He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
How many Iraqis died? Hundreds of thousands wasn't it? And we went to war on lies cooked up (partly) by AC to make the case look more damning. And the man who knew it had been sexed up was hounded to take his own life.
You won't find me defending Blair/Campbell on Iraq. We should not have got involved. It was terrible decision driven by a peculiar mix of hubris and servility.
However let's not start assigning blame for all the casualties of that war - or its toxic aftermath - on them. That would be a nonsense. The US were doing it regardless.
If the US were doing it anyway, it is even more despicable that we went along and soaked our hands in Iraqi blood.
There was a historical precedent. Wilson didn't sign up to Vietnam.
It was a terrible error, no question, but was it worse on account of it making little practical difference? I don't see that. Surely if us joining had meant the invasion happened rather than didn't happen *that* would have been worse. Because in that case our involvement would have been key to the whole episode.
Bernard Woolley : About ends and means. I mean, will I end up as a moral vacuum too? Sir Humphrey Appleby : Oh, I hope so, Bernard. If you work hard enough.
LOL - very good. That Yes Minster eh. What a prog. Just does not age.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
How many Iraqis died? Hundreds of thousands wasn't it? And we went to war on lies cooked up (partly) by AC to make the case look more damning. And the man who knew it had been sexed up was hounded to take his own life.
You won't find me defending Blair/Campbell on Iraq. We should not have got involved. It was terrible decision driven by a peculiar mix of hubris and servility.
However let's not start assigning blame for all the casualties of that war - or its toxic aftermath - on them. That would be a nonsense. The US were doing it regardless.
If the US were doing it anyway, it is even more despicable that we went along and soaked our hands in Iraqi blood.
There was a historical precedent. Wilson didn't sign up to Vietnam.
It was a terrible error, no question, but was it worse on account of it making little practical difference? I don't see that. Surely if us joining had meant the invasion happened rather than didn't happen *that* would have been worse. Because in that case our involvement would have been key to the whole episode.
I think that the argument that it didn't matter what Britain did in relation to Iraq, because the US would have gone ahead regardless, is a reprehensible moral cowardice.
Supporting the USA in Iraq was by far Blair’s biggest error. Should have listened to the ghost of Harold Wilson.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
How many Iraqis died? Hundreds of thousands wasn't it? And we went to war on lies cooked up (partly) by AC to make the case look more damning. And the man who knew it had been sexed up was hounded to take his own life.
You won't find me defending Blair/Campbell on Iraq. We should not have got involved. It was terrible decision driven by a peculiar mix of hubris and servility.
However let's not start assigning blame for all the casualties of that war - or its toxic aftermath - on them. That would be a nonsense. The US were doing it regardless.
If the US were doing it anyway, it is even more despicable that we went along and soaked our hands in Iraqi blood.
There was a historical precedent. Wilson didn't sign up to Vietnam.
It was a terrible error, no question, but was it worse on account of it making little practical difference? I don't see that. Surely if us joining had meant the invasion happened rather than didn't happen *that* would have been worse. Because in that case our involvement would have been key to the whole episode.
I think that the argument that it didn't matter what Britain did in relation to Iraq, because the US would have gone ahead regardless, is a reprehensible moral cowardice.
Supporting the USA in Iraq was by far Blair’s biggest error. Should have listened to the ghost of Harold Wilson.
Iraq has actually turned out more successful than Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein's regime was removed, he is dead and it now has an elected government and is largely ISIS free. Saddam or one of his sons would have been one of Putin's biggest funders and supporters now.
Afghanistan meanwhile is back under the rule of the Taliban and even Bin Laden ended up being killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan
I don't think we've really got to grips with the near term implications of the developments in drone use (and their mass production) during the war. They will not be confined to Ukraine, and I doubt they will be entirely confined to use within the confines of war, either.
Sahra Wagenknecht has stated the BSW would prefer to go into coalition with the CDU and the SPD. Quoted from the Deutsche Welle site:
"We very much hope that we can eventually get a good government with the CDU — probably also with the [center-left] SPD," Wagenknecht told Germany's state broadcaster ARD.
In Thuringia, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 44 of the 88 Landtag seats so not quite a majority but probably sufficient to govern.
In Saxony, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 66 seats in the 120 seat Landtag so a majority there.
It's an interesting development and further marginalises Alternativ as it would provide additional options for coalition building after the next Federal election. Currently, a CDU/SPD/Green AND a CDU/SPD/BSW government would have a majority on polling.
What we don't of course know is how the CDU or SPD will react but Wagenknecht has seized the initiative.
Sahra Wagenknecht has stated the BSW would prefer to go into coalition with the CDU and the SPD. Quoted from the Deutsche Welle site:
"We very much hope that we can eventually get a good government with the CDU — probably also with the [center-left] SPD," Wagenknecht told Germany's state broadcaster ARD.
In Thuringia, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 44 of the 88 Landtag seats so not quite a majority but probably sufficient to govern.
In Saxony, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 66 seats in the 120 seat Landtag so a majority there.
It's an interesting development and further marginalises Alternativ as it would provide additional options for coalition building after the next Federal election. Currently, a CDU/SPD/Green AND a CDU/SPD/BSW government would have a majority on polling.
Thanks Stodge can you sum up, briefly, what just happened in Germany.
Not only did I nearly DIE this morning after being hurled from my canoe into the notoriously lethal class 834 “borovi” rapids of the world’s third deepest river canyon I have just this minute found THESE
The Accursed Mountains are behind me and the stupefying Piva Gorge opens ahead, but right in front of me are these. The “stecci”, mysterious 13-15th century warrior tombs that no one quite understands, often engraved with pagan and pre-Christian symbols (swastikas, wheels, running deer) and placed in awesome noomy spots - like this - all of which says to some scholars the tradition of the stecci might actually stretch back to Eurasia’s megalithic past, to Stonehenge, Ggantija and even Gobekli Tepe
Now, a beer
There's a bar there as well?
Actually - yes. A really nice kind of skiing lodge bar. And perfectly positioned. I’d show you a photo but I’ve run out of photo rations
Noom and beer?
You'll never leave.
Montenegro is replete with Noom. I just did the most stupendous drive around the Durmator mountains. Fantastic views of outrageous mountains like Utah meets Dartmoor meets Mordor
That came AFTER I drove down maybe the most spectacular gorge I have ever seen - Piva gorge - and learned it was the site of possibly the fiercest Nazi-resistance fighting anywhere in Europe. The Yugoslav partisans under tito really didn’t mind dying if they could take out a Nazi as well
It’s such a perplexing place. So beautiful yet so dark, so full of loveliness yet full of ancient hatreds and modern wars
And those mad mad mad mad megalithic warrior tombs
To be fair to @kinabalu, supporting one genocide is probably at the edge of decent left-wing behaviour, but supporting two would be beyond the pale.
You're more the genocide apologist round here.
So we are both genocide apologists but I'm more of one. That it? What comparative metric are you using here, for general reference. Is it numbers of people killed. Or political party in charge when it was being carried out.
Let's do it this way. It'll be easier.
US/UK in Iraq Israel in Gaza
I support neither. You supported the first at the time and support the second now.
Correct?
You support neither but think the person who was the architect of the UK's contribution to the former is a bloody entertaining broadcaster and shouldn't be criticised for past deeds and you can't understand why everyone is laughing at you.
This is getting a bit puerile, isn't it. I guess I know what to do. Bye for now.
(cues up next episode of the Rest is Politics with Rory Stewart and Alast ... with him)
Badenoch is very good at articulating a traditional Tory message. Whether the electorate are really after that right now, and whether she is effective enough to deliver it, I have some significant doubts.
No doubt she is a good communicator. But she still seems very hung up on weird things like Doctor Who being nasty about her (which he was, but as a campaign beat? Hmmm).
It was a super bad look from David Tennant and I am prepared to believe he was too bound up with his luvviedom to realise what he said as he was saying it. He realised as soon as he had said it tbf but that's how wars start...
{innocent face}
Turf wars?
{ducks}
As mentioned earlier, it would be hugely amusing if JKRowling were to offer to do a six-part series fully self-funded for the BBC about her life and work.
Self-funded broadcasts?
They're called adverts, aren't they? And as such, pretty easy for the Beeb to refuse.
Or don't offer to fund it. Offer to make with them a programme about her life and work, unparalleled access, etc and watch the Beeb squirm.
Maybe thirty years ago. A South Bank Show (except that was ITV), or an episode of Omnibus. There's Imagine with Alan Yentob I suppose, but that makes about six episodes a year covering everything arty.
JKR could offer, I suppose. But it would be pretty easy for the Beeb to say "maybe in 2030". And if she were to kick off, she would look like a crazy lady with an overinflated sense of importance.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
How many Iraqis died? Hundreds of thousands wasn't it? And we went to war on lies cooked up (partly) by AC to make the case look more damning. And the man who knew it had been sexed up was hounded to take his own life.
You won't find me defending Blair/Campbell on Iraq. We should not have got involved. It was terrible decision driven by a peculiar mix of hubris and servility.
However let's not start assigning blame for all the casualties of that war - or its toxic aftermath - on them. That would be a nonsense. The US were doing it regardless.
If the US were doing it anyway, it is even more despicable that we went along and soaked our hands in Iraqi blood.
There was a historical precedent. Wilson didn't sign up to Vietnam.
I'd have had no problem going into Syria, Iran or Iraq - as well as Afghanistan - and getting rid of horrible repressive and ugly regimes *provided it worked*.
The issue with Iraq is that it didn't work.
Specifically, the plan seemed to finish with Saddam's death.
Not only did I nearly DIE this morning after being hurled from my canoe into the notoriously lethal class 834 “borovi” rapids of the world’s third deepest river canyon I have just this minute found THESE
The Accursed Mountains are behind me and the stupefying Piva Gorge opens ahead, but right in front of me are these. The “stecci”, mysterious 13-15th century warrior tombs that no one quite understands, often engraved with pagan and pre-Christian symbols (swastikas, wheels, running deer) and placed in awesome noomy spots - like this - all of which says to some scholars the tradition of the stecci might actually stretch back to Eurasia’s megalithic past, to Stonehenge, Ggantija and even Gobekli Tepe
Now, a beer
There's a bar there as well?
Actually - yes. A really nice kind of skiing lodge bar. And perfectly positioned. I’d show you a photo but I’ve run out of photo rations
Noom and beer?
You'll never leave.
Montenegro is replete with Noom. I just did the most stupendous drive around the Durmator mountains. Fantastic views of outrageous mountains like Utah meets Dartmoor meets Mordor
That came AFTER I drove down maybe the most spectacular gorge I have ever seen - Piva gorge - and learned it was the site of possibly the fiercest Nazi-resistance fighting anywhere in Europe. The Yugoslav partisans under tito really didn’t mind dying if they could take out a Nazi as well
It’s such a perplexing place. So beautiful yet so dark, so full of loveliness yet full of ancient hatreds and modern wars
And those mad mad mad mad megalithic warrior tombs
The Yugoslav partisans were wild to say the least.
And ancient hatreds is a specialism of the Balkans. No one else does it better.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
How many Iraqis died? Hundreds of thousands wasn't it? And we went to war on lies cooked up (partly) by AC to make the case look more damning. And the man who knew it had been sexed up was hounded to take his own life.
You won't find me defending Blair/Campbell on Iraq. We should not have got involved. It was terrible decision driven by a peculiar mix of hubris and servility.
However let's not start assigning blame for all the casualties of that war - or its toxic aftermath - on them. That would be a nonsense. The US were doing it regardless.
If the US were doing it anyway, it is even more despicable that we went along and soaked our hands in Iraqi blood.
There was a historical precedent. Wilson didn't sign up to Vietnam.
It was a terrible error, no question, but was it worse on account of it making little practical difference? I don't see that. Surely if us joining had meant the invasion happened rather than didn't happen *that* would have been worse. Because in that case our involvement would have been key to the whole episode.
I think that the argument that it didn't matter what Britain did in relation to Iraq, because the US would have gone ahead regardless, is a reprehensible moral cowardice.
Supporting the USA in Iraq was by far Blair’s biggest error. Should have listened to the ghost of Harold Wilson.
The alternative history of Iraq had 2003 not happened is an intriguing topic.
Iraq has had 2 decades of bloodshed, 2 waves of Islamist insurgency including the IS occupation after 2012. It’s now relatively more stable than for a while and sort of democratic, but all but one Kurdish corner is still red (do not travel) on the FCDO map.
Without the war?
Scenario 1 (optimistic): Saddam kept in check by sanctions until 2011 at which point he’d have been toppled in the Arab Spring. AQ in Iraq would never have had the chance to develop, meaning the seeds of ISIS wouldn’t have been sown, so that in the aftermath of 2011 a democratic moderate polity could have come about. What’s more, without the shadow of Iraq hanging over them, and without the distraction of IS, British and US politicians would have gone ahead and intervened against Assad in Syria after his first use of chemical weapons, and he might have been toppled too.
Scenario 2 (pessimistic): No Iraq war, but it would be an equal mess now either because it fell into a Syria-style civil war after the Arab Spring, or because that upheaval triggered a Libya style intervention which in turn sent it into chaos.
Sahra Wagenknecht has stated the BSW would prefer to go into coalition with the CDU and the SPD. Quoted from the Deutsche Welle site:
"We very much hope that we can eventually get a good government with the CDU — probably also with the [center-left] SPD," Wagenknecht told Germany's state broadcaster ARD.
In Thuringia, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 44 of the 88 Landtag seats so not quite a majority but probably sufficient to govern.
In Saxony, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 66 seats in the 120 seat Landtag so a majority there.
It's an interesting development and further marginalises Alternativ as it would provide additional options for coalition building after the next Federal election. Currently, a CDU/SPD/Green AND a CDU/SPD/BSW government would have a majority on polling.
What we don't of course know is how the CDU or SPD will react but Wagenknecht has seized the initiative.
Given the CDU/CSU are projected most seats on current German Federal polls I suspect CDU leader Merz would insist on a CDU/CSU and SPD and FDP government if possible and the FDP remain in the Bundestag with him as Chancellor. Even if he excluded the AfD he would prefer the FDP to be in government than the Greens or a hard left party as he is on the right of the CDU
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
How many Iraqis died? Hundreds of thousands wasn't it? And we went to war on lies cooked up (partly) by AC to make the case look more damning. And the man who knew it had been sexed up was hounded to take his own life.
You won't find me defending Blair/Campbell on Iraq. We should not have got involved. It was terrible decision driven by a peculiar mix of hubris and servility.
However let's not start assigning blame for all the casualties of that war - or its toxic aftermath - on them. That would be a nonsense. The US were doing it regardless.
If the US were doing it anyway, it is even more despicable that we went along and soaked our hands in Iraqi blood.
There was a historical precedent. Wilson didn't sign up to Vietnam.
It was a terrible error, no question, but was it worse on account of it making little practical difference? I don't see that. Surely if us joining had meant the invasion happened rather than didn't happen *that* would have been worse. Because in that case our involvement would have been key to the whole episode.
I think that the argument that it didn't matter what Britain did in relation to Iraq, because the US would have gone ahead regardless, is a reprehensible moral cowardice.
Supporting the USA in Iraq was by far Blair’s biggest error. Should have listened to the ghost of Harold Wilson.
Iraq has actually turned out more successful than Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein's regime was removed, he is dead and it now has an elected government and is largely ISIS free. Saddam or one of his sons would have been one of Putin's biggest funders and supporters now.
Afghanistan meanwhile is back under the rule of the Taliban and even Bin Laden ended up being killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan
Given that Iran is pro-Russian, it’s unlikely that Saddam’s Iraq would have been.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
Absolutely. All those Iraqis were just NPCs - Campbell was the one who truly suffered.
Premeditated lying and faking information to start a war isn’t even a real crime.
And your point is what? That you don't rate him as a pundit? Or that he shouldn't even be one?
That he is, to use technical terminology, a deliberately lying cunt, with a great deal of blood on his hands. Which got there from his considered and intended actions over a period of time.
If you want to hit at his feet... well, that says things about you.
That's a bit better but I'm still not 100% clear what you're driving at.
It sounds like you're saying that to quite like Alastair Campbell as a podcaster is to be indifferent to the suffering caused by the US/UK invasion of Iraq.
But that can't be right surely?
What's your view on the poetry of Radovan Karadžić?
To be fair to @kinabalu, supporting one genocide is probably at the edge of decent left-wing behaviour, but supporting two would be beyond the pale.
You're more the genocide apologist round here.
So we are both genocide apologists but I'm more of one. That it? What comparative metric are you using here, for general reference. Is it numbers of people killed. Or political party in charge when it was being carried out.
Let's do it this way. It'll be easier.
US/UK in Iraq Israel in Gaza
I support neither. You supported the first at the time and support the second now.
Correct?
You support neither but think the person who was the architect of the UK's contribution to the former is a bloody entertaining broadcaster and shouldn't be criticised for past deeds and you can't understand why everyone is laughing at you.
This is getting a bit puerile, isn't it. I guess I know what to do. Bye for now.
(cues up next episode of the Rest is Politics with Rory Stewart and Alast ... with him)
Listen to the one with Frank Luntz and hear what he says about AC.
To be fair to @kinabalu, supporting one genocide is probably at the edge of decent left-wing behaviour, but supporting two would be beyond the pale.
You're more the genocide apologist round here.
So we are both genocide apologists but I'm more of one. That it? What comparative metric are you using here, for general reference. Is it numbers of people killed. Or political party in charge when it was being carried out.
Let's do it this way. It'll be easier.
US/UK in Iraq Israel in Gaza
I support neither. You supported the first at the time and support the second now.
Correct?
You support neither but think the person who was the architect of the UK's contribution to the former is a bloody entertaining broadcaster and shouldn't be criticised for past deeds and you can't understand why everyone is laughing at you.
This is getting a bit puerile, isn't it. I guess I know what to do. Bye for now.
(cues up next episode of the Rest is Politics with Rory Stewart and Alast ... with him)
Oh that's a shame, we were all having such fun. Except you, obvs.
A civil servant who missed opportunities to stop the Grenfell Tower tragedy is now working as a fire safety expert in tribunals over combustible cladding, The Times can reveal.
Brian Martin, the ex-head of technical policy for building regulation at the former Department for Communities and Local Government, is selling his services as an independent witness.
He testified in the first UK cladding tribunal case last year as a fire safety engineer, when a group of leaseholders faced their landlord over the cost of removing cladding from their homes.
The cladding involved in the tribunal was aluminium composite material (ACM) — the same material which was wrapped around Grenfell Tower before the 2017 fire which killed 72 people. Martin had been responsible for official building regulations guidance on fire safety for almost 18 years by the time of the Grenfell fire.
During his evidence to the Grenfell public inquiry, he admitted being “a single point of failure” in his government department over the disaster and said he missed chances to stop it.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
A civil servant who missed opportunities to stop the Grenfell Tower tragedy is now working as a fire safety expert in tribunals over combustible cladding, The Times can reveal.
Like someone working in Chernobyl going on to work further as an expert in the nuclear industry.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
That is true, and a very long trial didn't find any. Everyone should keep open the possibility some still actually exists, everyone knows juries and prosecutors make mistakes, but the tone of a lot of the reporting is more 'Well I have doubts because X, therefore this is an outrage there must have been reasonable doubt', when X may still be interpreted different ways.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
A civil servant who missed opportunities to stop the Grenfell Tower tragedy is now working as a fire safety expert in tribunals over combustible cladding, The Times can reveal.
Like someone working in Chernobyl going on to work further as an expert in the nuclear industry.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
How many Iraqis died? Hundreds of thousands wasn't it? And we went to war on lies cooked up (partly) by AC to make the case look more damning. And the man who knew it had been sexed up was hounded to take his own life.
You won't find me defending Blair/Campbell on Iraq. We should not have got involved. It was terrible decision driven by a peculiar mix of hubris and servility.
However let's not start assigning blame for all the casualties of that war - or its toxic aftermath - on them. That would be a nonsense. The US were doing it regardless.
If the US were doing it anyway, it is even more despicable that we went along and soaked our hands in Iraqi blood.
There was a historical precedent. Wilson didn't sign up to Vietnam.
It was a terrible error, no question, but was it worse on account of it making little practical difference? I don't see that. Surely if us joining had meant the invasion happened rather than didn't happen *that* would have been worse. Because in that case our involvement would have been key to the whole episode.
I think that the argument that it didn't matter what Britain did in relation to Iraq, because the US would have gone ahead regardless, is a reprehensible moral cowardice.
Supporting the USA in Iraq was by far Blair’s biggest error. Should have listened to the ghost of Harold Wilson.
The alternative history of Iraq had 2003 not happened is an intriguing topic.
Iraq has had 2 decades of bloodshed, 2 waves of Islamist insurgency including the IS occupation after 2012. It’s now relatively more stable than for a while and sort of democratic, but all but one Kurdish corner is still red (do not travel) on the FCDO map.
Without the war?
Scenario 1 (optimistic): Saddam kept in check by sanctions until 2011 at which point he’d have been toppled in the Arab Spring. AQ in Iraq would never have had the chance to develop, meaning the seeds of ISIS wouldn’t have been sown, so that in the aftermath of 2011 a democratic moderate polity could have come about. What’s more, without the shadow of Iraq hanging over them, and without the distraction of IS, British and US politicians would have gone ahead and intervened against Assad in Syria after his first use of chemical weapons, and he might have been toppled too.
Scenario 2 (pessimistic): No Iraq war, but it would be an equal mess now either because it fell into a Syria-style civil war after the Arab Spring, or because that upheaval triggered a Libya style intervention which in turn sent it into chaos.
If Assad survived the Arab Spring, Saddam certainly would have
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
How many Iraqis died? Hundreds of thousands wasn't it? And we went to war on lies cooked up (partly) by AC to make the case look more damning. And the man who knew it had been sexed up was hounded to take his own life.
You won't find me defending Blair/Campbell on Iraq. We should not have got involved. It was terrible decision driven by a peculiar mix of hubris and servility.
However let's not start assigning blame for all the casualties of that war - or its toxic aftermath - on them. That would be a nonsense. The US were doing it regardless.
If the US were doing it anyway, it is even more despicable that we went along and soaked our hands in Iraqi blood.
There was a historical precedent. Wilson didn't sign up to Vietnam.
It was a terrible error, no question, but was it worse on account of it making little practical difference? I don't see that. Surely if us joining had meant the invasion happened rather than didn't happen *that* would have been worse. Because in that case our involvement would have been key to the whole episode.
I think that the argument that it didn't matter what Britain did in relation to Iraq, because the US would have gone ahead regardless, is a reprehensible moral cowardice.
Supporting the USA in Iraq was by far Blair’s biggest error. Should have listened to the ghost of Harold Wilson.
Iraq has actually turned out more successful than Afghanistan. Saddam Hussein's regime was removed, he is dead and it now has an elected government and is largely ISIS free. Saddam or one of his sons would have been one of Putin's biggest funders and supporters now.
Afghanistan meanwhile is back under the rule of the Taliban and even Bin Laden ended up being killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan
Given that Iran is pro-Russian, it’s unlikely that Saddam’s Iraq would have been.
I wouldn't go that far but certainly there were some witnesses for the defence who could have been called who weren't at the trial
Interesting. So far I have seen nothing to indicate the convictions are not safe.
You need to start with the 56 page court of appeal judgment, see if anything in that is properly open to precise criticism.
You then have to guess why the defence didn't call its experts (see para 5), using the obvious explanation unless you have a better one.
Then draft, in ordinary English, the precise (not vague or hand waving) ground or grounds which you argue render the convictions unsafe either because of fresh evidence (be precise), or that the evidence for the prosecution was in precise ways false, or failed to give scope for a jury to convict. Note there was corroboration of the evidence.
Then ask and explain why the defence didn't use your grounds in their appeal.
General and imprecise points about stats, rotas, other reasons for dying etc won't do.
Have you ever worked at Womble Bond Dickinson by any chance?
No, and your exact point in relation to the Letby trials is?
Read the article. Then let's talk. I value your evidently informed view of it all.
Edit: I mean there wasn't any evidence that she killed anyone but that doesn't seem to have mattered. Is that ever a factor in such trials? That there needs to be evidence for the crime. Perhaps not. Read the article and get back to me.
I have had a look at the New Yorker article, though I will need to look closer.
Firstly, if there is no evidence that Letby killed someone, then she can't be convicted. I think you may mean there is no smoking gun or video of the events. There usually isn't. Evidence is often a series of threads of connecting evidence about time, place, opportunity, motive.
The article. It's journalism. Thus far I cannot piece together, from this article, enough fragments to draft a short paragraph to describe why there are grounds to think the conviction is unsafe.
Like Private Eye, it relies on an utterly desperate suggestion about the defence and why it called no expert evidence when it is known that they had expert reports:
"Perhaps it had seemed that the prosecution's case was so weak that defence experts weren't necessary".
I have a bridge to sell them if they believe any counsel, with a client who is going to get a whole life order on conviction, would fail to call scientific evidence that would help their case. (And do the same on the retrial).
One small further point. I am keeping an open mind. The strongest case were the insulin cases, which were not the subject of the appeal specifically, unlike the embolism ones. I have not yey noticed even generalised hand waving about those. IIRC correctly it is not disputed by the defence that these babies were murdered. Worth keeping an eye on that element of the case.
It was not disputed by the defence but it jolly well should have been according to everyone else because the test establishing the presence of insulin cannot tell endogenous from artificial. This is Googleable.
The insulin is identical, but endogenous insulin is associated with c-peptide while artificial does not.
So while the insulin assay is the same, the c-peptide assay gives the answer.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
Yes, if there is grounds for appeal it should be in court rather than trial by media.
I don't remember such a clamour about miscarriage of justice for Allit or Shipman.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Second day of autumn, and we've got very autumnal weather. Grey, damp, chilly.
We must have had under 10 days of actual summer weather this year.
I blame the Labour government.
I don't normally like to complain about the weather (or weather apps, as I know how they work). But back from another ghastly August week in Devon I've finally had enough. Last week was forecast to be largely sunny and dry. Yet in reality we had several days of grey skies and rain (and the apps were showing sunny skies at the time).
In the words of a recent survivor of a life threatening existence - enough. Time to move the UK south by 500 miles. We have enough engineers on PB - there must be away?
Or if not relocating the UK, lets roll back on our climate change mitigation. I keep being promised a warmer UK with a mediterranean climate - bring it on! Fire up the wood burners, tear down the wind farms and solar parks and burn that coal.
Enough.
I keep telling you all. I genuinely believe our climate has significantly worsened in the last few years and we now having something closer to anchorage Alaska or the Aleutian Islands
Ie lots and lots of dreary cool greyness, all year, but the odd blasting week of hot hot hot. Except we won’t get the fun Alaskan snow
It helps that I am typing this in balmy 26C on the Montenegrin plateau with a cold Niksicko beer
In fairness that matches the general description of English weather since time immemorial.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
I'm in a chip shop next to the hotel. Overlooking the misty rain. It's brilliant!
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
Yes, if there is grounds for appeal it should be in court rather than trial by media.
I don't remember such a clamour about miscarriage of justice for Allit or Shipman.
Because in those cases there weren’t serious questions raised about the evidence.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
How many Iraqis died? Hundreds of thousands wasn't it? And we went to war on lies cooked up (partly) by AC to make the case look more damning. And the man who knew it had been sexed up was hounded to take his own life.
You won't find me defending Blair/Campbell on Iraq. We should not have got involved. It was terrible decision driven by a peculiar mix of hubris and servility.
However let's not start assigning blame for all the casualties of that war - or its toxic aftermath - on them. That would be a nonsense. The US were doing it regardless.
If the US were doing it anyway, it is even more despicable that we went along and soaked our hands in Iraqi blood.
There was a historical precedent. Wilson didn't sign up to Vietnam.
I'd have had no problem going into Syria, Iran or Iraq - as well as Afghanistan - and getting rid of horrible repressive and ugly regimes *provided it worked*.
The issue with Iraq is that it didn't work.
Specifically, the plan seemed to finish with Saddam's death.
And even that didn't happen until years after.
It was that democracy would naturally spring into existence whenever nasty dictators were removed.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
The argument outlined in your para 2 was popularised by Cameron in the AV referendum and went on to lose him the EU ref. It is indeed contemptible.
Sadly everything which is not ignored is a culture war issue these days. I think there's a lot inexplicably wrong about the Letby case. Why was the principal prosecution witness badged as Doctor A? Why was a doctor allowed to give evidence to the effect It was an awful shock when our amateur sleuthing proved to our own satisfaction that shedunnit? On what planet is that admissible. And btw I dated for a long time a senior NHS nurse - very pretty, would not stop talking about her job - and she had endless stories about surgeons asking her to falsify records to maximise their take from the NHS. Doctors score highly for trustworthiness with the general public including presumably this jury, and here they are spouting away in unison in a case where actually they are alternate suspects (for negligence and incompetence obviously, not murder).
I have a vote and can't bring myself to watch any of the candidates speeches, or read any of their statements.
Not sure what that says about me.
Similar here.
Strikes me that if one of them had relentlessly gone after Starmer on one particular issue over the summer, they'd probably be a shoe in.....
I think Kemi's absence has been fairly notable. She is in the shadow cabinet, and we've been having race riots and more than enough to condemn Sir Speech-Stamper about, but I've heard very little. And when she was a Minister, I saw very little. I am not sure I believe that when she becomes LOTO and then PM, she will suddenly start eating her weetabix.
I don't think we've really got to grips with the near term implications of the developments in drone use (and their mass production) during the war. They will not be confined to Ukraine, and I doubt they will be entirely confined to use within the confines of war, either.
The implications are terrifying, without question. It now takes comparatively tiny amounts of money and resources to cause massive damage to a nation's infrastructure, so much so that a mid-level terrorist group could do so. A couple of hundred drones launched from a small ship in the North Sea could utterly devastate the UK's oil, gas and electric infrastructure. Flying as low as they do we'd have pretty much zero chance of even detecting them before loud and fatal things started happening.
Though there are companies working on that problem. Of course.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
I think there is a distinction - if a bit blurred - between culture warriors and the anti-WEF/5G/Vaxxer brigade. It's the latter who seem most agitated by Letby.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Badenoch is very good at articulating a traditional Tory message. Whether the electorate are really after that right now, and whether she is effective enough to deliver it, I have some significant doubts.
No doubt she is a good communicator. But she still seems very hung up on weird things like Doctor Who being nasty about her (which he was, but as a campaign beat? Hmmm).
It was a super bad look from David Tennant and I am prepared to believe he was too bound up with his luvviedom to realise what he said as he was saying it. He realised as soon as he had said it tbf but that's how wars start...
{innocent face}
Turf wars?
{ducks}
As mentioned earlier, it would be hugely amusing if JKRowling were to offer to do a six-part series fully self-funded for the BBC about her life and work.
Self-funded broadcasts?
They're called adverts, aren't they? And as such, pretty easy for the Beeb to refuse.
Or don't offer to fund it. Offer to make with them a programme about her life and work, unparalleled access, etc and watch the Beeb squirm.
Maybe thirty years ago. A South Bank Show (except that was ITV), or an episode of Omnibus. There's Imagine with Alan Yentob I suppose, but that makes about six episodes a year covering everything arty.
JKR could offer, I suppose. But it would be pretty easy for the Beeb to say "maybe in 2030". And if she were to kick off, she would look like a crazy lady with an overinflated sense of importance.
R4 did a multiparty series narrated by some semi-conspiracy theorist about the Hunter Biden laptop. I'm pretty sure they'd do a Rowling programme without hesitation. Half the management are Tories these days anyway; the senior management at least.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
I think there is a distinction - if a bit blurred - between culture warriors and the anti-WEF/5G/Vaxxer brigade. It's the latter who seem most agitated by Letby.
I worry about your browsing habits if you get regular exposure to the thoughts of that "brigade" but if you are right, so what? Adolf Hitler probably accepted a heliocentric picture of the solar system but that doesn't hugely affect the merits of that picture.
Sahra Wagenknecht has stated the BSW would prefer to go into coalition with the CDU and the SPD. Quoted from the Deutsche Welle site:
"We very much hope that we can eventually get a good government with the CDU — probably also with the [center-left] SPD," Wagenknecht told Germany's state broadcaster ARD.
In Thuringia, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 44 of the 88 Landtag seats so not quite a majority but probably sufficient to govern.
In Saxony, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 66 seats in the 120 seat Landtag so a majority there.
It's an interesting development and further marginalises Alternativ as it would provide additional options for coalition building after the next Federal election. Currently, a CDU/SPD/Green AND a CDU/SPD/BSW government would have a majority on polling.
What we don't of course know is how the CDU or SPD will react but Wagenknecht has seized the initiative.
Given the CDU/CSU are projected most seats on current German Federal polls I suspect CDU leader Merz would insist on a CDU/CSU and SPD and FDP government if possible and the FDP remain in the Bundestag with him as Chancellor. Even if he excluded the AfD he would prefer the FDP to be in government than the Greens or a hard left party as he is on the right of the CDU
The problem is on current polling the CDU/CSU/SPD coalition option wouldn't quite get a majority. The latest poll has the FDP below 5% but it may be they scrape in (hard to know) but BSW will probably get into the Bundestag whatever happens.
Merz might have to settle for a minority administration if the numbers don't add up and if we see the BSW going into coalition at state level with the CDU there's going to be pressure on him to consider it at Federal level.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
He also thought Brexit would be sorted out in an afternoon and he also thought triggering a vanity by election was a good idea.
Colour me sceptical.
DD guested on the Rest is Politics recently and did not come over well. Rather brittle and defensive.
Do PBers listen to that prog btw? It's kind of a Centrist Dad heaven. You get the elegant (although slightly self-regarding and infused with class privilege) lilt of Rory Stewart interspersed with the pungent throb of Alastair Campbell, the both of them highly articulate, rational, animated by a deep dislike of populism. You listen to it for an hour or so and come away feeling calmer and more cheerful and grounded than when you started. Not many political podcasts do that but this one does.
A quibble though. There's a nice mix of centre left and centre right sentiment but this doesn’t map across to objective neutrality on the parties. Stewart is not a partisan tory. He finds it easy to criticise them and to say positive things about Labour. Campbell otoh is the definition of tribal. He can’t say anything good about the Conservatives or bad about Labour (now it’s his sort of Labour again under SKS as opposed to the Corbyn version) without choking. This (imo) rather unbalances the show.
I can't stand Campbell. He's a true, 100% shit who should be hiding his face away in anonymity somewhere. And Stewart should have remained in the party, rather than quitting.
But yes, I do occasionally listen to RiP...
Why so down on AC? I think he's a quality pundit if you adjust for the tribalism.
Terrible behaviour with Kelly, it cost a good man's life, but I don't rank him as the sort of unmitigated villain who should be forever cancelled.
He's someone who speaks very well about his struggles with his own mental health, yet was perfectly willing to destroy other people's for his own gain.
He's a nasty piece of work, whose only redeeming feature is being able to communicate well.
Ok but do you mean specifically Kelly? Or some sort of pattern where he's gone about deliberately destroying people's lives?
How many Iraqis died? Hundreds of thousands wasn't it? And we went to war on lies cooked up (partly) by AC to make the case look more damning. And the man who knew it had been sexed up was hounded to take his own life.
You won't find me defending Blair/Campbell on Iraq. We should not have got involved. It was terrible decision driven by a peculiar mix of hubris and servility.
However let's not start assigning blame for all the casualties of that war - or its toxic aftermath - on them. That would be a nonsense. The US were doing it regardless.
If the US were doing it anyway, it is even more despicable that we went along and soaked our hands in Iraqi blood.
There was a historical precedent. Wilson didn't sign up to Vietnam.
It was a terrible error, no question, but was it worse on account of it making little practical difference? I don't see that. Surely if us joining had meant the invasion happened rather than didn't happen *that* would have been worse. Because in that case our involvement would have been key to the whole episode.
I think that the argument that it didn't matter what Britain did in relation to Iraq, because the US would have gone ahead regardless, is a reprehensible moral cowardice.
Supporting the USA in Iraq was by far Blair’s biggest error. Should have listened to the ghost of Harold Wilson.
The alternative history of Iraq had 2003 not happened is an intriguing topic.
Iraq has had 2 decades of bloodshed, 2 waves of Islamist insurgency including the IS occupation after 2012. It’s now relatively more stable than for a while and sort of democratic, but all but one Kurdish corner is still red (do not travel) on the FCDO map.
Without the war?
Scenario 1 (optimistic): Saddam kept in check by sanctions until 2011 at which point he’d have been toppled in the Arab Spring. AQ in Iraq would never have had the chance to develop, meaning the seeds of ISIS wouldn’t have been sown, so that in the aftermath of 2011 a democratic moderate polity could have come about. What’s more, without the shadow of Iraq hanging over them, and without the distraction of IS, British and US politicians would have gone ahead and intervened against Assad in Syria after his first use of chemical weapons, and he might have been toppled too.
Scenario 2 (pessimistic): No Iraq war, but it would be an equal mess now either because it fell into a Syria-style civil war after the Arab Spring, or because that upheaval triggered a Libya style intervention which in turn sent it into chaos.
Fair comment. It’s easy to take the view I did, without asking the question ‘What (would have) happened next ?’.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Sahra Wagenknecht has stated the BSW would prefer to go into coalition with the CDU and the SPD. Quoted from the Deutsche Welle site:
"We very much hope that we can eventually get a good government with the CDU — probably also with the [center-left] SPD," Wagenknecht told Germany's state broadcaster ARD.
In Thuringia, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 44 of the 88 Landtag seats so not quite a majority but probably sufficient to govern.
In Saxony, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 66 seats in the 120 seat Landtag so a majority there.
It's an interesting development and further marginalises Alternativ as it would provide additional options for coalition building after the next Federal election. Currently, a CDU/SPD/Green AND a CDU/SPD/BSW government would have a majority on polling.
Thanks Stodge can you sum up, briefly, what just happened in Germany.
tia
I don't know what you are asking. I can explain the what, the why requires more time. We still haven't really got to grips with what happened here two months ago.
There's little evidence the Conservative leadership contenders, though knowing what happened, understand why it happened. How did a party which polled 47% in England in December 2019 get only 26% in 2024?
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
With respect to the bit in bold, it's been suggested that the deaths that were selected as, "murder," were in part chosen on the basis that Letby was on the ward. There were other deaths, excluded from that analysis, where she wasn't present.
So that piece of evidence doesn't seem as conclusive, especially when with some of the deaths it's not necessarily obvious that they were (or were not) due to foul play.
And then the whole palaver with it being ruled inadmissable to let the jury know that one of the doctors giving evidence against her was a former boyfriend? What's that all about?
I've accused myself of all sorts of terrible things when I've been in a black mood, especially when my first marriage was falling apart and my then wife was blaming me for everything. So I don't find that piece of evidence clinching either.
I've had my initial confidence in the verdict shaken somewhat.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Shocking fallacy there. Unless you charge her with causing every single death in the world you charge selectively, so of course you choose deaths when she was there. She's not pretty. I doubt your qualifications to diagnose mental illness. The "confession" did not read like a confession to me, exaggerated self-accusation is a very common thing in severe depression.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
I think there is a distinction - if a bit blurred - between culture warriors and the anti-WEF/5G/Vaxxer brigade. It's the latter who seem most agitated by Letby.
I worry about your browsing habits if you get regular exposure to the thoughts of that "brigade" but if you are right, so what? Adolf Hitler probably accepted a heliocentric picture of the solar system but that doesn't hugely affect the merits of that picture.
That's my local Facebook/Nextdoor. Honourable mention to the fur baby lovers (XL Bullies).
I didn't mean anything by my comment, only that I think the right-wing culture warriors have a loose hold on reality in a way that the anti-5G folks do not.
I have no idea about Letby but it strikes me that each concern about the case is taken in isolation, rather than looking at the full picture as the jury did. I think the comparison with the Post Office is wrong unless you are alleging a institutional conspiracy against that NHS trust (which isn't a particularly mad idea, but at least put those cards on the table).
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Jeremy Paxman said he approached every interview with a politician on the working premise of why is this lying bastard lying to me.
I think it is wholly right and proper that people question things. The Letby query didn't just come out of nowhere it came as a result of some investigative journalism. As did the Post Office scandal (together with a very determined protagonist).
People shouldn't dismiss concerns nor take them as proof of anything. But if there are legitimate questions they should be answered.
We as a nation can't really put our hands up and say we have a huge amount of confidence in some of our institutions, several of which are involved in the Letby case.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
With respect to the bit in bold, it's been suggested that the deaths that were selected as, "murder," were in part chosen on the basis that Letby was on the ward. There were other deaths, excluded from that analysis, where she wasn't present.
So that piece of evidence doesn't seem as conclusive, especially when with some of the deaths it's not necessarily obvious that they were (or were not) due to foul play.
And then the whole palaver with it being ruled inadmissable to let the jury know that one of the doctors giving evidence against her was a former boyfriend? What's that all about?
I've accused myself of all sorts of terrible things when I've been in a black mood, especially when my first marriage was falling apart and my then wife was blaming me for everything. So I don't find that piece of evidence clinching either.
I've had my initial confidence in the verdict shaken somewhat.
You could do a statistical analysis of this on the chances of this being a coincidence but her being present for every abnormal incident and death, on a ward with an abnormally high and unexplained death rate, like that over the course of a year (20+ incidents) is pretty bloody conclusive, in my view.
But this might simply go into the JFK was a plot and Diana was murdered category.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
It is so hard to keep up with the looney radical right these days.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
An astute point. Also, what’s this sudden American interest in alleged lapses in UK justice? Quite odd - and feeds into your argument about kulturkampf
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
I think there is a distinction - if a bit blurred - between culture warriors and the anti-WEF/5G/Vaxxer brigade. It's the latter who seem most agitated by Letby.
I worry about your browsing habits if you get regular exposure to the thoughts of that "brigade" but if you are right, so what? Adolf Hitler probably accepted a heliocentric picture of the solar system but that doesn't hugely affect the merits of that picture.
That's my local Facebook/Nextdoor. Honourable mention to the fur baby lovers (XL Bullies).
I didn't mean anything by my comment, only that I think the right-wing culture warriors have a loose hold on reality in a way that the anti-5G folks do not.
I have no idea about Letby but it strikes me that each concern about the case is taken in isolation, rather than looking at the full picture as the jury did. I think the comparison with the Post Office is wrong unless you are alleging a institutional conspiracy against that NHS trust (which isn't a particularly mad idea, but at least put those cards on the table).
We live in a world where the following happened
1) the police raided a house, on the claim that the inhabitants were bio terrorists. 2) nothing was found and one of the policemen managed to shoot himself in the foot. Literally. 3) they seized everything in the house 4) some time later the police said they had discovered illegal porn on a computer from house. 5) an independent computer expert proved that the files had been added to the computer while it was in the hands of the police.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Shocking fallacy there. Unless you charge her with causing every single death in the world you charge selectively, so of course you choose deaths when she was there. She's not pretty. I doubt your qualifications to diagnose mental illness. The "confession" did not read like a confession to me, exaggerated self-accusation is a very common thing in severe depression.
I'm not qualified to diagnose anything, nor was I in court to review all the evidence.
All I'm saying is that I don't have reasonable doubt, and nothing anyone has said has caused me to question that otherwise.
She has a horrible and depressing sentence, devoid of any hope, but then lots of parents had their children horribly murdered, were denied the chance to spend their last moments with them, and then had to endure weird and creepy behaviour by Letby after.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
It is so hard to keep up with the looney radical right these days.
Bet it gets lots of likes, comments and reshares though.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
I was wandering around Brighton this afternoon, and noticed a lot of anoraks. Now I know why. Double whammy.
I think it is more likely that Michael Stone is innocent than Lucy Letby. But he is not a photogenic young female.
I haven’t seen enough evidence to prove that Lucy Letby is innocent. I think there’s enough evidence to commission an enquiry about corporate neglect in the Countess of Chester hospital.
Of course, the legal system doesn't require proof that she's innocent - just a reasonable doubt.
There isn't reasonable doubt. She was the only one on the ward when all the deaths occurred, she insisted relatives absent themselves on several occassions very near when they passed away, most died from air being administered, and she wrote a harrowing self-confession about it all.
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
Shocking fallacy there. Unless you charge her with causing every single death in the world you charge selectively, so of course you choose deaths when she was there. She's not pretty. I doubt your qualifications to diagnose mental illness. The "confession" did not read like a confession to me, exaggerated self-accusation is a very common thing in severe depression.
I'm not qualified to diagnose anything, nor was I in court to review all the evidence.
All I'm saying is that I don't have reasonable doubt, and nothing anyone has said has caused me to question that otherwise.
I think that's fair. And if others want to have doubts and keep pushing that's fine, but the language of much of I question when it presents relatively minor points (when people who have reviewed much more info weigh in) as cast iron proof of doubt, and quesiton how anyone could not yet doubt.
Just relistened to their first three albums and their lyrics and chords are boring, and their singing whining. They had a bit of style but that was very much in the mood of those times.
What people are really "buying", IMHO, is nostalgia for the 1990s.
Has anyone commenting on the Letby case read the full trial transcript ?
It's unclear to me, not having done so, why everyone is determined to have an opinion on it. Either way.
My only observation is that the administrators who defended Letby seem quiet. After the case, when door-stepped by the BBC, I got the sense that they now thought she was guilty.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
Just relistened to their first three albums and their lyrics and chords are boring, and their singing whining. They had a bit of style but that was very much in the mood of those times.
What people are really "buying", IMHO, is nostalgia for the 1990s.
Bringing back the spirit of 1997? Haven't we already done that this year? 😈👿
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Also, as probably the only PB-er to do serious time in chokey, can I say the idea that the British justice system constantly makes terrible errors and bangs up innocents is REALLY overdone
Yes, it happens, and yes, when it happens it is appalling. But it happens in every judicial system and I am unconvinced that Britain is unusually bad and as a man who was unjustly accused - banged up on remand - and then actually acquitted, rightly, I will defend our system (even with the recent Riots Assizes which I find troubling)
The problem with British justice is that it is SLOW, and getting slower. To an extent where that this is an injustice in itself. But notably erroneous compared to other systems? Nope. It finally and generally reaches the correct verdict, albeit with some abhorrent mistakes, which we are then alert to
When I was in prison I estimate 99.3% of the cons were guilty, and even the ones professing innocence would admit their guilt if one of us had managed to smuggle in enough hash
Has anyone commenting on the Letby case read the full trial transcript ?
It's unclear to me, not having done so, why everyone is determined to have an opinion on it. Either way.
Well that's just bad heuristics. I actually followed the trial pretty closely but even if I hadn't, I believe that Evans was innocent of the rillington place murders, and I have also not read the transcript of 700+ subpostmaster prosecutions. I even implicitly believe that Darwin was right about the origin of species when the only bit I have ever read in extenso is the preface to the second edition (well worth it btw).
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
An astute point. Also, what’s this sudden American interest in alleged lapses in UK justice? Quite odd - and feeds into your argument about kulturkampf
The New Yorker is a very consistently liberal publication. House journal for martini drinking Democrats since FDR.
They’ve been running pieces on miscarriages of justice in the US and elsewhere since the year dot.
Just relistened to their first three albums and their lyrics and chords are boring, and their singing whining. They had a bit of style but that was very much in the mood of those times.
What people are really "buying", IMHO, is nostalgia for the 1990s.
And if there's one thing you can charge a lot for it is nostalgia. The profit margins are insane.
Just relistened to their first three albums and their lyrics and chords are boring, and their singing whining. They had a bit of style but that was very much in the mood of those times.
What people are really "buying", IMHO, is nostalgia for the 1990s.
Bringing back the spirit of 1997? Haven't we already done that this year? 😈👿
Spirit of '94. Another one for the "John Major wasn't quite as terrible as all that" file.
Has anyone commenting on the Letby case read the full trial transcript ?
It's unclear to me, not having done so, why everyone is determined to have an opinion on it. Either way.
10 months to go through, which the Jury and highly paid barristers and barristers on both sides did.
There is a a further trial underway on another death, and appeals to get through too. Lets let the legal process work. I have no axe to grind on this, but the default assumption should be that the legal institutions acted in good faith and according to process.
Letby wouldn't be the first healthworker to murder vulnerable patients if the case is upheld, indeed there is a recognised psycho-pathology around this. My own hospital had a case recently where a health worker was sabotaging anaesthetic machines so that they could be called when the patient crashed and they would be the hero of the hour that got it working again. That too was established by looking at shift patterns when the incidents happened, though in this case there was a videosurveillance trap set to catch him red-handed sabotaging a machine due for use later. I am not sure that would have been possible or ethical with a baby on a neonatal unit
Worth noting a major difference with the Post Office miscarriages, there the prosecution was by the Post Officee, while the Letby case was via the Cheshire Constabulary and CPS not "the NHS", and secondly the PO cases were on the basis of Horizon infalibility with virtually no other supporting evidence other than coerced confessions.
@SkyFootball FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
"Player of the game" is an objectively worse title than "man of the match" in men's sport, too.
The problem with British justice is that it is SLOW, and getting slower. To an extent where that this is an injustice in itself. But notably erroneous compared to other systems? Nope. It finally and generally reaches the correct verdict, albeit with some abhorrent mistakes, which we are then alert to
It feels like a small amount of money would go a long way in improving the delays in the criminal justice system, unlike some other problems where a few billion or tens of billions will not have an immediate noticable effect.
Just relistened to their first three albums and their lyrics and chords are boring, and their singing whining. They had a bit of style but that was very much in the mood of those times.
What people are really "buying", IMHO, is nostalgia for the 1990s.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
I think there is a distinction - if a bit blurred - between culture warriors and the anti-WEF/5G/Vaxxer brigade. It's the latter who seem most agitated by Letby.
I worry about your browsing habits if you get regular exposure to the thoughts of that "brigade" but if you are right, so what? Adolf Hitler probably accepted a heliocentric picture of the solar system but that doesn't hugely affect the merits of that picture.
That's my local Facebook/Nextdoor. Honourable mention to the fur baby lovers (XL Bullies).
I didn't mean anything by my comment, only that I think the right-wing culture warriors have a loose hold on reality in a way that the anti-5G folks do not.
I have no idea about Letby but it strikes me that each concern about the case is taken in isolation, rather than looking at the full picture as the jury did. I think the comparison with the Post Office is wrong unless you are alleging a institutional conspiracy against that NHS trust (which isn't a particularly mad idea, but at least put those cards on the table).
I have no idea whether Letby is innocent or guilty, I'd hope she's guilty given that's what the jury found, but then the criminal justice system in this country has a long ignoble history of finding innocent people guilty.
The Post Office subpostmasters are some some in a long line of those wrongly found guilty. Malkinson, Sally Clark and many, many more.
The only people more foolish than those adamant that Letby must be innocent because they distrust the state are those who claim she must be guilty because that's what a jury found. Miscarriages of justice absolutely can and do happen - I have no evidence to suggest Letby's case is one, but it should never be ruled out for any case which is one reason we should never have the death penalty even for the most horrific crimes.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
Overwhelms the Salmon, I don't see the point of it.
I had a few very nice dinners with a Democrat spokesperson this week. "It's going to be very close, but Kamala has more routes to victory than Trump, so that's a good thing at least" was my understanding of their position.
I think that is broadly right: Kamala has more routes to victory, and I would make her the narrow favorite. It's also *possible* that she has a blow out win, in a way I think is impossible for Trump.
With that said:
The US is extremely polarized, which means both Trump and Harris are likely to poll more than 46%, irrespective of anything they say or do. Not only that, but Americans have gotten poorer in the last four years, like people in essentially every developed country, as wages have not kept up with prices.
If Trump wasn't the candidate, I suspect the Republicans would be walking this race.
But he is, and therefore what should have been an easy win for the Republicans is therefore an extremely tight race, and one where the Democrats have a narrow edge.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
Overwhelms the Salmon, I don't see the point of it.
Cream cheese? Your salmon must be pretty bland to be overwhelmed by some philadelphia.
Has anyone commenting on the Letby case read the full trial transcript ?
It's unclear to me, not having done so, why everyone is determined to have an opinion on it. Either way.
Well that's just bad heuristics. I actually followed the trial pretty closely but even if I hadn't, I believe that Evans was innocent of the rillington place murders, and I have also not read the transcript of 700+ subpostmaster prosecutions. I even implicitly believe that Darwin was right about the origin of species when the only bit I have ever read in extenso is the preface to the second edition (well worth it btw).
Is it ? I've yet to read a comment about it here, or elsewhere, which persuades me to want to have an opinion on it, or to find out more.
Which isn't the case for any of the above examples.
Amazing that with so many recent and ongoing miscarriages of justice, including those relating to the NHS, that so many people once again are prepared to take at face value what seems to be a decision that has questions that probably should be answered.
I suppose the @Stark_Dawnings of PB would have been applauding the sub-postmaster convictions.
I have not been following the Letby case too closely, but from what I have read, the really damning evidence is her diary and the notes found in her house.
But they perhaps can be explained away. And she would make a very convenient scapegoat for systematic failures in a hospital. Who would want another Stafford case, if you can just blame one convenient nurse?
You mean the way she wrote "I did this, I am evil" in her diary about the death of a baby?
Yes: I think it was her diary - rather than the statistics - that likely sank her in court.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
Overwhelms the Salmon, I don't see the point of it.
You need quite mild cream cheese and robust smoked salmon (with plenty of lemon and cracked kampot black pepper) and then it is genuinely heavenly. But I don’t buy the bagel Jewish version, bagels are too sweet and chewy. Wholemeal brown bread is best
The problem with so many versions is that purveyors skimp on the expensive salmon and add too much of the cheaper cheese - predictably. Try and make your own with lots of salmon
Amazing that with so many recent and ongoing miscarriages of justice, including those relating to the NHS, that so many people once again are prepared to take at face value what seems to be a decision that has questions that probably should be answered.
I suppose the @Stark_Dawnings of PB would have been applauding the sub-postmaster convictions.
I have not been following the Letby case too closely, but from what I have read, the really damning evidence is her diary and the notes found in her house.
But they perhaps can be explained away. And she would make a very convenient scapegoat for systematic failures in a hospital. Who would want another Stafford case, if you can just blame one convenient nurse?
You mean the way she wrote "I did this, I am evil" in her diary about the death of a baby?
Yes: I think it was her diary - rather than the statistics - that likely sank her in court.
Which is concerning if so, as people going through shitty situations can blame themselves even if they're not responsible and there's nothing wrong with that.
If she is innocent (big if) then the fact that she took the deaths personally and wrote something in her diary would be entirely natural.
Sadly the problem with the Lucy Letby story is that it is becoming part of the culture wars.
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
An astute point. Also, what’s this sudden American interest in alleged lapses in UK justice? Quite odd - and feeds into your argument about kulturkampf
The American far right interest in the UK (sic) justice system is that it fills the conspiracy theories that the woke are hiding stuff whereas in America they just do not do that.
In the UK we have pretty strict sub judice rules in place for centuries, but in the MAGA crowd it is 'stuff is being hidden to prosecute patriots' bullshit.
On the left there's an interest in our justice because UK prosecutors do not threaten people with 100 year long sentences to get them plead to a less 20 year sentence crime.
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
Overwhelms the Salmon, I don't see the point of it.
Cream cheese? Your salmon must be pretty bland to be overwhelmed by some philadelphia.
I wouldn't go that far but certainly there were some witnesses for the defence who could have been called who weren't at the trial
Interesting. So far I have seen nothing to indicate the convictions are not safe.
You need to start with the 56 page court of appeal judgment, see if anything in that is properly open to precise criticism.
You then have to guess why the defence didn't call its experts (see para 5), using the obvious explanation unless you have a better one.
Then draft, in ordinary English, the precise (not vague or hand waving) ground or grounds which you argue render the convictions unsafe either because of fresh evidence (be precise), or that the evidence for the prosecution was in precise ways false, or failed to give scope for a jury to convict. Note there was corroboration of the evidence.
Then ask and explain why the defence didn't use your grounds in their appeal.
General and imprecise points about stats, rotas, other reasons for dying etc won't do.
Have you ever worked at Womble Bond Dickinson by any chance?
No, and your exact point in relation to the Letby trials is?
Read the article. Then let's talk. I value your evidently informed view of it all.
Edit: I mean there wasn't any evidence that she killed anyone but that doesn't seem to have mattered. Is that ever a factor in such trials? That there needs to be evidence for the crime. Perhaps not. Read the article and get back to me.
I have had a look at the New Yorker article, though I will need to look closer.
Firstly, if there is no evidence that Letby killed someone, then she can't be convicted. I think you may mean there is no smoking gun or video of the events. There usually isn't. Evidence is often a series of threads of connecting evidence about time, place, opportunity, motive.
The article. It's journalism. Thus far I cannot piece together, from this article, enough fragments to draft a short paragraph to describe why there are grounds to think the conviction is unsafe.
Like Private Eye, it relies on an utterly desperate suggestion about the defence and why it called no expert evidence when it is known that they had expert reports:
"Perhaps it had seemed that the prosecution's case was so weak that defence experts weren't necessary".
I have a bridge to sell them if they believe any counsel, with a client who is going to get a whole life order on conviction, would fail to call scientific evidence that would help their case. (And do the same on the retrial).
One small further point. I am keeping an open mind. The strongest case were the insulin cases, which were not the subject of the appeal specifically, unlike the embolism ones. I have not yey noticed even generalised hand waving about those. IIRC correctly it is not disputed by the defence that these babies were murdered. Worth keeping an eye on that element of the case.
It was not disputed by the defence but it jolly well should have been according to everyone else because the test establishing the presence of insulin cannot tell endogenous from artificial. This is Googleable.
This is interesting but requires a full review of the relevant evidence, the ways in which it was challenged, how it was put to the jury by the prosecution and what the (undisclosed) defence reports said.
We really can't have assumptions that highly paid means competent. I don't think your distinctions from the PO case are really distinctions, it may on paper have been a CPS prosecution but they are obviously going to defer to a bunch of highly paid (!) specialist doctors all telling them the same thing.
Take a step back. I am an English lawyer but I don't understand how the chief witness here can be anonymised. If my country is going to condemn someone to life in a concrete coffin I want the process to be above board. I can't imagine even in principle how that requirement can be overridden and we get the literally Kafkaesque situation of Dr A. Can you?
I am in Brighton for the RSS Conference. The weather is terrible: damp and wet. The conference is fun. There's a reception drinks do later. I shall get squiffy and embarrass myself... 😃
Just don't do the white eared elephant impression.
I shall stick to the classics: incoherent ranting, saying "I read your stuff" or "I know you! You interviewed me!", finishing off with singing badly and loudly. I don't drink so much these days so vom is not on the schedule: literally and metaphorically.
Last conference I attended they served the greatest salmon and cheese sandwiches I have eaten, whilst eating said sandwiches the sounds I made in front of everybody led to HR launching an investigation.
Salmon and cheese? Really?
Cream cheese, a classic combo.
True, but never fancied it.
One of my standards is pasta with cream, asparagus and smoked salmon, classically you’re not supposed to add Parmesan to fish but I do. I suppose that makes me a pervert.
Comments
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-96-the-abuse-of-the?r=rbmcn&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email&triedRedirect=true
Afghanistan meanwhile is back under the rule of the Taliban and even Bin Laden ended up being killed in Pakistan not Afghanistan
Sahra Wagenknecht has stated the BSW would prefer to go into coalition with the CDU and the SPD. Quoted from the Deutsche Welle site:
"We very much hope that we can eventually get a good government with the CDU — probably also with the [center-left] SPD," Wagenknecht told Germany's state broadcaster ARD.
In Thuringia, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 44 of the 88 Landtag seats so not quite a majority but probably sufficient to govern.
In Saxony, a CDU/BSW/SPD coalition would have 66 seats in the 120 seat Landtag so a majority there.
It's an interesting development and further marginalises Alternativ as it would provide additional options for coalition building after the next Federal election. Currently, a CDU/SPD/Green AND a CDU/SPD/BSW government would have a majority on polling.
What we don't of course know is how the CDU or SPD will react but Wagenknecht has seized the initiative.
tia
That came AFTER I drove down maybe the most spectacular gorge I have ever seen - Piva gorge - and learned it was the site of possibly the fiercest Nazi-resistance fighting anywhere in Europe. The Yugoslav partisans under tito really didn’t mind dying if they could take out a Nazi as well
It’s such a perplexing place. So beautiful yet so dark, so full of loveliness yet full of ancient hatreds and modern wars
And those mad mad mad mad megalithic warrior tombs
(cues up next episode of the Rest is Politics with Rory Stewart and Alast ... with him)
JKR could offer, I suppose. But it would be pretty easy for the Beeb to say "maybe in 2030". And if she were to kick off, she would look like a crazy lady with an overinflated sense of importance.
And ancient hatreds is a specialism of the Balkans. No one else does it better.
Iraq has had 2 decades of bloodshed, 2 waves of Islamist insurgency including the IS occupation after 2012. It’s now relatively more stable than for a while and sort of democratic, but all but one Kurdish corner is still red (do not travel) on the FCDO map.
Without the war?
Scenario 1 (optimistic): Saddam kept in check by sanctions until 2011 at which point he’d have been toppled in the Arab Spring. AQ in Iraq would never have had the chance to develop, meaning the seeds of ISIS wouldn’t have been sown, so that in the aftermath of 2011 a democratic moderate polity could have come about. What’s more, without the shadow of Iraq hanging over them, and without the distraction of IS, British and US politicians would have gone ahead and intervened against Assad in Syria after his first use of chemical weapons, and he might have been toppled too.
Scenario 2 (pessimistic): No Iraq war, but it would be an equal mess now either because it fell into a Syria-style civil war after the Arab Spring, or because that upheaval triggered a Libya style intervention which in turn sent it into chaos.
Brian Martin, the ex-head of technical policy for building regulation at the former Department for Communities and Local Government, is selling his services as an independent witness.
He testified in the first UK cladding tribunal case last year as a fire safety engineer, when a group of leaseholders faced their landlord over the cost of removing cladding from their homes.
The cladding involved in the tribunal was aluminium composite material (ACM) — the same material which was wrapped around Grenfell Tower before the 2017 fire which killed 72 people. Martin had been responsible for official building regulations guidance on fire safety for almost 18 years by the time of the Grenfell fire.
During his evidence to the Grenfell public inquiry, he admitted being “a single point of failure” in his government department over the disaster and said he missed chances to stop it.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/society/article/civil-servant-brian-martin-grenfell-tower-fire-qbjd6shw2
I've seen stuff on social media by the same bellends who think Covid was a hoax saying she is innocent, you have the prize roaster Nadine fucking Dorries saying stuff like 'Has the British justice system thrown a young woman into jail for life in order to save the tarnished reputation of the NHS?'
She's also gone down the route that if the government can fund union pay rises they should pay for the Lucy Letby appeal.
So while the insulin assay is the same, the c-peptide assay gives the answer.
https://x.com/SkyFootball/status/1829875375528112147
@SkyFootball
FULL TIME: Burnley 1-1 Blackburn Rovers 🏁
10-player Blackburn Rovers continue their unbeaten start to the 2024/25 Championship season and share the derby spoils!
10-man Blackburn. I can understand Sky dropping the "third man" name for their analyst position on the cricket (although, I don't think there's any reason not still call that position third man in women's cricket, but I digress), but there should be absolutely no reason not continue with the language we've always used for men's sports.
I don't remember such a clamour about miscarriage of justice for Allit or Shipman.
It was that democracy would naturally spring into existence whenever nasty dictators were removed.
It doesn't work that way. It didn't here either.
Sadly everything which is not ignored is a culture war issue these days. I think there's a lot inexplicably wrong about the Letby case. Why was the principal prosecution witness badged as Doctor A? Why was a doctor allowed to give evidence to the effect It was an awful shock when our amateur sleuthing proved to our own satisfaction that shedunnit? On what planet is that admissible. And btw I dated for a long time a senior NHS nurse - very pretty, would not stop talking about her job - and she had endless stories about surgeons asking her to falsify records to maximise their take from the NHS. Doctors score highly for trustworthiness with the general public including presumably this jury, and here they are spouting away in unison in a case where actually they are alternate suspects (for negligence and incompetence obviously, not murder).
She's mentally ill/psychopathic, and it can happen to attractive young women too.
The corporate neglect is definitely a thing too because the Trust decided to slap about any doctors who raised concerns, rather than investigate.
I'm pretty sure they'd do a Rowling programme without hesitation. Half the management are Tories these days anyway; the senior management at least.
Few would care.
Merz might have to settle for a minority administration if the numbers don't add up and if we see the BSW going into coalition at state level with the CDU there's going to be pressure on him to consider it at Federal level.
There's little evidence the Conservative leadership contenders, though knowing what happened, understand why it happened. How did a party which polled 47% in England in December 2019 get only 26% in 2024?
So that piece of evidence doesn't seem as conclusive, especially when with some of the deaths it's not necessarily obvious that they were (or were not) due to foul play.
And then the whole palaver with it being ruled inadmissable to let the jury know that one of the doctors giving evidence against her was a former boyfriend? What's that all about?
I've accused myself of all sorts of terrible things when I've been in a black mood, especially when my first marriage was falling apart and my then wife was blaming me for everything. So I don't find that piece of evidence clinching either.
I've had my initial confidence in the verdict shaken somewhat.
I didn't mean anything by my comment, only that I think the right-wing culture warriors have a loose hold on reality in a way that the anti-5G folks do not.
I have no idea about Letby but it strikes me that each concern about the case is taken in isolation, rather than looking at the full picture as the jury did. I think the comparison with the Post Office is wrong unless you are alleging a institutional conspiracy against that NHS trust (which isn't a particularly mad idea, but at least put those cards on the table).
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1830406296438534511
@ydoethur will assert a similar process is undertaken at the DoE.
I think it is wholly right and proper that people question things. The Letby query didn't just come out of nowhere it came as a result of some investigative journalism. As did the Post Office scandal (together with a very determined protagonist).
People shouldn't dismiss concerns nor take them as proof of anything. But if there are legitimate questions they should be answered.
We as a nation can't really put our hands up and say we have a huge amount of confidence in some of our institutions, several of which are involved in the Letby case.
It's unclear to me, not having done so, why everyone is determined to have an opinion on it. Either way.
But this might simply go into the JFK was a plot and Diana was murdered category.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12286051/amp/Lucy-Letby-eight-missed-chances-stop-killer-nurse-murdering-babies.html
1) the police raided a house, on the claim that the inhabitants were bio terrorists.
2) nothing was found and one of the policemen managed to shoot himself in the foot. Literally.
3) they seized everything in the house
4) some time later the police said they had discovered illegal porn on a computer from house.
5) an independent computer expert proved that the files had been added to the computer while it was in the hands of the police.
All I'm saying is that I don't have reasonable doubt, and nothing anyone has said has caused me to question that otherwise.
She has a horrible and depressing sentence, devoid of any hope, but then lots of parents had their children horribly murdered, were denied the chance to spend their last moments with them, and then had to endure weird and creepy behaviour by Letby after.
The truth is boring.
Friendly people, nice food, excellent wine (and so cheap), and possibly the greatest landscapes on earth. What’s not to love about inland Montenegro?
*Potentially a minor misspelling, there
Now I know why. Double whammy.
https://x.com/Tim_Walz/status/1830639542766112866
Just relistened to their first three albums and their lyrics and chords are boring, and their singing whining. They had a bit of style but that was very much in the mood of those times.
What people are really "buying", IMHO, is nostalgia for the 1990s.
That doesn't prove anything, of course.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Player_of_Games
Yes, it happens, and yes, when it happens it is appalling. But it happens in every judicial system and I am unconvinced that Britain is unusually bad and as a man who was unjustly accused - banged up on remand - and then actually acquitted, rightly, I will defend our system (even with the recent Riots Assizes which I find troubling)
The problem with British justice is that it is SLOW, and getting slower. To an extent where that this is an injustice in itself. But notably erroneous compared to other systems? Nope. It finally and generally reaches the correct verdict, albeit with some abhorrent mistakes, which we are then alert to
When I was in prison I estimate 99.3% of the cons were guilty, and even the ones professing innocence would admit their guilt if one of us had managed to smuggle in enough hash
They’ve been running pieces on miscarriages of justice in the US and elsewhere since the year dot.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Yorker
There is a a further trial underway on another death, and appeals to get through too. Lets let the legal process work. I have no axe to grind on this, but the default assumption should be that the legal institutions acted in good faith and according to process.
Letby wouldn't be the first healthworker to murder vulnerable patients if the case is upheld, indeed there is a recognised psycho-pathology around this. My own hospital had a case recently where a health worker was sabotaging anaesthetic machines so that they could be called when the patient crashed and they would be the hero of the hour that got it working again. That too was established by looking at shift patterns when the incidents happened, though in this case there was a videosurveillance trap set to catch him red-handed sabotaging a machine due for use later. I am not sure that would have been possible or ethical with a baby on a neonatal unit
Worth noting a major difference with the Post Office miscarriages, there the prosecution was by the Post Officee, while the Letby case was via the Cheshire Constabulary and CPS not "the NHS", and secondly the PO cases were on the basis of Horizon infalibility with virtually no other supporting evidence other than coerced confessions.
Greedy f***ers.
The Post Office subpostmasters are some some in a long line of those wrongly found guilty. Malkinson, Sally Clark and many, many more.
The only people more foolish than those adamant that Letby must be innocent because they distrust the state are those who claim she must be guilty because that's what a jury found. Miscarriages of justice absolutely can and do happen - I have no evidence to suggest Letby's case is one, but it should never be ruled out for any case which is one reason we should never have the death penalty even for the most horrific crimes.
With that said:
The US is extremely polarized, which means both Trump and Harris are likely to poll more than 46%, irrespective of anything they say or do. Not only that, but Americans have gotten poorer in the last four years, like people in essentially every developed country, as wages have not kept up with prices.
If Trump wasn't the candidate, I suspect the Republicans would be walking this race.
But he is, and therefore what should have been an easy win for the Republicans is therefore an extremely tight race, and one where the Democrats have a narrow edge.
I've yet to read a comment about it here, or elsewhere, which persuades me to want to have an opinion on it, or to find out more.
Which isn't the case for any of the above examples.
Yes: I think it was her diary - rather than the statistics - that likely sank her in court.
The problem with so many versions is that purveyors skimp on the expensive salmon and add too much of the cheaper cheese - predictably. Try and make your own with lots of salmon
MMMMM
If she is innocent (big if) then the fact that she took the deaths personally and wrote something in her diary would be entirely natural.
In the UK we have pretty strict sub judice rules in place for centuries, but in the MAGA crowd it is 'stuff is being hidden to prosecute patriots' bullshit.
On the left there's an interest in our justice because UK prosecutors do not threaten people with 100 year long sentences to get them plead to a less 20 year sentence crime.
Take a step back. I am an English lawyer but I don't understand how the chief witness here can be anonymised. If my country is going to condemn someone to life in a concrete coffin I want the process to be above board. I can't imagine even in principle how that requirement can be overridden and we get the literally Kafkaesque situation of Dr A. Can you?