Oh shit. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is actually going to stand at the podium tomorrow and explain how Hamas made bombs out of condoms.
Oh shit. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is actually going to stand at the podium tomorrow and explain how Hamas made bombs out of condoms.
Oh shit. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is actually going to stand at the podium tomorrow and explain how Hamas made bombs out of condoms.
Oh shit. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is actually going to stand at the podium tomorrow and explain how Hamas made bombs out of condoms.
Oh shit. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is actually going to stand at the podium tomorrow and explain how Hamas made bombs out of condoms.
Oh shit. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is actually going to stand at the podium tomorrow and explain how Hamas made bombs out of condoms.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
Singapore has very low rates of crime. The deterrent effect is so strong that they execute more people for drug offences than for murder.
And yet it doesn't seem to discourage people from drug offences. Weird, huh.
It does. Often the people convicted of drug trafficking are foreigners who may not be aware of the severity of the punishment.
The question, really, though is how much more (if any) is the deterrent of execution relative to spending the rest of your life in a US prison without parole.
Personally, I think I'd probably choose death over 30 years in a US supermax. I certainly wouldn't regard life imprisonment as a qualitatively better outcome.
30 years of anal rape, slime food, and watching Desperate Housewives.
Yeah, not exactly an appealing prospect is it?
Actually, in Supermax, the prisoners are almost totally isolated from each other. So you are down to slimy food and Desperate Housewives.
In interviews later, Ms Reeves admitted it will take years for the Heathrow project to materialise - and that it would only be at a planning stage this Parliament.
In interviews later, Ms Reeves admitted it will take years for the Heathrow project to materialise - and that it would only be at a planning stage this Parliament.
In interviews later, Ms Reeves admitted it will take years for the Heathrow project to materialise - and that it would only be at a planning stage this Parliament.
Higher level maths support programme cut by government.
It cost a massive £6m a year.
I genuinely find some of these decisions by the government just weird. They bang on and on and on about growth, AI, etc, then cancel a super computer that would provide unique capabilities and funding for up-skilling kids in a crucial subject all that costs absolute peanuts. Its really illogical.
In comparison, they announced they would send additional money to UNHRC today that is worth than this cut.
Syria's de facto leader Ahmed al-Sharaa has been named president for the "transitional period", state media report, seven weeks after he led the rebel offensive that overthrew Bashar al-Assad.
Rebel military commander Hassan Abdul Ghani also announced the cancellation of Syria's 2012 constitution and the dissolution of the former regime's parliament, army and security agencies, according to the Sana news agency.
Higher level maths support programme cut by government.
It cost a massive £6m a year.
I genuinely find some of these decisions by the government just weird. They bang on and on and on about growth, AI, etc, then cancel a super computer that would provide unique capabilities and funding for up-skilling kids in a crucial subject all that costs absolute peanuts. Its really illogical.
In comparison, they announced they would send additional money to UNHRC today that is worth than this cut.
When Sunak’s maths scheme was announced, the response here was largely derision. Now it’s being cut, it was a central plank of the UK’s future growth.
Higher level maths support programme cut by government.
It cost a massive £6m a year.
I genuinely find some of these decisions by the government just weird. They bang on and on and on about growth, AI, etc, then cancel a super computer that would provide unique capabilities and funding for up-skilling kids in a crucial subject all that costs absolute peanuts. Its really illogical.
In comparison, they announced they would send additional money to UNHRC today that is worth than this cut.
When Sunak’s maths scheme was announced, the response here was largely derision. Now it’s being cut, it was a central plank of the UK’s future growth.
The derision came from the media and we know most of the media are absolute innumerate morons. It isn't central plank, but its cheap scheme that has got more kids doing A-Level maths seems like a sensible thing given the future is more AI / ML, which requires a good understanding of maths.
The government should be going further, for example we need more STEM PhDs, which will enable growth. I would be putting money into higher stipends as they have been seriously whacked by inflation. Compared to 20 years ago, they have been massively devalued.
Higher level maths support programme cut by government.
It cost a massive £6m a year.
I genuinely find some of these decisions by the government just weird. They bang on and on and on about growth, AI, etc, then cancel a super computer that would provide unique capabilities and funding for up-skilling kids in a crucial subject all that costs absolute peanuts. Its really illogical.
In comparison, they announced they would send additional money to UNHRC today that is worth than this cut.
When Sunak’s maths scheme was announced, the response here was largely derision. Now it’s being cut, it was a central plank of the UK’s future growth.
The derision came from the media and we know most of the media are absolutely innumerate morons. It isn't central plank, but its cheap scheme that has got more kids doing A-Level maths seems like a sensible thing given the future is more AI / ML, which requires a good understanding of maths.
The government should be going further, for example we need more STEM PhDs, which will enable growth. I would be putting money into higher stipends as they have been seriously whacked by inflation. Compared to 20 years ago, they have been massively devalued.
Seems 'not invented by us' trumps growth every single time.
It's petty and self-defeating.
I know some have £ on Phillipson being next leader but to me she looks completely out of her depth.
HEI sector (a UK cash cow and driver of erm...growth) is burning to the ground while she worries about skool uniforms.
I hereby direct the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to take all appropriate actions to expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to full capacity to provide additional detention space for high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States, and to address attendant immigration enforcement needs identified by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
This memorandum is issued in order to halt the border invasion, dismantle criminal cartels, and restore national sovereignty.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
What's the final paragraph about? It reads a bit like one of those disclaimers that idiots used to copy and paste onto facebook posts about 10 years ago (or maybe they still do, haven't checked into facebook for a few years...)
I hereby direct the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to take all appropriate actions to expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to full capacity to provide additional detention space for high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States, and to address attendant immigration enforcement needs identified by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
This memorandum is issued in order to halt the border invasion, dismantle criminal cartels, and restore national sovereignty.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
What's the final paragraph about? It reads a bit like one of those disclaimers that idiots used to copy and paste onto facebook posts about 10 years ago (or maybe they still do, haven't checked into facebook for a few years...)
In interviews later, Ms Reeves admitted it will take years for the Heathrow project to materialise - and that it would only be at a planning stage this Parliament.
Looks like fails Leon's test for spades in the ground in the next few years. We will have to wait another 10-15 years for that 0.5% increase in GDP.
Many will not watch the following because it's
a) Farage b) GBNews
But this is a good discussion on Rachel Reeves' growth push between Farage, Kwasi and Lloyd Russel Moyle, who is, as I've said before, a surprisingly useful commentator in his token lefty role.
"Not all kitchen knives need to have a point on them, that sounds like a crazy thing to say," he adds, "but you can still cut your food without the point on your knife, which is an innovative way to look at it."
"Not all kitchen knives need to have a point on them, that sounds like a crazy thing to say," he adds, "but you can still cut your food without the point on your knife, which is an innovative way to look at it."
Those zombie knives and massive machetes that you see da yutt pull from their pants never look like they could be used to chop your veg efficiently. They aren't getting them from Amazon or Home Bargains either.
Higher level maths support programme cut by government.
It cost a massive £6m a year.
I genuinely find some of these decisions by the government just weird. They bang on and on and on about growth, AI, etc, then cancel a super computer that would provide unique capabilities and funding for up-skilling kids in a crucial subject all that costs absolute peanuts. Its really illogical.
In comparison, they announced they would send additional money to UNHRC today that is worth than this cut.
When Sunak’s maths scheme was announced, the response here was largely derision. Now it’s being cut, it was a central plank of the UK’s future growth.
I agree. It was always a stupid vanity project, good riddance to it.
Seems 'not invented by us' trumps growth every single time.
Some of it is political I'm sure. Cancel the Tory plan, and announce a very similar Labour plan. I also suspect that the Treasury's malign influence leads to some of these daft decisions. We seem to have some completely incomprehensible ways of judging the value for projects, which prevent what look like quick and easy ideas coming to fruition, and other times shield huge white elephants.
The government are right that we are terrible at getting anything done, and incredibly bad at delivery for many of the things we do. I'm yet to be convinced that they will make much difference though.
Seems 'not invented by us' trumps growth every single time.
Some of it is political I'm sure. Cancel the Tory plan, and announce a very similar Labour plan. I also suspect that the Treasury's malign influence leads to some of these daft decisions. We seem to have some completely incomprehensible ways of judging the value for projects, which prevent what look like quick and easy ideas coming to fruition, and other times shield huge white elephants.
The government are right that we are terrible at getting anything done, and incredibly bad at delivery for many of the things we do. I'm yet to be convinced that they will make much difference though.
Boris Johnson’s 2019 pledge to build 40 new NHS hospitals by 2030 across England “appears to be unachievable”, government advisers have told Labour ministers. The warning from the Infrastructure and Projects Authority (IPA) comes as Wes Streeting prepares to tell MPs how the government plans to proceed with 25 of the 40 rebuilds which have been paused.
"Not all kitchen knives need to have a point on them, that sounds like a crazy thing to say," he adds, "but you can still cut your food without the point on your knife, which is an innovative way to look at it."
Those zombie knives and massive machetes that you see da yutt pull from their pants never look like they could be used to chop your veg efficiently. They aren't getting them from Amazon or Home Bargains either.
2 of my kitchen knives have ends that have broken off, and I can confirm they still cut food.
In interviews later, Ms Reeves admitted it will take years for the Heathrow project to materialise - and that it would only be at a planning stage this Parliament.
"Social Democrats: Turn all of southern Stockholm into one big stop-and-search zone
The centre-left Social Democrat opposition wants all of southern Stockholm to be turned into a record-large stop-and-search zone in response to an unprecedented wave of explosions."
There was a poster on here once who extolled the virtues of his adopted Sweden but never seemed to mention the bizarre prevalence of hand grenade related violence there
"Not all kitchen knives need to have a point on them, that sounds like a crazy thing to say," he adds, "but you can still cut your food without the point on your knife, which is an innovative way to look at it."
It does sound a pretty crazy thing to say to me. If we have to make general kitchen knives without points to be safe as a matter of everyday policy, then I think we're surely in very serious danger from other things too.
In interviews later, Ms Reeves admitted it will take years for the Heathrow project to materialise - and that it would only be at a planning stage this Parliament.
Looks like fails Leon's test for spades in the ground in the next few years. We will have to wait another 10-15 years for that 0.5% increase in GDP.
If things are genuinely moving in the right direction planning wise in the next few years then I could accept that as progress at least, and worthy of credit, even without spades in the ground, but I'm skeptical for the moment. If it is even started before I'm 50 that'd be a start.
Higher level maths support programme cut by government.
It cost a massive £6m a year.
I genuinely find some of these decisions by the government just weird. They bang on and on and on about growth, AI, etc, then cancel a super computer that would provide unique capabilities and funding for up-skilling kids in a crucial subject all that costs absolute peanuts. Its really illogical.
In comparison, they announced they would send additional money to UNHRC today that is worth than this cut.
In interviews later, Ms Reeves admitted it will take years for the Heathrow project to materialise - and that it would only be at a planning stage this Parliament.
Looks like fails Leon's test for spades in the ground in the next few years. We will have to wait another 10-15 years for that 0.5% increase in GDP.
Many will not watch the following because it's
a) Farage b) GBNews
But this is a good discussion on Rachel Reeves' growth push between Farage, Kwasi and Lloyd Russel Moyle, who is, as I've said before, a surprisingly useful commentator in his token lefty role.
They conclude that none of the measures will impact at all during this parliament.
But at least we're having the 'how to grow' conversation I suppose.
Meaning they are prioritising long term sustainable growth over the frothy short term variety. That's putting country over party. Admirable but politically unwise.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
@TimS I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
In interviews later, Ms Reeves admitted it will take years for the Heathrow project to materialise - and that it would only be at a planning stage this Parliament.
Looks like fails Leon's test for spades in the ground in the next few years. We will have to wait another 10-15 years for that 0.5% increase in GDP.
Many will not watch the following because it's
a) Farage b) GBNews
But this is a good discussion on Rachel Reeves' growth push between Farage, Kwasi and Lloyd Russel Moyle, who is, as I've said before, a surprisingly useful commentator in his token lefty role.
They conclude that none of the measures will impact at all during this parliament.
But at least we're having the 'how to grow' conversation I suppose.
Meaning they are prioritising long term sustainable growth over the frothy short term variety. That's putting country over party. Admirable but politically unwise.
If ever there was meant to be a time you could take politically risky actions for long term benefits it should be in the first 6 months.
Of course they'd have expected to retain more popularity than they have done, but hopefully it is a positive sign.
My fear is anything positive but requiring a bit of political courage will face great pushback from internal Cabinet opponents once Labour get smashed at the local elections.
(To the extent they can - not that many Labout council seats up for grabs in this round I think)
Seems 'not invented by us' trumps growth every single time.
Some of it is political I'm sure. Cancel the Tory plan, and announce a very similar Labour plan. I also suspect that the Treasury's malign influence leads to some of these daft decisions. We seem to have some completely incomprehensible ways of judging the value for projects, which prevent what look like quick and easy ideas coming to fruition, and other times shield huge white elephants.
The government are right that we are terrible at getting anything done, and incredibly bad at delivery for many of the things we do. I'm yet to be convinced that they will make much difference though.
I want to have some hope about it, but something concrete (metaphorical or otherwise) really needs to emerge to foster that hope.
Higher level maths support programme cut by government.
It cost a massive £6m a year.
I genuinely find some of these decisions by the government just weird. They bang on and on and on about growth, AI, etc, then cancel a super computer that would provide unique capabilities and funding for up-skilling kids in a crucial subject all that costs absolute peanuts. Its really illogical.
In comparison, they announced they would send additional money to UNHRC today that is worth than this cut.
Someone's pet priorities in Whitehall?
Well the supercomputer decision was an easy win for the government. AFAIK the spades have already been in the ground building the special £30 million required to house it. All they had to do was carry on and they could have claimed a nice PR story about promoting world leading scientific computing, growth etc etc etc. Instead they have hitch their wagon to a AI data centre company who has only raised £100m but is claiming they will have billions and billions on tech that doesn't exist and the manufacturer of the actual hardware can't get working as claimed by this company.
If they can build Thanet Parkway station on time and within budget then they can build a third runway at Heathrow. It’s not an issue.
Parliament cannot even make a decision about when to make a decision on renovating the Palace of Westminster, after delaying or deferring previous decisions made about it, never mind anything else.
If they can build Thanet Parkway station on time and within budget then they can build a third runway at Heathrow. It’s not an issue.
Parliament cannot even make a decision about when to make a decision on renovating the Palace of Westminster, after delaying or deferring previous decisions made about it, never mind anything else.
Hopefully it will be more like your example.
A renovated House of Parliament made to look like Thanet Parkway, now that would be quite something.
Some Labour sources insist that means the airport’s expansion will never happen – because it would trash the government’s emissions targets. Sources stressed that consent will only be granted if the Department for Transport can meet its carbon budget
A source in a separate government department said: “Rachel’s speech was theatre and vibes. She wants to send the message that Britain is open for business. But the reality is that this will be mired in policy discussions for years and years.”
I hereby direct the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security to take all appropriate actions to expand the Migrant Operations Center at Naval Station Guantanamo Bay to full capacity to provide additional detention space for high-priority criminal aliens unlawfully present in the United States, and to address attendant immigration enforcement needs identified by the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security.
This memorandum is issued in order to halt the border invasion, dismantle criminal cartels, and restore national sovereignty.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
What's the final paragraph about? It reads a bit like one of those disclaimers that idiots used to copy and paste onto facebook posts about 10 years ago (or maybe they still do, haven't checked into facebook for a few years...)
I think it’s on all executive orders.
"No obligation is inferred or accepted. Investments in Trump can go down as well as up. 85% of Trump voters lose money: any belief is at your own risk"
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
@TimS I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
@TimS - well my offer is serious too. And comes from someone named as 1 of the 100 Top Women in Investigations Globally. Plus my 20 minute video of extracts of my 1st talk was the most ever viewed video within my workplace and shared with the SEC, the FCA and other regulators. And I was the first ever non-regulator to speak at an FCA conference of international regulators at Wilton Park. I gave the after-dinner speech, from which I learnt one thing: it is a guaranteed way to ruin your own dinner.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
@TimS I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
@TimS I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
@TimS - well my offer is serious too. And comes from someone named as 1 of the 100 Top Women in Investigations Globally. Plus my 20 minute video of extracts of my 1st talk was the most ever viewed video within my workplace and shared with the SEC, the FCA and other regulators. And I was the first ever non-regulator to speak at an FCA conference of international regulators at Wilton Park. I gave the after-dinner speech, from which I learnt one thing: it is a guaranteed way to ruin your own dinner.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
@TimS I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
@TimS - well my offer is serious too. And comes from someone named as 1 of the 100 Top Women in Investigations Globally. Plus my 20 minute video of extracts of my 1st talk was the most ever viewed video within my workplace and shared with the SEC, the FCA and other regulators. And I was the first ever non-regulator to speak at an FCA conference of international regulators at Wilton Park. I gave the after-dinner speech, from which I learnt one thing: it is a guaranteed way to ruin your own dinner.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
@TimS I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
@TimS - well my offer is serious too. And comes from someone named as 1 of the 100 Top Women in Investigations Globally. Plus my 20 minute video of extracts of my 1st talk was the most ever viewed video within my workplace and shared with the SEC, the FCA and other regulators. And I was the first ever non-regulator to speak at an FCA conference of international regulators at Wilton Park. I gave the after-dinner speech, from which I learnt one thing: it is a guaranteed way to ruin your own dinner.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
@TimS I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
Intriguing!
I occasionally interview people for articles (not the PB ones), and I promise to buy them a meal. Most don't take up the offer as it's over zoom/teams. But one guy, a polling academic and thoroughly decent chap, said "OK then", so I travelled up, took him to the university canteen, and I bought him a meal (inc sandwich) and we chatted about polling. It was at the time of the House Of Lords enquiry.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
When the state issues a driving license to someone who kills someone in an accident, the state is equally complicit.
And conversely, when the state lets an asylum seeker in who performs the Heimlich maneuver, or who becomes a doctor, then the state is presumably complicit in saving those lives.
I hope this email finds you well. I would like to invite you to be a guest speaker on whatever subject tickles your fancy at our upcoming event. Croissants will be provided.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
@TimS I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
@TimS - well my offer is serious too. And comes from someone named as 1 of the 100 Top Women in Investigations Globally. Plus my 20 minute video of extracts of my 1st talk was the most ever viewed video within my workplace and shared with the SEC, the FCA and other regulators. And I was the first ever non-regulator to speak at an FCA conference of international regulators at Wilton Park. I gave the after-dinner speech, from which I learnt one thing: it is a guaranteed way to ruin your own dinner.
What's your conference about anyway??
Wait for it…
Tax.
Well Leon explained in great detail prior to Christmas that he was completing his Self Assessment form.
A celebrity with taxation experience. What more do you need?
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
When the state issues a driving license to someone who kills someone in an accident, the state is equally complicit.
And conversely, when the state lets an asylum seeker in who performs the Heimlich maneuver, or who becomes a doctor, then the state is presumably complicit in saving those lives.
I’m intrigued to find out what the end point of William’s journey will be. Always sticking just to the right of the ever-shifting Overton window. Whither the destination?
Gillian Tett: "Trump is unleashing a reality tv show on the other side of the Atlantic...drama, And in Britain we have ministers sounding more like they reading the shipping news"
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
When the state issues a driving license to someone who kills someone in an accident, the state is equally complicit.
And conversely, when the state lets an asylum seeker in who performs the Heimlich maneuver, or who becomes a doctor, then the state is presumably complicit in saving those lives.
Millions of people would perform the Heimlich manoeuver if necessary, but the number of people who would randomly stab a group of people in a Reading park is more limited, so I don't think one act cancels out the other.
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
@TimS I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
In interviews later, Ms Reeves admitted it will take years for the Heathrow project to materialise - and that it would only be at a planning stage this Parliament.
Looks like fails Leon's test for spades in the ground in the next few years. We will have to wait another 10-15 years for that 0.5% increase in GDP.
Many will not watch the following because it's
a) Farage b) GBNews
But this is a good discussion on Rachel Reeves' growth push between Farage, Kwasi and Lloyd Russel Moyle, who is, as I've said before, a surprisingly useful commentator in his token lefty role.
They conclude that none of the measures will impact at all during this parliament.
But at least we're having the 'how to grow' conversation I suppose.
Meaning they are prioritising long term sustainable growth over the frothy short term variety. That's putting country over party. Admirable but politically unwise.
That's one slant. I see it more as trying to change the dismal mood music and hope that that in and of itself helps the economy. Let's hope it does...
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
If you want a lecturer on elections and political betting, I'll do it (publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful)
Only on PB! I shall start making a list, with prices.
When is the conference?
June
Happy to do it for free (the exposure would do me good) Would a lecture on the US election (runup, modelling, polls, betting, in real time, aftermath) suit? I could repurpose it for statistical publications/conferences
@TimS I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
When the state issues a driving license to someone who kills someone in an accident, the state is equally complicit.
And conversely, when the state lets an asylum seeker in who performs the Heimlich maneuver, or who becomes a doctor, then the state is presumably complicit in saving those lives.
Millions of people would perform the Heimlich manoeuver if necessary, but the number of people who would randomly stab a group of people in a Reading park is more limited, so I don't think one act cancels out the other.
Looking forward to celebrating my 120th birthday by visiting the opening day of the new Heathrow runway.
One wonders why Greens get so worked up about it since it is clear it will never be actually built.
If only we had a Government with a large majority capable of doing anything, to push this stuff through. Like Starmer. And 2019 Boris…
What’s wrong with us…?
They know the public doesn't really want growth, not if it comes with any short term or local negatives. So they push the big things back or shy away from them. Will Starmer hold firm? The odds are not great.
Closing date this weekend. So don't waste time posting on here.
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Project Manager - Oxford Health BRC Oxford Health NHS Trust
Working closely with the BRC's Academic Lead for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), you'll be responsible for project management of all work undertaken in support of the NIHR approved EDI Strategy for the Oxford Health BRC. This will include: refinement and further development of the EDI Strategy, and require the fostering of productive working relationships with a range of stakeholders at all levels. You'll be working closely with the 11 Research Themes, PPIEP and Academic Career Development Teams to ensure EDI is central to all BRC work.
The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on Wednesday night that a PSA Airlines regional jet collided midair with a Sikorsky H-60 helicopter while on approach to Reagan Washington national airport.
PSA-operated flight 5342 for American Airlines had departed from Wichita, Kansas, according to the FAA. According to American Airlines’ website, the jet has capacity for 65 passengers.
Police said multiple agencies were involved in a search and rescue operation in the Potomac River, which borders the airport.
Water bills to go up by £120 or so this April - what the fucking fuck ?
Seems like this is the explanation:
"Bill rises for the next five years are being front-loaded, with a big increase this April so that spending on new infrastructure, such as new reservoirs, can get going."
As an unmetered customer, I can't even work on reducing my usage...
I need to find a keynote speaker for a conference. Someone relatively famous in the business or economics world, likely to be on the books of a speakers’ agency, and ideally not an active politician or partisan blogger. And someone known internationally because the audience is international. Last year we booked George Osborne for the same event.
We had Mark Carney lined up but for obvious reasons he’s no longer able to do it. I have so far suggested Christine Lagarde and Tim Harford (who’s known surprisingly widely). Flirted with the idea of Liz Truss for the lols. Considering Yannis Varoufakis. Any other suggestions?
Internationally recognisable enough? That’s always the tricky thing. Brits are better known than most abroad but it’s always hard to work which are and aren’t.
If you want GFC nostalgia, Gordon Brown or Ben Bernanke.
Dems should let RFK pass but on condition he really does come after the fructose industry.
Watching the hearing, the Dem Senators really, really don’t like RFK.
Maybe it’s because he’s a turncoat, a Dem who backed Trump and bought a few supporters along for the ride, or maybe it’s that Big Ag and Big Pharma have thrown millions in lobbying and campaign contributions behind stopping his confirmation.
There’s also a lot of his supporters such as Nicole Shanahan and Elon Musk making very thinly veiled threats in the other direction, to fund primaries against those who don’t support him. This is a more public version of what George Soros, Bill Gates etc have been doing for years.
Favourite Twitter comment from last night was that Senators should wear jackets like NASCAR driver overalls, coverered in the logos of the companies that sponsor them.
He’s definitely a controversial character, and possibly the most devisive of all Trump’s picks. He was very sceptical of the technology behind the Covid vaccines, and wants to see manufacturers of vaccines not be immune from injuries they cause. On the other hand, he does come across as really wanting to go after crappy American food standards and the whole healthcare industry, wants to see the drugs ads removed from TV.
If confirmed, Trump will need to keep him on a very tight leash. The vote is probably going to be 50-50, with Vance getting him through on the tie-break.
Water bills to go up by £120 or so this April - what the fucking fuck ?
Seems like this is the explanation:
"Bill rises for the next five years are being front-loaded, with a big increase this April so that spending on new infrastructure, such as new reservoirs, can get going."
As an unmetered customer, I can't even work on reducing my usage...
Something I've been pondering with respect to energy and phones is incentives to build private sector infrastructure. In the case of water, is there any guarantee that all increased income will be spent on reservoirs?
Dems should let RFK pass but on condition he really does come after the fructose industry.
Watching the hearing, the Dem Senators really, really don’t like RFK.
Maybe it’s because he’s a turncoat, a Dem who backed Trump and bought a few supporters along for the ride, or maybe it’s that Big Ag and Big Pharma have thrown millions in lobbying and campaign contributions behind stopping his confirmation.
There’s also a lot of his supporters such as Nicole Shanahan and Elon Musk making very thinly veiled threats in the other direction, to fund primaries against those who don’t support him. This is a more public version of what George Soros, Bill Gates etc have been doing for years.
Favourite Twitter comment from last night was that Senators should wear jackets like NASCAR driver overalls, coverered in the logos of the companies that sponsor them.
He’s definitely a controversial character, and possibly the most devisive of all Trump’s picks. He was very sceptical of the technology behind the Covid vaccines, and wants to see manufacturers of vaccines not be immune from injuries they cause. On the other hand, he does come across as really wanting to go after crappy American food standards and the whole healthcare industry, wants to see the drugs ads removed from TV.
If confirmed, Trump will need to keep him on a very tight leash. The vote is probably going to be 50-50, with Vance getting him through on the tie-break.
Or, more likely, it's because JFK Jr is a conspiracy-theorist little shit who has already cost many lives with his false claims about medicine?
60 pax and 4 crew on the commercial flight on approach to the airport. Three crew in the military helicopter departing.
How the Hell does that ever happen? Are the mil and civvy traffic at Reagan on different frequencies and speaking to different controllers, mil aircraft with no transponder etc?
Edit: just seen the picture posted above, not good. But it does show that both aircraft had serviceable transponders switched on.
18 confirmed dead, it will be a lot higher, likely no more than a handful of survivors if any.
60 pax and 4 crew on the commercial flight on approach to the airport. Three crew in the military helicopter departing.
How the Hell does that ever happen? Are the mil and civvy traffic at Reagan on different frequencies and speaking to different controllers, mil aircraft with no transponder etc?
There's actual video of the collision on pprune. Given the way they seem to have gone down, and the water temperature; sadly, I doubt this will be another Miracle on the Hudson.
Water bills to go up by £120 or so this April - what the fucking fuck ?
Seems like this is the explanation:
"Bill rises for the next five years are being front-loaded, with a big increase this April so that spending on new infrastructure, such as new reservoirs, can get going."
As an unmetered customer, I can't even work on reducing my usage...
Something I've been pondering with respect to energy and phones is incentives to build private sector infrastructure. In the case of water, is there any guarantee that all increased income will be spent on reservoirs?
Dems should let RFK pass but on condition he really does come after the fructose industry.
Watching the hearing, the Dem Senators really, really don’t like RFK.
Maybe it’s because he’s a turncoat, a Dem who backed Trump and bought a few supporters along for the ride, or maybe it’s that Big Ag and Big Pharma have thrown millions in lobbying and campaign contributions behind stopping his confirmation.
There’s also a lot of his supporters such as Nicole Shanahan and Elon Musk making very thinly veiled threats in the other direction, to fund primaries against those who don’t support him. This is a more public version of what George Soros, Bill Gates etc have been doing for years.
Favourite Twitter comment from last night was that Senators should wear jackets like NASCAR driver overalls, coverered in the logos of the companies that sponsor them.
He’s definitely a controversial character, and possibly the most devisive of all Trump’s picks. He was very sceptical of the technology behind the Covid vaccines, and wants to see manufacturers of vaccines not be immune from injuries they cause. On the other hand, he does come across as really wanting to go after crappy American food standards and the whole healthcare industry, wants to see the drugs ads removed from TV.
If confirmed, Trump will need to keep him on a very tight leash. The vote is probably going to be 50-50, with Vance getting him through on the tie-break.
I'm not going to defend the corrupting influence of money on US politics but I would note that attempts to do something about it - like the DISCLOSE act - have been blocked by REPUBLICAN senators.
As for RFK Jr, a lot of people don't like him because he's a lying piece of shit grifter who peddles racist conspiracy theories. Whether he's also genuinely a nutcase or just pretending to be for money I don't know.
60 pax and 4 crew on the commercial flight on approach to the airport. Three crew in the military helicopter departing.
How the Hell does that ever happen? Are the mil and civvy traffic at Reagan on different frequencies and speaking to different controllers, mil aircraft with no transponder etc?
There's actual video of the collision on pprune. Given the way they seem to have gone down, and the water temperature; sadly, I doubt this will be another Miracle on the Hudson.
It’s possible the civ ATC couldn’t see the helicopter, and the civ plane’s collision avoidance system couldn’t see it either.
Mil aircraft don’t generally have collision avoidance systems as they often fly in close proximity to each other. They use similar systems for what’s called IFF (ID Friend and Foe), which treats known aircraft as safe and highlights enemy aircraft, something they wouldn’t use in a city.
Also possibly very lucky that the wreckage all ended up in the river, avoiding a mass casualty event among people on the ground.
In interviews later, Ms Reeves admitted it will take years for the Heathrow project to materialise - and that it would only be at a planning stage this Parliament.
Water bills to go up by £120 or so this April - what the fucking fuck ?
Seems like this is the explanation:
"Bill rises for the next five years are being front-loaded, with a big increase this April so that spending on new infrastructure, such as new reservoirs, can get going."
As an unmetered customer, I can't even work on reducing my usage...
To be fair, that is needed. We don't have the storage and distribution needed for a growing population and for climate resilience, plus the public won't accept direct sewer discharge anymore.
If the police were universally honest, then opposition to the death penalty would simply be on moral grounds. One either believed or did not believe the State has the right to take a life.
But the police lie. Occasionally it is because they are criminals themselves. More often they do it to protect the good name of the police. Or because they are convinced they have the right person. And sometimes they do it because they believe they are good people and the lie serves the greater good.
Bear in mind too, that reimposing the death penalty would result in more police lying, not less. The pressure to cover up the (bound to happen) fact that the wrong person had been executed would be enormous.
So, no, we can't have the death penalty.
To my mind it's also a bit pointless. Even advocates for bringing it back only say for the most heinous, full life term crimes - i.e. those committed by monsters or the irretrievably damaged for whom the death penalty isn't a deterrent - and in some cases might be an incentive.
So really we're talking about punishment - and unless you're convinced of a religious disposition and want to parcel someone off to hell as soon as possible - is being locked away for life with the scum of the Earth really a lesser punishment?
You could say it saves on cost but it's a tiny number of people compared to the prison estate as a whole and savings might be largely swallowed up by the additional hoops you'd have to jump through to get a death sentence confirmed, even in fairly clear cut cases of guilt.
Is it really worth abolishing the moral high ground can use to try and persuade states who use the death penalty in appalling ways to give it up?
The argument that we must abolish the death penalty because it gives us something we can hector other states about doesn't strike me as morally serious.
If you go back to the second world war, public support for the death penalty has been pretty consistently above 50%, with dips below whenever there are obvious miscarriages of justice. Imagine if we'd hanged the Guilford Four, for example.
Just imagine if we'd hanged the people who commited these murders:
More than 750 killings since 2010 carried out by criminals on probation
Unless I am misunderstanding you mean we should have hanged them for the initial offence so they wouldn't have committed the murders on probation? Nearly all were on probation for offenses other than murder when they committed the murders - only 20 were out on licence having served the minimum custodial element for life sentences. So I think you're suggesting we apply the death penalty pre-emptively for less serious offences, unless you meant something else, which is quite the step.
The point is that the ledger has two sides when considering the risks to innocent people, but it's true that there's no reason why murder should be the only capital offence, unless you believe in a strict 'eye for an eye' policy.
Take Singapore's policy of executing people for drug trafficking for example:
"This is not a matter discussed between the chancellor and me. Its a Singapore issue. We have stated our position clearly. We take a very serious view of drug trafficking - the penalty is death. In this case it was an enormous amount of drugs being trafficked. Its nearly 400 grammes of pure heroin, which is equivalent to 26,000 doses of heroin if you do it shot by shot. Which means untold misery and suffering to hundreds if not thousands of addicts and their families. The man was charged, convicted, appealed, dismissed. He put up a clemency petition. The clemency petition was considered all factors were taken into account including petitions and letters from Australian leaders. Finally the government decided the law had to take its course. And the law will have to take its course."
Christ almighty that set you off on one.
Home Secretary, shit Defence Barrister and hanger and flogger David Waddington would have been happy to see his innocent client Stefan Kizsko swing. That case alone is enough for me. Perhaps when you rid the nation of dodgy cops and shit Defence Lawyers perhaps you can revisit.*
* There will always be bent coppers.
Ok not saying I support the death penalty as I don't
However NICE hands hand death penalties all the time because its not cost effective to keep you alive on QALY terms....I think from memory its about 20k per each year of life....I can understand why people get upset when convicted people on a full life term...ie the worst cost 50k plus a year.
If I am 30 for example and kill 7 or 8 people I probably get a full life term....even if let out in 40 years and live 10 years after that is 2 million cost whereas I won't get treatment that costs more that 500k a year to live to 80
Are you answering someone elses question? I didn't mention cost savings. My point was an innocent man would have been recommended for hanging by his incompetent defence barrister who later became a pro hanging Home Secretary.
If you hang 100 men ten of which are innocent, but it saves 110 lives that would have been taken by those men (obviously not the innocent ones) its a gain of 10 innocent lives
Just as a matter of interest, how much lower are murder rates in countries with the death penalty?
you make the mistake as most do that the point of the death penalty would be to reduce the murder rate. It is more to reduce the costs of keeping someone for 50 years....and yes you will go on about appeals....one appeal within a month then get on with it
So you would have strung up Letby then?
I would have let her appeal within a few months
Don't forget however as I pointed out I don't favour the death penalty I am merely pointing out two 30 years olds one kills 7 people, one has a disease but they can keep him alive till 75 at a cost of 40k a year but will otherwise die within 2 years....the governement and tax payers only pay for the one that killed 7 people even though it costs more. I am saying thats the argument people are seeing....the guy who did nothing wrong condemned to an early death because of costs....the guy who destroyed lives kept at a higher cost for a lifetime
So what do you say to the wage earner and father of two who is told his treatment isn't value for money so he has about 2 years to go when he asks why there is 50k a year to keep her in prison but you cant afford half that to keep him alive
The NHS budget and the Prisons budget are seperate things.
Should we spend the money on the father of two, or a training sortie of an F35?
If we do that sort of comparison the Health Service would be much better funded!
Don't be dense....both costs are of keeping people alive....you prefer to spend on keeping letby alive than someone who has done nothing wrong even though keeping him alive would be half the cost.
Isn't the RAF supposed to keep us alive too?
Do you think we should euthanase people with expensive long term conditions so that we can spend the NHS budget on cheaper patients?
That's me done for then!
(Actually tbf, because of the expensive NHS investment in me 45 years ago I am confident I have been a significant net contributor to the tax coffers overall. But it wouldn't have looked likely back in 1979.)
I am glad they kept you alive, however every year people are denied treatment because it costs more than the guidelines. I am just pointing out it is often a lesser figure than keeping a serial killer locked up and that to me seems unjust. I don't see that as an unreasonable question to ask as to why we are prepared to pay more for a letby than a joe bloggs who just happens to have a condition that costs more than half what she costs to keep jailed
It's not an unreasonable question. My reasonable answer is that killing people is just wrong, two wrongs don't make a right, and mistakes happen which would be irretrievable in this case.
As I said I do not support the death penalty personally, I am merely highlighting the state hands them out all the time due to cost even though it makes Foxy squirm
Don't worry it doesn't make me squirm.
I just make a distinction between state sanctioned killing and health economics that you seem to be unable to see.
Someone dying because the state refuses to give them something that would prolong their lives is state sanctioned killing whether you like it or not. You just don't want to see it that way as you participate
If the state said no more food banks allowed, no more welfare state due to cost. You would be first inline screaming the state is killing people, you know it, I know it, everyone knows it....you certainly wouldn't be here arguing its just economics
You clearly don't know me very well.
Indeed I don't know you very well, as I am surprised that you want the government to have the power of life and death over healthy citizens that it finds inconvenient. That sounds to me an extremely bad power for a state to have. What if Mr Starmer took a dislike to you?
I have said several times I don't agree with the penalty....I just object to murderers like letby having more spent on them a year to keep them inside than an innocent person will get based on qaly.
For someone who doesn't believe in it you seem very enthusiastic to implement it.
I have not once argued to implement it, I have argued the economics should be equal. We should not value the life of a letby over the life of joe bloggs who hasn't killed anyone. You do I accept and I don't understand why
I think most people just don’t think the state should had the power to kill its citizens, and particularly don’t like the idea of it killing innocent citizens (which inevitably it would).
As I commented before, the death penalty is the non sequitur to end all non sequiturs. It has no utility except as a tool to sate the bloodlust of the mob.
The state kills its citizens stochastically all the time. When people are murdered by asylum seekers, the state is complicit.
When the state issues a driving license to someone who kills someone in an accident, the state is equally complicit.
And conversely, when the state lets an asylum seeker in who performs the Heimlich maneuver, or who becomes a doctor, then the state is presumably complicit in saving those lives.
Millions of people would perform the Heimlich manoeuver if necessary, but the number of people who would randomly stab a group of people in a Reading park is more limited, so I don't think one act cancels out the other.
She wants to send the message that Britain is open for business. But the reality is that this will be mired in policy discussions for years and years.”
And that is the problem with Britain.
If she was truly serious she'd pass primary legislation disapplying the Net Zero law from the powers needed to build the airport.
Comments
Oh shit. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt is actually going to stand at the podium tomorrow and explain how Hamas made bombs out of condoms.
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1884697933724934278
Blimey, despite being starved, living in tents, bombed senseless and scared to death, Trump reckons they are at like duracell rabbits day and night.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/01/29/heathrow-wont-get-new-runway-before-2050/
Looks like fails Leon's test for spades in the ground in the next few years. We will have to wait another 10-15 years for that 0.5% increase in GDP.
In comparison, they announced they would send additional money to UNHRC today that is worth than this cut.
Rebel military commander Hassan Abdul Ghani also announced the cancellation of Syria's 2012 constitution and the dissolution of the former regime's parliament, army and security agencies, according to the Sana news agency.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c8d9r0vg6v7o
What's the line on ISIS in a blazer is still "required" to be transitional leader longer Starmer is PM?
The government should be going further, for example we need more STEM PhDs, which will enable growth. I would be putting money into higher stipends as they have been seriously whacked by inflation. Compared to 20 years ago, they have been massively devalued.
It's petty and self-defeating.
I know some have £ on Phillipson being next leader but to me she looks completely out of her depth.
HEI sector (a UK cash cow and driver of erm...growth) is burning to the ground while she worries about skool uniforms.
This memorandum is issued in order to halt the border invasion, dismantle criminal cartels, and restore national sovereignty.
This memorandum is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
What's the final paragraph about? It reads a bit like one of those disclaimers that idiots used to copy and paste onto facebook posts about 10 years ago (or maybe they still do, haven't checked into facebook for a few years...)
a) Farage
b) GBNews
But this is a good discussion on Rachel Reeves' growth push between Farage, Kwasi and Lloyd Russel Moyle, who is, as I've said before, a surprisingly useful commentator in his token lefty role.
https://youtu.be/668QJPG5u1Q?si=N_cOgQ0YhUC6IxB5
They conclude that none of the measures will impact at all during this parliament.
But at least we're having the 'how to grow' conversation I suppose.
"Not all kitchen knives need to have a point on them, that sounds like a crazy thing to say," he adds, "but you can still cut your food without the point on your knife, which is an innovative way to look at it."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1jgz1ld7lno
The government are right that we are terrible at getting anything done, and incredibly bad at delivery for many of the things we do. I'm yet to be convinced that they will make much difference though.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/jan/20/johnson-plan-to-build-40-new-hospitals-unachievable-streeting-told
I'll do it for free, I'll pay my own transport and accommodation to anywhere in the world, I can fill any length from 20mins to three hours, I guarantee to hit it to the minute, I can provide an abstract beforehand, and I'll give you a sandwich*1. Serious offer. Publication list and lecture list available on request, anonymity required if unsuccessful.
Of course they'd have expected to retain more popularity than they have done, but hopefully it is a positive sign.
My fear is anything positive but requiring a bit of political courage will face great pushback from internal Cabinet opponents once Labour get smashed at the local elections.
(To the extent they can - not that many Labout council seats up for grabs in this round I think)
Wouldn't other countries at least use an earthmover?
https://bsky.app/profile/rightwingwatch.bsky.social/post/3lgvoqwtlcc2a
Hopefully it will be more like your example.
A source in a separate government department said: “Rachel’s speech was theatre and vibes. She wants to send the message that Britain is open for business. But the reality is that this will be mired in policy discussions for years and years.”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/jan/29/scepticism-in-whitehall-that-heathrow-plan-can-be-reconciled-with-climate-targets
I sure we did all this 10 years ago....
What's your conference about anyway??
Tax.
However, have to say I was extremely sceptical of the recent newsnight change, but tonight at least it was interesting and informative discussion.
And conversely, when the state lets an asylum seeker in who performs the Heimlich maneuver, or who becomes a doctor, then the state is presumably complicit in saving those lives.
I hope this email finds you well.
I would like to invite you to be a guest speaker on whatever subject tickles your fancy at our upcoming event.
Croissants will be provided.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqMWsTEAbYs
"The Open University - A Question of Sovereignty : 1990 Stuart Hall"
A timely look at the pros and cons of leaving the EU hosted by Stuart Hall
--
It's a different world from todays programming.
A celebrity with taxation experience. What more do you need?
I should probably warn you that @viewcode is Liz Truss.
The Questions:
1. Highest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab 35, Con 28, LD 16, Reform 31
2. Lowest share of the vote in 2025 with a BPC registered pollster in a GB wide poll for each of Lab 22, Con 18, LD 8, Reform 20
3. Number of Reform MPs on 31/12/2025. - 9
4 Number of Tory MP defectors to Reform in 2025. - 4
5. Number of Westminster by-elections held in 2025. 3
6. Number of ministers to leave the Westminster cabinet during 2025. - 3
7. Number of seats won by the AfD in the 2025 German Federal Election. - 127
8. UK CPI figure for November 2025 (Nov 2024 = 2.6%). - 2.6%
9. UK borrowing in the financial year-to-November 2025 (Year to Nov 2024 = £113.2bn). £120bn
10. UK GDP growth in the 12 months to October 2025 (Oct 23 to Oct 24 = 1.3%) 1.2%
11. US growth annualised rate in Q3 2025 (Q3 2024 = 3.1%). 3.2%
12. EU growth Q3 2024 to Q3 2025 (2024 = 1.0%). 1.2%
13. USD/Ruble exchange rate at London FOREX close on 31/12/2025 (31/12/2024 = 114 USD/RUB). 170 usd/rub
14. The result of the 2025-2026 Ashes series (2023 series: Drawn 2–2). 3-1 Australia
Black swan predictions - Tottenham hotspur to win a major trophy in 2025, John swinney to adopt an official cat for Bute House called Barry
(I don't actually think that is true, funny though that would be for them at election time).
What’s wrong with us…?
Closing date this weekend. So don't waste time posting on here.
Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Project Manager - Oxford Health BRC
Oxford Health NHS Trust
Working closely with the BRC's Academic Lead for Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), you'll be responsible for project management of all work undertaken in support of the NIHR approved EDI Strategy for the Oxford Health BRC. This will include: refinement and further development of the EDI Strategy, and require the fostering of productive working relationships with a range of stakeholders at all levels. You'll be working closely with the 11 Research Themes, PPIEP and Academic Career Development Teams to ensure EDI is central to all BRC work.
https://www.jobs.nhs.uk/candidate/jobadvert/C9267-25-0041?searchFormType=main&keyword=health equality&language=en&skipPhraseSuggester=true
https://edition.cnn.com/us/live-news/plane-crash-dca-potomac-washington-dc-01-29-25/index.html
The US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) said on Wednesday night that a PSA Airlines regional jet collided midair with a Sikorsky H-60 helicopter while on approach to Reagan Washington national airport.
PSA-operated flight 5342 for American Airlines had departed from Wichita, Kansas, according to the FAA. According to American Airlines’ website, the jet has capacity for 65 passengers.
Police said multiple agencies were involved in a search and rescue operation in the Potomac River, which borders the airport.
"Bill rises for the next five years are being front-loaded, with a big increase this April so that spending on new infrastructure, such as new reservoirs, can get going."
As an unmetered customer, I can't even work on reducing my usage...
Maybe it’s because he’s a turncoat, a Dem who backed Trump and bought a few supporters along for the ride, or maybe it’s that Big Ag and Big Pharma have thrown millions in lobbying and campaign contributions behind stopping his confirmation.
There’s also a lot of his supporters such as Nicole Shanahan and Elon Musk making very thinly veiled threats in the other direction, to fund primaries against those who don’t support him. This is a more public version of what George Soros, Bill Gates etc have been doing for years.
Favourite Twitter comment from last night was that Senators should wear jackets like NASCAR driver overalls, coverered in the logos of the companies that sponsor them.
He’s definitely a controversial character, and possibly the most devisive of all Trump’s picks. He was very sceptical of the technology behind the Covid vaccines, and wants to see manufacturers of vaccines not be immune from injuries they cause. On the other hand, he does come across as really wanting to go after crappy American food standards and the whole healthcare industry, wants to see the drugs ads removed from TV.
If confirmed, Trump will need to keep him on a very tight leash. The vote is probably going to be 50-50, with Vance getting him through on the tie-break.
Free speech is BACK!
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/world/elon-musk-says-he-will-sue-creepy-tim-walz-after-nazi-salute-comment/ar-AA1y3kzY
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/29/trump-executive-order-pro-palestinian-activists
You know, stuff that *matters*?
60 pax and 4 crew on the commercial flight on approach to the airport.
Three crew in the military helicopter departing.
How the Hell does that ever happen? Are the mil and civvy traffic at Reagan on different frequencies and speaking to different controllers, mil aircraft with no transponder etc?
Edit: just seen the picture posted above, not good. But it does show that both aircraft had serviceable transponders switched on.
18 confirmed dead, it will be a lot higher, likely no more than a handful of survivors if any.
As for RFK Jr, a lot of people don't like him because he's a lying piece of shit grifter who peddles racist conspiracy theories. Whether he's also genuinely a nutcase or just pretending to be for money I don't know.
https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/663888-aa5342-down-dca-3.html
https://x.com/bnonews/status/1884791040890089602?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q
https://x.com/djsnm/status/1884803741569978749
It’s possible the civ ATC couldn’t see the helicopter, and the civ plane’s collision avoidance system couldn’t see it either.
Mil aircraft don’t generally have collision avoidance systems as they often fly in close proximity to each other. They use similar systems for what’s called IFF (ID Friend and Foe), which treats known aircraft as safe and highlights enemy aircraft, something they wouldn’t use in a city.
Also possibly very lucky that the wreckage all ended up in the river, avoiding a mass casualty event among people on the ground.
Not that his promises were worth much.
Lower Thames Crossing is essentially shovel-ready though.
20 years of water infrastructure works coming.
If she was truly serious she'd pass primary legislation disapplying the Net Zero law from the powers needed to build the airport.