Looking at the first graph explains your observation. By and large, people thought who they were already supporting did well.
The third graph is perhaps more telling, looking at who people would consider voting for. Haley saw a large rise. Ramaswamy and Burgum(!) also saw notable rises. Trump fell. The fourth graph, looking at changes in favourability, is also interesting. Most candidates increased their favourable and their unfavourable ratings, shrinking the don’t knows. Pence stands out as already well known and one of the few who didn’t grow his favourable number.
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
Organisations consist of people, and people don’t like considering the possibility that they might be wrong; indeed most people prefer rebuttal and then denial, often well beyond the point of objectively observed rationality, rather than face up to and concede a mistake. It’s simply basic human nature, and that’s before you start to consider that reputations and careers are often at stake.
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
One thing which jumped out of the page when I was reading the reports on the Letby case was the response to her allegation that the consultants had been 'bullying' her by raising concerns about the number of unexplained deaths on her watch. That seems to have triggered a much bigger process than the suspicious deaths themselves , culminating in the bizarre farce of 'mediation'. How the hell could anyone mediate between her, and the doctors who with good cause, and rightly as it turned out, suspected her of being responsible for those deaths?
And yet this is how the NHS works.
Presumably the mediator came up with proposals that both sides accept that she had only killed half the babies alleged.
Lawyers: people who build a maze outside your door then charge you a fortune to lead you through it.
Very nice. I'll add my to collection of favorite definitions.
Others I like include:
Insurance Companies - bookmakers who don't pay out on winners Banks - Lenders and providers of finance to people and businesses that can prove they don't need it.
Certainly agree about the latter. Hardly a month goes by without a full-colour brochure from Barclays offering me someone else's money at usurious rates when a cursory glance at my account should convince them that I'm prepared to struggle on without it.
Barclays are the pushiest bank I know, in a fiercely competitive field.
They had my business for years, having kindly given me a £25 book token when I was a student, and it took me more than twenty years to wise up and give them the push…
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
One thing which jumped out of the page when I was reading the reports on the Letby case was the response to her allegation that the consultants had been 'bullying' her by raising concerns about the number of unexplained deaths on her watch. That seems to have triggered a much bigger process than the suspicious deaths themselves , culminating in the bizarre farce of 'mediation'. How the hell could anyone mediate between her, and the doctors who with good cause, and rightly as it turned out, suspected her of being responsible for those deaths?
And yet this is how the NHS works.
Presumably the mediator came up with proposals that both sides accept that she had only killed half the babies alleged.
Lawyers: people who build a maze outside your door then charge you a fortune to lead you through it.
Very nice. I'll add my to collection of favorite definitions.
Others I like include:
Insurance Companies - bookmakers who don't pay out on winners Banks - Lenders and providers of finance to people and businesses that can prove they don't need it.
Certainly agree about the latter. Hardly a month goes by without a full-colour brochure from Barclays offering me someone else's money at usurious rates when a cursory glance at my account should convince them that I'm prepared to struggle on without it.
Barclays are the pushiest bank I know, in a fiercely competitive field.
They had my business for years, having kindly given me a £25 book token when I was a student, and it took me more than twenty years to wise up and give them the push…
My father had a bank account with them. I wound it up seven months ago but they're still bombarding me with information about it.
Amusingly, they address all their letters to 'Cannock, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire.'
New PB photo of choice for all Trump related threads.
I see he lied about both his height and weight.
215 lbs LOL.
If he's 6'3", then he's an inch taller than me. If he's 98kg, then he's only 8kg heavier than me at the moment... but wears that extra weight terribly.
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
One thing which jumped out of the page when I was reading the reports on the Letby case was the response to her allegation that the consultants had been 'bullying' her by raising concerns about the number of unexplained deaths on her watch. That seems to have triggered a much bigger process than the suspicious deaths themselves , culminating in the bizarre farce of 'mediation'. How the hell could anyone mediate between her, and the doctors who with good cause, and rightly as it turned out, suspected her of being responsible for those deaths?
And yet this is how the NHS works.
Presumably the mediator came up with proposals that both sides accept that she had only killed half the babies alleged.
Well, the jury did something quite similar.
True. I wonder how they feel about that now. They were out for a month. Most juries in my experience are back within 4 hours, 6 being the normal limit.
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
Organisations consist of people, and people don’t like considering the possibility that they might be wrong; indeed most people prefer rebuttal and then denial, often well beyond the point of objectively observed rationality, rather than face up to and concede a mistake. It’s simply basic human nature, and that’s before you start to consider that reputations and careers are often at stake.
It's why organisations need strict and good processes that can help counteract/detect the negative sides of human nature. In particular, trust has to be limited - especially when that trust can affect other people. And those processes need to apply to everyone in the organisation, from CEO to janitor.
Sadly not but it may improve their chances of holding their seats in the north east near Aberdeen.
Its all in play - it depends how other factors play out. Supporting the oil and gas industry feels like an obvious thing to do. I keep having people trying to school me online about actually how much of the revenue goes into bigcorp pockets and how actualy we'll export much of the oil we drill actually. Yes I know, but as the world transitions away from oil why can't we make money selling whats left of ours rather than spending money buying from someone else?
Problem for the Tories is that being pro-oil is also them being anti farming and fishing and people and business and renewables. They have that one thing right for the local economy and everything else wrong for the local economy. So the question for Lickspittle Duguid etc is will people put king oil over everything else? Because whilst I agree with him on that he is wrong on every other subject.
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
Organisations consist of people, and people don’t like considering the possibility that they might be wrong; indeed most people prefer rebuttal and then denial, often well beyond the point of objectively observed rationality, rather than face up to and concede a mistake. It’s simply basic human nature, and that’s before you start to consider that reputations and careers are often at stake.
It's why organisations need strict and good processes that can help counteract/detect the negative sides of human nature. In particular, trust has to be limited - especially when that trust can affect other people. And those processes need to apply to everyone in the organisation, from CEO to janitor.
And this is where we need robust HR policies and practices. I've sen some brilliant HR people and some so bad that I actually knew the law better than the HR rep. A proper HR structure would have allowed managers to raise their concerns without a kneejerk deployment of anti-bullying practices.
Yes, senior managers absolutely can and sometimes do bully younger and more junior members of staff, especially males on females. That is a serious issue and too many companies are structurally blind to it. But bullying is a less serious allegation than murdering babies and there really needed to be something more robust in place than "stop taking advantage of this young woman you beasts"
The reason given by the CCRC for not proceeding is very strange. The comment was that there was "no certainty" that the other DNA found on the victim's clothing was "crime specific".
That makes it sound as though they were asking the wrong question entirely. Certainty that someone else's DNA was crime-specific would have proved that Malkinson was certainly innocent (given that there was only one assailant). Obviously, reasonable doubt of guilt is the correct criterion.
Depending on what they discovered, that conclusion might be reasonable. I think the bar is set quite high for a CCRC referral. ...
The criterion is just that "the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made ..." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/13
The point I'm making is that standard of proof of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt", so new evidence raising reasonable doubt should result in the appeal being upheld. But the CCRC comment makes it sound as they were dismissing the new evidence because it didn't provide certainty of innocence.
The President of Guyana is now demanding slavery reparations. From the descendants of European Slave Traders. Fair enough, I am not a descendant of slavers.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
New PB photo of choice for all Trump related threads.
I see he lied about both his height and weight.
215 lbs LOL.
If he's 6'3", then he's an inch taller than me. If he's 98kg, then he's only 8kg heavier than me at the moment... but wears that extra weight terribly.
I guess he's lying about the weight, obvs.
I understood those to be measurements taken at the courthouse.
New PB photo of choice for all Trump related threads.
I see he lied about both his height and weight.
215 lbs LOL.
If he's 6'3", then he's an inch taller than me. If he's 98kg, then he's only 8kg heavier than me at the moment... but wears that extra weight terribly.
I guess he's lying about the weight, obvs.
I understood those to be measurements taken at the courthouse.
Unless he's lost a huge amount of weight, which doesn't seem likely, then they're clearly not correct.
Could believe the height, although it's not what I would have guessed, but if he's that tall he's 300lb easy.
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
Organisations consist of people, and people don’t like considering the possibility that they might be wrong; indeed most people prefer rebuttal and then denial, often well beyond the point of objectively observed rationality, rather than face up to and concede a mistake. It’s simply basic human nature, and that’s before you start to consider that reputations and careers are often at stake.
It's why organisations need strict and good processes that can help counteract/detect the negative sides of human nature. In particular, trust has to be limited - especially when that trust can affect other people. And those processes need to apply to everyone in the organisation, from CEO to janitor.
And this is where we need robust HR policies and practices. I've sen some brilliant HR people and some so bad that I actually knew the law better than the HR rep. A proper HR structure would have allowed managers to raise their concerns without a kneejerk deployment of anti-bullying practices.
Yes, senior managers absolutely can and sometimes do bully younger and more junior members of staff, especially males on females. That is a serious issue and too many companies are structurally blind to it. But bullying is a less serious allegation than murdering babies and there really needed to be something more robust in place than "stop taking advantage of this young woman you beasts"
However, bullying is much, much, much more common than murdering babies. Systems tend to be weaker at handling (very) rare events.
The reason given by the CCRC for not proceeding is very strange. The comment was that there was "no certainty" that the other DNA found on the victim's clothing was "crime specific".
That makes it sound as though they were asking the wrong question entirely. Certainty that someone else's DNA was crime-specific would have proved that Malkinson was certainly innocent (given that there was only one assailant). Obviously, reasonable doubt of guilt is the correct criterion.
Depending on what they discovered, that conclusion might be reasonable. I think the bar is set quite high for a CCRC referral. ...
The criterion is just that "the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made ..." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/13
The point I'm making is that standard of proof of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt", so new evidence raising reasonable doubt should result in the appeal being upheld. But the CCRC comment makes it sound as they were dismissing the new evidence because it didn't provide certainty of innocence.
Isn't it reversed after a conviction? You don't have the presumption of guilt any more, so you have to prove innocence?
New PB photo of choice for all Trump related threads.
I see he lied about both his height and weight.
215 lbs LOL.
If he's 6'3", then he's an inch taller than me. If he's 98kg, then he's only 8kg heavier than me at the moment... but wears that extra weight terribly.
I guess he's lying about the weight, obvs.
I understood those to be measurements taken at the courthouse.
Unless he's lost a huge amount of weight, which doesn't seem likely, then they're clearly not correct.
Could believe the height, although it's not what I would have guessed, but if he's that tall he's 300lb easy.
New PB photo of choice for all Trump related threads.
I see he lied about both his height and weight.
215 lbs LOL.
If he's 6'3", then he's an inch taller than me. If he's 98kg, then he's only 8kg heavier than me at the moment... but wears that extra weight terribly.
New PB photo of choice for all Trump related threads.
I see he lied about both his height and weight.
215 lbs LOL.
If he's 6'3", then he's an inch taller than me. If he's 98kg, then he's only 8kg heavier than me at the moment... but wears that extra weight terribly.
I guess he's lying about the weight, obvs.
I understood those to be measurements taken at the courthouse.
Unless he's lost a huge amount of weight, which doesn't seem likely, then they're clearly not correct.
Could believe the height, although it's not what I would have guessed, but if he's that tall he's 300lb easy.
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
Organisations consist of people, and people don’t like considering the possibility that they might be wrong; indeed most people prefer rebuttal and then denial, often well beyond the point of objectively observed rationality, rather than face up to and concede a mistake. It’s simply basic human nature, and that’s before you start to consider that reputations and careers are often at stake.
It's why organisations need strict and good processes that can help counteract/detect the negative sides of human nature. In particular, trust has to be limited - especially when that trust can affect other people. And those processes need to apply to everyone in the organisation, from CEO to janitor.
And this is where we need robust HR policies and practices. I've sen some brilliant HR people and some so bad that I actually knew the law better than the HR rep. A proper HR structure would have allowed managers to raise their concerns without a kneejerk deployment of anti-bullying practices.
Yes, senior managers absolutely can and sometimes do bully younger and more junior members of staff, especially males on females. That is a serious issue and too many companies are structurally blind to it. But bullying is a less serious allegation than murdering babies and there really needed to be something more robust in place than "stop taking advantage of this young woman you beasts"
However, bullying is much, much, much more common than murdering babies. Systems tend to be weaker at handling (very) rare events.
True! Same with less murderous forms of gross misconduct. But there has to be a mechanism where people can go to HR with a very serious allegation - with evidence - and not just have it batted away because of who the person is or because its politically unpleasant.
HR bods seem quite happy doing unpleasant stuff like making people redundant when its large scale. I think its the one on one stuff that the poor ones struggle with - which is funny when you consider the councillor part of their role.
New PB photo of choice for all Trump related threads.
I see he lied about both his height and weight.
215 lbs LOL.
If he's 6'3", then he's an inch taller than me. If he's 98kg, then he's only 8kg heavier than me at the moment... but wears that extra weight terribly.
I guess he's lying about the weight, obvs.
I understood those to be measurements taken at the courthouse.
Unless he's lost a huge amount of weight, which doesn't seem likely, then they're clearly not correct.
Could believe the height, although it's not what I would have guessed, but if he's that tall he's 300lb easy.
The reason given by the CCRC for not proceeding is very strange. The comment was that there was "no certainty" that the other DNA found on the victim's clothing was "crime specific".
That makes it sound as though they were asking the wrong question entirely. Certainty that someone else's DNA was crime-specific would have proved that Malkinson was certainly innocent (given that there was only one assailant). Obviously, reasonable doubt of guilt is the correct criterion.
Depending on what they discovered, that conclusion might be reasonable. I think the bar is set quite high for a CCRC referral. ...
The criterion is just that "the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made ..." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/13
The point I'm making is that standard of proof of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt", so new evidence raising reasonable doubt should result in the appeal being upheld. But the CCRC comment makes it sound as they were dismissing the new evidence because it didn't provide certainty of innocence.
I agree with you, but I think the real problem here is that the CCRC didn't properly consider the evidence, which is their job.
Suppose they had done the DNA test and it didn't match anyone, ie it was an unknown male, which they knew already. And suppose there was no other new evidence (actually they missed other things), and given that DNA might not be crime related, they might decide it wasn't compelling enough on its own to refer the case.
The point is you need to assess all the evidence, which they didn't do, and come to a decision in the round, which they also didn't do.
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested...
The reason given by the CCRC for not proceeding is very strange. The comment was that there was "no certainty" that the other DNA found on the victim's clothing was "crime specific".
That makes it sound as though they were asking the wrong question entirely. Certainty that someone else's DNA was crime-specific would have proved that Malkinson was certainly innocent (given that there was only one assailant). Obviously, reasonable doubt of guilt is the correct criterion.
Depending on what they discovered, that conclusion might be reasonable. I think the bar is set quite high for a CCRC referral. ...
The criterion is just that "the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made ..." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/13
The point I'm making is that standard of proof of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt", so new evidence raising reasonable doubt should result in the appeal being upheld. But the CCRC comment makes it sound as they were dismissing the new evidence because it didn't provide certainty of innocence.
I agree with you, but I think the real problem here is that the CCRC didn't properly consider the evidence, which is their job.
Suppose they had done the DNA test and it didn't match anyone, ie it was an unknown male, which they knew already. And suppose there was no other new evidence (actually they missed other things), and given that DNA might not be crime related, they might decide it wasn't compelling enough on its own to refer the case...
Given the location of the DNA sample, it seems very likely indeed that it was crime related.
In the light of this, the prosecution argument at trial, which led to his conviction, appears absurd: ...with the prosecution arguing he left no DNA because he was “forensically aware”...
Had the evidence been available at trial, he would almost certainly not have been convicted.
The President of Guyana is now demanding slavery reparations. From the descendants of European Slave Traders. Fair enough, I am not a descendant of slavers.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
One thing which jumped out of the page when I was reading the reports on the Letby case was the response to her allegation that the consultants had been 'bullying' her by raising concerns about the number of unexplained deaths on her watch. That seems to have triggered a much bigger process than the suspicious deaths themselves , culminating in the bizarre farce of 'mediation'. How the hell could anyone mediate between her, and the doctors who with good cause, and rightly as it turned out, suspected her of being responsible for those deaths?
And yet this is how the NHS works.
Presumably the mediator came up with proposals that both sides accept that she had only killed half the babies alleged.
Well, the jury did something quite similar.
True. I wonder how they feel about that now. They were out for a month. Most juries in my experience are back within 4 hours, 6 being the normal limit.
That the jury took several days to reach even the first verdicts should give us pause. We are discussing the inquiry as if Letby had been so obviously bang to rights that the hospital should have realised immediately.
And it was not only the jury. The police investigation lasted more than a year before Letby was arrested.
It just means lawyers and other Tory chums will line their pockets for years , trouser a fortune and it will be the normal , "lessons have been learned" till the next time it happens. They may as well save the millions they will fork out to grifters.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
Sadly not but it may improve their chances of holding their seats in the north east near Aberdeen.
Given SNP are £800K in debt and circling teh drain you wonder how they will fight an election , will not be much use of helicoptors this time. They will be praying the campervan is returned before campaigning starts.
The President of Guyana is now demanding slavery reparations. From the descendants of European Slave Traders. Fair enough, I am not a descendant of slavers.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
The President of Guyana is now demanding slavery reparations. From the descendants of European Slave Traders. Fair enough, I am not a descendant of slavers.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
My family and I also deserve reparations for all the crimes the Empire committed in India and Pakistan.
I will accept £35 million and a knighthood (GCMG) to correct the damage caused to my family.
Oi. The Welsh have been oppressed and robbed for far longer. We demand $475 billion each, plus all Welsh people to be inducted into the order of the Garter, and Jacob Rees-Mogg to be sent to Cardiff to re-enact the fate of Cersei Lannister under the High Sparrow.
Actually, scrub that last one, I don't think the people of Cardiff should have to look at his naked body.
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
One thing which jumped out of the page when I was reading the reports on the Letby case was the response to her allegation that the consultants had been 'bullying' her by raising concerns about the number of unexplained deaths on her watch. That seems to have triggered a much bigger process than the suspicious deaths themselves , culminating in the bizarre farce of 'mediation'. How the hell could anyone mediate between her, and the doctors who with good cause, and rightly as it turned out, suspected her of being responsible for those deaths?
And yet this is how the NHS works.
Presumably the mediator came up with proposals that both sides accept that she had only killed half the babies alleged.
Well, the jury did something quite similar.
True. I wonder how they feel about that now. They were out for a month. Most juries in my experience are back within 4 hours, 6 being the normal limit.
That the jury took several days to reach even the first verdicts should give us pause. We are discussing the inquiry as if Letby had been so obviously bang to rights that the hospital should have realised immediately.
And it was not only the jury. The police investigation lasted more than a year before Letby was arrested.
You are ignoring the fact that there were many separate charges considered - on some if which she was found not guilty (presumably because of insufficient evidence).
It is absolutely unwarranted to assume, or even to suggest, that there is doubt over the convictions simply because of the length of the investigation, and time taken by the jury.
New PB photo of choice for all Trump related threads.
I see he lied about both his height and weight.
215 lbs LOL.
If he's 6'3", then he's an inch taller than me. If he's 98kg, then he's only 8kg heavier than me at the moment... but wears that extra weight terribly.
an inquiry where lessons will be learnt no doubt but nothing will actually change
For The Greater Good
The question thats begging there is for the greater good of who?
Have you not watched Hot Fuzz?
The whole point is that the FTGG is a demented, murderous lie.
"No luck catching them killers, then?"
Hmmm
Fascist
Hag
Lamprey
You wanna be a big cop in a small town? F*** off up the model village!
One goes up to university, but down to the model village…
Unless you are on the Somerset levels, where everywhere else is up, including the villages. ISTR the film was set in Wells, my local friend told me, and that clip looks very like the gateway to the Cathedral precinct from memory.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
The idea that it’s cheaper to get the private sector to do things rather than the “inefficient” public sector is one of the great myths of our era.
The New Zealand Labour Party is averaging 29% in the polls at the moment. They polled 50% at the last general election. That's quite a drop, even worse (in percentage terms) than the UK Tories are facing. The election is in 6 weeks' time.
Sadly not but it may improve their chances of holding their seats in the north east near Aberdeen.
Given SNP are £800K in debt and circling teh drain you wonder how they will fight an election , will not be much use of helicoptors this time. They will be praying the campervan is returned before campaigning starts.
If they use it in a campaign I'll give them points for chutzpah
I have no direct knowledge of this case, but it does seem to show how NHS Trusts react to Whistleblowing:
"The BMA is deeply concerned that Epsom and St Hellier University Hospitals NHS Trust is seeking to force Dr Usha Prasad to pay the Trust’s costs in relation to the employment tribunal process stemming from Dr Prasad raising patient safety issues🧵"
Sadly not but it may improve their chances of holding their seats in the north east near Aberdeen.
Its all in play - it depends how other factors play out. Supporting the oil and gas industry feels like an obvious thing to do. I keep having people trying to school me online about actually how much of the revenue goes into bigcorp pockets and how actualy we'll export much of the oil we drill actually. Yes I know, but as the world transitions away from oil why can't we make money selling whats left of ours rather than spending money buying from someone else?
Problem for the Tories is that being pro-oil is also them being anti farming and fishing and people and business and renewables. They have that one thing right for the local economy and everything else wrong for the local economy. So the question for Lickspittle Duguid etc is will people put king oil over everything else? Because whilst I agree with him on that he is wrong on every other subject.
If Dolittle is the answer then Scotland is truly F**ked and people in North East are thicker than a bag of mince.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
It is a good article and it rightly doesn't point the problem at a "Spiv tax", the problem is NIMBYism.
There needs to be an abolition of NIMBYism or "reviews" and just get it done. Pick a route, get the land and just build it. No more spending years going back and forth with reviews.
So you don't want infrastructure near you? Tough.
Good to see the FT recognise what I was saying yesterday too, the UK has neglected its roads for years now and not been developing them.
If this country is to move forwards we need to start investing in infrastructure - and not be held back by the lowest common denominator of NIMBYs.
Sadly not but it may improve their chances of holding their seats in the north east near Aberdeen.
Its all in play - it depends how other factors play out. Supporting the oil and gas industry feels like an obvious thing to do. I keep having people trying to school me online about actually how much of the revenue goes into bigcorp pockets and how actualy we'll export much of the oil we drill actually. Yes I know, but as the world transitions away from oil why can't we make money selling whats left of ours rather than spending money buying from someone else?
Problem for the Tories is that being pro-oil is also them being anti farming and fishing and people and business and renewables. They have that one thing right for the local economy and everything else wrong for the local economy. So the question for Lickspittle Duguid etc is will people put king oil over everything else? Because whilst I agree with him on that he is wrong on every other subject.
If Dolittle is the answer then Scotland is truly F**ked and people in North East are thicker than a bag of mince.
Do you actually like anybody, Malc? (Other than Mrs G and Alex Salmond, of course.)
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
Organisations consist of people, and people don’t like considering the possibility that they might be wrong; indeed most people prefer rebuttal and then denial, often well beyond the point of objectively observed rationality, rather than face up to and concede a mistake. It’s simply basic human nature, and that’s before you start to consider that reputations and careers are often at stake.
It's why organisations need strict and good processes that can help counteract/detect the negative sides of human nature. In particular, trust has to be limited - especially when that trust can affect other people. And those processes need to apply to everyone in the organisation, from CEO to janitor.
And this is where we need robust HR policies and practices. I've sen some brilliant HR people and some so bad that I actually knew the law better than the HR rep. A proper HR structure would have allowed managers to raise their concerns without a kneejerk deployment of anti-bullying practices.
Yes, senior managers absolutely can and sometimes do bully younger and more junior members of staff, especially males on females. That is a serious issue and too many companies are structurally blind to it. But bullying is a less serious allegation than murdering babies and there really needed to be something more robust in place than "stop taking advantage of this young woman you beasts"
However, bullying is much, much, much more common than murdering babies. Systems tend to be weaker at handling (very) rare events.
True! Same with less murderous forms of gross misconduct. But there has to be a mechanism where people can go to HR with a very serious allegation - with evidence - and not just have it batted away because of who the person is or because its politically unpleasant.
HR bods seem quite happy doing unpleasant stuff like making people redundant when its large scale. I think its the one on one stuff that the poor ones struggle with - which is funny when you consider the councillor part of their role.
HR should not be in charge of whistleblowing investigations relating to clinical matters. They should be nowhere near this. Nor should managers. There should be an independent investigations team. All concerns are raised to them. They investigate.
It's that independence which creates the trust necessary for whistleblowers and helps avoid the conflicts of interest which so fatally undermined what HR and managers did in the Letby case.
I have no direct knowledge of this case, but it does seem to show how NHS Trusts react to Whistleblowing:
"The BMA is deeply concerned that Epsom and St Hellier University Hospitals NHS Trust is seeking to force Dr Usha Prasad to pay the Trust’s costs in relation to the employment tribunal process stemming from Dr Prasad raising patient safety issues🧵"
Greater Manchester Police appear to be most to blame.
Legal/Justice system taking 16 years to correct what they knew absolutely was a wrong decision is up there.
He was let down every step of the way, but it started with the police.
Please explain?
Presumbly the Police investigated, found the evidence that led them to think they had the right person and handed the evidence over to the CPS who were convinced by the evidence and where it convinced a jury that he was guilty too. That seems to be the Police doing their job.
Subsequent evidence helped show he was not guilty, and that was in the hands of the legal/justice system for years without them properly dealing with it.
The Police get many things wrong, but they seem least to blame in this instance?
Greater Manchester Police appear to be most to blame.
Legal/Justice system taking 16 years to correct what they knew absolutely was a wrong decision is up there.
He was let down every step of the way, but it started with the police.
Please explain?
Presumbly the Police investigated, found the evidence that led them to think they had the right person and handed the evidence over to the CPS who were convinced by the evidence and where it convinced a jury that he was guilty too. That seems to be the Police doing their job.
Subsequent evidence helped show he was not guilty, and that was in the hands of the legal/justice system for years without them properly dealing with it.
The Police get many things wrong, but they seem least to blame in this instance?
Incorrect. They concealed crucial evidence and forged other evidence.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
The idea that it’s cheaper to get the private sector to do things rather than the “inefficient” public sector is one of the great myths of our era.
HS2 is being designed and managed at a high level by the public sector, and built by the private sector. The £1.5bn A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme, and was finished early (in part) despite Covid and more or less on budget. It too was designed and managed by the public sector at a high level, and built by the private sector.
There are many reasons why these projects can come in over budget and late; but decisions made early on in the project, and at a high level, can make a massive difference. As one example, who takes on risk for overruns, and how much do you set aside for such overruns?
The vast majority of large projects have both public and private involvement; partly because it is impossible to do anything large *without* governmental intervention at some level. And that's good; but it's easy for one side or the other to throw blame at the other side.
Sadly not but it may improve their chances of holding their seats in the north east near Aberdeen.
Its all in play - it depends how other factors play out. Supporting the oil and gas industry feels like an obvious thing to do. I keep having people trying to school me online about actually how much of the revenue goes into bigcorp pockets and how actualy we'll export much of the oil we drill actually. Yes I know, but as the world transitions away from oil why can't we make money selling whats left of ours rather than spending money buying from someone else?
Problem for the Tories is that being pro-oil is also them being anti farming and fishing and people and business and renewables. They have that one thing right for the local economy and everything else wrong for the local economy. So the question for Lickspittle Duguid etc is will people put king oil over everything else? Because whilst I agree with him on that he is wrong on every other subject.
If Dolittle is the answer then Scotland is truly F**ked and people in North East are thicker than a bag of mince.
Do you actually like anybody, Malc? (Other than Mrs G and Alex Salmond, of course.)
Ydoethur, don't be a silly boy , it is politician's and that arsehole Foreskin that I don't like. There are a few exceptions as you say , I liked Ken Clarke, Lord Tonypandy, Betty Boothroyd , Harold Wilson and many others from the days when honest people were in politics not just to fill their own pockets.
Sadly not but it may improve their chances of holding their seats in the north east near Aberdeen.
Its all in play - it depends how other factors play out. Supporting the oil and gas industry feels like an obvious thing to do. I keep having people trying to school me online about actually how much of the revenue goes into bigcorp pockets and how actualy we'll export much of the oil we drill actually. Yes I know, but as the world transitions away from oil why can't we make money selling whats left of ours rather than spending money buying from someone else?
Problem for the Tories is that being pro-oil is also them being anti farming and fishing and people and business and renewables. They have that one thing right for the local economy and everything else wrong for the local economy. So the question for Lickspittle Duguid etc is will people put king oil over everything else? Because whilst I agree with him on that he is wrong on every other subject.
If Dolittle is the answer then Scotland is truly F**ked and people in North East are thicker than a bag of mince.
Do you actually like anybody, Malc? (Other than Mrs G and Alex Salmond, of course.)
Ydoethur, don't be a silly boy , it is politician's and that arsehole Foreskin that I don't like. There are a few exceptions as you say , I liked Ken Clarke, Lord Tonypandy, Betty Boothroyd , Harold Wilson and many others from the days when honest people were in politics not just to fill their own pockets.
Interesting you include Wilson, one of the most duplicitous men (along with Arthur Balfour) ever to be PM in the list of honest politicians.
Pretty clear set of by-elections last night, reflecting recent patterns.
Most relevant being a Labour gain from Conservative in Dudley on a straight 11% swing.
But also Lib Dem win in IoW on 47% from not standing last time (swing less relevant as Vectis had the seat last time).
And Green holding on in Bristol and seeming to consolidate minor party support.
Caveats. That's a swing in Dudley TO the Tories of 2.1% since May. It's a Lab gain on the 2021 election, but a ward the Tories only won in '21 and '22. But Bristol is a much better Labour result. A swing of 6.9% from the Greens since 2021. Another stonking win from nowhere for the LD's in IOW.
Greater Manchester Police appear to be most to blame.
Legal/Justice system taking 16 years to correct what they knew absolutely was a wrong decision is up there.
He was let down every step of the way, but it started with the police.
Please explain?
Presumbly the Police investigated, found the evidence that led them to think they had the right person and handed the evidence over to the CPS who were convinced by the evidence and where it convinced a jury that he was guilty too. That seems to be the Police doing their job.
Subsequent evidence helped show he was not guilty, and that was in the hands of the legal/justice system for years without them properly dealing with it.
The Police get many things wrong, but they seem least to blame in this instance?
Incorrect. They concealed crucial evidence and forged other evidence.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
The idea that it’s cheaper to get the private sector to do things rather than the “inefficient” public sector is one of the great myths of our era.
HS2 is being designed and managed at a high level by the public sector, and built by the private sector. The £1.5bn A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme, and was finished early (in part) despite Covid and more or less on budget. It too was designed and managed by the public sector at a high level, and built by the private sector.
There are many reasons why these projects can come in over budget and late; but decisions made early on in the project, and at a high level, can make a massive difference. As one example, who takes on risk for overruns, and how much do you set aside for such overruns?
The vast majority of large projects have both public and private involvement; partly because it is impossible to do anything large *without* governmental intervention at some level. And that's good; but it's easy for one side or the other to throw blame at the other side.
A very significant cost of HS2 relates to the contract. The government wants the consortium to be on the hook for decades for all kinds of unlikely scenarios. That has pushed the design into being built to withstand a 2012-style cataclysm with the costs for that as you might expect.
Had we built a high speed rail line at a spec and legal exposure that isn't insane, the cost would be a lot less.
Another example is the Great Western electrification fiasco. We had lost the industry knowledge to do such projects post-privatisation and had to start largely from scratch. So we ended up with ugly over-engineered masts supporting vastly overweight catenary which required very deep footers.
The cost of course was insane, hence having long sections of route where they did the drilling for the footers and bought the vastly over-engineered masts only for the DfT to scrap the scheme and literally scrap the metalwork. Worse is that there is still one point on the route where the catenary wire has to limbo under a bridge which wasn't raised and then over a level crossing that wasn't bridged. A nice 110mph restriction for no reason than crap design.
Putting it simply, we are egregiously shit at these projects. We spend stupid amounts of cash to get crapola infrastructure.
Greater Manchester Police appear to be most to blame.
Legal/Justice system taking 16 years to correct what they knew absolutely was a wrong decision is up there.
He was let down every step of the way, but it started with the police.
Please explain?
Presumbly the Police investigated, found the evidence that led them to think they had the right person and handed the evidence over to the CPS who were convinced by the evidence and where it convinced a jury that he was guilty too. That seems to be the Police doing their job.
Subsequent evidence helped show he was not guilty, and that was in the hands of the legal/justice system for years without them properly dealing with it.
The Police get many things wrong, but they seem least to blame in this instance?
He was convicted solely on identification evidence. The police both concealed the questionable history of their witnesses, and also facts which pointed to the potential availability of DNA evidence.
Whether it was wilful blindness, or actual malice is hard to say.
Greater Manchester Police appear to be most to blame.
Legal/Justice system taking 16 years to correct what they knew absolutely was a wrong decision is up there.
He was let down every step of the way, but it started with the police.
Please explain?
Presumbly the Police investigated, found the evidence that led them to think they had the right person and handed the evidence over to the CPS who were convinced by the evidence and where it convinced a jury that he was guilty too. That seems to be the Police doing their job.
Subsequent evidence helped show he was not guilty, and that was in the hands of the legal/justice system for years without them properly dealing with it.
The Police get many things wrong, but they seem least to blame in this instance?
Incorrect. They concealed crucial evidence and forged other evidence.
But the CCRC did have the relevant information for years too, right? So they can't just blame the Police either, they need to take responsibility too.
An all round terrible failure.
I'm not letting the CCRC off the hook for their own failures, but they would have been irrelevant if the police hadn't fitted him up in the first place.
What puzzles me more is why they did that. There doesn't seem any particular reason for them to hate Malkinson which is the usual reason for somebody being fitted up. As far as I know he had no police record.
Trying to get hold of Donald Trumps weighing scales anyone know where I can get some. #215lb
Actually scrap that I have realised if you only put 1 foot on them and the other on the floor you can weigh the same as Donald no need to buy new scales.
Trying to get hold of Donald Trumps weighing scales anyone know where I can get some. #215lb
Actually scrap that I have realised if you only put 1 foot on them and the other on the floor you can weigh the same as Donald no need to buy new scales.
The President of Guyana is now demanding slavery reparations. From the descendants of European Slave Traders. Fair enough, I am not a descendant of slavers.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
The reason given by the CCRC for not proceeding is very strange. The comment was that there was "no certainty" that the other DNA found on the victim's clothing was "crime specific".
That makes it sound as though they were asking the wrong question entirely. Certainty that someone else's DNA was crime-specific would have proved that Malkinson was certainly innocent (given that there was only one assailant). Obviously, reasonable doubt of guilt is the correct criterion.
Depending on what they discovered, that conclusion might be reasonable. I think the bar is set quite high for a CCRC referral. ...
The criterion is just that "the Commission consider that there is a real possibility that the conviction, verdict, finding or sentence would not be upheld were the reference to be made ..." https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/13
The point I'm making is that standard of proof of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt", so new evidence raising reasonable doubt should result in the appeal being upheld. But the CCRC comment makes it sound as they were dismissing the new evidence because it didn't provide certainty of innocence.
I agree with you, but I think the real problem here is that the CCRC didn't properly consider the evidence, which is their job.
Suppose they had done the DNA test and it didn't match anyone, ie it was an unknown male, which they knew already. And suppose there was no other new evidence (actually they missed other things), and given that DNA might not be crime related, they might decide it wasn't compelling enough on its own to refer the case...
Given the location of the DNA sample, it seems very likely indeed that it was crime related.
In the light of this, the prosecution argument at trial, which led to his conviction, appears absurd: ...with the prosecution arguing he left no DNA because he was “forensically aware”...
Had the evidence been available at trial, he would almost certainly not have been convicted.
Exactly my point. Context is everything. The root cause is that the CCRC didn't assess the evidence properly, which is its job.
Trying to get hold of Donald Trumps weighing scales anyone know where I can get some. #215lb
Actually scrap that I have realised if you only put 1 foot on them and the other on the floor you can weigh the same as Donald no need to buy new scales.
I thought I was losing weight, but the scales were just rubbing against the wall.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
The idea that it’s cheaper to get the private sector to do things rather than the “inefficient” public sector is one of the great myths of our era.
HS2 is being designed and managed at a high level by the public sector, and built by the private sector. The £1.5bn A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme, and was finished early (in part) despite Covid and more or less on budget. It too was designed and managed by the public sector at a high level, and built by the private sector.
There are many reasons why these projects can come in over budget and late; but decisions made early on in the project, and at a high level, can make a massive difference. As one example, who takes on risk for overruns, and how much do you set aside for such overruns?
The vast majority of large projects have both public and private involvement; partly because it is impossible to do anything large *without* governmental intervention at some level. And that's good; but it's easy for one side or the other to throw blame at the other side.
I don't have any expertise in this area but I wonder sometimes whether part of our problem with HS2 etc is that we tend to go from feast to famine, splurging on big projects where we have to build expertise and systems up from scratch, then let it lie fallow before trying to pick it up all over again. If we had a kind of coordinated rolling programme which had an internal culture of learning and improving then perhaps we'd do it cheaper? Presumably someone on permanent staff costs less than a contractor who doesn't know if they've got a job in six months' time. I noticed the other day someone showed a graph comparing our rail electrification with Germany's. Some years we did loads, other years nothing at all. The Germans seemed to do pretty much the same mileage every year - steady, planned, incremental progress. Presumably the same team going round the country putting up wires. I would be willing to bet the Germans are doing it a lot cheaper than we are.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
It is a good article and it rightly doesn't point the problem at a "Spiv tax", the problem is NIMBYism.
There needs to be an abolition of NIMBYism or "reviews" and just get it done. Pick a route, get the land and just build it. No more spending years going back and forth with reviews.
So you don't want infrastructure near you? Tough.
Good to see the FT recognise what I was saying yesterday too, the UK has neglected its roads for years now and not been developing them.
If this country is to move forwards we need to start investing in infrastructure - and not be held back by the lowest common denominator of NIMBYs.
There are elements of "tough" that I agree with. The leg of HS2 through Yorkshire was going to smash its way through a newbuild estate in Conisborough which upset people. But they were told its happening anyway. The problem now is that it *isn't* happening. So no CPI. But its still the preferred route. So it might happen. Which has had predicable impacts on house prices.
As for the Spiv tax bit, its hardly a surprise that the FT avoids it. But there are plenty of projects where there are few objections if any, yet the cost is insane. Look at the cost of building a new railway station. A fairly simple one, with support from the locals, and no issues getting permission.
How is the cost that high? It isn't the materials used - we had a few examples on this forum a few weeks ago of almost brutalist finishes on buildings. It isn't planning delays. Its that the price of said brutalism is £bonkers and we just pay it. That we make any construction go though huge legal hoops - building a new station on an existing line? Its gonna cost ya. That is the spiv tax. Not the cost of construction or materials. The legal costs. Insurance. Contract management of the contractor and an army of sub-contractors. Security. Ker-bloody-ching.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
The idea that it’s cheaper to get the private sector to do things rather than the “inefficient” public sector is one of the great myths of our era.
HS2 is being designed and managed at a high level by the public sector, and built by the private sector. The £1.5bn A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme, and was finished early (in part) despite Covid and more or less on budget. It too was designed and managed by the public sector at a high level, and built by the private sector.
There are many reasons why these projects can come in over budget and late; but decisions made early on in the project, and at a high level, can make a massive difference. As one example, who takes on risk for overruns, and how much do you set aside for such overruns?
The vast majority of large projects have both public and private involvement; partly because it is impossible to do anything large *without* governmental intervention at some level. And that's good; but it's easy for one side or the other to throw blame at the other side.
I don't have any expertise in this area but I wonder sometimes whether part of our problem with HS2 etc is that we tend to go from feast to famine, splurging on big projects where we have to build expertise and systems up from scratch, then let it lie fallow before trying to pick it up all over again. If we had a kind of coordinated rolling programme which had an internal culture of learning and improving then perhaps we'd do it cheaper? Presumably someone on permanent staff costs less than a contractor who doesn't know if they've got a job in six months' time. I noticed the other day someone showed a graph comparing our rail electrification with Germany's. Some years we did loads, other years nothing at all. The Germans seemed to do pretty much the same mileage every year - steady, planned, incremental progress. Presumably the same team going round the country putting up wires. I would be willing to bet the Germans are doing it a lot cheaper than we are.
Quite. BR years were much more consistent too, though not completely so.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
It is a good article and it rightly doesn't point the problem at a "Spiv tax", the problem is NIMBYism.
There needs to be an abolition of NIMBYism or "reviews" and just get it done. Pick a route, get the land and just build it. No more spending years going back and forth with reviews.
So you don't want infrastructure near you? Tough.
Good to see the FT recognise what I was saying yesterday too, the UK has neglected its roads for years now and not been developing them.
If this country is to move forwards we need to start investing in infrastructure - and not be held back by the lowest common denominator of NIMBYs.
Allow people to object to 10 houses going up near to them, but take away endless reviews of strategically important matters. It was an idea from the Boris administration, and not a terrible one.
"You can't build houses here, we don't have the infrastructure" "OK, let's build the infrastructure" "Don't build the infrastructure, that'll lead to more houses!"
(I jest, but there's lots of non housing related stuff which is held up as well, not all roads would lead to such of course).
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
The idea that it’s cheaper to get the private sector to do things rather than the “inefficient” public sector is one of the great myths of our era.
HS2 is being designed and managed at a high level by the public sector, and built by the private sector. The £1.5bn A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme, and was finished early (in part) despite Covid and more or less on budget. It too was designed and managed by the public sector at a high level, and built by the private sector.
There are many reasons why these projects can come in over budget and late; but decisions made early on in the project, and at a high level, can make a massive difference. As one example, who takes on risk for overruns, and how much do you set aside for such overruns?
The vast majority of large projects have both public and private involvement; partly because it is impossible to do anything large *without* governmental intervention at some level. And that's good; but it's easy for one side or the other to throw blame at the other side.
A very significant cost of HS2 relates to the contract. The government wants the consortium to be on the hook for decades for all kinds of unlikely scenarios. That has pushed the design into being built to withstand a 2012-style cataclysm with the costs for that as you might expect.
Had we built a high speed rail line at a spec and legal exposure that isn't insane, the cost would be a lot less.
Another example is the Great Western electrification fiasco. We had lost the industry knowledge to do such projects post-privatisation and had to start largely from scratch. So we ended up with ugly over-engineered masts supporting vastly overweight catenary which required very deep footers.
The cost of course was insane, hence having long sections of route where they did the drilling for the footers and bought the vastly over-engineered masts only for the DfT to scrap the scheme and literally scrap the metalwork. Worse is that there is still one point on the route where the catenary wire has to limbo under a bridge which wasn't raised and then over a level crossing that wasn't bridged. A nice 110mph restriction for no reason than crap design.
Putting it simply, we are egregiously shit at these projects. We spend stupid amounts of cash to get crapola infrastructure.
I generally agree with that; but as the Cambridge to Huntingdon project shows, we can do it well. There are dozens of large infrastructure projects going on at any time, and most don't have massive problems. We notice the ones that do.
I'd also point out the reason we had lost industry knowledge of railway electrification was utterly down to the Brown and Blair governments, who only electrified a few miles of new route in 13 years (Crewe to Kidsgrove). Compared to virtually continuous electrification projects in the 1980s and 1990s.
The GWML electrification mess had many causes; from Dft mismanagement to Network Rail's reliance on untested technology. Thankfully they appear to have learnt many lessons for newer projects.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
In my limited experience foreign contractors seem to agree to take less risk than UK contractors. For example, 10 year liability rather than 12+, no or limited collateral warranties, etc. Must have a bearing on price.
New PB photo of choice for all Trump related threads.
I see he lied about both his height and weight.
215 lbs LOL.
If he's 6'3", then he's an inch taller than me. If he's 98kg, then he's only 8kg heavier than me at the moment... but wears that extra weight terribly.
I guess he's lying about the weight, obvs.
I understood those to be measurements taken at the courthouse.
From what I've seen on Twitter, they're self-declared.
The President of Guyana is now demanding slavery reparations. From the descendants of European Slave Traders. Fair enough, I am not a descendant of slavers.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
Greater Manchester Police appear to be most to blame.
Legal/Justice system taking 16 years to correct what they knew absolutely was a wrong decision is up there.
He was let down every step of the way, but it started with the police.
Please explain?
Presumbly the Police investigated, found the evidence that led them to think they had the right person and handed the evidence over to the CPS who were convinced by the evidence and where it convinced a jury that he was guilty too. That seems to be the Police doing their job.
Subsequent evidence helped show he was not guilty, and that was in the hands of the legal/justice system for years without them properly dealing with it.
The Police get many things wrong, but they seem least to blame in this instance?
He was convicted solely on identification evidence. The police both concealed the questionable history of their witnesses, and also facts which pointed to the potential availability of DNA evidence.
Whether it was wilful blindness, or actual malice is hard to say.
The distinction hardly matters, it's the common cultural problem of not caring about the law and the rules, seeing them as barriers to conviction ok to avoid.
The payment for ex-MPs who lose their seats is going to be doubled from 2 months to 4 months.
And now its going to apply to MPs who voluntarily step down, not just those who lose their seats too.
What absolute grift.
Cynics might suspect that a lot of MPs on the government side think they will lose their seats...
The extension to voluntary step-downs is probably worth it, though. Otherwise you get MPs standing, not because they want to win, but to get their hands on the cash.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
The idea that it’s cheaper to get the private sector to do things rather than the “inefficient” public sector is one of the great myths of our era.
HS2 is being designed and managed at a high level by the public sector, and built by the private sector. The £1.5bn A14 Cambridge to Huntingdon improvement scheme, and was finished early (in part) despite Covid and more or less on budget. It too was designed and managed by the public sector at a high level, and built by the private sector.
There are many reasons why these projects can come in over budget and late; but decisions made early on in the project, and at a high level, can make a massive difference. As one example, who takes on risk for overruns, and how much do you set aside for such overruns?
The vast majority of large projects have both public and private involvement; partly because it is impossible to do anything large *without* governmental intervention at some level. And that's good; but it's easy for one side or the other to throw blame at the other side.
I don't have any expertise in this area but I wonder sometimes whether part of our problem with HS2 etc is that we tend to go from feast to famine, splurging on big projects where we have to build expertise and systems up from scratch, then let it lie fallow before trying to pick it up all over again. If we had a kind of coordinated rolling programme which had an internal culture of learning and improving then perhaps we'd do it cheaper? Presumably someone on permanent staff costs less than a contractor who doesn't know if they've got a job in six months' time. I noticed the other day someone showed a graph comparing our rail electrification with Germany's. Some years we did loads, other years nothing at all. The Germans seemed to do pretty much the same mileage every year - steady, planned, incremental progress. Presumably the same team going round the country putting up wires. I would be willing to bet the Germans are doing it a lot cheaper than we are.
Absolutely. This is where our more successful infrastructure projects have done so much better - the upgrading of the tube system since the collapse of Metronet for example. German railways not a great example though seeing as they seem to be a bit of a basket case at the moment.
One thing about these various Inquiries bothers me, though (well, more than one..). It's that they are too focused on the particular. One on the appalling Malkinson miscarriage of justice. Another on the appalling Post Office Horizon miscarriage of justice. If we are really going to 'learn lessons', shouldn't we be focusing on what these scandals have in common, which will no doubt apply to the next appalling miscarriage of justice, and the many less publicised ones?
Similarly, the real lessons which should be learnt from the Letby case aren't really about a murderous staff member on a neo-natal ward, but about how the NHS handles whistleblowers. The Letby case is an extreme, but atypical, example of a wider dysfunction in investigating concerns. The lessons should focus on the wider issue.
You are absolutely right.
I see a lot of commonalities between these various scandals - not just with other NHS scandals but with police ones and City ones too. It is difficult enough to join up the lessons inside one organisation, though it is a very important part of what needs doing. But within government and and other public services? That should be one of those changes that ought to be made - to have someone / some team responsible for joining these dots and trying to do a read across not just in relation to why things have gone wrong but in how to put them right.
For instance, there is much the police and the NHS could learn from finance. I could bore on about this for ages. But no-one at the top will think: maybe we could learn from what other sectors have been through.
The whistleblowing aspect is particularly important. This is my day job. I have just written for one of my clients an article on this - and when published - happy to provide a link to anyone interested.
Organisations do not really understand - or choose to understand - the human behaviours behind why staff are worried about raising concerns and why those at the top react in the way they do. Until they do they will have little success building structures/ processes that encourage people to do the right thing and stop or make it hard for them to do the wrong thing.
The other key issue - especially in the NHS - is the absolute necessity of having an independent investigation team, independent of management, that staff could - because of its independence and professionalism - trust.
Infuriating. Honestly, I know I am blowing my own trumpet but there is lots people like me and plenty of others could do to help, inform and teach these organisations.
😠
One thing which jumped out of the page when I was reading the reports on the Letby case was the response to her allegation that the consultants had been 'bullying' her by raising concerns about the number of unexplained deaths on her watch. That seems to have triggered a much bigger process than the suspicious deaths themselves , culminating in the bizarre farce of 'mediation'. How the hell could anyone mediate between her, and the doctors who with good cause, and rightly as it turned out, suspected her of being responsible for those deaths?
And yet this is how the NHS works.
Presumably the mediator came up with proposals that both sides accept that she had only killed half the babies alleged.
Well, the jury did something quite similar.
True. I wonder how they feel about that now. They were out for a month. Most juries in my experience are back within 4 hours, 6 being the normal limit.
That the jury took several days to reach even the first verdicts should give us pause. We are discussing the inquiry as if Letby had been so obviously bang to rights that the hospital should have realised immediately.
And it was not only the jury. The police investigation lasted more than a year before Letby was arrested.
Two different tests: what the hospital needed to do was not assess whether the nurse was guilty of murder but whether there was a risk to those baby patients. There clearly was a risk and, given that there appeared to be no medical reasons for the deaths, the matter should have been reported to the police.
The test for assessing whether there was evidence of a crime and whether an individual is guilty of that crime is different and higher.
Money to pay off MPs' staff (especially those not related to the MP) seems reasonable. It is also a reminder that complaints that Nadine Dorries has abandoned her constituents might (or might not) be off the mark if her office staff are still active.
The President of Guyana is now demanding slavery reparations. From the descendants of European Slave Traders. Fair enough, I am not a descendant of slavers.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
BBC Today referred this morning to "X, formerly known as Twitter". It was a strange moment. Until that point I think most of us just continued thinking of it as Twitter with a silly new logo.
It's a bit like those country and city renamings. The most recent, which still hasn't caught on beyond diplomatic circles, being Turkiye. Though Twitter-X is a bit more in the Saigon-Ho Chi Minh City league.
The President of Guyana is now demanding slavery reparations. From the descendants of European Slave Traders. Fair enough, I am not a descendant of slavers.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
The President of Guyana is now demanding slavery reparations. From the descendants of European Slave Traders. Fair enough, I am not a descendant of slavers.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
Greater Manchester Police appear to be most to blame.
Legal/Justice system taking 16 years to correct what they knew absolutely was a wrong decision is up there.
He was let down every step of the way, but it started with the police.
Please explain?
Presumbly the Police investigated, found the evidence that led them to think they had the right person and handed the evidence over to the CPS who were convinced by the evidence and where it convinced a jury that he was guilty too. That seems to be the Police doing their job.
Subsequent evidence helped show he was not guilty, and that was in the hands of the legal/justice system for years without them properly dealing with it.
The Police get many things wrong, but they seem least to blame in this instance?
Incorrect. They concealed crucial evidence and forged other evidence.
But the CCRC did have the relevant information for years too, right? So they can't just blame the Police either, they need to take responsibility too.
An all round terrible failure.
I'm not letting the CCRC off the hook for their own failures, but they would have been irrelevant if the police hadn't fitted him up in the first place.
What puzzles me more is why they did that. There doesn't seem any particular reason for them to hate Malkinson which is the usual reason for somebody being fitted up. As far as I know he had no police record.
It is odd - but I don't think all that unusual ?
For another measure of how seriously the CCRC still takes the case:
Yet Helen Pitcher, the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), has been notably silent in answering questions about the chances it missed to end the 17 years Malkinson spent in prison for a rape he did not commit.
The Guardian can reveal that Pitcher has been in Montenegro, where she is promoting her property business...
The payment for ex-MPs who lose their seats is going to be doubled from 2 months to 4 months.
And now its going to apply to MPs who voluntarily step down, not just those who lose their seats too.
What absolute grift.
Cynics might suspect that a lot of MPs on the government side think they will lose their seats...
The extension to voluntary step-downs is probably worth it, though. Otherwise you get MPs standing, not because they want to win, but to get their hands on the cash.
In the real world you do a fixed contract, zero rsedundancxy at the end. Parliaments are no longer fixed term, so it's more a matter of your job disappearing, with due redundancy, which here is 2x statutory, plus this new extra employment specificallhy to handover. Which is not a bad thing in principle.
Edit: it's all becvause of this doctrine that there is nobody bossing a MP - so there is no-one else to deal with the HR and accounts.
IPSA document referenced says:
Based on our experience of previous elections, we know that in many cases the time taken to fully close down a former MP’s parliamentary affairs and financial affairs with IPSA is longer as there are numerous tasks to complete, for themselves, their office, and their staff. In more detail, the former MP will have to vacate their accommodation (if applicable), make arrangements to close down their office including the return and disposal of equipment and furniture and carry out repairs or restitution of office changes. They will need to have redundancy conversations with staff and manage and support their departure while balancing the ongoing requirements of the office and casework. All ongoing casework will have to be assessed so documents and correspondence can be seamlessly transferred. In the case of the next general election, this may also necessitate transfer to a different constituency, rather than the incoming MP. In recognition of the complexity of this process and the amount of time it is likely to take, a change has been made to the Scheme so that at the next general election, the winding-up period be extended from two months to four months. (MPs who leave Parliament before the next election will continue to have a two-month winding-up period.)
Rather assuming that all MPs are good employers/managers, but at least giving them no excuse.
The President of Guyana is now demanding slavery reparations. From the descendants of European Slave Traders. Fair enough, I am not a descendant of slavers.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
The Biden administration sued Elon Musk-owned rocket and satellite company SpaceX on Thursday for allegedly discriminating against asylum seekers and refugees in hiring.
“The lawsuit alleges that, from at least September 2018 to May 2022, SpaceX routinely discouraged asylees and refugees from applying and refused to hire or consider them, because of their citizenship status, in violation of the Immigration and Nationality Act,” the Justice Department said in a statement.
A politically motivated attack on a company run by an African American immigrant.
Not a good look !!!!
If you ever want to consider whether the term "African American" should be used for a white person, look up the Wikipedia flame war on Charlize Theron... ☹️
Comments
Looking at the first graph explains your observation. By and large, people thought who they were already supporting did well.
The third graph is perhaps more telling, looking at who people would consider voting for. Haley saw a large rise. Ramaswamy and Burgum(!) also saw notable rises. Trump fell. The fourth graph, looking at changes in favourability, is also interesting. Most candidates increased their favourable and their unfavourable ratings, shrinking the don’t knows. Pence stands out as already well known and one of the few who didn’t grow his favourable number.
Amusingly, they address all their letters to 'Cannock, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire.'
I guess he's lying about the weight, obvs.
Problem for the Tories is that being pro-oil is also them being anti farming and fishing and people and business and renewables. They have that one thing right for the local economy and everything else wrong for the local economy. So the question for Lickspittle Duguid etc is will people put king oil over everything else? Because whilst I agree with him on that he is wrong on every other subject.
Yes, senior managers absolutely can and sometimes do bully younger and more junior members of staff, especially males on females. That is a serious issue and too many companies are structurally blind to it. But bullying is a less serious allegation than murdering babies and there really needed to be something more robust in place than "stop taking advantage of this young woman you beasts"
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/35/section/13
The point I'm making is that standard of proof of guilt is "beyond reasonable doubt", so new evidence raising reasonable doubt should result in the appeal being upheld. But the CCRC comment makes it sound as they were dismissing the new evidence because it didn't provide certainty of innocence.
IS there any specific reason why this is such a hot topic now. There have been several stories about it in the press in the last few days. Is there a commemoration of slavery taking place, or a concerted effort by reparations lobbyists ?
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/president-of-guyana-demands-slavery-reparations-ahead-of-apology/ar-AA1fJUia?ocid=entnewsntp&cvid=fdf74560a2ea4615ab0c06ca1a085289&ei=13
Could believe the height, although it's not what I would have guessed, but if he's that tall he's 300lb easy.
https://twitter.com/JamesFallows/status/1694863739000906168
The US will start training "several" Ukrainian pilots and "dozens of maintainers" to fly F-16s in October. The training will be held in Tucson, Arizona, Pentagon says
https://twitter.com/Hromadske/status/1694947328715604366
HR bods seem quite happy doing unpleasant stuff like making people redundant when its large scale. I think its the one on one stuff that the poor ones struggle with - which is funny when you consider the councillor part of their role.
After all, it is his fourth indictment.
Suppose they had done the DNA test and it didn't match anyone, ie it was an unknown male, which they knew already. And suppose there was no other new evidence (actually they missed other things), and given that DNA might not be crime related, they might decide it wasn't compelling enough on its own to refer the case.
The point is you need to assess all the evidence, which they didn't do, and come to a decision in the round, which they also didn't do.
Detail here:
https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/aug/15/police-and-cps-had-key-dna-evidence-16-years-before-andrew-malkinson-cleared-of-rape
In the light of this, the prosecution argument at trial, which led to his conviction, appears absurd:
...with the prosecution arguing he left no DNA because he was “forensically aware”...
Had the evidence been available at trial, he would almost certainly not have been convicted.
I will accept £35 million and a knighthood (GCMG) to correct the damage caused to my family.
And it was not only the jury. The police investigation lasted more than a year before Letby was arrested.
LDEM: 47.9% (+47.9)
CON: 29.3% (-2.5)
IG: 17.9% (-29.4)
GRN: 4.8% (-8.7)
Votes cast: 992
Liberal Democrat GAIN from Independent Group.
US dramas meant I thought a mug shot would be them stood in front of a striped height chart holding a sign with their name on it etc
Not just these rather grumpy but rather ordinary looking pictures.
Why do infrastructure projects cost so many multiples more here than they do in any European country? Examples of road and rail projects given where the relative costs are astronomical.
Yes I get the "NIMBY tax" point they make. Some will say "our island is congested" - but we cost almost double the costs in Japan... Surely a lot of this is the Spiv tax. We pay a lot more than everyone else because fuck you. We don't have StateCo infrastructure companies like France so we get reamed by consortia who have a 47x markup on items as revenue earners. So HS2 costs 8x the cost per mile of the most recent LGV in France.
For all of the public vs private sector arguments, it is telling that countries where it is all done in the public sector have a lot more infrastructure than we do and at a lower cost.
Most relevant being a Labour gain from Conservative in Dudley on a straight 11% swing.
But also Lib Dem win in IoW on 47% from not standing last time (swing less relevant as Vectis had the seat last time).
And Green holding on in Bristol and seeming to consolidate minor party support.
MadNad is a canny lass.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66612463.amp
Actually, scrub that last one, I don't think the people of Cardiff should have to look at his naked body.
It is absolutely unwarranted to assume, or even to suggest, that there is doubt over the convictions simply because of the length of the investigation, and time taken by the jury.
"The BMA is deeply concerned that Epsom and St Hellier University Hospitals NHS Trust is seeking to force Dr Usha Prasad to pay the Trust’s costs in relation to the employment tribunal process stemming from Dr Prasad raising patient safety issues🧵"
https://twitter.com/TheBMA/status/1694658364251234494?t=lrjRZWg4jFvlKBk-p_txMw&s=19
There needs to be an abolition of NIMBYism or "reviews" and just get it done. Pick a route, get the land and just build it. No more spending years going back and forth with reviews.
So you don't want infrastructure near you? Tough.
Good to see the FT recognise what I was saying yesterday too, the UK has neglected its roads for years now and not been developing them.
If this country is to move forwards we need to start investing in infrastructure - and not be held back by the lowest common denominator of NIMBYs.
It's that independence which creates the trust necessary for whistleblowers and helps avoid the conflicts of interest which so fatally undermined what HR and managers did in the Letby case.
https://davidhencke.com/2023/08/16/usha-prasad-whistleblower-consultant-cardiologist-faces-record-180000-cost-claim-from-nhs-health-trust/
As in, certain senior officers may be committing criminal fraud.
Presumbly the Police investigated, found the evidence that led them to think they had the right person and handed the evidence over to the CPS who were convinced by the evidence and where it convinced a jury that he was guilty too. That seems to be the Police doing their job.
Subsequent evidence helped show he was not guilty, and that was in the hands of the legal/justice system for years without them properly dealing with it.
The Police get many things wrong, but they seem least to blame in this instance?
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/andrew-malkinson-vindicated-over-gmp-27473258
There are many reasons why these projects can come in over budget and late; but decisions made early on in the project, and at a high level, can make a massive difference. As one example, who takes on risk for overruns, and how much do you set aside for such overruns?
The vast majority of large projects have both public and private involvement; partly because it is impossible to do anything large *without* governmental intervention at some level. And that's good; but it's easy for one side or the other to throw blame at the other side.
Shows how good he was at faking integrity.
That's a swing in Dudley TO the Tories of 2.1% since May. It's a Lab gain on the 2021 election, but a ward the Tories only won in '21 and '22.
But Bristol is a much better Labour result. A swing of 6.9% from the
Greens since 2021.
Another stonking win from nowhere for the LD's in IOW.
But the CCRC did have the relevant information for years too, right? So they can't just blame the Police either, they need to take responsibility too.
An all round terrible failure.
Had we built a high speed rail line at a spec and legal exposure that isn't insane, the cost would be a lot less.
Another example is the Great Western electrification fiasco. We had lost the industry knowledge to do such projects post-privatisation and had to start largely from scratch. So we ended up with ugly over-engineered masts supporting vastly overweight catenary which required very deep footers.
The cost of course was insane, hence having long sections of route where they did the drilling for the footers and bought the vastly over-engineered masts only for the DfT to scrap the scheme and literally scrap the metalwork. Worse is that there is still one point on the route where the catenary wire has to limbo under a bridge which wasn't raised and then over a level crossing that wasn't bridged. A nice 110mph restriction for no reason than crap design.
Putting it simply, we are egregiously shit at these projects. We spend stupid amounts of cash to get crapola infrastructure.
The police both concealed the questionable history of their witnesses, and also facts which pointed to the potential availability of DNA evidence.
Whether it was wilful blindness, or actual malice is hard to say.
What puzzles me more is why they did that. There doesn't seem any particular reason for them to hate Malkinson which is the usual reason for somebody being fitted up. As far as I know he had no police record.
I noticed the other day someone showed a graph comparing our rail electrification with Germany's. Some years we did loads, other years nothing at all. The Germans seemed to do pretty much the same mileage every year - steady, planned, incremental progress. Presumably the same team going round the country putting up wires. I would be willing to bet the Germans are doing it a lot cheaper than we are.
As for the Spiv tax bit, its hardly a surprise that the FT avoids it. But there are plenty of projects where there are few objections if any, yet the cost is insane. Look at the cost of building a new railway station. A fairly simple one, with support from the locals, and no issues getting permission.
How is the cost that high? It isn't the materials used - we had a few examples on this forum a few weeks ago of almost brutalist finishes on buildings. It isn't planning delays. Its that the price of said brutalism is £bonkers and we just pay it. That we make any construction go though huge legal hoops - building a new station on an existing line? Its gonna cost ya. That is the spiv tax. Not the cost of construction or materials. The legal costs. Insurance. Contract management of the contractor and an army of sub-contractors. Security. Ker-bloody-ching.
The payment for ex-MPs who lose their seats is going to be doubled from 2 months to 4 months.
And now its going to apply to MPs who voluntarily step down, not just those who lose their seats too.
What absolute grift.
"You can't build houses here, we don't have the infrastructure"
"OK, let's build the infrastructure"
"Don't build the infrastructure, that'll lead to more houses!"
(I jest, but there's lots of non housing related stuff which is held up as well, not all roads would lead to such of course).
I'd also point out the reason we had lost industry knowledge of railway electrification was utterly down to the Brown and Blair governments, who only electrified a few miles of new route in 13 years (Crewe to Kidsgrove). Compared to virtually continuous electrification projects in the 1980s and 1990s.
The GWML electrification mess had many causes; from Dft mismanagement to Network Rail's reliance on untested technology. Thankfully they appear to have learnt many lessons for newer projects.
Roland Rolloff.
In my limited experience foreign contractors seem to agree to take less risk than UK contractors. For example, 10 year liability rather than 12+, no or limited collateral warranties, etc. Must have a bearing on price.
https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1694886846050771321
The extension to voluntary step-downs is probably worth it, though. Otherwise you get MPs standing, not because they want to win, but to get their hands on the cash.
The test for assessing whether there was evidence of a crime and whether an individual is guilty of that crime is different and higher.
It's a bit like those country and city renamings. The most recent, which still hasn't caught on beyond diplomatic circles, being Turkiye. Though Twitter-X is a bit more in the Saigon-Ho Chi Minh City league.
For another measure of how seriously the CCRC still takes the case:
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2023/aug/25/case-review-chief-was-in-montenegro-during-andrew-malkinson-revelations
..Ever since Andrew Malkinson was exonerated last month, the clamour for answers from the miscarriages of justice watchdog who twice failed to refer his case for appeal has grown.
Yet Helen Pitcher, the chair of the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), has been notably silent in answering questions about the chances it missed to end the 17 years Malkinson spent in prison for a rape he did not commit.
The Guardian can reveal that Pitcher has been in Montenegro, where she is promoting her property business...
Edit: it's all becvause of this doctrine that there is nobody bossing a MP - so there is no-one else to deal with the HR and accounts.
IPSA document referenced says:
Based on our experience of previous elections, we know that in many cases the time taken to
fully close down a former MP’s parliamentary affairs and financial affairs with IPSA is longer
as there are numerous tasks to complete, for themselves, their office, and their staff.
In more detail, the former MP will have to vacate their accommodation (if applicable), make
arrangements to close down their office including the return and disposal of equipment and
furniture and carry out repairs or restitution of office changes.
They will need to have redundancy conversations with staff and manage and support their
departure while balancing the ongoing requirements of the office and casework.
All ongoing casework will have to be assessed so documents and correspondence can be
seamlessly transferred.
In the case of the next general election, this may also necessitate transfer to a different
constituency, rather than the incoming MP.
In recognition of the complexity of this process and the amount of time it is likely to take, a
change has been made to the Scheme so that at the next general election, the winding-up
period be extended from two months to four months. (MPs who leave Parliament before the
next election will continue to have a two-month winding-up period.)
Rather assuming that all MPs are good employers/managers, but at least giving them no excuse.