters like Jasmuheen, Akahi Ricardo, Camila Castello, and Nicolas Pilartz insist food is optional and that humans can ‘choose’ not to eat. Some even claim to have had ‘Breatharian pregnancies.’ However, when tested under controlled conditions, these gurus rapidly became dehydrated, confused, and medically unstable. Jasmuheen’s monitored fast had to be stopped after four days due to the threat of kidney failure.

Physiology is not optional. Without food, the body burns glycogen, then fat, then muscle; ketone levels rise until ketoacidosis sets in, and organ systems begin to fail.

Without water comes extreme dehydration within days, not weeks, and electrolytes destabilise, then arrhythmia, seizures, brain damage and then death.

There is zero scientific proof that humans can photosynthesise or absorb enough energy from sunlight to survive.

Breatharianism isn’t only foolish — it’s lethal, and there have been numerous documented fatalities, and not only that, Breatharian ‘masters’ have been caught secretly eating — it’s a bit like a Jew saying that they only eat ‘kosher,’ and then being found eating a bacon sarnie.

Some of these gurus charge thousands for workshops, with one programme costing $1,700, another guru charged $100,000+ for ‘immortality training.’

So, why do people fall for it? It’s because Breatharianism taps into spiritual asceticism, diet culture, distrust of mainstream medicine, and a desire for control or purity.

But the movement also preys on vulnerable people — including those with eating disorders or health concerns — by promising ‘purity,’ ‘freedom from food,’ or ‘higher consciousness.’

The bottom line is, Breatharianism is not just a bizarre lifestyle, it’s dangerous, disproven and sometimes a fatal belief system. Every scientific body that has examined it calls it pseudoscience. Humans need food and water to survive, full stop!

As far as I’m concerned, it’s a grift that targets helpless people. A grift enveloped in spiritual language. Breatharianism isn’t just a quirky absurdity; it’s a predatory ecosystem.

This is really just another crackpot idea, but with that extra nasty twist — these people are not enlightened, they’re not superhuman, they are just spinning a fantasy while secretly doing very ordinary human things like eating, and the more you look at these ‘I live on light’ types, the more apparent it becomes that the entire thing is performance mixed with delusion.

They are fruitcakes with a wi-fi connection and a God complex, and the only reason they look ‘mystical’ online is that the internet gives every eccentric the ability to brand themselves as a guru, but the good thing is that a cult built on ‘not eating’ has a built-in expiry date, and biology always wins because you can’t out-manifest dehydration, and you can’t out-meditate organ failure.

This is the type of cult that would need divine intervention just to make it through a bank holiday weekend, never mind eternity, but believe me, I won’t be following them because tomorrow’s dinner is roast Lamb, Yorkshire pudding, roast potatoes, and everything else that goes with it, followed by cheesecake, yummy.

Council Houses Sold Off In The UK

The Right to Buy was not a housing policy. The initiative was political in nature. Although it produced homeowners, the social housing structure that first made those homes feasible was eliminated.

Between 1980 and 2022, 1.98 million council homes were sold, fewer than 100,000 were replaced, that’s under 5 per cent. 40 per cent of ex-council homes are now owned by private landlords, and councils now rent back to those same homes at 3-4 times the former social rent.

This isn’t ideology — it’s what the government’s own data shows.

For decades, councils were allowed to keep only 25–30 per cent of each sale. The rest went to the Treasury. That made replacing homes mathematically unattainable, and even when councils could build, they had to spend receipts within 3 years, not combine them with most other funding, and replace 1 home with 1 home, even if the new one cost far more.

Numerous councils ended up sending money back to the Treasury because the rules made building too slow, and once the stock was sold, former tenants became private renters, councils lost the ability to house people cheaply, housing benefit ballooned to £23 billion a year, and much of that money now goes to private landlords, not public housing.

Right to Buy didn’t shrink the welfare state — it redirected it into the pockets of landlords.

In London, there are waits of 10-25 years, which is standard, and there are 1.3 million households now on the waiting lists.

This is why families are stuck in temporary accommodation for 5-10 years, children are growing up in B&Bs, councils are spending £2.4 billion a year on temporary accommodation, and the working-class communities have been hollowed out.

This is the bill for a policy that never had a strategy to replace it.

What the parties have done

(This is factual, I’m not endorsing any party, please confirm details with trusted sources.)

Evidently, Labour has reduced discounts, has not committed to ending Right to Buy, has not replaced the lost stock over its past governments, and has promised to build more social homes, but targets remain ambiguous.

The Conservatives created a political identity around the Right to Buy, expanded discounts, repeatedly pledged ‘one-for-one replacement,’ and delivered far below that promise.

The outcome is that neither party has rebuilt the social housing system that both have governed during periods where the stock continued to shrink.

So, putting it simply, we need to question why the money made from selling these properties wasn’t used to create more social housing, and where did the money go? The short answer is that the money didn’t go back into creating new council homes because the government wouldn’t let councils use it, and the little they were allowed to keep came with rules that made rebuilding almost impossible. This isn’t conjecture; it’s documented in government guidance and parliamentary analysis.

So, where did all the Right to Buy money actually go? Well, most of the money had to be sent straight to the central government, and for decades, councils were forced to hand over a large proportion of RTB receipts to the Treasury instead of reinvesting them locally.

Sadly, you can’t say that the Treasury ‘stole’ the money because it was part of government policy, and it was written into the rules, but I’d love to know what other people think!

The UK’s Right to Buy is currently seen as a strategic failure, regardless of how you choose to present it, and it was an ill-designed policy.

So, those people who do have council housing, it’s like they’ve scratched a winning lottery ticket while you’re still standing there with the dud, but the truth is, it’s not luck so much as a system that’s become so tight, so uneven, that the few who manage to break through look like the lottery winners because the odds are so ludicrous.

A New Plan Could Bring Back National Service

It appears that the government are drawing up plans that could bring back some form of National Service, but only for specific groups, and not full conscription. The details are still emerging, and nothing is final or active yet.

Based on the latest reporting (May 2026), the government is exploring a “targeted national service model” aimed at 18-21 year olds, people not in education, employment or training (NEETs), young offenders or those at risk of offending, and certain benefit claimants, especially those long-term unemployed.

This is not the old-style military draft. It’s more like a mandatory civic or skills programme, with a military opportunity for those who want it.

The proposals being discussed include 12 months full-time service or a part-time ‘civic duty’ route (weekend volunteering, emergency services support, community work), military placements for those who choose it, skills training for work, especially in shortage sectors, and behavioural and discipline-focused programmes for young offenders.

This is being framed as a way to tackle recruitment shortages in the armed forces, antisocial behaviour, youth unemployment, and lack of skills in key industries.

Many critics are arguing that it amounts to forced labour for the impoverished, punishment for jobless young people, a backdoor form of conscription, and a distraction from cuts to youth services and the military.

However, I believe it could build discipline, reduce crime, boost national unity, and fill gaps in defence and emergency services. My question is: would people be able to cope if there were a war in the UK?

Humans are more psychologically resilient than we realise, but in the event of conflict, communities would need to work together to remain united while preserving daily routines. Sadly, in the UK today, we are less socially cohesive than we were during World War II, more isolated, more reliant on technology, and more suspicious of others, all of which undermine our resilience.

So, how does this new national service compare to the old one? The short answer is that the old National Service (1949-1963) was full military conscription for almost all young men. The new 2026 proposals are a mixed military/civilian scheme for 18-21-year-olds, with far more exemptions and choice, but this is still under debate.

So, what would the pay and conditions be like? A £1,200/month salary, which is below the living wage, but includes accommodation and training.

The previous system was a conscription mechanism created during the war to sustain a significant military presence around the world. The new system is a hybrid civic-military agenda that focuses less on creating a large army and more on social policies, labour shortages, and national resilience.

This, of course, is all extremely fascinating, but I suspect it will never happen, and why? Because the military doesn’t want it. The Ministry of Defence has repeatedly said they don’t want unwilling recruits, and that conscripting tens of thousands of untrained 18-year-olds would cost more than it solves.

It would be astronomically costly with an independent estimate, which would put the cost at £2-3 billion per year minimum, and that’s before accommodation, training, administration, and civilian placements are even factored in.

It’s also politically unpopular, and polling indicates that older voters like the concept, young people overwhelmingly dislike it, parents don’t want their kids forced into it, and the military community itself is divided. Also, our government, which is already under pressure, won’t pick a fight this big.

This is simply a ‘signal policy’, not a real one, because if the government announces theatrical ideas, they look formidable, distract from other problems, create headlines, and appeal to nostalgic voters.

Hackney Council Is Behind On Housing Safety Checks After Restructuring

Thousands of renters around the borough have been impacted by Hackney Council’s public admission that the housing department’s internal reorganisation directly led to a high rise in past-due safety checks, especially electrical inspections.

The restructure made an already serious backlog worse, pushing overdue electrical safety inspections from 15,000 to 18,000 homes.

Officers admitted the backlog “rose significantly” because of the restructure itself and its impact on operational capacity, and Hackney’s in‑house teams have only been completing 1,300 electrical checks per year since 2024 — scarcely enough to meet the new 5‑year statutory cycle, let alone clear historic failures.

Thousands of homes had never been inspected, and around 7,000 properties had never received an electrical safety inspection at all.

The Regulator of Social Housing had previously found serious failings across gas, fire, asbestos, water, and lift safety checks.

18,000 homes presently lack legally required electrical safety certificates, and numerous families have been living in properties without confirmation that their electrics are safe.

The council had been warned almost two years earlier by the regulator, but the restructure worsened, rather than solved, the crisis.

To dig themselves out of a hole, Hackney Council are now spending £2.2 million on specialist private contractors to carry out 5,000 inspections over two years. An additional 6,000 inspections will also be outsourced, and internal teams will attempt the remaining 7,000.

This is a direct cost of the failed restructure.

Hackney Council has blamed the 2020 cyberattack, which wiped out enormous amounts of housing data. They also blamed COVID-19, which disrupted inspection cycles, and access problems where tenants could not be reached. However, officers still conceded that the restructure itself was the direct cause of the surge in overdue checks.

The council have said that it has reached 100 per cent fire safety compliance, and 99 per cent gas safety compliance, but electrical safety, the area with the most extensive backlog, is not anticipated to reach full compliance until March 2027.

The legal position for tenants is much stronger now than it was even a year ago, because electrical safety in social housing is no longer ‘best practice’ — it is a statutory duty. When a council like Hackney fails to carry out required checks, it triggers specific legal consequences and gives tenants clear rights to enforce action.

Electrical safety checks are a legal requirement; clearly, Hackney Council didn’t get the memo on this.

Every social landlord, including councils, must carry out electrical installation inspections at least every 5 years and supply tenants with an Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR). They must also test any electrical equipment they provide, e.g., cookers and fridges, in furnished tenancies.

Hackney admitted that 18,000 homes lack up‑to‑date electrical safety checks. This means that thousands of tenants are in legally non-compliant homes – Hackney is breaching its statutory duties on a mass scale, and tenants have grounds to escalate complaints and seek redress.

Unfortunately, complaining usually falls on deaf ears, and they simply repeat the same mistakes over and over again and fail to learn anything. The pattern of councils repeating the same failures is real, documented, and widespread, and it’s one of the most frustrating parts of dealing with local government in the UK.

They don’t learn, not from complaints, not from Ombudsman rulings, and not from their own internal reviews.

Residents complain, then the council brushes it off, delays, or gives a generic ‘we’re looking into it.’ The Ombudsman gets involved, and then they find the council at fault, once again. The council then apologises, pays compensation, and promises to review procedures, but never does, and here we have the vicious cycle.

Nothing ever changes; the same failures happen to the next person and so on. This isn’t cynicism, it’s documented reality, and this is personal to every person this is happening to because when a council ignores you, they’re not just ignoring the complaint, they are ignoring your time, your stress, your safety, your family’s well-being, and your right to fair treatment, and when they keep repeating the same mistake, it sends a message ‘We don’t care enough to fix this.’

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started