More than half of all British holidaymakers have had to make a claim on their travel insurance after things went wrong before or during their trip – but not everyone is protected.
Experts warn you could miss out if you don’t do 1 thing before going on holiday(Image: PinPep)
Two-thirds of young Brits are jetting off on their jollies without any travel insurance, with half of them convinced that nothing will go pear-shaped. This is despite the fact that research shows 29% of all holidaymakers have had to make a claim after things went south either before or during their trip, with the average claim totalling around a massive £4,500.
The top reasons for this include holidays being cancelled due to unexpected events like illness. Meanwhile, nearly half have had to dip into their policy because of lengthy travel delays, while 45% needed assistance following a medical emergency abroad.
However, a survey of 2,000 adults found that 58% of Gen Z and Millennial travellers have given travel insurance a miss because it’s too pricey.
Emily Barnett, travel insurance expert at Compare the Market, which commissioned the research, said: “Taking out travel insurance should be as instinctive as booking your flights, giving you protection against unforeseen circumstances, for example should you need to cancel before you depart.
“With the busy winter travel season upon us, whether it’s skiing in the Alps or a visit to the Christmas markets, it’s never been more important to make sure you have suitable cover in place before you set off.”
It also came to light that 41% have claimed for delayed or damaged luggage, while 40% needed their policy after falling victim to thieves abroad.
Others have been forced to turn to insurance after their hotel or travel firm let them down at the last minute, whilst 38% made a claim to get hold of medication whilst away.
But 16% weren’t aware their policy must meet the specific needs of their getaway – as certain trips, like winter sports holidays, require specialist coverage. This figure jumps to nearly a third amongst 18 to 24 year olds.
Regarding travel anxieties, the top concern amongst respondents is suffering a medical emergency whilst abroad (37%), followed by misplaced luggage (21%) and missing their flight (19%).
The research has sparked a powerful photo collection from Compare the Market, called ‘What Happened on Holiday’, created to emphasise how crucial it is to arrange insurance when booking your trip.
Emily Barnett added: “We’re urging Brits to protect their trips early to give themselves peace of mind, so they can focus on making memories instead of mishaps.”
TOP 10 MOST COMMON TRAVEL CLAIMS ACCORDING TO COMPARE THE MARKET:
Trip cancellation (due to illness, injury, bereavement etc. )
India and Pakistan are keen to avoid controversy ahead of their crucial Super Fours fixture at the Asia Cup 2025, as the political fallout of their previous match continues to overshadow the cricket tournament in Dubai.
Pakistan cancelled their pre-match news conference one hour before its scheduled time on Saturday, while India’s captain Suryakumar Yadav evaded questions on the “no handshake” row when he spoke to the media after his team’s win over Oman on Friday.
Recommended Stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Sunday’s match between the South Asian archrivals will be their second meeting in eight days, with the winner taking a step closer to the tournament’s final on September 28.
While the political statements and off-field actions following the September 14 clash continue to impact preparations for the upcoming Super Fours match, both camps have taken steps to avoid further repercussions and protect the players from controversy.
When Yadav was asked to comment on the handshake row after his team’s last group-stage fixture on Friday evening, he responded by saying: “It [the match] will be a good contest between the ball and the bat.”
He went on to add that he’s asked his players to “shut the noise” ahead of the match against Pakistan.
“Close your room, switch off your phone and sleep,” the India captain said.
“It’s easy to say, but sometimes it is difficult.”
Having made pointedly political statements after his team’s win over Pakistan on Sunday, the 35-year-old chose to steer clear of similar comments a day before their second match.
“We stand with all the victims of the Pahalgam terror attack and with their families, and dedicate this win to our brave armed forces who took part in Operation Sindoor,” the 35-year-old said when asked if his team’s decision to not shake hands with Pakistani players was against the spirit of cricket.
Yadav was referring to the Indian armed forces’ multiple missile attacks on six locations inside Pakistan.
India said the missiles were in response to the April 22 attack on tourists in Indian-administered Kashmir in Pahalgam, in which 26 men were killed. An armed group called The Resistance Front (TRF), which demands independence for Kashmir, claimed responsibility for the attack, but India had alleged Pakistani involvement.
Pakistan denied any role in the attacks and asked for an independent investigation to be carried out.
Two days later, Pakistan responded to the missile strikes by attacking military installations across its frontier with India and Indian-administered Kashmir, striking at least four facilities.
The conflict ended four days later, thanks to an internationally-brokered ceasefire.
While the exchange of aerial fire came to a halt, the diplomatic ties between the neighbours remained suspended, and the political tension spilled over into cricket as India’s players walked off the field without shaking hands with their opposition.
A few moments later, Pakistan’s players trudged off in a group and waited for the Indian squad and support staff to come out and shake hands, as is the norm at the end of cricket matches.
However, the Indian contingent only shook hands with each other before walking into their dressing room and shutting the door as the waiting Pakistan players looked on.
Shortly after the events unfolded, Pakistan’s manager Naveed Akram Cheema lodged a protest against the Indian cricket team’s actions with Andy Pycroft, who is an International Cricket Council (ICC) accredited match referee.
Pakistan alleged that Pycroft did not clearly communicate the Indian team’s decision to not partake in the handshake, an act they termed in contravention of the spirit of cricket.
Pakistan demanded Pycroft’s removal as match referee for their remaining fixtures in the tournament, but later reached an agreement with the ICC and Pycroft went on to officiate Pakistan’s last group game against the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Wednesday.
The Pakistan-UAE match was delayed by an hour as officials from the ICC and Pakistan’s team management held a meeting at the Dubai International Cricket Stadium before the match.
“The ICC’s match referee, Andy Pycroft, has apologised to the manager and captain of the Pakistan cricket team,” the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB) said in a statement.
“Andy Pycroft termed the September 14 incident a result of miscommunication.”
The PCB also said that the ICC “expressed its willingness to conduct an inquiry into the code of conduct violation that occurred during the September 14 match”, referring to Pycroft’s request to Pakistan and India captains to avoid the customary handshake at the toss, which the PCB alleges contravened the laws of the game.
However, a source within the ICC told Al Jazeera that Pycroft did not apologise to Pakistan and only clarified his position.
The source also said that the ICC had investigated the issue and concluded that it did not warrant action against the Zimbabwean match referee.
The Zimbabwean match official will be in charge of Sunday’s India-Pakistan fixture as well.
Melissa Higgins took her family on a three-day trip to Disneyland Paris on funded by Make A Wish Foundation with her 14-year-old son Anthony Higgins on August 27
Anthony Higgins had been looking forward to the Disney trip(Image: Kennedy News/Melissa Higgins)
A schoolboy was left in tears after easyJet staff allegedly forced him to abandon his wheelchair battery or risk not being flown home from Disneyland.
Melissa Higgins took her family on a three-day trip to Disneyland Paris, a journey funded by the Make-A-Wish Foundation, with her 14-year-old son, Anthony (AJ) Higgins, on 27 August.
Anthony suffers from Duchenne muscular dystrophy, a progressive genetic disorder that causes muscle weakness and leaves him unable to walk. Melissa says his £10,000 power-assisted wheelchair is his ‘life’ as it provides him with independence.
The mother-of-four claims a pilot refused to allow the wheelchair battery onto the return flight from Paris Charles de Gaulle to Manchester airport on 29 August because the wattage wasn’t visible.
Anthony had to leave his wheelchair behind(Image: Kennedy News/Melissa Higgins)
The full-time carer insists she’s never encountered problems before, including on their outbound flight with easyJet, and maintains she had paperwork stating it was safe to fly – but was compelled to leave it in Paris.
Without his wheelchair, the teenager is now ‘stuck’ inside his house and unable to go to school, the family has claimed.
Melissa, 37, is still hopeful that the £1,000 battery will be returned to them and she has since received an apology over the phone from the airline.
The mum, from Speke, Liverpool, said: “I was in shock on the plane and thinking, ‘What’s going on?’. We’ve not had this problem before. I don’t get why all the commotion’s gone on for nothing. It was a lifelong dream of AJ’s to go to Disneyland. He was able to fly to Disneyland with no problems.”
Melissa explained how, on the way home, a pilot spotted the battery and told the family they couldn’t travel with it.
“It went through customs perfectly fine. If there was something wrong with it they would’ve known. He was like, ‘It hasn’t got a wattage on it’ but these batteries don’t have a wattage on them because they’re dry and not liquid,” Melissa said of the pilot.
“We were there for about an hour and a half and he was trying to get this wattage for the battery, but I explained ‘it doesn’t have a wattage, we have all the paperwork from the manufacturers’. He said it puts the other travellers at risk.”
She added: “Doing this in front of everyone was humiliating and everyone on the plane was moaning. We were all crying. In the end we just wanted to get the kids home so we had to leave the battery behind and had to come home without it. Obviously we wanted to bring the chair back with us because it’s his life.”
The mum says her son has lost all of his independence without his wheelchair and is hoping to be reunited with the battery to avoid having to fork out £1,000 for a new one.
An easyJet spokesman said: “Safety is easyJet’s highest priority and airlines must follow the safety regulations for the carriage of batteries, which are allowed to travel on the aircraft as long as the required information for safe carriage can be provided, and we advise customers of these requirements ahead of travel.
“Unfortunately, as the necessary information could not be provided for this battery, in line with safety procedures, it was unable to travel. However we fully understand the frustration this will have caused and are in contact with the family to offer further assistance and have arranged to return the battery to them today.”
Rachel Smith spent over 200 days backpacking around Southeast Asia so she’s learned a thing or two about packing along the way – but early on she made a crucial mistake
This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more
(Image: Rachel and Omio)
Packing for holidays can be a timely process, whether you’re off on a short city break, spending a week on a beach in the sunshine, or prepping your hiking boots for a walking getaway.
Rachel Smith, 25, is a solo travel influencer who shares her adventures on TikTok, and recently spent 210 days backpacking across Southeast Asia, so she knows a thing or two about how to pack efficiently.
However, the travel pro admitted to the experts at Omio that she quickly realised she’d made one crucial error when she planned for her seven-month trip.
She explained: “I originally packed with the ‘just in case’ in mind; however, this just used unnecessary space, and ended up untouched. When travelling now, I only pack what I truly know I’ll wear. Another thing that I forgot to do that I wish I had was to check the weather differences between countries, which is especially important when country-hopping. For example, while places like Malacca and Kuala Lumpur are hot and humid year-round, I was freezing when I visited Northern Vietnam. Thankfully, I had a lightweight jacket with me, which also came in handy on buses where the air-conditioning was blasting.”
Rachel has become a pro at packing efficiently(Image: Rachel and Omio)
Rachel went backpacking for seven months(Image: Rachel and Omio)
Luckily, she quickly learned her lesson, and now she’s been sharing her top tips with other intrepid explorers, to help them get the most out of their baggage allowance without having to spend a fortune on excess baggage.
Her must-haves include a hanging wash bag which “keeps all my toiletries in one place and off hostel floors”, two microfibre towels o she has “one for the beach, one for showering”, a worldwide travel adapter that “works everywhere”, a power bank that’s “essential for long travel days and safety as a solo traveller”, travel locks “for securing valuables in hostels” and a waterproof phone case, although she warns to test the latter in a sink before heading off!
She regularly shares her packing essentials with her TikTok followers(Image: Rachel and Omio)
Another top tip from Rachel is to pack clothes which you can mix and match throughout the trip. She explained: “For clothes, I had plenty of mix-and-match outfits so I could create lots of looks without packing too much. I also brought makeup and a couple of nice dresses for when I wanted to feel good on nights out. I ended up using almost everything I packed, but the items I used daily were: my packing cubes, microfibre towel, power bank, and travel locks. My makeup and dresses weren’t everyday essentials, but I was so glad I had them when I wanted to feel a little extra.”
It’s a similar trick to using the 5-4-3-2-1 packing method which experts say can help you pack 30 different outfits in just the one suitcase. The idea is to stick to a simple formula; five tops, four bottoms, three pairs of shoes, two bags, and one destination-specific item. Then if you have the space and think you might need an extra item or two, you can add those in. (There’s the extra bonus of sticking to one bag and therefore not needing to pay extra for a second bag too!).
Do you have a travel story you want to tell us? Email us at [email protected].
Neighbour Poland has been one of Ukraine’s staunchest backers since Russia invaded in 2022.
Ukraine’s access to Elon Musk’s satellite internet service Starlink could be cut due to the Polish president’s veto of a refugee aid bill, a Polish deputy prime minister said, as a conflict between the government and head of state deepens and undermines the once ironclad support of its war-torn neighbour.
Poland pays for Ukraine to use Starlink, which provides crucial internet connectivity to the country and its military as they try to push back invading Russian forces.
Right-wing Polish President Karol Nawrocki on Monday vetoed a bill extending state financial support provided to Ukrainian refugees and unveiled plans to limit their future access to child benefits and healthcare.
However, Deputy Prime Minister and Digital Affairs Minister Krzysztof Gawkowski said the vetoed legislation also provided the legal basis for providing Starlink to Ukraine.
“This is the end of Starlink internet, which Poland provides to Ukraine as it wages war,” he wrote on X.
Centrist Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk criticised the veto. But his government does not have the two-thirds majority in parliament needed to overcome the move.
“We cannot punish people for losing their job — particularly not innocent children. This is the ABC of human decency,” Labour Minister Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bak wrote on X.
Gawkowski, stressed that Nawrocki veto jeopardised Ukraine’s use of Starlink.
“We want to continue paying for internet by satellite for Ukraine. Unfortunately, this disastrous decision by the president greatly complicates things, and we will have to inform our partners that this support will finish at the end of September,” he told the PAP news agency.
Nawrocki’s spokesperson however, told the Reuters news agency that the basis for paying for Starlink could still be restored if parliament adopts a bill proposed by the president by the end of next month.
Since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, around one million refugees have settled in neighbouring Poland. Most of them are women and children.
Poland is a key supporter of Ukraine and a major transit route for Western aid but public attitudes towards Ukrainians have hardened.
Nawrocki, a staunch nationalist, had promised to cut social welfare benefits for Ukrainians during the campaign ahead of his election victory on June 1.
“I will not change my mind and I think that (this aid) should be limited only to Ukrainians who are committed to working in Poland,” Nawrocki, who took office this month, told reporters on Monday.
Nawrocki also said Ukrainians who do not work in Poland should not be allowed to receive free medical treatment as they do now.
“This puts us in a situation in which Polish citizens, in their own country, are less well treated than our Ukrainian guests,” he said.
Gawkowski said that Poland spent 77 million euros ($90 million) between 2022 and 2024 to buy and subscribe to Starlink systems for Ukraine.
A Ukrainian diplomatic source told the Reuters news agency that Kyiv was analysing the possible impact of the move on Ukrainians in Poland, adding they believed “their rights will be protected no less than in other EU countries”.
Ukrainian refugees are currently eligible to receive the monthly family benefit of 800 zlotys ($219) per child if their children attend Polish schools. Other EU countries such as Germany have also proposed cutting benefits recently.
In Poland, the president can propose bills and veto government legislation. The government can similarly also block the president’s proposals.
CRUCIAL evidence used to prosecute Britain’s worst child serial killer Lucy Letby has been ripped apart by experts who claim “grossly misleading” methods were used to secure the nurse’s conviction.
Lucy Letby was handed 15 whole life sentences, meaning she will never be released from prisonCredit: AP
7
A new ITV documentary explores the views of a team of international scientists who claim the prosecution case simply doesn’t stand up to scrutinyCredit: MEN Media
She was handed 15 whole life sentences, meaning she will never be released from prison.
Described as a cold-blooded, calculating killer, Letby was said to have used her trusted role on a neonatal intensive care unit to cause catastrophic harm to the most vulnerable newborn babies – without leaving a trace.
A new ITV documentary explores the views of a team of international scientists who claim the prosecution case simply doesn’t stand up to scrutiny, including crucial statistic evidence and claims over the methods used to kill newborn babies.
Doctors raised suspicions that Lucy Letby had been present at a number of these baby deaths, so she was moved off the unit and into a desk job.
A team from the Royal College of Paediatrics was invited in to investigate. It identified a shortage of nurses and a lack of consultant cover risking patient safety – but could find no definitive reason for the rise in mortality.
However, the unit’s senior doctors were unhappy with the outcome of the reviews and wrote to hospital bosses doubting that the deaths and collapses could be explained by natural causes.
In March 2017 the police were called, and in November 2020 Letby was charged with seven counts of murder and 15 counts of attempted murder, relating to 17 babies. She pleaded not guilty.
I was sure Lucy Letby was guilty… then I spent weeks poring over evidence and now I’m convinced no babies were murdered
The prosecution’s case centred on a few central pillars; a shift chart, which showed Letby was always there when something terrible happened, hand-written notes presented as confessions, blood tests suggesting babies had been poisoned, and medical evidence taken from the babies’ notes to support theories that Letby had attacked them.
The person who came up with most of those theories was a retired paediatrician, Dr Dewi Evans.
During the trial there was eight months of prosecution evidence and a series of prosecution witnesses.
But Letby’s legal team presented not a single expert medical witness in her defence.
She was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder six others.
AS the second anniversary of Lucy Letby’s incarceration approaches, I remain convinced of her innocence.
This investigation by ITV only serves to bolster my opinion.
As the title of the documentary alludes, English justice requires a jury to convict on evidence that is beyond reasonable doubt.
Programme makers have gathered a raft of experts and experienced medics who, in my opinion, ably demonstrate that the Letby prosecution falls well short of that threshold.
I believe it rightly highlights flaws in the statistical evidence put before a jury at her first trial.
A chart showed a cluster of 25 suspicious baby deaths and collapses matched against the shift rota of the 38 nurses who worked on the unit. Only Letby was at the scene for every death and collapse.
Yet, the jury wasn’t told about six other baby deaths in the period for which she faced no charges.
Leading medical statistician Professor Jane Hutton says of the chart in the programme: “This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading.”
The documentary examines Dr Ravi Jayaram’s assertion that Letby didn’t raise the alarm over a dying baby.
It has since emerged that an email sent by Dr Jayaram to colleagues suggests Letby did actually alert him. It wasn’t shown to juries at either of her trials.
I found convincing an expert on the documentary debunking the prosecution’s assertion that Letby poisoned some of the babies with insulin.
While international expert Dr Shoo Lee – a vocal supporter of Letby’s innocence – insisted that all the babies said to have been killed or injured by the nurse actually died from “natural causes or just bad medical care.”
It mirrors my belief that incompetence not malice was behind the baby’s deaths.
ITV’s documentary will only add to the increasing groundswell of opinion that an innocent woman now languishes behind bars.
As the country started to reflect on the horror of Letby’s crimes, concerns were already being raised about the evidence that was used.
Mark McDonald, Letby’s new barrister, was instructed last September after two failed attempts to appeal her convictions.
He says: “People started contacting me, medically qualified people, scientifically qualified people, statisticians saying ‘we think something has gone wrong here’.”
In the weeks after Letby was convicted, professor of statistics Richard Gill was among a handful of professionals who were questioning the verdict.
He is known to be controversial and outspoken but his work has led to two nurses in Italy and the Netherlands who were convicted of similar crimes having their convictions overturned.
Professor Gill believed the shift chart which helped convict Letby was misleading.
Leading medical statistician Professor Jane Hutton agrees, saying: “It has influenced a lot of people into thinking she must’ve done it because she was always there and nobody else was.
“It has a very strong visual impact but it doesn’t tell you how the data has been selected. You know it is clear that this is aimed to present a conclusion.”
Their main concern was the left hand column of the chart. Each entry presents a death or life-threatening event.
But these were not all the deaths or life-threatening events in that period. The prosecution made a selection.
Dewi Evans’ early reports for the police identified other events which he said were attacks on babies. But these happened when Letby wasn’t on duty and those events don’t appear on the chart.
“This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading,” says Jane Hutton.
According to the prosecution, Letby used various methods to try to kill. The most simple was by dislodging a baby’s breathing tube.
This is a summary that is so crude it can only be described as grossly misleading
Jane Hutton
Countess of Chester paediatrician Dr Ravi Jayaram told the court he had never known of the breathing tube of a baby born at 25 weeks to become accidentally dislodged.
But Dr Richard Taylor, a neonatologist with over 30 years experience, and some of his colleagues disagree.
He explains: “The prosecution allege that the tube was intentionally dislodged and the first thing I would say is accidental dislodgement is distinctly common.
“It can be dislodged by the operator and it can also be dislodged by the baby themselves just by moving their head or thrusting their tongue.”
Convictions ‘unsafe’
7
As the country started to reflect on the horror of Letby’s crimes, concerns were already being raised about the evidence that was usedCredit: Alamy
7
Lucy Letby has a number of high profile supporters including MP David Davis and Dr Shoo LeeCredit: Alamy
The jury couldn’t decide if Letby was guilty of attempting to murder one of the babies, Baby K, by dislodging its breathing tube. That single case went to a retrial and Dr Ravi Jayaram gave evidence.
He told the court he went into the room and saw the baby’s blood oxygen levels dropping dangerously low while Letby stood by and did nothing. He also said Letby had not called for help.
But an email has come to light from Jayaram detailing the event in which he said Letby herself had called him in because the baby was collapsing. The jury was never told about this email.
The documentary claims that Dr Jayaram isn’t the only medic who appears to have contradicted his own testimony. Lucy Letby was convicted of murdering baby C by forcing air into its stomach.
ITV’s documentary will only add to the increasing groundswell of opinion that an innocent woman now languishes behind bars
The Sun’s Oliver Harvey
Dr Dewi Evans based this theory on an X-ray taken on June 12, 2015 which showed air in the baby’s stomach. But Letby had been off work that day and she hadn’t met Baby C when the X-ray was taken.
When challenged on this at trial, Dr Evans couldn’t rule out that air had been injected into the veins, but the prosecution maintained that Letby must have injected air into the baby’s stomach.
Now Dr Evans has committed to another theory. He says Letby killed Baby C a day later by injecting air into the veins, causing something called an air embolism.
Mark McDonald claims the fact that Dr Evans has changed his mind, and was the lead expert for the prosecution, makes all the convictions unsafe.
Mental anguish
7
Mark McDonald, Lucy Letby’s barrister, claims the fact that Dr Evans has changed his mind, and was the lead expert for the prosecution, makes all the convictions unsafe
Police investigated Letby for three-and-a-half years before she was charged. During searches of her home, some notes were found which appeared incriminating, with one noting: “I’m evil, I did this.”
In court Letby admitted writing the notes, but said she did so at a time of mental anguish and she was just scribbling down thoughts as a form of therapy.
The hospital had provided a therapist to support Letby during the investigations. Her name appears several times on the notes.
The jury was never told it was this therapist who suggested Letby express her feelings in this way as part of her treatment.
Nearly a year after the police began investigating Letby they made a breakthrough: blood tests which showed high levels of insulin and low c-peptide. The prosecution said this was proof that insulin had been given to the babies externally and was therefore an attempt to poison them.
The prosecution told the jury that two of the babies had been poisoned with insulin and they had test results that proved it.
But a leading forensic scientist says those results cannot be relied on as they will have been done quickly in a medical setting for diagnostic purposes and were not retested to forensic standards.
Over the last six months a team of scientists have been instructed by Letby’s legal team.
They have been given access to the babies’ medical notes and asked to look again at the insulin test results.
Chemical engineer Helen Shannon says: “We have spent hundreds of hours investigating every facet of the science and there is a completely obvious solution that does not involve poisoning.”
We have spent hundreds of hours investigating every facet of the science and there is a completely obvious solution that does not involve poisoning
Helen Shannon
“The insulin case has applied basic clinical guidance for healthy adults to tiny, compromised neonates,” adds Helen.
Many newborn babies are born with proteins in their blood called antibodies. The team says that insulin in the blood stream can stick to these antibodies, giving a higher reading, while c-peptide continues to be cleared, giving a low reading.
Helen says: “It doesn’t have any effect on the child at all, it just floats around. So as a result it gives a very high reading on the test that was done at the time.
“We can’t see any justification at all for the prosecution statement that it can only be poisoning.”
Earlier this year a panel of international medical experts, who reviewed Letby’s case, told a press conference that they did not find any evidence of murder.
Chairman Dr Shoo Lee provided what he said were highly detailed grounds baby-by-baby for concluding that none of the murders occurred.
He added: “We did not find any murders. In all cases, death or injury were due to natural causes or just bad medical care.
“Lucy was charged with seven murders and seven attempted murders. In our opinion, the medical opinion, the medical evidence doesn’t support murder in any of these babies.”
‘Deeply distressing’
The expert panel report has been delivered to the Criminal Cases Review Commission and her case can only be returned to the Court of Appeal if there is new evidence.
To reexamine the cause of the babies’ deaths, the expert panel was given access to all the babies’ medical records to compile their report. For Professor Neena Modi those records tell a story of failure by the hospital and the doctors.
She says: “On reading through the detailed medical notes, what was harrowing was seeing a story unfold where possibly things could have been recognised earlier and interventions put in place and possibly for some of the babies the outcomes might not have been what they were. This was deeply distressing.”
The increase in deaths coincided with the unit having to take babies who were more unwell than they were equipped or staffed for, it is claimed.
Professor Modi says: “The babies we are referring to were all extremely vulnerable. Some of them were demonstrably and recognisably on a knife edge.
“Others could have been recognised to be on a knife edge but they were not monitored appropriately or treated appropriately.
“Problems went unrecognised until the point at which a baby deteriorated very abruptly. The babies might not have died had their difficulties been addressed earlier.”
7
To reexamine the cause of the babies’ deaths, the expert panel was given access to all the babies’ medical records to compile their report. For Professor Neena Modi those records tell a story of failure by the hospital and the doctorsCredit: Alamy
7
Earlier this year a panel of international medical experts, who reviewed Letby’s case, told a press conference that they did not find any evidence of murderCredit: PA
In a statement to ITV, the Crown Prosecution Service said: “Lucy Letby was convicted of 15 separate counts following two jury trials. In May 2024, the Court of Appeal dismissed Letby’s leave to appeal on all grounds rejecting her argument that expert prosecution evidence was flawed.”
They confirmed they are considering a file of evidence from the police relating to further deaths and non-fatal collapses of babies at the Countess of Chester Hospital and Liverpool Women’s Hospital.
The Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Foundation Trust said: “Due to the Thirlwall Inquiry and ongoing police investigations it would not be appropriate to comment further at this time.”
Dr Dewi Evans told ITV that his evidence was subject to cross examination agreed by a jury after thorough review from a judge and subsequently agreed by the Court of Appeal.
He added: “None of the evidence presented by Shoo Lee’s expert panel has been subject to any such scrutiny and it contains factual errors. It is trial by speculation.”
Dr Ravi Jayaram declined to comment.
Lucy Letby: Beyond all Reasonable Doubt? Is on ITV1 on Sunday 3 August.
Legal expert have urged Brits travelling abroad with their kids not to forget one key document this summer – or risk facing ‘unwanted disruption’ before they board the plane
Forgetting this crucial document could land you in hot water(Image: Getty Images)
Parents have been urged to bring one key document with them when travelling abroad this summer, or risk being turned away at the airport. The school holidays are rapidly approaching, meaning millions of Brits will be getting ready to jet off for some much-needed Vitamin D.
If you’re heading abroad with your kids, you’ll inevitably already have a long list of essentials to pack – from spare clothes to games and lots of suncream. However, experts over at law firm Richard Nelson LLP have warned that divorced/separated parents should also bring an important letter with them to avoid any ‘unwanted disruptions’.
It’s crucial divorced parents bring a consent letter when taking their kids abroad(Image: Getty Images)
In a statement sent to the Mirror, the firm explained that for a child to be taken abroad, all people with parental responsibility need to agree to the decision.
Mothers are automatically granted parental responsibility at birth, while fathers acquire parental responsibility upon marriage. It’s not widely known, but taking a child abroad without permission is actually classed as child abduction – a serious offence.
“With that in mind, a consent letter from the non-travelling parent is critical,” the experts said. “[This is] a signed letter which provides proof that your ex-partner has agreed to you holidaying abroad should you ever be challenged while travelling. “
The letter should include the other parent’s contact details as well as information about you’re holiday, including the address of your accommodation. If your child has a different surname from you, the letter must also explain this.
However, if you’ve not been able to get permission from your child’s other parents to take them abroad, you may have to seek permission from a court. “If you’re relying on a court order to take your child abroad it’s imperative to allow as much time as possible for the case to be heard,” warned Ann Owens, consultant solicitor at Richard Nelson LLP.
“While you can request an urgent court order these can take more than a week to go through the courts. For those who have been successful in gaining permission this way then you must travel with a sealed copy of the Court Order with you.”
Ann explained that border officials may ask for proof of your legal right to take the child abroad at the airport. “If you can’t provide it, you may be turned away at customs,” she added.
The legal firm also advised bringing your child’s birth or adoption certificate with you to be safe, to provide additional proof of your relation to the kid. If you do have a different last name from your child due to a divorce or new marriage, it may also be wise to bring your divorce or marriage certificate along with you as well. Of course, travelling with all of your family’s passports is a must too.
“While, like the UK, many countries have the legal age of adulthood standing at 18, some have it set as older or younger,” said. “It is important to check the age of adult responsibility in the location you are holidaying in. For instance, you may also need documents for a 19-year-old child when travelling to some Canadian territories.”
Do you have a story to share? Email us at [email protected] for a chance to be featured.
They were one of the 12 sewers taking part in the new series
The Great British Sewing Bee returned for a new series tonight(Image: BBC)
A contestant on The Great British Sewing Bee was forced to miss a challenge, with host Sara Pascoe explaining her absence halfway through the show.
The beloved competition returned to BBC One with a new series tonight, as judges Esme Young and Patrick Grant set out to guide a new batch of sewers.
However, after taking part in the first challenge and completing her design for the second, contestant Glendora was forced to miss the judging and the final task, due to being taken unwell.
Sara, returning to host the competition after her maternity leave, explained: “Unfortunately though, Glendora feels unwell so won’t be attending the judging.”
The Great British Sewing Bee airs Tuesdays at 9pm on BBC One and iPlayer.
This is a breaking showbiz story and is being constantly updated. Please refresh the page regularly to get the latest news, pictures and videos. You can also get email updates on the day’s biggest stories straight to your inbox by signing up for our newsletters.
Helmets, padding and the ability to practice better has made everyone fair game and you’re acutely aware that you’ll receive a bouncer when you walk out there, especially as you’ll be tasked to do the same when you have the ball in your hand.
Your palms get sweaty, you need a nervous trip to the toilet every five minutes and you can’t take your eyes off who the opposition captain is gesturing at to bowl next.
I made the mistake of bouncing Jofra Archer in a County Championship match in 2018, hitting him on the head.
As soon as it was my turn to bat, I knew who’d have the ball in his hand.
The index finger on my right hand is still swollen from where the first ball I faced from him squeezed in against my bat handle in front of my face. He got me out next ball for nought.
The psychological lift a wagging tail gives to a dressing room is also huge.
It lightens the mood, it gives players the confidence that the momentum in the game is in their favour and you can physically see the frustration in the opposition as they toy with how to extract the last few wickets.
The top order batters’ minds are distracted from facing the opening overs of the following innings and if the tail really wags it can descend into chaos.
England were the sixth worst at removing the tail in the previous cycle of the World Test Championship, with the opposition averaging 87.04 after the sixth wicket fell in that period.
With the best in the world, New Zealand, conceding an average of 61.92, that is a significant 50.24-run swing across a Test.
Cast your mind back to the first Ashes Test at Edgbaston in 2023 that Australia won by two wickets.
In a chase of 282, Scott Boland as nightwatchman scored 20 from 40 balls, Pat Cummins 44 not out from 73 and Nathan Lyon a 28-ball unbeaten 16.
More was made of the Stokes declaration on day one, but fundamentally, the inability to blow the tail away in the second innings was where the game was lost.
Killing the tail is going to be imperative to England’s success not only in this series, but in this winter’s Ashes too. Tongue has shown he has the skills. The likes of Carse, Archer or Gus Atkinson could do it too.
Gobbling up rabbit pie could be more important than anyone thinks.
Republicans in the US are trying to get President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful’ tax and spending bill passed by the Senate despite opposition from Democrats, who say it will be the most expensive bill in history while giving benefits to the wealthy.
United States House Republicans’ “big, beautiful bill”, a wide-ranging tax and spending legislation, is at a crucial moment.
The nearly 400-page legislation proposes sweeping changes which include extending the 2017 tax cuts, slashing taxes for businesses and individuals, and enacting deep cuts to social programmes like Medicaid and SNAP.
While Republicans tout the bill as a boon for economic growth and middle-class relief, nonpartisan analysts warn it could add trillions to the national debt and strip millions of Americans of medical and food assistance.
The bill will be voted on by the House Budget Committee today and, if passed, will be voted on the floor next week.
The most substantive part of the bill is an extension of the 2017 tax cuts. The tax bill would add at least an additional $2.5 trillion to the national deficit over the next 10 years and decrease federal tax revenue by roughly $4 trillion by 2034.
Passing the legislation will also raise the debt ceiling, which sets the amount of money the government can borrow to pay for existing expenditures, by $4 trillion, a sticking point for hardline Republicans who want deeper cuts.
Here are some of the key measures in the proposed bill in its current form.
Changes for households
The bill increases standard deductions for all Americans. Individual deductions will increase by $1,000, $1,500 for heads of households, and $2,000 for married couples.
The bill extends the child tax credit of $2,000, which would otherwise have ended with the expiration of the 2017 tax cuts at year’s end.
It bumps up the child tax credit by $500 per child for this tax year and runs through the end of 2028. It also includes a $1,000 savings account for children born between December 31, 2024 and January 1, 2029. The legislation would also allow families to annually contribute $5,000 tax-free.
There is a new tax deduction for Americans 65 and older. The new bill would give a $4,000 annual deduction starting this year for people making a gross income of $75,000 for a single person and $150,000 for a married couple. If passed, the rule would take effect for the current tax year and run until the end of 2028.
“It will just make tax paying more complicated and more uncertain when a lot of these things ultimately expire,” Adam Michel, director of tax policy studies at the right-leaning Cato Institute, told Al Jazeera.
Another provision in the bill modifies state and local tax (SALT) deductions. It allows filers to be able to write off some of what they paid in local and state taxes from their federal filings.
Under the 2017 tax act, that was capped at $10,000, but the new legislation would raise that to $30,000. Some Republicans, particularly those in states with higher taxes like New York and California, have been pushing to raise the cap or abolish it altogether. However, they have faced fiscal hawks and those who see the increases as relief for those already wealthy.
The bill includes an increased benefit for small businesses that allows them to deduct 23 percent of their qualified business income from their taxes, up from the current 20 percent.
There is also a call for no taxes on overtime pay for select individuals. It would not apply to people who are non-citizens, those who are considered “highly compensated employees,” and those who earn a tipped wage.
The bill, however, also eliminates taxes on tips, a critical campaign promise by both Donald Trump and his Democratic rival Kamala Harris. The bill would allow people who work in sectors like food service, as well as hair care, nail care, aesthetics, and body and spa treatments, to specifically deduct the amount of tipped income they receive.
At the federal level, employers will still not be required to pay tipped workers more than the subminimum wage of $2.13 hourly. The intention is that workers will be able to make up the difference in tipping the receipt from customers.
Cuts to the social safety net
The legislation calls to make $880bn in cuts to key government programmes with a focus mostly on Medicaid and food stamps.
The CBO found that more than 10 million people could lose Medicaid access and 7.6 million could lose access to health insurance completely by 2034 under the current plan.
Even far-right Republicans have called out the Medicaid cuts. In an op-ed in The New York Times this week, Republican Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri said the cuts are “morally wrong and politically suicidal”.
According to a new report from One Fair Wage shared with Al Jazeera, tipped workers could be hit especially hard, as 1.2 million restaurant and tipped workers could lose access to Medicaid.
“A no tax on tips proposal, which is like a minuscule percentage of their income and doesn’t affect two-thirds of tips workers because they don’t earn enough to pay federal income tax, is just nowhere near enough to compensate for the fact that we’re going to have millions of these workers lose the ability to take care of themselves, in some cases go into medical debt, in many cases just not take care of themselves,” Saru Jayaraman, president of One Fair Wage, an advocacy group for restaurant workers, told Al Jazeera.
The bill also introduces work requirements to receive benefits, saying that recipients must prove they work, volunteer or are enrolled in school for at least 80 hours each month.
At the same time, the bill also shortens the open enrolment period by a month for the Affordable Care Act (ACA), otherwise known as Obamacare. This means people who have employer-funded healthcare and lose their job might lose eligibility to buy a private plan on the healthcare exchange.
“It’s taking folks like 11 to 12 weeks to find a new job. The worse the labour market gets, that number will tick up. If you’re unemployed for three months, you get kicked off Medicaid,” Liz Pancotti, managing director of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collective, told Al Jazeera.
“Then, if you try to go buy a plan on the ACA marketplace, you are no longer eligible for subsidies … which I think is really cruel.”
Other major proposed cuts will hit programmes like Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme or SNAP, which helps 42 million low-income individuals afford groceries and comes at a time when food costs are still 2 percent higher than a year ago. The CBO found that 3 million people could lose SNAP access under the new plan.
The bill would also force states to take up more responsibility in funding the programmes. States would be required to cover 75 percent of the administrative costs, and all states would have to pay at least 5 percent of the benefits — 28 states would need to pay 25 percent.
“States are now going to be on the hook for billions of dollars in funding for these two vital programmes. They have a tough choice. One is, do they cut funding from others like K-12 education, roads, veteran services, etc, to cover this gap, or do they raise taxes so that they can raise more revenue to cover this gap,” Pancotti added.
Under the current law, the federal government is solely responsible for shouldering the cost of benefits. The proposed cuts would save $300bn for the federal government but hit state budgets hard.
Bill fuels Trump administration priorities
The bill would also cut the $7,500 tax credit for new electric vehicle purchases and $4,000 for a used EV, a move which could hurt several major US automakers that are already reeling from the administration’s tariffs on automobiles.
General Motors pumped billions into domestic EV production in the last year, which has included a $900m investment to retrofit an existing plant to build electric vehicles in Michigan and alongside Samsung, the carmaker invested $3.5bn in EV battery manufacturing in the US.
In February, Ford CEO Jim Farley said that revoking the EV tax credit could put factory jobs on the chopping block. The carmaker invested in three EV battery plants in Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee. The federal government under the administration of former President Joe Biden paid out more than $2bn in EV tax credits in 2024.
The proposed legislation would also give the Trump administration authority to revoke the tax exempt status of nonprofit organisations that it deems as a “terrorist supporting organisation”. It would give the secretary of the treasury the ability to accuse any nonprofit of supporting “terrorism”, revoke their tax exempt status without allowing them due process to prove otherwise, which has raised serious concerns amongst critics.
“This measure’s real intent lurks behind its hyperbolic and unsubstantiated anti-terrorist rhetoric: It would allow the Treasury Department to explicitly target, harass and investigate thousands of U.S. organizations that make up civil society, including nonprofit newsrooms,” Jenna Ruddock, advocacy director of Free Press Action, said in a statement.
“The bill’s language lacks any meaningful safeguards against abuse. Instead it puts the burden of proof on organizations rather than on the government. It’s not hard to imagine how the Trump administration would use it to exact revenge on groups that have raised questions about or simply angered the president and other officials in his orbit.”
The bill would introduce new taxes on colleges, including a varying tax rate based on the size of a university’s endowment per student with the highest at 14 percent for universities with a per student endowment of more than $1.25m but less than $2m and 21 percent for those of $2m or more.
This comes amid the Trump administration’s increased tensions with higher education. In the last week, the Trump administration pulled $450m in grants to Harvard on top of the $2.2bn it pulled in April — a move which will hinder research into cancer and heart disease, among other areas. Harvard has an endowment of $53.2bn, making it one of the richest schools in the country.
The legislation would also increase funding for a border wall between the US and Mexico, which the administration has argued will help curb undocumented immigration. However, there is no evidence that such a wall has deterred border crossings.
A 2018 analysis from Stanford University found that a border wall would only curb migration by 0.6 percent, yet the bill would give more than $50bn to finish the border wall and maritime crossings. The bill would also provide $45bn for building and maintaining detention facilities and another $14bn for transport.
