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).

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.

doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit

I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.

I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.

My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.

This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl5yyg1x6o

A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.

The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.

Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r250

It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.

The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.

And the deaths stopped when she was removed.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

For non-Latin speakers:

"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.

Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?

No. Don't even know what it was about.

A frothy fantasy partly involving intelligent, funny, principled US politicians. Could never happen of course.

And led generations of politically minded Brits to assume the perfection of the checks and balances in the US system, and bag on about it a bit too much.
Oh.

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.

doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit

I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.

I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.

My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.

This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl5yyg1x6o

A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.

The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.

Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r250

It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.

The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.

And the deaths stopped when she was removed.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

For non-Latin speakers:

"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.

Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?

No. Don't even know what it was about.

It was about a lonely albatross called Stephen who could only fly in circles anti-clockwise and is an internal monologue from the perspective of a bird, but really a subtle questioning of Chinese politics, about whether you can change direction if you give strength and freedom to the under utilised part of you. Deep.

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.

doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit

I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.

I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.

My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.

This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl5yyg1x6o

A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.

The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.

Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r250

It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.

The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.

And the deaths stopped when she was removed.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

For non-Latin speakers:

"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.

Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?

No. Don't even know what it was about.

A frothy fantasy partly involving intelligent, funny, principled US politicians. Could never happen of course.

US govt bailout of AI coming soon


‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’


https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2063257505854013952?s=61

At what point will the US government having to bail it out cause the huge correction in the value of the AI bubble?

SpaceX IPO and the two big AI IPO’s could very well do it.

SpaceX feels like a pump and dump with retail and index trackers being on the hook. Valued at 100 times earnings. Not for me.

Trackers and index funds will be able to add it very quickly too.

Will be obliged to, surely, if they are tracker funds ?

It's been exclude, I think, for 12 months from one of the largest (S&P 500), but otherwise they are forced buyers of a grossly overvalued IPO, for which the ordinary rules have been waived.

Surely the point isn't the x100 valuation and whether it's worth that (it isn't) but whether you think somone else out there will pay more than you in 12 months.

It's not what it's really worth that matters but if someone else thinks it's worth more.

That for me is why we are getting such crazy valuations and into a bubble, the same disconnect between fundamentals and emotion that leads to a crash.

Peter.

The likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are making forecasts of staggering numbers for prospective future earnings too.

I’m not buying it.

It’s all a happy coincidence. I log on to my HL account. There’s a countdown to the IPO on the homepage. I log on to Freetrade and the homepage has ‘Find out More/Open and Account’ plug for SpaceX

There’s alot of hype.

I never predict market crashes or bubbles but the three big tech IPO’s this year could be a watershed.

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.

doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit

I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.

I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.

My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.

This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl5yyg1x6o

A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.

The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.

Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r250

It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.

The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.

And the deaths stopped when she was removed.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

For non-Latin speakers:

"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.

Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?

No. Don't even know what it was about.

It's the bit Trump didn't demolish.

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.

doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit

I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.

I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.

My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.

This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl5yyg1x6o

A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.

The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.

Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r250

It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.

The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.

And the deaths stopped when she was removed.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

For non-Latin speakers:

"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.

Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_vHDjG5Wk
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745669/

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.

doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit

I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.

I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.

My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.

This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl5yyg1x6o

A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.

The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.

Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.

https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r250

It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.

The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.

And the deaths stopped when she was removed.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

For non-Latin speakers:

"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.

Surely everyone on here watched the West Wing?

Sky saying Starmer says he will fight any contest

His cabinet need to tell him to go

Once more, with feeling;

Right now, any Prime Minister in this sort of position has to say that, even if it isn't true. Because once you even hint at anything different, the focus becomes "who's next?" and whatever little authority you have leaks away.

It's the same for anyone in an exposed leadership position. In teaching, you can't tell a class that they are having someone else next year... not if you plan to get any more work out of them.

Thatcher said something similar in 1990. Major and Sunak's manifestoes for elections where they must have known they were doomed are cut from the same cloth.

It's something that Prime Ministers have to say, because politics is sometimes a dirty business. And, however much some people have cause to resent it, Sir Keir Starmer KC is our Prime Minister, for at least a bit longer.

Personally I am hoping for a rerun of 2022 and when every 10 minutes a minister resigned trying to get Boris Johnson to quit.

He was in a televised session with the Liaison Committee and Sky News had a resignation counter that kept on going up with Boris Johnson oblivious to the number resigning (or the fact several cabinet ministers were waiting for him in Number 10 ready to tell him to quit.)

Had this happened before? My parliamentary history is poor...

Not at this level, the closest comparison I said at the time was the Norway debate when a rebellion ousted a Prime Minister but that was backbench rather than ministerial.

In 2022 I think a third of the government resigned.

Edit

In early July 2022, 62 of the United Kingdom's 179 government ministers, parliamentary private secretaries, trade envoys, and party vice-chairmen resigned from their positions in the second administration formed by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister....

...This marked both the largest number of ministerial resignations in a 24-hour period since the British Empire Economic Conference in 1932, and the largest number of such resignations on record.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis