Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I know he still has some true believers but this is not stable behaviour. And why is he trying to reinvent himself as some 'statesmen' of the corbynite 'surrender to prevent fighting' mould?
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
Trump has only been in office this year, though. If Trump puts his hand in the other side of the scales, then its a different world.
What if Putin decides he wants Alaska back?
It votes Republican, it'll be fine.
Murkowski's (sp) a bit of a free spirit, though, AIUI.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
Trump has only been in office this year, though. If Trump puts his hand in the other side of the scales, then its a different world.
He’s at serious risk of strategic overreach already. He’s giving up America’s role as leader of the free world, which will have consequences, but if he actively makes it a pariah then the U.S. will really struggle in a power block dominated world with no allies, if those western allies have tightened their links without it. The U.S. risks being the odd man out, and isn’t big enough to be that any more.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest serms counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
My theory is that citizen juries are a liberal device to democratise justice. A citizen jury who lets someone accused of child molesting go on lack of evidence has more public acceptance than a professional jury would have.
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I know he still has some true believers but this is not stable behaviour. And why is he trying to reinvent himself as some 'statesmen' of the corbynite 'surrender to prevent fighting' mould?
I do wonder what his boards think. I imagine “for god’s sakes Elon, can’t we just run a business” is quite high on this list.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest serms counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
I think we would need to think carefully through the implications of that. I might have to write different jury speeches for a start.
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I know he still has some true believers but this is not stable behaviour. And why is he trying to reinvent himself as some 'statesmen' of the corbynite 'surrender to prevent fighting' mould?
Most frightening for me lisening to vox pops is that his voters seem entirely satisfied - simply saying he is doing exactly as he said in the campaign. I understand his polling is less strong but I cannot see any reason to expect any dramatic change is his posture regarding Europe. It means much more on defence and much less on the rest. I wonder how ready people are here for what that will mean. The PB consensus is not a good reflection of the man on the Hartelepool omnibus I fear.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest serms counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
I think we would need to think carefully through the implications of that. I might have to write different jury speeches for a start.
Much easier to nobble if you know in advance who your panel includes.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
Trump has only been in office this year, though. If Trump puts his hand in the other side of the scales, then its a different world.
He’s at serious risk of strategic overreach already. He’s giving up America’s role as leader of the free world, which will have consequences, but if he actively makes it a pariah then the U.S. will really struggle in a power block dominated world with no allies, if those western allies have tightened their links without it. The U.S. risks being the odd man out, and isn’t big enough to be that any more.
They mostly don't care. The people around Trump are isolationists. They aren't interested in America dominating the world, beyond pet projects, which basically boil down to Israel.
Strangely Trump himself is probably the least isolationist of the bunch but he has other, massive, hangups.
It does seem more and more that Friedrich Merz’s election of chancellor at this time is the most important European election result since 1945. Merz has been indicating verbally that he understands the reality of the situation, speaking about the need for Europe to plan for its own security without the USA—and even wondering whether NATO will be NATO by this summer.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest serms counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
My theory is that citizen juries are a liberal device to democratise justice. A citizen jury who lets someone accused of child molesting go on lack of evidence has more public acceptance than a professional jury would have.
In general I agree with you however.
Juries also have the important role of nullification, effectively disregarding unjust laws. This is important protection from authoritarian laws. Don't think it can happen? Look across the pond.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
The Red Army got bogged down in Eastern Europe around 100 years ago, and really was only able to sweep though in 1944-5 because by then most of the locals hated the Nazis at least as much, and probably more, than they hated the Soviets, and secondly because the Nazi army was fighting on three fronts...... Italy and North-Western Europe.... and was running low on men and munitions. Estonia had a Resistance movement active against the Soviets until, IIRC, almost the 60's and earlier the Finns had pretty well fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1940-1.
I'm not a historian, so my recollections may be hazy and bear correction.
Also, they were provided with key technology and equipment by the Western Allies.
Radios that worked for tanks and planes, insane numbers of trucks, *all* the super octane aviation fuel the USSR had. Etc etc
Quite a few historians make the mistake of potatoes=fighter aircraft - the value of the aid wasn’t in strict GDP terms but in terms of capabilities the USSR wouldn’t have had otherwise.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest serms counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
My theory is that citizen juries are a liberal device to democratise justice. A citizen jury who lets someone accused of child molesting go on lack of evidence has more public acceptance than a professional jury would have.
In general I agree with you however.
Juries also have the important role of nullification, effectively disregarding unjust laws. This is important protection from authoritarian laws. Don't think it can happen? Look across the pond.
These features of the jury system only work when you have a roughly homogeneous population.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
The Red Army got bogged down in Eastern Europe around 100 years ago, and really was only able to sweep though in 1944-5 because by then most of the locals hated the Nazis at least as much, and probably more, than they hated the Soviets, and secondly because the Nazi army was fighting on three fronts...... Italy and North-Western Europe.... and was running low on men and munitions. Estonia had a Resistance movement active against the Soviets until, IIRC, almost the 60's and earlier the Finns had pretty well fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1940-1.
I'm not a historian, so my recollections may be hazy and bear correction.
Also, they were provided with key technology and equipment by the Western Allies.
Radios that worked for tanks and planes, insane numbers of trucks, *all* the super octane aviation fuel the USSR had. Etc etc
Quite a few historians make the mistake of potatoes=fighter aircraft - the value of the aid wasn’t in strict GDP terms but in terms of capabilities the USSR wouldn’t have had otherwise.
Good points, thanks. I suspect that, now at any rate, the Russian army isn't using that up-to-date equipment. And, IIRC, someone recently suggested that Russia's Southern, Caucasus, border isn't a secure as it might be. They have got support from North Korea, of course.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest seems counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
Harder to provide anonymity, and therefore protect them from undue influence and jury-nobbling.
Why not have a trained body of electors, rather than just any clown having a vote?
I demand this question is not included in the final tally - how could we have known the Vice President of the United States would make a party political broadcast on behalf of the AfD?
Didn't make much difference either way I think. Though I think the AfD would have done better if the US hadn't started such a full-blown geopolitical crisis immediately before the vote.
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.
The only answer that makes any sense to me in respect of the defence experts is that, yes, they could knock holes in some parts of the Prosecution case but there were other parts where they would confirm agreement with it and, once they were in the witness box, that would come out and do more harm than good.
These are difficult tactical decisions that have to be made in the course of trials and there has been too much hindsight applied to them without the relevant information. What the Letby case actually needs is for people to engage with the strongest parts of the Crown case, not the more marginal decisions. If the stronger cases can be undermined then it is worth taking a look at again. So far, I have not really seen that.
Tactically, it seems that Letby’s defence thought that they had fatally undermined the prosecution expert witness & that this would be their client’s best hope of obtaining a Not Guilt verdict. Events have proved otherwise of course.
The strongest case against Letby is the insulin poisonings it seems to me. If those are genuinely unsafe, as the Unherd article alleges, & the prosecution also withheld that information from the defence then her convictions must be reversed as the jury was instructed that they could use the fact that she had been found guilty of attempted murder in the insulin cases as evidence in the other cases where no hard evidence of direct harm could be found, only circumstantial evidence (which many have argued is also unsafe, but that’s another topic entirely).
The insulin evidence is pretty strong. Less than 1% error rate in this (Letby supporting) article.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest serms counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
My theory is that citizen juries are a liberal device to democratise justice. A citizen jury who lets someone accused of child molesting go on lack of evidence has more public acceptance than a professional jury would have.
In general I agree with you however.
Juries also have the important role of nullification, effectively disregarding unjust laws. This is important protection from authoritarian laws. Don't think it can happen? Look across the pond.
Could also lead to something akin to the tyranny of the majority, with laws protecting minorities simply being ignored by juries.
It's pretending that you can be arrested for "supporting Palestine", whilst it looks like potential arrest for breaching the conditions attached to a particular pro-Palestinian demonstration in Central London, where "supporting Palestine" is the quoted identifier of participation in that demonstration.
It's similar in approach to Leon's and the Right's BS about "arrested for posting to Facebook" as a supposed basis for their allegations of "Two Tier Policing", when the actual arrest is for inciting Mosques to be burnt down with the people still inside them, using Facebook as a communication channel.
The US has decided to side with Russia. We share intelligence with the US, we have intermingled military forces with the US - at which point are we forced to detach?
And how, practically, would we pull that off? Invite the US Air Force to depart from their bases here?
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
Trump has only been in office this year, though. If Trump puts his hand in the other side of the scales, then its a different world.
The US has decided to side with Russia. We share intelligence with the US, we have intermingled military forces with the US - at which point are we forced to detach?
And how, practically, would we pull that off? Invite the US Air Force to depart from their bases here?
I cannot imagine it will be quick to disentangle.
And some will suggest caution in doing so as Trump will not be around forever, but I think that misses the point - that one of the governing parties is now a supporter of Russia over its old allies means the rest of us cannot take the chance of them returning to that situation, even if in 4-8 years or whatever they seek to reset.
Everything that can be done has to be done in order to keep the UK and its actual allies safe.
Five Eyes, NATO, other arrangements, they may not be dead, but they will become zombie arrangements in due course.
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.
The only answer that makes any sense to me in respect of the defence experts is that, yes, they could knock holes in some parts of the Prosecution case but there were other parts where they would confirm agreement with it and, once they were in the witness box, that would come out and do more harm than good.
These are difficult tactical decisions that have to be made in the course of trials and there has been too much hindsight applied to them without the relevant information. What the Letby case actually needs is for people to engage with the strongest parts of the Crown case, not the more marginal decisions. If the stronger cases can be undermined then it is worth taking a look at again. So far, I have not really seen that.
Tactically, it seems that Letby’s defence thought that they had fatally undermined the prosecution expert witness & that this would be their client’s best hope of obtaining a Not Guilt verdict. Events have proved otherwise of course.
The strongest case against Letby is the insulin poisonings it seems to me. If those are genuinely unsafe, as the Unherd article alleges, & the prosecution also withheld that information from the defence then her convictions must be reversed as the jury was instructed that they could use the fact that she had been found guilty of attempted murder in the insulin cases as evidence in the other cases where no hard evidence of direct harm could be found, only circumstantial evidence (which many have argued is also unsafe, but that’s another topic entirely).
The insulin evidence is pretty strong. Less than 1% error rate in this (Letby supporting) article.
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I know he still has some true believers but this is not stable behaviour. And why is he trying to reinvent himself as some 'statesmen' of the corbynite 'surrender to prevent fighting' mould?
I do wonder what his boards think. I imagine “for god’s sakes Elon, can’t we just run a business” is quite high on this list.
He's clearly brought something to his various businesses, but there are limits - great strengths can also become great weaknesses. Simply from a perspective of spending his time on government business, trolling people online, and trying to encourage the ousting of democratic leaders in support of the Kremlin, he has less time to spend useful time on business.
The US has decided to side with Russia. We share intelligence with the US, we have intermingled military forces with the US - at which point are we forced to detach?
And how, practically, would we pull that off? Invite the US Air Force to depart from their bases here?
SKS wouldn't dare. He will just keep tromboning DJT to the bitter end and hope something turns up. He will still be doing it and buying billions of quids worth of US hardware when Kiev is rubble. Anyone who thinks differently is a hopeless naïf.
He's just sent the cadaverous Healy over to DC use his supernova charisma on Hegseth and assure him that it's business as usual.
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.
The only answer that makes any sense to me in respect of the defence experts is that, yes, they could knock holes in some parts of the Prosecution case but there were other parts where they would confirm agreement with it and, once they were in the witness box, that would come out and do more harm than good.
These are difficult tactical decisions that have to be made in the course of trials and there has been too much hindsight applied to them without the relevant information. What the Letby case actually needs is for people to engage with the strongest parts of the Crown case, not the more marginal decisions. If the stronger cases can be undermined then it is worth taking a look at again. So far, I have not really seen that.
Tactically, it seems that Letby’s defence thought that they had fatally undermined the prosecution expert witness & that this would be their client’s best hope of obtaining a Not Guilt verdict. Events have proved otherwise of course.
The strongest case against Letby is the insulin poisonings it seems to me. If those are genuinely unsafe, as the Unherd article alleges, & the prosecution also withheld that information from the defence then her convictions must be reversed as the jury was instructed that they could use the fact that she had been found guilty of attempted murder in the insulin cases as evidence in the other cases where no hard evidence of direct harm could be found, only circumstantial evidence (which many have argued is also unsafe, but that’s another topic entirely).
The insulin evidence is pretty strong. Less than 1% error rate in this (Letby supporting) article.
The Unherd article is making a strong claim that the evidence that the lack of C-peptide means that the insulin found in these babies’ blood means that it must have been introduced artificially (as claimed by the prosecution in the Letby case) is simply wrong. They assert that there are conditions that lead to exactly the same outcomes & that these conditions are often found in premature babies. The article claims that the prosecution dropped one of the babies from the case because this was precisely what their expert witness had suggested.
‘Shoo Lee’s expert panel has come to a similar conclusion. Its summary report, now being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), says naturally-occurring hypoglycaemia affects up to 40% of newborn babies, and that the relative levels of insulin and C-peptide seen in babies F, L and Y are also “not uncommon”.’
If true, then this undermines the entire case. Everything else is circumstantial & based on statistical analysis which has also been questioned in the strongest terms. All that’s left is the feelings of a bunch of consultants in a failing department that was killing babies that “someone” must be responsible & it obviously wasn’t going to be them. That’s no basis for convicting anyone.
(When we discussed this last year, I said at the time that the insulin evidence was the deciding factor that made her most likely to be guilty in my mind & my concerns were about the (ab)use of statistics during the trial. If the insulin evidence cannot be relied on, then I think we have to accept that Letby is most likely an innocent victim of a witch hunt carried out with the best of intentions by her own employer & then later Dewi Evans in cahoots with the police & CPS.)
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I know he still has some true believers but this is not stable behaviour. And why is he trying to reinvent himself as some 'statesmen' of the corbynite 'surrender to prevent fighting' mould?
I do wonder what his boards think. I imagine “for god’s sakes Elon, can’t we just run a business” is quite high on this list.
He's clearly brought something to his various businesses, but there are limits - great strengths can also become great weaknesses. Simply from a perspective of spending his time on government business, trolling people online, and trying to encourage the ousting of democratic leaders in support of the Kremlin, he has less time to spend useful time on business.
I think that’s right. He’s a disrupter, which is great, but less useful once you have a market position than it is when you rent to get one.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
Trump has only been in office this year, though. If Trump puts his hand in the other side of the scales, then its a different world.
He’s at serious risk of strategic overreach already. He’s giving up America’s role as leader of the free world, which will have consequences, but if he actively makes it a pariah then the U.S. will really struggle in a power block dominated world with no allies, if those western allies have tightened their links without it. The U.S. risks being the odd man out, and isn’t big enough to be that any more.
Absolutely. Trump is a disaster for the US.
But I'm more concerned about our leaders avoiding being collateral damage.
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I know he still has some true believers but this is not stable behaviour. And why is he trying to reinvent himself as some 'statesmen' of the corbynite 'surrender to prevent fighting' mould?
I do wonder what his boards think. I imagine “for god’s sakes Elon, can’t we just run a business” is quite high on this list.
He's clearly brought something to his various businesses, but there are limits - great strengths can also become great weaknesses. Simply from a perspective of spending his time on government business, trolling people online, and trying to encourage the ousting of democratic leaders in support of the Kremlin, he has less time to spend useful time on business.
The first project Elon worked on at Tesla was the Cybertruck. His record speaks for itself.
All of this was entirely predictable and predicted. By me!
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
Trump has only been in office this year, though. If Trump puts his hand in the other side of the scales, then its a different world.
He’s at serious risk of strategic overreach already. He’s giving up America’s role as leader of the free world, which will have consequences, but if he actively makes it a pariah then the U.S. will really struggle in a power block dominated world with no allies, if those western allies have tightened their links without it. The U.S. risks being the odd man out, and isn’t big enough to be that any more.
They mostly don't care. The people around Trump are isolationists. They aren't interested in America dominating the world, beyond pet projects, which basically boil down to Israel.
Strangely Trump himself is probably the least isolationist of the bunch but he has other, massive, hangups.
I think it perhaps more significant that they are mushrooms - no significant or relevant experience, so no one to point out the consequences of the proposals coming from the voices in Trump's head.
Isolationists can usually understand the interests of the USA, so would perhaps be reflecting on how withdrawing from the world will bring the front lines that much closer, and will leave the USA with no support from former allies they have, under Trump, deliberately undermined.
It does seem more and more that Friedrich Merz’s election of chancellor at this time is the most important European election result since 1945. Merz has been indicating verbally that he understands the reality of the situation, speaking about the need for Europe to plan for its own security without the USA—and even wondering whether NATO will be NATO by this summer.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest serms counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
My theory is that citizen juries are a liberal device to democratise justice. A citizen jury who lets someone accused of child molesting go on lack of evidence has more public acceptance than a professional jury would have.
In general I agree with you however.
Juries also have the important role of nullification, effectively disregarding unjust laws. This is important protection from authoritarian laws. Don't think it can happen? Look across the pond.
Presumably professional jurors could be sacked for such behaviour.
I'm not convinced they'd be greatly different from just getting rid of the jury altogether, and having the judge (or judges) decide.
SEND & elder care have completely eaten local authority budgets. It’s a shambling disaster that central government has refused to deal with for a decade & got massively worse under the last government.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
Trump has only been in office this year, though. If Trump puts his hand in the other side of the scales, then its a different world.
What if Putin decides he wants Alaska back?
Can he see it from his house?
When he could see the Black Sea from his house and they were losing, he demolished the house.
It was quite a big house, that reportedly cost just under $1 billion to build. I'm not quite sure of the BBC's description of "voluptuous decor", which sounds like he had 27 pumped up TikTok influencers installed, as opposed to - for example - "French Widows in Every Room" as would be done by Waki-Taki-Fuckalotofus (formerly of the Spectator).
I am not involved enough to know if there's assessment on how many are truly helpful and useful (anecdotally I am told they are gone for when they are not necessary in all cases), but EHCPs have been a bane on council finances, even in ones which are not profligate or wasteful.
Yes there was dead wood to cut in local government, but SEND and social care costs are driving them into the ground - and that even has impacts democratically, since many are left which virtually no choices about what they can do in their areas.
The US has decided to side with Russia. We share intelligence with the US, we have intermingled military forces with the US - at which point are we forced to detach?
And how, practically, would we pull that off? Invite the US Air Force to depart from their bases here?
I don't think that's a choice we have to make before the next US election.
Building a structure to defend Europe, which is urgent, and can't be put off, is far more important. If we do that, the exact status of the US becomes less important anyway.
SEND & elder care have completely eaten local authority budgets. It’s a shambling disaster that central government has refused to deal with for a decade & got massively worse under the last government.
No votes in fixing local government. I'm a little surprised they moved so fast, therefore, on strategic mayoral authorities (though they have slowed that back a bit with few added to the priority programme) and speeding up increased unitarisation.
I assume they did on the former because politicians love creating new elected positions, and on the former because most of the areas remaining are not big Labour areas.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest serms counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
Because the exact point is to make it non professional. It opens the prospect of jury nullification if it concludes that the defendants act was illegal but was the right thing to do in the circumstances.
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I'm not sure on SpaceX, especially about alternatives, but nations are already walking away from Starlink, starting with Taiwan working on their own system due to Musk's links with China and his untrustworthiness:
I think OneWeb has its basic network in place, but the satellite factory is still in Florida. It's a good job the Tories did not sell all of it off, but essentially just stopped putting further investment in.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest serms counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
Because the exact point is to make it non professional. It opens the prospect of jury nullification if it concludes that the defendants act was illegal but was the right thing to do in the circumstances.
Judges and lawyers are about the law.
Juries are about justice.
Those are not the same
You missed that the police and the CPS are just about convictions irrespective of the truth.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
The Red Army got bogged down in Eastern Europe around 100 years ago, and really was only able to sweep though in 1944-5 because by then most of the locals hated the Nazis at least as much, and probably more, than they hated the Soviets, and secondly because the Nazi army was fighting on three fronts...... Italy and North-Western Europe.... and was running low on men and munitions. Estonia had a Resistance movement active against the Soviets until, IIRC, almost the 60's and earlier the Finns had pretty well fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1940-1.
I'm not a historian, so my recollections may be hazy and bear correction.
Also, they were provided with key technology and equipment by the Western Allies.
Radios that worked for tanks and planes, insane numbers of trucks, *all* the super octane aviation fuel the USSR had. Etc etc
Quite a few historians make the mistake of potatoes=fighter aircraft - the value of the aid wasn’t in strict GDP terms but in terms of capabilities the USSR wouldn’t have had otherwise.
Good points, thanks. I suspect that, now at any rate, the Russian army isn't using that up-to-date equipment. And, IIRC, someone recently suggested that Russia's Southern, Caucasus, border isn't a secure as it might be. They have got support from North Korea, of course.
That's not entirely true. Their drone tech, for example, is pretty well equivalent to that used by Ukraine.
Labour's odds of winning the next election must be pretty strong at this point.
Reform have been exposed and the Tories look irrelevant. The question will be "the Putin Party or Labour?"
They look like the Tory Party without the 'nasty' which should give them enough to be the largest party. Whether they'll need the help of the Lib Dems I don't know. I hope so. Ed Davey is much underrated in my opinion.
Latest projection is Reform 192 MPs, Labour 178 MPs, Tories 142 and LDs 66 and SNP 43 so at best Labour could remain in office with LD support at worst for them it would be a Reform and Tory government
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
The Red Army got bogged down in Eastern Europe around 100 years ago, and really was only able to sweep though in 1944-5 because by then most of the locals hated the Nazis at least as much, and probably more, than they hated the Soviets, and secondly because the Nazi army was fighting on three fronts...... Italy and North-Western Europe.... and was running low on men and munitions. Estonia had a Resistance movement active against the Soviets until, IIRC, almost the 60's and earlier the Finns had pretty well fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1940-1.
I'm not a historian, so my recollections may be hazy and bear correction.
Also, they were provided with key technology and equipment by the Western Allies.
Radios that worked for tanks and planes, insane numbers of trucks, *all* the super octane aviation fuel the USSR had. Etc etc
Quite a few historians make the mistake of potatoes=fighter aircraft - the value of the aid wasn’t in strict GDP terms but in terms of capabilities the USSR wouldn’t have had otherwise.
Good points, thanks. I suspect that, now at any rate, the Russian army isn't using that up-to-date equipment. And, IIRC, someone recently suggested that Russia's Southern, Caucasus, border isn't a secure as it might be. They have got support from North Korea, of course.
That's not entirely true. Their drone tech, for example, is pretty well equivalent to that used by Ukraine.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
Trump has only been in office this year, though. If Trump puts his hand in the other side of the scales, then its a different world.
He’s at serious risk of strategic overreach already. He’s giving up America’s role as leader of the free world, which will have consequences, but if he actively makes it a pariah then the U.S. will really struggle in a power block dominated world with no allies, if those western allies have tightened their links without it. The U.S. risks being the odd man out, and isn’t big enough to be that any more.
They mostly don't care. The people around Trump are isolationists. They aren't interested in America dominating the world, beyond pet projects, which basically boil down to Israel.
Strangely Trump himself is probably the least isolationist of the bunch but he has other, massive, hangups.
I think it perhaps more significant that they are mushrooms - no significant or relevant experience, so no one to point out the consequences of the proposals coming from the voices in Trump's head.
Isolationists can usually understand the interests of the USA, so would perhaps be reflecting on how withdrawing from the world will bring the front lines that much closer, and will leave the USA with no support from former allies they have, under Trump, deliberately undermined.
I'm not sure they even understand the interests of the US. The Yarvin article I quoted above provides a good example. I doubt many Trump voters would question this economic illiteracy: ...Europe has a trade surplus with the US, which means that cutting off trade with Europe would by definition grow the US economy...
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I'm not sure on SpaceX, especially about alternatives, but nations are already walking away from Starlink, starting with Taiwan working on their own system due to Musk's links with China and his untrustworthiness:
I think OneWeb has its basic network in place, but the satellite factory is still in Florida. It's a good job the Tories did not sell all of it off, but essentially just stopped putting further investment in.
OneWeb wasn’t a UK government asset that the Tories “sold off”
It was a virtually bankrupt private company that the Tories *invested* in because they saw the strategic value of the capabilities
And IIRC were massively criticised on here for being idiots and wasting money.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
The Red Army got bogged down in Eastern Europe around 100 years ago, and really was only able to sweep though in 1944-5 because by then most of the locals hated the Nazis at least as much, and probably more, than they hated the Soviets, and secondly because the Nazi army was fighting on three fronts...... Italy and North-Western Europe.... and was running low on men and munitions. Estonia had a Resistance movement active against the Soviets until, IIRC, almost the 60's and earlier the Finns had pretty well fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1940-1.
I'm not a historian, so my recollections may be hazy and bear correction.
Also, they were provided with key technology and equipment by the Western Allies.
Radios that worked for tanks and planes, insane numbers of trucks, *all* the super octane aviation fuel the USSR had. Etc etc
Quite a few historians make the mistake of potatoes=fighter aircraft - the value of the aid wasn’t in strict GDP terms but in terms of capabilities the USSR wouldn’t have had otherwise.
Good points, thanks. I suspect that, now at any rate, the Russian army isn't using that up-to-date equipment. And, IIRC, someone recently suggested that Russia's Southern, Caucasus, border isn't a secure as it might be. They have got support from North Korea, of course.
(AI) For example. The Russians liked the hardwearing kit.
In WW2 this was the USA:
427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 14,000 airplanes, 8,000 tractors, 13,000 tanks. 4.5 million tons of food, 2.7 million tons of petroleum products, 15 million pairs of army boots, 1.5 million blankets, 107,000 tons of cotton
Plus the UK examples (which gets even more forgotten):
Equipment: 5,218 tanks, 7,411 aircraft Supplies: Raw materials, foodstuffs, machinery, industrial plant, medical supplies, hospital equipment
There will be a Mark Felton about it somewhere. We invaded Iran in cooperation with the USSR to create a southern supply route from the Indian Ocean.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
The Red Army got bogged down in Eastern Europe around 100 years ago, and really was only able to sweep though in 1944-5 because by then most of the locals hated the Nazis at least as much, and probably more, than they hated the Soviets, and secondly because the Nazi army was fighting on three fronts...... Italy and North-Western Europe.... and was running low on men and munitions. Estonia had a Resistance movement active against the Soviets until, IIRC, almost the 60's and earlier the Finns had pretty well fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1940-1.
I'm not a historian, so my recollections may be hazy and bear correction.
Also, they were provided with key technology and equipment by the Western Allies.
Radios that worked for tanks and planes, insane numbers of trucks, *all* the super octane aviation fuel the USSR had. Etc etc
Quite a few historians make the mistake of potatoes=fighter aircraft - the value of the aid wasn’t in strict GDP terms but in terms of capabilities the USSR wouldn’t have had otherwise.
Good points, thanks. I suspect that, now at any rate, the Russian army isn't using that up-to-date equipment. And, IIRC, someone recently suggested that Russia's Southern, Caucasus, border isn't a secure as it might be. They have got support from North Korea, of course.
That's not entirely true. Their drone tech, for example, is pretty well equivalent to that used by Ukraine.
Isn't their drone kit Iranian?
That's the long distance ones they're using to kill civilians. The combat drones are, like the Ukrainian ones, of largely commercial Chinese components.
And they probably produce more of them. Though their use seems a bit less sophisticated.
SEND & elder care have completely eaten local authority budgets. It’s a shambling disaster that central government has refused to deal with for a decade & got massively worse under the last government.
No votes in fixing local government. I'm a little surprised they moved so fast, therefore, on strategic mayoral authorities (though they have slowed that back a bit with few added to the priority programme) and speeding up increased unitarisation.
I assume they did on the former because politicians love creating new elected positions, and on the former because most of the areas remaining are not big Labour areas.
I've said before that education and social should be out of local government. Social should be combined with NHS and education should be state run and funded. In return council tax should cover all the rest.
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I'm not sure on SpaceX, especially about alternatives, but nations are already walking away from Starlink, starting with Taiwan working on their own system due to Musk's links with China and his untrustworthiness:
I think OneWeb has its basic network in place, but the satellite factory is still in Florida. It's a good job the Tories did not sell all of it off, but essentially just stopped putting further investment in.
OneWeb wasn’t a UK government asset that the Tories “sold off”
It was a virtually bankrupt private company that the Tories *invested* in because they saw the strategic value of the capabilities
And IIRC were massively criticised on here for being idiots and wasting money.
They also received some support; I don't think it was an entirely partisan argument at the time. In any event, it proved somewhat fortuitous.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
The Red Army got bogged down in Eastern Europe around 100 years ago, and really was only able to sweep though in 1944-5 because by then most of the locals hated the Nazis at least as much, and probably more, than they hated the Soviets, and secondly because the Nazi army was fighting on three fronts...... Italy and North-Western Europe.... and was running low on men and munitions. Estonia had a Resistance movement active against the Soviets until, IIRC, almost the 60's and earlier the Finns had pretty well fought the Soviets to a standstill in 1940-1.
I'm not a historian, so my recollections may be hazy and bear correction.
Also, they were provided with key technology and equipment by the Western Allies.
Radios that worked for tanks and planes, insane numbers of trucks, *all* the super octane aviation fuel the USSR had. Etc etc
Quite a few historians make the mistake of potatoes=fighter aircraft - the value of the aid wasn’t in strict GDP terms but in terms of capabilities the USSR wouldn’t have had otherwise.
Good points, thanks. I suspect that, now at any rate, the Russian army isn't using that up-to-date equipment. And, IIRC, someone recently suggested that Russia's Southern, Caucasus, border isn't a secure as it might be. They have got support from North Korea, of course.
That's not entirely true. Their drone tech, for example, is pretty well equivalent to that used by Ukraine.
Isn't their drone kit Iranian?
That's the long distance ones they're using to kill civilians. The combat drones are, like the Ukrainian ones, of largely commercial Chinese components.
And they probably produce more of them. Though their use seems a bit less sophisticated.
Drone tech is moving fast, though. All over the place.
SEND & elder care have completely eaten local authority budgets. It’s a shambling disaster that central government has refused to deal with for a decade & got massively worse under the last government.
No votes in fixing local government. I'm a little surprised they moved so fast, therefore, on strategic mayoral authorities (though they have slowed that back a bit with few added to the priority programme) and speeding up increased unitarisation.
I assume they did on the former because politicians love creating new elected positions, and on the former because most of the areas remaining are not big Labour areas.
I've said before that education and social should be out of local government. Social should be combined with NHS and education should be state run and funded. In return council tax should cover all the rest.
The local government responsibilities made more sense back when local authorities controlled their own substantial assets and revenues.
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).
The one thing Gail's offers an area is that it's got a certain decent demographic that is likely to encourage other shops (Seasalt, White Stuff....) that it's a town worth investigating / opening in.
But I always support the independent coffee shops - I find (from the few times I've had a coffee there) that Gail's coffee is bland..
Hating on Gail’s is the new WaitroseHate - sure sign of Anarchist Dads From Tooting.
Alternatively you could buy some of their overpriced wares and make your own decision.
Not so much a "kill switch", as the ability to shut off the patient's oxygen.
https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc89e ...“The problem with really sophisticated defence equipment is that [it needs] so much support from the vendor, that if the vendor decides to stop supporting [it], the equipment stops working, if not instantaneously then very, very quickly,” said Tusa.
“Europe’s reliance on the US, meanwhile, has been rising, with America accounting for 55 per cent of Europe’s defence equipment imports between 2019 and 2023 — up from 35 per cent in the previous five years, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.”..
Meanwhile Trump tells the Spectator Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre's '...biggest problem is he’s not a MAGA guy, you know? I mean, he’s really not he’s not a Trump guy at all.' Which ironically might boost Poilievre in Canada
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I'm not sure on SpaceX, especially about alternatives, but nations are already walking away from Starlink, starting with Taiwan working on their own system due to Musk's links with China and his untrustworthiness:
I think OneWeb has its basic network in place, but the satellite factory is still in Florida. It's a good job the Tories did not sell all of it off, but essentially just stopped putting further investment in.
OneWeb wasn’t a UK government asset that the Tories “sold off”
It was a virtually bankrupt private company that the Tories *invested* in because they saw the strategic value of the capabilities
And IIRC were massively criticised on here for being idiots and wasting money.
They also received some support; I don't think it was an entirely partisan argument at the time. In any event, it proved somewhat fortuitous.
My recollection is it was the anti-Tories (“centrist Dads”) on one side and a few of the usual stalwarts on the other
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I'm not sure on SpaceX, especially about alternatives, but nations are already walking away from Starlink, starting with Taiwan working on their own system due to Musk's links with China and his untrustworthiness:
I think OneWeb has its basic network in place, but the satellite factory is still in Florida. It's a good job the Tories did not sell all of it off, but essentially just stopped putting further investment in.
OneWeb wasn’t a UK government asset that the Tories “sold off”
It was a virtually bankrupt private company that the Tories *invested* in because they saw the strategic value of the capabilities
And IIRC were massively criticised on here for being idiots and wasting money.
The UK's stake in Oneweb was initially 38% aiui, which was subsequently gradually reduced to the current number of ~11% (plus a Golden Share) as the UK Government did not invest in further funding rounds, and a merger into Eutelsat, and a further baillout after a crisis.
Which I think is consonant with what I said .
IIRC I argued in support of the OneWeb investment - a good but high risk / high reward decision.
The free hand for Russia up to the Channel has rather fallen down on the fact that it's taken three years to not take Ukraine. Yarvin and the rest can't think outside the Cold War superpower mindset.
Trump has only been in office this year, though. If Trump puts his hand in the other side of the scales, then its a different world.
He’s at serious risk of strategic overreach already. He’s giving up America’s role as leader of the free world, which will have consequences, but if he actively makes it a pariah then the U.S. will really struggle in a power block dominated world with no allies, if those western allies have tightened their links without it. The U.S. risks being the odd man out, and isn’t big enough to be that any more.
They mostly don't care. The people around Trump are isolationists. They aren't interested in America dominating the world, beyond pet projects, which basically boil down to Israel.
Strangely Trump himself is probably the least isolationist of the bunch but he has other, massive, hangups.
I think it perhaps more significant that they are mushrooms - no significant or relevant experience, so no one to point out the consequences of the proposals coming from the voices in Trump's head.
Isolationists can usually understand the interests of the USA, so would perhaps be reflecting on how withdrawing from the world will bring the front lines that much closer, and will leave the USA with no support from former allies they have, under Trump, deliberately undermined.
I'm not sure they even understand the interests of the US. The Yarvin article I quoted above provides a good example. I doubt many Trump voters would question this economic illiteracy: ...Europe has a trade surplus with the US, which means that cutting off trade with Europe would by definition grow the US economy...
I wonder how many only ever buy US made items.
After all it would 'by definition' grow the US economy.
I think I missed the AfD figure by six (158), which seems to exclude me from 10 points by only one seat. In this age of robust approaches to things, should I: demand a recount, find some extra votes for AfD, invent a different figure, legislate that 158-152=5, overturn the German constitution, sue PB and Ben Pointer, or declare war? These all seem acceptable modes of action. Which should I choose?
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.
The only answer that makes any sense to me in respect of the defence experts is that, yes, they could knock holes in some parts of the Prosecution case but there were other parts where they would confirm agreement with it and, once they were in the witness box, that would come out and do more harm than good.
These are difficult tactical decisions that have to be made in the course of trials and there has been too much hindsight applied to them without the relevant information. What the Letby case actually needs is for people to engage with the strongest parts of the Crown case, not the more marginal decisions. If the stronger cases can be undermined then it is worth taking a look at again. So far, I have not really seen that.
Tactically, it seems that Letby’s defence thought that they had fatally undermined the prosecution expert witness & that this would be their client’s best hope of obtaining a Not Guilt verdict. Events have proved otherwise of course.
The strongest case against Letby is the insulin poisonings it seems to me. If those are genuinely unsafe, as the Unherd article alleges, & the prosecution also withheld that information from the defence then her convictions must be reversed as the jury was instructed that they could use the fact that she had been found guilty of attempted murder in the insulin cases as evidence in the other cases where no hard evidence of direct harm could be found, only circumstantial evidence (which many have argued is also unsafe, but that’s another topic entirely).
The insulin evidence is pretty strong. Less than 1% error rate in this (Letby supporting) article.
The Unherd article is making a strong claim that the evidence that the lack of C-peptide means that the insulin found in these babies’ blood means that it must have been introduced artificially (as claimed by the prosecution in the Letby case) is simply wrong. They assert that there are conditions that lead to exactly the same outcomes & that these conditions are often found in premature babies. The article claims that the prosecution dropped one of the babies from the case because this was precisely what their expert witness had suggested.
‘Shoo Lee’s expert panel has come to a similar conclusion. Its summary report, now being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), says naturally-occurring hypoglycaemia affects up to 40% of newborn babies, and that the relative levels of insulin and C-peptide seen in babies F, L and Y are also “not uncommon”.’
If true, then this undermines the entire case. Everything else is circumstantial & based on statistical analysis which has also been questioned in the strongest terms. All that’s left is the feelings of a bunch of consultants in a failing department that was killing babies that “someone” must be responsible & it obviously wasn’t going to be them. That’s no basis for convicting anyone.
(When we discussed this last year, I said at the time that the insulin evidence was the deciding factor that made her most likely to be guilty in my mind & my concerns were about the (ab)use of statistics during the trial. If the insulin evidence cannot be relied on, then I think we have to accept that Letby is most likely an innocent victim of a witch hunt carried out with the best of intentions by her own employer & then later Dewi Evans in cahoots with the police & CPS.)
That’s not true. There is plenty of other evidence. The deaths and other serous events were when Letby was on duty. She was observed failing to act when a baby was ill, and observed acting suspiciously around another baby. She stole their medical records, kept them at home and claimed she’d been unable to securely dispose of them despite possessing a paper shredder. There are the initials in her diary that match key dates. There are her notes to herself that talk of guilt. There was other evidence that the deaths were unnatural.
Meanwhile Trump tells the Spectator Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre's '...biggest problem is he’s not a MAGA guy, you know? I mean, he’s really not he’s not a Trump guy at all.' Which ironically might boost Poilievre in Canada
I am not involved enough to know if there's assessment on how many are truly helpful and useful (anecdotally I am told they are gone for when they are not necessary in all cases), but EHCPs have been a bane on council finances, even in ones which are not profligate or wasteful.
Yes there was dead wood to cut in local government, but SEND and social care costs are driving them into the ground - and that even has impacts democratically, since many are left which virtually no choices about what they can do in their areas.
I think I missed the AfD figure by six (158), which seems to exclude me from 10 points by only one seat. In this age of robust approaches to things, should I: demand a recount, find some extra votes for AfD, invent a different figure, legislate that 158-152=5, overturn the German constitution, sue PB and Ben Pointer, or declare war? These all seem acceptable modes of action. Which should I choose?
You’re missing the truly on brand 2025 option. Claim you wrote 152.
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.
The only answer that makes any sense to me in respect of the defence experts is that, yes, they could knock holes in some parts of the Prosecution case but there were other parts where they would confirm agreement with it and, once they were in the witness box, that would come out and do more harm than good.
These are difficult tactical decisions that have to be made in the course of trials and there has been too much hindsight applied to them without the relevant information. What the Letby case actually needs is for people to engage with the strongest parts of the Crown case, not the more marginal decisions. If the stronger cases can be undermined then it is worth taking a look at again. So far, I have not really seen that.
Tactically, it seems that Letby’s defence thought that they had fatally undermined the prosecution expert witness & that this would be their client’s best hope of obtaining a Not Guilt verdict. Events have proved otherwise of course.
The strongest case against Letby is the insulin poisonings it seems to me. If those are genuinely unsafe, as the Unherd article alleges, & the prosecution also withheld that information from the defence then her convictions must be reversed as the jury was instructed that they could use the fact that she had been found guilty of attempted murder in the insulin cases as evidence in the other cases where no hard evidence of direct harm could be found, only circumstantial evidence (which many have argued is also unsafe, but that’s another topic entirely).
The insulin evidence is pretty strong. Less than 1% error rate in this (Letby supporting) article.
The Unherd article is making a strong claim that the evidence that the lack of C-peptide means that the insulin found in these babies’ blood means that it must have been introduced artificially (as claimed by the prosecution in the Letby case) is simply wrong. They assert that there are conditions that lead to exactly the same outcomes & that these conditions are often found in premature babies. The article claims that the prosecution dropped one of the babies from the case because this was precisely what their expert witness had suggested.
‘Shoo Lee’s expert panel has come to a similar conclusion. Its summary report, now being examined by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC), says naturally-occurring hypoglycaemia affects up to 40% of newborn babies, and that the relative levels of insulin and C-peptide seen in babies F, L and Y are also “not uncommon”.’
If true, then this undermines the entire case. Everything else is circumstantial & based on statistical analysis which has also been questioned in the strongest terms. All that’s left is the feelings of a bunch of consultants in a failing department that was killing babies that “someone” must be responsible & it obviously wasn’t going to be them. That’s no basis for convicting anyone.
(When we discussed this last year, I said at the time that the insulin evidence was the deciding factor that made her most likely to be guilty in my mind & my concerns were about the (ab)use of statistics during the trial. If the insulin evidence cannot be relied on, then I think we have to accept that Letby is most likely an innocent victim of a witch hunt carried out with the best of intentions by her own employer & then later Dewi Evans in cahoots with the police & CPS.)
That’s not true. There is plenty of other evidence. The deaths and other serous events were when Letby was on duty. She was observed failing to act when a baby was ill, and observed acting suspiciously around another baby. She stole their medical records, kept them at home and claimed she’d been unable to securely dispose of them despite possessing a paper shredder. There are the initials in her diary that match key dates. There are her notes to herself that talk of guilt. There was other evidence that the deaths were unnatural.
Block quotes are broken. In that last post, everything from “That’s not true” is me. Sorry for the confusion.
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 these examples 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.
I did my latest jury speech on Friday afternoon. It was a relief to get it out of the way by the weekend.
In general, I have found juries very attentive and focused in the High Court, much more so than they tend to be for less serious trials in the Sheriff court. I have had the odd jury who have come back quickly with a not proven verdict that smacked of a reluctance to engage with the evidence but it has been rare, maybe 2 in 40 or so trials that come to mind.
Even when I have disagreed with the jury's verdict I have seen how they got there. More often, I have had very discerning judgments where parts of the charge have been removed showing that they have gone through the evidence carefully.
It is not a perfect system and there is a random element to it but in my view decisions by judges alone, whether on their own or in a panel of 3, would be worse.
Yes, i can see big flaws, but eliminating the principle as some suggest serms counterproductive to me
I think it would be improved by having professional jurors.
In every other job, people get better at it by doing it repeatedly.
Why should this most important function be any different?
Because the exact point is to make it non professional. It opens the prospect of jury nullification if it concludes that the defendants act was illegal but was the right thing to do in the circumstances.
Judges and lawyers are about the law.
Juries are about justice.
Those are not the same
You missed that the police and the CPS are just about convictions irrespective of the truth.
Upthread there was mention of Hanratty being tried locally. Perhaps that assisted the guilty verdict - who can know - but we now know that there is overwhelming evidence of guilt (DNA) not known at the time.
One other question WRT jury trials. Would there be any merit in giving defendants in Crown Court trials the right to elect trial by judge sitting alone if they wish, while preserving the absolute right to trial by jury?
I can imagine case - and Letby may be one - where the mixture of the need for technical evidence which most juries will struggle with + the prejudicial atmosphere of a baby murder charge mean that this could serve the defndant and justice better than a jury.
I am not involved enough to know if there's assessment on how many are truly helpful and useful (anecdotally I am told they are gone for when they are not necessary in all cases), but EHCPs have been a bane on council finances, even in ones which are not profligate or wasteful.
Yes there was dead wood to cut in local government, but SEND and social care costs are driving them into the ground - and that even has impacts democratically, since many are left which virtually no choices about what they can do in their areas.
Having tanked Tesla shares, he now seems determined to make Starlink customers doubt its reliability and flee to the likes of OneWeb. I imagine nation states are rethinking SpaceX too.
I'm not sure on SpaceX, especially about alternatives, but nations are already walking away from Starlink, starting with Taiwan working on their own system due to Musk's links with China and his untrustworthiness:
I think OneWeb has its basic network in place, but the satellite factory is still in Florida. It's a good job the Tories did not sell all of it off, but essentially just stopped putting further investment in.
OneWeb wasn’t a UK government asset that the Tories “sold off”
It was a virtually bankrupt private company that the Tories *invested* in because they saw the strategic value of the capabilities
And IIRC were massively criticised on here for being idiots and wasting money.
The UK's stake in Oneweb was initially 38% aiui, which was subsequently gradually reduced to the current number of ~11% (plus a Golden Share) as the UK Government did not invest in further funding rounds, and a merger into Eutelsat, and a further baillout after a crisis.
Which I think is consonant with what I said .
IIRC I argued in support of the OneWeb investment - a good but high risk / high reward decision.
The way you phrased it implied a decision to sell down. Quite the contrast: the government used our capital strategically and got OneWeb to the point it could get outside funding. Governments shouldn’t, as a whole, be investing for a financial return
With Rawnsley away, today's sunny super Sunday Hardman:
Cutting disability benefits is not just a “for instance” hypothetical, though: it is something that the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is very likely to announce in the next few weeks. [Which will not] sit well for a Labour party that has always struggled to feel comfortable with any kind of welfare cut, even if the public is entirely supportive.
Some of them are now additionally fatigued by the recent cut to international development spending, another policy area that often forms part of a Labour MP’s identity and values. Its MPs have often been drawn into politics to protect people from benefit cuts – particularly the cuts announced in the Tory austerity measures over the past 14 years – and have spent far less time thinking about the overall bill.
Still, few of them will speak out in public against the cuts when they are announced, other than those who have long been outspoken, like Diane Abbott. “Privately, lots of people are raging,” says one MP, but another who is also unhappy about the spending cuts thus far and fearful of what is to come suggests that there will be “very little pushback”. Starmer and colleagues have been busy doing as much outreach as they can to prevent the disappointment mounting too quickly.
Some of the MPs who are particularly opposed to the cuts also happen to be very annoyed with Starmer and Reeves, and quite hopeful that they may be able to remove the former. They won’t speak out because they are biding their time until that bath does overflow and there is a flood of resentment in the wider Labour party that they can then take advantage of. So don’t be deceived if the party seems relatively peaceful and united over the next few months. The tap is still dripping.
That’s not true. There is plenty of other evidence. The deaths and other serous events were when Letby was on duty. She was observed failing to act when a baby was ill, and observed acting suspiciously around another baby. She stole their medical records, kept them at home and claimed she’d been unable to securely dispose of them despite possessing a paper shredder. There are the initials in her diary that match key dates. There are her notes to herself that talk of guilt. There was other evidence that the deaths were unnatural.
Nurses take notes home all the time. They shouldn’t, but they do. (I bet intensive care nurses stopped taking notes home after the Letby case though, once they realised it could be used against them.) The notes to herself about guilt are ones the therapist appointed to her by her employer told her to make apparently.
According to sources I’ve seen, it was standard practice in the neonatal department to not “rush to intervene” with a crashing baby (in case you made things worse presumably) but to stand by at first, so that doesn’t really count either.
This is the thing with the Letby case, it’s a pile of suspicious sounding stories that sound like clear evidence of her guilt /if/ you think she’s already guilty. If not? They evaporate into thin air.
The only hard evidence is the insulin poisoning & if that fails, it seems to me that everything else fails with it.
57% of Tory members say Kemi Badenoch should still lead the party into the next GE but if they could vote in the leadership election again 41.1% would vote for Jenrick and 41% for Badenoch
Nurses take notes home all the time. They shouldn’t, but they do. (I bet intensive care nurses stopped taking notes home after the Letby case though, once they realised it could be used against them.) The notes to herself about guilt are ones the therapist appointed to her by her employer told her to make apparently.
According to sources I’ve seen, it was standard practice in the neonatal department to not “rush to intervene” with a crashing baby (in case you made things worse presumably) but to stand by at first, so that doesn’t really count either.
This is the thing with the Letby case, it’s a pile of suspicious sounding stories that sound like clear evidence of her guilt /if/ you think she’s already guilty. If not? They evaporate into thin air.
The only hard evidence is the insulin poisoning & if that fails, it seems to me that everything else fails with it.
Nurses don’t usually take home the notes of babies that died and stash them under the bed and then lie about not being able to dispose of them.
A therapist told her to write about her feelings. The therapist did NOT tell her to confess to baby murders in those notes. What she wrote in those notes was up to her.
I don’t know what nonsense you’ve come up with around desaturating infants, but, no, you don’t just stand there.
You ignored other points I had noted. There was the time the mother of Baby E described hearing her infant scream, and walking in to find him with blood around his mouth and Letby in the room. Baby E later died. There is the other evidence that the deaths were unexpected and unnatural. There is the association between these deaths and Letby being on duty. And so on.
With Rawnsley away, today's sunny super Sunday Hardman:
Cutting disability benefits is not just a “for instance” hypothetical, though: it is something that the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is very likely to announce in the next few weeks. [Which will not] sit well for a Labour party that has always struggled to feel comfortable with any kind of welfare cut, even if the public is entirely supportive.
Some of them are now additionally fatigued by the recent cut to international development spending, another policy area that often forms part of a Labour MP’s identity and values. Its MPs have often been drawn into politics to protect people from benefit cuts – particularly the cuts announced in the Tory austerity measures over the past 14 years – and have spent far less time thinking about the overall bill.
Still, few of them will speak out in public against the cuts when they are announced, other than those who have long been outspoken, like Diane Abbott. “Privately, lots of people are raging,” says one MP, but another who is also unhappy about the spending cuts thus far and fearful of what is to come suggests that there will be “very little pushback”. Starmer and colleagues have been busy doing as much outreach as they can to prevent the disappointment mounting too quickly.
Some of the MPs who are particularly opposed to the cuts also happen to be very annoyed with Starmer and Reeves, and quite hopeful that they may be able to remove the former. They won’t speak out because they are biding their time until that bath does overflow and there is a flood of resentment in the wider Labour party that they can then take advantage of. So don’t be deceived if the party seems relatively peaceful and united over the next few months. The tap is still dripping.
A lot of Labour MPs are better at spending other people's money than they are at raising it, and as we are already borrowing at a reckless rate, and this is bound to increase, just objecting to cuts won't do.
It's also the case that the sense that a lot of people are either gaming the benefit system, or the benefit systems is gaming itself, is very strong, and the figures back that up.
But the Chancellor, if she had any sense, would announce immediate plans which were easily understood by less well off workers (of whom there are millions, and Labour exists to be their voice) for increasing the tax take from the better off, including the super rich, as well as benefit cuts and and shift in the balance of carrot and stick for the more egregious benefits junkies.
That’s not true. There is plenty of other evidence. The deaths and other serous events were when Letby was on duty. She was observed failing to act when a baby was ill, and observed acting suspiciously around another baby. She stole their medical records, kept them at home and claimed she’d been unable to securely dispose of them despite possessing a paper shredder. There are the initials in her diary that match key dates. There are her notes to herself that talk of guilt. There was other evidence that the deaths were unnatural.
Nurses take notes home all the time. They shouldn’t, but they do. (I bet intensive care nurses stopped taking notes home after the Letby case though, once they realised it could be used against them.) The notes to herself about guilt are ones the therapist appointed to her by her employer told her to make apparently.
According to sources I’ve seen, it was standard practice in the neonatal department to not “rush to intervene” with a crashing baby (in case you made things worse presumably) but to stand by at first, so that doesn’t really count either.
This is the thing with the Letby case, it’s a pile of suspicious sounding stories that sound like clear evidence of her guilt /if/ you think she’s already guilty. If not? They evaporate into thin air.
The only hard evidence is the insulin poisoning & if that fails, it seems to me that everything else fails with it.
A link to “sources I’ve seen” please
That’s doesn’t sound like a typical policy for helping a crashing patient when time is of the essence
Total hell in Donetsk region. Russia keeps attacking civilians nonstop. After bombarding Dobropillia, they dropped 5 bombs on Kostiantynivka. At least 20 civilians killed in just one day - March 7. https://x.com/maria_avdv/status/1898343856887701659
The Russian Reach: Series Introduction "...Peter Zeihan introduces a video series titled "The Russian Reach," which explores Russia's influence over the U.S. government and its policies. He expresses concern over recent U.S. policy changes that he believes cannot be explained by traditional theories, suggesting a more sinister manipulation at play. He highlights the suspension of military aid to Ukraine by the Trump administration as a significant issue, arguing that it undermines U.S. national security. Furthermore, he discusses the imposition of tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, which he believes will devastate American manufacturing and lead to higher food inflation. He criticizes the Trump administration's approach to federal employment, noting that the firing of essential staff has compromised the government's ability to ensure safety and security. He warns that the disassembly of American power and security structures appears to benefit Russian interests, raising the possibility of their infiltration within the White House. He concludes with a sense of urgency, indicating that he is genuinely worried about the future of the United States..." - AI summary via https://www.semrush.com/contentshake/summary-generator/
But we're discussing the spending/revenue raising status quo. The past few years has seen events that have thrown these oft discussed plans into the shredder - Covid / Ukraine / Financial crises. So we all may have favourite strategies for our favourite elected (or unelected) politicians but we do need to account for the unforeseen. Even if it a understanding between the main parties.
Total hell in Donetsk region. Russia keeps attacking civilians nonstop. After bombarding Dobropillia, they dropped 5 bombs on Kostiantynivka. At least 20 civilians killed in just one day - March 7. https://x.com/maria_avdv/status/1898343856887701659
Trump was slighted by Ukraine. In his mind.
So umpteen Ukrainian civilians can justifieably be killed. In his mind.
"Cash plays an important role in the proper functioning of the economy. Euro banknotes and coins are the only legal tender in the euro area and the only form of public money to which everyone has access. As such, cash is key for the social inclusion of the most vulnerable groups who have limited access to new technologies. Cash also provides us with a means of payment if electronic payment systems are unavailable."
Reading between the lines, they seem to be suggesting it's being abused.
Not sure I see that but the truth is the number of SEN referrals has grown exponentially since Covid.
That has two immediate consequences - first, the availability of professionals (especially Educational Psychologists) to carry out assessments and the consequent increase in workload. Second, the ability of County and Unitary Councils to manage the increased requirement for SEN accommodation at schools.
The latter is a direct drain on the capital budget of councils and prevents work on improvements in other aspects of the portfolio while the former requires spending and investment at colleges and elsewhere to increase the number of qualified professionals to manage the increased assessment numbers.
Meanwhile Trump tells the Spectator Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre's '...biggest problem is he’s not a MAGA guy, you know? I mean, he’s really not he’s not a Trump guy at all.' Which ironically might boost Poilievre in Canada
Nurses take notes home all the time. They shouldn’t, but they do. (I bet intensive care nurses stopped taking notes home after the Letby case though, once they realised it could be used against them.) The notes to herself about guilt are ones the therapist appointed to her by her employer told her to make apparently.
According to sources I’ve seen, it was standard practice in the neonatal department to not “rush to intervene” with a crashing baby (in case you made things worse presumably) but to stand by at first, so that doesn’t really count either.
This is the thing with the Letby case, it’s a pile of suspicious sounding stories that sound like clear evidence of her guilt /if/ you think she’s already guilty. If not? They evaporate into thin air.
The only hard evidence is the insulin poisoning & if that fails, it seems to me that everything else fails with it.
Nurses don’t usually take home the notes of babies that died and stash them under the bed and then lie about not being able to dispose of them.
A therapist told her to write about her feelings. The therapist did NOT tell her to confess to baby murders in those notes. What she wrote in those notes was up to her.
I don’t know what nonsense you’ve come up with around desaturating infants, but, no, you don’t just stand there.
You ignored other points I had noted. There was the time the mother of Baby E described hearing her infant scream, and walking in to find him with blood around his mouth and Letby in the room. Baby E later died. There is the other evidence that the deaths were unexpected and unnatural. There is the association between these deaths and Letby being on duty. And so on.
The association between the deaths and Letby being on duty is because the prosecution dropped deaths when Letby was not on duty. They drew the target around the holes, as it were.
Rather than bricks in the wall of evidence, the case seems to be made of Swiss cheese after statisticians have demolished the statistical case and the international Shoo Lee commission did the same for the medical case. It is not even clear there were any excess deaths at all compared to similar trusts.
Total hell in Donetsk region. Russia keeps attacking civilians nonstop. After bombarding Dobropillia, they dropped 5 bombs on Kostiantynivka. At least 20 civilians killed in just one day - March 7. https://x.com/maria_avdv/status/1898343856887701659
Trump was slighted by Ukraine. In his mind.
So umpteen Ukrainian civilians can justifieably be killed. In his mind.
Trump's ego is a horrible, horrible thing.
And there are ostensibly not horrible people who agree those deaths are Ukraines and Zelenskys fault.
Meanwhile Trump tells the Spectator Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre's '...biggest problem is he’s not a MAGA guy, you know? I mean, he’s really not he’s not a Trump guy at all.' Which ironically might boost Poilievre in Canada
Meanwhile Trump tells the Spectator Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre's '...biggest problem is he’s not a MAGA guy, you know? I mean, he’s really not he’s not a Trump guy at all.' Which ironically might boost Poilievre in Canada
Although incredibly rare, it is possible to become prime minister without having a seat in the House of Commons. Out of Canada’s 23 prime ministers, just five have done so.
Incredibly rare? 5/23 is just under a quarter. Journalism these days…
Nurses take notes home all the time. They shouldn’t, but they do. (I bet intensive care nurses stopped taking notes home after the Letby case though, once they realised it could be used against them.) The notes to herself about guilt are ones the therapist appointed to her by her employer told her to make apparently.
According to sources I’ve seen, it was standard practice in the neonatal department to not “rush to intervene” with a crashing baby (in case you made things worse presumably) but to stand by at first, so that doesn’t really count either.
This is the thing with the Letby case, it’s a pile of suspicious sounding stories that sound like clear evidence of her guilt /if/ you think she’s already guilty. If not? They evaporate into thin air.
The only hard evidence is the insulin poisoning & if that fails, it seems to me that everything else fails with it.
Nurses don’t usually take home the notes of babies that died and stash them under the bed and then lie about not being able to dispose of them.
A therapist told her to write about her feelings. The therapist did NOT tell her to confess to baby murders in those notes. What she wrote in those notes was up to her.
I don’t know what nonsense you’ve come up with around desaturating infants, but, no, you don’t just stand there.
You ignored other points I had noted. There was the time the mother of Baby E described hearing her infant scream, and walking in to find him with blood around his mouth and Letby in the room. Baby E later died. There is the other evidence that the deaths were unexpected and unnatural. There is the association between these deaths and Letby being on duty. And so on.
The association between the deaths and Letby being on duty is because the prosecution dropped deaths when Letby was not on duty. They drew the target around the holes, as it were.
Rather than bricks in the wall of evidence, the case seems to be made of Swiss cheese after statisticians have demolished the statistical case and the international Shoo Lee commission did the same for the medical case. It is not even clear there were any excess deaths at all compared to similar trusts.
Then I am sure that the defence would have had a really good reason for not presenting this devastating evidence before she was convicted
Nurses take notes home all the time. They shouldn’t, but they do. (I bet intensive care nurses stopped taking notes home after the Letby case though, once they realised it could be used against them.) The notes to herself about guilt are ones the therapist appointed to her by her employer told her to make apparently.
According to sources I’ve seen, it was standard practice in the neonatal department to not “rush to intervene” with a crashing baby (in case you made things worse presumably) but to stand by at first, so that doesn’t really count either.
This is the thing with the Letby case, it’s a pile of suspicious sounding stories that sound like clear evidence of her guilt /if/ you think she’s already guilty. If not? They evaporate into thin air.
The only hard evidence is the insulin poisoning & if that fails, it seems to me that everything else fails with it.
Nurses don’t usually take home the notes of babies that died and stash them under the bed and then lie about not being able to dispose of them.
A therapist told her to write about her feelings. The therapist did NOT tell her to confess to baby murders in those notes. What she wrote in those notes was up to her.
I don’t know what nonsense you’ve come up with around desaturating infants, but, no, you don’t just stand there.
You ignored other points I had noted. There was the time the mother of Baby E described hearing her infant scream, and walking in to find him with blood around his mouth and Letby in the room. Baby E later died. There is the other evidence that the deaths were unexpected and unnatural. There is the association between these deaths and Letby being on duty. And so on.
The association between the deaths and Letby being on duty is because the prosecution dropped deaths when Letby was not on duty. They drew the target around the holes, as it were.
Rather than bricks in the wall of evidence, the case seems to be made of Swiss cheese after statisticians have demolished the statistical case and the international Shoo Lee commission did the same for the medical case. It is not even clear there were any excess deaths at all compared to similar trusts.
If it were that obviously made up and demolished there'd be a lot more outrage going on than there is, ive seen counter arguments (including changing defence arguments) there so even if its correct and should be looked into it again the sheer confidence it was a fix undermines my trust in the argument. I also dont understand the purporyed motivation to find a single person to blame, the assumption seems to be a lot of people are randomly monsters worh an interest in condemning one person to spare a trust.
Again, trials make mistakes, but this case seems to have people believing some pretty startling things did not get brought up, and that its 100% clear theres a conspiracy here.
Meanwhile Trump tells the Spectator Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre's '...biggest problem is he’s not a MAGA guy, you know? I mean, he’s really not he’s not a Trump guy at all.' Which ironically might boost Poilievre in Canada
Meanwhile Trump tells the Spectator Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre's '...biggest problem is he’s not a MAGA guy, you know? I mean, he’s really not he’s not a Trump guy at all.' Which ironically might boost Poilievre in Canada
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/c1lv2p7nnmzt
In general I agree with you however.
Strangely Trump himself is probably the least isolationist of the bunch but he has other, massive, hangups.
https://phillipspobrien.substack.com/p/weekend-update-123-part-2-a-european
Radios that worked for tanks and planes, insane numbers of trucks, *all* the super octane aviation fuel the USSR had. Etc etc
Quite a few historians make the mistake of potatoes=fighter aircraft - the value of the aid wasn’t in strict GDP terms but in terms of capabilities the USSR wouldn’t have had otherwise.
They have got support from North Korea, of course.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/10/18/insulin-tests-convict-letby-cannot-be-relied-upon/
Personally I would see that as beyond reasonable doubt. Particularly in the context of other findings.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-63808514
It's pretending that you can be arrested for "supporting Palestine", whilst it looks like potential arrest for breaching the conditions attached to a particular pro-Palestinian demonstration in Central London, where "supporting Palestine" is the quoted identifier of participation in that demonstration.
It's similar in approach to Leon's and the Right's BS about "arrested for posting to Facebook" as a supposed basis for their allegations of "Two Tier Policing", when the actual arrest is for inciting Mosques to be burnt down with the people still inside them, using Facebook as a communication channel.
And how, practically, would we pull that off? Invite the US Air Force to depart from their bases here?
And some will suggest caution in doing so as Trump will not be around forever, but I think that misses the point - that one of the governing parties is now a supporter of Russia over its old allies means the rest of us cannot take the chance of them returning to that situation, even if in 4-8 years or whatever they seek to reset.
Everything that can be done has to be done in order to keep the UK and its actual allies safe.
Five Eyes, NATO, other arrangements, they may not be dead, but they will become zombie arrangements in due course.
He's just sent the cadaverous Healy over to DC use his supernova charisma on Hegseth and assure him that it's business as usual.
(When we discussed this last year, I said at the time that the insulin evidence was the deciding factor that made her most likely to be guilty in my mind & my concerns were about the (ab)use of statistics during the trial. If the insulin evidence cannot be relied on, then I think we have to accept that Letby is most likely an innocent victim of a witch hunt carried out with the best of intentions by her own employer & then later Dewi Evans in cahoots with the police & CPS.)
Trump is a disaster for the US.
But I'm more concerned about our leaders avoiding being collateral damage.
All of this was entirely predictable and predicted. By me!
Isolationists can usually understand the interests of the USA, so would perhaps be reflecting on how withdrawing from the world will bring the front lines that much closer, and will leave the USA with no support from former allies they have, under Trump, deliberately undermined.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/mar/09/english-councils-spending-twice-as-much-on-send-pupil-transport-as-fixing-roads
I'm not convinced they'd be greatly different from just getting rid of the jury altogether, and having the judge (or judges) decide.
I don't much like the idea.
https://kyivindependent.com/putins-black-sea-residence-demolished-due-to-safety-concerns-russian-media-reports/
It was quite a big house, that reportedly cost just under $1 billion to build. I'm not quite sure of the BBC's description of "voluptuous decor", which sounds like he had 27 pumped up TikTok influencers installed, as opposed to - for example - "French Widows in Every Room" as would be done by Waki-Taki-Fuckalotofus (formerly of the Spectator).
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56007943
Yes there was dead wood to cut in local government, but SEND and social care costs are driving them into the ground - and that even has impacts democratically, since many are left which virtually no choices about what they can do in their areas.
Building a structure to defend Europe, which is urgent, and can't be put off, is far more important. If we do that, the exact status of the US becomes less important anyway.
I assume they did on the former because politicians love creating new elected positions, and on the former because most of the areas remaining are not big Labour areas.
Judges and lawyers are about the law.
Juries are about justice.
Those are not the same
https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/news/5960168
Also I think Ontario and Namibia.
I think OneWeb has its basic network in place, but the satellite factory is still in Florida. It's a good job the Tories did not sell all of it off, but essentially just stopped putting further investment in.
Their drone tech, for example, is pretty well equivalent to that used by Ukraine.
https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
The Yarvin article I quoted above provides a good example. I doubt many Trump voters would question this economic illiteracy:
...Europe has a trade surplus with the US, which means that cutting off trade with Europe would by definition grow the US economy...
It was a virtually bankrupt private company that the Tories *invested* in because they saw the strategic value of the capabilities
And IIRC were massively criticised on here for being idiots and wasting money.
In WW2 this was the USA:
427,284 trucks, 13,303 combat vehicles, 14,000 airplanes, 8,000 tractors, 13,000 tanks.
4.5 million tons of food, 2.7 million tons of petroleum products, 15 million pairs of army boots, 1.5 million blankets, 107,000 tons of cotton
Plus the UK examples (which gets even more forgotten):
Equipment: 5,218 tanks, 7,411 aircraft
Supplies: Raw materials, foodstuffs, machinery, industrial plant, medical supplies, hospital equipment
There will be a Mark Felton about it somewhere. We invaded Iran in cooperation with the USSR to create a southern supply route from the Indian Ocean.
The combat drones are, like the Ukrainian ones, of largely commercial Chinese components.
And they probably produce more of them. Though their use seems a bit less sophisticated.
In any event, it proved somewhat fortuitous.
https://www.ft.com/content/1503a69e-13e4-4ee8-9d05-b9ce1f7cc89e
...“The problem with really sophisticated defence equipment is that [it needs] so much support from the vendor, that if the vendor decides to stop supporting [it], the equipment stops working, if not instantaneously then very, very quickly,” said Tusa.
“Europe’s reliance on the US, meanwhile, has been rising, with America accounting for 55 per cent of Europe’s defence equipment imports between 2019 and 2023 — up from 35 per cent in the previous five years, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.”..
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-pary-leadership-winner-1.7476359
Meanwhile Trump tells the Spectator Conservative Party of Canada leader Pierre Poilievre's '...biggest problem is he’s not a MAGA guy, you know? I mean, he’s really not he’s not a Trump guy at all.' Which ironically might boost Poilievre in Canada
https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/trump-calls-freeland-a-whack-and-poilievre-not-a-maga-guy
https://thespectator.com/topic/spectator-interview-president-donald-trump-full-transcript/
Which I think is consonant with what I said
IIRC I argued in support of the OneWeb investment - a good but high risk / high reward decision.
After all it would 'by definition' grow the US economy.
(When we discussed this last year, I said at the time that the insulin evidence was the deciding factor that made her most likely to be guilty in my mind & my concerns were about the (ab)use of statistics during the trial. If the insulin evidence cannot be relied on, then I think we have to accept that Letby is most likely an innocent victim of a witch hunt carried out with the best of intentions by her own employer & then later Dewi Evans in cahoots with the police & CPS.)
That’s not true. There is plenty of other evidence. The deaths and other serous events were when Letby was on duty. She was observed failing to act when a baby was ill, and observed acting suspiciously around another baby. She stole their medical records, kept them at home and claimed she’d been unable to securely dispose of them despite possessing a paper shredder. There are the initials in her diary that match key dates. There are her notes to herself that talk of guilt. There was other evidence that the deaths were unnatural.
Yes, it's mumsnet, but a little view into safety and availability of services.
https://www.countycouncilsnetwork.org.uk/councils-call-for-reform-of-send-school-transport-services-as-costs-double-for-local-authorities-in-county-areas-over-the-last-five-years/
Reading between the lines, they seem to be suggesting it's being abused.
Block quotes are broken. In that last post, everything from “That’s not true” is me. Sorry for the confusion.
One other question WRT jury trials. Would there be any merit in giving defendants in Crown Court trials the right to elect trial by judge sitting alone if they wish, while preserving the absolute right to trial by jury?
I can imagine case - and Letby may be one - where the mixture of the need for technical evidence which most juries will struggle with + the prejudicial atmosphere of a baby murder charge mean that this could serve the defndant and justice better than a jury.
David Frum
@davidfrum
·
20h
MAGA 2017: "Trump-Russia is a hoax and a slur."
MAGA 2025: "Trump-Russia is the basis for our foreign policy and anybody who doesn't agree should be primaried out of the party."
https://x.com/davidfrum
Phew. Thought for a second you'd had an overnight brain and persona transplant.
"Moving to the US - Am I bonkers?"
It went up to 876 replies
https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/5270394-moving-to-the-us-am-i-bonkers?page=1
Cutting disability benefits is not just a “for instance” hypothetical, though: it is something that the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, is very likely to announce in the next few weeks. [Which will not] sit well for a Labour party that has always struggled to feel comfortable with any kind of welfare cut, even if the public is entirely supportive.
Some of them are now additionally fatigued by the recent cut to international development spending, another policy area that often forms part of a Labour MP’s identity and values. Its MPs have often been drawn into politics to protect people from benefit cuts – particularly the cuts announced in the Tory austerity measures over the past 14 years – and have spent far less time thinking about the overall bill.
Still, few of them will speak out in public against the cuts when they are announced, other than those who have long been outspoken, like Diane Abbott. “Privately, lots of people are raging,” says one MP, but another who is also unhappy about the spending cuts thus far and fearful of what is to come suggests that there will be “very little pushback”. Starmer and colleagues have been busy doing as much outreach as they can to prevent the disappointment mounting too quickly.
Some of the MPs who are particularly opposed to the cuts also happen to be very annoyed with Starmer and Reeves, and quite hopeful that they may be able to remove the former. They won’t speak out because they are biding their time until that bath does overflow and there is a flood of resentment in the wider Labour party that they can then take advantage of. So don’t be deceived if the party seems relatively peaceful and united over the next few months. The tap is still dripping.
According to sources I’ve seen, it was standard practice in the neonatal department to not “rush to intervene” with a crashing baby (in case you made things worse presumably) but to stand by at first, so that doesn’t really count either.
This is the thing with the Letby case, it’s a pile of suspicious sounding stories that sound like clear evidence of her guilt /if/ you think she’s already guilty. If not? They evaporate into thin air.
The only hard evidence is the insulin poisoning & if that fails, it seems to me that everything else fails with it.
If war ends before 2029-2030, Russia could redirect military resources toward Europe much sooner than expected, he added
https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1898420449840652663
https://conservativehome.com/2025/03/09/our-survey-if-voting-today-conservative-members-would-just-choose-jenrick-as-leader/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Sunday 9th March 2025&utm_content=Sunday 9th March 2025+CID_ff8ad46f390363d27619434a11f8f4dc&utm_source=Daily Email&utm_term=Our survey If voting today Conservative members would just choose Jenrick as leader
A therapist told her to write about her feelings. The therapist did NOT tell her to confess to baby murders in those notes. What she wrote in those notes was up to her.
I don’t know what nonsense you’ve come up with around desaturating infants, but, no, you don’t just stand there.
You ignored other points I had noted. There was the time the mother of Baby E described hearing her infant scream, and walking in to find him with blood around his mouth and Letby in the room. Baby E later died. There is the other evidence that the deaths were unexpected and unnatural. There is the association between these deaths and Letby being on duty. And so on.
It's also the case that the sense that a lot of people are either gaming the benefit system, or the benefit systems is gaming itself, is very strong, and the figures back that up.
But the Chancellor, if she had any sense, would announce immediate plans which were easily understood by less well off workers (of whom there are millions, and Labour exists to be their voice) for increasing the tax take from the better off, including the super rich, as well as benefit cuts and and shift in the balance of carrot and stick for the more egregious benefits junkies.
That’s doesn’t sound like a typical policy for helping a crashing patient when time is of the essence
Total hell in Donetsk region. Russia keeps attacking civilians nonstop. After bombarding Dobropillia, they dropped 5 bombs on Kostiantynivka. At least 20 civilians killed in just one day - March 7.
https://x.com/maria_avdv/status/1898343856887701659
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGFKwshHjWQ (19 mins)
The Russian Reach: Series Introduction
"...Peter Zeihan introduces a video series titled "The Russian Reach," which explores Russia's influence over the U.S. government and its policies. He expresses concern over recent U.S. policy changes that he believes cannot be explained by traditional theories, suggesting a more sinister manipulation at play. He highlights the suspension of military aid to Ukraine by the Trump administration as a significant issue, arguing that it undermines U.S. national security. Furthermore, he discusses the imposition of tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico, which he believes will devastate American manufacturing and lead to higher food inflation. He criticizes the Trump administration's approach to federal employment, noting that the firing of essential staff has compromised the government's ability to ensure safety and security. He warns that the disassembly of American power and security structures appears to benefit Russian interests, raising the possibility of their infiltration within the White House. He concludes with a sense of urgency, indicating that he is genuinely worried about the future of the United States..." - AI summary via https://www.semrush.com/contentshake/summary-generator/
So umpteen Ukrainian civilians can justifieably be killed. In his mind.
Trump's ego is a horrible, horrible thing.
"Cash plays an important role in the proper functioning of the economy. Euro banknotes and coins are the only legal tender in the euro area and the only form of public money to which everyone has access. As such, cash is key for the social inclusion of the most vulnerable groups who have limited access to new technologies. Cash also provides us with a means of payment if electronic payment systems are unavailable."
https://www.bde.es/wbe/en/areas-actuacion/billetes-monedas/
That has two immediate consequences - first, the availability of professionals (especially Educational Psychologists) to carry out assessments and the consequent increase in workload. Second, the ability of County and Unitary Councils to manage the increased requirement for SEN accommodation at schools.
The latter is a direct drain on the capital budget of councils and prevents work on improvements in other aspects of the portfolio while the former requires spending and investment at colleges and elsewhere to increase the number of qualified professionals to manage the increased assessment numbers.
I don’t really get the appeal of Carney though. I assume he wins easily as the other contenders barely get mentioned.
Rather than bricks in the wall of evidence, the case seems to be made of Swiss cheese after statisticians have demolished the statistical case and the international Shoo Lee commission did the same for the medical case. It is not even clear there were any excess deaths at all compared to similar trusts.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/liberal-leadership/article/does-canadas-next-prime-minister-need-to-be-a-member-of-parliament/
Incredibly rare? 5/23 is just under a quarter. Journalism these days…
Again, trials make mistakes, but this case seems to have people believing some pretty startling things did not get brought up, and that its 100% clear theres a conspiracy here.
In Canada the real MAGA leader is Maxime Bernier, the People's Party of Canada leader, though his party is only polling about 2%