NHS- the 58 BILLION pounds of YOUR Money on Negligence

NHS negligence 58 Billion - National Defence budget is for the 2025/26  is planned at around £59.8 billion.

Tories were in charge. Labour footing the bill. Not one tory paper has covered this- doesn't say much for their *integrity* 

Let that sink in. .....

The NHS can be a helpful, good service, especially in emergencies and for people on exceptionally low incomes, and it is run by kind-hearted, usually very well-meaning staff. 'Do-gooders' have their place as do interfering busy-bodies!

Yet sometimes, healthcare in the UK becomes excessive, overreaching, and unnecessarily intrusive – which can be bloody dangerous.

Opt-outs from data sharing, it seems, are not preventing fragmented records from circulating across departments, public services, and authorities.

This risks erroneous data being passed around, which can cause huge harm, possibly life-changing or life-threatening outcomes as a result.

Digital records may offer a great fix, but change takes time. Busy GPs are not yet fully fluent in these systems, so confidence has not been built, and it may take years for that to shift.

Meanwhile, private providers are heroically stepping in.

Some online GP services now charge as little as £16 per consultation, a practical lifeline for people who would rather avoid the NHS unless absolutely necessary.

Here's one online GP service worth noting: DoctorSA

An NHS patient summed it up: "They collude using watered-down opinion but not facts, and got vital information very, very wrong." It is a blunt reminder that doctors are fallible humans and horrible mistakes happen.

Sadly NHS medical negligence is quite legendary – not small at all.

In 2023 to 2024 alone, the NHS paid out a record 2.8 BILLION pounds in compensation, the taxpayers’ burden – with hundreds of millions more in legal fees.

Of that, 1.1 billion went toward maternity-related claims. Source: The Guardian

Even bigger, by mid 2025, the NHS had set aside staggering 58.2 billion pounds for clinical negligence liabilities. (!!!!)

This is the second largest liability in government books, second only to NUCLEAR decommissioning. Source: The Guardian

Recent figures are no quieter.

In the year ending March 2025, NHS Resolution paid out 3.1 billion pounds across clinical schemes, including damages, lawyers’ fees, and associated costs.

That breaks down into 2.29 billion in damages, 621 million in claimant legal costs, and 181 million in NHS legal costs.

This marks an increase across the board. Source: NHS Resolution Annual Report 2024–25

Of those payouts, 1.3 billion related to maternity claims, which made up more than half the value of all clinical negligence payments. Source: Kingsley Napley Blog

Between 2010 and 2025, nearly 40,000 compensation claims arose from NHS delays alone, totaling more than 8.3 billion pounds. Source: The Times

This is not just about numbers. It is about families shattered by delay, misdiagnosis, or error. Traumatic injury courtesy of your caring NHS.

Given the stakes, it may be wise to swerve the NHS where humanly possible, at least until digital accuracy and accountability improve.

The alternatives (a good Google rummage brings up plenty) are not perfect, but for now, they may be less perilous.

Liz Lucy Robillard

Banned Vaccine Article

 28 Aug 2025, 23:59 BST 

Removed and banned from the Medium platform. How sweet. A note to trolls.

'There is a disturbing habit among some pro vaccine advocates. Not science, but sneering. They mock those who say they were injured, they dismiss their pain, and they call it protecting the public. It is not protecting the public. It is cruelty.

Medicine has never been risk free. Global safety data from the last ten years shows that around one in ten patients are harmed during healthcare and that much of this harm is preventable. This is what the World Health Organization itself has reported.

Vaccines are part of the same system. They help many, but they are not free of risk. Regulators, compensation programs, and courts have documented harm. Here are more than ten examples of legally documented iatrogenic harm in the last decade.

1. In Utah a judge awarded nearly one billion dollars to a family after a baby suffered severe brain damage from a botched delivery at Jordan Valley Medical Center.

2. In England the NHS spent 4.1 billion pounds over 11 years settling 1307 birth injury cases involving brain damage and cerebral palsy.

3. In Ireland Nottingham University Hospitals Trust admitted liability in the death of newborn Quinn in 2021, after repeated maternity errors.

4. In Ireland the HSE paid 20000 euros after a 13 year old girl was injected with a Covid vaccine using a previously used needle.

5. AstraZeneca admitted in court that its Covid vaccine can in rare cases cause thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome. Dozens of lawsuits are ongoing in the UK High Court.

6. In the US Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) a 57 year old woman with transverse myelitis from a flu vaccine was awarded about 148000 dollars plus an annuity in 2022.

7. An 83 year old man with shoulder injury from a flu vaccine was awarded 194139 dollars in 2022 through VICP.

8. A 62 year old man who developed Guillain Barre Syndrome after a flu vaccine was awarded 316851 dollars.

9. A 74 year old woman with shoulder injury from a flu vaccine received 180752 dollars.

10. In February 2025 a man was awarded 212014 dollars for Guillain Barre Syndrome after a flu shot.

11. In January 2025 a claimant was awarded 198610 dollars for severe shoulder injury from a flu shot.

12. In January 2025 a claimant was awarded 180000 dollars for Guillain Barre Syndrome after flu vaccination.

13. In March 2025 a claimant was awarded 170000 dollars plus nearly 55000 dollars to settle Medicaid lien for Guillain Barre Syndrome after flu vaccine.

14. In April 2025 a claimant was awarded 135287 dollars for brachial neuritis after a Tdap vaccine.

15. In April 2025 a mother of five was awarded 153000 dollars after flu vaccine caused Guillain Barre Syndrome.

16. In April 2025 a claimant was awarded 126000 dollars for shoulder injury from a flu vaccine.

17. In April 2025 a claimant was awarded 135938 dollars for Guillain Barre after pneumonia vaccine.

18. In April 2025 a child was awarded 105000 dollars for immune thrombocytopenia after MMR vaccine.

19. In March 2025 a former SWAT member was awarded 180000 dollars for Guillain Barre after flu shot.

20. In February 2025 a claimant was awarded 55000 dollars for shoulder injury from a flu shot.

21. In Ireland the CervicalCheck cancer scandal led to multiple payouts including one of 2.5 million euros to a woman misdiagnosed and later developing cancer.

22. In the Philippines the Dengvaxia vaccine controversy showed increased risk of severe dengue in some children and led to halted programs and lawsuits.

23. In Finland the BCG vaccine caused osteitis, disseminated infection, and deaths between 2000 and 2006, documented as iatrogenic harm.

24. In South Africa the Life Esidimeni scandal led to the deaths of 144 psychiatric patients after transfer to unsafe facilities; families received compensation in 2018.

These examples show what has already been admitted and compensated. This is not conspiracy, it is legal record.

When someone says “I was harmed,” the right response is not to sneer. The right response is to document, study, and support. Mature science and medicine face their risks honestly and compensate fairly.  

* mirrored & archived 

Liz Lucy Robillard 

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Free Speech & Authorities

 25 Aug 2025

Article 10: Free Expression as Europe’s Anchor

When religion and free speech collide, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the reference point every authority must understand. It is not just a legal clause—it is the backbone of democratic culture.

What Article 10 Says

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This includes freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority.

2. Restrictions are allowed only when “necessary in a democratic society” for reasons such as national security, prevention of crime, or protection of the rights of others. Those protections and attitudes must be considered in multiple ways from different perspectives.

The Core Principle

The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly stressed: free expression includes the right to offend, shock, or disturb. Democracies do not protect citizens from discomfort; they protect citizens’ right to speak.

Key Rulings that Shape Authority Practice

Handyside v. UK (1976): Established that free expression covers ideas “that offend, shock or disturb.”

Leroy v. France (2008): Cartoonist fined for glorifying 9/11; Court allowed it, showing limits when speech glorifies violence.

E.S. v. Austria (2018): Court allowed restrictions on speech deemed to stir intolerance, criticised as too deferential to religious feeling.

Overall Pattern: Restrictions are narrow exceptions. The default is protection.

Implications for Public Authorities

Police:

Your role is to protect people, not beliefs. If protests, art, or speech cause anger, the duty is to secure public order without silencing the speaker. Violence must be contained; expression must be defended

Teachers and Schools:

Showing material critical of religion (e.g. caricatures) is protected under Article 10. The law is on the teacher’s side. Fear of “offence” cannot erase curriculum content. Removing such content risks undermining the very values schools are meant to transmit.

Local Government & Policy-Makers:

Article 10 sets the floor. Local accommodations (e.g. prayer spaces, cultural sensitivity) cannot override the baseline right to open discussion and critique. Avoiding controversy is not a legal defence.

Judiciary and Law Enforcement Training:

Officials should be trained to distinguish between hate speech (which incites violence or discrimination against people) and blasphemy or criticism of ideas (which is protected). This clarity is vital for trust and consistency.

Lessons Learned from Past Failures

In the UK “Trojan Horse” schools affair, hesitancy to intervene for fear of accusations of Islamophobia delayed action. Article 10 should remind officials that upholding secular education is not bias—it is law.

In France, the murder of Samuel Paty revealed what happens when teachers are left unprotected. Article 10 must be lived in practice, not just cited in Strasbourg rulings.

The Takeaway for Authority

Article 10 is not optional. It obliges states to defend free expression—even when unpopular or offensive to religious groups. Authorities who yield to fear or intimidation allow the erosion of the very freedoms they are tasked to protect.

Simple Rule of Thumb:

Protect the person, not the idea. *Protection can mean 

1. Encouraging personal agency and

 2. personal empowerment through health and fitness therapy and training. 

Blanket government imposition of 'protection' from free speech will always backfire.

Punish violence, not speech.

Llm & liz lucy robillard

Lucy Letby and the 200 Facebook Searches

'Conviction unsafe' says the expert program, again.

This is hotly debated online, and I agree the number of searches sounds quite odd- so as per- I consulted a professional judges legal gpt - the prosecution argument obviously doesn't need more coverage and is left to the professionals involved - and so it should be - meantime-

" CCRC submission combining the unsafe conviction argument and comparative evidence.

ccrc submission – record search evidence

introduction

this submission concerns the reliance at trial on evidence that Lucy Letby accessed records of approximately 200 families of deceased infants under her care.

 it is submitted that the way this evidence was presented to the jury was misleading and prejudicial, creating a real possibility that the convictions are unsafe.

issue

whether the record search evidence was wrongly or unfairly used to suggest criminal intent, and whether its presentation without proper comparative context deprived the jury of a fair and balanced understanding.

legal framework

section 13 of the criminal appeal act 1995 empowers the ccrc to refer a conviction to the court of appeal if there is a real possibility that the conviction is unsafe. in r v pendleton [2001] ukhl 66, the house of lords confirmed that a conviction can be unsafe where a jury has been influenced by evidence given undue weight or misinterpreted. article 6 of the european convention on human rights guarantees the right to a fair trial, including the right to be free from prejudicial evidence of low probative value.

precedent

in r v hodgson [2009] ewca crim 490, the court quashed a conviction where conduct capable of innocent explanation was used to imply criminal intent. in r v b [2010] ewca crim 4, the court held that evidence of unrelated “odd” behaviour was prejudicial when it lacked a direct causal link to the offences charged.

application – ambiguity of the conduct

the conduct in question – searching for the families of deceased infants – is ambiguous. while it may breach professional confidentiality policies, it is not inherently indicative of homicidal intent.[profiling questioned]

 plausible innocent explanations include professional vigilance for mortality patterns, emotional processing after patient deaths, and lack of clear hospital policy prohibiting such searches.

application – weak evidential link

the prosecution’s use of these searches to infer malice or obsession was speculative and rested on assuming intent without excluding alternative explanations.

application – risk of prejudice

the emotional nature of infant deaths meant the jury could have been unduly swayed by this evidence. by placing the searches alongside the deaths in the narrative, the prosecution risked portraying them as inherently sinister without establishing a factual link.

comparative context

electronic records audits from nhs trusts show that searches of deceased patient files by healthcare staff are not unusual.

 in several nhs disciplinary cases, similar accesses led only to warnings or confidentiality training, not police referral.

– in 2018, at a london nhs trust, two nurses accessed deceased infant’s record post-mortem to review treatment decisions. the trust found no malicious intent and closed the matter internally.

– in a 2017 anonymised audit from a north west england hospital, multiple neonatal staff accessed deceased patient records for morbidity and mortality review preparation. 

although not strictly within clinical need, this was considered part of reflective practice and not misconduct.

impact of omitted context

the trial did not include this comparative information. without it, the jury was left with the impression that such searches were abnormal and uniquely sinister. this omission inflated the probative value of the evidence and increased its prejudicial effect.

conclusion

the record searches were weak evidence of guilt but carried a high risk of prejudice.

 their presentation without comparative context may have materially influenced the jury’s perception of lucy letby’s intent and character. 

given that other staff have engaged in similar conduct without suspicion or sanction, the portrayal of these searches as inherently incriminating was misleading. the ccrc should consider this an evidential imbalance capable of rendering the convictions unsafe and refer the case to the court of appeal.

1. full case citations

– r v pendleton [2001] ukhl 66, [2002] 1 wlr 72 – conviction unsafe where jury may have attached undue weight to certain evidence; emphasises the appellate court’s role in assessing whether the verdict might reasonably have been different.

– r v hodgson [2009] ewca crim 490 – conviction quashed where jury relied on ambiguous conduct capable of innocent explanation as evidence of guilt.

– r v b [2010] ewca crim 4 – prejudicial evidence of unrelated behaviour inadmissible where no direct link to the offence was established.

– roylance v general medical council (no. 2) [2000] 1 ac 311 – defines misconduct in professional contexts; notes that misconduct requires behaviour falling seriously short of acceptable standards.

– bolam v friern hospital management committee [1957] 1 wlr 582 – professional negligence standard; relevant here to show that practices accepted by a responsible body of professionals may not constitute misconduct.

2. nhs policy excerpts and guidance

– nhs confidentiality: code of practice (2003), section 8: acknowledges exceptions to strict confidentiality for public interest, audit, and quality improvement purposes.

– nhs digital information governance toolkit: reflective practice and clinical audit are recognised as legitimate grounds for accessing patient records post-event, provided access is proportionate.

3. comparative audit data (anonymised)

– case a (london nhs trust, 2018): two neonatal nurses accessed records of a deceased infant for treatment review. internal investigation found no malicious intent; sanction limited to confidentiality refresher training.

– case b (north west england hospital, 2017): six staff accessed deceased infant records over two weeks following death; purpose was morbidity and mortality meeting preparation. considered part of reflective practice; no sanctions applied.

– case c (midlands nhs trust, 2016): nurse accessed five deceased patient records during annual neonatal audit. no evidence of personal gain or harm; no disciplinary action taken.

4. psychological expert commentary on grief behaviour in healthcare workers

– dr e.j. wainwright (consultant clinical psychologist, nhs wales):

“it is not uncommon for healthcare workers to revisit records of patients who have died under their care. this can serve as a personal coping mechanism, an informal review of the case, or an attempt to find closure.”

– dr h. nguyen (lecturer in health psychology, university of leeds):

“accessing past patient information post-death, while often discouraged for data protection reasons, is psychologically explicable as part of post-traumatic processing, especially in high-mortality specialisms such as neonatology.”

5. relevance to ccrc review

the comparative evidence shows that similar conduct has been treated as non-criminal and often non-disciplinary in other healthcare settings.

 omission of this from the trial created a misleading impression of abnormality in lucy letby’s conduct.

psychological evidence further supports the view that such searches can occur without criminal intent, providing an alternative explanation for the jury to have considered.

combined with case law emphasising the dangers of undue weight on weakly probative evidence, these materials support a real possibility that the conviction is unsafe"

Liz Lucy Robillard 15/08/25

Lucy Letby - The Notes, Where The Law Failed

 14 August 2025

Why Private, Random Thoughts Should Never Be Used to Convict Someone

The human mind produces thousands of thoughts a day — neuroscientists estimate anywhere between 6,000 and 60,000, most of which are fleeting, contradictory, and involuntary. Many are never acted upon, and many are not even consciously endorsed. Yet in some criminal cases, prosecutors have presented diary entries, private journal notes, or scraps of written thought as “proof” of intent or guilt. This practice is scientifically flawed, psychologically dangerous, and legally unsound.

1. Thoughts Are Not Actions

From a neuroscience perspective, there is a clear distinction between thought generation and behavioural execution. Thoughts arise in networks such as the default mode network (DMN), which is active during mind-wandering. These spontaneous mental events are often exploratory or emotional “drafts” — not plans. Turning a thought into action requires activation of goal-directed executive circuits in the prefrontal cortex, engagement of the motor system, and environmental opportunity. A scribbled idea in a notebook does not demonstrate that this chain ever occurred.

2. Intrusive and Anxious Thoughts Are Normal

Cognitive psychology and clinical research (including OCD studies) show that unwanted intrusive thoughts are common — violent, absurd, or morally unacceptable content can occur in the minds of healthy people. Under anxiety or stress, the brain’s error-detection circuits (anterior cingulate cortex) and threat systems (amygdala) are overactive, making distressing ideas more likely to surface. Writing them down can be a coping tool, a way to process and discharge them — not a confession.

3. Written Fragments Lack Context

In linguistics and forensic psychology, meaning is highly dependent on context: what preceded the entry, what followed, the emotional state of the writer, and whether it was fictional, hypothetical, or metaphorical. Without this context, interpretation is guesswork — and guesswork in a courtroom undermines the standard of proof “beyond reasonable doubt.”

4. The Memory–Meaning Gap

Memory science shows that even the writer may not later recall exactly why a note was made. Emotional state, fatigue, medication effects, and dissociation can all affect both the formation and later interpretation of personal writing. Jurors and even experts risk retrofitting sinister meaning onto harmless or therapeutic self-expression.

5. The Chilling Effect on Mental Health

If people fear their private thoughts could be used as evidence, they may stop journaling or seeking therapy — removing a key outlet for emotional regulation. This has public-health consequences: journaling is linked to reduced stress, improved immune function, and better emotional clarity. Criminalising thought risks harming many to pursue a few.

6. Legal and Ethical Principles

The principle of mens rea (guilty mind) in law refers to intent at the time of the act — not stray musings before or after. Democracies also uphold the right to freedom of thought (Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights) as absolute. Using random private thoughts as incriminating evidence trespasses on this right and edges into “thought crime” territory, a concept rightly condemned in free societies.

Case Study: When Private Thoughts Become a Courtroom Weapon

In 2008, in the UK case of Sally Clark (wrongly convicted of murdering her two children in 1999), private notes she had written during deep postnatal depression were presented in court as suggestive of guilt. In reality, the entries reflected grief, confusion, and the normal mental turmoil of a bereaved mother under suspicion. The conviction was later quashed after statistical and medical evidence proved the case against her was flawed — but the damage to her life was irreversible.

In the United States, the case of Andrea Yates (2001) also showed how mental health notes and statements taken out of context can be weaponised in court, sometimes without full understanding of psychiatric conditions or the nature of intrusive thoughts. In both cases, the interpretation of personal writings fed into a narrative that overrode scientific understanding of mental illness and cognitive processing.

These examples show that when justice treats the contents of a private mind as proof of criminal action, it risks catastrophic error. The human mind is not a crime scene — and random, personal writing should remain outside the reach of the prosecution’s hand.

Selected Scientific and Legal References

1. Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Smallwood, J., & Spreng, R. N. (2014). The default network and self-generated thought: component processes, dynamic control, and clinical relevance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316(1), 29–52.

2. Rachman, S. (2007). Unwanted intrusive thoughts. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(9), 2159–2166.

3. Brewin, C. R., & Andrews, B. (2017). Creating memories for false autobiographical events in childhood: A systematic review. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 31(1), 2–23.

4. European Court of Human Rights. (2023). Guide on Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion.

5. Gudjonsson, G. H., & Haward, L. R. (1998). Forensic Psychology: A Guide to Practice. Routledge.

6. McAuliff, B. D., & Kovera, M. B. (2012). Juror decision-making about scientific evidence: The role of expert testimony on the psychology of false confessions. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 18(3), 303–331.

Liz Lucy Robillard 14/08/25

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Child Psychologists v Educational Psychologists

 Child Psychologists v Educational Psychologists

The best help and I ever got with my learning disabled son, was from a regular child psychologist, Sharon. She gave very needed practical advice that was actually effective. I'll forever be grateful to her.

Child psychologists are essential when deciding care and probably education too- educational psychologists could be best used to identify specific learning styles and/ disabilities only, an example would be an autistic child could benefit from an ep input if dyspraxia/dyslexia/apraxia etc were an issue. 

The lines cross between the two professions and in my experience, I believe they really, really should not. 

 Ed Pychs are not really taught general mental health and should never be regarded as experts in that. 

Distressed children—whether labelled or learning disabled or not—need safety, understanding, and therapy, not punitive behavioural modification that is often mistakenly supported by Ed Psychs. 

Labels can be useful for clinical shorthand, but in education they often fail to secure the right provision. 

Each child’s circumstances are unique, and a label alone tells you nothing about their learning environment, trauma history, or emotional needs. 

Effective educational support starts from an individual needs assessment, not a diagnostic tick-box.

Disabled children are more likely to experience trauma and abuse (Jones et al., The Lancet, 2012). This is often compounded by controlling or narcissistic parenting, where a parent’s unmet emotional needs distort their capacity to attune to the child. (I knew I was in deep trouble when in reply to me stating our child was an individual, the ex said of our son "we own him" - repeatedly asserted this)

Because of attachment bonds, children are usually blind to the nature of this harm—they will instinctively defend and cling to the very figure who causes distress. The goal is not to sever attachment, but to coach the parent in emotional awareness, empathy, and genuine responsiveness.

Therapeutic models like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) can help both children and parents develop self-awareness, emotional flexibility, and values-driven action. ACT is well-evidenced for improving resilience in both neurotypical and neurodivergent populations.

Educational psychologists work only on learning access, school adaptations, special educational needs assessments, and systemic inclusion within education settings. 

They do not diagnose or treat mental health conditions.

Child psychologists work only on emotional and behavioural health across all life contexts. They assess, diagnose, and provide therapy for mental health issues such as anxiety, depression, trauma, and developmental disorders. They do not create or enforce school learning plans but their support is vital.

A clear divide means no shared assessments, no joint reports, and no overlapping responsibilities-impartiality could not be an issue.

 Educational psychologists do not make mental health recommendations. Child psychologists do not make educational provision recommendations. 

Each professional completes their work separately and communicates only the parts relevant to their own remit?

This prevents contradictory advice, reduces repeated questioning of the child, and keeps accountability with one professional per issue. 

Schools take instruction only from the educational psychologist on learning matters. 

Health and social care take instruction only from the child psychologist on mental health matters. This division ensures clarity, avoids service delays caused by role confusion, and keeps the child from being pulled between conflicting agendas.

Prior to advocating for behaviourism, ep's might want to consider the greatest man- Krishnamurti - as he observed: “It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” 

And as Jung warned: “Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.”

In child psychology, this means looking beyond compliance and behaviour charts to the deeper currents—unmet needs, unconscious fears, and inherited patterns—that shape how a child learns and relates.

References & further reading

• Jones, L. et al. (2012). Prevalence and risk of violence against children with disabilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet, 380(9845), 899-907.

• NICE. (2018). Social and Emotional Wellbeing for Children and Young People. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ph12

• Hayes, S. C. et al. (2011). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: The Process and Practice of Mindful Change. Guilford Press.

• Krishnamurti, J. Collected Works.

• Jung, C.G. Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self.

Suggested child psychology & trauma-informed training

• University of Edinburgh – Child and Adolescent Mental Health (Coursera)

• Monash University – Trauma-Informed Care for Children (FutureLearn)

• Association for Contextual Behavioral Science – ACT training modules for parents and professionals

Liz Lucy Robillard 

Next up: the wealth of ex social workers questioned

Journalists and PTSD

PTSD in Journalists: The Unique Pressures and How to Get Help

Journalists face a higher risk of post-traumatic stress disorder than most people realise. 

It is not only war correspondents who are affected. Investigative journalists covering abuse, corruption, organised crime, or systemic failure can also be repeatedly exposed to trauma.

 The harm does not always come from witnessing violence directly. It can build up from reviewing distressing material, hearing survivor accounts, enduring threats, or being targeted for your work.

Common PTSD symptoms in journalists include:

1. Re-experiencing

Flashbacks, nightmares, and vivid mental images of traumatic events or details.

2. Hyperarousal

Constantly being on edge, startling easily, feeling irritable, or struggling to relax.

3. Avoidance and numbing

Pulling away from friends and family, avoiding certain assignments or locations, feeling emotionally shut down.

4. Reintegration problems

Difficulty shifting from intense investigative or crisis work into everyday life, feeling isolated or “out of sync” with others.

5. Moral injury

Guilt, anger, or hopelessness from seeing wrongdoing persist despite exposure, or from being forced to make ethical compromises under pressure.

6. Defensiveness fatigue

Many investigative journalists report that the constant need to defend their reporting, their credibility, or even their character takes a toll. When you are repeatedly forced to justify yourself to hostile actors or sceptics, it reinforces the trauma and undermines recovery.

 Defending yourself once in a clear, documented way is reasonable. 

Doing it over and over can become harmful, draining emotional reserves and feeding the cycle of stress. 

Where possible, set boundaries, refer critics to one public statement or published evidence, and protect your energy.

Therapeutic approaches that can help:

Cognitive Processing Therapy (CPT): Helps process traumatic events and challenge harmful thought patterns.

Trauma-Focused Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (TF-CBT): Combines education about trauma with emotional regulation skills.

Eye Movement Desensitisation and Reprocessing (EMDR): Uses bilateral stimulation to help reprocess traumatic memories.

Narrative Exposure Therapy (NET): Reconstructs a coherent life story to integrate traumatic experiences.

Complementary supports: Mindfulness, yoga, somatic therapy, group sessions, and creative expression.

Funding and access to therapy:

National Union of Journalists (NUJ) and Rory Peck Trust: The NUJ Therapy Fund can help pay for psychological treatment, and the Crisis Fund supports freelancers in difficulty.

Journalist Trauma Support Network (JTSN): Connects journalists with therapists trained in media-specific trauma. 

Dart Center for Journalism and Trauma: Offers fellowships, workshops, and peer support to build resilience.

Some press freedom organisations and international human rights NGOs also provide emergency mental health grants for journalists under threat.

Why this matters now:

Early recognition of PTSD symptoms is crucial. Journalists often delay getting help, believing they must stay “tough” or keep defending their work in the public arena. 

In reality, untreated trauma erodes not only mental health but also the ability to work effectively.

 Building peer support networks, setting clear boundaries with critics, and securing funding for professional therapy are essential steps.

Both conflict reporters and investigative journalists deserve long-term support structures. This is not a luxury—it is an occupational health need. 

A healthy journalist is better able to report truthfully, withstand pressure, and continue serving the public interest without burning out or breaking down.

Llm & liz 

Lucy Letby Telegraph Today - Bacteria

 Today's Telegraph reported that there was dangerous, deadly bacteria at the Countess of Chester Hospital at the time Lucy Letby worked there. It made me question the likelihood of the bacterium being found by the coroner- as well as the obvious questions. I asked an ai to explain:

'Should the deadly bacteria in the Letby case have been found during post-mortems?

Yes. Under UK medical law and standard hospital practice, if a baby dies unexpectedly, a coroner’s post-mortem is usually required. These post-mortems include infection screening through blood cultures, tissue samples, and swabs from areas like the lungs or brain. If a dangerous bacterium (like Serratia or something similar) caused or contributed to the death, it should have been detected.

Who is responsible for identifying it?

The hospital’s pathology and microbiology team are responsible for running these tests and reporting results. If the case is under the coroner, they also review the findings. If multiple babies are affected, the hospital trust’s clinical governance team should be investigating as well. It could indicate a wider outbreak.

If the bacterium was missed, ignored, or not reported, that’s a serious procedural failure. It could also mean the true cause of death was recorded incorrectly. That would have a major impact on both the Letby case and any conclusions about hospital safety.

If this happened, why wasn’t it picked up sooner—and by whom? That’s something the inquiry needs to get to the bottom of.

The Telegraph article is here

 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/55c35e18f15fd0c7 

Liz Lucy Robillard