Will we see another defection today? – politicalbetting.com

Eabhal said:

MattW said:

Taz said:

One to trigger the car hating fanatical lycra mob

Dangerous cyclists should face driving ban under new law, says Mr Loophole

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/dangerous-cyclists-should-face-driving-ban-under-new-law-says-mr-loophole/ar-BB1mo0E1?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2dbce053cb284cd398a1fbd4ae33e789&ei=19

That's very lawyerly by Mr Poophole. To attempt to use an innocent party to stir up some shit, whilst spending his career and making his fortune by helping dangerous, reckless and careless individuals avoid taking responsibility for their own behaviour.

Offences of careless and dangerous cycling have existed since 1991, and the reason the cyclist concerned in the Regents Park collision, which Nick Freeman is trying to leverage, was not charged with either offence was because there was no hope of conviction, since he had not committed either offence.

The Coroner who conducted the Inquest based on the evidence reached a verdict of Accident, not "unlawful killing" or "open verdict", because the evidence supported that finding.

The dog walker stepped of a refuge island at a point where avoiding action was impossible - he cyclist's testimony supported by an independent witness, and confirmed by the coroner's verdict. The estimate was that the cyclist was 2m away when the dog walker stepped out.

Yet it does not stop Nick Freeman trying to make hay, and the various media jumping up and down like a chimpanzees' tea party at the zoo.

Personally I think that Mr Poophole is an unmitigated shit.

I'm not interested in "car hating fanatical lycra mob"; it's a rhetorical fiction.

I think the biggest lesson from the Regents Park incident is that you should, if you can, position yourself in the road to give you more time to react if a pedestrian does randomly step out.

Edinburgh is notorious for this in places (South Bridge in particular) I always stick centre lane through those areas, to save my own neck as well as anyone else's.

FrancisUrquhart said:

MightyAlex said:

Donkeys said:

Cyclefree said:

I see that @Roger is misrepresenting the facts about the Jewish chaplain at Leeds University.

See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxw7ggjyvnxo#:~:text=Security has been stepped up,family", the university said.

and https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/chief-rabbi-says-those-who-forced-leeds-rabbi-into-hiding-are-a-threat-to-all-of-our-society-e2mkic9h#:~:text=Rabbi Zecharia Deutsch and his,threats of murder and rape.

See what both the university and the police have said.

Presumably threats of murder and rape are what @Roger calls "slights", about which he has seen no evidence. None so blind ....

As for the position of Palestinian prisoners in Israel, I have no knowledge about this so no, I will not be writing about it. There are plenty of people who do know and write well about the situation. There was a recent long review in the NY Review of Books of a book about the abysmal situation for Palestinians in the West Bank, which went into some detail about it. Very very sad and troubling. Well worth getting hold of for anyone interested.

From one of those pro-Israeli articles:

"Rabbi Deutsch, who is an Israeli citizen, left Yorkshire to serve with his IDF reserve unit in November. Students staged a protest against his return to campus."

He should be stripped of his British citizenship if he holds it, and he should be prosecuted and jailed for terrorism.

BTW Britain is one of many countries that supposedly operate a universal jurisdiction where war crimes and crimes against humanity are concerned.

Yes. The acceptance of British citizens serving in the IDF and potentially participating in their atrocities seems bizarre. We prosecuted the YPG volunteers, the IDF volunteers should be no different.

Except they are an Israeli citizen. Born in US, raised in Israel.

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

kyf_100 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Months after voting down a Lab motion declaring a "housing emergency" (a political not official term) & hours before Lab bring a similar motion (with Green support likely this time) Scot Gov declares a "housing emergency" and blames everyone but themselves

https://x.com/chrismusson/status/1790683075501810091

Indeed. Scotland recently passed a law enabling rent caps - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2ykkz9xz7o

This will hardly encourage more landlords to step in. Particularly in an environment where (thanks to George Osborne's madness) interest paid on BTL mortgages is not tax deductible, which was bad enough when BTL rates were 2.something% rather than 5.something% as they are now.

I have a friend from abroad asking me if it's wise to invest in UK property as a landlord and I told him he'd have to be mad to do it, given the differential tax treatment of mortgage interest vs the cost of any other loan on any other business, plus low yields and an overall hostile environment. After all, who likes landlords? Labour will likely punish them further in the UK (as they are with private school fees) because they are an easy target.

The problem is that landlords are providing a vital service. Those who say it's "good" that landlords are being pushed out of the market, because it means more people can buy a house they need to live in, are neglecting two vital things, firstly that not everyone is in a position to or wants to buy a house (students, geographically mobile workers, those for whom a £20k+ deposit is a pipe dream in a cost of living crisis). Secondly, depressed yields also depress the market for BTL development.

The solution to the housing crisis is, as always, build more bloody houses. Instead I think Scotland is a microcosm of what's likely to happen in the UK writ large under Labour, which is 'make life harder for landlords', which in actual fact means 'make life harder for tenants', as costs are passed on to them and the rental market shrinks. I'm really hoping that Labour don't go down the 'punish landlords' route, because as much as I loathe landlords, that only makes things harder for tenants. Walloping landlords with punitive tax regimes and red tape sounds like a good idea, in practice since tenants have nowhere else to turn, it makes things worse for them.

Some little time ago, a poster noted that an area of Scotland was projected to see slightly over 1% growth in population over ten years. And that it was obviously impossible to keep up with that, in terms of housing and services.

I think this sums up the situation rather well.

Rent caps allowed to CPI will make damned sure that LLs do that every year.

Since rents have been rising at less than CPI for a very long time, it will make them go up faster.

If you look at the Scotland numbers, that is more or less what the SNP has been achieving since 2014-5. Last time I checked - I have not done a detailed data check on this for a period.

It was the poverty of expectations - based on experience - that struck me.

The whole “Can’t” culture summed up. Build one house per hundred. Can’t.

The answer is there in the past. Layout a new town or suburb. Build the train station, town hall, school and police station *first*. And the shops. Layout the streets and sell the plots in small batches to actual builders.

No_Offence_Alan said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Farooq said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kinabalu said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

***TRIGGER WARNING***

I am contemplating using that Farage photo in the next thread.

Is there anything I can do or say to change your mind?

Agree that pineapple is a terrible topping for pizza.

However if anyone says anything rude about the Lord Cameron after this comment then I will deploy the picture.

David Cameron is a fuckwit

Wait until September when I do the threads on the ten year anniversary of David Cameron leading the forces of light and righteousness to defeat the scourge of Scottish nationalism.

Will Michelle Mone, the "poster girl" of Better Together be involved?

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

Taz said:

One to trigger the car hating fanatical lycra mob

Dangerous cyclists should face driving ban under new law, says Mr Loophole

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/cars/news/dangerous-cyclists-should-face-driving-ban-under-new-law-says-mr-loophole/ar-BB1mo0E1?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=2dbce053cb284cd398a1fbd4ae33e789&ei=19

That's very lawyerly by Mr Poophole. To attempt to use an innocent party to stir up some shit, whilst spending his career and making his fortune by helping dangerous, reckless and careless individuals avoid taking responsibility for their own behaviour.

Offences of careless and dangerous cycling have existed since 1991, and the reason the cyclist concerned in the Regents Park collision, which Nick Freeman is trying to leverage, was not charged with either offence was because there was no hope of conviction, since he had not committed either offence.

The Coroner who conducted the Inquest based on the evidence reached a verdict of Accident, not "unlawful killing" or "open verdict", because the evidence supported that finding.

The dog walker stepped of a refuge island at a point where avoiding action was impossible - he cyclist's testimony supported by an independent witness, and confirmed by the coroner's verdict. The estimate was that the cyclist was 2m away when the dog walker stepped out.

Yet it does not stop Nick Freeman trying to make hay, and the various media jumping up and down like a chimpanzees' tea party at the zoo.

Personally I think that Mr Poophole is an unmitigated shit.

I'm not interested in "car hating fanatical lycra mob"; it's a rhetorical fiction.

It’s worth noting that about 95% of Mr Loophole’s thing is pointing out basic flaws in the prosecutions.

For example speedguns need to be calibrated and checked at intervals. Known and in the manual. The U.K. police didn’t bother* and didn’t bother to keep records.

*Some forces still don’t bother

Did they not change the law so the computer was always right, or at least presumed always to be right, cf DNA evidence and, well, subpostmasters?

Malmesbury said:

MattW said:

Malmesbury said:

kyf_100 said:

CarlottaVance said:

Months after voting down a Lab motion declaring a "housing emergency" (a political not official term) & hours before Lab bring a similar motion (with Green support likely this time) Scot Gov declares a "housing emergency" and blames everyone but themselves

https://x.com/chrismusson/status/1790683075501810091

Indeed. Scotland recently passed a law enabling rent caps - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cv2ykkz9xz7o

This will hardly encourage more landlords to step in. Particularly in an environment where (thanks to George Osborne's madness) interest paid on BTL mortgages is not tax deductible, which was bad enough when BTL rates were 2.something% rather than 5.something% as they are now.

I have a friend from abroad asking me if it's wise to invest in UK property as a landlord and I told him he'd have to be mad to do it, given the differential tax treatment of mortgage interest vs the cost of any other loan on any other business, plus low yields and an overall hostile environment. After all, who likes landlords? Labour will likely punish them further in the UK (as they are with private school fees) because they are an easy target.

The problem is that landlords are providing a vital service. Those who say it's "good" that landlords are being pushed out of the market, because it means more people can buy a house they need to live in, are neglecting two vital things, firstly that not everyone is in a position to or wants to buy a house (students, geographically mobile workers, those for whom a £20k+ deposit is a pipe dream in a cost of living crisis). Secondly, depressed yields also depress the market for BTL development.

The solution to the housing crisis is, as always, build more bloody houses. Instead I think Scotland is a microcosm of what's likely to happen in the UK writ large under Labour, which is 'make life harder for landlords', which in actual fact means 'make life harder for tenants', as costs are passed on to them and the rental market shrinks. I'm really hoping that Labour don't go down the 'punish landlords' route, because as much as I loathe landlords, that only makes things harder for tenants. Walloping landlords with punitive tax regimes and red tape sounds like a good idea, in practice since tenants have nowhere else to turn, it makes things worse for them.

Some little time ago, a poster noted that an area of Scotland was projected to see slightly over 1% growth in population over ten years. And that it was obviously impossible to keep up with that, in terms of housing and services.

I think this sums up the situation rather well.

Rent caps allowed to CPI will make damned sure that LLs do that every year.

Since rents have been rising at less than CPI for a very long time, it will make them go up faster.

If you look at the Scotland numbers, that is more or less what the SNP has been achieving since 2014-5. Last time I checked - I have not done a detailed data check on this for a period.

It was the poverty of expectations - based on experience - that struck me.

The whole “Can’t” culture summed up. Build one house per hundred. Can’t.

The answer is there in the past. Layout a new town or suburb. Build the train station, town hall, school and police station *first*. And the shops. Layout the streets and sell the plots in small batches to actual builders.

TheScreamingEagles said:

One of my favourite shows from my childhood.

Gudrun Ure, the star of beloved 1980s children's show Super Gran, has died aged 98.

Her portrayal of the granny who gained superpowers after being struck by a magic ray won her legions of young fans in the ITV series, which ran from 1985 through to 1987.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cq5nnn53wldo

IanB2 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Farooq said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

kinabalu said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

***TRIGGER WARNING***

I am contemplating using that Farage photo in the next thread.

Is there anything I can do or say to change your mind?

Agree that pineapple is a terrible topping for pizza.

However if anyone says anything rude about the Lord Cameron after this comment then I will deploy the picture.

David Cameron is a fuckwit

Wait until September when I do the threads on the ten year anniversary of David Cameron leading the forces of light and righteousness to defeat the scourge of Scottish nationalism.

If only Cammo had the maturity and insight to have recognised that his interests lay with nurturing his coalition partners and not f**king them over, how our history might be different

wooliedyed said:

FF43 said:

wooliedyed said:

FF43 said:

wooliedyed said:

Nothing exchange this week, both rather poor and empty.

Disagree. The question was, if you are releasing prisoners early because the prisons are full, does that mean dangerous criminals are being released into the community?

The answer appears to be Yes, but Sunak can't say so. That's a good PMQs question.

It was answered no, they are not eligible. If they are then the government will need to be held to account for that.

Not really because Starmer in his first question referred to an official report that stated high risk prisoners are being released early. Sunak then claimed in three further replies that no high risk prisoners were being released early. It wasn't a case of, that's not policy, if it's happening then they will need to put a stop to it.

Yes and if that goes against the parameters of the scheme it needs dealing with. Is it an HMP Lewes problem or a wider issue etc
In broader terms it was a nothing PMQs in my opinion. Starmers questions would have been better dealt with via letters to the minister and questions to same freeing up 6 questions for other matters.

MightyAlex said:

Donkeys said:

Cyclefree said:

I see that @Roger is misrepresenting the facts about the Jewish chaplain at Leeds University.

See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxw7ggjyvnxo#:~:text=Security has been stepped up,family", the university said.

and https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/chief-rabbi-says-those-who-forced-leeds-rabbi-into-hiding-are-a-threat-to-all-of-our-society-e2mkic9h#:~:text=Rabbi Zecharia Deutsch and his,threats of murder and rape.

See what both the university and the police have said.

Presumably threats of murder and rape are what @Roger calls "slights", about which he has seen no evidence. None so blind ....

As for the position of Palestinian prisoners in Israel, I have no knowledge about this so no, I will not be writing about it. There are plenty of people who do know and write well about the situation. There was a recent long review in the NY Review of Books of a book about the abysmal situation for Palestinians in the West Bank, which went into some detail about it. Very very sad and troubling. Well worth getting hold of for anyone interested.

From one of those pro-Israeli articles:

"Rabbi Deutsch, who is an Israeli citizen, left Yorkshire to serve with his IDF reserve unit in November. Students staged a protest against his return to campus."

He should be stripped of his British citizenship if he holds it, and he should be prosecuted and jailed for terrorism.

BTW Britain is one of many countries that supposedly operate a universal jurisdiction where war crimes and crimes against humanity are concerned.

Yes. The acceptance of British citizens serving in the IDF and potentially participating in their atrocities seems bizarre. We prosecuted the YPG volunteers, the IDF volunteers should be no different.

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

williamglenn said:

Nigelb said:

Regarding our brief argument yesterday, a thread for @rcs1000 and @williamglenn

The Biden Administration’s full slate of clean energy tariffs is now out.

It looks like these tariffs are designed to create some demand certainty to backstop investment.
https://twitter.com/bentleyballan/status/1790325318575603902

This is a further rationale for my view, which I hadn't considered at the time:
"...these tariffs stand in for demand side measures that might usually be achieved by procurement or regulation or local content requirements. But since the Biden admin cannot legislate again, it has to figure out how to support projects in a different way..."

Trade barriers as a way to support domestic producers is MAGA trade policy 101, but it was opposed by Biden when Trump was doing it:

https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1138506137697959939

Trump doesn’t get the basics. He thinks his tariffs are being paid by China. Any freshman econ student could tell you that the American people are paying his tariffs.

The cashiers at Target see what’s going on – they know more about economics than Trump.

This is very clearly targeted at incentivising new investment, as opposed to supporting domestic producers - for items like graphite components for batteries (incidentally, not found on the aisles at Target), bulk domestic production doesn't really exist.
A clue to that is that tariffs on those items are delayed until 2026.

And this isn't "Trade policy 101" - it's an imperfect alternative to other demand side measures which GOP control of Congress rules out.

Did you not read the thread you linked to? Pricing foreign competition out of the market is protectionism/Trumpism 101.

https://x.com/bentleyballan/status/1790326841837863115

The move only makes sense of you think the tariffs will create demand for local production and help drive investment.

You're not understanding my point.

I do get your point but you are wrong to see it as some kind of clever new idea that is more sophisticated than regular protectionism.

I didn't say it was a new idea - but it's hugely different from Trump's measures.

The Biden tariffs are aimed at specific sectors; Trump's were, and are across the board.

Biden's are intended as demand side measures and are accompanied by matching supply side measures (subsidies) in the renewable and chip industries which we've already seen start to encourage the building of new factories.
Trump had no such matching ideas, and actively seeks to discourage renewables.

And Trump's GOP would veto alternative demand side measures from Biden.

Economists largely agree on the distinction.

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/power-switch/2024/05/14/the-climate-gamble-behind-bidens-china-tariffs-00157923
...Trump has promised to slap a 10 percent tariff on all foreign imports and 60 percent duties on China. He also wants to impose steep auto tariffs on Mexico if it does not block Chinese-made EVs from being shipped into the U.S.

Together, Trump’s proposals could upend North America’s auto supply chains and dramatically increase the price of cars. In contrast, Biden’s approach is expected to have only muted effects on the U.S. economy...

TheScreamingEagles said:

Time to boycott JCB.

JCB built and supplied equipment to Russia months after saying exports had stopped

Exclusive: Russian customs records suggest firm owned by major Tory donor kept supplying machines after ‘voluntary pause’

he British digger maker JCB, owned by the billionaire Bamford family, continued to build and supply equipment for the Russian market months after saying it had stopped exports because of Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, the Guardian can reveal.

Russian customs records show that JCB, whose owners are major donors to the Conservative party, continued to make new products available for Russian dealers well after 2 March 2022, when the company publicly stated that it had “voluntarily paused exports” to Russia.

The data raises questions about the accuracy of JCB’s statements on its business in Russia and relationship with its biggest dealer there, Moscow-based Lonmadi, and that company’s former owner, UK-based JVM group.

JCB has repeatedly said that it stopped exporting products to Russia and JVM companies after 2 March 2022 – less than a week after Putin sent troops into Ukraine.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/article/2024/may/15/jcb-built-supplied-equipment-to-russia-months-after-saying-exports-stopped

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

rottenborough said:

TimS said:

isam said:

Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience

David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…


https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1790648817655689626?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.

Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.

We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.

It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore

Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.

Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.

I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts

People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.

Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?

I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.

But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.

Haidt is interesting on this. He compares our evolved moral principles to our five taste buds. We all have the same basic moral instincts but they differ in combination as some are more salient than others, just like our taste buds.
Basic moral "tastes":
1 Caring and prevention of suffering
2 Fairness
3 Cooperation and team working
4 Autonomy
5 Sanctity
6 Respect for authority
The first three are left leaning. The last three are right leaning.
They are the foundations of your principles based on emotions.
David Hume said that emotions come first and rationality follows in order to justify them.
Just don't confuse me with the facts.

That makes a lot of sense to me, yes. Not iron-clad principles that don't change regardless of facts and situations - but a hierarchy of values you have and apply to life (inc politics).

And what Hume says there is not wrong. There is lots of that. Of course some people are more emotion-led than others. Kirk v Spock plays out in each of us.

One of my favourite tools for difficult decisions is making lists of pros and cons. Not for the pros and cons themselves, but because I can quite quickly detect a bias in the way I'm listing them, which tells me which way I really want to go.

That's right. It's the process of doing it not the output that clarifies your thinking.

I toss a coin.

If I'm pleased with the result, I do it.
If I'm displeased, I ignore it and do the opposite.

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

rottenborough said:

TimS said:

isam said:

Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience

David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…


https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1790648817655689626?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.

Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.

We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.

It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore

Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.

Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.

I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts

People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.

Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?

I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.

But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.

Haidt is interesting on this. He compares our evolved moral principles to our five taste buds. We all have the same basic moral instincts but they differ in combination as some are more salient than others, just like our taste buds.
Basic moral "tastes":
1 Caring and prevention of suffering
2 Fairness
3 Cooperation and team working
4 Autonomy
5 Sanctity
6 Respect for authority
The first three are left leaning. The last three are right leaning.
They are the foundations of your principles based on emotions.
David Hume said that emotions come first and rationality follows in order to justify them.
Just don't confuse me with the facts.

That makes a lot of sense to me, yes. Not iron-clad principles that don't change regardless of facts and situations - but a hierarchy of values you have and apply to life (inc politics).

And what Hume says there is not wrong. There is lots of that. Of course some people are more emotion-led than others. Kirk v Spock plays out in each of us.

One of my favourite tools for difficult decisions is making lists of pros and cons. Not for the pros and cons themselves, but because I can quite quickly detect a bias in the way I'm listing them, which tells me which way I really want to go.

That's right. It's the process of doing it not the output that clarifies your thinking.

I toss a coin.

If I'm pleased with the result, I do it.
If I'm displeased, I ignore it and do the opposite.

I've done that too! Although it could be more interesting if you made yourself do whatever comes up. I read a novel ages ago where the protagonist rolls a dice to decide everything he does. Course even that doesn't take bias and free will out of things entirely since you have to frame the 6 alternatives (one for each number) and you're in control of deciding what they are.

kinabalu said:

I read a novel ages ago where the protagonist rolls a dice to decide everything he does. Course even that doesn't take bias and free will out of things entirely since you have to frame the 6 alternatives (one for each number) and you're in control of deciding what they are.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I can never quite square the circle that crime is supposed to be falling and falling, but prison have been so overflowing for donkeys years that need policies to handle it, that at first there was policies like 50% discounts for early guilty pleas, people out on tag a lot earlier etc, and now we are having to release seriously dangerous ones early....and at the same time businesses complain that low level crimes like shoplifting aren't even enforced, car thefts and burglaries are basically never solved, carrying / using a knife doesn't get your the prison sentences that are on available etc.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I can never quite square the circle that crime is supposed to be falling and falling, but prison have been so overflowing for donkeys years that need policies to handle it, that at first there was policies like 50% discounts for early guilty pleas, people out on tag a lot earlier etc, and now we are having to release seriously dangerous ones early....and at the same time businesses complain that low level crimes like shoplifting aren't even enforced, car thefts and burglaries are basically never solved, carrying / using a knife doesn't get your the prison sentences that are on available etc.

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

rottenborough said:

TimS said:

isam said:

Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience

David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…


https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1790648817655689626?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.

Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.

We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.

It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore

Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.

Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.

I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts

People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.

Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?

I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.

But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.

Haidt is interesting on this. He compares our evolved moral principles to our five taste buds. We all have the same basic moral instincts but they differ in combination as some are more salient than others, just like our taste buds.
Basic moral "tastes":
1 Caring and prevention of suffering
2 Fairness
3 Cooperation and team working
4 Autonomy
5 Sanctity
6 Respect for authority
The first three are left leaning. The last three are right leaning.
They are the foundations of your principles based on emotions.
David Hume said that emotions come first and rationality follows in order to justify them.
Just don't confuse me with the facts.

That makes a lot of sense to me, yes. Not iron-clad principles that don't change regardless of facts and situations - but a hierarchy of values you have and apply to life (inc politics).

And what Hume says there is not wrong. There is lots of that. Of course some people are more emotion-led than others. Kirk v Spock plays out in each of us.

One of my favourite tools for difficult decisions is making lists of pros and cons. Not for the pros and cons themselves, but because I can quite quickly detect a bias in the way I'm listing them, which tells me which way I really want to go.

That's right. It's the process of doing it not the output that clarifies your thinking.

I toss a coin.

If I'm pleased with the result, I do it.
If I'm displeased, I ignore it and do the opposite.

I've done that too! Although it could be more interesting if you made yourself do whatever comes up. I read a novel ages ago where the protagonist rolls a dice to decide everything he does. Course even that doesn't take bias and free will out of things entirely since you have to frame the 6 alternatives (one for each number) and you're in control of deciding what they are.

The Diceman Luke Reinhardt.
Met a lot (well a few) of people who were quite influenced by that book.

There is no such thing as random. Everything exists within a definable (if unknowable) set of possible outcomes.

bondegezou said:

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/dutch-nationalist-wilders-says-deal-right-wing-government-is-very-close-2024-05-15/

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nigelb said:

Remember the Theranos fraud ?

Oxford/NHS research might make something along the lines of what they fantasised a reality.

Identifying proteomic risk factors for cancer using prospective and exome analyses of 1463 circulating proteins and risk of 19 cancers in the UK Biobank
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48017-6
The availability of protein measurements and whole exome sequence data in the UK Biobank enables investigation of potential observational and genetic protein-cancer risk associations. We investigated associations of 1463 plasma proteins with incidence of 19 cancers and 9 cancer subsites in UK Biobank participants (average 12 years follow-up). Emerging protein-cancer associations were further explored using two genetic approaches, cis-pQTL and exome-wide protein genetic scores (exGS). We identify 618 protein-cancer associations, of which 107 persist for cases diagnosed more than seven years after blood draw, 29 of 618 were associated in genetic analyses, and four had support from long time-to-diagnosis ( > 7 years) and both cis-pQTL and exGS analyses: CD74 and TNFRSF1B with NHL, ADAM8 with leukemia, and SFTPA2 with lung cancer. We present multiple blood protein-cancer risk associations, including many detectable more than seven years before cancer diagnosis and that had concordant evidence from genetic analyses, suggesting a possible role in cancer development...

If I remember correctly, it was quite believable that many diseases could / would in the near future be able to be detected via blood tests. The big fraud was that a single tiny box and one very small sample of blood could achieve ever achieve that, rather than many different (often complex) tests requiring multiple blood samples.

And the way they pulled the convincer to some investors was that the blood went into the empty box, they then took them off to lunch and the lab tech came in, took the samples away and ran a load of manual tests on that samples.

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

rottenborough said:

TimS said:

isam said:

Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience

David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…


https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1790648817655689626?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.

Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.

We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.

It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore

Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.

Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.

I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts

People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.

Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?

I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.

But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.

Haidt is interesting on this. He compares our evolved moral principles to our five taste buds. We all have the same basic moral instincts but they differ in combination as some are more salient than others, just like our taste buds.
Basic moral "tastes":
1 Caring and prevention of suffering
2 Fairness
3 Cooperation and team working
4 Autonomy
5 Sanctity
6 Respect for authority
The first three are left leaning. The last three are right leaning.
They are the foundations of your principles based on emotions.
David Hume said that emotions come first and rationality follows in order to justify them.
Just don't confuse me with the facts.

That makes a lot of sense to me, yes. Not iron-clad principles that don't change regardless of facts and situations - but a hierarchy of values you have and apply to life (inc politics).

And what Hume says there is not wrong. There is lots of that. Of course some people are more emotion-led than others. Kirk v Spock plays out in each of us.

One of my favourite tools for difficult decisions is making lists of pros and cons. Not for the pros and cons themselves, but because I can quite quickly detect a bias in the way I'm listing them, which tells me which way I really want to go.

That's right. It's the process of doing it not the output that clarifies your thinking.

I toss a coin.

If I'm pleased with the result, I do it.
If I'm displeased, I ignore it and do the opposite.

I've done that too! Although it could be more interesting if you made yourself do whatever comes up. I read a novel ages ago where the protagonist rolls a dice to decide everything he does. Course even that doesn't take bias and free will out of things entirely since you have to frame the 6 alternatives (one for each number) and you're in control of deciding what they are.

The Diceman Luke Reinhardt.
Met a lot (well a few) of people who were quite influenced by that book.

Andy_JS said:

I must be out of the loop because I keep reading about something called "Baby Reindeer" and I have no idea what it is. (Can't be bothered to look it up either).

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nigelb said:

Remember the Theranos fraud ?

Oxford/NHS research might make something along the lines of what they fantasised a reality.

Identifying proteomic risk factors for cancer using prospective and exome analyses of 1463 circulating proteins and risk of 19 cancers in the UK Biobank
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48017-6
The availability of protein measurements and whole exome sequence data in the UK Biobank enables investigation of potential observational and genetic protein-cancer risk associations. We investigated associations of 1463 plasma proteins with incidence of 19 cancers and 9 cancer subsites in UK Biobank participants (average 12 years follow-up). Emerging protein-cancer associations were further explored using two genetic approaches, cis-pQTL and exome-wide protein genetic scores (exGS). We identify 618 protein-cancer associations, of which 107 persist for cases diagnosed more than seven years after blood draw, 29 of 618 were associated in genetic analyses, and four had support from long time-to-diagnosis ( > 7 years) and both cis-pQTL and exGS analyses: CD74 and TNFRSF1B with NHL, ADAM8 with leukemia, and SFTPA2 with lung cancer. We present multiple blood protein-cancer risk associations, including many detectable more than seven years before cancer diagnosis and that had concordant evidence from genetic analyses, suggesting a possible role in cancer development...

If I remember correctly, it was quite believable that many diseases could / would in the near future be able to be detected via blood tests. The big fraud was that a single tiny box and one very small sample of blood could achieve ever achieve that, rather than many different (often complex) tests requiring multiple blood samples.

And the way they pulled the convincer to some investors was that the blood went into the empty box, they then took them off to lunch and the lab tech came in, took the samples away and ran a load of manual tests on that samples.

I certainly see a future where diagnostics will be much easier, checkups streamlined and diseases caught much earlier from much more simplified testing. We are probably on the track to it: Theranos’ problem was that we are still a way off it yet, whereas they thought it would be within easy reach, simply it seems through Elizabeth Holmes’ sheer force of will.

Most scientists say Holmes' "vision" is just impossible, not just now, but forever, as its basically against the laws of nature. You need to perform different tests, most are destructive of the sample, so you can't just take one tiny sample and one box which does some jiggery-pokery and out pops results for 1000s of markers.

noneoftheabove said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

noneoftheabove said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I can never quite square the circle that crime is supposed to be falling and falling, but prison have been so overflowing for donkeys years that need policies to handle it, that at first there was policies like 50% discounts for early guilty pleas, people out on tag a lot earlier etc, and now we are having to release seriously dangerous ones early....and at the same time businesses complain that low level crimes like shoplifting aren't even enforced, car thefts and burglaries are basically never solved, carrying / using a knife doesn't get your the prison sentences that are on available etc.

Prison population relatively stable. Between 74k and 86k for the last twenty years.

Overall population risen in that time. Prison buildings not maintained, lack of investment. Cuts in prison service staffing. More laws distracting police and courts.

Usual broken Britain story of failure to invest and a dogmatic belief in cutting even when its obvious that is not going to work and will end up costing more in the medium and long term.

Population grow I give you. But then you factor in the police now seem incapable of solving many low level crimes and fraud, particularly online fraud, well most of that doesn't even get near the plod and when it does they are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Are we locking people up for longer for serious crimes like murder than 20-30 years ago?

So prison population the same, population up, but detection and prosecution of many crimes down to levels where they literally never catch anybody for it e.g. car theft.

Something like fraud shouldn't touch a standard police department, it really needs specialisation. Home Office estimates 41% of crime against individuals is fraud. Home Office gives Action Fraud replacement £30m over 3 years and then get Capita and PwC involved. We can all guess how effective that is going to be.

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

rottenborough said:

TimS said:

isam said:

Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience

David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…


https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1790648817655689626?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.

Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.

We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.

It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore

Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.

Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.

I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts

People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.

Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?

I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.

But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.

Haidt is interesting on this. He compares our evolved moral principles to our five taste buds. We all have the same basic moral instincts but they differ in combination as some are more salient than others, just like our taste buds.
Basic moral "tastes":
1 Caring and prevention of suffering
2 Fairness
3 Cooperation and team working
4 Autonomy
5 Sanctity
6 Respect for authority
The first three are left leaning. The last three are right leaning.
They are the foundations of your principles based on emotions.
David Hume said that emotions come first and rationality follows in order to justify them.
Just don't confuse me with the facts.

That makes a lot of sense to me, yes. Not iron-clad principles that don't change regardless of facts and situations - but a hierarchy of values you have and apply to life (inc politics).

And what Hume says there is not wrong. There is lots of that. Of course some people are more emotion-led than others. Kirk v Spock plays out in each of us.

One of my favourite tools for difficult decisions is making lists of pros and cons. Not for the pros and cons themselves, but because I can quite quickly detect a bias in the way I'm listing them, which tells me which way I really want to go.

That's right. It's the process of doing it not the output that clarifies your thinking.

I toss a coin.

If I'm pleased with the result, I do it.
If I'm displeased, I ignore it and do the opposite.

I've done that too! Although it could be more interesting if you made yourself do whatever comes up. I read a novel ages ago where the protagonist rolls a dice to decide everything he does. Course even that doesn't take bias and free will out of things entirely since you have to frame the 6 alternatives (one for each number) and you're in control of deciding what they are.

The Diceman Luke Reinhardt.
Met a lot (well a few) of people who were quite influenced by that book.

There is no such thing as random. Everything exists within a definable (if unknowable) set of possible outcomes.

viewcode said:

TOPPING said:

Theuniondivvie said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

Selebian said:

kinabalu said:

Barnesian said:

kinabalu said:

LostPassword said:

kinabalu said:

isam said:

Malmesbury said:

isam said:

rottenborough said:

TimS said:

isam said:

Like Sir Keir on accepting the referendum result, and the use of the private sector in the NHS, Lammy’s rejection of Nuclear weapons was a matter of principle and conscience

David Lammy voted against Trident in 2016, and now wants to be a pro-nuclear, pro-Nato foreign sec independent.co.uk/voices/labour-…


https://x.com/johnrentoul/status/1790648817655689626?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

Tories famously always sticking to their guns on great matters of principle like, say, Brexit.

Defence reversals are an easy one. The world has changed unbelievably since that 2016 vote.

We have no more doubts that effectively we are already at war with Russia. Might be a cold war technically but it is warming quickly.

It wasn’t a matter of conscience and principle then. Or he doesn’t have them anymore

Conscience and principles can change in the face of facts.

Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is immoral, anyway.

I thought the point of principles was that they don’t change in the face of facts

People with principles that are immune to facts are bad news.

Surely you hold some principles that are impervious? The fundamental building blocks of your belief system, and the starting point for looking at facts and drawing further conclusions from them?

I'd say I have a hierarchy of values (eg reduction in inequality is towards the top) and I do need this to give some shape to my views and opinions.

But I don't have a belief system underpinned by iron principles that float free of facts. That's not something to be admired or respected imo. It's a mental frailty.

Haidt is interesting on this. He compares our evolved moral principles to our five taste buds. We all have the same basic moral instincts but they differ in combination as some are more salient than others, just like our taste buds.
Basic moral "tastes":
1 Caring and prevention of suffering
2 Fairness
3 Cooperation and team working
4 Autonomy
5 Sanctity
6 Respect for authority
The first three are left leaning. The last three are right leaning.
They are the foundations of your principles based on emotions.
David Hume said that emotions come first and rationality follows in order to justify them.
Just don't confuse me with the facts.

That makes a lot of sense to me, yes. Not iron-clad principles that don't change regardless of facts and situations - but a hierarchy of values you have and apply to life (inc politics).

And what Hume says there is not wrong. There is lots of that. Of course some people are more emotion-led than others. Kirk v Spock plays out in each of us.

One of my favourite tools for difficult decisions is making lists of pros and cons. Not for the pros and cons themselves, but because I can quite quickly detect a bias in the way I'm listing them, which tells me which way I really want to go.

That's right. It's the process of doing it not the output that clarifies your thinking.

I toss a coin.

If I'm pleased with the result, I do it.
If I'm displeased, I ignore it and do the opposite.

I've done that too! Although it could be more interesting if you made yourself do whatever comes up. I read a novel ages ago where the protagonist rolls a dice to decide everything he does. Course even that doesn't take bias and free will out of things entirely since you have to frame the 6 alternatives (one for each number) and you're in control of deciding what they are.

The Diceman Luke Reinhardt.
Met a lot (well a few) of people who were quite influenced by that book.

There is no such thing as random. Everything exists within a definable (if unknowable) set of possible outcomes.

That's not what "random" means. A number x(n) is random if it cannot be predicted even if you are given the numbers x(1),x(2),...x(n-1)

FrancisUrquhart said:

I can never quite square the circle that crime is supposed to be falling and falling, but prison have been so overflowing for donkeys years that need policies to handle it, that at first there was policies like 50% discounts for early guilty pleas, people out on tag a lot earlier etc, and now we are having to release seriously dangerous ones early....and at the same time businesses complain that low level crimes like shoplifting aren't even enforced, car thefts and burglaries are basically never solved, carrying / using a knife doesn't get your the prison sentences that are on available etc.

ClippP said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

noneoftheabove said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I can never quite square the circle that crime is supposed to be falling and falling, but prison have been so overflowing for donkeys years that need policies to handle it, that at first there was policies like 50% discounts for early guilty pleas, people out on tag a lot earlier etc, and now we are having to release seriously dangerous ones early....and at the same time businesses complain that low level crimes like shoplifting aren't even enforced, car thefts and burglaries are basically never solved, carrying / using a knife doesn't get your the prison sentences that are on available etc.

Prison population relatively stable. Between 74k and 86k for the last twenty years.

Overall population risen in that time. Prison buildings not maintained, lack of investment. Cuts in prison service staffing. More laws distracting police and courts.

Usual broken Britain story of failure to invest and a dogmatic belief in cutting even when its obvious that is not going to work and will end up costing more in the medium and long term.

Population grow I give you. But then you factor in the police now seem incapable of solving many low level crimes and fraud, particularly online fraud, well most of that doesn't even get near the plod and when it does they are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Are we locking people up for longer for serious crimes like murder than 20-30 years ago?

So prison population the same, population up, but crime levels are supposed to be right down while detection and prosecution of many crimes down to levels where they literally never catch anybody for it e.g. car theft.

You have to bear in mind,Mr Urquhart, that our police have been constantly belittled over the years by the Tories and their accomplices - and making disparaging remarks now about "plod" and "chocolate teapots" here does not help set the right tone of respect towards authority figures.

And it has not helped society that you Tories have swept away all the "second tier" keepers of order - park keepers, bus conductors, railway station staff and the like - all in the name of "efficiency". Increasingly nowadays some people misbehave because they think they can get away with it. And from low levels of misbehaviour, it works its way up.

And so it is that all misbehaviour now ends up by being dealt with by the police. They have my sympathy - not least because they have on top of them the incubus of the police and crime commissioner, who does not help in the slightest.

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

I must be out of the loop because I keep reading about something called "Baby Reindeer" and I have no idea what it is. (Can't be bothered to look it up either).

Yes it cropped up on one of my whatsapp groups the other day and I had no clue either. I did look it up and it's a Netflix show about a female stalker apparently. That's as much as I'll ever know since I no longer have Netflix.

Carnyx said:

kinabalu said:

Andy_JS said:

I must be out of the loop because I keep reading about something called "Baby Reindeer" and I have no idea what it is. (Can't be bothered to look it up either).

Yes it cropped up on one of my whatsapp groups the other day and I had no clue either. I did look it up and it's a Netflix show about a female stalker apparently. That's as much as I'll ever know since I no longer have Netflix.

Seen a couple of mentions in the Graun and have no wish to know more. The problem is that the original stalker is allegedly based on an actual person who has been allegedly outed and preesumnably too easily recogniseable. She has already been interviewed on TV by Piers Morgan of all people.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/article/2024/may/10/piers-morgans-baby-reindeer-interview-fiona-harvey-reeked-grubby-exploitation

Phil said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I can never quite square the circle that crime is supposed to be falling and falling, but prison have been so overflowing for donkeys years that need policies to handle it, that at first there was policies like 50% discounts for early guilty pleas, people out on tag a lot earlier etc, and now we are having to release seriously dangerous ones early....and at the same time businesses complain that low level crimes like shoplifting aren't even enforced, car thefts and burglaries are basically never solved, carrying / using a knife doesn't get your the prison sentences that are on available etc.

The prison population today is twice what it was in 1970, despite the population only being 20% greater:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283475/england-and-wales-prison-population-by-gender/
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/

Don’t ask me to explain this one, because I’m not sure what the explanation is: Were people being held elsewhere? Did we just accept a level of violence in public that would be unacceptable today? I’ve no idea!

As to the current problems: the prison population hasn’t changed for roughly a decade, despite the population increase over that period, because we haven’t built any more prisons. This is at least partially due to the general planning deadlock that holds this country in its vice-like grip - IIRC the Home Office has tried to build them, but been stymied by local councils. But the current overcrowding is an inevitable consequence.

(Is there something about these stats that I’ve missed? Does anyone with relevant knowledge want to chip in? The change in incarceration rate over time since the 1940s to today seems unexpected to me.)

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nigelb said:

Remember the Theranos fraud ?

Oxford/NHS research might make something along the lines of what they fantasised a reality.

Identifying proteomic risk factors for cancer using prospective and exome analyses of 1463 circulating proteins and risk of 19 cancers in the UK Biobank
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48017-6
The availability of protein measurements and whole exome sequence data in the UK Biobank enables investigation of potential observational and genetic protein-cancer risk associations. We investigated associations of 1463 plasma proteins with incidence of 19 cancers and 9 cancer subsites in UK Biobank participants (average 12 years follow-up). Emerging protein-cancer associations were further explored using two genetic approaches, cis-pQTL and exome-wide protein genetic scores (exGS). We identify 618 protein-cancer associations, of which 107 persist for cases diagnosed more than seven years after blood draw, 29 of 618 were associated in genetic analyses, and four had support from long time-to-diagnosis ( > 7 years) and both cis-pQTL and exGS analyses: CD74 and TNFRSF1B with NHL, ADAM8 with leukemia, and SFTPA2 with lung cancer. We present multiple blood protein-cancer risk associations, including many detectable more than seven years before cancer diagnosis and that had concordant evidence from genetic analyses, suggesting a possible role in cancer development...

If I remember correctly, it was quite believable that many diseases could / would in the near future be able to be detected via blood tests. The big fraud was that a single tiny box and one very small sample of blood could achieve ever achieve that, rather than many different (often complex) tests requiring multiple blood samples.

And the way they pulled the convincer to some investors was that the blood went into the empty box, they then took them off to lunch and the lab tech came in, took the samples away and ran a load of manual tests on that samples.

I certainly see a future where diagnostics will be much easier, checkups streamlined and diseases caught much earlier from much more simplified testing. We are probably on the track to it: Theranos’ problem was that we are still a way off it yet, whereas they thought it would be within easy reach, simply it seems through Elizabeth Holmes’ sheer force of will.

Most scientists say Holmes' "vision" is just impossible, not just now, but forever (at least until / unless there is some scientific revolution), as its basically against the laws of nature.

You need to perform huge numbers of different tests, most are destructive of the sample, so you can't just take one tiny sample and one box which does some jiggery-pokery and out pops results for 1000s of markers.

It isn't simply about miniaturisation or some combining of things to gain efficiencies, it would require total revolution in the science of how all known tests for these markers are done.

megasaur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Bit weird, two of OpenAI's top top bods have resigned. Maybe they aren't need now we have AGI ;-)

Better offer from rival zaibatsu. Prob mitsu-genentech.

Phil said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I can never quite square the circle that crime is supposed to be falling and falling, but prison have been so overflowing for donkeys years that need policies to handle it, that at first there was policies like 50% discounts for early guilty pleas, people out on tag a lot earlier etc, and now we are having to release seriously dangerous ones early....and at the same time businesses complain that low level crimes like shoplifting aren't even enforced, car thefts and burglaries are basically never solved, carrying / using a knife doesn't get your the prison sentences that are on available etc.

The prison population today is twice what it was in 1970, despite the population only being 20% greater:

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283475/england-and-wales-prison-population-by-gender/
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/uk-population/

Don’t ask me to explain this one, because I’m not sure what the explanation is: Were people being held elsewhere? Did we just accept a level of violence in public that would be unacceptable today? I’ve no idea!

As to the current problems: the prison population hasn’t changed for roughly a decade, despite the population increase over that period, because we haven’t built any more prisons. This is at least partially due to the general planning deadlock that holds this country in its vice-like grip - IIRC the Home Office has tried to build them, but been stymied by local councils. But the current overcrowding is an inevitable consequence.

(Is there something about these stats that I’ve missed? Does anyone with relevant knowledge want to chip in? The change in incarceration rate over time since the 1940s to today seems unexpected to me.)

Nigelb said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

numbertwelve said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Nigelb said:

Remember the Theranos fraud ?

Oxford/NHS research might make something along the lines of what they fantasised a reality.

Identifying proteomic risk factors for cancer using prospective and exome analyses of 1463 circulating proteins and risk of 19 cancers in the UK Biobank
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-48017-6
The availability of protein measurements and whole exome sequence data in the UK Biobank enables investigation of potential observational and genetic protein-cancer risk associations. We investigated associations of 1463 plasma proteins with incidence of 19 cancers and 9 cancer subsites in UK Biobank participants (average 12 years follow-up). Emerging protein-cancer associations were further explored using two genetic approaches, cis-pQTL and exome-wide protein genetic scores (exGS). We identify 618 protein-cancer associations, of which 107 persist for cases diagnosed more than seven years after blood draw, 29 of 618 were associated in genetic analyses, and four had support from long time-to-diagnosis ( > 7 years) and both cis-pQTL and exGS analyses: CD74 and TNFRSF1B with NHL, ADAM8 with leukemia, and SFTPA2 with lung cancer. We present multiple blood protein-cancer risk associations, including many detectable more than seven years before cancer diagnosis and that had concordant evidence from genetic analyses, suggesting a possible role in cancer development...

If I remember correctly, it was quite believable that many diseases could / would in the near future be able to be detected via blood tests. The big fraud was that a single tiny box and one very small sample of blood could achieve ever achieve that, rather than many different (often complex) tests requiring multiple blood samples.

And the way they pulled the convincer to some investors was that the blood went into the empty box, they then took them off to lunch and the lab tech came in, took the samples away and ran a load of manual tests on that samples.

I certainly see a future where diagnostics will be much easier, checkups streamlined and diseases caught much earlier from much more simplified testing. We are probably on the track to it: Theranos’ problem was that we are still a way off it yet, whereas they thought it would be within easy reach, simply it seems through Elizabeth Holmes’ sheer force of will.

Most scientists say Holmes' "vision" is just impossible, not just now, but forever (at least until / unless there is some scientific revolution), as its basically against the laws of nature.

You need to perform huge numbers of different tests, most are destructive of the sample, so you can't just take one tiny sample and one box which does some jiggery-pokery and out pops results for 1000s of markers.

It isn't simply about miniaturisation or some combining of things to gain efficiencies, it would require total revolution in the science of how all known tests for these markers are done.

Fluorescence base detection of target proteins is feasible, for example, isn't it ?
That will lead to fairly simple tests for multiple proteins.

1000s of markers is a different thing again.

ClippP said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

noneoftheabove said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I can never quite square the circle that crime is supposed to be falling and falling, but prison have been so overflowing for donkeys years that need policies to handle it, that at first there was policies like 50% discounts for early guilty pleas, people out on tag a lot earlier etc, and now we are having to release seriously dangerous ones early....and at the same time businesses complain that low level crimes like shoplifting aren't even enforced, car thefts and burglaries are basically never solved, carrying / using a knife doesn't get your the prison sentences that are on available etc.

Prison population relatively stable. Between 74k and 86k for the last twenty years.

Overall population risen in that time. Prison buildings not maintained, lack of investment. Cuts in prison service staffing. More laws distracting police and courts.

Usual broken Britain story of failure to invest and a dogmatic belief in cutting even when its obvious that is not going to work and will end up costing more in the medium and long term.

Population grow I give you. But then you factor in the police now seem incapable of solving many low level crimes and fraud, particularly online fraud, well most of that doesn't even get near the plod and when it does they are about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

Are we locking people up for longer for serious crimes like murder than 20-30 years ago?

So prison population the same, population up, but crime levels are supposed to be right down while detection and prosecution of many crimes down to levels where they literally never catch anybody for it e.g. car theft.

You have to bear in mind,Mr Urquhart, that our police have been constantly belittled over the years by the Tories and their accomplices - and making disparaging remarks now about "plod" and "chocolate teapots" here does not help set the right tone of respect towards authority figures.

And it has not helped society that you Tories have swept away all the "second tier" keepers of order - park keepers, bus conductors, railway station staff and the like - all in the name of "efficiency". Increasingly nowadays some people misbehave because they think they can get away with it. And from low levels of misbehaviour, it works its way up.

And so it is that all misbehaviour now ends up by being dealt with by the police. They have my sympathy - not least because they have on top of them the incubus of the police and crime commissioner, who does not help in the slightest.

wooliedyed said:

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1790737717724053755?s=19

Stay classy Guardian, I don't think it's an alleged bullet and trip to hospital

RobD said:

wooliedyed said:

https://twitter.com/guardian/status/1790737717724053755?s=19

Stay classy Guardian, I don't think it's an alleged bullet and trip to hospital

Maybe they edited it, because for me it says "reportedly", which I think is the correct use of the term?

agingjb2 said:

Is Radio 4 in trouble? I'll stick to Radio 3 (and I have some reservations even about that niche).