Best Of

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Andy_JS said:
Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo
Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.


I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.

Please do share Cyclefree.

I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?

The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."

As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:

“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”

Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.

Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).

I was thinking of Letby in relation to this discussion from a different angle.

The Malkinson case is somewhat unusual in that the DNA evidence doesn't only show that his conviction was unsafe - in that it was no longer beyond reasonable doubt - but I understand it is quite definitive in exonerating him. Thus it is easy to feel sympathy for his plight and experience without qualification, and to consider that he is hard done by to have to pay for his board and losing and legal fees to prove that he was wrongfully convicted.

But consider the Letby case. Perhaps there will be a development which leads to the conclusion that the conviction is unsound, and she will be released from prison. But we may not be able to say definitively that she is innocent. I think some people would feel some disquiet about providing lavish compensation without qualification to someone who might be guilty.

It's fear of that public reaction to borderline cases of terrible crimes they will encourage politicians not to act to make the system fairer for a person like Malkinson.

It will be interesting how many Letby Truthers want her looking after their new born.

"Middle-class white men banned from public sector internship
National Audit Office’s six-week paid programme only accepts female, black heritage or lower socio-economic applicants" (£)

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/06/middle-class-white-men-banned-from-public-sector-internship/

Are white, middle-class heterosexual men the most put upon cohort in UK society?

@Mexicanpete defending DEI to the hilt!

Give over Sunil. Is that the time?

The details of my life are quite inconsequential...

Very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving corner shop owner from Zanzibar with low-grade lethargy and a penchant for psephology. My mother was a 20-year-old newsreader named Gargi with gap-teeth.

My father would plagiarize; he would snigger. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the opinion poll. Sometimes, he would accuse free-range eggs of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the insane possess and the genius lament...

My childhood was typical: summers in Penarth... sudoku lessons... In the spring, we'd make Quorn helmets... When I was insolent I was placed in a Sinclair C5 and beaten with Tory Party leaflets - pretty standard, really. At the age of 12, I received my first Coelacanth.

At the age of 14, a Bristolian named Brenda ritualistically shaved my buttocks. There really is nothing like a shorn bottom - it's breathtaking... I suggest you try it!

I genuinely understand none of this.

(It's a partial rewrite of a Dr Evil speech from an Austin Powers movie: I think it's "The Spy Who Shagged Me" but happy to be corrected)

No, it was from the first movie in 1997!

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Andy_JS said:
Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo
Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.


I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.

Please do share Cyclefree.

I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?

The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."

As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:

“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”

Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.

Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).

I was thinking of Letby in relation to this discussion from a different angle.

The Malkinson case is somewhat unusual in that the DNA evidence doesn't only show that his conviction was unsafe - in that it was no longer beyond reasonable doubt - but I understand it is quite definitive in exonerating him. Thus it is easy to feel sympathy for his plight and experience without qualification, and to consider that he is hard done by to have to pay for his board and losing and legal fees to prove that he was wrongfully convicted.

But consider the Letby case. Perhaps there will be a development which leads to the conclusion that the conviction is unsound, and she will be released from prison. But we may not be able to say definitively that she is innocent. I think some people would feel some disquiet about providing lavish compensation without qualification to someone who might be guilty.

It's fear of that public reaction to borderline cases of terrible crimes they will encourage politicians not to act to make the system fairer for a person like Malkinson.

So I am voting tomorrow in an election for the first time in my life. It’s potentially a pivotal election for the island. It’s been very bad tempered. We have one party called “Reform”, they are the ideological opposite to Reform UK and must be gutted that Farage called his party Reform after they had formed.

Reform got the hump because a group (not a party) of like minded candidates had someone hire Messina group to advise and were kicking off whilst failing to mention that they had a load of money from Unite Union.

I can vote for 9 Senators who are elected on a whole island basis and a number of Deputies who are district based and then the Connétable for my Parish.

I’m only voting for four Senators and I have to hold my nose with one of my Deputy votes for a moderate Reform candidate as, apart from my preferred choices, there is an absolute shitbag 17 year old standing and I have to hope he gets rejected.

My Connétable choice is the chap who gave me my driving licence back painlessly which as good a reason as any.

He didn't say "They think it's all over - it is now!"

Yes he did. It's not a 'play it again Sam' or 'one small step for man'.

I saw the third Hurst goal just now, and the commentator didn't say it.

Well he did for me. You need the one with Kenneth Wolstenhome.

They didn't use Wolstenholme on C4 apparently.

Wokery gone mad. Ridiculous organisation.

Justice for Hugh Johns at last.

The legend.

Star Soccer with Huge Honds 2pm Sunday

Davenports Beer At Home Addvert every break.

Happy Days

The Black Country goalkeeper - Huge Honds.

Beer at Home Means Davenports, that’s the beer, lots of cheer.

Finest hops and malt and yeast

Turns your snack in to a feast

Straight from Brewery to your home

Why collect we'll deliver

Soon you'll know why folks all say

Beer at home means Davenports

Not part of the plan:

https://x.com/OpiniumResearch/status/2063335116101898629

@OpiniumResearch
🚨 Latest Opinium @ObserverUK poll 🚨

As the Makerfield by-election campaign continues, Reform UK has risen to 29%. This is their highest vote share in three months.

➡️REF 29%
🌹LAB 20%
🌳CON 17%
🌍GRN 14%
🔶LD 11%

In the actual Makerfield polls though Burnham leads and the hypothetical polls show a Burnham led Labour would get a bounce which could see them take a small lead

This 20% for Labour already has a Burnham effect in it. That’s the only reason they're not polling lower than the Tories.

It doesn't really, Starmer is still PM and Labour leader and unless and until Burnham returns as an MP and leads Labour any Burnham bounce will be negligible

Burnham becomes leader and 20% becomes 25% minimum.

Reform and Tories down 2 or 3 points

Actually the biggest swing to Burnham Labour polling shows would be from the Greens and LDs who would be the biggest losers.

Reform would be slightly down but largely hold their vote and the Tories vote would hold up best against Burnham

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Andy_JS said:
Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo
Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.


I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.

Please do share Cyclefree.

I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?

The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."

As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:

“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”

Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.

Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).

Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.

I don't want to get bogged down in the case again but its complicated. The keeping of records relating to babies that had died in her own house was positively weird and there was other circumstantial evidence which raises questions but I agree that the insulin was the clearest cut part of the case which makes the expert views expressed since concerning.

The over lap between Letby Truthers and enthusiasts for the death penalty is surprisingly large

They are as bad as doctors. They want to bury their mistakes.

And parents of children with Hamsters.

Seems a little harsh to bury the children but if it gets rid of the blasted destructive hamsters I can kinda see your point.

Tonight's Opinium

Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst

Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.

Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.

“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”

If Starmer knocked every door in the UK and handed over a few grand he'd still have a negative rating.

Let’s face it, he offered everyone a Ming Vase, far more valuable than a few grand, and nobody likes him. Maybe he is the problem?

Ming vase is standard if it's yours to lose. Burnham is doing it now.

DecrepiterJohnL said:
Andy_JS said:
Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo
Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.


I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.

Please do share Cyclefree.

I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?

The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."

As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:

“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”

Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.

Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).

Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.

I don't want to get bogged down in the case again but its complicated. The keeping of records relating to babies that had died in her own house was positively weird and there was other circumstantial evidence which raises questions but I agree that the insulin was the clearest cut part of the case which makes the expert views expressed since concerning.

The over lap between Letby Truthers and enthusiasts for the death penalty is surprisingly large

They are as bad as doctors. They want to bury their mistakes.

And parents of children with Hamsters.