▲ 421 r/CabinPressure+1 crossposts

Cabin crew knocked over a kettle of hot water onto me while I was asleep on a flight. Burns to my arm and stomach. Do I have a case, and how would I find a solicitor for it? (England)

TL;DR: While I was asleep on a British Airways flight to Europe this summer, a member of the cabin crew knocked over a teapot on the drinks trolley and a quantity of hot water landed on me, scalding my left forearm and the left side of my stomach. The crew apologised and gave me an ice pack, but nothing further was done: no medical assistance was offered when we landed, even though I had told them that the injury might require it, and no doctor has examined it at any point. The burns blistered and wept for about a week, and because I could not expose them to sunlight I spent the remaining seven nights of a holiday costing roughly £3,200 indoors and covered up. The injury is now healing well and I doubt that it will scar. I have timestamped photographs and a witness, I signed the airline's incident report on board, and I have not yet complained to the airline. What I want to know is whether this is a real claim, and if it is, how I would go about finding a solicitor to act.

Earlier this summer I flew short-haul to Europe with British Airways, in economy and in an aisle seat, at the start of a week's holiday that I had booked and paid for several months earlier.

Approximately one hour into the flight, while the crew were serving hot drinks, I was asleep. I woke because there was hot water running down my left side. I did not see any of it happen, and the first thing I was aware of was the water itself. The person sitting next to me was awake, and she says that one of the crew knocked over a teapot on the trolley. The pot did not land on me, but a good deal of what it contained did.

I was wearing a t-shirt, which the water soaked through, so that the hot fabric was held against my skin. I sustained burns to my left forearm and to the left side of my stomach, and both areas were red and blistered within a minute or two.

The crew were apologetic. They gave me an ice pack and asked me repeatedly whether I was all right, and one of them said that she hoped this would not ruin my holiday. I did not tell her that I was fine. I said that it was probably not life-threatening, but that it looked significant and might require medical attention. At the end of the flight a member of the crew took an incident report, which I signed, and which recorded my name, my address, my telephone number and the flight on which I was travelling.

When we landed, nothing further happened. Nobody met the aircraft; nobody directed me to the airport medical service; and nobody suggested that I have the injury looked at. The ice pack was the only assistance that the airline provided at any stage.

I had no travel insurance and no idea how to find a doctor abroad, so I bought dressings from a pharmacy and treated the burns myself. They blistered and wept for about a week, and I have been dressing them ever since. No doctor has examined them at any point.

The real loss was the holiday. I could not expose either area to sunlight, so I spent a week of a summer break indoors and covered up. The trip cost roughly £3,200 in total for the four of us, which I paid for.

The burns are now healing well. The new skin is pink and flexible, there is no numbness, and I do not believe that it will scar permanently.

I have photographs taken from about an hour after we landed and throughout the following week, with their timestamps intact, and the person sitting beside me saw what happened. I have not yet contacted British Airways about any of it.

From reading around the subject, I gather that this is likely to be governed by the Montreal Convention rather than by ordinary negligence, and that an airline's liability for an accident on board does not depend on proving that it was careless. I do not know whether that is correct, or whether the loss of the holiday is something that can be recovered on top of the injury itself.

My two questions are these.

1. Do people who know this area think that I have a case? I mean whether this is a real claim, or whether I am overestimating something fairly minor that mostly healed within a fortnight.

2. If it is a real claim, how would I go about finding someone to act? I understand that CPR 26.9 allocates a personal injury claim to the small claims track where the damages for the injury itself are £1,500 or less, and that costs are generally not recoverable on that track, which I take to mean that no firm would act on a no-win, no-fee basis. Does the loss of enjoyment of the holiday count towards that £1,500, or is it treated separately? And if instructing a solicitor is realistic, is there a sensible way to find one who handles aviation claims, or is it simply a matter of searching and cold-calling?

I would be grateful for any steer, and I am happy to answer questions.

reddit.com
u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 — 2 months ago

What do you make of the export ban on Anthropic's new AI model?

Anthropic, one of the leading U.S. AI companies, recently issued this statement:

https://www.anthropic.com/news/fable-mythos-access

As I understand it, this directive effectively prevents Anthropic from offering these models commercially, and may also limit its ability to continue developing them in the normal way. Anthropic is an international company with foreign-national employees, including foreign nationals working inside the United States, and it sells to customers internationally.

Anthropic argues that this puts U.S. AI companies at a disadvantage compared with Chinese competitors, especially if those competitors can continue selling cheaper models globally without similar restrictions.

I’m interested in how conservatives think about this tradeoff.

On one hand, I understand the argument that cutting-edge AI models may have national-security implications, and that the U.S. government may need to restrict foreign access to sensitive capabilities.

On the other hand, this seems like a very blunt intervention against a leading American company. If the result is that U.S. firms cannot sell or develop their best models while Chinese competitors remain widely available, I can see how this might backfire.

My questions are:

  1. Do you see this as a necessary national-security intervention, even if it harms a U.S. company?
  2. Is this the right kind of intervention, or is it too broad because it affects foreign nationals inside the U.S. and even company employees?
  3. Could this backfire by pushing customers, developers, and talent toward Chinese or open-source alternatives?
  4. More generally, how should a conservative administration balance national security against keeping U.S. tech companies globally competitive?
u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 — 4 months ago
▲ 2 r/dji

Is this a mis-price? DJI Mic 3 for £82 UK

The advertised price of a new DJI Mic 3 (2x TX) + Case is about half of what I paid for it when the product launched. DJI are selling for £28, but Amazon is selling for £185.

u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 — 4 months ago

What issues do you think will decide the next midterm elections?

The next midterm elections are still some way off, but I'm curious what conservatives think will ultimately prove to be the decisive issues for voters.

Will the election mainly be fought on the economy and the cost of living? Immigration? Healthcare? The administration's handling of events in the Middle East? Or do you think a culture-war issue that isn't currently dominating the news could end up becoming the defining issue?

I'm not asking what you think should matter most, but what you think the average American voter is most likely to base their decision on when they go to the polls.

reddit.com
u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 — 4 months ago

Libertarian-minded conservatives: the federal government is now in the fight-promotion business. How should we think about that?

This Sunday, June 14, the White House hosts UFC Freedom 250 — a professional MMA card staged on the South Lawn, with a custom arena, weigh-ins at the Lincoln Memorial, and a fan festival on the Ellipse. It's billed as part of the America 250 celebrations, and it happens to fall on the President's 80th birthday.

I want to ask specifically about the limited-government angle, and I'll concede upfront that the most prominent voice making this argument is... not the movement's finest ambassador. UFC fighter Bryce Mitchell — a man who believes the Earth is flat and whose podcast career imploded over Holocaust denial — has complained that "the government is supposed to protect us, not entertain us" and that the state is "desecrating its role in society" by staging sporting events. Stopped clocks, twice a day, etc. But strip away the messenger and there's a recognisably minarchist objection underneath, and some of the underlying facts seem like they'd genuinely trouble a consistent libertarian:

Federal property and resources in service of private enterprise. A federal lawsuit alleges that despite the UFC "eating" its costs, the event "will likely be profitable for the UFC and its partners." Per court filings, thousands of hours of federal employee work across multiple agencies have gone into logistics, security and infrastructure, and the administration is expected to formalise a public–private partnership with the UFC via a memorandum of understanding. The Secret Service describes the security operation as Super Bowl level. The suit's framing is that the President is granting one company "unfettered access to the White House and Lincoln Memorial" for a branded commercial production. There's even a deregulatory wrinkle: because the White House is federal property, the event sits outside the jurisdiction of the DC Combat Sports Commission.

The President's personal financial alignment. A May financial disclosure showed Trump purchased between $15,001 and $50,000 of TKO Group Holdings stock (UFC's parent company) on March 25 — while actively promoting the event. CREW called it "one of the worst conflicts of interest you could imagine," and former White House ethics lawyers from both the Bush and Obama administrations (Richard Painter and Norm Eisen) warned his official promotion could move TKO's stock price.

To be fair, the defences: TKO says it is covering the full ~$60m cost and that "we will not profit from the White House event independently". The White House says Trump's investments are managed by independent advisers who execute trades without his involvement. The DOJ has likened the event to the Easter Egg Roll and the Congressional Picnic, and Dana White's response to the "too political" charge is that presidents have always had sports fandoms — Bush had baseball, Obama had the NBA, Trump has the UFC.

I'm deliberately not asking whether this is right or wrong. I'm asking how libertarians and limited-government conservatives actually reason about it:

  1. Is co-producing a commercial sports broadcast within any defensible conception of the federal government's remit — or is this just pageantry of the kind every White House engages in?
  2. Does "the taxpayer isn't paying for it" answer the objection, or restate it? If a private company spends $60m for access to federal property and presidential promotion, isn't the access itself the subsidy?
  3. Where is the principled line between the Easter Egg Roll and a branded, exclusively-streamed commercial event with corporate sponsorship packages?
  4. Does the President's personal stake in the promoter's parent company change your analysis, or is it incidental to the remit question?

Genuinely interested in where people land,

u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 — 4 months ago

Trump spent years attacking "Sleepy Joe" for dozing off and low energy. He's now been filmed appearing to nod off in numerous public meetings. What do you think is going on?

Throughout 2019–2024, Trump made "Sleepy Joe" a centrepiece of his attacks on Biden — mocking him for falling asleep at events, low energy, and losing focus. He said things like "he falls asleep at every single event" and "you'll never see me sleeping in front of a camera".

In his second term, Trump himself has been filmed on numerous occasions appearing to close his eyes or doze off in public settings — including a November 2025 Oval Office drug-pricing event, where a Washington Post analysis of the footage found he appeared to struggle to keep his eyes open for close to 20 minutes, and a December 2025 Cabinet meeting where the Post counted nine separate stretches of closed eyes — the latter occurring minutes after he'd invoked "Sleepy Joe" Biden. The White House said he was "listening attentively" and was "just blinking."

I want to be fair about the limits here: footage of closed eyes doesn't prove someone is asleep, Trump says he scored 30/30 on a cognitive screening test (the MoCA) at his physical, and his physician says he's in excellent health. So I'm not asserting anything — I'm asking what you make of it.

Trump is turning 80 this month. He's also said for decades that he sleeps only about four hours a night, and his Truth Social timestamps show heavy posting at 1am, 3am, 4am. So a few possibilities seem to be on the table: it's nothing, just an older man and overblown clips; it's poor sleep habits / a disrupted sleep schedule catching up with him during the day; or it's an early sign of something more serious.

My questions: Do you think the concern people raised about Biden's apparent drowsiness was legitimate? If so, does the same concern apply to Trump now — and if not, what's the difference? And what do you personally think is behind the footage?

u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 — 4 months ago

Now that a federal judge has ruled Kilmar Abrego Garcia was the victim of a vindictive prosecution, how should the new Anti-Weaponization Fund treat a case like his?

Two recent stories seem to intersect in a way I'd genuinely like Supporters' perspectives on.

First: on May 22, a federal judge in Tennessee (Judge Waverly Crenshaw) dismissed the human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego Garcia, ruling that the prosecution was "vindictive." The court found the Justice Department had closed its investigation into a 2022 traffic stop and only reopened it after Abrego Garcia successfully challenged his wrongful deportation in court. The judge pointed to public statements from now-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche tying the reopened investigation directly to that lawsuit as evidence of a "retaliatory taint," and concluded the evidence "sadly reflects an abuse of prosecuting power."

Second: in May, the DOJ announced a $1.776 billion Anti-Weaponization Fund to compensate people the government wrongly targeted. Blanche described it as "a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization to be heard and seek redress," and the DOJ has said there are no partisan requirements to file a claim. My questions:

Setting aside how you feel about Abrego Garcia personally, what principles do you think should determine who qualifies as a genuine "victim of weaponization" deserving of redress?

A court has now formally found that the federal government prosecuted Abrego Garcia for improper, retaliatory reasons. How well does his situation fit the stated purpose of the fund, and where (if anywhere) do you think the line should be drawn?

If you think his case should be treated differently from the cases the fund seems designed for, what's the distinguishing principle — and is it one you'd be comfortable applying consistently regardless of who's in power? I'm interested in the reasoning more than a verdict, so feel free to take whichever part is most interesting to you.

u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 — 5 months ago

How do you evaluate Trump’s “Drain the Swamp” promise today?

During the 2016 campaign, Donald Trump frequently promised to “drain the swamp” in Washington.

In a campaign speech in Green Bay, Wisconsin on October 17, 2016, Trump said:

> “It is time to drain the swamp in Washington, D.C.”

He then introduced a package of ethics reforms aimed at lobbying restrictions, limits on insider influence, and other anti-corruption measures. He also described Washington as a “rigged system” dominated by special interests and political insiders.

Source: Remarks in Green Bay, Wisconsin (The American Presidency Project)

News coverage from the time also generally described “Drain the Swamp” as a promise to reduce corruption, lobbying influence, and insider politics in government:

Source: Trump unveils ethics reforms to ‘drain the swamp’ (NBC News)

Looking back now, how do you compare Trump’s original “Drain the Swamp” rhetoric with the results so far?

Do you think Washington today is less influenced by corruption, lobbyists, insiders, and special interests than it was in 2015? If so, in what ways?

I’m also interested in whether you think the meaning of “the swamp” changed over time. For example, do you think supporters now mainly associate it with the “deep state” or permanent bureaucracy, rather than corruption and lobbying influence?

reddit.com
u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 — 5 months ago

How have recent developments around COVID-19's origins shifted or cemented your view — and what specific evidence do you find most persuasive?

Over the past year there have been several significant developments related to the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic:

  • In January 2025, the CIA released a declassified assessment concluding, with low confidence, that a research-related origin is more likely than a natural one.
  • In April 2025, the White House replaced the covid.gov website with a page titled "Lab Leak: The True Origins of Covid-19," laying out the administration's case for a laboratory origin.
  • In April 2026, the Department of Justice indicted Dr. David Morens, a former senior adviser to Dr. Anthony Fauci at NIAID, on charges of concealing federal records related to COVID-19 origins communications.

Below are some of the main lines of scientific evidence cited on each side of the debate, with links so you can verify the underlying claims.

Evidence often cited for a laboratory-related origin:

  • The 2018 DEFUSE proposal — EcoHealth Alliance, the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and UNC proposed inserting human-specific furin cleavage sites into bat coronaviruses; DARPA rejected it, but the proposal describes the kind of work that could produce a virus resembling SARS-CoV-2.
  • The unique furin cleavage site in SARS-CoV-2's spike protein is not found in any known close relatives in nature, and the specific CGG-CGG codon usage is uncommon in natural sarbecoviruses.
  • The October 2021 Tabak letter to Congress acknowledging that NIH-funded work at WIV produced chimeric coronaviruses that replicated more efficiently than wild-type in humanized mice.
  • The released Slack messages between the authors of the influential "Proximal Origin" paper, showing they privately considered a lab leak "highly likely" while publicly dismissing it.
  • The proximity of the outbreak to WIV combined with WIV's biosafety practices — much sarbecovirus research was conducted at BSL-2 rather than higher containment levels.

Evidence often cited for a natural zoonotic origin:

  • The Worobey et al. 2022 paper in Science showing the earliest known COVID-19 cases were geographically centered on the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan.
  • The Crits-Christoph et al. 2024 Cell paper genetically tracing wildlife and SARS-CoV-2 at the Huanan market, finding viral RNA co-located with raccoon dog and civet DNA at specific wildlife stalls.
  • The discovery of BANAL viruses in Laos sharing up to 96.8% of their genome with SARS-CoV-2 and infecting human cells via the ACE2 receptor — demonstrating that natural bat coronaviruses with human-cell entry capacity exist in the wild.
  • The Pekar et al. 2022 Science paper arguing for two separate zoonotic introductions (lineages A and B) at the Huanan market, more consistent with natural spillover than a single lab incident.
  • The historical pattern: every documented viral pandemic in recorded history — including SARS in 2003 and MERS in 2012 — has had a natural zoonotic origin, with no documented case of an engineered virus ever causing a pandemic.

My questions for conservatives:

  1. Which specific line(s) of evidence do you find most persuasive? Feel free to cite anything, not just the links I've summarized above.
  2. Has your assessment shifted over the past year as a result of these recent developments, or has it mostly cemented what you already believed?
  3. If you're confident in your view, what kind of evidence — if any — might lead you to revise it?
u/Aggravating-Vehicle9 — 5 months ago