I’m trying to make the best of it, stiff upper lip etc
I spent the afternoon today with a colleague from the US I assumed was American but turned out to be Uruguayan (she has a Germanic surname). Her and her husband massive rugby fans, big Tannat drinkers of course, and we had an interesting discussion about why Uruguay is so much richer and more developed than most of Latin America including its neighbour Argentina.
Her theory that there’s just been significantly less of the sort of kleptocratic bad governance and ideological rollercoaster its neighbours experienced throughout the 20th century and that has given it the stability to progress gently without major setbacks.
I do wonder if there is an optimum size for countries.
The countries which tend to top league tables are often in the 5m to 10m range.
Perhaps above that size governments become overly large to effectively control and too distant from the people.
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
No need to deport people if they don't enter America in the first place!
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
I am not particularly wedded to Letby's innocence or guilt. I don't know.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
Letby wasn't keeping her own notes. She took hospital paper records home, stashed them under her bed and, when quizzed on this, said she meant to get rid of them but didn't have any way of doing that at home... except it turned out she had a paper shredder.
I own a paper shredder. What are you going to accuse me of?
Which highlights the issue really well. Owning a paper shredder is not, in any way, evidence of a crime.
Letby, in court, said she had no way of destroying paper records (to explain records being stashed under her bed). Yet a paper shredder was found in her house. That suggests she lied. Lying can establish a pattern of behaviour. If she lied, then that undermines her explanation for something else suspicious.
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
No need to deport people if they don't enter America in the first place!
I would actually like to know what the normal rate for getting pulled and turned around at US borders is from "safe countries" like Germany.
Three in a 2-3 weeks, if somebody asked me what the normal rate was, I would have thought higher than that to be honest. Just like the one German still detained, there is always going to be idiots who have committed crimes in the US, apply for a visa (who knows if they were honest about criminal record on the application), then despite being awarded a new visa upon arrival the system flags them.
Same with people arriving to work without a work visa or an incorrect visa / had previously used a visa that barred them from future work in the US for a set period (there is quite a common one used for internships that bars the individual for 2 years to seek work in the US).
Some Canadian journalist is obviously competing for the stupidest question award, asking Mark Carney if he will reimburse the state for the cost of his government flight to Europe because he’s unelected:
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
I am not particularly wedded to Letby's innocence or guilt. I don't know.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
Letby wasn't keeping her own notes. She took hospital paper records home, stashed them under her bed and, when quizzed on this, said she meant to get rid of them but didn't have any way of doing that at home... except it turned out she had a paper shredder.
I own a paper shredder. What are you going to accuse me of?
Which highlights the issue really well. Owning a paper shredder is not, in any way, evidence of a crime.
Letby, in court, said she had no way of destroying paper records (to explain records being stashed under her bed). Yet a paper shredder was found in her house. That suggests she lied. Lying can establish a pattern of behaviour. If she lied, then that undermines her explanation for something else suspicious.
Destroying Medical records, particularly in relation to infant deaths would be quite an offence. These is a statutory duty to retain them for 30 years.
If she had inadvertently taken them home (in itself a major breach of record keeping) then they should have been returned as soon as she was aware. It would have been simple to put them in the internal hospital mail for filing in the correct folder.
I visited my old university campus today for the first time in ages, and it looked like it was about 70% women. Maybe that's a bit of an overestimate for some reason.
I visited my old university campus today for the first time in ages, and it looked like it was about 70% women. Maybe that's a bit of an overestimate for some reason.
Not unusual. Women do better academically than males, pretty much across the board.
I visited my old university campus today for the first time in ages, and it looked like it was about 70% women. Maybe that's a bit of an overestimate for some reason.
That wouldn't be the least bit surprising. Being a bully usually works, and with a President willing to use and/or abuse his power very directly, people who never thought they would might well roll over.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
I am not particularly wedded to Letby's innocence or guilt. I don't know.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
Letby wasn't keeping her own notes. She took hospital paper records home, stashed them under her bed and, when quizzed on this, said she meant to get rid of them but didn't have any way of doing that at home... except it turned out she had a paper shredder.
I own a paper shredder. What are you going to accuse me of?
Which highlights the issue really well. Owning a paper shredder is not, in any way, evidence of a crime.
Letby, in court, said she had no way of destroying paper records (to explain records being stashed under her bed). Yet a paper shredder was found in her house. That suggests she lied. Lying can establish a pattern of behaviour. If she lied, then that undermines her explanation for something else suspicious.
Destroying Medical records, particularly in relation to infant deaths would be quite an offence. These is a statutory duty to retain them for 30 years.
If she had inadvertently taken them home (in itself a major breach of record keeping) then they should have been returned as soon as she was aware. It would have been simple to put them in the internal hospital mail for filing in the correct folder.
I seem to recall someone of this parish posted, last time this was discussed, that nurses took records home all the time which highly odd to me.
This evening a backbench Labour MP tabled an amendment to a PMB promoted by that MP which, if passed, rips up the founding legislation of the NHS and gives Henry VIII powers to a Minister to do anything which can be done by an Act of Parliament but without any scrutiny or voting at all. One of the provisions of the Bill allows private providers to make profits from providing the new service the Bill refers to but gives them complete immunity from any civil litigation, no matter how negligent those providers might be. Guaranteed profits and complete immunity from accountability. How marvellous!
Perhaps those MPs worried about a lack of accountability might turn their attention to what is happening in this Bill? Perhaps this forum might too?
But she's Jo Cox's sister. So one musn't criticise.
Seriously, though, this forum had been pretty uniformly appalled about the progress of this bill, even those who are sympathetic to the cause. Even if we talk about Trump and Brexit all the time. It's up to MPs now.
I am biased by being intrinsically opposed to the bill, but I cannot really see MPs changing their minds in significant numbers. For all the previous vote in parliament was presented as some kind of 'continue the debate' approach by some to get it over the line it seems pretty clear there is a decent majority in favour of the principle. And once you've taken such a firm stance it is not easy to change course.
Will MPs who have taken the big step to set out their stall on that principle then back down, and as we heard at the time risk never passing such a bill (I think that fear is overplayed to be honest), because of arguments over clauses and treatment of opponents of the principle in the committee process? Or will most, as proponents on the committee have, say that the changes have only strengthened the bill and most of the objections are people trying to wreck it? Or that remaining issues can be dealt with in regulations etc and the core of it is a worthy, nay, moral act to take now?
Serious question, why are political parties so bad at making clear who their candidates are in local elections? There are cases where I know candidates have been chosen ages ago, and actively campaigning long before the formal period for putting in nominations, and yet it's usually impossible to discover this online.
Not on local party websites (if they exist they are usually effectively dead and rarely updated), not on party Facebook pages (which are usually a little more active).
Even if they are relying on physical campaigning alone so I living outside the ward don't need to know, it seems like it would be an hour's work to have a page somewhere, anywhere, to update with the names as you get them.
People like 'who can I vote for?' do their best to keep track, but it shouldn't be this hard.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
I am not particularly wedded to Letby's innocence or guilt. I don't know.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
Letby wasn't keeping her own notes. She took hospital paper records home, stashed them under her bed and, when quizzed on this, said she meant to get rid of them but didn't have any way of doing that at home... except it turned out she had a paper shredder.
I own a paper shredder. What are you going to accuse me of?
Which highlights the issue really well. Owning a paper shredder is not, in any way, evidence of a crime.
Letby, in court, said she had no way of destroying paper records (to explain records being stashed under her bed). Yet a paper shredder was found in her house. That suggests she lied. Lying can establish a pattern of behaviour. If she lied, then that undermines her explanation for something else suspicious.
Destroying Medical records, particularly in relation to infant deaths would be quite an offence. These is a statutory duty to retain them for 30 years.
If she had inadvertently taken them home (in itself a major breach of record keeping) then they should have been returned as soon as she was aware. It would have been simple to put them in the internal hospital mail for filing in the correct folder.
I seem to recall someone of this parish posted, last time this was discussed, that nurses took records home all the time which highly odd to me.
They were talking bollocks then. It's a serious disciplinary offence, and everyone knows it.
This evening a backbench Labour MP tabled an amendment to a PMB promoted by that MP which, if passed, rips up the founding legislation of the NHS and gives Henry VIII powers to a Minister to do anything which can be done by an Act of Parliament but without any scrutiny or voting at all. One of the provisions of the Bill allows private providers to make profits from providing the new service the Bill refers to but gives them complete immunity from any civil litigation, no matter how negligent those providers might be. Guaranteed profits and complete immunity from accountability. How marvellous!
Perhaps those MPs worried about a lack of accountability might turn their attention to what is happening in this Bill? Perhaps this forum might too?
But she's Jo Cox's sister. So one musn't criticise.
Seriously, though, this forum had been pretty uniformly appalled about the progress of this bill, even those who are sympathetic to the cause. Even if we talk about Trump and Brexit all the time. It's up to MPs now.
I am biased by being intrinsically opposed to the bill, but I cannot really see MPs changing their minds in significant numbers. For all the previous vote in parliament was presented as some kind of 'continue the debate' approach by some to get it over the line it seems pretty clear there is a decent majority in favour of the principle. And once you've taken such a firm stance it is not easy to change course.
Will MPs who have taken the big step to set out their stall on that principle then back down, and as we heard at the time risk never passing such a bill (I think that fear is overplayed to be honest), because of arguments over clauses and treatment of opponents of the principle in the committee process? Or will most, as proponents on the committee have, say that the changes have only strengthened the bill and most of the objections are people trying to wreck it? Or that remaining issues can be dealt with in regulations etc and the core of it is a worthy, nay, moral act to take now?
Hopefully the latter as is quite right.
There is quite a transparent desire from some here to grasp any figleaf to oppose the bill.
“The government does not run this country — politicians need to take back control”, @Jonathan_Hinder writes for @Politics_co_uk
The Labour MP goes on to question the role of the OBR, the ECHR, the Sentencing Council, even the Bank of England
I think Britain has been taken over by 1. Non-accountable Quangos 2. Non-accountable Lawyers 3. Non-accountable sub-contractors
Civic values and responsibilities have been privatised, overly-legalized, or assigned to faceless statutory bodies which are themselves stuffed with the politically naive.
This is all a manifestation of the neo-liberal era which started in 1979 and is now collapsing around our ears.
The same phenomenon is obvious in other countries, but I actually think Britain is the single worst example.
It has bugger all to do with 1979. It was Blair, pure and simple.
You always say this but never explain why. Let me guess, some rubbish about the Supreme Court again?
Have you compared the quango establishing under Thatcher and Major to what happened under Blair? These are matters of historical record - I don't see how there's a debate here.
Quangos are only one small element of Gardenwalker’s post though
This little mini-spat led me on an interesting voyage of discovery about quangos.
I had thought of them as a child of the 90s, really getting going under Major and continuing to grow under Blair before being culled in the coalition years.
Turns out the history is different. The number of quangos / non-departmental government bodies seems to have peaked in the 70s, and has been steadily falling under almost all governments since, including both Major and Blair. The proportion of public sector workers employed in these organisations on the other hand kept on rising until the mid-late 90s then tailed off.
Various sources: articles in FT, Guardian, institute fit govt papers, civil service articles etc.
So they’re really not a recent or growing thing, quite the reverse. Not a post-1979 neoliberal phenomenon, nor a Blair one.
If you continue to bring facts into the discussion, you will be facing the Ban Hammer, I'm afraid.
“The government does not run this country — politicians need to take back control”, @Jonathan_Hinder writes for @Politics_co_uk
The Labour MP goes on to question the role of the OBR, the ECHR, the Sentencing Council, even the Bank of England
I think Britain has been taken over by 1. Non-accountable Quangos 2. Non-accountable Lawyers 3. Non-accountable sub-contractors
Civic values and responsibilities have been privatised, overly-legalized, or assigned to faceless statutory bodies which are themselves stuffed with the politically naive.
This is all a manifestation of the neo-liberal era which started in 1979 and is now collapsing around our ears.
The same phenomenon is obvious in other countries, but I actually think Britain is the single worst example.
It has bugger all to do with 1979. It was Blair, pure and simple.
You always say this but never explain why. Let me guess, some rubbish about the Supreme Court again?
Have you compared the quango establishing under Thatcher and Major to what happened under Blair? These are matters of historical record - I don't see how there's a debate here.
Quangos are only one small element of Gardenwalker’s post though
This little mini-spat led me on an interesting voyage of discovery about quangos.
I had thought of them as a child of the 90s, really getting going under Major and continuing to grow under Blair before being culled in the coalition years.
Turns out the history is different. The number of quangos / non-departmental government bodies seems to have peaked in the 70s, and has been steadily falling under almost all governments since, including both Major and Blair. The proportion of public sector workers employed in these organisations on the other hand kept on rising until the mid-late 90s then tailed off.
Various sources: articles in FT, Guardian, institute fit govt papers, civil service articles etc.
So they’re really not a recent or growing thing, quite the reverse. Not a post-1979 neoliberal phenomenon, nor a Blair one.
If you continue to bring facts into the discussion, you will be facing the Ban Hammer, I'm afraid.
I visited my old university campus today for the first time in ages, and it looked like it was about 70% women. Maybe that's a bit of an overestimate for some reason.
Not unusual. Women do better academically than males, pretty much across the board.
Also, I've found they are better at getting out of bed in the morning.
Swedes leading the charge of countries that now basically hate America. Canada not far behind. Russians feeling a lot more positive now that Vlad's best friend is in the WHouse.
“The government does not run this country — politicians need to take back control”, @Jonathan_Hinder writes for @Politics_co_uk
The Labour MP goes on to question the role of the OBR, the ECHR, the Sentencing Council, even the Bank of England
I think Britain has been taken over by 1. Non-accountable Quangos 2. Non-accountable Lawyers 3. Non-accountable sub-contractors
Civic values and responsibilities have been privatised, overly-legalized, or assigned to faceless statutory bodies which are themselves stuffed with the politically naive.
This is all a manifestation of the neo-liberal era which started in 1979 and is now collapsing around our ears.
The same phenomenon is obvious in other countries, but I actually think Britain is the single worst example.
It has bugger all to do with 1979. It was Blair, pure and simple.
You always say this but never explain why. Let me guess, some rubbish about the Supreme Court again?
Have you compared the quango establishing under Thatcher and Major to what happened under Blair? These are matters of historical record - I don't see how there's a debate here.
Quangos are only one small element of Gardenwalker’s post though
This little mini-spat led me on an interesting voyage of discovery about quangos.
I had thought of them as a child of the 90s, really getting going under Major and continuing to grow under Blair before being culled in the coalition years.
Turns out the history is different. The number of quangos / non-departmental government bodies seems to have peaked in the 70s, and has been steadily falling under almost all governments since, including both Major and Blair. The proportion of public sector workers employed in these organisations on the other hand kept on rising until the mid-late 90s then tailed off.
Various sources: articles in FT, Guardian, institute fit govt papers, civil service articles etc.
So they’re really not a recent or growing thing, quite the reverse. Not a post-1979 neoliberal phenomenon, nor a Blair one.
Interesting information. In which case I suppose the question would be is an acceleration of that trend to remove or curtail them a good thing? Are the ones that remain with that status needing to keep that status to be useful?
Swedes leading the charge of countries that now basically hate America. Canada not far behind. Russians feeling a lot more positive now that Vlad's best friend is in the WHouse.
I’m trying to make the best of it, stiff upper lip etc
I spent the afternoon today with a colleague from the US I assumed was American but turned out to be Uruguayan (she has a Germanic surname). Her and her husband massive rugby fans, big Tannat drinkers of course, and we had an interesting discussion about why Uruguay is so much richer and more developed than most of Latin America including its neighbour Argentina.
Her theory that there’s just been significantly less of the sort of kleptocratic bad governance and ideological rollercoaster its neighbours experienced throughout the 20th century and that has given it the stability to progress gently without major setbacks.
I do wonder if there is an optimum size for countries.
The countries which tend to top league tables are often in the 5m to 10m range.
Perhaps above that size governments become overly large to effectively control and too distant from the people.
Swedes leading the charge of countries that now basically hate America. Canada not far behind. Russians feeling a lot more positive now that Vlad's best friend is in the WHouse.
Swedes leading the charge of countries that now basically hate America. Canada not far behind. Russians feeling a lot more positive now that Vlad's best friend is in the WHouse.
I visited my old university campus today for the first time in ages, and it looked like it was about 70% women. Maybe that's a bit of an overestimate for some reason.
I visited my old university campus today for the first time in ages, and it looked like it was about 70% women. Maybe that's a bit of an overestimate for some reason.
Not unusual. Women do better academically than males, pretty much across the board.
Also, I've found they are better at getting out of bed in the morning.
Only because they want to occupy the bathroom for an hour! No wonder us blokes are tardy.
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has fired the head of the nation's security service over its failure to anticipate the 7 October 2023 attack by Hamas.
The Israeli cabinet met on Thursday evening to formally approve the early dismissal of Ronen Bar, who was appointed in October 2021 for a five-year term as the Shin Bet's chief.
“The government does not run this country — politicians need to take back control”, @Jonathan_Hinder writes for @Politics_co_uk
The Labour MP goes on to question the role of the OBR, the ECHR, the Sentencing Council, even the Bank of England
I think Britain has been taken over by 1. Non-accountable Quangos 2. Non-accountable Lawyers 3. Non-accountable sub-contractors
Civic values and responsibilities have been privatised, overly-legalized, or assigned to faceless statutory bodies which are themselves stuffed with the politically naive.
This is all a manifestation of the neo-liberal era which started in 1979 and is now collapsing around our ears.
The same phenomenon is obvious in other countries, but I actually think Britain is the single worst example.
It has bugger all to do with 1979. It was Blair, pure and simple.
You always say this but never explain why. Let me guess, some rubbish about the Supreme Court again?
Have you compared the quango establishing under Thatcher and Major to what happened under Blair? These are matters of historical record - I don't see how there's a debate here.
Quangos are only one small element of Gardenwalker’s post though
This little mini-spat led me on an interesting voyage of discovery about quangos.
I had thought of them as a child of the 90s, really getting going under Major and continuing to grow under Blair before being culled in the coalition years.
Turns out the history is different. The number of quangos / non-departmental government bodies seems to have peaked in the 70s, and has been steadily falling under almost all governments since, including both Major and Blair. The proportion of public sector workers employed in these organisations on the other hand kept on rising until the mid-late 90s then tailed off.
Various sources: articles in FT, Guardian, institute fit govt papers, civil service articles etc.
So they’re really not a recent or growing thing, quite the reverse. Not a post-1979 neoliberal phenomenon, nor a Blair one.
I’m not sure that’s the right metric (although it’s one for which data is readily available).
The sense I have is more of the responsibility of ministers is being outsourced in a way that undermines democratic accountability.
This, for example, I don’t really worry about the DVLA or the Charity Commission being quangos. But the Sentencing Council or the Bank of England are far more important.
So has there been an increase in the *importance* of quangos?
“The government does not run this country — politicians need to take back control”, @Jonathan_Hinder writes for @Politics_co_uk
The Labour MP goes on to question the role of the OBR, the ECHR, the Sentencing Council, even the Bank of England
I think Britain has been taken over by 1. Non-accountable Quangos 2. Non-accountable Lawyers 3. Non-accountable sub-contractors
Civic values and responsibilities have been privatised, overly-legalized, or assigned to faceless statutory bodies which are themselves stuffed with the politically naive.
This is all a manifestation of the neo-liberal era which started in 1979 and is now collapsing around our ears.
The same phenomenon is obvious in other countries, but I actually think Britain is the single worst example.
It has bugger all to do with 1979. It was Blair, pure and simple.
You always say this but never explain why. Let me guess, some rubbish about the Supreme Court again?
Have you compared the quango establishing under Thatcher and Major to what happened under Blair? These are matters of historical record - I don't see how there's a debate here.
Quangos are only one small element of Gardenwalker’s post though
This little mini-spat led me on an interesting voyage of discovery about quangos.
I had thought of them as a child of the 90s, really getting going under Major and continuing to grow under Blair before being culled in the coalition years.
Turns out the history is different. The number of quangos / non-departmental government bodies seems to have peaked in the 70s, and has been steadily falling under almost all governments since, including both Major and Blair. The proportion of public sector workers employed in these organisations on the other hand kept on rising until the mid-late 90s then tailed off.
Various sources: articles in FT, Guardian, institute fit govt papers, civil service articles etc.
So they’re really not a recent or growing thing, quite the reverse. Not a post-1979 neoliberal phenomenon, nor a Blair one.
I’m not sure that’s the right metric (although it’s one for which data is readily available).
The sense I have is more of the responsibility of ministers is being outsourced in a way that undermines democratic accountability.
This, for example, I don’t really worry about the DVLA or the Charity Commission being quangos. But the Sentencing Council or the Bank of England are far more important.
So has there been an increase in the *importance* of quangos?
I misread that as "the Sentencing Council of the Bank of England"
Oh FFS, I am supposed to be catching a flight from Heathrow.
Sorry about that.
I'd guess it's 50/50 whether it's sabotage ?There have been a number of incidents of fires in Europe which the authorities say were Russia.
There is also the infamous ending to the statement to expect long delays over the forthcoming days i.e. its going to be total shit show if you actually get a flight.
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
Have you got figures for Germans with visas detained or refused entry?
“The government does not run this country — politicians need to take back control”, @Jonathan_Hinder writes for @Politics_co_uk
The Labour MP goes on to question the role of the OBR, the ECHR, the Sentencing Council, even the Bank of England
I think Britain has been taken over by 1. Non-accountable Quangos 2. Non-accountable Lawyers 3. Non-accountable sub-contractors
Civic values and responsibilities have been privatised, overly-legalized, or assigned to faceless statutory bodies which are themselves stuffed with the politically naive.
This is all a manifestation of the neo-liberal era which started in 1979 and is now collapsing around our ears.
The same phenomenon is obvious in other countries, but I actually think Britain is the single worst example.
It has bugger all to do with 1979. It was Blair, pure and simple.
You always say this but never explain why. Let me guess, some rubbish about the Supreme Court again?
Have you compared the quango establishing under Thatcher and Major to what happened under Blair? These are matters of historical record - I don't see how there's a debate here.
Quangos are only one small element of Gardenwalker’s post though
This little mini-spat led me on an interesting voyage of discovery about quangos.
I had thought of them as a child of the 90s, really getting going under Major and continuing to grow under Blair before being culled in the coalition years.
Turns out the history is different. The number of quangos / non-departmental government bodies seems to have peaked in the 70s, and has been steadily falling under almost all governments since, including both Major and Blair. The proportion of public sector workers employed in these organisations on the other hand kept on rising until the mid-late 90s then tailed off.
Various sources: articles in FT, Guardian, institute fit govt papers, civil service articles etc.
So they’re really not a recent or growing thing, quite the reverse. Not a post-1979 neoliberal phenomenon, nor a Blair one.
I’m not sure that’s the right metric (although it’s one for which data is readily available).
The sense I have is more of the responsibility of ministers is being outsourced in a way that undermines democratic accountability.
This, for example, I don’t really worry about the DVLA or the Charity Commission being quangos. But the Sentencing Council or the Bank of England are far more important.
So has there been an increase in the *importance* of quangos?
I misread that as "the Sentencing Council of the Bank of England"
Sounds like a quango that @Luckyguy1983 would approve of
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
Have you got figures for Germans with visas detained or refused entry?
That is what I said down thread would be interesting and how to compares to past periods.
But the media made a big deal that 3 Germans had been detained, 2 were fairly swiftly released leaving one, whose mother subsequently admitted that he had been previously convicted of crimes while in the US during a previous visa period, but didn't see what the issue was as he had a new visa. We have no idea if he lied on his new visa application, but it is absolutely unsurprising that upon arrival the US system flagged him and generally you aren't getting in if you commit a crime previously in the US.
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
Have you got figures for Germans with visas detained or refused entry?
That is what I said down thread would be interesting and how to compares to past periods.
But the media made a big deal that 3 Germans had been detained, 2 were fairly swiftly released leaving one, whose mother subsequently admitted that he had been previously convicted of crimes while in the US during a previous visa period, but didn't see what the issue was as he had a new visa. We have no idea if he lied on his new visa application, but it is absolutely unsurprising that upon arrival the US system flagged him and generally you aren't getting in if you commit a crime previously in the US.
I cannot understand why every state school in England isn’t absolutely plastered with solar panels. Their roofs are big, frequently flat, and the overwhelming majority use very little energy outside daylight hours.
And while the last point isn’t true of hospitals, it would still make a massive difference to their budgets.
Plus, it would cost a fraction of the money put aside for carbon capture using a technology knows actually works.
I cannot understand why every state school in England isn’t absolutely plastered with solar panels. Their roofs are big, frequently flat, and the overwhelming majority use very little energy outside daylight hours.
And while the last point isn’t true of hospitals, it would still make a massive difference to their budgets.
Plus, it would cost a fraction of the money put aside for carbon capture using a technology knows actually works.
"This is not the first time such a project has existed - the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme, launched under the previous Conservative government, has been running for more than four years and distributed close to £3bn for green technologies."
One has to wonder where the £3bn went, you would have thought it could have plastered solar panels on every school for that.
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
Have you got figures for Germans with visas detained or refused entry?
That is what I said down thread would be interesting and how to compares to past periods.
But the media made a big deal that 3 Germans had been detained, 2 were fairly swiftly released leaving one, whose mother subsequently admitted that he had been previously convicted of crimes while in the US during a previous visa period, but didn't see what the issue was as he had a new visa. We have no idea if he lied on his new visa application, but it is absolutely unsurprising that upon arrival the US system flagged him and generally you aren't getting in if you commit a crime previously in the US.
Birgit Brösche was detained for 6 weeks - I wouldn't call that fairly swiftly. Lucas Sielaff for 16 days. I've no idea how normal this is, but a change in attitude at the US border also wouldn't be surprising at this point.
I’m trying to make the best of it, stiff upper lip etc
I spent the afternoon today with a colleague from the US I assumed was American but turned out to be Uruguayan (she has a Germanic surname). Her and her husband massive rugby fans, big Tannat drinkers of course, and we had an interesting discussion about why Uruguay is so much richer and more developed than most of Latin America including its neighbour Argentina.
Her theory that there’s just been significantly less of the sort of kleptocratic bad governance and ideological rollercoaster its neighbours experienced throughout the 20th century and that has given it the stability to progress gently without major setbacks.
I do wonder if there is an optimum size for countries.
The countries which tend to top league tables are often in the 5m to 10m range.
Perhaps above that size governments become overly large to effectively control and too distant from the people.
That only works if the big boys behave and let them flourish, which has happened in much of the world in the last 80 years, but is certainly fraying now.
When the world order turns nasty, such countries are VERY exposed. Big enough to be juicy targets, but too small to defend themselves.
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
Have you got figures for Germans with visas detained or refused entry?
That is what I said down thread would be interesting and how to compares to past periods.
But the media made a big deal that 3 Germans had been detained, 2 were fairly swiftly released leaving one, whose mother subsequently admitted that he had been previously convicted of crimes while in the US during a previous visa period, but didn't see what the issue was as he had a new visa. We have no idea if he lied on his new visa application, but it is absolutely unsurprising that upon arrival the US system flagged him and generally you aren't getting in if you commit a crime previously in the US.
Birgit Brösche was detained for 6 weeks - I wouldn't call that fairly swiftly. Lucas Sielaff for 16 days. I've no idea how normal this is, but a change in attitude at the US border also wouldn't be surprising at this point.
You are correct on the first case. I am not sure why somebody who was entering the country illegally for work was detained for so long.
However, I have yet to see one of these stories where the result wouldn't have been exactly the same under previous administrations.
I cannot understand why every state school in England isn’t absolutely plastered with solar panels. Their roofs are big, frequently flat, and the overwhelming majority use very little energy outside daylight hours.
And while the last point isn’t true of hospitals, it would still make a massive difference to their budgets.
Plus, it would cost a fraction of the money put aside for carbon capture using a technology knows actually works.
"This is not the first time such a project has existed - the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme, launched under the previous Conservative government, has been running for more than four years and distributed close to £3bn for green technologies."
One has to wonder where the £3bn went, you would have thought it could have plastered solar panels on every school for that.
Lawyers, quangos and sub-contractors. Probably about a penny in the pound left for the actual purchase and installation of panels themselves.
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
Have you got figures for Germans with visas detained or refused entry?
That is what I said down thread would be interesting and how to compares to past periods.
But the media made a big deal that 3 Germans had been detained, 2 were fairly swiftly released leaving one, whose mother subsequently admitted that he had been previously convicted of crimes while in the US during a previous visa period, but didn't see what the issue was as he had a new visa. We have no idea if he lied on his new visa application, but it is absolutely unsurprising that upon arrival the US system flagged him and generally you aren't getting in if you commit a crime previously in the US.
Birgit Brösche was detained for 6 weeks - I wouldn't call that fairly swiftly. Lucas Sielaff for 16 days. I've no idea how normal this is, but a change in attitude at the US border also wouldn't be surprising at this point.
You are correct on the first case. I am not sure why somebody who was entering the country illegally for work was detained for so long.
However, I have yet to see one of these stories where the result wouldn't have been exactly the same under previous administrations.
Every story so far has been a) proven terrorist sympathiser, b) criminal past, c) entering illegally for work without the correct visa. You are going to have trouble with US immigration officials every time regardless of Trump if you match any of the above.
The only one I can think of that isn't that is the French scientist, but we don't know the full story on that one and its a bit suss they pulled him on arrival to an academic conference. Could be mistaken identity.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
I am not particularly wedded to Letby's innocence or guilt. I don't know.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
Letby wasn't keeping her own notes. She took hospital paper records home, stashed them under her bed and, when quizzed on this, said she meant to get rid of them but didn't have any way of doing that at home... except it turned out she had a paper shredder.
I own a paper shredder. What are you going to accuse me of?
Which highlights the issue really well. Owning a paper shredder is not, in any way, evidence of a crime.
Letby, in court, said she had no way of destroying paper records (to explain records being stashed under her bed). Yet a paper shredder was found in her house. That suggests she lied. Lying can establish a pattern of behaviour. If she lied, then that undermines her explanation for something else suspicious.
It's a long, long way to 'lying' about owning a shredder to killing lots of babies, isn't it?
And to repeat myself: it seems that they focused on Letby really early on, and they do not seem to have looked too long, or at all, at other potential causes - and as doctors killing babies is thankfully very rare, you would expect other causes to be more likely.
I don't know if Letby did it or not. But I can easily see how she might not have, and this is either a deliberate or tragic miscarriage of justice.
What, in your mind, is the smoking gun? What proves her guilt to you?
Will the hand of Trump be there in the Irish Presidential Elections?
Conor McGregor wants to emulate Trump and rule as President - after meeting Trump.
“Ireland, the choice is yours and it is an easy one. Vote for me as your President and we will SAVE IRELAND TOGETHER,” McGregor wrote in a separate Thursday post on X.
He hinted at the idea of a presidential bid in September on social media with a proposal to rid the nation of it’s lower chamber, the Dáil Éireann, which has the power to pass any law, and to nominate or remove the head of government.
“As President I hold the power to summon the Dáil as well as dissolve it,” McGregor wrote in a post on X.
“This would be my power as President. I know very well. Ireland needs an active President employed wholly by the people of Ireland. It is me. I am the only logical choice. 2025 is upcoming,” he continued.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
I am not particularly wedded to Letby's innocence or guilt. I don't know.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
Letby wasn't keeping her own notes. She took hospital paper records home, stashed them under her bed and, when quizzed on this, said she meant to get rid of them but didn't have any way of doing that at home... except it turned out she had a paper shredder.
I own a paper shredder. What are you going to accuse me of?
Which highlights the issue really well. Owning a paper shredder is not, in any way, evidence of a crime.
Letby, in court, said she had no way of destroying paper records (to explain records being stashed under her bed). Yet a paper shredder was found in her house. That suggests she lied. Lying can establish a pattern of behaviour. If she lied, then that undermines her explanation for something else suspicious.
It's a long, long way to 'lying' about owning a shredder to killing lots of babies, isn't it?
And to repeat myself: it seems that they focused on Letby really early on, and they do not seem to have looked too long, or at all, at other potential causes - and as doctors killing babies is thankfully very rare, you would expect other causes to be more likely.
I don't know if Letby did it or not. But I can easily see how she might not have, and this is either a deliberate or tragic miscarriage of justice.
What, in your mind, is the smoking gun? What proves her guilt to you?
I haven't followed the case very closely. Do they know how she was allegedly killing all these babies?
Shipman for instance when they started to look it became obvious there was a clear pattern of prescribing drugs in dosages that were would kill the oldies.
Will the hand of Trump be there in the Irish Presidential Elections?
Conor McGregor wants to emulate Trump and rule as President - after meeting Trump.
“Ireland, the choice is yours and it is an easy one. Vote for me as your President and we will SAVE IRELAND TOGETHER,” McGregor wrote in a separate Thursday post on X.
He hinted at the idea of a presidential bid in September on social media with a proposal to rid the nation of it’s lower chamber, the Dáil Éireann, which has the power to pass any law, and to nominate or remove the head of government.
“As President I hold the power to summon the Dáil as well as dissolve it,” McGregor wrote in a post on X.
“This would be my power as President. I know very well. Ireland needs an active President employed wholly by the people of Ireland. It is me. I am the only logical choice. 2025 is upcoming,” he continued.
Given that I am natural cynic I have, since I read an extended article in (Atlantic? NYT? Can't remember) some months ago about the circumstances around Lucy Letby I have thought it entirely possible that she didn't commit those murders.
I didn't sit through hours and hours of the trial, obvs, but I would have zero problem believing that the NHS is so institutionally useless that such a string of events could occur without it being the fault of anyone in particular. Or that high-ups might be keen to find someone to blame.
I have no idea if Letby murdered some, none or all the babies she has been found guilty of killing. I was not in the court.
I am aware of other things though. Firstly people are often wrongly convicted. Secondly people have been convicted of crimes that have later found to have been statistical flukes (Texas sharpshooter, Dutch nurse). There is disagreement over the cause of death for these babies - some experts believe it possible that none were murdered. I don't trust lawyers with statistical arguments. I don't trust juries with lawyers statistical arguments. The ghost of Meadows. The unit was doing things it wasn't set up for and babies died. Possibly they were murdered. Possibly they weren't.
I think there is going to be a retrial at some point.
Most people who are convicted are rightly convicted. The case against Letby was not merely statistical. Those who critique the statistical evidence have a tendency to forget about the non-statistical evidence.
It doesn't help that there is a lot of crossover between the 5G/WEF/cyclist-illuminati/JFK/Letby/two-tier groups. It stems from a supposed grand conspiracy by the government to stitch ordinary white folk up. Letby fits that profile.
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of statistical/evidence mistake in the trial, but I've no idea if there has yet been a serious attempt to develop such a critique into new evidence to base an appeal around.
I am not particularly a conspiracy theorist, generally preferring the 'cock-up' explanation for many events.
But Letby's case intrigues me. As I said on the previous thread, today's BBC article (1) throws up an interesting point. On the 22nd June, a doctor sent an email to the trust saying that there had been an unusual number of deaths. That seems good to me, and something worth investigating. (*) But he than adds: "There does not seem to be any staff ... present at all three episodes other than one nurse."
That's worrying to me, as once her name was in the frame, they could start looking for all sorts of other connections. But what if she was *not* the cause? Did they look elsewhere, or from that point onwards, was she the one to blame in their minds? The emails mentioned in the article concentrate on her, and not looking at other potential causes for the deaths. Perhaps because blaming her was easier than admitting the hospital was failing in its duty of care?
(*) Though was he correct that three was a noteworthy number of deaths, or may it just have been a statistical cluster?
It seems odd to suggest they rushed to a conclusion when it was over a year after that email before the police were contacted. There was pushback within the hospital to blaming Letby. It is clear that alternative explanations were considered.
Alternative explanations were certainly put to the jury by the defence in two trials. The juries were not swayed by them.
The police didn't arrest her until after they had gathered other evidence, like finding medical records relating to the dead babies under her bed, testimonies of people seeing her acting inappropriately, the notes she wrote to herself, etc.
Do people here really believe our police and court system are so lackadaisical that they just went, "Oh, could be her. Let's just pin it on her and not look any further."?
I am not particularly wedded to Letby's innocence or guilt. I don't know.
But yes: the police could be so lackadaisical as to go for the 'obvious'; the person that had been suspected from the very start. It makes the job easier, and we all like jobs to be easier rather than harder. And it seems that she was suspected from the very start. But also, that meant that patterns that might not be uncommon might be seen as being uncommon, because they were being looked for.
As an example, from what I've read, many doctors keep notes on patients. I certainly know my anesthetist kept notes about me, as she told me such for my second operation with her. Her notes were over and above the ones the hospital kept (in that case, the fact I needed a higher dose of anesthetic before I went lights-out). That might be uncommon; or not; but it happened in my case.
If you look hard enough for guilt in someone, you may find it. Even if the guilt is not real.
Letby wasn't keeping her own notes. She took hospital paper records home, stashed them under her bed and, when quizzed on this, said she meant to get rid of them but didn't have any way of doing that at home... except it turned out she had a paper shredder.
I own a paper shredder. What are you going to accuse me of?
Which highlights the issue really well. Owning a paper shredder is not, in any way, evidence of a crime.
Letby, in court, said she had no way of destroying paper records (to explain records being stashed under her bed). Yet a paper shredder was found in her house. That suggests she lied. Lying can establish a pattern of behaviour. If she lied, then that undermines her explanation for something else suspicious.
It's a long, long way to 'lying' about owning a shredder to killing lots of babies, isn't it?
And to repeat myself: it seems that they focused on Letby really early on, and they do not seem to have looked too long, or at all, at other potential causes - and as doctors killing babies is thankfully very rare, you would expect other causes to be more likely.
I don't know if Letby did it or not. But I can easily see how she might not have, and this is either a deliberate or tragic miscarriage of justice.
What, in your mind, is the smoking gun? What proves her guilt to you?
I haven't followed the case very closely. Do they know how she was allegedly killing all these babies?
Shipman for instance when they started to look it became obvious there was a clear pattern of prescribing drugs in dosages that were would kill the oldies.
Poisoning by insulin in some of the cases, air into the bloodstream in another, and overfeeding milk. The alleged different methods of killing is also slightly worrying to me.
Will the hand of Trump be there in the Irish Presidential Elections?
Conor McGregor wants to emulate Trump and rule as President - after meeting Trump.
“Ireland, the choice is yours and it is an easy one. Vote for me as your President and we will SAVE IRELAND TOGETHER,” McGregor wrote in a separate Thursday post on X.
He hinted at the idea of a presidential bid in September on social media with a proposal to rid the nation of it’s lower chamber, the Dáil Éireann, which has the power to pass any law, and to nominate or remove the head of government.
“As President I hold the power to summon the Dáil as well as dissolve it,” McGregor wrote in a post on X.
“This would be my power as President. I know very well. Ireland needs an active President employed wholly by the people of Ireland. It is me. I am the only logical choice. 2025 is upcoming,” he continued.
He'd be an improvement on the nasty little jew hater who currently holds the office
Since he is just as racist (albeit to different groups) a known sexual predator, thick as five posts and a personal friend of a Fascist dictator, that's not really the case to anyone looking at the two with clear sight.
And that's not said with any admiration of Michael D. Higgins.
We're now hearing from the London Fire Brigade that the blaze at the electrical substation in Hayes has not been extinguished.
A transformer at a power station near here went boom last year. It sent lots (from memory, hundreds of gallons) of oil past the third-floor window of the station's offices. There's a lot of power (and oil) in those things. Fortunately there was no fire, but they now have a rather expensive pile of scrap in their car park.
Bringing the replacement generator in was a massive and expensive task in itself.
We're now hearing from the London Fire Brigade that the blaze at the electrical substation in Hayes has not been extinguished.
A transformer at a power station near here went boom last year. It sent lots (from memory, hundreds of gallons) of oil past the third-floor window of the station's offices. There's a lot of power (and oil) in those things. Fortunately there was no fire, but they now have a rather expensive pile of scrap in their car park.
Bringing the replacement generator in was a massive and expensive task in itself.
We're now hearing from the London Fire Brigade that the blaze at the electrical substation in Hayes has not been extinguished.
A transformer at a power station near here went boom last year. It sent lots (from memory, hundreds of gallons) of oil past the third-floor window of the station's offices. There's a lot of power (and oil) in those things. Fortunately there was no fire, but they now have a rather expensive pile of scrap in their car park.
Bringing the replacement generator in was a massive and expensive task in itself.
We're now hearing from the London Fire Brigade that the blaze at the electrical substation in Hayes has not been extinguished.
A transformer at a power station near here went boom last year. It sent lots (from memory, hundreds of gallons) of oil past the third-floor window of the station's offices. There's a lot of power (and oil) in those things. Fortunately there was no fire, but they now have a rather expensive pile of scrap in their car park.
Bringing the replacement generator in was a massive and expensive task in itself.
Will the hand of Trump be there in the Irish Presidential Elections?
Conor McGregor wants to emulate Trump and rule as President - after meeting Trump.
“Ireland, the choice is yours and it is an easy one. Vote for me as your President and we will SAVE IRELAND TOGETHER,” McGregor wrote in a separate Thursday post on X.
He hinted at the idea of a presidential bid in September on social media with a proposal to rid the nation of it’s lower chamber, the Dáil Éireann, which has the power to pass any law, and to nominate or remove the head of government.
“As President I hold the power to summon the Dáil as well as dissolve it,” McGregor wrote in a post on X.
“This would be my power as President. I know very well. Ireland needs an active President employed wholly by the people of Ireland. It is me. I am the only logical choice. 2025 is upcoming,” he continued.
He'd be an improvement on the nasty little jew hater who currently holds the office
Not sure replacing one shitbag with another should be Ireland’s only choice. Maybe it’s time the country stopped behaving like a moody student and grows up with grown ups in charge but McGregor is the answer only if the question is “who is the most unpleasant man in the MMA world?”
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
Have you got figures for Germans with visas detained or refused entry?
That is what I said down thread would be interesting and how to compares to past periods.
But the media made a big deal that 3 Germans had been detained, 2 were fairly swiftly released leaving one, whose mother subsequently admitted that he had been previously convicted of crimes while in the US during a previous visa period, but didn't see what the issue was as he had a new visa. We have no idea if he lied on his new visa application, but it is absolutely unsurprising that upon arrival the US system flagged him and generally you aren't getting in if you commit a crime previously in the US.
If you’ve committed a crime in another country, however, like Conor McGregor, then you get an invite to the White House.
Will the hand of Trump be there in the Irish Presidential Elections?
Conor McGregor wants to emulate Trump and rule as President - after meeting Trump.
“Ireland, the choice is yours and it is an easy one. Vote for me as your President and we will SAVE IRELAND TOGETHER,” McGregor wrote in a separate Thursday post on X.
He hinted at the idea of a presidential bid in September on social media with a proposal to rid the nation of it’s lower chamber, the Dáil Éireann, which has the power to pass any law, and to nominate or remove the head of government.
“As President I hold the power to summon the Dáil as well as dissolve it,” McGregor wrote in a post on X.
“This would be my power as President. I know very well. Ireland needs an active President employed wholly by the people of Ireland. It is me. I am the only logical choice. 2025 is upcoming,” he continued.
He'd be an improvement on the nasty little jew hater who currently holds the office
Not sure replacing one shitbag with another should be Ireland’s only choice. Maybe it’s time the country stopped behaving like a moody student and grows up with grown ups in charge but McGregor is the answer only if the question is “who is the most unpleasant man in the MMA world?”
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
Have you got figures for Germans with visas detained or refused entry?
That is what I said down thread would be interesting and how to compares to past periods.
But the media made a big deal that 3 Germans had been detained, 2 were fairly swiftly released leaving one, whose mother subsequently admitted that he had been previously convicted of crimes while in the US during a previous visa period, but didn't see what the issue was as he had a new visa. We have no idea if he lied on his new visa application, but it is absolutely unsurprising that upon arrival the US system flagged him and generally you aren't getting in if you commit a crime previously in the US.
If you’ve committed a crime in another country, however, like Conor McGregor, then you get an invite to the White House.
We're now hearing from the London Fire Brigade that the blaze at the electrical substation in Hayes has not been extinguished.
A transformer at a power station near here went boom last year. It sent lots (from memory, hundreds of gallons) of oil past the third-floor window of the station's offices. There's a lot of power (and oil) in those things. Fortunately there was no fire, but they now have a rather expensive pile of scrap in their car park.
Bringing the replacement generator in was a massive and expensive task in itself.
We're now hearing from the London Fire Brigade that the blaze at the electrical substation in Hayes has not been extinguished.
A transformer at a power station near here went boom last year. It sent lots (from memory, hundreds of gallons) of oil past the third-floor window of the station's offices. There's a lot of power (and oil) in those things. Fortunately there was no fire, but they now have a rather expensive pile of scrap in their car park.
Bringing the replacement generator in was a massive and expensive task in itself.
Germany updated its travel advisory for the United States to emphasise that a visa or entry waiver does not guarantee entry for its citizens after several Germans were detained at the border recently, a foreign ministry spokesperson said. The ministry updated its travel advice website for the U.S. on Tuesday to clarify that neither approval through the U.S. ESTA system nor a U.S. visa entitles entry in every case.
This has literally always been the case. It tells you when you apply for the ESTA or when you are awarded a visa they emphasis that this still isn't a guarantee, it is the opportunity to do so at the discretion of the immigration officials.
The last numbers of deportation showed they were actually down on Biden during the same month last year.
Have you got figures for Germans with visas detained or refused entry?
That is what I said down thread would be interesting and how to compares to past periods.
But the media made a big deal that 3 Germans had been detained, 2 were fairly swiftly released leaving one, whose mother subsequently admitted that he had been previously convicted of crimes while in the US during a previous visa period, but didn't see what the issue was as he had a new visa. We have no idea if he lied on his new visa application, but it is absolutely unsurprising that upon arrival the US system flagged him and generally you aren't getting in if you commit a crime previously in the US.
If you’ve committed a crime in another country, however, like Conor McGregor, then you get an invite to the White House.
He has committed crimes in the US.
Yes but has he committed crimes or "crimes".
Crimes include things like murder, home intrusions, harming a Tesla, being an illegal alien etc - these all deserve being locked in chains and possibly executed.
"Crimes" are woke DEI nonsense like fraud, tax evasion, discriminating against minorities, raping or sexually assaulting women while white and powerful etc - these shouldn't harm someone's career.
The full knock-on impact is still being assessed, as flights scheduled to come into the UK via Heathrow had to be cancelled. More than 1,300 flights around the world have been affected.
We're now hearing from the London Fire Brigade that the blaze at the electrical substation in Hayes has not been extinguished.
A transformer at a power station near here went boom last year. It sent lots (from memory, hundreds of gallons) of oil past the third-floor window of the station's offices. There's a lot of power (and oil) in those things. Fortunately there was no fire, but they now have a rather expensive pile of scrap in their car park.
Bringing the replacement generator in was a massive and expensive task in itself.
On Letby, the key thing for me is that the "high ups" went into bat for her for a long time. The doctors didn't need to do anything. No one was accusing them of being rubbish at their job. They could have kept quiet.
So the argument that Letby was a convenient scapegoat doesn't hold water.
A funny little story about transformers/substations.
My dad's company demolished an old substation. The floor of this was (for some reason) made of heavy wooden blocks, each about six inches or so cubed. These seemed too good to just landfill, so he saved them and took them home to use as firewood.
Fortunately, the wood store was outside, as the blocks smelt - well, reeked - of oil. When it came time to light the first pre-Christmas fire, he got it going in the grate and threw one of the blocks on. Within a few minutes, flames were roaring out of the chimney outside and over the front of the fireplace. He and my brother used fire tongues to get the block onto a metal oven tray, then ran outside, leaving a trail of soot and marks on the lounge ceiling.
It turns out the blocks had decades of oil seeping into them. He ended up cutting up the blocks into sticks and using them as firelighters.
I cannot understand why every state school in England isn’t absolutely plastered with solar panels. Their roofs are big, frequently flat, and the overwhelming majority use very little energy outside daylight hours.
And while the last point isn’t true of hospitals, it would still make a massive difference to their budgets.
Plus, it would cost a fraction of the money put aside for carbon capture using a technology knows actually works.
"This is not the first time such a project has existed - the Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme, launched under the previous Conservative government, has been running for more than four years and distributed close to £3bn for green technologies."
One has to wonder where the £3bn went, you would have thought it could have plastered solar panels on every school for that.
"Public Sector" not "Schools". This solar panel stuff is an extra tranche, which has value if projects are properly ranked. It's an investment so some discipline per project will apply.
It's all published if you ask Google. Here's an example of where the latest batch of the £3bn is going - around £243m for the year 2024-2025,2 year period, under "Phase 3c Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme"
The £3bn is over an extended period, and it's a really effective way of doing energy efficiency and carbon emission reduction - slow, steady and strategic. It is based afaik on the most effective way of reducing carbon and energy use, rather than alighting on things we can see or particular technologies such as solar panels. I don't know why the Tories did not shout this from the housetops; instead they went the bottom-feeding, shit-shovelling route - they had a decent record.
For example from a previous time, my local hospital (Kings Mill, built in the 2000s) has a heating and cooling heat exchanger system in the 100 acre former reservoir across the road that gives it 5MW+ of both heating and cooling, which meets 90% of use. That saves 9,600 MWh of gas and electricity a year. That's the type of project that makes us world leading (unironically) in this area of energy use reduction. *
That's ~£400k per annum saved if it is gas, and ~£800k per annum if it is electricity. And we still have goons out there telling us not to do this stuff, and focus on pumping more oil and gas instead. The page says £200k per annum saved, but prices go up.
We're now hearing from the London Fire Brigade that the blaze at the electrical substation in Hayes has not been extinguished.
A transformer at a power station near here went boom last year. It sent lots (from memory, hundreds of gallons) of oil past the third-floor window of the station's offices. There's a lot of power (and oil) in those things. Fortunately there was no fire, but they now have a rather expensive pile of scrap in their car park.
Bringing the replacement generator in was a massive and expensive task in itself.
We're now hearing from the London Fire Brigade that the blaze at the electrical substation in Hayes has not been extinguished.
A transformer at a power station near here went boom last year. It sent lots (from memory, hundreds of gallons) of oil past the third-floor window of the station's offices. There's a lot of power (and oil) in those things. Fortunately there was no fire, but they now have a rather expensive pile of scrap in their car park.
Bringing the replacement generator in was a massive and expensive task in itself.
I visited my old university campus today for the first time in ages, and it looked like it was about 70% women. Maybe that's a bit of an overestimate for some reason.
Not unusual. Women do better academically than males, pretty much across the board.
Also, I've found they are better at getting out of bed in the morning.
Just imagine if this power cut had happened last night with loads of passengers in the terminals. They surely though must have some emergency temporary power supply to allow safe evacuation of the airport.
Good morning from San Sebastian de los Reyes. Happily my route home to Aberdeen is via Amsterdam and not London. Having had a Quick Look on Flightradar I don’t believe either aircraft I catch today is due to go anywhere near Heathrow so hopefully I’m unaffected.
Nightmare for anyone needing Heathrow or aircraft that have used Heathrow. How on earth has one fire knocked the whole site out?
Comments
"We don't need no education"
The countries which tend to top league tables are often in the 5m to 10m range.
Perhaps above that size governments become overly large to effectively control and too distant from the people.
Three in a 2-3 weeks, if somebody asked me what the normal rate was, I would have thought higher than that to be honest. Just like the one German still detained, there is always going to be idiots who have committed crimes in the US, apply for a visa (who knows if they were honest about criminal record on the application), then despite being awarded a new visa upon arrival the system flags them.
Same with people arriving to work without a work visa or an incorrect visa / had previously used a visa that barred them from future work in the US for a set period (there is quite a common one used for internships that bars the individual for 2 years to seek work in the US).
https://x.com/cspotweet/status/1902808590328684812
If she had inadvertently taken them home (in itself a major breach of record keeping) then they should have been returned as soon as she was aware. It would have been simple to put them in the internal hospital mail for filing in the correct folder.
@samstein
If true, a major law firm allowed itself to be extorted by the president. Remarkable
Meridith McGraw
@meridithmcgraw
·
31m
President Trump on his decision to withdraw an EO targeting Paul Weiss law firm
https://x.com/samstein/status/1902850684984131820
"As far north as Manchester" 😏🥴
What the fuck do vegans do in Uruguay? Go to Brazil?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w&
https://labourlist.org/2025/03/cabinet-league-table-labourlist-survation-poll/
They also want Burnham as next leader.
Will MPs who have taken the big step to set out their stall on that principle then back down, and as we heard at the time risk never passing such a bill (I think that fear is overplayed to be honest), because of arguments over clauses and treatment of opponents of the principle in the committee process? Or will most, as proponents on the committee have, say that the changes have only strengthened the bill and most of the objections are people trying to wreck it? Or that remaining issues can be dealt with in regulations etc and the core of it is a worthy, nay, moral act to take now?
Not on local party websites (if they exist they are usually effectively dead and rarely updated), not on party Facebook pages (which are usually a little more active).
Even if they are relying on physical campaigning alone so I living outside the ward don't need to know, it seems like it would be an hour's work to have a page somewhere, anywhere, to update with the names as you get them.
People like 'who can I vote for?' do their best to keep track, but it shouldn't be this hard.
@atrupar
·
9m
"More than 600 Iron Range steelworkers out of work as auto industry cuts orders because of tariffs"
https://x.com/atrupar
They lasted about three week before they were eating baby* lomo steaks. There was just nothing for them.
*For the Tories amongst us, don't get too excited - not real baby!
There is quite a transparent desire from some here to grasp any figleaf to oppose the bill.
Alan Ohnsman
@alanoh.bsky.social
Follow
Surprise: Trump's tariffs trigger a sharp uptick in anti-American sentiment globally
https://bsky.app/profile/alanoh.bsky.social/post/3lktormzzcs2e
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/dont-write-off-literary-fiction-yet
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Absent-Fathers-Sean-Thomas/dp/0233990038/
The Israeli cabinet met on Thursday evening to formally approve the early dismissal of Ronen Bar, who was appointed in October 2021 for a five-year term as the Shin Bet's chief.
Hayes fire: Heathrow airport closed after blaze at electrical substation in west London
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2025/mar/21/heathrow-airport-closed-after-fire-at-electrical-substation-in-west-london
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/20/universities-cave-conservatives-trump-00241765
I'd guess it's 50/50 whether it's sabotage ?There have been a number of incidents of fires in Europe which the authorities say were Russia.
But why did she vote to confirm Gabbard ?
Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski:
“How we came to a place where we're fighting now with Canada, and we're making nice with Russia. It's beyond me…”
https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1902798264912523713
The sense I have is more of the responsibility of ministers is being outsourced in a way that undermines democratic accountability.
This, for example, I don’t really worry about the DVLA or the Charity Commission being quangos. But the Sentencing Council or the Bank of England are far more important.
So has there been an increase in the *importance* of quangos?
But the media made a big deal that 3 Germans had been detained, 2 were fairly swiftly released leaving one, whose mother subsequently admitted that he had been previously convicted of crimes while in the US during a previous visa period, but didn't see what the issue was as he had a new visa. We have no idea if he lied on his new visa application, but it is absolutely unsurprising that upon arrival the US system flagged him and generally you aren't getting in if you commit a crime previously in the US.
Schools and hospitals get £180m solar investment
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c80y2j8d92no
It’s not nearly enough, but it’s a start.
I cannot understand why every state school in England isn’t absolutely plastered with solar panels. Their roofs are big, frequently flat, and the overwhelming majority use very little energy outside daylight hours.
And while the last point isn’t true of hospitals, it would still make a massive difference to their budgets.
Plus, it would cost a fraction of the money put aside for carbon capture using a technology knows actually works.
One has to wonder where the £3bn went, you would have thought it could have plastered solar panels on every school for that.
When the world order turns nasty, such countries are VERY exposed. Big enough to be juicy targets, but too small to defend themselves.
However, I have yet to see one of these stories where the result wouldn't have been exactly the same under previous administrations.
I'd stick Streeting right at the top of cabinet ministers judging by actions in power, followed by Cooper but I'm not exactly a Labour member !
Garden walker nailed it with his earlier post.
F1: plan to post the pre-qualifying tosh today. May have a tip, not intent on that but I'll browse the markets just in case something leaps out.
The only one I can think of that isn't that is the French scientist, but we don't know the full story on that one and its a bit suss they pulled him on arrival to an academic conference. Could be mistaken identity.
It's absolutely bloody obvious what happened.
And to repeat myself: it seems that they focused on Letby really early on, and they do not seem to have looked too long, or at all, at other potential causes - and as doctors killing babies is thankfully very rare, you would expect other causes to be more likely.
I don't know if Letby did it or not. But I can easily see how she might not have, and this is either a deliberate or tragic miscarriage of justice.
What, in your mind, is the smoking gun? What proves her guilt to you?
Conor McGregor wants to emulate Trump and rule as President - after meeting Trump.
“Ireland, the choice is yours and it is an easy one. Vote for me as your President and we will SAVE IRELAND TOGETHER,” McGregor wrote in a separate Thursday post on X.
He hinted at the idea of a presidential bid in September on social media with a proposal to rid the nation of it’s lower chamber, the Dáil Éireann, which has the power to pass any law, and to nominate or remove the head of government.
“As President I hold the power to summon the Dáil as well as dissolve it,” McGregor wrote in a post on X.
“This would be my power as President. I know very well. Ireland needs an active President employed wholly by the people of Ireland. It is me. I am the only logical choice. 2025 is upcoming,” he continued.
https://thehill.com/policy/international/5206530-ufc-legend-conor-mcgregor-running-for-president-of-ireland/
Shipman for instance when they started to look it became obvious there was a clear pattern of prescribing drugs in dosages that were would kill the oldies.
Wiki seems to have a reasonable outline summary of events:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucy_Letby
Con 308
RefUK 286
Ind 153
Lab 99
Green 43
LD 36
And that's not said with any admiration of Michael D. Higgins.
Bringing the replacement generator in was a massive and expensive task in itself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yYGoCPRHgg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3U_7LYlUtw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer_oil
From memory, we're talking 10,000 gallons and above. Not a small amount.
Crimes include things like murder, home intrusions, harming a Tesla, being an illegal alien etc - these all deserve being locked in chains and possibly executed.
"Crimes" are woke DEI nonsense like fraud, tax evasion, discriminating against minorities, raping or sexually assaulting women while white and powerful etc - these shouldn't harm someone's career.
https://x.com/TOPPING_PB/status/1902970839391191510?t=jM8da9Ox_ZDHN827ruGUFg&s=19
Edit: ah, I see he actually deleted his original tweet.
Edit X2: suffice to say there was an egregious use of an apostrophe.
So the argument that Letby was a convenient scapegoat doesn't hold water.
My dad's company demolished an old substation. The floor of this was (for some reason) made of heavy wooden blocks, each about six inches or so cubed. These seemed too good to just landfill, so he saved them and took them home to use as firewood.
Fortunately, the wood store was outside, as the blocks smelt - well, reeked - of oil. When it came time to light the first pre-Christmas fire, he got it going in the grate and threw one of the blocks on. Within a few minutes, flames were roaring out of the chimney outside and over the front of the fireplace. He and my brother used fire tongues to get the block onto a metal oven tray, then ran outside, leaving a trail of soot and marks on the lounge ceiling.
It turns out the blocks had decades of oil seeping into them. He ended up cutting up the blocks into sticks and using them as firelighters.
It's all published if you ask Google. Here's an example of where the latest batch of the £3bn is going - around £243m for the year 2024-2025,2 year period, under "Phase 3c Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme"
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-sector-decarbonisation-scheme-phase-3/phase-3c-public-sector-decarbonisation-scheme-grant-recipients
The £3bn is over an extended period, and it's a really effective way of doing energy efficiency and carbon emission reduction - slow, steady and strategic. It is based afaik on the most effective way of reducing carbon and energy use, rather than alighting on things we can see or particular technologies such as solar panels. I don't know why the Tories did not shout this from the housetops; instead they went the bottom-feeding, shit-shovelling route - they had a decent record.
For example from a previous time, my local hospital (Kings Mill, built in the 2000s) has a heating and cooling heat exchanger system in the 100 acre former reservoir across the road that gives it 5MW+ of both heating and cooling, which meets 90% of use. That saves 9,600 MWh of gas and electricity a year. That's the type of project that makes us world leading (unironically) in this area of energy use reduction. *
That's ~£400k per annum saved if it is gas, and ~£800k per annum if it is electricity. And we still have goons out there telling us not to do this stuff, and focus on pumping more oil and gas instead. The page says £200k per annum saved, but prices go up.
https://discoverashfield.co.uk/stories/kings-mill-reservoir-at-mill-waters
* Fucking Sky News should do a story about *this*.
"The term "nightmare" is too weak of a descriptor to paint a true picture of the chaos this will cause."
Yay.
Nightmare for anyone needing Heathrow or aircraft that have used Heathrow. How on earth has one fire knocked the whole site out?