It's not just David Davis asking questions about this case.
"Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips"
I have little idea about whether Letby is guilty or not; and she is perhaps the only person who knows for sure. There are questions, but you can always raise questions about such cases, especially if you choose to be economical with the evidence. Or not.
More interesting is the way this case in particular has caught the public's attention, when (say) Beverley Allitt's did not.
Arguably this is down to social media, which wasn't a thing in 1993. I too have no idea if she is guilty or innocent (currently her status as determined at trial is guilty) but the doubt arises because of cases such as that of the Dutch nurse Lucia de Berk.
It's not just David Davis asking questions about this case.
"Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips"
I have little idea about whether Letby is guilty or not; and she is perhaps the only person who knows for sure. There are questions, but you can always raise questions about such cases, especially if you choose to be economical with the evidence. Or not.
More interesting is the way this case in particular has caught the public's attention, when (say) Beverley Allitt's did not.
Arguably this is down to social media, which wasn't a thing in 1993. I too have no idea if she is guilty or innocent (currently her status as determined at trial is guilty) but the doubt arises because of cases such as that of the Dutch nurse Lucia de Berk.
There’s a lot of ‘Americans’ that seem to be taking quite the interest in the case, all of whom are totally convinced of her innocence. It’s likely to be one of the subjects that’s come up on the radar of our friends in Russia and China.
The angle of the MAGA right is that the reporting restrictions in place in the UK (sic) legal system is proof that the woke/lefties like Starmer are jailing innocents.
We see it low IQ posters posting things like 'Three years in prison for saying you're not British to coppers' when the reality is that the criminals did say that but they were convicted for serious cases of violence.
Or saying "Who the hell is Alan" ?
It is similar with the equally dense people who claim the "whole truth five" were jailed for attending a zoom meeting or raising awareness on Climate Change. A subject that is hardly ever off the news.
I blame the reporting as much as the people making those claims.
Very often they are simply regurgitating the headlines they see.
Tactically I worry that Labour has made a mistake on WFA. Reducing triple lock (perhaps make it 1% vs. 2.5%) would probably save more and would be much less noticeable to pensioners.
(If I've got my sums right, we spend £125bn on state pension. So reducing uplift to 1% in a single year (of low inflation) = £~1.7bn.)
The problem there is that money needed to be found immediately - hence the attack on the only large bit of money not paid out yet..
Why does it need to be immediate? I thought fiscal rules applied to the parliamentary period?
Survation brings despair for Scottish independence
Researchers at Survation spoke to 1,021 people in Scotland eligible to vote in a survey commissioned by the campaign group Scotland in Union.
They were questioned between between August 27 and 29 and, according to the poll, both the SNP and Scottish Labour are on 28 per cent support in the constituency vote among likely voters.
Anas Sarwar’s Scottish Labour Party enjoys a one-point lead over John Swinney’s SNP at 25 per cent and 24 per cent respectively in the regional list vote.
The Scottish Greens, meanwhile, landed on 6 per cent support in constituencies and 9 per cent in the regional list, the Scottish Lib Dems had 9 per cent in both areas and Alba recorded 1 per cent in the constituencies and 2 per cent in the regions...
....the Tories would win just 11 per cent of votes on the proportional regional list, which is where most of their MSPs were returned in the 2021 Scottish parliament election.
Reform would win 8 per cent, which would result in the party gaining a handful of seats despite having next to no campaigning presence north of the border.
In constituency votes, the Conservative share would halve to 11 per cent while Reform would jump to 9 per cent....
The poll also sought to assess the level of support for Scottish independence as the ten-year anniversary of the referendum in 2014 approaches....
...The 2014 question asked was, “should Scotland be an independent country?” with 55 per cent answering “no” and 45 per cent “yes”.
Love these questions: - Public spending on health and education is reduced - If you thought the following scenarios were likely to occur as a result of Scottish independence, would this make you more or less likely to vote for independence?
- Public spending on health and education is reduced - If you thought the following scenarios were likely to occur as a result of Scottish independence, would this make you more or less likely to vote for independence?
- Your personal income is reduced - If you thought the following scenarios were likely to occur as a result of Scottish independence, would this make you more or less likely to vote for independence?
It's not just David Davis asking questions about this case.
"Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips"
I have little idea about whether Letby is guilty or not; and she is perhaps the only person who knows for sure. There are questions, but you can always raise questions about such cases, especially if you choose to be economical with the evidence. Or not.
More interesting is the way this case in particular has caught the public's attention, when (say) Beverley Allitt's did not.
Arguably this is down to social media, which wasn't a thing in 1993. I too have no idea if she is guilty or innocent (currently her status as determined at trial is guilty) but the doubt arises because of cases such as that of the Dutch nurse Lucia de Berk.
And yet Letby's defence didn't question the statistics that were used..
I once worked for a lawyer (as a manager)
He thought that it was a sign of incompetence that every single decision path in complex software couldn't be tested in all possible combinations. Also, that he couldn't get a perfect solution to a problem that was actually the Travelling Salesman problem.
There was no beginning to his knowledge. And no end to the utter certainty that he knew everything he needed to, as a manager.
Harris has a 3% of lead in North Carolina. Although with 30 EC votes for Florida, if she wins that, the rest is chaff.
That's the best poll for Harris for quite a while - but she's still behind in Florida.
If she loses Florida and Texas narrowly then she could be on track to lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote by a huge margin.
If she wins North Carolina, then Trump is in a world of pain. His routes to the White House get seriously choked.
The margin of error in that FLorida poll is 2%. So it could be a dead heat. Trump hasn't planned on spending his limited resources on defending his home town. Every dollar spent there isn't spent in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Harris has huge enthusiasm in the state in terms of GOTV.
I've been saying Florida is a great trading bet.
Every poll this month has put Trump ahead in Florida.
AFAIK not a single PBer is calling for the banning of cash. Many of us don’t use it and think it pointless, inconvenient, environmentally wasteful, risky and time-consuming, but that is rather a different thing.
There are however many weirdo brown-gloved cash-fetishists on here who wish to make draconian restrictions on private businesses and force them to accept an antiquated mode of barter at their own expense, despite they and their customers being happily cashless.
Funny old world.
If you don't have universal, or near-universal, acceptance of cash in the country, then it rapidly becomes pointless as business will not take it. As you well know.
And cash is useful for many people; not for you, perhaps, but others.
Really?
Would you force businesses to accept cash? And, if so, would you apply such a law to online businesses or only those that have bricks & mortar premises?
We can barely get them to accept Scottish banknotes.
Almost no businesses near me in north London accept Scottish money – chiefly because their staff cannot tell a real note from a fake. This has been the case for as long as I can remember.
Just asking.
Why are you wandering around North London trying to make people accept Scottish Banknotes?
Cos he's scared of south London, innit.
Scared is overegging it.
But, of course one prefers to avoid it.
One of the three famed pieces of advice from the aged Earl to his son and heir:
It's not just David Davis asking questions about this case.
"Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips"
If that is to scale, surely they must be foothills???
Lol
If that mountain were in the Alps, it would be about the fiftieth highest, up there not far below the Ortler. The Rockies don’t look nearly as high as they are, because the plain all around is itself over 1000m and the valleys haven’t been as deeply glaciated as in Europe. The hotels I’ve stayed in here, in the valley towns, have all been higher than the cable car upper stations I visit every year in the South Tyrol.
Off topic, but this is the Eastern edge of Canary Wharf today.
Every building in shot has gone up in the last couple of years. All the new building is residential.
In at least this one corner of Britain there are no NIMBYs, no construction drought, and a constant volume of high quality supply coming on-stream.
I lived for a year on Landon's Close on the eastern side of the Isle of Dogs in 1993/4. When I ran past last year, I was glad to see that the flat still exists, although the scenery has fairly radically changed. I'm glad to see that the rather sad expanse of water outside the flat is now a marina.
I thought about buying a nearby flat. Perhaps I should have - and I wonder what the return would have been over 30 years?
They were almost giving flats away around there back then, after the late ‘80s housing slump. But the area felt and looked like a windswept building site and there were absolutely no amenities other than lonely DLR stations plonked down in the gaps between the water. With hindsight it would have been a cracking investment, but a rubbish place to live back then.
A city which, it turns out, is doing that fantastic thing we have previously identified on PB - “fulfilling all your most cliched tourist expectations” - like going to Paris and finding an impossibly rude waiter who flamboyantly shrugs at you, while wearing a beret
In Vancouver’s case: the expectation fulfilled is “being ridiculously scenic and obviously liveable”
Also, cracking oysters. Of COURSE it would have great oysters
The strange orange bread dipping sauce in the little shallow jar is a reduction of lobster shells in butter - notably delicious
Vancouver is said to have one of the most picturesque cricket grounds in the world. Geoff Boycott mentioned it on Test Match Special a few years ago.
This is the most picturesque cricket ground I umpired a match on, back in my umpiring-the-under13s days.
I'm a big fan of the Valley of the Rocks cricket ground (Lynton and Lynmouth cricket club).
If that is to scale, surely they must be foothills???
Lol
If that mountain were in the Alps, it would be about the fiftieth highest, up there not far below the Ortler. The Rockies don’t look nearly as high as they are, because the plain all around is itself over 1000m and the valleys haven’t been as deeply glaciated as in Europe. The hotels I’ve stayed in here, in the valley towns, have all been higher than the cable car upper stations I visit every year in the South Tyrol.
It's not just David Davis asking questions about this case.
"Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips"
We discussed this earlier - and no one changed their opinions..
I always live in hope that people might change their opinions, generally speaking. 😊
People don't really have 'opinions' as we think of them though. It's only when discussing their thoughts that these ideas crystallise into iron wall certainties. Thus 'discussion groups' should all be locked up in discussion proof cells.
Obviously I'm not open to discussion on this - it's just my idea. I don't want to have an opinion.
Anyone know when the Tory vote is coming through? That sort of information used to be easily available at previous contests but seems to be difficulty to find this time for some reason.
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips ... “It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-conviction-unsafe-says-boris-johnson-adviser/ (£££)
So, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are multiple elements that need to be unpicked.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
Anyone know when the Tory vote is coming through? That sort of information used to be easily available at previous contests but seems to be difficulty to find this time for some reason.
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips ... “It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-conviction-unsafe-says-boris-johnson-adviser/ (£££)
So, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are multiple elements that need to be unpicked.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
"Firstly, were there are actually any murders?"
Surely this is a terrible place to start. A bit Spanish-inquisitiony of you.
Reading a bit about Jenrick (better late than never) I am now a huge fan.
Done for speeding twice on arguably the two most irritating stretches of speed-controlled roads on the planet - the M1 variable speed section, presumably where they have those stupid metal barriers up, and, as people will know on PB, my personal bete noir - the Westway in London.
Good for him.
Is this a new ban, or the one from 2023? Same excuse as Andy Burnham - "I didn't notice the sign".
That should also make you a fan of Tom Tugendhat btw, who got himself banned in 2022, and is mentioned in the same article.
That excuse (not seeing the sign) always seems to me to be an aggravation in that the driver is clearly driving without due care and attention, contrary to s3. Did he also fail to notice the mother and pram?
Or the Bridge or Police Car wearing Hi-Viz
(My photo quota. This van looks to be a couple of metres too tall).
There but for the grace of god. In 52 years of driving I have been stopped by the police 3 times. On all 3 times justifiably so, but on all 3 occasions I have been let off at the scene. Twice I was just at fault and should have known better. Once I had complete brain failure.
In the case of brain failure the lights changed and I was the first car turning right at a major junction (3 lanes in each direction) so I just went straight across the 3 lanes of oncoming traffic (why I don't know). I wasn't being a boy racer. I just reacted to the lights changing and went, nice and calmly. On the inside lane of the oncoming traffic was a police car who naturally followed me and stopped me. He shouted at me for about 10 minutes, then probably realised he was dealing with a moron and let me go.
One of the other times I got stopped by a police car was for reading while driving. I was trying to find a house from the estate agents details and was lost and I occasionally glanced down at the details. He asked what would have happened if someone had been crossing the pelican crossing. I thought it wise not to say 'What pelican crossing?'.
The other instance was speeding, which I was because I was late.
The last 2 were deliberate and dangerous and I should have known better. I guess the brain failure is driving without due care and attention, but I am not sure any punishment can stop that happening, although I could easily have caused an accident. We all do daft things without thinking.
That's a very interesting account - thankyou. I have been driving for 40 years, with iirc five 3-point tickets. One part of my wake up was when I moved to London in the late 1990s and received three tickets in a two month period - one for a 36 in a 30 type speeding offence, and two for not stopping when an amber traffic light turned to red as it would be an emergency stop. City police were having a crackdown on red lights. But such reasons are just excuses. In reality my error was driving too fast to try and rush through the lights, either for the daytime one or the 1am one.
I became more radicalised on these questions as I have become more familiar through organisations such as Roadpeace with the number of innocent people who are killed, crippled or hospitalised by people making driving errors that they themselves think of as trivial, and in their belief system as actually not worthy of being a motoring offence, and therefore in some way acceptable.
IMO the answer to your couple of errors is better training / education with things such as graduated licenses and a repeat driving education / update perhaps every 10 years at licence renewal time.
I think that the totting-up 6 month ban provisions (12 points ie 4x3-point offences in 3 years) are a decent dividing line between "occasional driver mistake" and "driver who is a risk to the public". One thing we need to deal with is those who see a totting-up ban as being "unfortunate" to get rather than "f*ck, I'm a dodgy driver".
And in particular those who create a bubble of delusion to avoid looking in the mirror and seeing themselves as they are. Consider our former Notts PCC Caroline Henry, who committed five speeding offences around the time she got the position. Her main excuse was around "I was late with my child's school paperwork". Then her "exceptional hardship" excuse for wanting to avoid a ban was looking after the same child ... turning her child into a human shield. SInce then she has used a rhetoric of being a victim of bullying because people mention her driving ban.
That needs flipping - so that the child becomes a reason for not committing the offences in the first place, rather than an excuse for getting away with doing the crimes.
I'd make a totting-up ban perhaps 3 years, and basically abolish the Exception Hardship loophole. Then the 10-15k per annum who use the loophole to avoid totting-up bans would start concentrating on being better, safer, less selfish drivers. We'll get something under this Government, but it will only be 12 months and a modest tightening of Exceptional Hardship rules.
Stopped by the police three times in my driving career. Once doing 90 on a three lane dual carriageway at night, with nothing about. Bang to rights, kind of, but my argument about the police not stopping cars doing the same on the nearby M6 didn't wahs. Second time I missed an exit at a roundabout, went round again, plod thought I was taking the piss. Happy with my explanation so off I went. Third time a slow car in the outside lane of an empty dual carriageway was in front. Unmarked car comes up behind me and flashes to get out of the way. I got annoyed and dabbed my brakes. He then pulled me over. No ticket - he tried to bollock me but I blamed him for his aggressive driving. I think he realised he was in the wrong too (we both were) and that the ultimate cause was the idiot in front in the wrong lane - I hadn't wanted to undertake and neither did the plod.
Long distance in the US almost everyone goes faster than the limit, but the actual crime that gets you pulled over appears to be having an out-of-state numberplate…
Harris has a 3% of lead in North Carolina. Although with 30 EC votes for Florida, if she wins that, the rest is chaff.
That's the best poll for Harris for quite a while - but she's still behind in Florida.
If she loses Florida and Texas narrowly then she could be on track to lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote by a huge margin.
If she wins North Carolina, then Trump is in a world of pain. His routes to the White House get seriously choked.
The margin of error in that FLorida poll is 2%. So it could be a dead heat. Trump hasn't planned on spending his limited resources on defending his home town. Every dollar spent there isn't spent in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Harris has huge enthusiasm in the state in terms of GOTV.
I've been saying Florida is a great trading bet.
Every poll this month has put Trump ahead in Florida.
Well duh!! There are a million more registered Republicans than Democrats in Florida. So to be within 2% when the margin of error in this poll is 2% - that's newsworthy.
Like I said, if Harris wins Florida - and it is still a big (but getting smaller) if - she has just won more EC votes than New York will give her. Trump's ego will not cope with the voters pulling that choke-chain.
The real effect of this poll is not so much Harris is going to win - but that Trump has to spend money in Florida to try to keep ahead. That's a bunch more lawyers not getting paid...
And as TSE will tell you - that is not a place you want to be.
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips ... “It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-conviction-unsafe-says-boris-johnson-adviser/ (£££)
So, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are multiple elements that need to be unpicked.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
C peptide is produced in a fixed 1:1 ratio with natural insulin, however the metabolism and half life are different so the ratio will vary with a number of factors including when the sample was taken and how it was stored. Hence it needs a Chemical Pathologist with knowledge of these to comment.
A city which, it turns out, is doing that fantastic thing we have previously identified on PB - “fulfilling all your most cliched tourist expectations” - like going to Paris and finding an impossibly rude waiter who flamboyantly shrugs at you, while wearing a beret
In Vancouver’s case: the expectation fulfilled is “being ridiculously scenic and obviously liveable”
Also, cracking oysters. Of COURSE it would have great oysters
The strange orange bread dipping sauce in the little shallow jar is a reduction of lobster shells in butter - notably delicious
Haiti next?
Well, I’ve heard the locals take a very unsentimental view of the domestic cat, so I’d fit right in
Probably a very unsentimental view of you and all.
'Elon Musk, right-wing media personalities post unverified claims about cannibalism in Haiti'
I shall be the first to say 'it's what he would have wanted' when the tragic reports of semi digested Leon come through.
I have some extremely hardcore journalist/security friends who’ve done stints in the worst war zones - from Iraq to grozny - who independently tell me Haiti is the scariest place bar none (and this was BEFORE the recent breakdown in law n order)
Also, is the cannibalism unverified?! IIRC there is video of a guy actually roasting an enemy and eating a chunk of him live on camera, and it has not been questioned (but I could be wrong)
I have a friend from Haiti. I don't know if they have a middle class there, but if they do he was surely in it, since he seemed able to leave to study abroad with relative ease and then to get a middle class job and a wife in England. Anyway. I aksed him about Haiti once and what the push factors were which sent him abroad, and his response was that Haiti was 'boring'. Which wasn't the answer I was expecting.
Off topic, but this is the Eastern edge of Canary Wharf today.
Every building in shot has gone up in the last couple of years. All the new building is residential.
In at least this one corner of Britain there are no NIMBYs, no construction drought, and a constant volume of high quality supply coming on-stream.
I lived for a year on Landon's Close on the eastern side of the Isle of Dogs in 1993/4. When I ran past last year, I was glad to see that the flat still exists, although the scenery has fairly radically changed. I'm glad to see that the rather sad expanse of water outside the flat is now a marina.
I thought about buying a nearby flat. Perhaps I should have - and I wonder what the return would have been over 30 years?
They were almost giving flats away around there back then, after the late ‘80s housing slump. But the area felt and looked like a windswept building site and there were absolutely no amenities other than lonely DLR stations plonked down in the gaps between the water. With hindsight it would have been a cracking investment, but a rubbish place to live back then.
To be fair to the people running the Canary Wharf Estate, they have really kept up the maintenance and worked to improve the place incrementally.
Lots of pedestrian space, worked on getting more shops and bars to open through the weekend, lots of well designed public space.
The design for the Crossrail station was especially good.
On the political betting thing: Does anyone know when the ballot result will be announced today? I have an idea it could be 4pm or 4.30pm? Thanks in advance and good luck.
Harris has a 3% of lead in North Carolina. Although with 30 EC votes for Florida, if she wins that, the rest is chaff.
That's the best poll for Harris for quite a while - but she's still behind in Florida.
If she loses Florida and Texas narrowly then she could be on track to lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote by a huge margin.
If she wins North Carolina, then Trump is in a world of pain. His routes to the White House get seriously choked.
The margin of error in that FLorida poll is 2%. So it could be a dead heat. Trump hasn't planned on spending his limited resources on defending his home town. Every dollar spent there isn't spent in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Harris has huge enthusiasm in the state in terms of GOTV.
I've been saying Florida is a great trading bet.
Every poll this month has put Trump ahead in Florida.
Well duh!! There are a million more registered Republicans than Democrats in Florida. So to be within 2% when the margin of error in this poll is 2% - that's newsworthy.
Like I said, if Harris wins Florida - and it is still a big (but getting smaller) if - she has just won more EC votes than New York will give her. Trump's ego will not cope with the voters pulling that choke-chain.
The real effect of this poll is not so much Harris is going to win - but that Trump has to spend money in Florida to try to keep ahead. That's a bunch more lawyers not getting paid...
And as TSE will tell you - that is not a place you want to be.
Anyone know when the Tory vote is coming through? That sort of information used to be easily available at previous contests but seems to be difficulty to find this time for some reason.
Andrew Sparrow, in his Guardian UK Politics live blog, gives 5pm as the time we're due to hear the result of the next round of the Tory leadership election. See the first post.
The Commons was busy with debates and voting on the winter fuel allowance earlier this afternoon which will be why it is later.
Edit: Generally the Guardian live blog is pretty good for its expected agenda of political events for the day.
A city which, it turns out, is doing that fantastic thing we have previously identified on PB - “fulfilling all your most cliched tourist expectations” - like going to Paris and finding an impossibly rude waiter who flamboyantly shrugs at you, while wearing a beret
In Vancouver’s case: the expectation fulfilled is “being ridiculously scenic and obviously liveable”
Also, cracking oysters. Of COURSE it would have great oysters
The strange orange bread dipping sauce in the little shallow jar is a reduction of lobster shells in butter - notably delicious
Vancouver is said to have one of the most picturesque cricket grounds in the world. Geoff Boycott mentioned it on Test Match Special a few years ago.
This is the most picturesque cricket ground I umpired a match on, back in my umpiring-the-under13s days.
I can't claim I either umpired or played there, but Warkworth cricket ground has a shout to be one of the most picturesque in the country. The only time I have ever seen cricket being played there was under one of those dramatic summer evening skies which the east of England seems to specialise in, where there's going to be a thunderstorm in about 40 minutes and there is a massive blank of cloud in one direction, but the other is eye-wateringly bright.
Moscow admits that what hit a residential tower in the city last night, killing a woman, was a result of their air defences, rather than the target of the Ukranian drone.
A city which, it turns out, is doing that fantastic thing we have previously identified on PB - “fulfilling all your most cliched tourist expectations” - like going to Paris and finding an impossibly rude waiter who flamboyantly shrugs at you, while wearing a beret
In Vancouver’s case: the expectation fulfilled is “being ridiculously scenic and obviously liveable”
Also, cracking oysters. Of COURSE it would have great oysters
The strange orange bread dipping sauce in the little shallow jar is a reduction of lobster shells in butter - notably delicious
Vancouver is said to have one of the most picturesque cricket grounds in the world. Geoff Boycott mentioned it on Test Match Special a few years ago.
This is the most picturesque cricket ground I umpired a match on, back in my umpiring-the-under13s days.
I can't claim I either umpired or played there, but Warkworth cricket ground has a shout to be one of the most picturesque in the country. The only time I have ever seen cricket being played there was under one of those dramatic summer evening skies which the east of England seems to specialise in, where there's going to be a thunderstorm in about 40 minutes and there is a massive blank of cloud in one direction, but the other is eye-wateringly bright.
There's any number of these in Derbyshire, from Chatsworth and Queens Park Chesterfield down.
For my photo quota today I'll go for Stanton-in-the-Peak, which is also slightly fieldish. It also has an immaculate simple Victorian Church, a little pub called the Flying Childers and the Nine Ladies stone circle. https://flyingchilders.com/
It's not just David Davis asking questions about this case.
"Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips"
We discussed this earlier - and no one changed their opinions..
I always live in hope that people might change their opinions, generally speaking. 😊
People don't really have 'opinions' as we think of them though. It's only when discussing their thoughts that these ideas crystallise into iron wall certainties. Thus 'discussion groups' should all be locked up in discussion proof cells.
Obviously I'm not open to discussion on this - it's just my idea. I don't want to have an opinion.
Having a very strong opinion on a whole host of things is more vice than virtue. It's more likely to be a form of bigotry or attention seeking than a sign of intellect or discernment. There are exceptions to this but they are of the 'to the rule' variety.
That there is one of my stronger opinions because it's both derived from logic and backed up by my lived experience. When those 2 lemons align on something I tend to run with it.
It's not just David Davis asking questions about this case.
"Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips"
We discussed this earlier - and no one changed their opinions..
I always live in hope that people might change their opinions, generally speaking. 😊
People don't really have 'opinions' as we think of them though. It's only when discussing their thoughts that these ideas crystallise into iron wall certainties. Thus 'discussion groups' should all be locked up in discussion proof cells.
Obviously I'm not open to discussion on this - it's just my idea. I don't want to have an opinion.
Having a very strong opinion on a whole host of things is more vice than virtue. It's more likely to be a form of bigotry or attention seeking than a sign of intellect or discernment. There are exceptions to this but they are of the 'to the rule' variety.
That there is one of my stronger opinions because it's both derived from logic and backed up by my lived experience. When those 2 lemons align on something I tend to run with it.
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips ... “It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-conviction-unsafe-says-boris-johnson-adviser/ (£££)
So, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are multiple elements that need to be unpicked.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
"Firstly, were there are actually any murders?"
Surely this is a terrible place to start. A bit Spanish-inquisitiony of you.
We should be on top of this kind of argument. The odds of any one winning the National Lottery are tiny, but someone wins. The odds on random clusters of deaths at any one NICU ward might be tiny but if you have 100 NICU wards how does it look then?
We ask the question - how was the case produced? Did someone suspect Letby and then the suspicious cases were those were she was on shift? Or were the suspicious cases selected blind (only on clinical evidence) and then lo! Letby appears to be the only one on shift. I think the latter is the case from what has been posted on here.
There is a report of Letby being 'caught in the act' of harming a baby. Is that reliable, or a misinterpretation of what a non-medic witnessed?
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips ... “It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-conviction-unsafe-says-boris-johnson-adviser/ (£££)
So, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are multiple elements that need to be unpicked.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
"Firstly, were there are actually any murders?"
Surely this is a terrible place to start. A bit Spanish-inquisitiony of you.
We should be on top of this kind of argument. The odds of any one winning the National Lottery are tiny, but someone wins. The odds on random clusters of deaths at any one NICU ward might be tiny but if you have 100 NICU wards how does it look then?
We ask the question - how was the case produced? Did someone suspect Letby and then the suspicious cases were those were she was on shift? Or were the suspicious cases selected blind (only on clinical evidence) and then lo! Letby appears to be the only one on shift. I think the latter is the case from what has been posted on here.
There is a report of Letby being 'caught in the act' of harming a baby. Is that reliable, or a misinterpretation of what a non-medic witnessed?
I don't know whether the convictions are safe or not. The evidence seemed to rely on hearsay and was circumstantial. The golden bullet was the probability quotients and now they are being questioned.
When she was first arrested and remanded on bail for between eighteen months and two years it struck me then that Letby was a solid suspect looking for a crime.
Now she may have been fitted up, but then it is quite likely she could have committed crimes too.
Letby going down has the added bonus of letting failing hospital managers off the hook.
Its about the surge in voter registration that we discussed a week or so ago. What's different about it is the predictive ability of it, given that it measures enthusiasm amongst likely voters.
One anecdote is in relation to Kansas. After Dobbs a pro abortion resolution was on the ballot. In the run up to it more than 70% of the new registration voters were women. It was, according to the polling, supposed to be close. The pro abortion resolution won by 18 percentage points. In Kansas. Because of those late registering women. It really encourages me to believe that Dobbs is going to cost Trump this election, which is wonderfully ironic.
Tactically I worry that Labour has made a mistake on WFA. Reducing triple lock (perhaps make it 1% vs. 2.5%) would probably save more and would be much less noticeable to pensioners.
(If I've got my sums right, we spend £125bn on state pension. So reducing uplift to 1% in a single year (of low inflation) = £~1.7bn.)
Problem is Labour committed to keeping triple lock but not WFP.
If they are going to break their promises, Labour would do better to revert the NI cut that Jeremy Hunt put in place as a trap for his successors as he wasn't expecting to hang around after July. They could get all the additional revenue in one measure and take the one hit for it. This way they suffer death by a thousand cuts as they scrape ways of squeezing revenue by means not explicitly ruled out
I am ambivalent about Kemi Badenoch's candidacy in the Tory leadership election, but it is surely the Conservative Party and the wider country who are victims of a process that leads MPs to vote 'against' popular (and presumably better) candidates to prevent them getting on to members' ballot. It is a negative race to the bottom that leads to duds making it to the members, who then get the blame for electing one of them.
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips ... “It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-conviction-unsafe-says-boris-johnson-adviser/ (£££)
So, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are multiple elements that need to be unpicked.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
"Firstly, were there are actually any murders?"
Surely this is a terrible place to start. A bit Spanish-inquisitiony of you.
We should be on top of this kind of argument. The odds of any one winning the National Lottery are tiny, but someone wins. The odds on random clusters of deaths at any one NICU ward might be tiny but if you have 100 NICU wards how does it look then?
We ask the question - how was the case produced? Did someone suspect Letby and then the suspicious cases were those were she was on shift? Or were the suspicious cases selected blind (only on clinical evidence) and then lo! Letby appears to be the only one on shift. I think the latter is the case from what has been posted on here.
There is a report of Letby being 'caught in the act' of harming a baby. Is that reliable, or a misinterpretation of what a non-medic witnessed?
The suggestion being made is that the doctor who raised concerns about Letby was her ex, and that his identity and their relationship was hidden from the jury. If this is true, and he was responsible for the identification of the suspicious deaths, possibly framing Letby, then it would raise serious questions about the trial, and it would provide some context for the initial refusal by management to take his concerns seriously.
But I've only come across this argument from links shared on here, so I wouldn't know if it was made up.
Ooh an MRP model that flies in the face of most regular state by state polling and it's unusually beneficial for Trump. I wonder who posted that?
Shocked to see not share this part of the tweet which makes you wonder
U.S. House 🟦 Democrats: 223 seats 🟥 Republicans: 212 seats
Who are foc-all data anyway?
A pollster who weren't the worst MRP pollster at the UK GE.
I've just checked them out. Their Labour vote share was miles out, they way over reported the Labour majority and some of the seat figures for the other parties weren't great. I suppose it's all relative. If they were a solid 5/10 and everyone else achieved a 2/10 they did OK.
One thing that bodes well for Harris, I think, is her favourability numbers. She's now at 46.3-47.0 and so a good debate would likely give her a positive net score.
Harris has a 3% of lead in North Carolina. Although with 30 EC votes for Florida, if she wins that, the rest is chaff.
That's the best poll for Harris for quite a while - but she's still behind in Florida.
If she loses Florida and Texas narrowly then she could be on track to lose the Electoral College while winning the popular vote by a huge margin.
If she wins North Carolina, then Trump is in a world of pain. His routes to the White House get seriously choked.
The margin of error in that FLorida poll is 2%. So it could be a dead heat. Trump hasn't planned on spending his limited resources on defending his home town. Every dollar spent there isn't spent in Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Harris has huge enthusiasm in the state in terms of GOTV.
I've been saying Florida is a great trading bet.
Every poll this month has put Trump ahead in Florida.
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips ... “It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-conviction-unsafe-says-boris-johnson-adviser/ (£££)
So, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are multiple elements that need to be unpicked.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
"Firstly, were there are actually any murders?"
Surely this is a terrible place to start. A bit Spanish-inquisitiony of you.
We should be on top of this kind of argument. The odds of any one winning the National Lottery are tiny, but someone wins. The odds on random clusters of deaths at any one NICU ward might be tiny but if you have 100 NICU wards how does it look then?
We ask the question - how was the case produced? Did someone suspect Letby and then the suspicious cases were those were she was on shift? Or were the suspicious cases selected blind (only on clinical evidence) and then lo! Letby appears to be the only one on shift. I think the latter is the case from what has been posted on here.
There is a report of Letby being 'caught in the act' of harming a baby. Is that reliable, or a misinterpretation of what a non-medic witnessed?
The suggestion being made is that the doctor who raised concerns about Letby was her ex, and that his identity and their relationship was hidden from the jury. If this is true, and he was responsible for the identification of the suspicious deaths, possibly framing Letby, then it would raise serious questions about the trial, and it would provide some context for the initial refusal by management to take his concerns seriously.
But I've only come across this argument from links shared on here, so I wouldn't know if it was made up.
Two edged sword, though.
An ex might have had a motive for framing. Or might have seen a lot of red flags, run away, and raised concerns.
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips ... “It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-conviction-unsafe-says-boris-johnson-adviser/ (£££)
So, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are multiple elements that need to be unpicked.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
"Firstly, were there are actually any murders?"
Surely this is a terrible place to start. A bit Spanish-inquisitiony of you.
We should be on top of this kind of argument. The odds of any one winning the National Lottery are tiny, but someone wins. The odds on random clusters of deaths at any one NICU ward might be tiny but if you have 100 NICU wards how does it look then?
We ask the question - how was the case produced? Did someone suspect Letby and then the suspicious cases were those were she was on shift? Or were the suspicious cases selected blind (only on clinical evidence) and then lo! Letby appears to be the only one on shift. I think the latter is the case from what has been posted on here.
There is a report of Letby being 'caught in the act' of harming a baby. Is that reliable, or a misinterpretation of what a non-medic witnessed?
The suggestion being made is that the doctor who raised concerns about Letby was her ex, and that his identity and their relationship was hidden from the jury. If this is true, and he was responsible for the identification of the suspicious deaths, possibly framing Letby, then it would raise serious questions about the trial, and it would provide some context for the initial refusal by management to take his concerns seriously.
But I've only come across this argument from links shared on here, so I wouldn't know if it was made up.
Two edged sword, though.
An ex might have had a motive for framing. Or might have seen a lot of red flags, run away, and raised concerns.
Yes, that thought occurred to me too. But this was all hidden from the jury.
John Rentoul @JohnRentoul · 2m Good result for Badenoch
I'm not sure it is. It's hard to see her making the final two from here, unless she's been lending votes too.
I'd have thought Stride's vote would mainly go to Tugendhat and Cleverly - and if it splits evenly, Kemi's out next round. More likely (in my view) is that Strides vote goes something like 2/2/7/5 to J/B/C/T, putting Tugendhat out and Cleverly comfortably through - then Tugendhat's votes transfer mainly to Cleverly, giving the members a choice of Jenrick or Cleverly.
MRP polls are funny: I would be staggered if Harris won Nevada by 2.3, but Wisconsin went Trump by 2.5%.
If you look at how those States performed at the midterms:
- Nevada swung Red, which as a near border State which was hammered by Covid restrictions, sounds about right. I think Nevada is probably the most likely pickup of all the 2016 Democrat States.
- Wisconsin became bluer, with Republican incumbent Ron Johnson only holding on by a percent. I find it hard to believe that that the Republicans will take Wisconsin easily, given how poorly they performed there in 2022.
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips ... “It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-conviction-unsafe-says-boris-johnson-adviser/ (£££)
So, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are multiple elements that need to be unpicked.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
"Firstly, were there are actually any murders?"
Surely this is a terrible place to start. A bit Spanish-inquisitiony of you.
We should be on top of this kind of argument. The odds of any one winning the National Lottery are tiny, but someone wins. The odds on random clusters of deaths at any one NICU ward might be tiny but if you have 100 NICU wards how does it look then?
We ask the question - how was the case produced? Did someone suspect Letby and then the suspicious cases were those were she was on shift? Or were the suspicious cases selected blind (only on clinical evidence) and then lo! Letby appears to be the only one on shift. I think the latter is the case from what has been posted on here.
There is a report of Letby being 'caught in the act' of harming a baby. Is that reliable, or a misinterpretation of what a non-medic witnessed?
Which is why the insulin evidence is so important: if it is credible, that makes it extremely likely that murders were committed.
Otherwise, as you say, there's bound to be one NICU that - by chance or incompetence rather than malice - has much higher death rates than average.
Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips ... “It was not, and is not, apparent to me that anyone in the chain of events leading from Letby being placed under suspicion by the consultants to the three-judge appeal being turned down had the skillset or perspective needed to detect potentially catastrophically weak links in this web of evidential relationships.” https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/09/09/lucy-letby-conviction-unsafe-says-boris-johnson-adviser/ (£££)
So, I've been thinking a lot about this, and I think there are multiple elements that need to be unpicked.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
"Firstly, were there are actually any murders?"
Surely this is a terrible place to start. A bit Spanish-inquisitiony of you.
We should be on top of this kind of argument. The odds of any one winning the National Lottery are tiny, but someone wins. The odds on random clusters of deaths at any one NICU ward might be tiny but if you have 100 NICU wards how does it look then?
We ask the question - how was the case produced? Did someone suspect Letby and then the suspicious cases were those were she was on shift? Or were the suspicious cases selected blind (only on clinical evidence) and then lo! Letby appears to be the only one on shift. I think the latter is the case from what has been posted on here.
There is a report of Letby being 'caught in the act' of harming a baby. Is that reliable, or a misinterpretation of what a non-medic witnessed?
The suggestion being made is that the doctor who raised concerns about Letby was her ex, and that his identity and their relationship was hidden from the jury. If this is true, and he was responsible for the identification of the suspicious deaths, possibly framing Letby, then it would raise serious questions about the trial, and it would provide some context for the initial refusal by management to take his concerns seriously.
But I've only come across this argument from links shared on here, so I wouldn't know if it was made up.
But that doesn't really address the question as to whether there really were murders. (Although, I guess, it could make him the killer. Which would be quite a plot twist.)
It's not just David Davis asking questions about this case.
"Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips"
We discussed this earlier - and no one changed their opinions..
I always live in hope that people might change their opinions, generally speaking. 😊
People don't really have 'opinions' as we think of them though. It's only when discussing their thoughts that these ideas crystallise into iron wall certainties. Thus 'discussion groups' should all be locked up in discussion proof cells.
Obviously I'm not open to discussion on this - it's just my idea. I don't want to have an opinion.
Having a very strong opinion on a whole host of things is more vice than virtue. It's more likely to be a form of bigotry or attention seeking than a sign of intellect or discernment. There are exceptions to this but they are of the 'to the rule' variety.
That there is one of my stronger opinions because it's both derived from logic and backed up by my lived experience. When those 2 lemons align on something I tend to run with it.
Ah I see you have strong opinions because they are rational, others who have strong opinions you disagree with have them because they are stupid.
You wonder why so many rational people despise the left because of that thinking?
It's not just David Davis asking questions about this case.
"Letby’s conviction is unsafe, says Boris Johnson’s former science adviser Evidence presented to the jury was so flawed as to make it not a fair trial, argues James Phillips"
We discussed this earlier - and no one changed their opinions..
I always live in hope that people might change their opinions, generally speaking. 😊
People don't really have 'opinions' as we think of them though. It's only when discussing their thoughts that these ideas crystallise into iron wall certainties. Thus 'discussion groups' should all be locked up in discussion proof cells.
Obviously I'm not open to discussion on this - it's just my idea. I don't want to have an opinion.
Having a very strong opinion on a whole host of things is more vice than virtue. It's more likely to be a form of bigotry or attention seeking than a sign of intellect or discernment. There are exceptions to this but they are of the 'to the rule' variety.
That there is one of my stronger opinions because it's both derived from logic and backed up by my lived experience. When those 2 lemons align on something I tend to run with it.
Ah I see you have strong opinions because they are rational, others who have strong opinions you disagree with have them because they are stupid.
You wonder why so many rational people despise the left because of that thinking?
Well I don't know how you're getting that from wot I wrote.
Comments
It is similar with the equally dense people who claim the "whole truth five" were jailed for attending a zoom meeting or raising awareness on Climate Change. A subject that is hardly ever off the news.
I blame the reporting as much as the people making those claims.
Very often they are simply regurgitating the headlines they see.
- Public spending on health and education is reduced - If you thought the following scenarios were likely to occur as a result of Scottish independence, would this make you more or less likely to vote for independence?
- Public spending on health and education is reduced - If you thought the following scenarios were likely to occur as a result of Scottish independence, would this make you more or less likely to vote for independence?
- Your personal income is reduced - If you thought the following scenarios were likely to occur as a result of Scottish independence, would this make you more or less likely to vote for independence?
Think I can see the intention here.
He thought that it was a sign of incompetence that every single decision path in complex software couldn't be tested in all possible combinations. Also, that he couldn't get a perfect solution to a problem that was actually the Travelling Salesman problem.
There was no beginning to his knowledge. And no end to the utter certainty that he knew everything he needed to, as a manager.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/florida/
(Edit: No the header you fool!)
If that mountain were in the Alps, it would be about the fiftieth highest, up there not far below the Ortler. The Rockies don’t look nearly as high as they are, because the plain all around is itself over 1000m and the valleys haven’t been as deeply glaciated as in Europe. The hotels I’ve stayed in here, in the valley towns, have all been higher than the cable car upper stations I visit every year in the South Tyrol.
US portion sizes ?
Obviously I'm not open to discussion on this - it's just my idea. I don't want to have an opinion.
Firstly, were there are actually any murders?
This, I think, is the absolute key question. Was it the case that the ward in question was so dysfunctional (and perhaps also unlucky), that there were a lot of deaths from natural causes?
Here there are two pieces of evidence. Firstly, there is the sheer number of deaths of infants, which might simply be coincidence. Secondly, there is the insulin, and in particular the C-Peptide levels.
Two of the babies died from insulin overdoses, in both cases C-peptide levels were low. C-peptide is a byproduct of the body's natural insulin production, so if insulin levels are high but C-peptide levels are low, it indicates that the insulin was not produced by the body but was instead injected externally.
We really need a medical expert here (@Foxy?) to tell us if the C-peptide levels would be sufficient on their own (absent all else) to conclude the babies were murdered. My understanding is that the only natural scenario where C-peptide levels would be in the event of late stage pancreatic cancer or if the pancreas had been removed.
Secondly, if at least some of the babies were murdered, was Lucy Letby the killer?
And here, it is hard to know. To what extent was statistical evidence used to pin the blame on her, against - for example - her behaviour around patients and doctors, her notes and diaries, and the like.
One also has to ask who might otherwise be guilty. Is there a credible other suspect, based on the evidence available. Because if the babies were murdered, someone did it.
Surely this is a terrible place to start. A bit Spanish-inquisitiony of you.
Like I said, if Harris wins Florida - and it is still a big (but getting smaller) if - she has just won more EC votes than New York will give her. Trump's ego will not cope with the voters pulling that choke-chain.
The real effect of this poll is not so much Harris is going to win - but that Trump has to spend money in Florida to try to keep ahead. That's a bunch more lawyers not getting paid...
And as TSE will tell you - that is not a place you want to be.
Which wasn't the answer I was expecting.
Lots of pedestrian space, worked on getting more shops and bars to open through the weekend, lots of well designed public space.
The design for the Crossrail station was especially good.
*2% of the Floridian population.
The Commons was busy with debates and voting on the winter fuel allowance earlier this afternoon which will be why it is later.
Edit: Generally the Guardian live blog is pretty good for its expected agenda of political events for the day.
The only time I have ever seen cricket being played there was under one of those dramatic summer evening skies which the east of England seems to specialise in, where there's going to be a thunderstorm in about 40 minutes and there is a massive blank of cloud in one direction, but the other is eye-wateringly bright.
For some, anyway.
(Yes, the dialog in the debate is too rational on one side, but space is limited in a comic strip.)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2024/09/10/moscow-ukraine-drone-attack-woman-killed-ramensky-zhukovsky/
Only 5 Tories absent, so only 5 paired.
Kinda really emphasises the sheer size of the majority.
https://x.com/iapolls2022/status/1833517973853679964
NEW: @focaldataHQ MRP model
Electoral College
🟥 Trump: 291 🏆
🟦 Harris: 247
—
North Carolina - 🔴 Trump +4.9
Wisconsin - 🔴 Trump +2.4
Georgia - 🔴 Trump +2.5
Pennsylvania - 🔴 Trump +1.4
Arizona - 🔴 Trump +0.7
Michigan - 🔵 Harris +1.3
NE-2 - 🔵 Harris +1.9
Nevada - 🔵 Harris+2.3
For my photo quota today I'll go for Stanton-in-the-Peak, which is also slightly fieldish. It also has an immaculate simple Victorian Church, a little pub called the Flying Childers and the Nine Ladies stone circle.
https://flyingchilders.com/
Jon Trickett (Labour – Normanton and Hemsworth) voted with the Tories, and Hillary Benn and Diane Abbott where 2 that abstained.
That there is one of my stronger opinions because it's both derived from logic and backed up by my lived experience. When those 2 lemons align on something I tend to run with it.
We ask the question - how was the case produced? Did someone suspect Letby and then the suspicious cases were those were she was on shift? Or were the suspicious cases selected blind (only on clinical evidence) and then lo! Letby appears to be the only one on shift. I think the latter is the case from what has been posted on here.
There is a report of Letby being 'caught in the act' of harming a baby. Is that reliable, or a misinterpretation of what a non-medic witnessed?
U.S. House
🟦 Democrats: 223 seats
🟥 Republicans: 212 seats
When she was first arrested and remanded on bail for between eighteen months and two years it struck me then that Letby was a solid suspect looking for a crime.
Now she may have been fitted up, but then it is quite likely she could have committed crimes too.
Letby going down has the added bonus of letting failing hospital managers off the hook.
Its about the surge in voter registration that we discussed a week or so ago. What's different about it is the predictive ability of it, given that it measures enthusiasm amongst likely voters.
One anecdote is in relation to Kansas. After Dobbs a pro abortion resolution was on the ballot. In the run up to it more than 70% of the new registration voters were women. It was, according to the polling, supposed to be close. The pro abortion resolution won by 18 percentage points. In Kansas. Because of those late registering women. It really encourages me to believe that Dobbs is going to cost Trump this election, which is wonderfully ironic.
If they are going to break their promises, Labour would do better to revert the NI cut that Jeremy Hunt put in place as a trap for his successors as he wasn't expecting to hang around after July. They could get all the additional revenue in one measure and take the one hit for it. This way they suffer death by a thousand cuts as they scrape ways of squeezing revenue by means not explicitly ruled out
But I've only come across this argument from links shared on here, so I wouldn't know if it was made up.
https://www.focaldata.com/blog/focaldata-prolific-uk-general-election-mrp
In 2016 Clinton was at -12 for net favourability.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/sep/10/tory-traditionalist-christopher-chope-modernisation-committee
Jenrick +5
Badenoch +6
Cleverly 0
Tugendhat +4
Stride 16
Cleverly 21
Tugendhat 21
Jenrick 33
John Rentoul
@JohnRentoul
·
2m
Good result for Badenoch
An ex might have had a motive for framing. Or might have seen a lot of red flags, run away, and raised concerns.
NEW THREAD
Better for Kemi.
I'd have thought Stride's vote would mainly go to Tugendhat and Cleverly - and if it splits evenly, Kemi's out next round. More likely (in my view) is that Strides vote goes something like 2/2/7/5 to J/B/C/T, putting Tugendhat out and Cleverly comfortably through - then Tugendhat's votes transfer mainly to Cleverly, giving the members a choice of Jenrick or Cleverly.
If you look at how those States performed at the midterms:
- Nevada swung Red, which as a near border State which was hammered by Covid restrictions, sounds about right. I think Nevada is probably the most likely pickup of all the 2016 Democrat States.
- Wisconsin became bluer, with Republican incumbent Ron Johnson only holding on by a percent. I find it hard to believe that that the Republicans will take Wisconsin easily, given how poorly they performed there in 2022.
So, now it's off to Birmingham, which is a lot less fun than when Strictly goes to Blackpool.
Otherwise, as you say, there's bound to be one NICU that - by chance or incompetence rather than malice - has much higher death rates than average.
You wonder why so many rational people despise the left because of that thinking?