Get the stories that matter to you sent straight to your inbox with our daily newsletter. Subscribe Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

Boris Johnson is not alone in having the NHS to thank for his life.

The Prime Minister, like so many of us, experienced the value of the state-run health service first hand in frightening circumstances.

More than 10,000 people in the UK have now died from coronavirus. It’s a tragic, symbolic figure – unthinkable

just a few short months ago.

The Prime Minister, struck down with the virus, needed intensive care and is now out, getting better.

He wants all of us to know how grateful he is. And his highly personalised thank you message yesterday was clearly heartfelt.

He named-checked Jenny from New Zealand and Luis from Portugal – two NHS staff who came here to work

from abroad.

Just the sort of medical stalwarts maligned by Tory Brexit rhetoric in recent months.

And this coming from the leader of one of the most right-wing governments we’ve seen.

A party whose members infamously cheered when they won a vote in

Parliament to deny nurses a pay rise.

Strange days indeed. How can any government allow the NHS to go without funds, staffing and support ever again?

Johnson, obviously moved, noted the “unconquerable” nature of the NHS as it takes part in a “national battle”.

The language of war is never far from a speech by a politician – Dunkirk, digging for victory, the spirit of the blitz.

But this is a health crisis against a virus not an enemy soldier.

To continually live up to the

expectations put upon it, the NHS will need more than genuine gratitude.

The Prime Minister rightly called it our greatest national asset. Pity it was only when he needed the courage and skill of NHS heroes that he changed his tune.

The Tories relationship with the NHS must now change forever.

NHS is our beating heart - pages 4&5

One obstacle less

Victims of sexual crime already feel like they’ve been put on trial.

The process is full of potential for them to re-live horrifying experiences.

The use of a victim’s sexual history to explain away a vicious attack is just one major obstacle.

But the controversial practice is now under review in a move welcomed by human rights campaigners.

Under current rules, a judge can decide if history can be aired in court.

But this restriction still leads to 72 per cent of cases allowing such evidence.

It is an intimidating prospect for any surviver of an attack and it puts women off from coming forward.

Rape convictions are hard enough to prove as it is. Any review is welcome if the aim is to remove obstacles to justice.