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.
Beware statistical effects. There are significantly more countries of that size, and a country of that size needs fewer successful industries to be economically successful, so you would expect more statistical outliers, compared to a country that was larger.
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.
Being next to snoring, farting lumps may be a factor.
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.
There are a lot of people there who remember growing up in a (Roman Catholic directed) morally fundamentalist state, with lots of blind spots.
I saw a comment on YT on the Zeihan "Christian Ultranationalist" video from yesterday:
As an Irishman, I grew up in an absolute theocracy. We just didn't call it that at the time. I can guarantee you, most European countries will never stand for that religious bull any more.
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.
Of the three German cases we are talking about:
Birgit Brösche was detained because she had tattoing equipment in her luggage, so was suspected of planning to illegally work, which she denies. She could also have just been deported rather than detained for 6 weeks.
Lucas Sielaff was detained for 16 days for reasons that aren't clear. It seems he mistakenly gave the address he was staying in the US as his home address because his English is poor.
He and his fiancée tried to explain that he was only visiting and had therefore given her place of residence as his address. To no avail. The couple was forced out of the car and taken to separate rooms for questioning. Sielaff was searched and then handcuffed to a bench.
Only hours after his interrogation – which he had to conduct without an interpreter – was he allowed to go to the car to give the dog water. He was not released that day, however. The German was taken to a cell. His fiancée was told she could leave if she went to Las Vegas immediately. She informed Sielaff's family in Germany.
After two days in a cell at the border control point, Lucas Sielaff was taken to a detention center near San Diego – with a chain around his waist, handcuffs, and leg shackles, he says. At the Otay Mesa Detention Center, he was fingerprinted, had to sign papers, and hand over his clothing. ...
Meanwhile, his fiancée and family in Germany fought for his release, contacting the media and the German embassy. However, the embassy was unable to provide any information, as they wrote in an email. Sielaff was also not provided with a lawyer because no trial date had been set.
It took 16 days for Lucas Sielaff to be released. Suddenly, his name was called, and he was told he could leave if he booked a flight to Germany now. His fiancée arranged his return to Germany for $2,800. On March 6, he flew to Munich. Beforehand, he was taken to the airport—again in chains—and his passport was handed over to the flight crew. At least the police officers explained to the crew that he was not dangerous.
I'm not sure which of "a) proven terrorist sympathiser, b) criminal past, c) entering illegally for work without the correct visa" you think this case falls under.
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.
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.
From memory, we're talking 10,000 gallons and above. Not a small amount.
Gosh. No wonder it's proving a bugger to put out.
Although in the list of my “favourite fires “ this one is hard to beat. The opening paragraph (from 2015) gives you a flavour:
Imagine you are a parent, and that out of the blue, you get a letter from your child's school telling you not to worry — that they're ready to evacuate or shelter in place if an underground fire at a nearby landfill reaches radioactive waste on the same property.
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.
Sean Dilley - BBC Transport correspondent, is filling me with lots of optimism (not).
"The term "nightmare" is too weak of a descriptor to paint a true picture of the chaos this will cause."
Yay.
The BBC and other media outlets live for stories like this. It writes its own content by the sheer number of people that it directly and clearly affects and allows for as much hyperbole as they really want to use.
Anyone betting on when Russia is blamed for the substation fire?
Given that it's a rather uncommon event and this is probably the most strategically / economically important one in the country..
As soon as I read the headlines ten minutes ago I thought 'Russia'.
We will see.
It's not a slam dunk, substation fires do happen.
We had a slightly noteworthy one in a suburb of Huddersfield last week, in that a power worker was injured in it. I very much doubt Russia was involved.
A Russian arsehole being interviewed on Today just now, talking utter shit, and being totally soft soaped by the interviewer. Why is the BBC so bad at this?
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.
Hmm. Reflecting on the shift to green energy here, and President Chump's attempts to make us dependent on his gas and oil.
For Europe, it's a big part of strategic autonomy. We are moving towards a position where we do not *need* to be dependent on either of the (big and small) despots - wither Potus or Putin.
Ukrainian claims of Russian deaths, casualties, missing and captured pass 900,000 today.
Next milestone will be 25,000 pieces of artillery. 24,848 currently, 101 added yesterday.
They've done a fantastic job of significantly weakening Putin's war machine. If only they could be given another 12 months to finish things we would all be a lot safer.
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.
Of the three German cases we are talking about:
Birgit Brösche was detained because she had tattoing equipment in her luggage, so was suspected of planning to illegally work, which she denies. She could also have just been deported rather than detained for 6 weeks.
Lucas Sielaff was detained for 16 days for reasons that aren't clear. It seems he mistakenly gave the address he was staying in the US as his home address because his English is poor.
He and his fiancée tried to explain that he was only visiting and had therefore given her place of residence as his address. To no avail. The couple was forced out of the car and taken to separate rooms for questioning. Sielaff was searched and then handcuffed to a bench.
Only hours after his interrogation – which he had to conduct without an interpreter – was he allowed to go to the car to give the dog water. He was not released that day, however. The German was taken to a cell. His fiancée was told she could leave if she went to Las Vegas immediately. She informed Sielaff's family in Germany.
After two days in a cell at the border control point, Lucas Sielaff was taken to a detention center near San Diego – with a chain around his waist, handcuffs, and leg shackles, he says. At the Otay Mesa Detention Center, he was fingerprinted, had to sign papers, and hand over his clothing. ...
Meanwhile, his fiancée and family in Germany fought for his release, contacting the media and the German embassy. However, the embassy was unable to provide any information, as they wrote in an email. Sielaff was also not provided with a lawyer because no trial date had been set.
It took 16 days for Lucas Sielaff to be released. Suddenly, his name was called, and he was told he could leave if he booked a flight to Germany now. His fiancée arranged his return to Germany for $2,800. On March 6, he flew to Munich. Beforehand, he was taken to the airport—again in chains—and his passport was handed over to the flight crew. At least the police officers explained to the crew that he was not dangerous.
I'm not sure which of "a) proven terrorist sympathiser, b) criminal past, c) entering illegally for work without the correct visa" you think this case falls under.
The other case is Fabian Schmidt, which is different as he is a US resident
Astrid Senior, Schmidt’s mother, said she and her son moved to the U.S. from Germany in 2007 and received green cards in 2008. He lives in New Hampshire and renewed his legal permanent resident status last year, she said.
Senior said she has no idea why her son is being detained by U.S. immigration officials. She said her son, who once lived in California, faced misdemeanor charges roughly a decade ago. He has no active legal or court issues, Senior said.
Maybe you're right and there is nothing special to see here, but are people with legal residence and 10-year-old misdemeanor charges usually detained at the airport?
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?
There were multiple lines of evidence, that were examined carefully in the trial. That’s why they got into the weeds of her having a paper shredder. One line of evidence was that she had medical records taken from the hospital and stashed under her bed, which is not normal behaviour. She testified in response to this. On multiple occasions, including on this matter, her testimony contradicted itself.
If your testimony contradicts itself and you can’t explain incriminatory evidence, that’s going to look bad for you at trial.
“they do not seem to have looked too long, or at all, at other potential causes”: that’s simply untrue. You’ve made that up. The hospital went to some length to defend Letby, delaying her referral to the police. They did that by concluding that the deaths had other causes. From Wikipedia: “Records of the hospital board meeting show the medical director telling board members that the RCPCH and Hawdon reviews concluded that the deaths in the neonatal unit were due to issues with leadership and timely intervention.”
I think she was guilty because two juries concluded that, and 5 appeal judges concluded the convictions were safe. Key evidence includes: the testimony of the mother of Baby E; being observed failing to intervene with a desaturating baby; how she falsified times on medical records; a high number of unexpected deaths in the night, which stop when Letby is moved to day shifts and then there’s a high number of unexpected deaths in the day; the various evidence that the babies’ deaths were unnatural.
“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
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.
Did they go 'into bat' for *her*, or were they just trying to protect the organisation and its reputation? And as that BBC article yesterday showed, blame was put onto Letby very early on.
It's a really interesting case. She might have done it; she might not. But for me, there are significant doubts.
That’s horrific . If a small mistake on some paperwork can lead to those consequences then really anyone can get caught up in this.
And it’s the cruelty that comes from the top which means instead of just deporting people they’re now put into detention centres.
Of course it's possible there's more to this story, but no explanation has been offered by the American authorities, and at this point I'm not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Anyone betting on when Russia is blamed for the substation fire?
Given that it's a rather uncommon event and this is probably the most strategically / economically important one in the country..
As soon as I read the headlines ten minutes ago I thought 'Russia'.
We will see.
If it is Russia what do we do? It would be a declaration of war by any normal measure but I think we would shy away from finding it so.
Isn't the UK power distribution network in Chinese ownership. May be a toss-up as to who declares war on who.
You’d think Heathrow would be a perfect site fire massive solar arrays and back up battery storage. Maybe panels reflecting the sun would be a hazard for landing planes.
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?
There were multiple lines of evidence, that were examined carefully in the trial. That’s why they got into the weeds of her having a paper shredder. One line of evidence was that she had medical records taken from the hospital and stashed under her bed, which is not normal behaviour. She testified in response to this. On multiple occasions, including on this matter, her testimony contradicted itself.
If your testimony contradicts itself and you can’t explain incriminatory evidence, that’s going to look bad for you at trial.
“they do not seem to have looked too long, or at all, at other potential causes”: that’s simply untrue. You’ve made that up. The hospital went to some length to defend Letby, delaying her referral to the police. They did that by concluding that the deaths had other causes. From Wikipedia: “Records of the hospital board meeting show the medical director telling board members that the RCPCH and Hawdon reviews concluded that the deaths in the neonatal unit were due to issues with leadership and timely intervention.”
I think she was guilty because two juries concluded that, and 5 appeal judges concluded the convictions were safe. Key evidence includes: the testimony of the mother of Baby E; being observed failing to intervene with a desaturating baby; how she falsified times on medical records; a high number of unexpected deaths in the night, which stop when Letby is moved to day shifts and then there’s a high number of unexpected deaths in the day; the various evidence that the babies’ deaths were unnatural.
True, never been any wrong convictions in the past , nobody ever put in jail turned out to be innocent but just at the wrong place at the wrong time whe nincompetent officialdom needed a victim. Also given the numpties walking our streets nowadays any jury is a gamble for sure.
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.
Did they go 'into bat' for *her*, or were they just trying to protect the organisation and its reputation? And as that BBC article yesterday showed, blame was put onto Letby very early on.
It's a really interesting case. She might have done it; she might not. But for me, there are significant doubts.
You keep saying blame was put onto Letby “very early on” as if that is somehow an important sign of her innocence. This is some bizarre backwards logic. What happened was that it took over two years before the matter was referred to the police. People went out of their way to protect Letby, to not accuse her, for far too long.
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?
There were multiple lines of evidence, that were examined carefully in the trial. That’s why they got into the weeds of her having a paper shredder. One line of evidence was that she had medical records taken from the hospital and stashed under her bed, which is not normal behaviour. She testified in response to this. On multiple occasions, including on this matter, her testimony contradicted itself.
If your testimony contradicts itself and you can’t explain incriminatory evidence, that’s going to look bad for you at trial.
“they do not seem to have looked too long, or at all, at other potential causes”: that’s simply untrue. You’ve made that up. The hospital went to some length to defend Letby, delaying her referral to the police. They did that by concluding that the deaths had other causes. From Wikipedia: “Records of the hospital board meeting show the medical director telling board members that the RCPCH and Hawdon reviews concluded that the deaths in the neonatal unit were due to issues with leadership and timely intervention.”
I think she was guilty because two juries concluded that, and 5 appeal judges concluded the convictions were safe. Key evidence includes: the testimony of the mother of Baby E; being observed failing to intervene with a desaturating baby; how she falsified times on medical records; a high number of unexpected deaths in the night, which stop when Letby is moved to day shifts and then there’s a high number of unexpected deaths in the day; the various evidence that the babies’ deaths were unnatural.
Again, read that BBC article and see the way Letby was named after the first couple of deaths. She was suspected, and after that there seem to have been efforts to blame her more. Perhaps because it reflected badly on the organisation because of the RCPCH and Hawdon reviews? Why did the court reject the conclusion of those reviews?
And as below, the fact that it is alleged she killed the babies using different methods is a little whiffy, is it not? If you have successfully killed a baby using one method, why would you try to use different methods that might stand more chance of getting caught?
I do fear that there's a chance she's just been caught up in a massive circumstantial web; it is also possible that no babies were murdered. Or alternatively, I fear that there's a chance that she's a mass-murderer. But I don't think it's a slam-dunk in either direction.
Guess the Heathrow fire will block out the dire news for Reeves on public borrowing.
Absolutely horrendous. Over £10bn deficit in February alone and this unsustainable pumping in of excess demand is doing no more than keeping the economy flat lining with no growth in sight.
We are in a terrible mess. Debt has risen by £1trn over the last 5 years and for what? What do we actually get a return on from that unimaginably large sum of money? Many people who could afford it got help with their heating bills. Millions who could have worked got paid not to. Nothing of substance, no infrastructure, nothing that is going to generate future wealth. Bugger.
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 think that when Mr Trump has finished burning down all their bridges of influence or friendship, the USA is going to wake up and find that it is not as dominant as they assumed.
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.
Did they go 'into bat' for *her*, or were they just trying to protect the organisation and its reputation? And as that BBC article yesterday showed, blame was put onto Letby very early on.
It's a really interesting case. She might have done it; she might not. But for me, there are significant doubts.
You keep saying blame was put onto Letby “very early on” as if that is somehow an important sign of her innocence. This is some bizarre backwards logic. What happened was that it took over two years before the matter was referred to the police. People went out of their way to protect Letby, to not accuse her, for far too long.
Or were they going out of their way to protect the organisation?
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.
Needs annual checks, and oil replacement every few years, as you can get breakdown chemicals and worse, water in it - which can lead to shorting and fire/explosion.
They're supposed to have a life of around 25-30 years, but can last longer if well looked after.
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.
I don't want to puncture this immigration theory of everything, but those differential unemployment rates are probably related to age more than anything else, as London has a younger population and young people, lacking marketable experience, are much more likely to be unemployed (unemployment rate of 18-24yos is 13%, compared to 3% for over 50yos).
But a younger population should also have a higher employment rate and London's is below average.
You're right that people without marketable experience, and skills, will have higher unemployment but how many of London's current unemployed will ever gain those ?
As opposed to becoming unemployable for life as they subsist on welfare while being replaced by the next wave of immigrants.
London's employment rate is 74%, versus 75% UK average. That's exceptionally high if you consider the number of students in London. You misinterpreted the figures and now you're digging a big hole.
What's remarkable about the UK is we have high employment rates, and low unemployment, despite the enormous levels of net migration over the last few years.
That is because they are all registered as disabled to get higher benefits , you will not see that in other developed countries
The economically inactive rate in the UK is 22.1%.
That is lower than the EU average - 24.4% It is lower than France (24.8%), Spain (25%), USA (25.1%, Belgium (28.9%) and Italy (33.6%).
Japan, Germany and Canada are doing better than us but we are in the top half of the OECD and G7 for economically active population.
Unfortunately your data on others includes pensioners etc whilst UK is only up to age 64
Comments
Next milestone will be 25,000 pieces of artillery. 24,848 currently, 101 added yesterday.
There are a lot of people there who remember growing up in a (Roman Catholic directed) morally fundamentalist state, with lots of blind spots.
I saw a comment on YT on the Zeihan "Christian Ultranationalist" video from yesterday:
As an Irishman, I grew up in an absolute theocracy. We just didn't call it that at the time. I can guarantee you, most European countries will never stand for that religious bull any more.
Given that it's a rather uncommon event and this is probably the most strategically / economically important one in the country..
Birgit Brösche was detained because she had tattoing equipment in her luggage, so was suspected of planning to illegally work, which she denies. She could also have just been deported rather than detained for 6 weeks.
Lucas Sielaff was detained for 16 days for reasons that aren't clear. It seems he mistakenly gave the address he was staying in the US as his home address because his English is poor.
https://www.tagesspiegel.de/gesellschaft/fussfesseln-bohnen-psychospiele-wie-ein-25-jahriger-aus-sachsen-anhalt-fur-16-tage-im-us-abschiebegefangnis-landete-13392799.html
He and his fiancée tried to explain that he was only visiting and had therefore given her place of residence as his address. To no avail. The couple was forced out of the car and taken to separate rooms for questioning. Sielaff was searched and then handcuffed to a bench.
Only hours after his interrogation – which he had to conduct without an interpreter – was he allowed to go to the car to give the dog water. He was not released that day, however. The German was taken to a cell. His fiancée was told she could leave if she went to Las Vegas immediately. She informed Sielaff's family in Germany.
After two days in a cell at the border control point, Lucas Sielaff was taken to a detention center near San Diego – with a chain around his waist, handcuffs, and leg shackles, he says. At the Otay Mesa Detention Center, he was fingerprinted, had to sign papers, and hand over his clothing.
...
Meanwhile, his fiancée and family in Germany fought for his release, contacting the media and the German embassy. However, the embassy was unable to provide any information, as they wrote in an email. Sielaff was also not provided with a lawyer because no trial date had been set.
It took 16 days for Lucas Sielaff to be released. Suddenly, his name was called, and he was told he could leave if he booked a flight to Germany now. His fiancée arranged his return to Germany for $2,800. On March 6, he flew to Munich. Beforehand, he was taken to the airport—again in chains—and his passport was handed over to the flight crew. At least the police officers explained to the crew that he was not dangerous.
I'm not sure which of "a) proven terrorist sympathiser, b) criminal past, c) entering illegally for work without the correct visa" you think this case falls under.
McGregor is being called Andrew Tayto on twitter, particularly amusing since he does resemble a vulgarly dressed, hyper-active potato.
Imagine you are a parent, and that out of the blue, you get a letter from your child's school telling you not to worry — that they're ready to evacuate or shelter in place if an underground fire at a nearby landfill reaches radioactive waste on the same property.
https://www.npr.org/2015/11/03/454010066/landfill-fire-threatens-nuclear-waste-site-outside-st-louis
Here’s an update from 2 months ago… 10 years later…
https://missouriindependent.com/2025/01/22/high-likelihood-of-radioactive-waste-in-smoldering-landfill-missouri-officials-say/
We will see.
We had a slightly noteworthy one in a suburb of Huddersfield last week, in that a power worker was injured in it. I very much doubt Russia was involved.
For Europe, it's a big part of strategic autonomy. We are moving towards a position where we do not *need* to be dependent on either of the (big and small) despots - wither Potus or Putin.
And a more distributed system is more resilient.
But Trumpski...
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/german-national-green-card-holder-immigration-detention-fabian-schmidt-rcna196714
Astrid Senior, Schmidt’s mother, said she and her son moved to the U.S. from Germany in 2007 and received green cards in 2008. He lives in New Hampshire and renewed his legal permanent resident status last year, she said.
Senior said she has no idea why her son is being detained by U.S. immigration officials. She said her son, who once lived in California, faced misdemeanor charges roughly a decade ago. He has no active legal or court issues, Senior said.
Maybe you're right and there is nothing special to see here, but are people with legal residence and 10-year-old misdemeanor charges usually detained at the airport?
If your testimony contradicts itself and you can’t explain incriminatory evidence, that’s going to look bad for you at trial.
“they do not seem to have looked too long, or at all, at other potential causes”: that’s simply untrue. You’ve made that up. The hospital went to some length to defend Letby, delaying her referral to the police. They did that by concluding that the deaths had other causes. From Wikipedia: “Records of the hospital board meeting show the medical director telling board members that the RCPCH and Hawdon reviews concluded that the deaths in the neonatal unit were due to issues with leadership and timely intervention.”
I think she was guilty because two juries concluded that, and 5 appeal judges concluded the convictions were safe. Key evidence includes: the testimony of the mother of Baby E; being observed failing to intervene with a desaturating baby; how she falsified times on medical records; a high number of unexpected deaths in the night, which stop when Letby is moved to day shifts and then there’s a high number of unexpected deaths in the day; the various evidence that the babies’ deaths were unnatural.
That’s horrific . If a small mistake on some paperwork can lead to those consequences then really anyone can get caught up in this.
And it’s the cruelty that comes from the top which means instead of just deporting people they’re now put into detention centres.
It's a really interesting case. She might have done it; she might not. But for me, there are significant doubts.
NEW THREAD
And as below, the fact that it is alleged she killed the babies using different methods is a little whiffy, is it not? If you have successfully killed a baby using one method, why would you try to use different methods that might stand more chance of getting caught?
I do fear that there's a chance she's just been caught up in a massive circumstantial web; it is also possible that no babies were murdered. Or alternatively, I fear that there's a chance that she's a mass-murderer. But I don't think it's a slam-dunk in either direction.
But the shredder argument is just stupid.
We are in a terrible mess. Debt has risen by £1trn over the last 5 years and for what? What do we actually get a return on from that unimaginably large sum of money? Many people who could afford it got help with their heating bills. Millions who could have worked got paid not to. Nothing of substance, no infrastructure, nothing that is going to generate future wealth. Bugger.
https://archive.is/20250321023750/https://pro.morningconsult.com/analysis/american-brands-tariff-exposure
I think that when Mr Trump has finished burning down all their bridges of influence or friendship, the USA is going to wake up and find that it is not as dominant as they assumed.
Needs annual checks, and oil replacement every few years, as you can get breakdown chemicals and worse, water in it - which can lead to shorting and fire/explosion.
They're supposed to have a life of around 25-30 years, but can last longer if well looked after.