Death of RAF corporal investigated by MoD and Lincolnshire Police
The Ministry of Defence is investigating the death of an RAF dog handler alongside the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and police.Cpl Rebecca Hudson, 32, from Stourport, died on 23 May.Lincolnshire Police said it attended an incident on 18 May at an RAF site in Kirkby Lane, Tattershall Thorpe, in which a 32-year-old woman suffered "serious injuries" following "a collision" with a van.She was airlifted to hospital but died five days later.
The East Midlands Ambulance Service said after receiving a call at 15:23 on 18 May it sent a paramedic, a LIVES emergency responder and an ambulance. The air ambulance also attended. "One patient was taken to Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham via air ambulance," it added.An RAF police dog training facility is located on Kirkby Lane. The HSE said it would be investigating the incident "alongside the relevant authorities".A spokesperson for the Ministry of Defence said it was supporting the coroner's office with its inquiries."As investigations are ongoing, we cannot comment further at this stage and ask the media and public to avoid speculation as this could cause additional distress to Cpl Hudson's family, friends and colleagues," they added.
'Sorely missed'
In a statement, the RAF described Cpl Hudson as "devoted to her dogs and her teammates" and said she would be "sorely missed".Gp Capt Samantha Bunn, provost marshal and commander air security force, said: "The tragic loss of Cpl Bec Hudson has been profoundly felt by every single member of the RAF Police. "Her absence will be felt for many years to come, not just by the dogs she dedicated so much time to, but the whole of the RAF Police."Listen to highlights from Lincolnshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
39 minutes ago
- The Sun
Huge ‘Jack & the Beanstalk' tree towers over our homes – it's grotesque & irresponsible… but council won't chop it down
A GIANT "Jack and the beanstalk" tree is ruining locals' lives - but the council won't chop it down. Residents in Winchester, Hants, slammed the "grotesquely irresponsible" and "ludicrous" 45 foot high oak. 9 9 9 They say the tree was planted around 50 years ago by a previous homeowner on Canon Street who just "wanted something to do". But now it has branched into an "out of proportion" eyesore which overshadows the gardens of nearby properties - where the average house price is more than £600,000. However, the council have refused to cut it down and placed it under a protection order. The authorities said residents from a neighbouring street "appreciated" the tree. The decision has sparked outrage among locals who are actually dealing with the daily repercussions of such an overwhelming tree. Orla Williams, 40, moved into her terraced Grade II Listed home with her partner around two years ago. The doctor said after moving in, several residents went to her about the oak. She explained: "They were concerned that it is getting very large and that it could cause damage to their properties and potentially harm to people if it gets any larger, so they wanted it to be taken down. "We applied to the council to have it removed and someone came to look at it. "[The tree officer] said that they want to put a tree protection order on it." The mum-of-two also told how an "awful lot of detritus" falls from the tree in autumn and winter. She added: "We appreciate that the tree is beautiful but it's the wrong tree in the wrong place. "It is quite sad to remove something like that but it is only going to get bigger and potentially cause damage to lots of properties which is the main concern. "The council said they were concerned about removing it because it's one of the only trees in the area. 9 9 9 "All of the local residents seem to be of the opinion that unfortunately, it's the wrong tree in the wrong place." According to a council report, the tree officer visited Orla after receiving notice from the couple that it was due to be felled. But he found the tree met the criteria for a provisional protection order, which was issued in February of this year. A Winchester County Council meeting will take place next week to decide whether the tree status will change or not. There are nine residents in total who have objected to the order. Mark Pocock, a retired resident living on Canon Street, slammed the council's decision to protect the tree as "ludicrous". He said: 'As trees grow older they become more brittle. "If it were to fall and damage properties or persons, I would say the responsibility would be entirely with the council – not the owners of those properties. "I think putting a tree protection order on is grotesquely irresponsible of the council. 'It could be a danger to property and life." Nick Goff, 80, said he fears if the tree continues to grow, the roots underneath will damage a medieval wall in his garden, which was built in the Tudor era. The retired British Airways pilot said: "The issue is that in 10 years time, that will be double the height and double the width. 'It put on six feet last year it it's going to put on another six feet this year." He commissioned an independent report from a tree consultancy business. The report stated while the tree, which is still a "teenager" is in "good physiological condition". But the officer also found it is "a large sized tree in a very small area" and so the tree protection order is "unjustified". The report also stated "the possibility of longer term damage to the retaining walls and footings of the adjacent properties as entirely foreseeable". "Some guy planted this as something to do 40 years ago," Mr Goff continued "Now, we have got Jack and the Beanstalk. "It's not a historic tree – it's a silly mistake." However, the council report issued ahead of next week's meeting claimed these concerns were "speculative" and the tree "contributes meaningfully to local biodiversity and visual amenity". It added: "It is also the last significant tree in an area of land between Canon Street and St Swithun's Street, enhancing the character of the conservation area." Retired resident Graham Rule, 62, blasted the decision as "irresponsible". He said: "We all love trees but that shouldn't be there. "The people who want the protection order, they don't live here – its totally irresponsible." Winchester County Council was contacted for comment. 9 9 9
The Independent
42 minutes ago
- The Independent
Unite union had ‘pervasive fraud environment', auditors say
One of Britain's biggest trade unions had a 'pervasive fraud environment', a leaked auditors' report has concluded. Global tax advisory firm BDO found there had been a culture at Unite that 'did not challenge the appropriateness of transactions' and failed to ensure appropriate financial reporting. It concluded 'dominant personalities and a weak control environment facilitated opportunities to commit fraud' at the union. The audit was ordered by general secretary Sharon Graham shortly after she entered her role in 2021 amid questions about accounting and spending on building a hotel and conference centre in Birmingham. Its findings were presented to the union's executive council on Friday. Unite said the probe uncovered a £53.8 million 'impairment' related to the difference between the original valuation of the Birmingham project used to calculate the 'book value' by the auditors at the time, and the real value. The BDO report also said there had been 'unusual relationships' between former senior staff and Unite's customers and suppliers, according to the BBC which obtained a copy of the 35-page document ahead of its publication. In response, Ms Graham, who has pledged to strengthen internal governance practices, said: 'On behalf of Unite's 1.2 million-plus members, I promised on my election that I would uncover the truth about historic alleged corruption related to the Birmingham hotel project. 'This process has quite frankly been an ugly one, where I have endured attacks and smears from those with much to lose, but they have not deterred me. 'The re-audit is in its final stages and as we move to completion, I will ensure steps are taken so that this can never happen again and we have already started the process of getting our money back. 'Over the last three years of my leadership, I have refocused our union on to the jobs, pay and conditions of our members and we have secured a union that is financially strong and able to fight for workers.'
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
High court tells UK lawyers to ‘urgently' stop misuse of AI in legal work
The high court has told senior lawyers to take urgent action to prevent the misuse of artificial intelligence after dozens of fake case-law citations were put before the courts that were either completely fictitious or contained made-up passages. Lawyers are increasingly using AI systems to help them build legal arguments, but two cases this year were blighted by made-up case-law citations which were either definitely or suspected to have been generated by AI. In a £89m damages case against the Qatar National Bank, the claimants made 45 case-law citations, 18 of which turned out to be fictitious, with quotes in many of the others also bogus. The claimant admitted using publicly available AI tools and his solicitor accepted he cited the sham authorities. When Haringey Law Centre challenged the London borough of Haringey over its alleged failure to provide its client with temporary accommodation, its lawyer cited phantom case law five times. Suspicions were raised when the solicitor defending the council had to repeatedly query why they could not find any trace of the supposed authorities. It resulted in a legal action for wasted legal costs and a court found the law centre and its lawyer, a pupil barrister, were negligent. The barrister denied using AI in that case but said she may have inadvertently done so while using Google or Safari in preparation for a separate case where she also cited phantom authorities. In that case she said she may have taken account of AI summaries without realising what they were. In a regulatory ruling responding to the cases on Friday, Dame Victoria Sharp, the president of the King's bench division, said there were 'serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused' and that lawyers misusing AI could face sanctions, from public admonishment to facing contempt of court proceedings and referral to the police. She called on the Bar Council and the Law Society to consider steps to curb the problem 'as a matter of urgency' and told heads of barristers' chambers and managing partners of solicitors to ensure all lawyers know their professional and ethical duties if using AI. 'Such tools can produce apparently coherent and plausible responses to prompts, but those coherent and plausible responses may turn out to be entirely incorrect,' she wrote. 'The responses may make confident assertions that are simply untrue. They may cite sources that do not exist. They may purport to quote passages from a genuine source that do not appear in that source.' Ian Jeffery, the chief executive of the Law Society of England and Wales, said the ruling 'lays bare the dangers of using AI in legal work'. 'Artificial intelligence tools are increasingly used to support legal service delivery,' he added. 'However, the real risk of incorrect outputs produced by generative AI requires lawyers to check, review and ensure the accuracy of their work.' Sign up to First Edition Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what's happening and why it matters after newsletter promotion The cases are not the first to have been blighted by AI-created hallucinations. In a UK tax tribunal in 2023, an appellant who claimed to have been helped by 'a friend in a solicitor's office' provided nine bogus historical tribunal decisions as supposed precedents. She admitted it was 'possible' she had used ChatGPT, but said it surely made no difference as there must be other cases that made her point. The appellants in a €5.8m (£4.9m) Danish case this year narrowly avoided contempt proceedings when they relied on a made-up ruling that the judge spotted. And a 2023 case in the US district court for the southern district of New York descended into chaos when a lawyer was challenged to produce the seven apparently fictitious cases they had cited. The simply asked ChatGPT to summarise the cases it had already made up and the result, said the judge was 'gibberish' and fined the two lawyers and their firm $5,000.
