But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
Were statistics a big thing in this case? I read the Appeal Court's judgment and I don't recall them even being mentioned. What got a lot of play was babies turning weird colours and dying in a way no one had ever seen before, and every time Letby was the one supervising.
FWIW I think this is a mistake by Trump. He is now unequivocally behind. He needs to change the game. A second debate gives him a chance to do that. What else is going to change things between now and 5th November? Sometimes you just have to roll the dice. For him, that is where I think he is.
For the same reason if I was advising Harris I would find reasons not to agree another debate. Take the win.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
That's valid, from the viewpoint of predicting the result and therefore bets, it needs to be understood that this will be influenced by Russian interference and the propaganda that they get right-wing commentators to post and spread. However, it doesn't have to be presented as fact or a legitimate view, it could be marked "Pravda".
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Affiliation with Russian disinformation campaign In September 2024, two Russian state media employees were charged with secretly funding almost $10 million to a Tennessee company for the production of political videos to benefit Russia by influencing the United States. The company's description matches that of Tenet Media, which had employed Rubin and other right-wing influencers.[48] Rubin matches the indictment's description of "Commentator-1", who it alleges agreed to produce "four weekly videos that he would host and would be livestreamed by Tenet Media in exchange for $400,000 per month and a $100,000 signing bonus".[49][50] In his response to the indictment on Twitter, Rubin stated that he was unaware of the company's connections to Russian funding and declared himself a victim of the alleged scheme.[51] “The company never disclosed to the influencers – or to their millions of followers – its ties to [Russian state media company] RT and the Russian government,” US attorney general Merrick Garland said.[52]
Yes, Rubin was another victim of Tenet Media.
If someone offers me $100k a week I might try and have some idea who they were, but maybe I live in a different world.
Yes, this company was well organised and had fake profiles of their ‘investors’. The FBI is speaking to them and treating them as victims.
It is possible he didn't know they were Russian. But someone accepting $100k a week to spout political commentary by an unknown donor is not someone worth listening to, imo.
That’s the going rate for buying up a podcast in the US. Rubin earns millions from his own regular channels on Rumble, YouTube, and other podcast platforms.
It is the going rate because foreign states and malign billlionaires seek to distort the truth.
Every creator involved in Tenet Media has confirmed that the company had no editorial influence over their output.
And I can't trust what they say because they were, wittingly or unwittingly, funded by the Russian disinformation arm of Putin.
It was totally unwittingly on the part of the creators.
Those who were actually involved in dealing with the Russian investors, a lady called Lauren Chen and her husband Liam Donavan, are totally cancelled. Chen was well known among conservative podcast communities before this venture, which is how most of them got involved.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
That's valid, from the viewpoint of predicting the result and therefore bets, it needs to be understood that this will be influenced by Russian interference and the propaganda that they get right-wing commentators to post and spread. However, it doesn't have to be presented as fact or a legitimate view, it could be marked "Pravda".
I don't think that really matters. If a view is disseminated into the broad political discourse then it doesn't matter where it came from. Plus there is a lot of "Russia-funded" chat around (there was with Brexit).
If, say, you are able to distinguish between "Pravda" and "genuine" then why shouldn't others.
2025 is going to be a fallow year for political drama after everything we've had and might yet have in 2024.
We've got Australia (Albo out, that arsehole who looks like he's been on fire in), Canada (who cares) and 26 Counties (cordon sanitaire against SF government probably holds). Some locals in the UK and that's it.
Ban on rental bidding wars is on the way - but will it work?
"The government has set out plans to end bidding wars as part of a wider Renters' Rights Bill, which was published on Wednesday.
Under the legislation, which still needs to be approved by MPs and peers, landlords and letting agents would be legally required to publish an asking rent for their property and banned from encouraging or accepting any bids above this price."
It took me one second to realise what this would probably do. It is likely to just mean that asking prices for rents will increase substantially, if the legislation is enforced, with the 'bids' being up to the asking price, which would be the highest price possible.
Interfering with the market to solve a problem like this (high rents) is typically regarded as a bad idea for very good reasons.
Nothing to stop landlords going for an "asking price" at least 20% over what they would actually accept. There will be people deseprate enough to make an offer mid way.
How do Labour plan to win the battle of mid way?
Rent controls don’t work. Who knew?
This Labour government does look to be politically tone deaf. Early days, but the memories of how bad the Tories were are fading faster than anybody thoight possible.
"At least the Tories never did [insert x y or z]"
Let's face it, the Tories have been tinkering with market forces themselves, from the energy price cap to £2 maximum bus fare to the apparent monopoly the big developers have on building houses. And those people who voted Labour to kick out the Tories (or LibDem, knowing that would mean) will be expecting Labour to do, er, Labour-ish things.
The long term financial position looks grim. By 2070 we have the demographics and public debt of Japan, though without such amazing public toilets.
Be wary of demographic projections out that far. Demographers are very good at predicting births and pretty good on deaths, but they have no idea on immigration.
If we go the Japanese route on immigration, then yes our economy is in big trouble. But I'm hopeful we will be open to young people from around the world coming and working here.
There is quite a lot of interaction between fertility rates and immigration too, so births are hard to forecast (easy to project - important distinction).
The number of times the ONS have to revise down forecast TFR suggests they don't have a great handle on it. It keeps surprising on the downside, which makes long term projections optimistic (!).
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Affiliation with Russian disinformation campaign In September 2024, two Russian state media employees were charged with secretly funding almost $10 million to a Tennessee company for the production of political videos to benefit Russia by influencing the United States. The company's description matches that of Tenet Media, which had employed Rubin and other right-wing influencers.[48] Rubin matches the indictment's description of "Commentator-1", who it alleges agreed to produce "four weekly videos that he would host and would be livestreamed by Tenet Media in exchange for $400,000 per month and a $100,000 signing bonus".[49][50] In his response to the indictment on Twitter, Rubin stated that he was unaware of the company's connections to Russian funding and declared himself a victim of the alleged scheme.[51] “The company never disclosed to the influencers – or to their millions of followers – its ties to [Russian state media company] RT and the Russian government,” US attorney general Merrick Garland said.[52]
Yes, Rubin was another victim of Tenet Media.
If someone offers me $100k a week I might try and have some idea who they were, but maybe I live in a different world.
Yes, this company was well organised and had fake profiles of their ‘investors’. The FBI is speaking to them and treating them as victims.
It is possible he didn't know they were Russian. But someone accepting $100k a week to spout political commentary by an unknown donor is not someone worth listening to, imo.
That’s the going rate for buying up a podcast in the US. Rubin earns millions from his own regular channels on Rumble, YouTube, and other podcast platforms.
It is the going rate because foreign states and malign billlionaires seek to distort the truth.
Every creator involved in Tenet Media has confirmed that the company had no editorial influence over their output.
And I can't trust what they say because they were, wittingly or unwittingly, funded by the Russian disinformation arm of Putin.
They don't have to directly influence them, they select their creatives and their output, then as can be seen, with extreme examples like Katie Hopkins, they let the profit motive loose and the greedier nutjobs will write the propaganda.
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
I woudn't say the case was overwhelming by any means - and the jury may not have thought so either as deliberations lasted more than 3 weeks. I don't think some of the criticisms of the evidence is in any way feeble.
Almost the entire evidence was circumstantial and the prosecution had to build it up brick by brick.
My view is she is guilty as sin but it was a extremely difficult case to prove so that a jury must be sure that the she was guilty.
Trump looked low energy at his Arizona rally last night . And going around saying he won the debate makes him seem delusional. Harris will only do another debate if the mics are left on and Trumps team won’t want that .
Trump is ahead of Harris on the issues that matter most to voters - the economy and immigration. For me, that makes him favourite, whatever national polling might say. Harris is a better candidate than Biden but she is still a weak one. Any other Republican would be home and dry by now. Trump's unique toxicity makes it much closer than it would otherwise be but I'd still be very surprised (pleasantly so) if he did did not win.
Pennsylvania continues to be a major headache for Harris. She's only ahead by around 1% according to 538.
Trump looked low energy at his Arizona rally last night . And going around saying he won the debate makes him seem delusional. Harris will only do another debate if the mics are left on and Trumps team won’t want that .
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Trump is ahead of Harris on the issues that matter most to voters - the economy and immigration. For me, that makes him favourite, whatever national polling might say. Harris is a better candidate than Biden but she is still a weak one. Any other Republican would be home and dry by now. Trump's unique toxicity makes it much closer than it would otherwise be but I'd still be very surprised (pleasantly so) if he did did not win.
Pennsylvania continues to be a major headache for Harris. She's only ahead by around 1% according to 538.
She has a 51/49 chance of winning. That’s not quite the same thing. AFAICS their actual polling shows her somewhat ahead albeit within MoE territory and of course Trump does often outperform polling.
Electoral Calculus would give us a Labour majority of 48 for what it's worth, which is nothing of course.
As polling companies always overstate Reform, including at the recent election, have they kicked the habit now?
It's clear that Labour could have won a small majority with 29% at the last election, which is interesting because until then a lot of people didn't really believe that could happen, a party winning an overall majority with less than 30%.
Other way round, surely? His best hope of reversing that jump in Harris’ leads is by having another debate. Especially since not doing so makes him look frit.
I watched part of the actual debate. Firstly, I have said before that I would vote for Harris (if I had to choose, which I fortunately don't), which is still the case. But I thought that Trump was much better. The reporting of the debate on every news channel was that 'Harris won' with the dominant meme created being Trump's comments about migrants eating pets. But in the debate I thought that Harris was poor. She sounded anxious and nervous and lacked Biden's skill in deflecting Trump.
I expect Trump will play up the idea that there is a massive conspiracy against him, and the media are biased against him in their reporting of any debate, so he won't do it.
'The love that dares not speak its name'. It wasn't possible to watch that debate and think that Trump came out of it even acceptably let alone well. Your need for disclaimers 'I want Harris to win' also told a story.
Trump seems to have that effect on people. I've heard it in vox pops particularly a series in Pensylvania. Logic was telling them that what they were saying made no sense but something attracted them to him so they felt they had to make excuses
FWIW I think this is a mistake by Trump. He is now unequivocally behind. He needs to change the game. A second debate gives him a chance to do that. What else is going to change things between now and 5th November? Sometimes you just have to roll the dice. For him, that is where I think he is.
For the same reason if I was advising Harris I would find reasons not to agree another debate. Take the win.
She'd be crazy to do another debate, but now she has asked for one it is down to Trump I guess.
She has everything to lose and he has nothing much - debate-wise - to lose now.
Trump is ahead of Harris on the issues that matter most to voters - the economy and immigration. For me, that makes him favourite, whatever national polling might say. Harris is a better candidate than Biden but she is still a weak one. Any other Republican would be home and dry by now. Trump's unique toxicity makes it much closer than it would otherwise be but I'd still be very surprised (pleasantly so) if he did did not win.
Pennsylvania continues to be a major headache for Harris. She's only ahead by around 1% according to 538.
Electoral Calculus would give us a Labour majority of 48 for what it's worth, which is nothing of course.
As polling companies always overstate Reform, including at the recent election, have they kicked the habit now?
It's clear that Labour could have won a small majority with 29% at the last election, which is interesting because until then a lot of people didn't really believe that could happen, a party winning an overall majority with less than 30%.
Me, for a start. I always thought it was a mere mathematical chimera that might exist in theory but would never work in practice.
FWIW I think this is a mistake by Trump. He is now unequivocally behind. He needs to change the game. A second debate gives him a chance to do that. What else is going to change things between now and 5th November? Sometimes you just have to roll the dice. For him, that is where I think he is.
For the same reason if I was advising Harris I would find reasons not to agree another debate. Take the win.
is he behind? I mean in the electoral college PA and AZ and maybe even MI polling seems to show it a toss up.
FWIW I think this is a mistake by Trump. He is now unequivocally behind. He needs to change the game. A second debate gives him a chance to do that. What else is going to change things between now and 5th November? Sometimes you just have to roll the dice. For him, that is where I think he is.
For the same reason if I was advising Harris I would find reasons not to agree another debate. Take the win.
I don't think she'll turn down another debate (unless it's in front of a loaded Fox studio audience, or something similarly daft). Trump's campaign could productively spin that in a way they can't spin his getting crushed on air.
Ban on rental bidding wars is on the way - but will it work?
"The government has set out plans to end bidding wars as part of a wider Renters' Rights Bill, which was published on Wednesday.
Under the legislation, which still needs to be approved by MPs and peers, landlords and letting agents would be legally required to publish an asking rent for their property and banned from encouraging or accepting any bids above this price."
It took me one second to realise what this would probably do. It is likely to just mean that asking prices for rents will increase substantially, if the legislation is enforced, with the 'bids' being up to the asking price, which would be the highest price possible.
Interfering with the market to solve a problem like this (high rents) is typically regarded as a bad idea for very good reasons.
Sure, but the bidding process is additional stress for tenants and a huge waste of time for all those who are unsuccessful. I'm deeply grateful that we don't have it in Scotland.
I'm not even sure you're right that the market price would be unaffected. Auctions are designed to squeeze as much consumer surplus as possible out of the transaction, so a fixed price will be at worst the same as the auction price, and perhaps lower.
Surely the asking price would just be the price that is the highest likely to be achieved, and then it gets discounted until someone bites or an acceptable offer is made. You could also put in a massive range - there would be nothing stopping you from doing this under the legislation. It is a different strategy to pricing low and taking offers. Why would a landlord set a low price in this situation?
The reality in my view is that rents will follow supply and demand, costs for landlords, interest rates, and regulation, unless the private rented sector is nationalised in state controlled, which raises a whole load of other problems.
I am selling a property now. The market is slow and there are lots of properties on the market for months and years on end at previously achievable prices. The price I have put it on for is about 10% less than what I think the sale price could be with 'offers in excess of'. There is lots of interest including some people that can only afford the lower price - they may be lucky so no harm in them viewing the property. No public interest is being served by the government interfering in this process.
Focussing mainly on rentals, not sales.
A landlord will avoid setting a very high price because that will keep their property empty for longer, which along with choosing a bad tenant is the expensive part.
The reason an LL may set a high price - say +10-15% - would be because LL thinks either that it will limit applicants to the ones he thinks he wants and reduce work, or because he wants the T who offers the utter highest rent.
IME if a potential T offers the utter highest rent, they are less likely to be reliable and may well be a dick. Any LL who makes rent level the predominant criteria in their decision is a fool imo.
Normal market operation is that a T will be selected in a few days, and there will be a delay from a few days to several weeks for T to move in, depending on a number of factors.
What this is aiming to do is to stop LL shafting Ts at the last minute or start renting some time before moving in, which is an objective I support. Gazumping has no place in an orderly rental market.
On sales. Good luck with selling the property. If I was interested in late September I'd know what it was worth and comparators, and because it is nearly the close season I would be viewing and monitoring several which were nearly what I wanted and be looking to pay 5-10% for one of them below what it was worth in May, in November+ .
2025 is going to be a fallow year for political drama after everything we've had and might yet have in 2024.
We've got Australia (Albo out, that arsehole who looks like he's been on fire in), Canada (who cares) and 26 Counties (cordon sanitaire against SF government probably holds). Some locals in the UK and that's it.
I think the election in the Republic will be this November. There are otherwise a whole heap of by-elections that the government has to call (and probably lose) if the election is next year. And they brought the budget forward to create a bit of extra time.
They might still be haggling over a new coalition in 2025, though.
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
Were statistics a big thing in this case? I read the Appeal Court's judgment and I don't recall them even being mentioned. What got a lot of play was babies turning weird colours and dying in a way no one had ever seen before, and every time Letby was the one supervising.
And what of babies who died when Letby was not there?
Look, I was not at the trial and have not followed the case especially closely but this is typical of press accounts:-
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Affiliation with Russian disinformation campaign In September 2024, two Russian state media employees were charged with secretly funding almost $10 million to a Tennessee company for the production of political videos to benefit Russia by influencing the United States. The company's description matches that of Tenet Media, which had employed Rubin and other right-wing influencers.[48] Rubin matches the indictment's description of "Commentator-1", who it alleges agreed to produce "four weekly videos that he would host and would be livestreamed by Tenet Media in exchange for $400,000 per month and a $100,000 signing bonus".[49][50] In his response to the indictment on Twitter, Rubin stated that he was unaware of the company's connections to Russian funding and declared himself a victim of the alleged scheme.[51] “The company never disclosed to the influencers – or to their millions of followers – its ties to [Russian state media company] RT and the Russian government,” US attorney general Merrick Garland said.[52]
Yes, Rubin was another victim of Tenet Media.
If someone offers me $100k a week I might try and have some idea who they were, but maybe I live in a different world.
Yes, this company was well organised and had fake profiles of their ‘investors’. The FBI is speaking to them and treating them as victims.
It is possible he didn't know they were Russian. But someone accepting $100k a week to spout political commentary by an unknown donor is not someone worth listening to, imo.
That’s the going rate for buying up a podcast in the US. Rubin earns millions from his own regular channels on Rumble, YouTube, and other podcast platforms.
It is the going rate because foreign states and malign billlionaires seek to distort the truth.
Every creator involved in Tenet Media has confirmed that the company had no editorial influence over their output.
And I can't trust what they say because they were, wittingly or unwittingly, funded by the Russian disinformation arm of Putin.
It was totally unwittingly on the part of the creators.
Those who were actually involved in dealing with the Russian investors, a lady called Lauren Chen and her husband Liam Donavan, are totally cancelled. Chen was well known among conservative podcast communities before this venture, which is how most of them got involved.
That has yet to be established. And some of the rates being paid seem to have been absurd multiples of what similar players are getting on the open market.
Electoral Calculus would give us a Labour majority of 48 for what it's worth, which is nothing of course.
As polling companies always overstate Reform, including at the recent election, have they kicked the habit now?
It's clear that Labour could have won a small majority with 29% at the last election, which is interesting because until then a lot of people didn't really believe that could happen, a party winning an overall majority with less than 30%.
You could win an overall majority with 5% of the vote, if you had enough parties competing with enough of the rest of the votes spread evenly and inefficiently.
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
Juries and jurists know nothing (or next to nothing) about pharmacology, neo natal paediatrics, and effectively almost all the mdeical evidence. They just have to weigh the evidence presented by experts.
I think Trump should say he's up for another debate - he has nothing to lose. Harris now has the advantage, so she won't want to ruin it.
I think both candidates have good reason to avoid another debate, but Harris was smart enough to ask for another one straight away so that Trump is in the position of saying no.
Electoral Calculus would give us a Labour majority of 48 for what it's worth, which is nothing of course.
As polling companies always overstate Reform, including at the recent election, have they kicked the habit now?
It's clear that Labour could have won a small majority with 29% at the last election, which is interesting because until then a lot of people didn't really believe that could happen, a party winning an overall majority with less than 30%.
But they probably wouldn't have if the Tories had got, say, 30-31% and Reform had dropped down to 8-9%.
Electoral Calculus would give us a Labour majority of 48 for what it's worth, which is nothing of course.
As polling companies always overstate Reform, including at the recent election, have they kicked the habit now?
It's clear that Labour could have won a small majority with 29% at the last election, which is interesting because until then a lot of people didn't really believe that could happen, a party winning an overall majority with less than 30%.
Me, for a start. I always thought it was a mere mathematical chimera that might exist in theory but would never work in practice.
It happened, of course, because of the splintering of the electorate, particularly on the right, matching the splintering we've seen on the Left, intermittently, since 1981.
If the electorate splinters further, to 20 different parties, a party could get a crushing majority on 10% of the vote. Then even the most fanatical devotee of FPTP would have difficulty in resisting calls for reform.
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
Juries and jurists know nothing (or next to nothing) about pharmacology, neo natal paediatrics, and effectively almost all the mdeical evidence. They just have to weigh the evidence presented by experts.
Statistics is different, though. It goes directly to weight of evidence and the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's intertwined with all the layman thinking juries do once they are deliberating.
Does anyone know if a judge has to give a special warning about statistics evidence in the summing up? My Google skills have failed me.
Just had a fiver on Vance next president at 300. After all they laughed when I piled on Harris.
If somehow Vance becomes POTUS in Jan then I will be wallowing in BF cash!!
Huge win.
V v unlikely though.
Will you? Check the betting rules. You are probably betting on who wins the election on November 5th, not on who eventually becomes president. (And even who wins the election is not necessarily defined how you'd think.)
As far as I can see the rules are that the winner will be the one declared the winner of ECV by AP news AND that the loser has conceded. If not then whoever Congress decides.
So - for it to be Vance, Trump has to be out for some reason by date of the AP result declaration (and Harris concedes) or, by some complex legal process, Vance ends up being picked by Congress.
As an aside, from your summary of the rules, if Trump loses but does not concede, then PB will be filled for two months with complaints about not being paid until January.
Electoral Calculus would give us a Labour majority of 48 for what it's worth, which is nothing of course.
As polling companies always overstate Reform, including at the recent election, have they kicked the habit now?
It's clear that Labour could have won a small majority with 29% at the last election, which is interesting because until then a lot of people didn't really believe that could happen, a party winning an overall majority with less than 30%.
I think there's a pretty good chance - maybe 60% - that no party receives more than 30% of the vote at the next GE.
I'd say that should create some interesting betting opportunities.
Electoral Calculus would give us a Labour majority of 48 for what it's worth, which is nothing of course.
As polling companies always overstate Reform, including at the recent election, have they kicked the habit now?
It's clear that Labour could have won a small majority with 29% at the last election, which is interesting because until then a lot of people didn't really believe that could happen, a party winning an overall majority with less than 30%.
But they probably wouldn't have if the Tories had got, say, 30-31% and Reform had dropped down to 8-9%.
FPTP Elections are all about getting more votes than your opponents. It’s pretty simple. Labour got a lot more votes than anyone else. Hence they got a big majority.
Swing of 3% from Labour to the Tories already then since the GE and the Tories have not even elected their new leader yet.
LDs and Reform and Greens all increased voteshare too
What about all that swingback we can expect for the government. We were assured the Tories could anticipate lots of swingback in the eighteen months before the GE? Although the Ref-Con Party are already at GE2019 levels of support.
In the comments below this post, they're arguing the Harris campaign has the resources and organisation to pay for, and bus in 12,000+ rally attendees - in multiple states - on a regular basis. https://x.com/jeffmason1/status/1834360728460943688
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
The trial was not conducted on a basis of analysis of statistical data. A generalised objection keeps being made on this basis. It is not correct.
Swing of 3% from Labour to the Tories already then since the GE and the Tories have not even elected their new leader yet.
LDs and Reform and Greens all increased voteshare too
What about all that swingback we can expect for the government. We were assured the Tories could anticipate lots of swingback in the eighteen months before the GE? Although the Ref-Con Party are already at GE2019 levels of support.
To some extent they did, the 24% they got was higher than Truss was polling at her worst certainly.
At the moment the main swing seems to be Labour to Reform and to a lesser extent the LDs and Greens.
However that also helps the Tories under FPTP as even if their voteshare is almost the same or only fractionally up they gain seats if Labour is clearly down, as Michael Howard did in 2005
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Affiliation with Russian disinformation campaign In September 2024, two Russian state media employees were charged with secretly funding almost $10 million to a Tennessee company for the production of political videos to benefit Russia by influencing the United States. The company's description matches that of Tenet Media, which had employed Rubin and other right-wing influencers.[48] Rubin matches the indictment's description of "Commentator-1", who it alleges agreed to produce "four weekly videos that he would host and would be livestreamed by Tenet Media in exchange for $400,000 per month and a $100,000 signing bonus".[49][50] In his response to the indictment on Twitter, Rubin stated that he was unaware of the company's connections to Russian funding and declared himself a victim of the alleged scheme.[51] “The company never disclosed to the influencers – or to their millions of followers – its ties to [Russian state media company] RT and the Russian government,” US attorney general Merrick Garland said.[52]
Yes, Rubin was another victim of Tenet Media.
If someone offers me $100k a week I might try and have some idea who they were, but maybe I live in a different world.
Yes, this company was well organised and had fake profiles of their ‘investors’. The FBI is speaking to them and treating them as victims.
It is possible he didn't know they were Russian. But someone accepting $100k a week to spout political commentary by an unknown donor is not someone worth listening to, imo.
That’s the going rate for buying up a podcast in the US. Rubin earns millions from his own regular channels on Rumble, YouTube, and other podcast platforms.
It is the going rate because foreign states and malign billlionaires seek to distort the truth.
Every creator involved in Tenet Media has confirmed that the company had no editorial influence over their output.
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
Juries and jurists know nothing (or next to nothing) about pharmacology, neo natal paediatrics, and effectively almost all the mdeical evidence. They just have to weigh the evidence presented by experts.
Statistics is different, though. It goes directly to weight of evidence and the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's intertwined with all the layman thinking juries do once they are deliberating.
Does anyone know if a judge has to give a special warning about statistics evidence in the summing up? My Google skills have failed me.
Letby was found guilty because of the Haitians diet.
I have got this conspiracy thing right haven't I?
No, and it's bad manners to call an idea "conspiracy" because you disagree with it
There's a lot wrong with the Letby case, no matter what really happened. The written "confession" turns out not to be, it's not seriously disputed that the concession the insulin deaths must be murders by *someone* was wrong, and most seriously of all to me though nobody else seems fussed about it, I don't want to live in a country where people are locked up for life on the evidence of a "Dr A." That is Kafka and I can't imagine any justification for it. Unless HM the King moonlights as a paediatrician.
Whatever happened there's a lot not to be proud of for the English health and justice systems here. What doesn't really work is to say Obviously guilty, English courts are always right (except in the several thousand completely irrelevant serious miscarriage of justice cases listed in appendix A).
Trump is ahead of Harris on the issues that matter most to voters - the economy and immigration. For me, that makes him favourite, whatever national polling might say. Harris is a better candidate than Biden but she is still a weak one. Any other Republican would be home and dry by now. Trump's unique toxicity makes it much closer than it would otherwise be but I'd still be very surprised (pleasantly so) if he did did not win.
Pennsylvania continues to be a major headache for Harris. She's only ahead by around 1% according to 538.
Ban on rental bidding wars is on the way - but will it work?
"The government has set out plans to end bidding wars as part of a wider Renters' Rights Bill, which was published on Wednesday.
Under the legislation, which still needs to be approved by MPs and peers, landlords and letting agents would be legally required to publish an asking rent for their property and banned from encouraging or accepting any bids above this price."
It took me one second to realise what this would probably do. It is likely to just mean that asking prices for rents will increase substantially, if the legislation is enforced, with the 'bids' being up to the asking price, which would be the highest price possible.
Interfering with the market to solve a problem like this (high rents) is typically regarded as a bad idea for very good reasons.
The problem comes from interfering in the market in the first place with the planning restrictions on building in the first place.
Landlords can only set sky-high rents if there are tenants willing to pay them - and there will only be those tenants if there's a substantial excess of demand over supply.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
That's valid, from the viewpoint of predicting the result and therefore bets, it needs to be understood that this will be influenced by Russian interference and the propaganda that they get right-wing commentators to post and spread. However, it doesn't have to be presented as fact or a legitimate view, it could be marked "Pravda".
“There is no Pravda in Izvestia and no Izvestia in Pravda”....
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
The trial was not conducted on a basis of analysis of statistical data. A generalised objection keeps being made on this basis. It is not correct.
According to some accounts, even the decision to charge was influence by statistical evidence. If part of the case is that there was a spike in deaths when Letby was on duty, then that is statistical evidence.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Affiliation with Russian disinformation campaign In September 2024, two Russian state media employees were charged with secretly funding almost $10 million to a Tennessee company for the production of political videos to benefit Russia by influencing the United States. The company's description matches that of Tenet Media, which had employed Rubin and other right-wing influencers.[48] Rubin matches the indictment's description of "Commentator-1", who it alleges agreed to produce "four weekly videos that he would host and would be livestreamed by Tenet Media in exchange for $400,000 per month and a $100,000 signing bonus".[49][50] In his response to the indictment on Twitter, Rubin stated that he was unaware of the company's connections to Russian funding and declared himself a victim of the alleged scheme.[51] “The company never disclosed to the influencers – or to their millions of followers – its ties to [Russian state media company] RT and the Russian government,” US attorney general Merrick Garland said.[52]
Yes, Rubin was another victim of Tenet Media.
If someone offers me $100k a week I might try and have some idea who they were, but maybe I live in a different world.
Yes, this company was well organised and had fake profiles of their ‘investors’. The FBI is speaking to them and treating them as victims.
It is possible he didn't know they were Russian. But someone accepting $100k a week to spout political commentary by an unknown donor is not someone worth listening to, imo.
That’s the going rate for buying up a podcast in the US. Rubin earns millions from his own regular channels on Rumble, YouTube, and other podcast platforms.
It is the going rate because foreign states and malign billlionaires seek to distort the truth.
Every creator involved in Tenet Media has confirmed that the company had no editorial influence over their output.
you really that gullible?
Okay, so here’s Dave Rubin’s video about the lies of Harris at the debate.
Other way round, surely? His best hope of reversing that jump in Harris’ leads is by having another debate. Especially since not doing so makes him look frit.
The passage of time tends to reverse bounces, another debate risks another Harris bounce. His handlers will have been rattled by catgate and be wondering wtf he will say next if given a platform again. For all we know they are concocting the polling which shows him winning the debate 95 - 5 to dissuade him from having another go.
The fact remains Trump leads where the topic matters, economy and immigration, and Harris's polling leads are popular vote, which is irrelevant. His followers will be going strictly Ming vase if they have any sense (debatable).
I don't really get why Harris's team don't pin the blame for inflation squarely on Trump, say it was the inheritance he left them, then take credit for solving it.
Massive tax cuts (mostly for his billionaire mates) + ultra-loose interest rates + multi-trillion dollar deficits = inflation.
It's a simple enough equation and, I'd think, credible enough for sway some undecided voters currently tending towards Trump. It also has the advantage of being true, if not the whole truth.
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
Juries and jurists know nothing (or next to nothing) about pharmacology, neo natal paediatrics, and effectively almost all the mdeical evidence. They just have to weigh the evidence presented by experts.
Statistics is different, though. It goes directly to weight of evidence and the concept of "beyond a reasonable doubt". It's intertwined with all the layman thinking juries do once they are deliberating.
Does anyone know if a judge has to give a special warning about statistics evidence in the summing up? My Google skills have failed me.
It was not relevant to this trial.
I think it was implicitly very relevant. There was someone here a bit ago saying she was present at all the deaths she was accused of causing, what are the odds? Which is both a statistical proposition and the most glaring statistical fallacy I have ever seen in print. Perhaps this should have been explained to the jury. As it wasn't the judge and the appeal court aren't allowed to say anything about it even if they wanted to.
In the comments below this post, they're arguing the Harris campaign has the resources and organisation to pay for, and bus in 12,000+ rally attendees - in multiple states - on a regular basis. https://x.com/jeffmason1/status/1834360728460943688
That is one hell of a campaign.
someone like that should be president. its impressive.
It is not a good look. The path to a fluke EC victory (seems no chance he tops the popular vote) is getting narrower.
Constant endorsements of Harris by mainstream Republicans just gives a sense that Trump is drifting.
He´s not down yet, but the clock certainly is ticking.
How long until we see sackings in the Trump campaign and a "reset"?
Time is running out and the orange jump suit beckons...
The Insider Advantage poll for Michigan - done after the debate - has Trump at +1 in the state after several polls showing Harris in the lead in the state.
That is not to say that there has been a shift but it is to say that those jumping on the debate - plus Taylor Swift's endorsement - are letting their desire for a specific outcome cloud their judgement.
Also, re early ballots, bear in mind the North Carolina early voting has been delayed after the Supreme Court there ruled Kennedy's name comes off the ballot. It looks like the sending out of ballots could be delayed by several weeks:
Swing of 3% from Labour to the Tories already then since the GE and the Tories have not even elected their new leader yet.
LDs and Reform and Greens all increased voteshare too
What about all that swingback we can expect for the government. We were assured the Tories could anticipate lots of swingback in the eighteen months before the GE? Although the Ref-Con Party are already at GE2019 levels of support.
To some extent they did, the 24% they got was higher than Truss was polling at her worst certainly.
At the moment the main swing seems to be Labour to Reform and to a lesser extent the LDs and Greens.
However that also helps the Tories under FPTP as even if their voteshare is almost the same or only fractionally up they gain seats if Labour is clearly down, as Michael Howard did in 2005
Ok, so there was the stuff about pet-eating migrants, but that debate could have gone a lot worse for Trump. He didn't say anything unequivocally racist or misogynistic - and for any given debate I'd say the chances are 50/50 that he would. So yes, a second debate could well be worse for him.
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
Were statistics a big thing in this case? I read the Appeal Court's judgment and I don't recall them even being mentioned. What got a lot of play was babies turning weird colours and dying in a way no one had ever seen before, and every time Letby was the one supervising.
This is correct.
Statistics in trials means two different areas. One is the genetics expert who says: this DNA sample/fingerprint matches the defendant and there is a one in a billion (or whatever) chance that it is in fact matching someone else. The both sides can call expert evidence about this sort of data.
The other sort is the general area of: given this data set of evidence in general, what are the chances that the defendant is, beyond reasonable doubt, the person who committed it - in other words the statistics that could come into any case at all.
English law does not permit statistical evidence on the second area to be adduced by either side for general public policy reasons, including that it usurps the jury's role.
The law has no intention of entering the general area of the maths of what 'beyond resonable doubt' means.
I think the two areas of law are getting confused, understandably.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
LOL. Imagine on a betting site, only wanting to hear one side of the argument…
So on the argument on who won the debate there is on the one side:
Democrats, Republicans, members of the Trump campaign, polling on who won, observers around the world.
On the other side there's Trump himself, Sandpit (both of whom don't really think he won).
One of the interesting things about the Letby case, is how keep various people are to turn it into the latest version of the culture wars.
So we have the unedifying spectacle, from both sides, of people using it as a football.
For me, there are questions to be asked. This isn't about setting her free now, or hanging her to prevent the case being re-examined.
Maybe because I grew up with Private Eye in the house..... I recall many, long sagas about the guilt or innocence of people long convicted of various things. Sometimes these people turned out to be innocent and sometimes guilty. The vituperation about the people questioning and defending such convictions was often notable.
But the process of asking those questions seems as British to me as Michael Foot was.
A counterattack by Russia has reclaimed some of the territory in Kursk occupied by Ukraine, but at the same time Ukraine has launched another cross-border assault not far to the west of the Russian counterattack.
The next day or two could see the Russian counterattack completely unravel in the face of this latest Ukrainian incursion, or the Ukrainian position in Kursk may be considerably weakened.
Since Putin has set his army the objective of pushing Ukraine out of Kursk by October 1st, the next couple of days will likely be unusually consequential for future developments in the war over the next several months.
On topic, the main point of the debates for the candidates is not who did better across the 90 minutes but who gets the better (and avoids the worse) 10-second clips for social media and news channels. True, that's always been the case to some extent ("there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe" / "there you go again" / "senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" etc) but that's even more the case now.
Trump almost certainly didn't prepare properly for the debate - or if he tried, then he dumped much of that prep on stage and did his own thing anyway. He'd do it again: that's who he is. And the result of that is that he'd drop more clips for the Harris campaign and hostile media to use, while not really landing his own punches.
From his point of view, why go through the trouble of another debate to get out his attack lines when he can do that at his own rallies? And where he'll be cheered for them rather than laughed at? It does make sense for his team to pull him from repeats, even at the risk of being accused of being frit and lacking mental capacity for the task.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
LOL. Imagine on a betting site, only wanting to hear one side of the argument…
So on the argument on who won the debate there is on the one side:
Democrats, Republicans, members of the Trump campaign, polling on who won, observers around the world.
On the other side there's Trump himself, Sandpit (both of whom don't really think he won).
Talking of not understanding statistics.
More people (may have) thought Harris won the debate absolutely. If there were a hundred people polled and 51 (or even 98) thought she won then that leaves...pauses to do the math...49 (2) people who thought that Trump won.
So plenty more people than you suggest who thought he won it.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Affiliation with Russian disinformation campaign In September 2024, two Russian state media employees were charged with secretly funding almost $10 million to a Tennessee company for the production of political videos to benefit Russia by influencing the United States. The company's description matches that of Tenet Media, which had employed Rubin and other right-wing influencers.[48] Rubin matches the indictment's description of "Commentator-1", who it alleges agreed to produce "four weekly videos that he would host and would be livestreamed by Tenet Media in exchange for $400,000 per month and a $100,000 signing bonus".[49][50] In his response to the indictment on Twitter, Rubin stated that he was unaware of the company's connections to Russian funding and declared himself a victim of the alleged scheme.[51] “The company never disclosed to the influencers – or to their millions of followers – its ties to [Russian state media company] RT and the Russian government,” US attorney general Merrick Garland said.[52]
Yes, Rubin was another victim of Tenet Media.
If someone offers me $100k a week I might try and have some idea who they were, but maybe I live in a different world.
Yes, this company was well organised and had fake profiles of their ‘investors’. The FBI is speaking to them and treating them as victims.
It is possible he didn't know they were Russian. But someone accepting $100k a week to spout political commentary by an unknown donor is not someone worth listening to, imo.
That’s the going rate for buying up a podcast in the US. Rubin earns millions from his own regular channels on Rumble, YouTube, and other podcast platforms.
It is the going rate because foreign states and malign billlionaires seek to distort the truth.
Every creator involved in Tenet Media has confirmed that the company had no editorial influence over their output.
you really that gullible?
Okay, so here’s Dave Rubin’s video about the lies of Harris at the debate.
For a start the Charlottesville clip he posted was a much later comment from Trump, trying to clean up what he said at the time. Which was this: ..TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.
REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.
TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name...
So Rubin is just spinning. You can take issue with some of Harris's comments, sure. But it's simply not accurate to call them lies.
One of the interesting things about the Letby case, is how keep various people are to turn it into the latest version of the culture wars.
So we have the unedifying spectacle, from both sides, of people using it as a football.
For me, there are questions to be asked. This isn't about setting her free now, or hanging her to prevent the case being re-examined.
Maybe because I grew up with Private Eye in the house..... I recall many, long sagas about the guilt or innocence of people long convicted of various things. Sometimes these people turned out to be innocent and sometimes guilty. The vituperation about the people questioning and defending such convictions was often notable.
But the process of asking those questions seems as British to me as Michael Foot was.
Quite. Aggressive certainty on either side disqualifies any post from serious consideration. As a lawyer I am also bemused and flattered by the competence attributed to the profession.
What this case says to me is that we should ditch the adversarial model in favour of one better designed to get to the truth rather than a win or lose outcome.
Trump - as I called - has totally lost his shit and will now sink his own campaign. Whilst the perception was that "45%" would vote for him whatever he said, that's already demonstrably not the case.
Republicans for Harris is a real thing, and its starting to gather momentum. The more that name conservatives declare for the conservative candidate, the more that conservative voters will follow.
Trump will be left with the radicals, the deranged, satan-following evangelicals and the remaining gas-breathing drones. The election is over. Only question now is how big she wins.
Blimey. Wish I had a tenth of your confidence on this one.
My confidence is built on 2 things: 1. Trust in Trump to completely fall apart. That is now happening before our eyes 2. Confidence that Harris will look like the sane choice, even for moderate republicans
There is this obsession with patriotism in America which boggles the mind. But it is a trip wire which makes it really hard for "patriots" who aren't mad to vote for the lunatic who will demolish the thing you are patriotic about.
Trump is falling apart, will only get worse (watch him fire the sane advisors and rely on the core of mentalists screaming that the debate was "rigged" because Harris was given the questions beforehand), and will actively propel more and more conservatives to vote for the conservative candidate - Harris.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong. But I'm feeling pretty good about coming out weeks ago proclaiming that Harris will win bigly.
Trump still on 45-49% in all but one post debate poll suggests it will still be very close, there is not going to be a Harris landslide even if she scrapes home.
Indeed every post debate poll still has Harris below the 51% Biden got in 2020
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Well bollocks to you all. I am a Trump supporter.
Bring it.
I think Trump is a narcissistic man-child, and I don't want him to win.
That does not mean he won't win. I'd rate Harris' chance of winning at no better than 11/9.
Too many people think that Trump's supporters are suddenly going to see the light, and vote Democratic.
Other way round, surely? His best hope of reversing that jump in Harris’ leads is by having another debate. Especially since not doing so makes him look frit.
The passage of time tends to reverse bounces, another debate risks another Harris bounce. His handlers will have been rattled by catgate and be wondering wtf he will say next if given a platform again. For all we know they are concocting the polling which shows him winning the debate 95 - 5 to dissuade him from having another go.
The fact remains Trump leads where the topic matters, economy and immigration, and Harris's polling leads are popular vote, which is irrelevant. His followers will be going strictly Ming vase if they have any sense (debatable).
I don't really get why Harris's team don't pin the blame for inflation squarely on Trump, say it was the inheritance he left them, then take credit for solving it.
Massive tax cuts (mostly for his billionaire mates) + ultra-loose interest rates + multi-trillion dollar deficits = inflation.
It's a simple enough equation and, I'd think, credible enough for sway some undecided voters currently tending towards Trump. It also has the advantage of being true, if not the whole truth.
I'd agree that they have a far stronger economic case to make than they're currently doing. And on industrial job creation, Trump's record is simply nowhere in comparison.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
Unfortunately, for a lot of posters, they do.
I think their view is that, as the betting markets are used as an indicator of who is most likely to win, this site has its own small part to play in the war by backing one side to the maximum extent.
Trump is ahead of Harris on the issues that matter most to voters - the economy and immigration. For me, that makes him favourite, whatever national polling might say. Harris is a better candidate than Biden but she is still a weak one. Any other Republican would be home and dry by now. Trump's unique toxicity makes it much closer than it would otherwise be but I'd still be very surprised (pleasantly so) if he did did not win.
Pennsylvania continues to be a major headache for Harris. She's only ahead by around 1% according to 538.
Are they polling the 100K of Ukrainian decedents? They 'aint gonna be voting for Putin's little helper are they.
I don't know why they would exclude Ukrainian descendants from polling, but who knows? You could also ask who the 160,000 Russian Americans in Pennsylvania are voting for.
Some of the 'fact checks' on Trump where they accuse him of lying when he's telling the truth are so egregious that they've discredited the whole concept.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
LOL. Imagine on a betting site, only wanting to hear one side of the argument…
So on the argument on who won the debate there is on the one side:
Democrats, Republicans, members of the Trump campaign, polling on who won, observers around the world.
On the other side there's Trump himself, Sandpit (both of whom don't really think he won).
Sandpit is just making the case for what Trump's supporters think. He's not a US voter, so it would be inaccurate to lump him in with them.
But if the case he's presenting is the GOP side of the argument, it's not the most convincing one.
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
I am also astonished that the main doctor who first suggested Letby might be killing babies was her ex and this was apparently not told to the Jury.
I am extremely wary of suggesting Letby is innocent. People DO murder other people. Sometimes people do it a lot. Medical folk can be murderers. There is clearly evidence in this case that is damning for her.
Where I am slightly queasy is two things. Firstly using statistics to show guilt. Two cases suggest why this can be a problem - Sally Clarke/Roy Meadows and the Dutch nurse case. Secondly - the idea that because someone has been found guilty anyone raises doubts ought to be ashamed of themselves is risible. See the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and so many others. Sometimes juries and the legal process gets it wrong.
Harris went into the debate with a very small lead. She has come out of it with a slightly larger one. More importantly, like the sit down interview she did with Walz, she has overcome another hurdle and shown tens of millions of Americans that she can look and act Presidential.
Right now she's a favourite but it is dangerously close. Trump exceeded his polling in both his last 2 runs. In Wisconsin he exceeded it by 7(!!) and 5% respectively. Harris's lead in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania is highly vulnerable to this under recording of Trump supporters.
Anyone like @Sandpit pointing out this is not over is doing a public service. It is helpful to listen to the other side which is composed of at least 43% of American voters. I don't think this is over although I would be delighted to be wrong. A bad piece of economic news, an international crisis which makes it clear that Harris has been content to leave someone seriously senile in charge, there are a number of things that could go wrong. So far Harris has had a remarkably smooth run. She has 56 days to go.
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
Were statistics a big thing in this case? I read the Appeal Court's judgment and I don't recall them even being mentioned. What got a lot of play was babies turning weird colours and dying in a way no one had ever seen before, and every time Letby was the one supervising.
Yes - the classic chart of who was on shift when babies died (suspiciously).
Trump - as I called - has totally lost his shit and will now sink his own campaign. Whilst the perception was that "45%" would vote for him whatever he said, that's already demonstrably not the case.
Republicans for Harris is a real thing, and its starting to gather momentum. The more that name conservatives declare for the conservative candidate, the more that conservative voters will follow.
Trump will be left with the radicals, the deranged, satan-following evangelicals and the remaining gas-breathing drones. The election is over. Only question now is how big she wins.
Blimey. Wish I had a tenth of your confidence on this one.
My confidence is built on 2 things: 1. Trust in Trump to completely fall apart. That is now happening before our eyes 2. Confidence that Harris will look like the sane choice, even for moderate republicans
There is this obsession with patriotism in America which boggles the mind. But it is a trip wire which makes it really hard for "patriots" who aren't mad to vote for the lunatic who will demolish the thing you are patriotic about.
Trump is falling apart, will only get worse (watch him fire the sane advisors and rely on the core of mentalists screaming that the debate was "rigged" because Harris was given the questions beforehand), and will actively propel more and more conservatives to vote for the conservative candidate - Harris.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong. But I'm feeling pretty good about coming out weeks ago proclaiming that Harris will win bigly.
Trump still on 45-49% in all but one post debate poll suggests it will still be very close, there is not going to be a Harris landslide even if she scrapes home.
Indeed every post debate poll still has Harris below the 51% Biden got in 2020
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Well bollocks to you all. I am a Trump supporter.
Bring it.
I think Trump is a narcissistic man-child, and I don't want him to win.
That does not mean he won't win. I'd rate Harris' chance of winning at no better than 11/9.
Too many people think that Trump's supporters are suddenly going to see the light, and vote Democratic.
Well quite. The US electorate is not a bunch of UK centrist dads. I can see the scene on Nov 6: We planned for Kamala to win and we'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you pesky voters. The "only bed-wetters think Trump will win" rhetoric has persuaded me that Hillary walked it in 2016. What strange tricks the memory plays.
In the comments below this post, they're arguing the Harris campaign has the resources and organisation to pay for, and bus in 12,000+ rally attendees - in multiple states - on a regular basis. https://x.com/jeffmason1/status/1834360728460943688
That is one hell of a campaign.
someone like that should be president. its impressive.
Whoever's running the bussing operation should succeed Buttigieg at Transport.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
You do realise that the creators of Tenet Media have ben called victims of the scam by the FBI?
I do realise. It's a terrible thing to happen to you when you are the victim of receiving money from the Russian state to broadcast propaganda for them.
39% support the means testing of the winter fuel allowance and 42% oppose. Those under the age of 55 support the measure, rather than oppose, by 46% to 32% but 58% of those aged 55+ oppose.
Suspect that Reeves can live with that.
TBF I support it.
Higher taxes on multi millionaires would have even higher support though and should have been plan A
Trump - as I called - has totally lost his shit and will now sink his own campaign. Whilst the perception was that "45%" would vote for him whatever he said, that's already demonstrably not the case.
Republicans for Harris is a real thing, and its starting to gather momentum. The more that name conservatives declare for the conservative candidate, the more that conservative voters will follow.
Trump will be left with the radicals, the deranged, satan-following evangelicals and the remaining gas-breathing drones. The election is over. Only question now is how big she wins.
Blimey. Wish I had a tenth of your confidence on this one.
My confidence is built on 2 things: 1. Trust in Trump to completely fall apart. That is now happening before our eyes 2. Confidence that Harris will look like the sane choice, even for moderate republicans
There is this obsession with patriotism in America which boggles the mind. But it is a trip wire which makes it really hard for "patriots" who aren't mad to vote for the lunatic who will demolish the thing you are patriotic about.
Trump is falling apart, will only get worse (watch him fire the sane advisors and rely on the core of mentalists screaming that the debate was "rigged" because Harris was given the questions beforehand), and will actively propel more and more conservatives to vote for the conservative candidate - Harris.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong. But I'm feeling pretty good about coming out weeks ago proclaiming that Harris will win bigly.
Trump still on 45-49% in all but one post debate poll suggests it will still be very close, there is not going to be a Harris landslide even if she scrapes home.
Indeed every post debate poll still has Harris below the 51% Biden got in 2020
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Well bollocks to you all. I am a Trump supporter.
Bring it.
I think Trump is a narcissistic man-child, and I don't want him to win.
That does not mean he won't win. I'd rate Harris' chance of winning at no better than 11/9.
Too many people think that Trump's supporters are suddenly going to see the light, and vote Democratic.
Well quite. The US electorate is not a bunch of UK centrist dads. I can see the scene on Nov 6: We planned for Kamala to win and we'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you pesky voters. The "only bed-wetters think Trump will win" rhetoric has persuaded me that Hillary walked it in 2016. What strange tricks the memory plays.
Your memory will tell you that there were a couple of reasons in particular why Hillary lost. What are the comparable ones this cycle ?
Trump - as I called - has totally lost his shit and will now sink his own campaign. Whilst the perception was that "45%" would vote for him whatever he said, that's already demonstrably not the case.
Republicans for Harris is a real thing, and its starting to gather momentum. The more that name conservatives declare for the conservative candidate, the more that conservative voters will follow.
Trump will be left with the radicals, the deranged, satan-following evangelicals and the remaining gas-breathing drones. The election is over. Only question now is how big she wins.
Blimey. Wish I had a tenth of your confidence on this one.
My confidence is built on 2 things: 1. Trust in Trump to completely fall apart. That is now happening before our eyes 2. Confidence that Harris will look like the sane choice, even for moderate republicans
There is this obsession with patriotism in America which boggles the mind. But it is a trip wire which makes it really hard for "patriots" who aren't mad to vote for the lunatic who will demolish the thing you are patriotic about.
Trump is falling apart, will only get worse (watch him fire the sane advisors and rely on the core of mentalists screaming that the debate was "rigged" because Harris was given the questions beforehand), and will actively propel more and more conservatives to vote for the conservative candidate - Harris.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong. But I'm feeling pretty good about coming out weeks ago proclaiming that Harris will win bigly.
Trump still on 45-49% in all but one post debate poll suggests it will still be very close, there is not going to be a Harris landslide even if she scrapes home.
Indeed every post debate poll still has Harris below the 51% Biden got in 2020
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Well bollocks to you all. I am a Trump supporter.
Bring it.
I think Trump is a narcissistic man-child, and I don't want him to win.
That does not mean he won't win. I'd rate Harris' chance of winning at no better than 11/9.
Too many people think that Trump's supporters are suddenly going to see the light, and vote Democratic.
While that's highly unlikely, there is a much bigger chance that some current Trump supporters will just sit it out.
He got very big support in absolute numbers in both 2016 and 2020. His ability to reach previously disengaged people, for his team to get them signed up and out to the polls (or returning postals) was perhaps the most impressive part of his campaign - and something not well picked up in the polls.
The question now is whether he can repeat that in 2024. To do so, he needs to inspire and/or stoke fear of the alternative. I wouldn't write off his chances by any means - he's got the track record and has issues where his attacks can hit hard - but needs to up his game and his discipline.
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
The issue is that the boxer analogy anchors the frame in the wrong place. There’s rarely a knock out blow from a debate.
It’s like one leg of a championship football match
Ban on rental bidding wars is on the way - but will it work?
"The government has set out plans to end bidding wars as part of a wider Renters' Rights Bill, which was published on Wednesday.
Under the legislation, which still needs to be approved by MPs and peers, landlords and letting agents would be legally required to publish an asking rent for their property and banned from encouraging or accepting any bids above this price."
It took me one second to realise what this would probably do. It is likely to just mean that asking prices for rents will increase substantially, if the legislation is enforced, with the 'bids' being up to the asking price, which would be the highest price possible.
Interfering with the market to solve a problem like this (high rents) is typically regarded as a bad idea for very good reasons.
They will simply pass a law limiting the increases allowed in rent to something like RPI or CPI to try to circumvent this.
My property tax is capped at 2%.
So now I pay sewage access fees, rubbish collection fees, pest management fees etc to the local city on top of my property taxes…
But after her trial last year Cheshire Police revealed it was investigating the time she spent on two placements in Liverpool in 2012 and 2015.
He told the inquiry that some babies collapsed due to dislodgement of endotracheal [breathing] tubes.
"This is not something that is happening all the time", he said.
"It is unusual, and you will hear that it occurs generally in less than 1% of shifts."
The audit found that there were recorded incidents of the tubes being dislodged on 40% of the shifts Letby worked at Liverpool Womens' Hospital.
Mr Baker said: "In light of what we know now, we might wonder why.”
A number of the usual suspects (Davis, Hitchens et al) have hitched their wagon to the 'Free The Letby One' campaign. I think there is a reasonable chance that the overwhelming nature of the case against her and the utterly feeble nature of the criticisms will cause those in public life who have done so to stop this fairly soon, out of embarrassment and respect for the families.
Mr Baker KC noted that the victims' families are anxious to preserve anonymity because they fear personal abuse etc from conspiracy theorists.
To me this has something of the whole Carl Beech saga about it: a breathless media running with any old crap, showboating politicians stirring the pot, a big dollop of conspiracy theory, while all the time cooler heads are ignored or even derided. But I agree: as this inquiry goes on most of the truthers will probably creep away and never mention it again.
There are surely two separate questions. Did Letby kill at least some babies? Probably. Did she receive a fair trial? Probably not.
And a major flaw, as has happened in other cases, is that neither jurists nor jurors know the first thing about probability and statistics. The system is simply not set up to cope with this sort of evidence, and what we end up with is conviction on the basis of ‘no smoke without fire’ which might be correct but is hardly satisfactory.
I am also astonished that the main doctor who first suggested Letby might be killing babies was her ex and this was apparently not told to the Jury.
I am extremely wary of suggesting Letby is innocent. People DO murder other people. Sometimes people do it a lot. Medical folk can be murderers. There is clearly evidence in this case that is damning for her.
Where I am slightly queasy is two things. Firstly using statistics to show guilt. Two cases suggest why this can be a problem - Sally Clarke/Roy Meadows and the Dutch nurse case. Secondly - the idea that because someone has been found guilty anyone raises doubts ought to be ashamed of themselves is risible. See the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and so many others. Sometimes juries and the legal process gets it wrong.
The other thing I would say is that there is a greater tendency for the justice system to get things wrong in highly controversial or deeply emotional trials. And few are as visceral as this one.
I haven't seen a smoking gun yet from the defence. It is important, particularly in a case where there are different strands of evidence, not to focus on one to the exclusion of others. Unless the defence can show flaws in all of the Crown case the conviction remains safe. But it is hardly surprising that people want to take a look.
One of the interesting things about the Letby case, is how keep various people are to turn it into the latest version of the culture wars.
So we have the unedifying spectacle, from both sides, of people using it as a football.
For me, there are questions to be asked. This isn't about setting her free now, or hanging her to prevent the case being re-examined.
Maybe because I grew up with Private Eye in the house..... I recall many, long sagas about the guilt or innocence of people long convicted of various things. Sometimes these people turned out to be innocent and sometimes guilty. The vituperation about the people questioning and defending such convictions was often notable.
But the process of asking those questions seems as British to me as Michael Foot was.
Quite. Aggressive certainty on either side disqualifies any post from serious consideration. As a lawyer I am also bemused and flattered by the competence attributed to the profession.
What this case says to me is that we should ditch the adversarial model in favour of one better designed to get to the truth rather than a win or lose outcome.
'certainty on either side'? The other day you were declaring how baffled you were that anyone could dislike Lucy Letby.
Trump - as I called - has totally lost his shit and will now sink his own campaign. Whilst the perception was that "45%" would vote for him whatever he said, that's already demonstrably not the case.
Republicans for Harris is a real thing, and its starting to gather momentum. The more that name conservatives declare for the conservative candidate, the more that conservative voters will follow.
Trump will be left with the radicals, the deranged, satan-following evangelicals and the remaining gas-breathing drones. The election is over. Only question now is how big she wins.
Blimey. Wish I had a tenth of your confidence on this one.
My confidence is built on 2 things: 1. Trust in Trump to completely fall apart. That is now happening before our eyes 2. Confidence that Harris will look like the sane choice, even for moderate republicans
There is this obsession with patriotism in America which boggles the mind. But it is a trip wire which makes it really hard for "patriots" who aren't mad to vote for the lunatic who will demolish the thing you are patriotic about.
Trump is falling apart, will only get worse (watch him fire the sane advisors and rely on the core of mentalists screaming that the debate was "rigged" because Harris was given the questions beforehand), and will actively propel more and more conservatives to vote for the conservative candidate - Harris.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong. But I'm feeling pretty good about coming out weeks ago proclaiming that Harris will win bigly.
Trump still on 45-49% in all but one post debate poll suggests it will still be very close, there is not going to be a Harris landslide even if she scrapes home.
Indeed every post debate poll still has Harris below the 51% Biden got in 2020
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Well bollocks to you all. I am a Trump supporter.
Bring it.
I think Trump is a narcissistic man-child, and I don't want him to win.
That does not mean he won't win. I'd rate Harris' chance of winning at no better than 11/9.
Too many people think that Trump's supporters are suddenly going to see the light, and vote Democratic.
Well quite. The US electorate is not a bunch of UK centrist dads. I can see the scene on Nov 6: We planned for Kamala to win and we'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you pesky voters. The "only bed-wetters think Trump will win" rhetoric has persuaded me that Hillary walked it in 2016. What strange tricks the memory plays.
Your memory will tell you that there were a couple of reasons in particular why Hillary lost. What are the comparable ones this cycle ?
The two big advantages that Trump has this time, are the economy (we may think it's performing well, US voters don't), and border control.
Out for lunch with my friend the nearly-retired NT staff member at my local big country National Trust Estate yesterday.
Interesting points.
1 - Questioning the staff, it seems the scones are indeed vegan (don't tell the Leeanderthal Man). Asked a counter server and she took out a bigly ring-binder, vanished for about 3 minutes therein, and said that the scones were vegan, apart from the cheese scones, which have cheese from cows.
I agree they are not as good as could be, being a little stodgy. Ashfield Visitor Centre scones are better. Apologies to Mr @stodge for the comparison.
2 - My friend confirms thinks that the suggestion that the NT treats it's staff like sausages in a sausage machine may well have a basis in reality, but drew a distinction between more "corporate" areas (eg shops, restaurants, offices etc) and more self-managed areas. Her own position was as the only staff member in a small property, so there was basically her and 60 volunteers, and the whole team was always "us" not "me and them".
Also an interesting distinction in treatment is suggested between "indoor" staff and "outdoor" staff, the latter being more self-directing.
3 - Also as an aside, NT interest in Active Travel seems to be growing. This property has had Sustrans out to visit, looking at making their "path round the estate" useable for everyone. Currently it has an enormous flight of steps in a wood, lots of rough-stuff, cattle grids and so on - so it's not even accessible to a Tramper, which is the SUV of mobility scooters.
I think they will look at a link to the National Cycling and Walking Network (NCN) as it is currently several miles away. And this rural property has 200k people within about 5 miles, so there are lots within walking / wheeling / cycling distance.
So I was pointing out how many people (25%) don't have driving licences, and how many potential visitors they weren't helping get there .
Out for lunch with my friend the nearly-retired NT staff member at my local big country National Trust Estate yesterday.
Interesting points.
1 - Questioning the staff, it seems the scones are indeed vegan (don't tell the Leeanderthal Man). Asked a counter server and she took out a bigly ring-binder, vanished for about 3 minutes therein, and said that the scones were vegan, apart from the cheese scones, which have cheese from cows.
I agree they are not as good as could be, being a little stodgy. Ashfield Visitor Centre scones are better. Apologies to Mr @stodge for the comparison.
2 - My friend confirms thinks that the suggestion that the NT treats it's staff like sausages in a sausage machine may well have a basis in reality, but drew a distinction between more "corporate" areas (eg shops, restaurants, offices etc) and more self-managed areas. Her own position was as the only staff member in a small property, so there was basically her and 60 volunteers, and the whole team was always "us" not "me and them".
Also an interesting distinction in treatment is suggested between "indoor" staff and "outdoor" staff, the latter being more self-directing.
3 - Also as an aside, NT interest in Active Travel seems to be growing. This property has had Sustrans out to visit, looking at making their "path round the estate" useable for everyone. Currently it has an enormous flight of steps in a wood, lots of rough-stuff, cattle grids and so on - so it's not even accessible to a Tramper, which is the SUV of mobility scooters.
I think they will look at a link to the National Cycling and Walking Network (NCN) as it is currently several miles away. And this rural property has 200k people within about 5 miles, so there are lots within walking / wheeling / cycling distance.
So I was pointing out how many people (25%) don't have driving licences, and how many potential visitors they weren't helping get there .
My wife detests scones and other baked goods that are NOT made with butter, as god intended*. She would be unhappy with this news.
*Clearly God's intention was that people take buttermilk and shake it for ages. Nothing could be more obvious...
Electoral Calculus would give us a Labour majority of 48 for what it's worth, which is nothing of course.
As polling companies always overstate Reform, including at the recent election, have they kicked the habit now?
It's clear that Labour could have won a small majority with 29% at the last election, which is interesting because until then a lot of people didn't really believe that could happen, a party winning an overall majority with less than 30%.
You could win an overall majority with 5% of the vote, if you had enough parties competing with enough of the rest of the votes spread evenly and inefficiently.
Of course you could technically speaking, but seeing it happen practically is another thing wrt 33.7% and a 170 seat majority.
Trump - as I called - has totally lost his shit and will now sink his own campaign. Whilst the perception was that "45%" would vote for him whatever he said, that's already demonstrably not the case.
Republicans for Harris is a real thing, and its starting to gather momentum. The more that name conservatives declare for the conservative candidate, the more that conservative voters will follow.
Trump will be left with the radicals, the deranged, satan-following evangelicals and the remaining gas-breathing drones. The election is over. Only question now is how big she wins.
Blimey. Wish I had a tenth of your confidence on this one.
My confidence is built on 2 things: 1. Trust in Trump to completely fall apart. That is now happening before our eyes 2. Confidence that Harris will look like the sane choice, even for moderate republicans
There is this obsession with patriotism in America which boggles the mind. But it is a trip wire which makes it really hard for "patriots" who aren't mad to vote for the lunatic who will demolish the thing you are patriotic about.
Trump is falling apart, will only get worse (watch him fire the sane advisors and rely on the core of mentalists screaming that the debate was "rigged" because Harris was given the questions beforehand), and will actively propel more and more conservatives to vote for the conservative candidate - Harris.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong. But I'm feeling pretty good about coming out weeks ago proclaiming that Harris will win bigly.
Trump still on 45-49% in all but one post debate poll suggests it will still be very close, there is not going to be a Harris landslide even if she scrapes home.
Indeed every post debate poll still has Harris below the 51% Biden got in 2020
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Well bollocks to you all. I am a Trump supporter.
Bring it.
I think Trump is a narcissistic man-child, and I don't want him to win.
That does not mean he won't win. I'd rate Harris' chance of winning at no better than 11/9.
Too many people think that Trump's supporters are suddenly going to see the light, and vote Democratic.
Well quite. The US electorate is not a bunch of UK centrist dads. I can see the scene on Nov 6: We planned for Kamala to win and we'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you pesky voters. The "only bed-wetters think Trump will win" rhetoric has persuaded me that Hillary walked it in 2016. What strange tricks the memory plays.
Your memory will tell you that there were a couple of reasons in particular why Hillary lost. What are the comparable ones this cycle ?
I don't know, but Trump's unassailable looking lead on money and immigration, and the too close to call ness of individual state polling, are what have caused me to close my KH position for a very chunky profit. On top of that I go to the states a bit and the single complaint I hear most about the Dems is, they are corrupt. You would not have a clue about this from discussion over here. Trump may be Voldemort, but that doesn't make his opponents Dumbledore
I can only assume that PBers for Harris have remortgaged their houses and borrowed the contents of the client account to pile on her. That's what I would do if I could get evens on something I was that certain about.
(Why does anyone even conduct popular vote polling btw?)
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
What's seriously objectionable about your comments is your repeated claims that you know posters minds better than they know themselves. That's just twattery.
Trump - as I called - has totally lost his shit and will now sink his own campaign. Whilst the perception was that "45%" would vote for him whatever he said, that's already demonstrably not the case.
Republicans for Harris is a real thing, and its starting to gather momentum. The more that name conservatives declare for the conservative candidate, the more that conservative voters will follow.
Trump will be left with the radicals, the deranged, satan-following evangelicals and the remaining gas-breathing drones. The election is over. Only question now is how big she wins.
Blimey. Wish I had a tenth of your confidence on this one.
My confidence is built on 2 things: 1. Trust in Trump to completely fall apart. That is now happening before our eyes 2. Confidence that Harris will look like the sane choice, even for moderate republicans
There is this obsession with patriotism in America which boggles the mind. But it is a trip wire which makes it really hard for "patriots" who aren't mad to vote for the lunatic who will demolish the thing you are patriotic about.
Trump is falling apart, will only get worse (watch him fire the sane advisors and rely on the core of mentalists screaming that the debate was "rigged" because Harris was given the questions beforehand), and will actively propel more and more conservatives to vote for the conservative candidate - Harris.
Perhaps I will be proven wrong. But I'm feeling pretty good about coming out weeks ago proclaiming that Harris will win bigly.
Trump still on 45-49% in all but one post debate poll suggests it will still be very close, there is not going to be a Harris landslide even if she scrapes home.
Indeed every post debate poll still has Harris below the 51% Biden got in 2020
Unpopular opinion incoming. As told by Trump supporters.
When there’s a boxing match, the winner says “I won”, and the loser says “Can we have a rematch?”
Trump was all up for a series of debates, it was Team Harris that only wanted this one debate, in a carefully-controlled environment with a very friendly team of presenters.
Now that debate has happened, and Harris didn’t totally implode as they thought she might, they’re looking for another.
Trump will want the next debate on Fox, with an audience present and without the presenters “fact-checking” one side and not the other.
My personal view, is that there will be a week or two of back-and-forth, but they will eventually agree to another meeting. Both sides think they can win a second debate.
Dude you are getting about as credible as our Saturday morning visitors with your spinning.
Yes, it’s a shame as @Sandpit is an otherwise good poster
Do we want this site to be a one-way Harris propoganda machine?
Some of us are looking at the other side of American Twitter, so you don’t have to.
You post a load of stuff, with no links, and then claim to be 'looking at the other side'.
Twitter is a cesspit. If you're giving the other side, at the very least give links so we can see how *credible* the source is. Chances are it's BS.
I post a fair number of links, am genuinely trying to bring to this forum an idea of what American conservatives and Republicans are talking about, in an environment in which two sides are talking past each other and can agree on little more than today being Friday.
Video fact-checking Harris from the debate, by Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative, former liberal and originally a DeSantis supporter.
You do realise that the Rubin Report is one of the channels that has just been shown to be Russia-funded?
So what. It is a view and Joe Blow in Arizona doesn't care who funded it he only cares whether it makes sense to him.
Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting la la la at views from a pro-Trump perspective does an injustice to this site.
Go America Trump.
It was a sensible question to ask of someone who just posted ...Dave Rubin. He’s a fairly mainstream conservative...
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
It's precisely because I am not above the fray that I take issue with those who dismiss views, from whomever, which don't confirm Trump as a narcissistic simpleton.
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Well bollocks to you all. I am a Trump supporter.
Bring it.
I think Trump is a narcissistic man-child, and I don't want him to win.
That does not mean he won't win. I'd rate Harris' chance of winning at no better than 11/9.
Too many people think that Trump's supporters are suddenly going to see the light, and vote Democratic.
Well quite. The US electorate is not a bunch of UK centrist dads. I can see the scene on Nov 6: We planned for Kamala to win and we'd have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for you pesky voters. The "only bed-wetters think Trump will win" rhetoric has persuaded me that Hillary walked it in 2016. What strange tricks the memory plays.
Your memory will tell you that there were a couple of reasons in particular why Hillary lost. What are the comparable ones this cycle ?
The two big advantages that Trump has this time, are the economy (we may think it's performing well, US voters don't), and border control.
I'd agree those are his best advantages (the economy one is daft but the opinion polling is clear) - but are either going to make the difference between now and November ?
The economy is likely to improve as an issue for the Democrats, with coming interest rate cuts (and they do have a decent story to tell).
The border issue is the interesting one. Is it likely to become more salient in the next month and a half ?
One of the interesting things about the Letby case, is how keep various people are to turn it into the latest version of the culture wars.
So we have the unedifying spectacle, from both sides, of people using it as a football.
For me, there are questions to be asked. This isn't about setting her free now, or hanging her to prevent the case being re-examined.
Maybe because I grew up with Private Eye in the house..... I recall many, long sagas about the guilt or innocence of people long convicted of various things. Sometimes these people turned out to be innocent and sometimes guilty. The vituperation about the people questioning and defending such convictions was often notable.
But the process of asking those questions seems as British to me as Michael Foot was.
Quite. Aggressive certainty on either side disqualifies any post from serious consideration. As a lawyer I am also bemused and flattered by the competence attributed to the profession.
What this case says to me is that we should ditch the adversarial model in favour of one better designed to get to the truth rather than a win or lose outcome.
'certainty on either side'? The other day you were declaring how baffled you were that anyone could dislike Lucy Letby.
Good God.
I said I was puzzled by the hatred for her, and I said it in a discussion about the merits of her conviction - so clearly in a context where "she killed all those babies" is inadmissible.
You made the claim to which I am replying so I will leave it to you to look this up, confirm what I say is true, and apologize.
Comments
For the same reason if I was advising Harris I would find reasons not to agree another debate. Take the win.
However, it doesn't have to be presented as fact or a legitimate view, it could be marked "Pravda".
Those who were actually involved in dealing with the Russian investors, a lady called Lauren Chen and her husband Liam Donavan, are totally cancelled. Chen was well known among conservative podcast communities before this venture, which is how most of them got involved.
If, say, you are able to distinguish between "Pravda" and "genuine" then why shouldn't others.
The number of times the ONS have to revise down forecast TFR suggests they don't have a great handle on it. It keeps surprising on the downside, which makes long term projections optimistic (!).
Almost the entire evidence was circumstantial and the prosecution had to build it up brick by brick.
My view is she is guilty as sin but it was a extremely difficult case to prove so that a jury must be sure that the she was guilty.
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lucy-letbys-old-life-demolished-30810775
https://x.com/harris_wins/status/1834345407759221033
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/pennsylvania/
That's not "sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting lalala".
Give some sense of proportion to your trademark "I'm above the fray" stance.
And show some respect to Joe Blow.
Trump seems to have that effect on people. I've heard it in vox pops particularly a series in Pensylvania. Logic was telling them that what they were saying made no sense but something attracted them to him so they felt they had to make excuses
She has everything to lose and he has nothing much - debate-wise - to lose now.
Putin now going for his own version of McCarthyism.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c7858qqzyv8t
Trump's campaign could productively spin that in a way they can't spin his getting crushed on air.
A landlord will avoid setting a very high price because that will keep their property empty for longer, which along with choosing a bad tenant is the expensive part.
The reason an LL may set a high price - say +10-15% - would be because LL thinks either that it will limit applicants to the ones he thinks he wants and reduce work, or because he wants the T who offers the utter highest rent.
IME if a potential T offers the utter highest rent, they are less likely to be reliable and may well be a dick. Any LL who makes rent level the predominant criteria in their decision is a fool imo.
Normal market operation is that a T will be selected in a few days, and there will be a delay from a few days to several weeks for T to move in, depending on a number of factors.
What this is aiming to do is to stop LL shafting Ts at the last minute or start renting some time before moving in, which is an objective I support. Gazumping has no place in an orderly rental market.
On sales. Good luck with selling the property. If I was interested in late September I'd know what it was worth and comparators, and because it is nearly the close season I would be viewing and monitoring several which were nearly what I wanted and be looking to pay 5-10% for one of them below what it was worth in May, in November+ .
They might still be haggling over a new coalition in 2025, though.
Look, I was not at the trial and have not followed the case especially closely but this is typical of press accounts:-
The prosecution’s case instead drew on accounts from doctors and nurses on the hospital’s neonatal unit and relied heavily on statistical evidence and expert opinion on complex medical points, some of which took days to explain to the lay jury.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/jul/09/lucy-letby-evidence-experts-question
And some of the rates being paid seem to have been absurd multiples of what similar players are getting on the open market.
They just have to weigh the evidence presented by experts.
If the electorate splinters further, to 20 different parties, a party could get a crushing majority on 10% of the vote. Then even the most fanatical devotee of FPTP would have difficulty in resisting calls for reform.
Does anyone know if a judge has to give a special warning about statistics evidence in the summing up? My Google skills have failed me.
I'd say that should create some interesting betting opportunities.
FPTP Elections are all about getting more votes than your opponents. It’s pretty simple. Labour got a lot more votes than anyone else. Hence they got a big majority.
In the comments below this post, they're arguing the Harris campaign has the resources and organisation to pay for, and bus in 12,000+ rally attendees - in multiple states - on a regular basis.
https://x.com/jeffmason1/status/1834360728460943688
That is one hell of a campaign.
https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/hunt_and_mostyn_2019.pdf
"Probability reasoning in judicial fact-finding."
At the moment the main swing seems to be Labour to Reform and to a lesser extent the LDs and Greens.
However that also helps the Tories under FPTP as even if their voteshare is almost the same or only fractionally up they gain seats if Labour is clearly down, as Michael Howard did in 2005
There's a lot wrong with the Letby case, no matter what really happened. The written "confession" turns out not to be, it's not seriously disputed that the concession the insulin deaths must be murders by *someone* was wrong, and most seriously of all to me though nobody else seems fussed about it, I don't want to live in a country where people are locked up for life on the evidence of a "Dr A." That is Kafka and I can't imagine any justification for it. Unless HM the King moonlights as a paediatrician.
Whatever happened there's a lot not to be proud of for the English health and justice systems here. What doesn't really work is to say Obviously guilty, English courts are always right (except in the several thousand completely irrelevant serious miscarriage of justice cases listed in appendix A).
Landlords can only set sky-high rents if there are tenants willing to pay them - and there will only be those tenants if there's a substantial excess of demand over supply.
Compared to our previous Conservative government, would you say that our new Labour government…
Feels genuinely different: 40%
Feels like more of the same: 60%
It is one of PB's collective rightthink moments. Anything which dares to contravene the orthodoxy is dismissed, in particular by those less able minds on here.
Let's think about it - PB is a pretty diverse crowd. Trump, meanwhile, received 46% of the vote in 2016 so nearly half of people supported him and his policies. But absolutely no one is willing to do so on PB which statistically can't be right. Not everyone on PB can dislike Trump and want Harris to win but that is what everyone says. Because they are victims of PB Rightthink.
Well bollocks to you all. I am a Trump supporter.
Bring it.
https://x.com/rubinreport/status/1833964139330633916
Where is he wrong is this video?
Massive tax cuts (mostly for his billionaire mates) + ultra-loose interest rates + multi-trillion dollar deficits = inflation.
It's a simple enough equation and, I'd think, credible enough for sway some undecided voters currently tending towards Trump. It also has the advantage of being true, if not the whole truth.
That is not to say that there has been a shift but it is to say that those jumping on the debate - plus Taylor Swift's endorsement - are letting their desire for a specific outcome cloud their judgement.
Also, re early ballots, bear in mind the North Carolina early voting has been delayed after the Supreme Court there ruled Kennedy's name comes off the ballot. It looks like the sending out of ballots could be delayed by several weeks:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/rfk-jr-must-removed-north-carolina-ballots-state-supreme-court-rules-rcna170341
Statistics in trials means two different areas. One is the genetics expert who says: this DNA sample/fingerprint matches the defendant and there is a one in a billion (or whatever) chance that it is in fact matching someone else. The both sides can call expert evidence about this sort of data.
The other sort is the general area of: given this data set of evidence in general, what are the chances that the defendant is, beyond reasonable doubt, the person who committed it - in other words the statistics that could come into any case at all.
English law does not permit statistical evidence on the second area to be adduced by either side for general public policy reasons, including that it usurps the jury's role.
The law has no intention of entering the general area of the maths of what 'beyond resonable doubt' means.
I think the two areas of law are getting confused, understandably.
Democrats, Republicans, members of the Trump campaign, polling on who won, observers around the world.
On the other side there's
Trump himself, Sandpit (both of whom don't really think he won).
So we have the unedifying spectacle, from both sides, of people using it as a football.
For me, there are questions to be asked. This isn't about setting her free now, or hanging her to prevent the case being re-examined.
Maybe because I grew up with Private Eye in the house..... I recall many, long sagas about the guilt or innocence of people long convicted of various things. Sometimes these people turned out to be innocent and sometimes guilty. The vituperation about the people questioning and defending such convictions was often notable.
But the process of asking those questions seems as British to me as Michael Foot was.
A counterattack by Russia has reclaimed some of the territory in Kursk occupied by Ukraine, but at the same time Ukraine has launched another cross-border assault not far to the west of the Russian counterattack.
The next day or two could see the Russian counterattack completely unravel in the face of this latest Ukrainian incursion, or the Ukrainian position in Kursk may be considerably weakened.
Since Putin has set his army the objective of pushing Ukraine out of Kursk by October 1st, the next couple of days will likely be unusually consequential for future developments in the war over the next several months.
Trump almost certainly didn't prepare properly for the debate - or if he tried, then he dumped much of that prep on stage and did his own thing anyway. He'd do it again: that's who he is. And the result of that is that he'd drop more clips for the Harris campaign and hostile media to use, while not really landing his own punches.
From his point of view, why go through the trouble of another debate to get out his attack lines when he can do that at his own rallies? And where he'll be cheered for them rather than laughed at? It does make sense for his team to pull him from repeats, even at the risk of being accused of being frit and lacking mental capacity for the task.
More people (may have) thought Harris won the debate absolutely. If there were a hundred people polled and 51 (or even 98) thought she won then that leaves...pauses to do the math...49 (2) people who thought that Trump won.
So plenty more people than you suggest who thought he won it.
Which was this:
..TRUMP: I do think there is blame – yes, I think there is blame on both sides. You look at, you look at both sides. I think there’s blame on both sides, and I have no doubt about it, and you don’t have any doubt about it either. And, and, and, and if you reported it accurately, you would say.
REPORTER: The neo-Nazis started this thing. They showed up in Charlottesville.
TRUMP: Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group. But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides. You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me. I saw the same pictures as you did. You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down, of to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name...
So Rubin is just spinning.
You can take issue with some of Harris's comments, sure. But it's simply not accurate to call them lies.
Now about that cat thing...
What this case says to me is that we should ditch the adversarial model in favour of one better designed to get to the truth rather than a win or lose outcome.
That does not mean he won't win. I'd rate Harris' chance of winning at no better than 11/9.
Too many people think that Trump's supporters are suddenly going to see the light, and vote Democratic.
And on industrial job creation, Trump's record is simply nowhere in comparison.
I think their view is that, as the betting markets are used as an indicator of who is most likely to win, this site has its own small part to play in the war by backing one side to the maximum extent.
Whereas its main purpose is to make people money.
You could also ask who the 160,000 Russian Americans in Pennsylvania are voting for.
He's not a US voter, so it would be inaccurate to lump him in with them.
But if the case he's presenting is the GOP side of the argument, it's not the most convincing one.
I am extremely wary of suggesting Letby is innocent. People DO murder other people. Sometimes people do it a lot. Medical folk can be murderers. There is clearly evidence in this case that is damning for her.
Where I am slightly queasy is two things. Firstly using statistics to show guilt. Two cases suggest why this can be a problem - Sally Clarke/Roy Meadows and the Dutch nurse case.
Secondly - the idea that because someone has been found guilty anyone raises doubts ought to be ashamed of themselves is risible. See the Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and so many others. Sometimes juries and the legal process gets it wrong.
Right now she's a favourite but it is dangerously close. Trump exceeded his polling in both his last 2 runs. In Wisconsin he exceeded it by 7(!!) and 5% respectively. Harris's lead in states like Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania is highly vulnerable to this under recording of Trump supporters.
Anyone like @Sandpit pointing out this is not over is doing a public service. It is helpful to listen to the other side which is composed of at least 43% of American voters. I don't think this is over although I would be delighted to be wrong. A bad piece of economic news, an international crisis which makes it clear that Harris has been content to leave someone seriously senile in charge, there are a number of things that could go wrong. So far Harris has had a remarkably smooth run. She has 56 days to go.
Higher taxes on multi millionaires would have even higher support though and should have been plan A
What are the comparable ones this cycle ?
He got very big support in absolute numbers in both 2016 and 2020. His ability to reach previously disengaged people, for his team to get them signed up and out to the polls (or returning postals) was perhaps the most impressive part of his campaign - and something not well picked up in the polls.
The question now is whether he can repeat that in 2024. To do so, he needs to inspire and/or stoke fear of the alternative. I wouldn't write off his chances by any means - he's got the track record and has issues where his attacks can hit hard - but needs to up his game and his discipline.
It’s like one leg of a championship football match
GM And Hyundai Join Forces To Boost EV Development
https://insideevs.com/news/733501/gm-hundai-agreement-ev-development/
So now I pay sewage access fees, rubbish collection fees, pest management fees etc to the local city on top of my property taxes…
I haven't seen a smoking gun yet from the defence. It is important, particularly in a case where there are different strands of evidence, not to focus on one to the exclusion of others. Unless the defence can show flaws in all of the Crown case the conviction remains safe. But it is hardly surprising that people want to take a look.
Aggregate Result of the 50 Council By-Elections Since the 2024 Local Elections:
LAB: 27 (+4)
CON: 10 (-2)
LDM: 6 (-3)
IND: 4 (-1)
GRN: 2 (+1)
SNP: 1 (+1)
As seen in the 2024 General Election, Labour's vote distribution is becoming much more efficient.
Their net +4 seats comes from a FALL in their total vote share of 5.8%.
https://x.com/KamalaHQ/status/1834333718464389147
Sept 25th on NBC ?
Though Jason Miller is perhaps not an entirely reliable source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Miller_(communications_strategist)#Controversies_and_scandals
Out for lunch with my friend the nearly-retired NT staff member at my local big country National Trust Estate yesterday.
Interesting points.
1 - Questioning the staff, it seems the scones are indeed vegan (don't tell the Leeanderthal Man). Asked a counter server and she took out a bigly ring-binder, vanished for about 3 minutes therein, and said that the scones were vegan, apart from the cheese scones, which have cheese from cows.
I agree they are not as good as could be, being a little stodgy. Ashfield Visitor Centre scones are better. Apologies to Mr @stodge for the comparison.
2 - My friend confirms thinks that the suggestion that the NT treats it's staff like sausages in a sausage machine may well have a basis in reality, but drew a distinction between more "corporate" areas (eg shops, restaurants, offices etc) and more self-managed areas. Her own position was as the only staff member in a small property, so there was basically her and 60 volunteers, and the whole team was always "us" not "me and them".
Also an interesting distinction in treatment is suggested between "indoor" staff and "outdoor" staff, the latter being more self-directing.
3 - Also as an aside, NT interest in Active Travel seems to be growing. This property has had Sustrans out to visit, looking at making their "path round the estate" useable for everyone. Currently it has an enormous flight of steps in a wood, lots of rough-stuff, cattle grids and so on - so it's not even accessible to a Tramper, which is the SUV of mobility scooters.
I think they will look at a link to the National Cycling and Walking Network (NCN) as it is currently several miles away. And this rural property has 200k people within about 5 miles, so there are lots within walking / wheeling / cycling distance.
So I was pointing out how many people (25%) don't have driving licences, and how many potential visitors they weren't helping get there
*Clearly God's intention was that people take buttermilk and shake it for ages. Nothing could be more obvious...
I can only assume that PBers for Harris have remortgaged their houses and borrowed the contents of the client account to pile on her. That's what I would do if I could get evens on something I was that certain about.
(Why does anyone even conduct popular vote polling btw?)
This isn't up to date, but it's the most recent I can readily find.
https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-more-favourable-towards-kamala-harris-ipsos-us-election-2024-poll
What's seriously objectionable about your comments is your repeated claims that you know posters minds better than they know themselves.
That's just twattery.
The economy is likely to improve as an issue for the Democrats, with coming interest rate cuts (and they do have a decent story to tell).
The border issue is the interesting one. Is it likely to become more salient in the next month and a half ?
I said I was puzzled by the hatred for her, and I said it in a discussion about the merits of her conviction - so clearly in a context where "she killed all those babies" is inadmissible.
You made the claim to which I am replying so I will leave it to you to look this up, confirm what I say is true, and apologize.