Rachel Reeves will announce the biggest spending cuts since austerity at next week’s spring statement after ruling out tax rises as a way to close her budget deficit.
The chancellor will tell MPs next Wednesday that she intends to cut Whitehall budgets by billions of pounds more than previously expected in a move which could mean reductions of as much as 7% for certain departments over the next four years.
Guardian
Madness. Total madness.
Just watched an episode of GB News for the first time. They've exhumed Eamonn Holmes. Any young media students looking for a job try GB News. They must be desperate
If it's your first time, I'd be very interested in your assessment of their methodology for putting out unbalanced coverage whilst maintaining an illusion of balance.
AFAICS their main technique is to have the presenters (many of whom are a touch nutty) frame an exaggerated, spun version of the story, or add a fabricated interpretation, then have their "balanced" panel (fairly hard righty, some sort of lefty) have their debate through a shifted Overton window.
That's pretty similar to what I saw...........
The recently resurrected Eamonn Holmes sat with a youngish blond woman and an invited 'expert' titled in very small letters 'ex advisor to the Tory Party' who gave a neutralish description of the subject being discussed.
Eamonn then interrupted to say "Starmer's supposed to be a socialist! If Kemi had done this they'd have crucified her!' He's got NO chance of winning the next election! NO chance! He changes his mind every five minutes!'
This seemed to trigger the 'independent expert' who forgot to be 'independent' and gave Starmer both barells! The woman sitting next to Eamonn said nothing but occasionally looked at her nails
What wasn't attempted was balance but I don't suppose that's what their audience are looking for
Bizarrely, OFCOM have decided they are A-OK with serving politicians going on GB “News” to crowbar the Overton window further ajar.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
"Most peole who are convicted are rightly convicted". So the fuck what. 51% = "most".
We are talking about the NHS. The NHS is institutionally so useless that it wouldn't surprise me in the least that such a number of babies, people, etc have died through gross malpractice or oversight. Look at the headlines in the newspapers all the time.
I just scrolled down the BBC News app. Today yields:
"Three deaths linked to listeria detected in NHS desserts"
Was it the orderly who put the "desserts" onto the patients' trays that was to blame?
Your exact argument could be used to argue Harold Shipman was innocent. Do you think Shipman was innocent?
There is evidence linking Letby to these deaths. That evidence convinced two juries.
I have no idea about the Shipman case and I'm sure he was guilty as a guilty thing. But to immediately overlook the possibility that the NHS, of all things, could, indeed has proven time and time (and time and time and time) again previously to be institutionally negligent resulting in hundreds and thousands of deaths is just bizarre.
No-one has "overlook[ed] the possibility that the NHS, of all things, could, indeed [...] be institutionally negligent". That possibility was reviewed: there were two jury trials, there have been 4(?) appeals considered, there is a whole public inquiry into Letby (the Thirlwell Inquiry). Why do you think the possibility has been overlooked?
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
Not really. It is the NHS we are talking about here. I mean google "NHS scandal" and then spend the next two months solidly reading about how good they are at keeping people alive.
That doesn't prove anything either way. It would be like saying the terrorists using cars to ram pedestrians might be innocent because lots of people are hit by drivers everyday.
It doesn't prove anything either way but people are behaving (like they always do, talk about the definition of insanity) that the NHS is beyond fault.
How are they doing that? Has anyone here claimed the NHS is beyond fault? No. This is just a bee in your bonnet.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
I can't be bothered to run the maths (simple, but I'd need more background info on normal counts etc) but I'd be astonished if three was enough to be a strong statistical anomaly, based simply on an unusual number of deaths for one nurse to be present. The fact that concerns were raised was presumably because these were really odd deaths that felt wrong.
IIRC, a post-event analysis of Shipman's murders suggested that the stats could have suggested something was up when he was up to murder 60 odd out of 120 or so (albeit that's would be against a background of many more expected deaths).
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
Not really. It is the NHS we are talking about here. I mean google "NHS scandal" and then spend the next two months solidly reading about how good they are at keeping people alive.
That doesn't prove anything either way. It would be like saying the terrorists using cars to ram pedestrians might be innocent because lots of people are hit by drivers everyday.
It doesn't prove anything either way but people are behaving (like they always do, talk about the definition of insanity) that the NHS is beyond fault.
I don't think that's true.
The interesting thing here, if you're right (all explained by NHS cockup) is why Letby has been tried and convicted for this set of deaths, when we normally just have an inquiry, plenty of hand-wringing and promises that Lessons Will Be Learned. You may well be right that these kinds of clusters of deaths happen a lot, but it's not the British way to actually blame someone for it.
My being right = thinking "it entirely possible that Letby didn't do it."
We have trials all the time, high profile ones, also, but what that New Yorker (?) article did eloquently remind people, is that the NHS is fucked and within that fucked system it is entirely possible, if not probable, that those babies dies because of general systemic problems with the NHS set up.
My other point being no one would fall off their chair in surprise if it turned out that this was the cause rather than one "bad actor" (which solves an awful lot of problems for the NHS).
Babies (and adults) do die from poor care, all the time. However, these baby deaths were unusual. They were not the sort of cases that arise from systemic problems. They were relatively healthy babies suddenly dropping dead. In some cases, there were signs that the deaths had to have been deliberately caused (although the Letby fans dispute some of that evidence).
The New Yorker article talked a lot about systemic problems in the NHS, but skipped over some of the evidence against Letby.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
Not really. It is the NHS we are talking about here. I mean google "NHS scandal" and then spend the next two months solidly reading about how good they are at keeping people alive.
That doesn't prove anything either way. It would be like saying the terrorists using cars to ram pedestrians might be innocent because lots of people are hit by drivers everyday.
It doesn't prove anything either way but people are behaving (like they always do, talk about the definition of insanity) that the NHS is beyond fault.
How are they doing that? Has anyone here claimed the NHS is beyond fault? No. This is just a bee in your bonnet.
That an employee murdering babies over a long period (which isn't in doubt) means the NHS doesn't have questions to answer is a strange take indeed.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
I am not particularly wedded to Letby's innocence or guilt. I don't know.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
I am not particularly wedded to Letby's innocence or guilt. I don't know.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
Letby wasn't keeping her own notes. She took hospital paper records home, stashed them under her bed and, when quizzed on this, said she meant to get rid of them but didn't have any way of doing that at home... except it turned out she had a paper shredder.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
Not really. It is the NHS we are talking about here. I mean google "NHS scandal" and then spend the next two months solidly reading about how good they are at keeping people alive.
That doesn't prove anything either way. It would be like saying the terrorists using cars to ram pedestrians might be innocent because lots of people are hit by drivers everyday.
It doesn't prove anything either way but people are behaving (like they always do, talk about the definition of insanity) that the NHS is beyond fault.
I don't think that's true.
The interesting thing here, if you're right (all explained by NHS cockup) is why Letby has been tried and convicted for this set of deaths, when we normally just have an inquiry, plenty of hand-wringing and promises that Lessons Will Be Learned. You may well be right that these kinds of clusters of deaths happen a lot, but it's not the British way to actually blame someone for it.
My being right = thinking "it entirely possible that Letby didn't do it."
We have trials all the time, high profile ones, also, but what that New Yorker (?) article did eloquently remind people, is that the NHS is fucked and within that fucked system it is entirely possible, if not probable, that those babies dies because of general systemic problems with the NHS set up.
My other point being no one would fall off their chair in surprise if it turned out that this was the cause rather than one "bad actor" (which solves an awful lot of problems for the NHS).
Babies (and adults) do die from poor care, all the time. However, these baby deaths were unusual. They were not the sort of cases that arise from systemic problems. They were relatively healthy babies suddenly dropping dead. In some cases, there were signs that the deaths had to have been deliberately caused (although the Letby fans dispute some of that evidence).
The New Yorker article talked a lot about systemic problems in the NHS, but skipped over some of the evidence against Letby.
You're in complete denial over the state of the NHS..how many trusts are in special measures again? 💩
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
That is because they are all registered as disabled to get higher benefits , you will not see that in other developed countries
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
Have you ever even been to London? It is full of incredibly ambitious young people, often immigrants or children of immigrants. My daughter attended a state sixth form college that sends more kids to Oxbridge than Eton. Most of the kids there are from ethnic minorities (including my daughter, who is now at Oxford doing a maths degree). The idea that London is full of lazy brown people sitting around spending other people's money is a laughable fiction - the energy and ambition of London keeps the rest of the country afloat.
PMSL, the money pit more like sucking in everything from the rest of the country.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
I can't be bothered to run the maths (simple, but I'd need more background info on normal counts etc) but I'd be astonished if three was enough to be a strong statistical anomaly, based simply on an unusual number of deaths for one nurse to be present. The fact that concerns were raised was presumably because these were really odd deaths that felt wrong.
IIRC, a post-event analysis of Shipman's murders suggested that the stats could have suggested something was up when he was up to murder 60 odd out of 120 or so (albeit that's would be against a background of many more expected deaths).
The latest Shipman estimate was he murdered 250.
One of the Shipman factors was that it was a single Doctor practice.
It was brought to light by a Doctor co-signing what she thought was too many death certificates, and a taxi driver who took patients to the surgery too many of whom stopped using the service when he thought they were in good health.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
I am not particularly wedded to Letby's innocence or guilt. I don't know.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
Letby wasn't keeping her own notes. She took hospital paper records home, stashed them under her bed and, when quizzed on this, said she meant to get rid of them but didn't have any way of doing that at home... except it turned out she had a paper shredder.
I own a paper shredder. What are you going to accuse me of?
Which highlights the issue really well. Owning a paper shredder is not, in any way, evidence of a crime.
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
That is because they are all registered as disabled to get higher benefits , you will not see that in other developed countries
The economically inactive rate in the UK is 22.1%.
That is lower than the EU average - 24.4% It is lower than France (24.8%), Spain (25%), USA (25.1%, Belgium (28.9%) and Italy (33.6%).
Japan, Germany and Canada are doing better than us but we are in the top half of the OECD and G7 for economically active population.
Comments
NEW THREAD
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
The New Yorker article talked a lot about systemic problems in the NHS, but skipped over some of the evidence against Letby.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
It was brought to light by a Doctor co-signing what she thought was too many death certificates, and a taxi driver who took patients to the surgery too many of whom stopped using the service when he thought they were in good health.
Which highlights the issue really well. Owning a paper shredder is not, in any way, evidence of a crime.
That is lower than the EU average - 24.4%
It is lower than France (24.8%), Spain (25%), USA (25.1%, Belgium (28.9%) and Italy (33.6%).
Japan, Germany and Canada are doing better than us but we are in the top half of the OECD and G7 for economically active population.