Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
Perhaps the first chunk of evidence was fixed, thus tainting the whole case?
To claim evidence was fixed would be tantamount to libel. If you or anyone else has evidence that the evidence about Letby was fixed, you should report this to the police forthwith as it would, of course, constitute a serious crime.
Letby's defence lawyers aren't claiming the evidence was fixed, just that it was coincidental and/or misinterpreted. But the jury heard a whole host of evidence. If you don't think juries can draw conclusions from a range of (potentially conflicting) evidence put in front of them, then what is the point of trial by jury?
If evidence was presented in a misleading way, an appeal would have been granted. All Letby's appeals have been turned down. The people who look at the case in detail, juries, appeal judges, don't see the problems that some claim here exist.
Before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I wouldn't be at all surprise she wins an appeal. So sometime in the next fifteen to twenty years her conviction will quite likely be deemed unsafe.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
One of the things that troubled me the most about this prosecution was that the jury was presented with a seemingly statistical conclusion, that these 17 kids had all died when Letby was on duty. But then you found out that there were other deaths in the unit when she wasn't on duty and that the death rate in this neonatal ward was not that exceptional.
It seemed to me that the jury were given a distorted picture where they were given a selective and incomplete image of what had been happening in the ward. Does that mean that she is innocent? Not at all. The suspicions of the doctors who had to work with her carry a lot of weight in my mind because they were more aware of what was happening and what was "normal" than anyone else. But I am not confident that these appeals are without merit.
I agree that looking at mortality post Letby would give us a clearer indication.
Wasn’t there a bit of re-organisation after she was arrested? Need to compare like with like. I think she ‘might’ be guilty. But I’m not sure that the jury were given a full picture.
The jury heard a lot of evidence. The defence were able to put a case. Why would you conclude that the jury weren't given a full picture? It's the Letby truthers who keep trying to give a biased picture, as they carefully skip over several aspects of the evidence against Letby.
I’m not convinced by the ‘Letby truthers’ but I’m aware of the existence of hospital politics.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
She might be guilty, she might not be guilty. Either way her defence team were terrible.
Having a terrible defence team can be grounds for appeal, although you have to explain specifically how their terribleness led to identifiable issues in the trial.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
Perhaps the first chunk of evidence was fixed, thus tainting the whole case?
To claim evidence was fixed would be tantamount to libel. If you or anyone else has evidence that the evidence about Letby was fixed, you should report this to the police forthwith as it would, of course, constitute a serious crime.
Letby's defence lawyers aren't claiming the evidence was fixed, just that it was coincidental and/or misinterpreted. But the jury heard a whole host of evidence. If you don't think juries can draw conclusions from a range of (potentially conflicting) evidence put in front of them, then what is the point of trial by jury?
If evidence was presented in a misleading way, an appeal would have been granted. All Letby's appeals have been turned down. The people who look at the case in detail, juries, appeal judges, don't see the problems that some claim here exist.
Before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I wouldn't be at all surprise she wins an appeal. So sometime in the next fifteen to twenty years her conviction will quite likely be deemed unsafe.
She appealed her original conviction on 4 grounds. A judge reviewed her submission and turned it down. She went to the next level up. This time, a panel of three judges turned her down. She also appealed her second conviction, which was also turned down by the Court of Appeal. She recently made a submission to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, who could send the case back to the Court of Appeal. We await the outcome of that.
Meanwhile, she is under investigation over further deaths, going back some years. She is perhaps just as likely to be charged with more murders.
I have enormous respect for you, but you know that this is an entirely false and poisonous narrative. Why remove the whip before any investigation has even started? Don’t you believe that we are all innocent until proven guilty? Why launch this malicious attack the day after my reasonable concerns were made public?
The timing is suspect, to say the least.
To suggest that my questions came after this vindictive process began is a falsehood. I gave the interview to the Daily Mail on the 25th of February in Westminster. I first received word of the Reform proceedings against me on the 28th of February. On a Friday afternoon from Lee Anderson, with no prior warning. What professionalism.
Honestly, the process has been handled so appallingly. I don’t even know if I remain in the party or not. Amateur is generous.
Asking reasonable questions of Reform structure, policy and communication may be awkward and uncomfortable, but it is entirely necessary. I will continue to do so. Difficult interrogation will only make any party stronger.
As you know, I have tried and tried to have a civilised dinner with you to discuss all of this. You have repeatedly refused. I offered once more today, again no response. This should have ALL happened behind closed doors. As I pushed for, over and over again.
This isn’t about me, or you, or any petty personal differences you may have with me.
This is about our members, our supporters, and our country.
This isn’t about us. It’s about them.
A revolution will always eat itself in the end...
There’s quite a funny meme depicting all the people Nigel has fallen out with in the past. Something of a pattern:
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
Perhaps the first chunk of evidence was fixed, thus tainting the whole case?
To claim evidence was fixed would be tantamount to libel. If you or anyone else has evidence that the evidence about Letby was fixed, you should report this to the police forthwith as it would, of course, constitute a serious crime.
Letby's defence lawyers aren't claiming the evidence was fixed, just that it was coincidental and/or misinterpreted. But the jury heard a whole host of evidence. If you don't think juries can draw conclusions from a range of (potentially conflicting) evidence put in front of them, then what is the point of trial by jury?
If evidence was presented in a misleading way, an appeal would have been granted. All Letby's appeals have been turned down. The people who look at the case in detail, juries, appeal judges, don't see the problems that some claim here exist.
The spreadsheet was doctored. It was supposed to show all the deaths with only her on duty. Wrong on both counts. It had to be presented on purpose like that, hence fixed.
I have enormous respect for you, but you know that this is an entirely false and poisonous narrative. Why remove the whip before any investigation has even started? Don’t you believe that we are all innocent until proven guilty? Why launch this malicious attack the day after my reasonable concerns were made public?
The timing is suspect, to say the least.
To suggest that my questions came after this vindictive process began is a falsehood. I gave the interview to the Daily Mail on the 25th of February in Westminster. I first received word of the Reform proceedings against me on the 28th of February. On a Friday afternoon from Lee Anderson, with no prior warning. What professionalism.
Honestly, the process has been handled so appallingly. I don’t even know if I remain in the party or not. Amateur is generous.
Asking reasonable questions of Reform structure, policy and communication may be awkward and uncomfortable, but it is entirely necessary. I will continue to do so. Difficult interrogation will only make any party stronger.
As you know, I have tried and tried to have a civilised dinner with you to discuss all of this. You have repeatedly refused. I offered once more today, again no response. This should have ALL happened behind closed doors. As I pushed for, over and over again.
This isn’t about me, or you, or any petty personal differences you may have with me.
This is about our members, our supporters, and our country.
This isn’t about us. It’s about them.
A revolution will always eat itself in the end...
There’s quite a funny meme depicting all the people Nigel has fallen out with in the past. Something of a pattern:
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
Perhaps the first chunk of evidence was fixed, thus tainting the whole case?
To claim evidence was fixed would be tantamount to libel. If you or anyone else has evidence that the evidence about Letby was fixed, you should report this to the police forthwith as it would, of course, constitute a serious crime.
Letby's defence lawyers aren't claiming the evidence was fixed, just that it was coincidental and/or misinterpreted. But the jury heard a whole host of evidence. If you don't think juries can draw conclusions from a range of (potentially conflicting) evidence put in front of them, then what is the point of trial by jury?
If evidence was presented in a misleading way, an appeal would have been granted. All Letby's appeals have been turned down. The people who look at the case in detail, juries, appeal judges, don't see the problems that some claim here exist.
The spreadsheet was doctored. It was supposed to show all the deaths with only her on duty. Wrong on both counts. It had to be presented on purpose like that, hence fixed.
At least 5 appeal court judges haven't seen whatever it is you are claiming here. But what do they know, heh?
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
Perhaps the first chunk of evidence was fixed, thus tainting the whole case?
To claim evidence was fixed would be tantamount to libel. If you or anyone else has evidence that the evidence about Letby was fixed, you should report this to the police forthwith as it would, of course, constitute a serious crime.
Letby's defence lawyers aren't claiming the evidence was fixed, just that it was coincidental and/or misinterpreted. But the jury heard a whole host of evidence. If you don't think juries can draw conclusions from a range of (potentially conflicting) evidence put in front of them, then what is the point of trial by jury?
If evidence was presented in a misleading way, an appeal would have been granted. All Letby's appeals have been turned down. The people who look at the case in detail, juries, appeal judges, don't see the problems that some claim here exist.
Before I shuffle off this mortal coil, I wouldn't be at all surprise she wins an appeal. So sometime in the next fifteen to twenty years her conviction will quite likely be deemed unsafe.
She appealed her original conviction on 4 grounds. A judge reviewed her submission and turned it down. She went to the next level up. This time, a panel of three judges turned her down. She also appealed her second conviction, which was also turned down by the Court of Appeal. She recently made a submission to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, who could send the case back to the Court of Appeal. We await the outcome of that.
Meanwhile, she is under investigation over further deaths, going back some years. She is perhaps just as likely to be charged with more murders.
I suspect they will take the opportunity to pin a few more historic deaths on her, tidies things up. Draws a few underlines.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
Perhaps the first chunk of evidence was fixed, thus tainting the whole case?
To claim evidence was fixed would be tantamount to libel. If you or anyone else has evidence that the evidence about Letby was fixed, you should report this to the police forthwith as it would, of course, constitute a serious crime.
Letby's defence lawyers aren't claiming the evidence was fixed, just that it was coincidental and/or misinterpreted. But the jury heard a whole host of evidence. If you don't think juries can draw conclusions from a range of (potentially conflicting) evidence put in front of them, then what is the point of trial by jury?
If evidence was presented in a misleading way, an appeal would have been granted. All Letby's appeals have been turned down. The people who look at the case in detail, juries, appeal judges, don't see the problems that some claim here exist.
The spreadsheet was doctored. It was supposed to show all the deaths with only her on duty. Wrong on both counts. It had to be presented on purpose like that, hence fixed.
At least 5 appeal court judges haven't seen whatever it is you are claiming here. But what do they know, heh?
They always start from the guilty verdict so I'm not surprised they aren't moved. Ask the guy who was jailed for 17 years for a rape he didn't do.
Ukraine gave up nukes, post-soviet era, in exchange for security guarantees from USA.
UK threw everything it had post- war into the special USA relationship tightly bound on security, intelligence, equipment, policy - even sharing nukes. We gave them airfields and bases and went to war with them against their enemies as in Iraq.
Both betrayed.
But betraying allies is an ancient American tradition - not joining the League of Nations after World War I, which they themselves had insisted on including in the Treaty of Versailles, being willing to fight to the last Brit in World War II until the Japanese attacked them, stabbking us in the back over Suez, then bitching that we didn't back them over Vietnam, cutting and running on the South Vietnamese, and in more recent times, betraying the Kurds (twice), the Afghans and now NATO and the Ukrainians.
They are a faithless and untrustworthy ally. It's what you'd expect from a self-obsessed, insular and ignorant people.
And it makes their occasional bursts of altruistic internationalism, such as the Marshall Plan, all the more exceptional.
Ukraine gave up nukes, post-soviet era, in exchange for security guarantees from USA.
UK threw everything it had post- war into the special USA relationship tightly bound on security, intelligence, equipment, policy - even sharing nukes. We gave them airfields and bases and went to war with them against their enemies as in Iraq.
Both betrayed.
But betraying allies is an ancient American tradition - not joining the League of Nations after World War I, which they themselves had insisted on including in the Treaty of Versailles, being willing to fight to the last Brit in World War II until the Japanese attacked them, stabbking us in the back over Suez, then bitching that we didn't back them over Vietnam, cutting and running on the South Vietnamese, and in more recent times, betraying the Kurds (twice), the Afghans and now NATO and the Ukrainians.
They are a faithless and untrustworthy ally. It's what you'd expect from a self-obsessed, insular and ignorant people.
And it makes their occasional bursts of altruistic internationalism, such as the Marshall Plan, all the more exceptional.
It’s hard to get this sort of point across though, because of the teleological thinking deep within the American identity. America is the world’s greatest nation, therefore the things it does are great things. It does great things, therefore it’s the worlds greatest nation.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Personally I'd join both. I guess the point is that we had a bespoke deal that appeared to offer us some positives of membership while keeping a degree of distance as a sop to eurosceptic opinion. I'd rather be all-in myself and embrace ever closer union as a means of making Europe a serious global player not a divided backwater to be picked over by bigger powers.
Making our elected politicians even more distant and unaccountable than they are now. No thanks. If anything I want to go the other way. Reduce centralisation and have Westminister only for foreign policy and defence.
That is the trade off, obviously. I'd like to see a lot more decentralisation and local autonomy, for sure. But the UK is too small to be an effective foreign policy or defence player on its own, and the world has just become a whole lot more dangerous. I'd be happy to live in an autonomous London city state in the United States of Europe. I suspect I'd be more prosperous and safer in that world than in the current one.
I don't agree with this at all. The UK is perfectly able to have its own defence and foreign policy and make alliances as it requires. We can no longer project force to the other side of the world but then I don't want us to. In case you missed it, the idea that the only way forward is to subsume our Governance to a superpower is exactly what got us in this mess in the first place.
This is a perfect example of the old Franklin adage (which he actually used twice in different circumstances)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
The analogy with our US relationship is misplaced. First, we never became part of the USA, we have simply been a subservient ally. So we've had no input into US decision-making, and we're vulnerable to tariffs and other threats from them. There's also the vastly under-rated issue of geography. We share common security threats with other countries in Europe, and that means we share interests. That's not the case for the US. To put it simply, they fear China, we fear Russia.
I don't think any liberty would be surrendered, especially if combined with decentralisation so that most decisions were delegated downwards not upwards. And actually, you can't enjoy liberty if you don't have security. Ask the Ukranians.
And far too many countries have found out that you can't enjoy liberty with security. Most of the Soviet bloc for a start. Or more to the point, most of our former Empire. Would you have told them they should not seek liberty as they would be less secure?
But the analogy stands. Both the UK relationship with the EU and that with America show that, in the long term, feality to a larger state - whether a formal arrangment like the EU or a looser relationship like the 'Special Relationship' is not in our best interests. In the end you are left less secure than if you had stod on your own two feet in the first place.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
That has to be the most naïve thing you have ever suggested.
So we should just trust that miscarriages of justices never happen? We should just trust that all those convicted Post Office subpostmasters who were convicted by juries are guilty?
The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high, but it should never be a matter of blind trust.
I told the story of Bert Hamlen Woodage, stable jockey to Sir Gordon Richards, a few weeks ago. I also told the story to a lady who I know knew Bert. She's told it to the local historian who's now very keen to meet me
I've found out that the local now retired cop in one of the villages has the same surname as the local cop from the neighbouring village in 1939, and the same surname as the cop in a village the other side of Marlborough at the same time. We're looking for family connections
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
That has to be the most naïve thing you have ever suggested.
So we should just trust that miscarriages of justices never happen? We should just trust that all those convicted Post Office subpostmasters who were convicted by juries are guilty?
The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high, but it should never be a matter of blind trust.
In fact, every single famous miscarriage of justice in the U.K. went through a jury.
The Diplock courts in Northern Ireland rarely had convictions overturned. They were much more likely to throw evidence out as bullshit - perhaps that explains it.
Horrible to read the news about what happened with Gene Hackman and his wife. The fact that no-one was around to check up on them, although perhaps they wanted it like that.
Michael Schoellhorn is the CEO of Airbus D&S and this is the closest I've ever seen somebody on the record come to saying what the US can and can't do to foreign owned F-35s.
He says, by way of example, that Danish Air Force would need software tokens from the US to operate over Greenland. LOL.
Horrible to read the news about what happened with Gene Hackman and his wife. The fact that no-one was around to check up on them, although perhaps they wanted it like that.
Its uncomfortable for us due to how odd it is, but for them?
An elderly husband and wife each dying of natural causes, at home, with the second to go not realising his wife was deceased or needing to mourn her?
Michael Schoellhorn is the CEO of Airbus D&S and this is the closest I've ever seen somebody on the record come to saying what the US can and can't do to foreign owned F-35s.
He says, by way of example, that Danish Air Force would need software tokens from the US to operate over Greenland. LOL.
Michael Schoellhorn is the CEO of Airbus D&S and this is the closest I've ever seen somebody on the record come to saying what the US can and can't do to foreign owned F-35s.
He says, by way of example, that Danish Air Force would need software tokens from the US to operate over Greenland. LOL.
For all those of you who can't read German, if you go into Chrome and right-click on the text, you will get the "translate into English" option
Horrible to read the news about what happened with Gene Hackman and his wife. The fact that no-one was around to check up on them, although perhaps they wanted it like that.
Its uncomfortable for us due to how odd it is, but for them?
An elderly husband and wife each dying of natural causes, at home, with the second to go not realising his wife was deceased or needing to mourn her?
There are worse ways to go.
There's a rather piquant pattern where uxorious men die rapidly after their wife. Examples include James Callaghan (11 days after his wife) and Catherine Cookson's husband (19 days after his wife). Although this is obviously an extreme and rather horrid case.
Michael Schoellhorn is the CEO of Airbus D&S and this is the closest I've ever seen somebody on the record come to saying what the US can and can't do to foreign owned F-35s.
He says, by way of example, that Danish Air Force would need software tokens from the US to operate over Greenland. LOL.
What's funny is the PB commentariat view that 'America First' was invented by Trump.
I have enormous respect for you, but you know that this is an entirely false and poisonous narrative. Why remove the whip before any investigation has even started? Don’t you believe that we are all innocent until proven guilty? Why launch this malicious attack the day after my reasonable concerns were made public?
The timing is suspect, to say the least.
To suggest that my questions came after this vindictive process began is a falsehood. I gave the interview to the Daily Mail on the 25th of February in Westminster. I first received word of the Reform proceedings against me on the 28th of February. On a Friday afternoon from Lee Anderson, with no prior warning. What professionalism.
Honestly, the process has been handled so appallingly. I don’t even know if I remain in the party or not. Amateur is generous.
Asking reasonable questions of Reform structure, policy and communication may be awkward and uncomfortable, but it is entirely necessary. I will continue to do so. Difficult interrogation will only make any party stronger.
As you know, I have tried and tried to have a civilised dinner with you to discuss all of this. You have repeatedly refused. I offered once more today, again no response. This should have ALL happened behind closed doors. As I pushed for, over and over again.
This isn’t about me, or you, or any petty personal differences you may have with me.
This is about our members, our supporters, and our country.
This isn’t about us. It’s about them.
A revolution will always eat itself in the end...
There’s quite a funny meme depicting all the people Nigel has fallen out with in the past. Something of a pattern:
Kilroy, Carswell, Suzanne Evans, the Express journalist, the trans one, the one who said something about women and fridges…
Kilroy, Carswell and Guto Harris (the express journalist) for me
Amatuers
Back row L-R Alan Sked (UKIP Founder) Mike Nattrass (UKIP MEP) David Campbell-Bannerman (UKIP MEP) Suzanne Evans (UKIP Deputy Chair) Robert Kilroy-Silk (UKIP MEP) Godfrey Bloom (UKIP MEP) Craig Mackinlay (Leader UKIP)
Middle Row L-R Michael Holmes (Leader UKIP) Nikki Sinclaire (UKIP MEP) Patrick O'Flynn (UKIP MEP) Steven Woolfe (UKIP MEP) Douglas Carswell (UKIP MP)
Front Row L-R Lance Forman (Brexit Party MEP) David Coburn?? (The only one I am unsure of) Ben Habib (Deputy Leader Reform) Lucy Harris(Brexit Party MEP) John Longworth (Brexit Party MEP) Annunziata Rees-Mogg (Brexit Party MEP)
I have enormous respect for you, but you know that this is an entirely false and poisonous narrative. Why remove the whip before any investigation has even started? Don’t you believe that we are all innocent until proven guilty? Why launch this malicious attack the day after my reasonable concerns were made public?
The timing is suspect, to say the least.
To suggest that my questions came after this vindictive process began is a falsehood. I gave the interview to the Daily Mail on the 25th of February in Westminster. I first received word of the Reform proceedings against me on the 28th of February. On a Friday afternoon from Lee Anderson, with no prior warning. What professionalism.
Honestly, the process has been handled so appallingly. I don’t even know if I remain in the party or not. Amateur is generous.
Asking reasonable questions of Reform structure, policy and communication may be awkward and uncomfortable, but it is entirely necessary. I will continue to do so. Difficult interrogation will only make any party stronger.
As you know, I have tried and tried to have a civilised dinner with you to discuss all of this. You have repeatedly refused. I offered once more today, again no response. This should have ALL happened behind closed doors. As I pushed for, over and over again.
This isn’t about me, or you, or any petty personal differences you may have with me.
This is about our members, our supporters, and our country.
This isn’t about us. It’s about them.
A revolution will always eat itself in the end...
There’s quite a funny meme depicting all the people Nigel has fallen out with in the past. Something of a pattern:
Kilroy, Carswell, Suzanne Evans, the Express journalist, the trans one, the one who said something about women and fridges…
Kilroy, Carswell and Guto Harris (the express journalist) for me
Amatuers
Back row L-R Alan Sked (UKIP Founder) Mike Nattrass (UKIP MEP) David Campbell-Bannerman (UKIP MEP) Suzanne Evans (UKIP Deputy Chair) Robert Kilroy-Silk (UKIP MEP) Godfrey Bloom (UKIP MEP) Craig Mackinlay (Leader UKIP)
Middle Row L-R Michael Holmes (Leader UKIP) Nikki Sinclaire (UKIP MEP) Patrick O'Flynn (UKIP MEP) Steven Woolfe (UKIP MEP) Douglas Carswell (UKIP MP)
Front Row L-R Lance Forman (Brexit Party MEP) David Coburn?? (The only one I am unsure of) Ben Habib (Deputy Leader Reform) Lucy Harris(Brexit Party MEP) John Longworth (Brexit Party MEP) Annunziata Rees-Mogg (Brexit Party MEP)
Dude, you need to spend more time identifying micro moths. Or people will think you are really sad....
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps. That plus a channel road bridge.
You must travel a lot. Are people supposed to get a new passport if all the pages get filled up? Never thought of this question before. People like foreign correspondents in, say, the 70s and 80s must have had this problem.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps. That plus a channel road bridge.
You must travel a lot. Are people supposed to get a new passport if all the pages get filled up? Never thought of this question before. People like foreign correspondents in, say, the 70s and 80s must have had this problem.
You used to be able to get extra pages added to your passport. Or if you were travelling to Israel as part of a wider travel around the Middle East then you were allowed to get two passports as a lot of countries would not allow you in if you had an Israeli stamp in your passport.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps. That plus a channel road bridge.
You must travel a lot. Are people supposed to get a new passport if all the pages get filled up? Never thought of this question before. People like foreign correspondents in, say, the 70s and 80s must have had this problem.
You used to be able to get extra pages added to your passport. Or if you were travelling to Israel as part of a wider travel around the Middle East then you were allowed to get two passports as a lot of countries would not allow you in if you had an Israeli stamp in your passport.
You can still buy a 50 page passport instead of the standard 34 pages - it just costs £10 or so more.
The European Union strongly condemns the recent attacks, reportedly by pro-Assad elements, on interim government forces in the coastal areas of Syria and all violence against civilians.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps. That plus a channel road bridge.
You must travel a lot. Are people supposed to get a new passport if all the pages get filled up? Never thought of this question before. People like foreign correspondents in, say, the 70s and 80s must have had this problem.
You used to be able to get extra pages added to your passport. Or if you were travelling to Israel as part of a wider travel around the Middle East then you were allowed to get two passports as a lot of countries would not allow you in if you had an Israeli stamp in your passport.
I was once refused boarding on a plane to South Africa because there wasn't a completely empty pair of pages in my passport. I was absolutely livid, until I heard that South African immigration would turn people away (having flown in) due to not having the empty pages, and I thought "phew, I guess I had a lucky escape".
Until recently I have had 2 passports (both British) so I could continue to travel while one passport was with various embassies for a visa. And passport regularly filled up in 2-3 years.
Certain countries insisting on two opposite blank pages - one for the visa and the opposite for the entry/exit stamps - was a pain.
Off topic: what's Genoa like? Planning a rail trip to Switzerland via Nice, and getting to Switzerland via Genoa and Milan up to Lugano looks to be an interesting route.
Should I stay a couple of days in Genoa or stay in Milan instead? (I have become allergic to single-night stopovers. It's two or none.)
Genoa is ok - nice harbour with some Columbus era ships on display..,and a submarine
A group of Brits - maybe a dozen of us - got "detained" in the docks at Genoa. Beautiful day, wandering around looking at the ships - when a small van roars up and an unfeasably large number of police burst out of it. They jabbered at us in Italian. But we knew how to defuse the situation.
"English!" we said.
The man in charge, like the rest, spoke no English. However, as he slapped his forehead with his palm, we knew we had got through.
There then followed an entertainment they probably still tell at gatherings as we were asked for our passports. We then, by mime show, somehow persuaded them that yes we had passports - but they were all retained at the campsite in the hills at Pegli some miles away.
Satisfied, kinda, that we were just English idiots who had wandered into a restricted zone of th port, we were "escorted from the premises".
To this day, we are sure we passed nothing that said entry was forbidden in any language.
But the people were lovely. We had another mime show when our tin-opener broke, and people in the main department store ran around helpfully holding up things they thought we meant.
Go. You can see the huge bomb the Brits dropped on the cathedral. Thankfully, a dud.
Last night, I was at dinner in France with Spanish and South American friends. Conversation got onto communicating abroad: the British were voted the worst of all.
The resolute insistence of the vast majority on speaking English, the failure to make an effort to learn even a few words in the relevant foreign language.
"Imperialistic" "stupid" "intellectually limited" "insular" "lazy". Nothing positive to be said about it.
English is the best language in the world.
Villagers all over the world believe their village is the best.
I have enormous respect for you, but you know that this is an entirely false and poisonous narrative. Why remove the whip before any investigation has even started? Don’t you believe that we are all innocent until proven guilty? Why launch this malicious attack the day after my reasonable concerns were made public?
The timing is suspect, to say the least.
To suggest that my questions came after this vindictive process began is a falsehood. I gave the interview to the Daily Mail on the 25th of February in Westminster. I first received word of the Reform proceedings against me on the 28th of February. On a Friday afternoon from Lee Anderson, with no prior warning. What professionalism.
Honestly, the process has been handled so appallingly. I don’t even know if I remain in the party or not. Amateur is generous.
Asking reasonable questions of Reform structure, policy and communication may be awkward and uncomfortable, but it is entirely necessary. I will continue to do so. Difficult interrogation will only make any party stronger.
As you know, I have tried and tried to have a civilised dinner with you to discuss all of this. You have repeatedly refused. I offered once more today, again no response. This should have ALL happened behind closed doors. As I pushed for, over and over again.
This isn’t about me, or you, or any petty personal differences you may have with me.
This is about our members, our supporters, and our country.
This isn’t about us. It’s about them.
A revolution will always eat itself in the end...
There’s quite a funny meme depicting all the people Nigel has fallen out with in the past. Something of a pattern:
Kilroy, Carswell, Suzanne Evans, the Express journalist, the trans one, the one who said something about women and fridges…
Kilroy, Carswell and Guto Harris (the express journalist) for me
Amatuers
Back row L-R Alan Sked (UKIP Founder) Mike Nattrass (UKIP MEP) David Campbell-Bannerman (UKIP MEP) Suzanne Evans (UKIP Deputy Chair) Robert Kilroy-Silk (UKIP MEP) Godfrey Bloom (UKIP MEP) Craig Mackinlay (Leader UKIP)
Middle Row L-R Michael Holmes (Leader UKIP) Nikki Sinclaire (UKIP MEP) Patrick O'Flynn (UKIP MEP) Steven Woolfe (UKIP MEP) Douglas Carswell (UKIP MP)
Front Row L-R
Lance Forman (Brexit Party MEP) David Coburn?? (The only one I am unsure of) Ben Habib (Deputy Leader Reform) Lucy Harris(Brexit Party MEP) John Longworth (Brexit Party MEP) Annunziata Rees-Mogg (Brexit Party MEP)
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps. That plus a channel road bridge.
You must travel a lot. Are people supposed to get a new passport if all the pages get filled up? Never thought of this question before. People like foreign correspondents in, say, the 70s and 80s must have had this problem.
I had to get my passport replace last year (3 years in)
I am genuinely extremely baffled that anyone on Pb is surprised Trump is terrible. Are you all a bit dumb?
I expected terrible but it has been much worse than I thought. Pre-election, I think I would have dismissed the idea of Trump invading a NATO member state in his term as ludicrous... now I think it's maybe at least 25% between Canada and Greenland?
Off topic: what's Genoa like? Planning a rail trip to Switzerland via Nice, and getting to Switzerland via Genoa and Milan up to Lugano looks to be an interesting route.
Should I stay a couple of days in Genoa or stay in Milan instead? (I have become allergic to single-night stopovers. It's two or none.)
Genoa is ok - nice harbour with some Columbus era ships on display..,and a submarine
A group of Brits - maybe a dozen of us - got "detained" in the docks at Genoa. Beautiful day, wandering around looking at the ships - when a small van roars up and an unfeasably large number of police burst out of it. They jabbered at us in Italian. But we knew how to defuse the situation.
"English!" we said.
The man in charge, like the rest, spoke no English. However, as he slapped his forehead with his palm, we knew we had got through.
There then followed an entertainment they probably still tell at gatherings as we were asked for our passports. We then, by mime show, somehow persuaded them that yes we had passports - but they were all retained at the campsite in the hills at Pegli some miles away.
Satisfied, kinda, that we were just English idiots who had wandered into a restricted zone of th port, we were "escorted from the premises".
To this day, we are sure we passed nothing that said entry was forbidden in any language.
But the people were lovely. We had another mime show when our tin-opener broke, and people in the main department store ran around helpfully holding up things they thought we meant.
Go. You can see the huge bomb the Brits dropped on the cathedral. Thankfully, a dud.
Last night, I was at dinner in France with Spanish and South American friends. Conversation got onto communicating abroad: the British were voted the worst of all.
The resolute insistence of the vast majority on speaking English, the failure to make an effort to learn even a few words in the relevant foreign language.
"Imperialistic" "stupid" "intellectually limited" "insular" "lazy". Nothing positive to be said about it.
English is the best language in the world.
Villagers all over the world believe their village is the best.
You are allowed to wake up.
Hmmm.
Leon believes Newent is a terrible place.
Leon is wrong about everything.
Does this mean Newent is the greatest place in the world to live?
I am genuinely extremely baffled that anyone on Pb is surprised Trump is terrible. Are you all a bit dumb?
I've been shocked at how unchecked his actions have been. I thought the Democrats were complacent at how unbalanced the judiciary had become after his first term. Not just the SCOTUS but throughout, but US colleagues assured me that their system has checks and balances that prevent a President being too radical. "Another four years of govt institutions and processes being stress tested" There have been none on actions which are considered variously as overreach. Illegal or even unconstitutional. What is also apparent is that a Democrat President would face considerable obstruction even to an uncontroversial policy programme. Their system is broken
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps. That plus a channel road bridge.
You must travel a lot. Are people supposed to get a new passport if all the pages get filled up? Never thought of this question before. People like foreign correspondents in, say, the 70s and 80s must have had this problem.
I had to get my passport replace last year (3 years in)
I can tell you with absolute certainty that you need a new passport if all the stamp pages are filled up.
I am genuinely extremely baffled that anyone on Pb is surprised Trump is terrible. Are you all a bit dumb?
I expected terrible but it has been much worse than I thought. Pre-election, I think I would have dismissed the idea of Trump invading a NATO member state in his term as ludicrous... now I think it's maybe at least 25% between Canada and Greenland?
Greenland much more likely than Canada, surely for a whole host of reasons
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
I am genuinely extremely baffled that anyone on Pb is surprised Trump is terrible. Are you all a bit dumb?
I expected terrible but it has been much worse than I thought. Pre-election, I think I would have dismissed the idea of Trump invading a NATO member state in his term as ludicrous... now I think it's maybe at least 25% between Canada and Greenland?
I very much hope that never happens but if it did, what would our government do about these 'enemy bases' in the UK?
Stated before that I couldn't understand Vance's purpose within the Trump court. Seems he realises this and is trying to get a head start over the other pretenders to the throne by going mega-MAGA.
Model seems to be demeaning the other side and if pushed-back claiming to be the victim.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
That has to be the most naïve thing you have ever suggested.
So we should just trust that miscarriages of justices never happen? We should just trust that all those convicted Post Office subpostmasters who were convicted by juries are guilty?
The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high, but it should never be a matter of blind trust.
Miscarriages of justice can happen, but they are fortunately very rare. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was created in 1997 precisely to review possible miscarriages of justice. Letby’s defence team have recently applied to the CCRC and we await the conclusion of that application. I entirely support Letby’s right to pursue this review.
As you say, “The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high“. I note I used cautious language, beginning my comment “Perhaps”. I didn’t say anyone had to trust the juries got it right,
When we look at past miscarriages of justice, we can usually work out what went wrong. These have been several cases where a defendant was coerced into a false confession, for example. In the case of the subpostmasters, there was a faulty legal position over computer evidence. There was also a systemic issue with the Post Office bringing its own prosecutions. None of those, clearly, apply to Letby.
However, there have been miscarriages of justice around the use of statistical evidence, which was part of the prosecution case against Letby. There is also complex medical evidence. These have been the focus of the free Letby campaigners. Yet those who rush to her defence never seem to want to engage with the other parts of the prosecution case: how she was observed behaving oddly/dangerously, how she stole medical records, the initials in her diary etc. Letby has become a cause célèbre, but the armchair experts who opine on her case rarely seem to have looked at what happened or to understand the law.
Until recently I have had 2 passports (both British) so I could continue to travel while one passport was with various embassies for a visa. And passport regularly filled up in 2-3 years.
Certain countries insisting on two opposite blank pages - one for the visa and the opposite for the entry/exit stamps - was a pain.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
That is bizarre. Everyone? The usher? The court manager?
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
Is it the job of the courts to search out evidence?
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
That is bizarre. Everyone? The usher? The court manager?
That's the task of the police and CPS in our system, the task of the court is to weigh up the evidence presented to it and come to a verdict.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
Is it the job of the courts to search out evidence?
That's more the Napoleonic system than our system of advocates for defence and prosecution. Quite a different philosophy of justice.
I am genuinely extremely baffled that anyone on Pb is surprised Trump is terrible. Are you all a bit dumb?
Indeed. Nothing Trump is doing surprises me. But I thought this was all so obvious that he couldn't possibly win the election. So I turned out to be dumb as well.
While the actual outcome may not have been in doubt - Perth is solid Labor territory and, unlike at federal level, the National and Liberal parties are in competition which helps Labor a lot, there were some dramatic falls in Labor vote share from the 2021 election which, admittedly, was at a high point for Labor while in opposition at federal level.
Some of the Labor vote share falls mirrored those suffered by Conservatives at our GE last July and turnout was also well down suggesting a degree of Labor abstention.
The question is whether Labor can get these voters back before the next federal eelction which has to be by mid May and could well be next month.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
That has to be the most naïve thing you have ever suggested.
So we should just trust that miscarriages of justices never happen? We should just trust that all those convicted Post Office subpostmasters who were convicted by juries are guilty?
The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high, but it should never be a matter of blind trust.
Miscarriages of justice can happen, but they are fortunately very rare. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was created in 1997 precisely to review possible miscarriages of justice. Letby’s defence team have recently applied to the CCRC and we await the conclusion of that application. I entirely support Letby’s right to pursue this review.
As you say, “The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high“. I note I used cautious language, beginning my comment “Perhaps”. I didn’t say anyone had to trust the juries got it right,
When we look at past miscarriages of justice, we can usually work out what went wrong. These have been several cases where a defendant was coerced into a false confession, for example. In the case of the subpostmasters, there was a faulty legal position over computer evidence. There was also a systemic issue with the Post Office bringing its own prosecutions. None of those, clearly, apply to Letby.
However, there have been miscarriages of justice around the use of statistical evidence, which was part of the prosecution case against Letby. There is also complex medical evidence. These have been the focus of the free Letby campaigners. Yet those who rush to her defence never seem to want to engage with the other parts of the prosecution case: how she was observed behaving oddly/dangerously, how she stole medical records, the initials in her diary etc. Letby has become a cause célèbre, but the armchair experts who opine on her case rarely seem to have looked at what happened or to understand the law.
Yes. Two points to add. It is easy to elide two positions into one. "Lucy Letby is Innocent" is quite different from "There are reasons to think there were flaws in the judicial process which could render the verdicts unsafe; I do not know if she is guilty or innocent". For example AIUI Private Eye's medic, Dr Hammond is of the second school of thought.
A central question on the latter is the one which, unless I have missed it, has not been addressed. Why did the defence not call expert evidence? Until that has been fully explored (and in general it only can be with Letby's permission) I don't think we have the picture. Speculation about it is no use.
One footnote: I think it has been reported that the prosecution had evidence which they had failed to disclose to the defence. If true, this is a relatively straightforward way in to a further appeal.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
Is it the job of the courts to search out evidence?
Nope I think he is confusing a inquiry (say the Post Office one) with a criminal court.
In a criminal court - the prosecution presents evidence, the defence team try and refute / destroy the evidence.
Then the defence presents their evidence (as to why the person is innocent) and the prosecution try to refute that.
Then the judge / jury decide which version makes most sense.
Letby's biggest problem is that her defence doesn't seem to have been that good.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
Is it the job of the courts to search out evidence?
Nope I think he is confusing a inquiry (say the Post Office one) with a criminal court.
In a criminal court - the prosecution presents evidence, the defence team try and refute / destroy the evidence.
Then the defence presents their evidence (as to why the person is innocent) and the prosecution try to refute that.
Then the judge / jury decide which version makes most sense.
Letby's biggest problem is that her defence doesn't seem to have been that good.
Either that or the defence thought that further evidence being presented would harm her case. They weren't novices.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
Is it the job of the courts to search out evidence?
Nope I think he is confusing a inquiry (say the Post Office one) with a criminal court.
In a criminal court - the prosecution presents evidence, the defence team try and refute / destroy the evidence.
Then the defence presents their evidence (as to why the person is innocent) and the prosecution try to refute that.
Then the judge / jury decide which version makes most sense.
Letby's biggest problem is that her defence doesn't seem to have been that good.
The comment about the defence is speculation; we do not have the information about as the defence is not in a position to explain why and how it approached the case as it did.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
Is it the job of the courts to search out evidence?
Nope I think he is confusing a inquiry (say the Post Office one) with a criminal court.
In a criminal court - the prosecution presents evidence, the defence team try and refute / destroy the evidence.
Then the defence presents their evidence (as to why the person is innocent) and the prosecution try to refute that.
Then the judge / jury decide which version makes most sense.
Letby's biggest problem is that her defence doesn't seem to have been that good.
Not quite which version makes most sense, that suggests balance of probability decisions rather than reasonable doubt.
(Not putting my flag to mast on Letby here, just engaging PB pedant mode)
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
That has to be the most naïve thing you have ever suggested.
So we should just trust that miscarriages of justices never happen? We should just trust that all those convicted Post Office subpostmasters who were convicted by juries are guilty?
The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high, but it should never be a matter of blind trust.
Miscarriages of justice can happen, but they are fortunately very rare. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was created in 1997 precisely to review possible miscarriages of justice. Letby’s defence team have recently applied to the CCRC and we await the conclusion of that application. I entirely support Letby’s right to pursue this review.
As you say, “The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high“. I note I used cautious language, beginning my comment “Perhaps”. I didn’t say anyone had to trust the juries got it right,
When we look at past miscarriages of justice, we can usually work out what went wrong. These have been several cases where a defendant was coerced into a false confession, for example. In the case of the subpostmasters, there was a faulty legal position over computer evidence. There was also a systemic issue with the Post Office bringing its own prosecutions. None of those, clearly, apply to Letby.
However, there have been miscarriages of justice around the use of statistical evidence, which was part of the prosecution case against Letby. There is also complex medical evidence. These have been the focus of the free Letby campaigners. Yet those who rush to her defence never seem to want to engage with the other parts of the prosecution case: how she was observed behaving oddly/dangerously, how she stole medical records, the initials in her diary etc. Letby has become a cause célèbre, but the armchair experts who opine on her case rarely seem to have looked at what happened or to understand the law.
Is it the jury's job to second guess the information provided? Surely any miscarriage is down of the judge, the defense and the prosecution who are the professionals in this. Intuitively a jury can only decide on the facts presented.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps. That plus a channel road bridge.
You must travel a lot. Are people supposed to get a new passport if all the pages get filled up? Never thought of this question before. People like foreign correspondents in, say, the 70s and 80s must have had this problem.
You used to be able to get extra pages added to your passport. Or if you were travelling to Israel as part of a wider travel around the Middle East then you were allowed to get two passports as a lot of countries would not allow you in if you had an Israeli stamp in your passport.
You can still buy a 50 page passport instead of the standard 34 pages - it just costs £10 or so more.
I got one. It is rapidly filling up with European passport stamps.
At the other end of the 101 bus route from East Ham lies Wanstead which you would think would be archetypal Conservative suburban territory and it was when part of WSC's constituency but boundary changes have taken it into the new Leyton & Wanstead Constituency which is of course Labour (Greens second).
Wanstead has a Gail's - it has at least seven other independent coffee shops and bakeries and having been there as recently as Friday morning, I can report all were doing excellent business in the March sunshine. I'm not surprised the coffee shop numbers are rising - it's the one part of the retail economy which seems to be flourishing and it's part of a significant cultural change toward, dare I say it, a more European-style cafe culture.
It's also interesting the other local coffee shop owners are less bothered than some of the locals and to be honest if you have a favourite coffee shop you tend to stay loyal to it. There's nothing wrong with Gail's (it is overpriced) but if you know an area you probably know somewhere probably better and certainly cheaper.
Let me put it another way - there are at least five other coffee shops and bakeries I would go to in Wanstead before Gail's (La Bakerie is my personal favourite if you are ever in the vicinity).
Farage knows when to shut up- usually. (His comments on Putin, Russia and Ukraine are a rare error.) Most of his followers don't have the skill to only say the quiet bit quietly.
Worth noting too that Private Eyes MD (Phil Hammond) has been spectacularly wrong at times over the years by presenting very one sided reports. Most notably on Wakefield and MMR. The idea that he is a neutral weigher of evidence is for the birds.
I am genuinely extremely baffled that anyone on Pb is surprised Trump is terrible. Are you all a bit dumb?
I've been shocked at how unchecked his actions have been. I thought the Democrats were complacent at how unbalanced the judiciary had become after his first term. Not just the SCOTUS but throughout, but US colleagues assured me that their system has checks and balances that prevent a President being too radical. "Another four years of govt institutions and processes being stress tested" There have been none on actions which are considered variously as overreach. Illegal or even unconstitutional. What is also apparent is that a Democrat President would face considerable obstruction even to an uncontroversial policy programme. Their system is broken
The US Supreme Court ruled against Trump on US Aid last week
At the other end of the 101 bus route from East Ham lies Wanstead which you would think would be archetypal Conservative suburban territory and it was when part of WSC's constituency but boundary changes have taken it into the new Leyton & Wanstead Constituency which is of course Labour (Greens second).
Wanstead has a Gail's - it has at least seven other independent coffee shops and bakeries and having been there as recently as Friday morning, I can report all were doing excellent business in the March sunshine. I'm not surprised the coffee shop numbers are rising - it's the one part of the retail economy which seems to be flourishing and it's part of a significant cultural change toward, dare I say it, a more European-style cafe culture.
It's also interesting the other local coffee shop owners are less bothered than some of the locals and to be honest if you have a favourite coffee shop you tend to stay loyal to it. There's nothing wrong with Gail's (it is overpriced) but if you know an area you probably know somewhere probably better and certainly cheaper.
Let me put it another way - there are at least five other coffee shops and bakeries I would go to in Wanstead before Gail's (La Bakerie is my personal favourite if you are ever in the vicinity).
It’s just a generally pleasant pastime to sit at a cafe drinking a cup of coffee with a pastry in the morning. Especially on a sunny but fresh spring morning, sitting outside. Doesn’t matter where it’s Gail’s, Costa, a local independent or even a Greggs.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
That has to be the most naïve thing you have ever suggested.
So we should just trust that miscarriages of justices never happen? We should just trust that all those convicted Post Office subpostmasters who were convicted by juries are guilty?
The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high, but it should never be a matter of blind trust.
Miscarriages of justice can happen, but they are fortunately very rare. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was created in 1997 precisely to review possible miscarriages of justice. Letby’s defence team have recently applied to the CCRC and we await the conclusion of that application. I entirely support Letby’s right to pursue this review.
As you say, “The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high“. I note I used cautious language, beginning my comment “Perhaps”. I didn’t say anyone had to trust the juries got it right,
When we look at past miscarriages of justice, we can usually work out what went wrong. These have been several cases where a defendant was coerced into a false confession, for example. In the case of the subpostmasters, there was a faulty legal position over computer evidence. There was also a systemic issue with the Post Office bringing its own prosecutions. None of those, clearly, apply to Letby.
However, there have been miscarriages of justice around the use of statistical evidence, which was part of the prosecution case against Letby. There is also complex medical evidence. These have been the focus of the free Letby campaigners. Yet those who rush to her defence never seem to want to engage with the other parts of the prosecution case: how she was observed behaving oddly/dangerously, how she stole medical records, the initials in her diary etc. Letby has become a cause célèbre, but the armchair experts who opine on her case rarely seem to have looked at what happened or to understand the law.
Is it the jury's job to second guess the information provided? Surely any miscarriage is down of the judge, the defense and the prosecution who are the professionals in this. Intuitively a jury can only decide on the facts presented.
Juries have the hardest job; deciding who is lying.
Farage knows when to shut up- usually. (His comments on Putin, Russia and Ukraine are a rare error.) Most of his followers don't have the skill to only say the quiet bit quietly.
Deporting people who are here illegally isn't controversial, it is the status quo and what we have done forever and always will do.
The question is whether the arbiter of "illegal" should be the courts, the Daily Mail, Farage or Lowe. It is a toughie.
The takes on this defence argument are completely anti-logical.
We have just been caught out because we've made our national defence a subsidiary of someone else's national defence, and now we suddenly find that they have elected someone not to our liking (I exclude myself from this) and we're suddenly regretting it.
Our favoured solution to this is apparently to jump into a whole new set of defence commitments and deals with a whole new set of countries who might also quite feasibly elect someone we don't like (it has happened once or twice before). I mean really?
It is absolutely clear that the only solution to this is the same as it has always been. Gradually, and in a cordial and respectful way, we need to work toward a situation where the UK posseses a strong basic national defence against invasion that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation. Anything else is Einstein's definiton of madness.
“We need to develop a nuclear programme that is not dependent upon the goodwill of any other nation. Security agencies that are not dependent on the goodwill of any other nation. And as a vastly less important secondary goal, develop the ability to project force overseas to advance our interests and help our allies, that is not dependent upon the good will of any other nation.”
Having no choice but to sign the Chagos Agreement is a buy (sic) product of this “special relationship” too, I would like to explain. For anyone who still doesn’t understand why the first Chagos Deal (with UK doing the ethnic cleansing leg work for our masters) and the new Chagos deal India and US want us to sign was always certain to happen, for any person implying UK has a choice in this matter is simply uninformed and ignorant, take a gander at this:
“Britain likes to call its nuclear posture independent, but it of course is absolutely not,” “UK – unlike France – is highly intertwined with the US when it comes to maintaining its nuclear weapons, which are designed, manufactured and maintained in the US under a deal rooted in a 1958 agreement.” “Developing a replacement for Trident or adapting it for use without the US would be “hugely complicated” and costly” “difficult to conceive” of the US not wanting to maintain its relationship with the UK,
They make it, it’s expensive, and we have zero choice but to buy it - at mates rates in return for “other services rendered.” “"We're going to have some discussions about Chagos Deal very soon.” Said Donald Trump. “And I have a feeling it's going to work out very well," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office as he sat beside Starmer. "They're talking about a very long-term, powerful lease, a very strong lease, about 140 years actually. That's a long time, and I think we'll be inclined to go along with your country."
But I throw the question back at you Lucky, for you to explain the downsides of your alternate plan. That is greater costs on British tax payer, greater risk of complex project failure. And that NATO, 5 eyes and AUKUS were created in first place for good reason - strength in Union and sharing for like minded friends.
The very special UK US relationship makes us their bitch, you can argue - but all things considered, all pro’s and cons, do we really want to break free? Can we even seriously consider it?
The answer to that question was no throughout my entire life. Until 6 weeks ago. 6 weeks of Trump has changed my mind. Now, I think that we have no choice.
France has twice been vindicated in the last 3 years for its deliberately different approach to statecraft. First in its huge investment in nuclear energy which protected it from the worst of the fuel price shock after the invasion, and now in its truly independent defence setup.
Whether it has really capitalised on these is debatable, but they look to have been the right calls, made decades ago.
Another smart French move was choosing to be a leading member of the EU, while we refused to join, then when we did join exempted ourselves from the most useful bits like Schengen and the Euro, and then left in a huff. It's galling (no pun intended) to say it but the French have made much better choices than we have.
I thought not being in Schengen or the Euro was a super duper special deal we were throwing away by leaving? This is what many remainers told us.
Schengen would be great. For a start it would mean I wouldn’t have to exchange my passport soon due to insufficient pages left for stamps. That plus a channel road bridge.
You must travel a lot. Are people supposed to get a new passport if all the pages get filled up? Never thought of this question before. People like foreign correspondents in, say, the 70s and 80s must have had this problem.
You used to be able to get extra pages added to your passport. Or if you were travelling to Israel as part of a wider travel around the Middle East then you were allowed to get two passports as a lot of countries would not allow you in if you had an Israeli stamp in your passport.
You can still buy a 50 page passport instead of the standard 34 pages - it just costs £10 or so more.
I got one. It is rapidly filling up with European passport stamps.
The French border guards are the most considerate. They quite deliberately reuse pages, stamp in small hard to find corners and do it nice and quickly. Other countries are much spendthrift with the space. And the Scandinavians come over all American with their twenty questions on what I’m doing in their country.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
It would be interesting to hear the statistics on infant mortality since LL was arrested.
AIUI, they dropped as soon as Letby was suspended. But the Letby truthers are hardcore believers.
Perhaps the doctors and nurses started to pull their fingers out and did their jobs better.
Perhaps you should trust that two juries, who heard all the evidence, came to the correct conclusion.
That has to be the most naïve thing you have ever suggested.
So we should just trust that miscarriages of justices never happen? We should just trust that all those convicted Post Office subpostmasters who were convicted by juries are guilty?
The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high, but it should never be a matter of blind trust.
Miscarriages of justice can happen, but they are fortunately very rare. The Criminal Cases Review Commission was created in 1997 precisely to review possible miscarriages of justice. Letby’s defence team have recently applied to the CCRC and we await the conclusion of that application. I entirely support Letby’s right to pursue this review.
As you say, “The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high“. I note I used cautious language, beginning my comment “Perhaps”. I didn’t say anyone had to trust the juries got it right,
When we look at past miscarriages of justice, we can usually work out what went wrong. These have been several cases where a defendant was coerced into a false confession, for example. In the case of the subpostmasters, there was a faulty legal position over computer evidence. There was also a systemic issue with the Post Office bringing its own prosecutions. None of those, clearly, apply to Letby.
However, there have been miscarriages of justice around the use of statistical evidence, which was part of the prosecution case against Letby. There is also complex medical evidence. These have been the focus of the free Letby campaigners. Yet those who rush to her defence never seem to want to engage with the other parts of the prosecution case: how she was observed behaving oddly/dangerously, how she stole medical records, the initials in her diary etc. Letby has become a cause célèbre, but the armchair experts who opine on her case rarely seem to have looked at what happened or to understand the law.
Yes. Two points to add. It is easy to elide two positions into one. "Lucy Letby is Innocent" is quite different from "There are reasons to think there were flaws in the judicial process which could render the verdicts unsafe; I do not know if she is guilty or innocent". For example AIUI Private Eye's medic, Dr Hammond is of the second school of thought.
A central question on the latter is the one which, unless I have missed it, has not been addressed. Why did the defence not call expert evidence? Until that has been fully explored (and in general it only can be with Letby's permission) I don't think we have the picture. Speculation about it is no use.
One footnote: I think it has been reported that the prosecution had evidence which they had failed to disclose to the defence. If true, this is a relatively straightforward way in to a further appeal.
Whilst maintaining a figleaf of neutrality I do get the distinct impression from the text of Private Eye’s Letby files that Dr.Hammond has shifted his personal position from “she’s probably guilty but the statistical parts of the court case look a bit dodgy & we should talk about that” to ”the entire case is a travesty & she’s probably innocent”.
The Unherd article accuses the prosecution of dropping one of the deaths from the set of deaths that Letby was accused of at the very last possible moment because they had engaged an expert witness who’s testimony had undermined the claim that Letby had deliberately poisoned babies with insulin. Unherd’s suggestion is that they wanted to hide that testimony from the defence. Given that the insulin poisoning was the only physical evidence of harm that Letby had committed (all the other evidence was circumstantial) that testimony could plausibly have undermined their entire case.
If true, that sounds like it might be actual grounds for a re-trial - dropping a case just because you don’t like the evidence in order that said evidence not be passed to the defence seems like incredibly shady behaviour. Obviously they thought they could get away with it because they weren’t charging Letby with that death, so there was no obligation to pass the testimony to the defence. I would hope that a judge would take a very dim view of that argument.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
Is it the job of the courts to search out evidence?
Nope I think he is confusing a inquiry (say the Post Office one) with a criminal court.
In a criminal court - the prosecution presents evidence, the defence team try and refute / destroy the evidence.
Then the defence presents their evidence (as to why the person is innocent) and the prosecution try to refute that.
Then the judge / jury decide which version makes most sense.
Letby's biggest problem is that her defence doesn't seem to have been that good.
Get real - what top defence lawyer is going to want to repreent what at first appears an open and shut case of mass child murder? It's going to take somebody looking at the evidence for an age to start to see the issues that might just have acquitted her.
Just the sheer numbers condemned her to a defence likely just going through the motions.
The other issue Letby has to overcome is the legal system sitting in judgment on whether the legal system made a complete Horlicks of this case. Lawyers are reluctant at best to condemn the system each works under. The notion that it couldn't possibly have got it wrong in so many cases will be all pervasive. All the more so when the case involves the national religion - the NHS. Heresy compounded by heresy to suggets she might be innocent.
The biggest takeaway for me from the four juries I sat on was that they varied enormously in quality. In fact I came away with the distinct view that if you were a guilty defendant, the stupider the jury, the better your chances of getting away with it.
One juror was so illiterate he couldn't read the oath. In the jury room he just nodded along with the prevailing sentiment which was that most of the jurors just wanted to get home and as a not guilty verdict was the quickest and easiest way of achieving this, he got off. The judge made it clear that he thought this was the wrong verdict, and i am sure he was right.
By contrast, in a much more serious case, it was clear that the entire court thought the defendant would get off, but it was his misfortune to have some very smart people on the jury, some of whom had picked up on things missed by the court. The discussion was detailed, rational and highly responsible. To this day I am certin the guilty verdict was correct, and the defendant was simply unlucky to have so many smart people ruling on his case.
The one serious contentious case with which I am deeply familiar is the A6 murder for which James Hanratty was hanged. There is little doubt that a material contributory factor in the guilty verdict was that the case, unusually, was held at Bedford rather than the Old Bailey. Bedford was close to the scene of the crime and feelings were running high at the time.
I am not saying this makes the jury system bad, and I certainly don't have any magic formula for improving it, but the nature of the jury and the way it is selected seems to me a neglected area of study. If we understood more about it, some of the miscarriages we hear of might be avoided.
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
Is it the job of the courts to search out evidence?
Nope I think he is confusing a inquiry (say the Post Office one) with a criminal court.
In a criminal court - the prosecution presents evidence, the defence team try and refute / destroy the evidence.
Then the defence presents their evidence (as to why the person is innocent) and the prosecution try to refute that.
Then the judge / jury decide which version makes most sense.
Letby's biggest problem is that her defence doesn't seem to have been that good.
Get real - what top defence lawyer is going to want to repreent what at first appears an open and shut case of mass child murder? It's going to take somebody looking at the evidence for an age to start to see the issues that might just have acquitted her.
Just the sheer numbers condemned her to a defence likely just going through the motions.
The other issue Letby has to overcome is the legal system sitting in judgment on whether the legal system made a complete Horlicks of this case. Lawyers are reluctant at best to condemn the system each works under. The notion that it couldn't possibly have got it wrong in so many cases will be all pervasive. All the more so when the case involves the national religion - the NHS. Heresy compounded by heresy to suggets she might be innocent.
That's nonsense. There have been loads of scandals, including maternity ones without a complex frame up for murder.
That's just conspiracy theory thinking of having an agenda and twisting the evidence to fit.
I am genuinely extremely baffled that anyone on Pb is surprised Trump is terrible. Are you all a bit dumb?
Indeed. Nothing Trump is doing surprises me. But I thought this was all so obvious that he couldn't possibly win the election. So I turned out to be dumb as well.
I suppose what many are surprised about is that the US system is so fragile that a lunatic in the Whitehouse can have such complete control of every aspect of policy. The surprise is not that hectic it but that he has been so comprehensively successful
Returning to an old topic: I note in passing that both Private Eye & Unherd now take it as a given that Lucy Letby is almost certainly innocent & the trial against her a travesty of justice:
Interesting. Let's hope the truth prevails, whatever it is.
If loopy Peter Hitchens thinks his pro-Letby position is becoming "mainstream" he might flip?
Possibly, lol.
IF it turns out Letby is innocent then the Courts are much more fucked up than even I imagined. It is the task of the courts to determine facts according to the evidence and to search out relevant evidence, not just wait for what is presented to them like a pre-heated indian microwaveable meal. Quite frankly I think when there are mistrails, when verdicts are quashed etc etc, everyone associated with the court set-up for the first trial should be stripped of every penny they earned for the trial and pay compensation as well.
Is it the job of the courts to search out evidence?
Nope I think he is confusing a inquiry (say the Post Office one) with a criminal court.
In a criminal court - the prosecution presents evidence, the defence team try and refute / destroy the evidence.
Then the defence presents their evidence (as to why the person is innocent) and the prosecution try to refute that.
Then the judge / jury decide which version makes most sense.
Letby's biggest problem is that her defence doesn't seem to have been that good.
Get real - what top defence lawyer is going to want to repreent what at first appears an open and shut case of mass child murder? It's going to take somebody looking at the evidence for an age to start to see the issues that might just have acquitted her.
Just the sheer numbers condemned her to a defence likely just going through the motions.
The other issue Letby has to overcome is the legal system sitting in judgment on whether the legal system made a complete Horlicks of this case. Lawyers are reluctant at best to condemn the system each works under. The notion that it couldn't possibly have got it wrong in so many cases will be all pervasive. All the more so when the case involves the national religion - the NHS. Heresy compounded by heresy to suggets she might be innocent.
What his instructions were we don't know. But to suggest that he was just going through the motions is nonsense. The defence applied to have all the charges struck out on the basis that there was no case to answer. That is relatively unusual. It is not "going through the motions" in any sense. Myers himself is an experienced advocate. Note that he got an acquittal in the case of Inspector Duckenfield over Hillsborough.
Why the defence did not call as witnesses the medical experts they had is the big unanswered question. Another one is why Letby herself accepted that one of the babies had been poisoned by insulin.
Comments
https://youtu.be/dAOZOL8Q-Aw
Quite obscure artist and original song, but an amazing version of it
Spanky also did a great Sunshine Of Your Love on the same album
https://youtu.be/VcqeHBijLfg
Letby's appeals have all been rejected so far.
Meanwhile, she is under investigation over further deaths, going back some years. She is perhaps just as likely to be charged with more murders.
They are a faithless and untrustworthy ally. It's what you'd expect from a self-obsessed, insular and ignorant people.
And it makes their occasional bursts of altruistic internationalism, such as the Marshall Plan, all the more exceptional.
She's now (still I think) the Brand New Heavies singer
Angela Ricci - Crazy
https://youtu.be/f2jgdsHzDf4
But the analogy stands. Both the UK relationship with the EU and that with America show that, in the long term, feality to a larger state - whether a formal arrangment like the EU or a looser relationship like the 'Special Relationship' is not in our best interests. In the end you are left less secure than if you had stod on your own two feet in the first place.
So we should just trust that miscarriages of justices never happen? We should just trust that all those convicted Post Office subpostmasters who were convicted by juries are guilty?
The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high, but it should never be a matter of blind trust.
I've found out that the local now retired cop in one of the villages has the same surname as the local cop from the neighbouring village in 1939, and the same surname as the cop in a village the other side of Marlborough at the same time. We're looking for family connections
The Diplock courts in Northern Ireland rarely had convictions overturned. They were much more likely to throw evidence out as bullshit - perhaps that explains it.
7 hours ago
This just in. In keeping with anti-DEI initiatives, Pentagon announces USTRANSCOM to be renamed Military Army & Naval Logistics, Ordnance, & Vehicle Enterprise or "MANLOVE."
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1896706895655928103?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1896706895655928103|twgr^28b260de8d12b905718a956e7e5b3bc6a09ca19e|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https://www.buzzfeed.com/briangalindo/trumps-sec-of-agriculture-tells-americans-to-raise-chickens
https://www.nzz.ch/wirtschaft/der-dritte-weltkrieg-ist-eine-reale-gefahr-ld.1872895
Michael Schoellhorn is the CEO of Airbus D&S and this is the closest I've ever seen somebody on the record come to saying what the US can and can't do to foreign owned F-35s.
He says, by way of example, that Danish Air Force would need software tokens from the US to operate over Greenland. LOL.
An elderly husband and wife each dying of natural causes, at home, with the second to go not realising his wife was deceased or needing to mourn her?
There are worse ways to go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4wjsAJ1LH8
Would you like an AI summary?
(ducks)
Back row L-R
Alan Sked (UKIP Founder)
Mike Nattrass (UKIP MEP)
David Campbell-Bannerman (UKIP MEP)
Suzanne Evans (UKIP Deputy Chair)
Robert Kilroy-Silk (UKIP MEP)
Godfrey Bloom (UKIP MEP)
Craig Mackinlay (Leader UKIP)
Middle Row L-R
Michael Holmes (Leader UKIP)
Nikki Sinclaire (UKIP MEP)
Patrick O'Flynn (UKIP MEP)
Steven Woolfe (UKIP MEP)
Douglas Carswell (UKIP MP)
Front Row L-R
Lance Forman (Brexit Party MEP)
David Coburn?? (The only one I am unsure of)
Ben Habib (Deputy Leader Reform)
Lucy Harris(Brexit Party MEP)
John Longworth (Brexit Party MEP)
Annunziata Rees-Mogg (Brexit Party MEP)
https://x.com/eu_eeas/status/1898487797348225207
The European Union strongly condemns the recent attacks, reportedly by pro-Assad elements, on interim government forces in the coastal areas of Syria and all violence against civilians.
Certain countries insisting on two opposite blank pages - one for the visa and the opposite for the entry/exit stamps - was a pain.
You are allowed to wake up.
Pre-election, I think I would have dismissed the idea of Trump invading a NATO member state in his term as ludicrous... now I think it's maybe at least 25% between Canada and Greenland?
Leon believes Newent is a terrible place.
Leon is wrong about everything.
Does this mean Newent is the greatest place in the world to live?
There have been none on actions which are considered variously as overreach. Illegal or even unconstitutional.
What is also apparent is that a Democrat President would face considerable obstruction even to an uncontroversial policy programme.
Their system is broken
I'll believe this when I see it.
Under-performing civil servants could be incentivised to leave jobs
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c9q4nr42z20o
Good morning, everyone.
Model seems to be demeaning the other side and if pushed-back claiming to be the victim.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5183327-vanec-clout-trump-world/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0kwbsxz
As you say, “The burden on suggesting that juries have come to the wrong decision is rightly high“. I note I used cautious language, beginning my comment “Perhaps”. I didn’t say anyone had to trust the juries got it right,
When we look at past miscarriages of justice, we can usually work out what went wrong. These have been several cases where a defendant was coerced into a false confession, for example. In the case of the subpostmasters, there was a faulty legal position over computer evidence. There was also a systemic issue with the Post Office bringing its own prosecutions. None of those, clearly, apply to Letby.
However, there have been miscarriages of justice around the use of statistical evidence, which was part of the prosecution case against Letby. There is also complex medical evidence. These have been the focus of the free Letby campaigners. Yet those who rush to her defence never seem to want to engage with the other parts of the prosecution case: how she was observed behaving oddly/dangerously, how she stole medical records, the initials in her diary etc. Letby has become a cause célèbre, but the armchair experts who opine on her case rarely seem to have looked at what happened or to understand the law.
Got a stamp in the pasport to prove it!
Some of the Labor vote share falls mirrored those suffered by Conservatives at our GE last July and turnout was also well down suggesting a degree of Labor abstention.
The question is whether Labor can get these voters back before the next federal eelction which has to be by mid May and could well be next month.
Get on the LDs in Macclesfield.....
A central question on the latter is the one which, unless I have missed it, has not been addressed. Why did the defence not call expert evidence? Until that has been fully explored (and in general it only can be with Letby's permission) I don't think we have the picture. Speculation about it is no use.
One footnote: I think it has been reported that the prosecution had evidence which they had failed to disclose to the defence. If true, this is a relatively straightforward way in to a further appeal.
In a criminal court - the prosecution presents evidence, the defence team try and refute / destroy the evidence.
Then the defence presents their evidence (as to why the person is innocent) and the prosecution try to refute that.
Then the judge / jury decide which version makes most sense.
Letby's biggest problem is that her defence doesn't seem to have been that good.
(Not putting my flag to mast on Letby here, just engaging PB pedant mode)
At the other end of the 101 bus route from East Ham lies Wanstead which you would think would be archetypal Conservative suburban territory and it was when part of WSC's constituency but boundary changes have taken it into the new Leyton & Wanstead Constituency which is of course Labour (Greens second).
Wanstead has a Gail's - it has at least seven other independent coffee shops and bakeries and having been there as recently as Friday morning, I can report all were doing excellent business in the March sunshine. I'm not surprised the coffee shop numbers are rising - it's the one part of the retail economy which seems to be flourishing and it's part of a significant cultural change toward, dare I say it, a more European-style cafe culture.
It's also interesting the other local coffee shop owners are less bothered than some of the locals and to be honest if you have a favourite coffee shop you tend to stay loyal to it. There's nothing wrong with Gail's (it is overpriced) but if you know an area you probably know somewhere probably better and certainly cheaper.
Let me put it another way - there are at least five other coffee shops and bakeries I would go to in Wanstead before Gail's (La Bakerie is my personal favourite if you are ever in the vicinity).
Just so we're all clear, Rupert Lowe wants to commit to mass deportations (one million plus) and Nigel Farage doesn't.
Upsetting Farage doesn't necessarily make you the good guy.
https://bsky.app/profile/rolandmcs.bsky.social/post/3ljwlw5wxc22n
Farage knows when to shut up- usually. (His comments on Putin, Russia and Ukraine are a rare error.) Most of his followers don't have the skill to only say the quiet bit quietly.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1123186/
The question is whether the arbiter of "illegal" should be the courts, the Daily Mail, Farage or Lowe. It is a toughie.
NEW THREAD
The Unherd article accuses the prosecution of dropping one of the deaths from the set of deaths that Letby was accused of at the very last possible moment because they had engaged an expert witness who’s testimony had undermined the claim that Letby had deliberately poisoned babies with insulin. Unherd’s suggestion is that they wanted to hide that testimony from the defence. Given that the insulin poisoning was the only physical evidence of harm that Letby had committed (all the other evidence was circumstantial) that testimony could plausibly have undermined their entire case.
If true, that sounds like it might be actual grounds for a re-trial - dropping a case just because you don’t like the evidence in order that said evidence not be passed to the defence seems like incredibly shady behaviour. Obviously they thought they could get away with it because they weren’t charging Letby with that death, so there was no obligation to pass the testimony to the defence. I would hope that a judge would take a very dim view of that argument.
Just the sheer numbers condemned her to a defence likely just going through the motions.
The other issue Letby has to overcome is the legal system sitting in judgment on whether the legal system made a complete Horlicks of this case. Lawyers are reluctant at best to condemn the system each works under. The notion that it couldn't possibly have got it wrong in so many cases will be all pervasive. All the more so when the case involves the national religion - the NHS. Heresy compounded by heresy to suggets she might be innocent.
One juror was so illiterate he couldn't read the oath. In the jury room he just nodded along with the prevailing sentiment which was that most of the jurors just wanted to get home and as a not guilty verdict was the quickest and easiest way of achieving this, he got off. The judge made it clear that he thought this was the wrong verdict, and i am sure he was right.
By contrast, in a much more serious case, it was clear that the entire court thought the defendant would get off, but it was his misfortune to have some very smart people on the jury, some of whom had picked up on things missed by the court. The discussion was detailed, rational and highly responsible. To this day I am certin the guilty verdict was correct, and the defendant was simply unlucky to have so many smart people ruling on his case.
The one serious contentious case with which I am deeply familiar is the A6 murder for which James Hanratty was hanged. There is little doubt that a material contributory factor in the guilty verdict was that the case, unusually, was held at Bedford rather than the Old Bailey. Bedford was close to the scene of the crime and feelings were running high at the time.
I am not saying this makes the jury system bad, and I certainly don't have any magic formula for improving it, but the nature of the jury and the way it is selected seems to me a neglected area of study. If we understood more about it, some of the miscarriages we hear of might be avoided.
That's just conspiracy theory thinking of having an agenda and twisting the evidence to fit.
What his instructions were we don't know. But to suggest that he was just going through the motions is nonsense. The defence applied to have all the charges struck out on the basis that there was no case to answer. That is relatively unusual. It is not "going through the motions" in any sense. Myers himself is an experienced advocate. Note that he got an acquittal in the case of Inspector Duckenfield over Hillsborough.
Why the defence did not call as witnesses the medical experts they had is the big unanswered question. Another one is why Letby herself accepted that one of the babies had been poisoned by insulin.