Yes, the sector needs big change. Bus companies are not delivering service to many places. Public transport should be a basic public service, not a competition between battling bus companies.

I’ve read it. You don’t seem to have , or you need to read it again. The claim wasn’t denied simply due to it being from a vehicle, or for nothing being broken, but due to the break-in not being sufficiently violent.

Lovely. When? There are still loads of expensive uncapped bus services in England. Any plans to finish the last change, or just keep starting more changes and worsen regional inequalities?

If they don’t want to insure possessions left in vans, they should exclude them explicitly. Denying payouts by relying on a requirement that the theft is violent is sneaky and surely should be regarded as an unfair term in a consumer contract, if not some sort of con or fraud.

If it has to be specified in the contracts, the insurer clearly isn’t confident that it’s common knowledge, so why are you?

Also, wasn’t there something in the news recently about how long it would take to read all the contracts needed for basic life, and it’s weeks each year. These companies are doing “paperwork snowstorm attacks” on our lives.

Nice victim-blaming there. Hope it never haunts you.

Don’t be daft. Have you seen what people leave in their cars? I’ve left bikes in a car overnight, but don’t think I would in Clapham.

The AA want you to blame the victim. I blame the thieves, including the AA taking money for a service they put weasel clauses in.

Insurance varies. My insurer requires bikes be locked to an anchor (so not loose in a van!) But it doesn’t specify a nonsense lock branding symbol like “sold secure”. It sounds like their policy did cover bikes loose in a van, but had this nasty “violent” clause that they’ve used to deny liability.

but being morally right and the insurance company being morally wrong won’t lead to a payout if they can prove you didn’t secure your property in a manner consistent with the insurance policy.

Note that the security or quality of the lock was apparently not questioned. It seems to have been mainly that the theft wasn’t violent enough to the locked door.

There’s a side mention of the bikes not being specified as high value items, but that would probably have limited the payout, not denied it entirely.

And is anyone surprised that Automobile Association Insurance Services avoided paying out for stolen bikes?

Banks using less secure IT than their customers but having tons of annoying security theatre? Oh, at least 30 years.

Copilot?

Yep, because one of your programmers used it to start sniffing glue, it seems!

Best I could find is: https://www.salary.com/research/company/software-freedom-conservancy-inc-salary

Blooming ableists saying I’m not human!

fixed Software Freedom Conservancy contractor rates

Can anyone find those? It’s not a link or anything.

Well, yes, if it’s in-ear, you have to be really careful with the volume, and they’re more annoying to remove and take a break than headphones or bone conductors. I wonder if they’ll do the more accurate tests, or if they’ll fear that could open the door to injury compensation claims.

Baftas 2026: BBC apologises for not editing out racial slur shouted by guest with Tourette’s - BBC News – https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cz6edwg06n1o

Some are unhappy with how weak the apology is, but contrary to the above report that they said they didn’t notice, it says

The corporation declined to comment further on why it wasn’t initially edited or bleeped out.

What were the rules when he did so? Was this mere arrogance and poor taste, or was it effectively stealing from the expenses account? BBC says

there is nothing unlawful suggested in Andrew’s behaviour

So this is basically just stirring and click bait. The BBC used to be better than this.

Take it off the money they hold in or try to transfer out of the UK, same as some other criminal enterprises. They sell ads and subs here.