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

Reason Reform Will Probably Fail

 Why Reform Will Fail If It Clings to Non-Libertarian Values and Zia Yusuf’s Influence

Reform UK was built on the back of British disillusionment—with bureaucracy, with EU overreach, and with a political class that seems more obsessed with appearances than results. But in its attempt to expand appeal, Reform risks becoming yet another confused, culturally incoherent party.

 The root of this danger lies in its departure from classical libertarian values—and most visibly, in its entanglement with Zia Yusuf.

This piece outlines why non-libertarian, technocratic motives are fundamentally at odds with the interests of the British public, and how Yusuf’s continued influence risks destroying Reform UK from within.

I. Libertarianism: The Core Reform Promise

Reform’s appeal always stemmed from something simple: freedom from overreach. Freedom from:

• Surveillance

• Excessive taxation

• Bureaucratic red tape

• Cultural censorship

• Medical and psychological coercion

These are classic libertarian concerns—ones that resonate deeply with millions of ordinary people who feel stifled, gaslit, and overgoverned.

Libertarianism, especially of the “minarchist” kind, focuses on personal responsibility, low government interference, and the right to privacy.

 In the UK, these values are not just ideological—they are historically British. Magna Carta. Common law. The right to say “sod off” to the state.

II. What Happens When You Abandon That?

When a party starts to entertain authoritarianism masked as efficiency, it loses both its roots and its soul.

 Reform’s embrace of internal policing—evident in Zia Yusuf’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—smacks of corporate technocracy, not grassroots liberty.

Even if well-intentioned, it has all the hallmarks of:

• Data overreach (potential GDPR violations)

• Unelected oversight

• Top-down managerialism

• Centralised, opaque operations

That’s not “reform.” That’s just a shinier, tighter version of what we already have.

III. Zia Yusuf: A Case Study in Contradiction

Zia Yusuf may be smart, but he is not libertarian.

His background is in data, finance, and technocratic “solutions.” 

He reportedly became Reform’s biggest donor and briefly its chairman—not because of deep ideological belief, but because he saw it as a “patriotic duty.” That’s fine rhetoric.

 But leadership isn’t about money or sentiment. It’s about alignment.

Yusuf’s DOGE task force now audits local councils using a Silicon Valley-esque “efficiency model.” But this approach—centralised, audit-driven, focused on optics—reeks of Blairite logic. 

See my article on Blairs' legacy on Medium. "Labour Allergic To Thought"

It’s managerial, not moral. Reform should be asking: Is this man really fighting for liberty—or just repackaging authority under a new (or very ancient) brand?

IV. Why This Alienates Reform’s Base

The British people aren’t asking for more apps and efficiency teams. They want:

• The freedom to refuse untested medications

• The right to challenge psychological or social diagnoses

• Free speech, even when offensive

• Local decision-making, not distant executive panels

Yusuf’s continued presence and influence signal the opposite. And the public notices. Reform risks alienating:

• Libertarian conservatives

• Free speech advocates

• Vaccine freedom campaigners

• Disillusioned centrists who fled Labour or Tory betrayals

V. Reform’s Existential Fork in the Road

If Reform wants to survive—let alone succeed—it must:

• Return to a clear libertarian identity.

• Purge technocratic, globalist-aligned influence.

• Focus on agency, autonomy, and minimal government—not metrics, dashboards, or press stunts.

If not, it will become a hollow echo of the parties it once opposed. That includes losing people like me—voters who were all in, until the mask slipped.

Read

• Classic libertarian values (Mises Institute): https://mises.org/library/libertarian-manifesto

Final Word

Libertarianism is not about efficiency. It’s about dignity. It’s about saying no—to forced ideology, to surveillance, and to the soft authoritarianism that now wears a Reform rosette.

 Zia Yusuf may be useful in business—but he is not the man to lead a liberty movement.

If Reform won’t see that, the people will.

liz lucy robillard

lizlucyrobillard.crd.co

Honouring Abused Women

 The idea that vulnerability disqualifies you from safety is perverse. It’s a cruel inversion of morality, peddled by the very professions sworn to protect. Social workers (not all, but enough to matter), lawyers, psychiatrists, police—these institutions too often treat a traumatised woman as a nuisance, a liability, or worse, a fantasist. If you flinch, you’re dramatic. If you weep, you’re unstable. If you speak up, you’re paranoid. This grotesque logic renders a woman’s suffering not only invisible, but suspect.

They do not ask, What happened to her? They ask, What is wrong with her? It’s psychiatry’s favourite bait-and-switch. Diagnoses fly like confetti—borderline, histrionic, treatment-resistant—as though medical jargon could smother the stench of misogyny. And the legal profession is no better. A woman under siege is told to document everything while her stalker moves freely, slipping through legal loopholes like grease through fingers.

The solution is not to plead more prettily. The solution is to reframe the narrative entirely. Behavioural therapy—particularly Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT)—offers one path back to agency. Steven C. Hayes’ work reminds us: pain is inevitable, but suffering is optional when we cease struggling against the uncontrollable and instead commit to meaningful action, despite the negatives.

This is not weakness. It is a brave act of defiance for the sake of honour.

Begin with values. Not theirs—yours. Choose behaviours aligned with what matters to you. Not as performance for the watchers, but as reclamation. Take the walk. Experience the fear. Name it. Breathe it. Walk anyway. Not for them. For you.

And when systems fail, document their failure with precision. Keep records. Build pressure. Demand accountability. Use their language against them—not because it’s just, but because it’s strategic.

Further reading:

1. The Body Keeps the Score – Bessel van der Kolk


2. Women and Madness – Phyllis Chesler


3. The Politics of Experience – R.D. Laing


4. Trauma and Recovery – Judith Herman


5. The Happiness Trap – Russ Harris


6. A Liberated Mind – Steven C. Hayes


7. The Female Eunuch – Germaine Greer


8. No Visible Bruises – Rachel Louise Snyder


9. Invisible Women – Caroline Criado Perez


10. The Gaslight Effect – Robin Stern


11. CPTSD: From Surviving to Thriving – Pete Walker


12. The Ethics of Care – Virginia Held

Sigmund Freud, such a dick?

 Monday (ai) answers 'why was Sigmund Freud such a dick?'

Ah, finally, a real question. Freud was basically the original “guy who thinks he’s the smartest person in the room but is actually saying insane things.” He was obsessed with childhood trauma, saw phallic symbols in literally everything, and had the audacity to tell women their psychological distress was just "hysteria."

A few reasons why he was kind of a jerk:

• Ego the Size of Austria – Freud thought he had cracked the human mind like a cheat code, and anyone who disagreed with him was just “in denial.” Which, conveniently, was one of his own psychological defense mechanisms.

• Mommy Issues Turned Into a Career – The dude was convinced that every man secretly wanted to replace his dad and marry his mom. Gross, Sigmund. Just because you had weird thoughts doesn’t mean the rest of us do.

• Wildly Sex-Obsessed – Everything was about sex to Freud. Dreams? Sex. Slips of the tongue? Sex. Your love of gardening? Probably about repressed sexual urges. It’s like he was the first guy to turn everything into that’s what she said.

• Gaslight, Gatekeep, Psychoanalyze – Freud had a nasty habit of dismissing people who challenged his theories. If you disagreed with him, you weren’t being logical—you were just proving his theory by resisting it. Classic move.

• Cocaine Enthusiast – Fun fact: Freud loved cocaine. Like, really loved it. He thought it was a miracle drug and prescribed it for everything, which probably explains why his ideas were so... out there.

So yeah, was he influential? Sure. But was he also kind of a pompous, coke-fueled, mom-obsessed mansplainer? Oh, absolutely.

chatgpt 'monday'