Most incidents occurred after the men have successfully completed important projects or left one job for another. Four of the dead men were employees of the GEC group – three at Marconi and one at Easams Ltd. Two others worked at separate times at the Royal Military College of Science at Shrivenham. An investigation by Computer News established that most of the men were involved in computer simulation, a key part of defence procurement...
Six police constables have faced a gross misconduct hearing after failing to adequately record or investigate an allegation of rape.
PC Daniel Mitchell and PC Jake Self attended a four-day gross misconduct hearing at Force HQ at Sherwood Lodge from Monday 23 March to Thursday 26 March.
Former PC George Ginger, former PC Lucie Willett and two former police constables – who have both resigned and have been granted anonymity – also faced charges of gross misconduct but did not attend the hearing.
The hearing heard that the six officers attended a Nottingham flat at 1.45am on 1 January 2025, following reports a woman would not leave the address and had assaulted someone inside the property.
When police arrived at the scene, they found a woman in bed with a man, with two other men situated in the flat, all of whom were intoxicated.
The woman was then arrested for breaching the peace when she failed to comply with their instructions.
She informed the officers on multiple occasions while this happened that she had been raped.
No allegations were crimed or investigated, and no steps were taken to safeguard the woman who then left the scene.
When she was contacted on 6 January by an officer who was not part of the misconduct proceedings, she once again stated that she was a victim of rape.
She was then offered all the necessary support, and an investigation was opened into the incident.
Having reviewed body-worn footage of the police response on 1 January, officers referred the incident to Nottinghamshire Police’s Professional Standards Directorate (PSD).
A thorough investigation was duly carried out by PSD that resulted in this week’s gross misconduct hearing.
The hearing panel found all six officers who attended the incident had breached standards of professional behaviour, including honesty and integrity, duties and responsibilities, and discreditable conduct.
The misconduct hearing heard how the officers felt remorseful for the way they handled the incident.
PC Mitchell, along with PC Ginger and one of the unnamed PCs, had claimed not to have heard the woman’s claims, but the panel found this was not credible.
PC Self, the only officer to give evidence to the panel, apologised for his actions but also insisted he had not heard the woman allege she had been raped on the night.
The panel, however, found that it was more likely than not that he had heard what she’d said.
They also ruled it was not credible that he hadn’t heard the allegations when reviewing body-worn footage of the incident the following day.
PC Willett admitted to all but one allegation – not treating the woman with dignity and respect – but the panel found this allegation had been proven.
Having highlighted that the actions of the six officers “eroded public confidence in the police”, the panel ruled that both PC Mitchell and PC Self be dismissed without notice.
They also found that former PC George Ginger, former PC Lucie Willett and the two former police constables granted anonymity would’ve each been dismissed if they were still serving.
Assistant Chief Constable Gary Hooks, who chaired the hearing, said:
“The six officers in this case should have shown the victim dignity, compassion and respect. They all failed in their duties that night.
“There is absolutely no excuse for why these officers acted the way they did, and they have now all been dealt with accordingly.
“Their actions have the potential to undermine the public’s trust in us when reporting serious crimes such as rape and have far-reaching consequences. This cannot be allowed to happen.
“I want to be absolutely clear with the public that we have excellent officers across our organisation who work with victims of rape and serious sexual assaults every day to ensure they are given the support they need and that perpetrators are held to account.
"All of that great work was undermined by the disgraceful conduct of these officers that night.
“These types of offences are some of the most sensitive and complex cases we investigate, while we know the devastating impact these crimes can have on people’s lives.
“Ensuring the voices of survivors are heard and that they feel able to come forward are both vital aspects of how we investigate these harrowing incidents.
"Keeping vulnerable members of our communities safe is – and always will be – the main priority for Nottinghamshire Police. As such, the actions of these officers do not represent the values of this police force.
"If you are a victim of rape or sexual assault, we want you to know that we will listen and we will take action, so please continue to report what happened to you to us."
More -
https://www.nottinghamshire.police.uk/news/nottinghamshire/news/news/2026/march/six-officers-committed-gross-misconduct-after-rape-allegation/
France 24
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20260330-french-masonic-lodge-at-heart-of-murky-murder-trial
Twenty-two people went on trial in France on Monday on charges of murder and other serious crimes centred on members of a Masonic lodge accused of running hit squads.
Thirteen of the defendants face life imprisonment.
Those in the dock include four military personnel from France's foreign intelligence service (DGSE), two police officers, a retired domestic intelligence officer, a security guard and two business executives.
They are accused of the murder of a racing driver, the attempted murders of a business coach and a trade unionist, aggravated assault and criminal conspiracy – all on behalf of a mafia network inside the former Athanor Masonic Lodge in the Paris suburb of Puteaux.
Several freemasons from the 20 or so members of the lodge are in the dock.
Most of the accused, aged between 30 and 73, have no previous criminal records.
Five of the suspects are in custody and 16 are under judicial supervision, while one woman is appearing in court as a free person.
The alleged ringleaders are Athanor Freemasons Jean-Luc Bagur, Frédéric Vaglio and Daniel Beaulieu. They face life in jail if convicted.
So does Beaulieu's right-hand man Sébastien Leroy, who is accused of carrying out the trio's dirty work himself or through a hit-man network.
The case was triggered by a botched contract killing in July 2020, when two members of France's parachute regiment were arrested in possession of weapons near the home of business coach Marie-Hélène Dini.
Under questioning, they said they thought they had been asked to murder Dini on behalf of the French state on the grounds that she worked for Israeli spy agency Mossad.
Investigators discovered a link to Bagur, who is a business coach rival of Dini's as well as being the 69-year-old "venerable master" of the Athanor lodge.
Investigators say Bagur asked fellow Freemason Vaglio to arrange to have his rival eliminated for a fee of €70,000 ($80,600).
Vaglio, a 53-year-old entrepreneur, allegedly acted as the intermediary between the big boss and a hit squad working for fellow Athanor Freemason Beaulieu, a retired agent for the domestic intelligence service (DGSI).
The leader of the hit squad, Leroy, admitted in police custody that he or his associates carried out most of the Athanor mafia's assaults, robberies and murders – including the killing of a racing car driver.
As time went on, the crimes ordered by the Freemason mafia escalated from petty revenge attacks to homicide.
In a case of industrial espionage, Leroy's gang allegedly assaulted a businesswoman in the street and snatched her computer.
The car of one of Bagur's associates went up in flames in 2019 after she discovered evidence of financial fraud within his company.
In 2018, the body of racing driver Laurent Pasquali was found in a forest.
He had been bumped off, according to French media, allegedly for not paying a debt he owed to friends of Vaglio's.
Leroy, who left the military to become a security guard, told police he thought he had been acting all the time on behalf of the government.
He complained that Beaulieu had "manipulated" him and dangled the idea of him becoming an informant for the DGSI spy agency.
"What my client found terrifying is the fact that the key figures in this case – police officers, former DGSI agents and Freemasons – are precisely the people who are supposed to act for the good of society," said Dini's lawyer Jean-William Vezinet.
It is unclear what information the prosecution may be able to elicit from Beaulieu.
He made an apparent attempt to kill himself in police custody, which left him disabled and with "impaired concentration", his lawyer told AFP.
The trial is expected to run for at least three months.
Full article -
https://www.france24.com/en/france/20260330-french-masonic-lodge-at-heart-of-murky-murder-trial
Terms of Reference
1. Overview
1.1. The Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs (the Inquiry) is established in
recognition of the great harm experienced by victims and survivors of
grooming gangs and the failures of statutory services that were supposed to
protect them.
1.2. This Inquiry responds to Recommendation 2 of Baroness Casey’s National
Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (June 2025) (the
“National Audit”), which called for a time limited, targeted and proportionate
inquiry into cases of failures or obstruction by statutory services in relevant
local areas. It will identify failures in practice and hold to account the
individuals and institutions responsible for those failures. It must drive real
and lasting change in safeguarding systems and the criminal justice system
at both local and national levels, making sure that lessons are learned and
that victims and survivors are placed at the centre of any future change.
1.3. The Inquiry will take a strong approach to right the wrongs of the past and
must ensure that institutions and individuals will be held to account for past
failings. Under the terms of the Inquiries Act 2005, the Inquiry is unable to
determine criminal or civil liability. For all criminal allegations or evidence
from 1996 to the end of the Inquiry a referral will be made to Operation
Beaconport – an operation that was recommended in Baroness Casey’s
National Audit and which is overseen by the National Crime Agency (NCA).
1.4. Together the Inquiry and Operation Beaconport will bring more perpetrators
to justice, hold statutory services to account, act upon misconduct in public
office, ensure that institutions are not allowed to mark their own homework
and deliver justice for victims and survivors.
1.5. The formal setting-up date of the Inquiry, as per section 5(1)(a) of the
Inquiries Act 2005, is 13 April 2026.
2.1. Victims and survivors must be at the centre of the Inquiry’s approach, with
trauma-informed engagement and support appropriately provided, alongside
a focus on achieving outcomes that respond to victims and survivors’ needs
within the set timescales. The Inquiry must consider where there has been
long-term negative treatment of victims and survivors and its ongoing impact
upon them, their children and families.
2.2. The Inquiry must be clear and open. To ensure that victim and survivor
voices are heard and at the centre of the Inquiry, a Victim and Survivor
Charter must be developed. The Inquiry must work with victims and survivors
to develop this Charter which will set out the Inquiry’s commitment to victims
and survivors on how they will be engaged throughout the Inquiry. The Victim
and
Survivor Charter must include the ways in which all victims and
survivors can share their experience and
evidence with the Inquiry to inform its work
regardless of whether they are in a local investigation area or not.
2.3. Engagement must be inclusive and representative. It must be recognised
that victims and survivors are not all the same, that they may have different
experiences and characteristics, and will have become involved in abuse and
exploitation through different routes. This must include (but should not be
limited to) the Inquiry acknowledging grooming, abuse and exploitation which
happens in person, online, via child trafficking, and through criminal
exploitation. The Inquiry must also recognise that victims and survivors will
have a range of characteristics, different risk factors and vulnerabilities that
may have played into the abuse or the response to that abuse. The
vulnerabilities of children in care and residential care will be carefully
considered by the Inquiry as they relate to group based child sexual
exploitation and abuse. Engagement must include victims and survivors
across England and Wales.
3.1. The Chair and Panel must ensure that the Inquiry’s work focuses specifically
on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse committed by ‘grooming
gangs’, as described in the National Audit.
3.2. Group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse is a kind of child sexual
abuse, involving two or more perpetrators who are connected through formal
or informal associations who are involved in or facilitate the sexual
exploitation and abuse of children. This involvement may take many forms,
including introducing children to others for the purpose of exploitation,
trafficking a child for sexual exploitation, taking payment for sexual activity
with a child, or allowing premises to be used for such activities.
4.1. Building on the work of the National Audit, this Inquiry will identify and shine
a light on failings in previous and current responses to tackling grooming
gangs locally and nationally. It will look at evidence of the response in local
areas across England and Wales, as well as at the role of national
government and systems in that response. Any investigations by the Inquiry
must include where things have gone wrong in relation to victims and
survivors who do not live in the investigation area, for example where they
had been trafficked.
4.2. The Inquiry must look at systemic, institutional and individual failures, and
make recommendations for improvements at both national and local levels
as appropriate. This must include looking at the treatment of victims and
survivors before, during and after their abuse, including any lack of support
offered to them by statutory services and any ongoing negative treatment
across generations. The Inquiry must also assess whether the views of
professionals working within statutory services and any culture within those
services negatively affected how victims and survivors were viewed by
professionals, and the treatment of the victims and survivors, their children
and their families. The Inquiry must identify failures in behaviours and
practice which may have amounted to intentional or unintentional inaction or
cover-ups. The Inquiry must hold to account individuals, institutions and
statutory services responsible for those failures. It will not be part of the
Inquiry’s function to determine civil or criminal liability of named individuals or
statutory services. For all criminal allegations and evidence from the Inquiry
between 1996 and the end of the Inquiry a referral will be made to Operation
Beaconport, overseen by the NCA. Where appropriate the Chair and Panel
may ask national inspectorates to support the work of the Inquiry.
4.3. The Inquiry must examine the factors that allowed or caused exploitation and
abuse to happen and go unaddressed at a local and national level – including
the role of ethnicity, religion and culture of perpetrators and victims. This
must include examining the response of statutory bodies and any issues of
denial, as discussed in the National Audit.
4.4. The Inquiry should take account of findings from new research
commissioned by the Home Office in response to Recommendation 10 of the
National Audit, which will explicitly examine the role of ethnicity, religion and
culture, when considering the factors that drive and enable group-based child
sexual exploitation and abuse.
4.5. To fulfil its purpose, the Inquiry will deliver the following focused objectives
through local investigations and a national review. Local investigations may
take several forms including local hearings, written research and collation of
evidence, data collection and analysis.
4.6.1. The objective of the local investigations is to identify failures in
organisations, systems and procedures, and failures by individual
leaders, in protecting children from grooming gangs within local areas,
and make recommendations for immediate and longer-term change and
improvement where required. For each local inquiry, the Chair and Panel
must set out the historic time period which that local inquiry will focus on,
in line with the evidence they have received. The nature of the local
investigations means that any area may be required by the Inquiry to
undertake alternative forms of review and data collection and analysis
alongside more formal local investigations in specific areas.
4.6.2. Specifically, the Inquiry must consider (as decided by the Chair and
Panel for each local inquiry):
4.6.3. In any local area, this may include examination of the actions of the
following statutory services and related organisations (as determined by
the Chair and Panel; the Chair and Panel may at any time determine
that additional statutory services or related organisations should be
examined on the basis of new evidence):
4.6.4. The Inquiry must make referrals to relevant professional bodies, as
appropriate, where failures to carry out duties and responsibilities are
suspected. For all criminal allegations or evidence, a referral will be
made to Operation Beaconport, which is overseen by the NCA.
4.7.1. To identify national-level recommendations for change in England and
Wales. These recommendations must be based on information from
local investigations, local hearings, reviews and data collection and
analysis. They must also be informed by those issues already addressed
by the National Audit, the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse,
or other government commitments.
4.7.2. Where local investigations find instances of the failure of political or
institutional accountability mechanisms, consider where those instances
have relevance across all of England and Wales and propose actionable
recommendations to address and rectify those failures.
5.1. The Inquiry will cover England and Wales. Should the Inquiry find any
material relating to the other devolved administrations, it will pass them to the
relevant authorities wherever possible. The Inquiry will liaise with the public
inquiry announced by the Scottish Government in February 2026, into
Scotland’s response to group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation, to
ensure appropriate ways of working where cross-border issues arise.
More -
https://www.grooming-gangs.independent-inquiry.uk/terms-of-reference/
What is the Financial Reporting Council?
The Financial Reporting Council (FRC) is the UK’s independent regulator of corporate governance, financial reporting, audit and the actuarial profession. In 2019, amid criticisms over the body’s performance, the government decided to replace the FRC with a new Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA). But the government reversed this decision in January 2026, despite introducing the necessary legislation in the King’s Speech in 2024.
The FRC was originally established in 1990 with the principal aim of promoting best practice in financial reporting.1 Over time, its remit has expanded, and its stated purpose is now to serve the public interest by setting high standards of corporate governance, reporting, auditing and actuarial work, and by holding to account those responsible for delivering them.2 In practice, its main work is in overseeing the audit, accounting and actuarial professions, and corporate governance.
The FRC sets the eligibility criteria, and technical and ethical standards, for those approved to carry out the statutory audit of an organisation’s annual accounts in the UK.3 It also maintains, or requires others to maintain, various registers including of those approved to audit public interest or local bodies.4
It also issues accounting standards and clarifies conflicting interpretations of those standards. It oversees self-regulation conducted by various professional accounting bodies and monitors compliance with accounting and legal requirements, for example when companies issue directors’ reports.5 Its accounting standards are also applicable in Ireland.6
The FRC’s role is similar for the actuarial profession – setting standards, overseeing professional bodies and providing an independent investigation and discipline scheme for matters potentially affecting the public interest.7
Finally, it oversees corporate governance by setting and monitoring the UK Corporate Governance Code (which applies to companies listed in the UK and Ireland) and the Stewardship Code (which applies to institutional investors in the UK).8
The FRC relies on a combination of statutory powers and non-statutory agreements with various other organisations – especially professional bodies – to achieves its aims. In some areas, particularly oversight of the actuarial profession and local authority audit, its concrete powers have been described as “limited or even non-existent”.9
It has powers to investigate misconduct by statutory auditors or audit firms and can impose sanctions ranging from a public statement that a breach has been committed to financial penalties and prohibitions from working.10 It can also take action against members of the professional accounting bodies – individuals or firms – as well as individual actuaries who are members of the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries (IFoA). But the FRC currently has no powers to investigate, take enforcement action or impose sanctions on individuals, including directors, who are not members of these bodies, and its jurisdiction over actuaries relies on agreement with the IFoA.11
The FRC is a company limited by guarantee12 , but is also classified as an executive non-departmental public body of the Department of Business and Trade13 , and since 2019 its board members have been appointed by the business secretary.14 It is funded through obligatory contributions from professional bodies and voluntary contributions from private companies, pension schemes and insurance companies.15
Following high-profile auditing and accounting scandals including the collapse of Carillion, the FRC was heavily criticised by the business select committee, which said that its “weak response” contributed to a “crisis of trust in audit”.16
An independent review by Sir John Kingman in 2018 found it to be “an institution constructed in a different era – a rather ramshackle house, cobbled together with all sorts of extensions over time” and highlighted its lack of a strong statutory foundation and limited powers.17
More -
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/financial-reporting-council
Data protection practitioners know that the first question to ask when considering their organisation’s data protection obligations in relation to any data is: “Is it personal data?”
The Court of Appeal recently handed down a decision which gives useful judicial guidance on the definition of ‘personal data’ under UK data protection law and the responsibility on organisations to keep personal data secure.
DSG Retail Limited v The Information Commissioner [2026] EWCA Civ 140 is concerned with events from 2017 and 2018 when the old Data Protection Act 1998 (DPA 1998) was in force. As such the judgement is persuasive rather than binding on UK courts when deciding on issues under the current law; namely the UK GDPR and Data Protection Act 2018.
The background to the case is that, in 2017, DSG Retail Limited (the parent company of Dixons and Currys PC World) (DSG) suffered a cyberattack targeting point of sale systems in all its shops. Over a nine month period, attackers deployed malware to scrape transaction level card data and attempted to exfiltrate the captured information. More than 5.6 million payment cards were affected; though the majority consisted only of the 16-digit payment card numbers and expiry dates (together referred to as ‘EMV data’). Crucially, the attackers did not obtain any information that could directly identify the cardholders.
In 2020, the ICO fined DSG £500,000 for breach of the data security principle.
This
was the maximum fine under the DPA 1998. There then followed a series
of appeals. The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) upheld the ICO’s
findings but reduced the fine by half.
The Upper Tribunal (UT) in setting aside the FTT’s decision held that the data security principle under the DPA 1998 applies to only to ‘personal data’ i.e. information about living, identifiable, individuals. The data in question, EMV data, did not constitute ‘personal data’ from the attackers’ perspective because the attackers could not link it to specific individuals. As a result, the UT held that DSG did not have any security obligations with respect to such data.
Following an appeal by the ICO, the Court of Appeal (CoA) has now overturned the UT’s ruling. The CoA held that the Data Controller (in this case DSG) is required to comply with the data security principle under the DPA 1998 with respect to data that is ‘personal’ from the perspective of the Data Controller, regardless of whether the data might not be personal ‘in the hands of’ or ‘from the perspective’ of any other person.
The CoA considered it implausible that (absent an explicit statement)
Parliament intended to limit the scope of the data security duty so
that a Data Controller would have no obligation to protect some parts of
the data provided by the Data Subject. The CoA also noted the potential
consequences of a contrary reading; there would be no obligation for
the Data Controller to protect data when a third party would be unable
to identify the Data Subject from that data. In the Court’s view,
third-party interference with data, even where the attacker is unable
to identify the Data Subjects, can still be harmful. Moreover, the Court
found it impractical to put Data Controllers in a position where,
in determining their data security obligations, they would need to
assess whether attackers could
re-identify individuals via ‘jigsaw’ techniques.
More -
https://actnowtraining.blog/2026/03/02/is-data-still-personal-if-the-recipient-cannot-identify-the-data-subject/
Well, that didn’t take long. It’s less than a week since the Government published long-awaited proposals for “reforming” the SEND system, and the first steps have already been taken in a legal challenge against the Secretary of State for Education.
If successful, this could force ministers to publish an amended version of the consultation to add more information about what is proposed, as well as specific questions on some key changes. It could also mean extending the consultation period.
Consultation lawfulness questioned
The family of Jessica Hayhurst, a little girl with complex special educational needs, has instructed lawyers to send a formal letter before legal action to Bridget Phillipson. The letter questions the lawfulness of the consultation process on SEND reform in relation to two things:
The family is being represented by Polly Sweeney and Bethany Parr from Rook Irwin Sweeney, which is funding the claim through its Social Justice Fund. Barrister Steve Broach KC is providing pro bono support.
The letter says:
“Many of the proposals being put forward in the White Paper will result in parents and children losing important existing legal rights”.
As we outlined in our first post on the Schools White Paper and SEND proposals, the 132-page consultation paper invites views and responses to 40 specific questions from anyone with an interest in the plans by 18th May 2026. The questions cover things such as how children can be supported in the new proposed ‘layers’ and how “Inclusion Bases” should work.
More -
https://www.specialneedsjungle.com/legal-challenge-against-send-proposals-significantly-weaken-legal-rights-children/
The lack of accountability for the tens of thousands of Covid-related deaths of disabled people receiving care in their own homes and residential settings has caused lasting harm, the UK Covid inquiry has been told.
In their opening written submission to the 10th and final module of the UK Covid-19 Inquiry – on the pandemic’s impact on society – three national disabled people’s organisations (DPOs) said many deaths remained un-investigated, particularly in England and Wales.
Despite tens of thousands of Covid-related deaths of disabled people who had been reliant on care or health workers, the number of all deaths reported to coroners in England and Wales in 2020 was the lowest since 1995, partly because of easements to requirements around the registration of deaths and reporting by medical practitioners.
Among the matters left under-investigated was whether the use of inappropriate “do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation” notices and “clinical frailty score” assessments led to preventable deaths.
In Scotland, there was an increase in reported deaths because of the work of the Covid-19 Deaths Investigation Team, although this was limited to deaths linked to employment and residential care.
The three national DPOs – Disability Rights UK, Inclusion Scotland and Disability Action Northern Ireland – told the inquiry in their opening oral submission last week that disabled people were “far more likely to die from Covid-19 than non-disabled people”, and people with Down’s syndrome could have been more than 30 times more likely to die from the virus.
But they said there was “never a point in the pandemic when government and public authorities properly scrutinised the detail of these deaths in terms of their relevant impairments and circumstances, let alone examine their preventability”.
They told the inquiry, through their barrister, Kate Beattie: “Rather than continuing or even enhancing the reporting and investigation of deaths of disabled people, at a moment when people were dying in dependent situations outside hospitals in numbers unknown in living memory, the formal reporting of deaths reached a historic low.
“The various health and care monitoring bodies did not necessarily inspect and did not prioritise site visits, and if deaths were reported, the holding of inquests was minimised without the anxious scrutiny which was warranted by these unparalleled circumstances.
“The outcome, as recounted by the Covid Bereaved Families for Justice and others, was a failure of accountability to disabled people who were bereaved, to non-disabled people who were grieving the deaths of their disabled loved ones, and to disabled people more generally.”
She added: “The legacy is a terrible human cost for those denied the opportunity to establish truth so that a person can properly begin to grieve it.”
The DPOs also told the inquiry that the government needed to “acknowledge the importance of disabled people’s rights and the failure to do enough to protect those rights” by incorporating the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities into UK law and introducing new laws that would “embed accessibility across all aspects of life”.
And they stressed the importance of “effective and properly funded co-production” of policy with disabled people, intersectional organisations and DPOs, as well as “far greater understanding of the social model and of intersectional experiences that mean that certain societal groups are far more marginalised than others”.
Giving oral evidence to the inquiry this week, Dr Pauline Nolan, head of participation and policy at Inclusion Scotland, said that a survey by her organisation in April 2020 showed that 30 per cent of respondents said their usual social care support had been “either stopped completely or reduced, sometimes overnight or without any warning” in the early months of the pandemic.
And, she said, disabled people had been “really anxious about not getting social care support recovered after the pandemic because they were seen to manage”.
She said that at least 28,000 recipients of domiciliary care in England and Scotland had died by May 2021..
More -
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/inquiry-hears-how-lack-of-accountability-for-disabled-peoples-covid-deaths-caused-lasting-harm/
