Two NYC bets you should be making – politicalbetting.com
Options
Comments
-
That video is going to haunt Starmer for the rest of his tenure.Big_G_NorthWales said:
My wife has just called Starmer a ' bastard " and she never swearsrottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
2m
The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.0 -
Will Weepin’ Rachel try and take down Sir Sheer Vacuum?
*orders Thracian popcorn*0 -
As if the name of the bill was its most important feature.Nigelb said:
Except it's not:kinabalu said:
Oh god, really. Well that's just the pits. I give up. Congrats to the Beeb for even putting inverted commas in then. Touch of subversion in that.bondegezou said:
It's official name is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That's what the Congressional paperwork calls it. The BBC can't really invent an alternative namekinabalu said:
It's a cesspit over there, it really is. Presided over by an individual who is far and away the most unsuitable ever to hold office in a western democracy let alone the biggest, wealthiest, most powerful one.Gallowgate said:
You can understand where MAGA support comes from while still criticising it. In fact most of the criticism from “centrist dads” goes towards MAGA politicians who shamelessly lurch from one position to a completely contradictory one depending on what Daddy Trump says. The polls suggest that Trump’s policies do not enjoy majority support in the US so it’s not really a silent majority thing.another_richard said:
I'm trying to explain where support for MAGA comes from and that unempathetic glibness from centrist dads is self-defeating.JosiasJessop said:
You are really, really keen to blame anyone other than MAGA, aren't you?another_richard said:
That's exactly the sort of unempathetic glibness that drives support to MAGA.JosiasJessop said:
And so did previous Rep administrations. The USA was, and is, built on immigration.another_richard said:
The Dems casually allowed millions of illegal immigrants to pour in.JosiasJessop said:
You cannot compare what the GOP are doing with the Dems. I'm sorry, you just cannot.another_richard said:
They do, although with different ideas of what they want - see the Trump/Musk split.JosiasJessop said:
Trump and the GOP are making it very clear who they see the 'enemy' as being.Nigelb said:The day after lifting sanctions on some Russian banks.
White House confirms it has halted weapons that Ukraine was scheduled to receive, including PAC3 Patriots, 155mm artillery rounds, GMLRS, Stinger, AIM-7, and Hellfire missiles...
https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1940158711772979533
It is not America's traditional geopolitical enemies, who actively work against the USA's best interests.
It is the 'enemy' within. The people who do not agree with them; who look or act differently. The poor. Those with no voice or power.
Likewise many Dems also view the enemies as internal - internal within their own party and internal within their country.
What you say about the Dems can be said about 'many' in the political parties in other countries, including here. What the GOP are doing is orders of magnitude greater.
Many might view that as treasonable action or at least as a deliberate attempt to wage a socioeconomic war against internal opponents.
(Snip)
Telling people they've got to accept illegal immigration because their own ancestors migrated legally two centuries earlier is not going to get you support.
Instead it suggests you're not on the side of those 'little people' negatively affected by illegal immigration - so why should they worry about your concerns about Trump ? Perhaps the people who Trump regards as enemies might also be the enemies of the 'little people'.
And yes, previous GOP administrations did tolerate too much illegal immigration.
And that's what allowed Trump to run against the GOP establishment.
I suggest you are not on the side of decent, hard-working *legal* immigrants who are getting swept up in this mess - and that would be your attitude if similar shits came into power in this country.
Yet, sadly, you would rather scream waycisstttt than open your mind.
And what I would like to have is competent centrist government in both the USA and UK.
Unfortunately no party in either country is capable of providing that.
I note that the “Big Beautiful Bill” delays the painful provisions until 2028 so that the Democrats get the blame if they win then. That’s good politics but pretty shameless. Nobody is interested in good governance.
And look at the pathetic way he's covered in the mainstream media. The BBC headline yesterday, "Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' is passed". I mean, wtf is that? Why is the Beeb - the Beeb - calling it that? Why is our national broadcaster playing along with his stupid infantile language?
Some might feel this is trivial but it's not. It's all part of the dumbdown poison he's spreading throughout the body politic, conversation and debate, and life in general. Grrrrr.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/01/congress/dems-delete-the-big-beautiful-bill-00435099
The usual BBC coverage of US politics - informed only by what GOP spokespeople tell them.0 -
Zero sympathy for any of them - the absolute hubris and arrogance pre election on “smashing the gangs”, “we will work with foreign governments to stop immigration not like the horrid insular Tories”, the ming vase strategy where they lied to the voters by omission as they had no idea about anything.Leon said:AHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAH
*chokes slightly*
The Chancellor was CRYING during PMQs?
“THE ADULTS ARE IN CHARGE”
Get tae f*ck. Get in the effin sea. These dweebs are children
Reeves and her talking the economy down to score political points when the election was done and no benefit only downside. Getting rid of the urinal from her office - I thought you weren’t supposed to bind future governments to your decisions?
They haven’t a clue what they want to do, how to do anything and how to get out of the mess, but they aren’t the Tories so there’s that.1 -
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.bondegezou said:
"If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."turbotubbs said:
There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.SonofContrarian said:https://news.sky.com/story/more-criminal-charges-being-considered-over-baby-deaths-at-lucy-letby-hospitals-13391159
But I thought it was all one woman's fault..🥴
There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted.
There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.
PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.
I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
That is: Baby F and Baby L both showed high levels of insulin, but low levels of C-peptide: a situation which, the expert witness Dr Dewi Evans testified, could only come about through the administration of synethtic insulin.
Now: it is possible that the tests were flawed, or that both babies had some rare condition that led to them having this imbalance. (That is certainly what Dr Shoo Lee believes, when he wrote his report.) If it were just the one baby, then I think the "rare condition" argument be a lot more persuasive. It just seems really unlikely that two babies would both suffer from an imbalance that does not seem to have been recorded in any other babies. The quality of the tests argument seems more plausible, and leads to the question about whether the tests were done at the same facility at the same time, and whether the laboratory in question has registered similar outliers in the past with other tests.1 -
Lack of empathy is not a good lookkinabalu said:
Starmer has screwed up by not crying?rottenborough said:(((Dan Hodges)))
@DPJHodges
·
2m
The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.1 -
It is even more remarkable when watched back.
He gets two goes to give her a big endorsement. He completely ignores it each time, while she sits there looking devastated.
Even if he is thinking about sacking her, surely the rules of common decency say that he gives her full support in the public eye. He appointed her. Is this ruthless Sir Keir biting off more than he can chew?0 -
It has to be said that Angela Rayner has a good poker face though.Leon said:AHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAH
*chokes slightly*
The Chancellor was CRYING during PMQs?
“THE ADULTS ARE IN CHARGE”
Get tae f*ck. Get in the effin sea. These dweebs are children0 -
Not an ecumenical matter ?Big_G_NorthWales said:Sky
Spokesperson for Reeves
It is a personal matter0 -
It was the official name until the last minute before the Senate vote.Nigelb said:
Except it's not:kinabalu said:
Oh god, really. Well that's just the pits. I give up. Congrats to the Beeb for even putting inverted commas in then. Touch of subversion in that.bondegezou said:
It's official name is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That's what the Congressional paperwork calls it. The BBC can't really invent an alternative namekinabalu said:
It's a cesspit over there, it really is. Presided over by an individual who is far and away the most unsuitable ever to hold office in a western democracy let alone the biggest, wealthiest, most powerful one.Gallowgate said:
You can understand where MAGA support comes from while still criticising it. In fact most of the criticism from “centrist dads” goes towards MAGA politicians who shamelessly lurch from one position to a completely contradictory one depending on what Daddy Trump says. The polls suggest that Trump’s policies do not enjoy majority support in the US so it’s not really a silent majority thing.another_richard said:
I'm trying to explain where support for MAGA comes from and that unempathetic glibness from centrist dads is self-defeating.JosiasJessop said:
You are really, really keen to blame anyone other than MAGA, aren't you?another_richard said:
That's exactly the sort of unempathetic glibness that drives support to MAGA.JosiasJessop said:
And so did previous Rep administrations. The USA was, and is, built on immigration.another_richard said:
The Dems casually allowed millions of illegal immigrants to pour in.JosiasJessop said:
You cannot compare what the GOP are doing with the Dems. I'm sorry, you just cannot.another_richard said:
They do, although with different ideas of what they want - see the Trump/Musk split.JosiasJessop said:
Trump and the GOP are making it very clear who they see the 'enemy' as being.Nigelb said:The day after lifting sanctions on some Russian banks.
White House confirms it has halted weapons that Ukraine was scheduled to receive, including PAC3 Patriots, 155mm artillery rounds, GMLRS, Stinger, AIM-7, and Hellfire missiles...
https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1940158711772979533
It is not America's traditional geopolitical enemies, who actively work against the USA's best interests.
It is the 'enemy' within. The people who do not agree with them; who look or act differently. The poor. Those with no voice or power.
Likewise many Dems also view the enemies as internal - internal within their own party and internal within their country.
What you say about the Dems can be said about 'many' in the political parties in other countries, including here. What the GOP are doing is orders of magnitude greater.
Many might view that as treasonable action or at least as a deliberate attempt to wage a socioeconomic war against internal opponents.
(Snip)
Telling people they've got to accept illegal immigration because their own ancestors migrated legally two centuries earlier is not going to get you support.
Instead it suggests you're not on the side of those 'little people' negatively affected by illegal immigration - so why should they worry about your concerns about Trump ? Perhaps the people who Trump regards as enemies might also be the enemies of the 'little people'.
And yes, previous GOP administrations did tolerate too much illegal immigration.
And that's what allowed Trump to run against the GOP establishment.
I suggest you are not on the side of decent, hard-working *legal* immigrants who are getting swept up in this mess - and that would be your attitude if similar shits came into power in this country.
Yet, sadly, you would rather scream waycisstttt than open your mind.
And what I would like to have is competent centrist government in both the USA and UK.
Unfortunately no party in either country is capable of providing that.
I note that the “Big Beautiful Bill” delays the painful provisions until 2028 so that the Democrats get the blame if they win then. That’s good politics but pretty shameless. Nobody is interested in good governance.
And look at the pathetic way he's covered in the mainstream media. The BBC headline yesterday, "Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' is passed". I mean, wtf is that? Why is the Beeb - the Beeb - calling it that? Why is our national broadcaster playing along with his stupid infantile language?
Some might feel this is trivial but it's not. It's all part of the dumbdown poison he's spreading throughout the body politic, conversation and debate, and life in general. Grrrrr.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/01/congress/dems-delete-the-big-beautiful-bill-00435099
The usual BBC coverage of US politics - informed only by what GOP spokespeople tell them.0 -
Sam Coates on Sky sayng one Labour mp has just messaged him with
'This is hell'1 -
Yes the country as a whole wanted shot of the Tories (possibly forever). The vote distribution suggests that there was no real favourite for who should take over (despite the heroically large majority). And its interesting that the ming vase strategy, which can be seen to have worked so well, is now being seen as a problem.Nigelb said:
It's hardly just the media.MarqueeMark said:
To be fair to the media*, the voters were anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.Taz said:
It’s an easy answer. The media was anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.isam said:Prescient from Michael Crick, 22nd June 2024
In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".
https://x.com/michaellcrick/status/1804622969500516439?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Buyers' remorse was pretty easy to predict.
* a phrase I shan't be using ever again.
A number of our own right of centre contributors were no different - and actually voted for the government they now hold in such contempt.2 -
Welcome to power. Its not as easy as they thought it would be.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sam Coates on Sky sayng one Labour mp has just messaged him with
'This is hell'1 -
By contrast, Blair and Brown actually actively hated each other at points during Blair’s government .
Neither would have had the lack of decency to put down the other like that. I suppose one could say the “clunking fist” thing was a backhanded compliment, but in the context it was delivered it showed support for the other.2 -
The Letby case is fascinating; both for the case itself, and for the reflection it shows on ourselves.rcs1000 said:
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.bondegezou said:
"If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."turbotubbs said:
There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.SonofContrarian said:https://news.sky.com/story/more-criminal-charges-being-considered-over-baby-deaths-at-lucy-letby-hospitals-13391159
But I thought it was all one woman's fault..🥴
There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted.
There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.
PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.
I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
That is: Baby F and Baby L both showed high levels of insulin, but low levels of C-peptide: a situation which, the expert witness Dr Dewi Evans testified, could only come about through the administration of synethtic insulin.
Now: it is possible that the tests were flawed, or that both babies had some rare condition that led to them having this imbalance. (That is certainly what Dr Shoo Lee believes, when he wrote his report.) If it were just the one baby, then I think the "rare condition" argument be a lot more persuasive. It just seems really unlikely that two babies would both suffer from an imbalance that does not seem to have been recorded in any other babies. The quality of the tests argument seems more plausible, and leads to the question about whether the tests were done at the same facility at the same time, and whether the laboratory in question has registered similar outliers in the past with other tests.1 -
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U1 -
Allison Pearson has an excellent line on Xwilliamglenn said:
It has to be said that Angela Rayner has a good poker face though.Leon said:AHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAH
*chokes slightly*
The Chancellor was CRYING during PMQs?
“THE ADULTS ARE IN CHARGE”
Get tae f*ck. Get in the effin sea. These dweebs are children
“Rayner sits there with a face saying ‘he’s not with me’”
lol. Exactly right0 -
Oh dear. I made the error on Twitter of saying we should be concerned to ensure Rachel Reeves, on a human level, is okay.
I don’t even know what a Simpdick is, but I am one apparently !2 -
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U0 -
Immortan Joe and the War Boys hadJosiasJessop said:I was watching Mad Max: Fury Road instead of PMQs.
There might not be much difference between Labour's internal politics and the War Boys.
Although I cannot see Starmer as Immortan Joe...
- a vision
- a clear structure for responsibly
- a taxation policy that worked
- a training system for staff that actually worked.2 -
I do apologise for yanking you into this.kinabalu said:
I'm giving up.HYUFD said:
The quickest way to reduce educational inequality would be to force the highest IQ to marry the lowest IQ but that just means fewer higher IQ and more average IQ and most beyond the highest IQ are more interested in getting a fancy car and big house than being the next Professor at Christ Churchkinabalu said:
Can you not be serious even for a minute, William. We're trying to have a vision here, tell a story, act from principles - what everyone says they want.williamglenn said:
What are you thinking of? Assisted places for finishing schools in Gstaad?kinabalu said:
Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.Dopermean said:
Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.kinabalu said:
You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate itCookie said:
... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and ILostPassword said:
If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.tlg86 said:
What does equality look like when it comes to housing?LostPassword said:
Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.JosiasJessop said:I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.
But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.
If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.
With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.
It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
am to some extent persuaded that
inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed
b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
What's the topic we're meant to be on?1 -
Yeah, they wanted it, they got it. The ‘I didn’t come into politics to make hard decisions’ brigade are pretty pathetic.turbotubbs said:
Welcome to power. Its not as easy as they thought it would be.Big_G_NorthWales said:Sam Coates on Sky sayng one Labour mp has just messaged him with
'This is hell'0 -
Indeed: the amount of certainty people express is extraordinary.JosiasJessop said:
The Letby case is fascinating; both for the case itself, and for the reflection it shows on ourselves.rcs1000 said:
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.bondegezou said:
"If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."turbotubbs said:
There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.SonofContrarian said:https://news.sky.com/story/more-criminal-charges-being-considered-over-baby-deaths-at-lucy-letby-hospitals-13391159
But I thought it was all one woman's fault..🥴
There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted.
There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.
PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.
I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
That is: Baby F and Baby L both showed high levels of insulin, but low levels of C-peptide: a situation which, the expert witness Dr Dewi Evans testified, could only come about through the administration of synethtic insulin.
Now: it is possible that the tests were flawed, or that both babies had some rare condition that led to them having this imbalance. (That is certainly what Dr Shoo Lee believes, when he wrote his report.) If it were just the one baby, then I think the "rare condition" argument be a lot more persuasive. It just seems really unlikely that two babies would both suffer from an imbalance that does not seem to have been recorded in any other babies. The quality of the tests argument seems more plausible, and leads to the question about whether the tests were done at the same facility at the same time, and whether the laboratory in question has registered similar outliers in the past with other tests.
Mind you, I find that true of ordinary life
0 -
Who would have voted to still replace Sunak and Hunt with Starmer and Reeves today?Leon said:Wow. She doesn’t just shed one tear. She BLUBS
I wonder if there is some deeper story?
Either way this feels like Sunak’s speech-in-the-rain. No matter the explanation, the symbolic power is overwhelming0 -
She will be PM by the end of 2026. Heaven fucking help us.Leon said:
Allison Pearson has an excellent line on Xwilliamglenn said:
It has to be said that Angela Rayner has a good poker face though.Leon said:AHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAH
*chokes slightly*
The Chancellor was CRYING during PMQs?
“THE ADULTS ARE IN CHARGE”
Get tae f*ck. Get in the effin sea. These dweebs are children
“Rayner sits there with a face saying ‘he’s not with me’”
lol. Exactly right1 -
Rumour there was some kind of bust up with the Speaker immediately prior to her coming into the Commons.0
-
Some MPs saying there were 'cross words' between Speaker and Chancellor before PMQs.
The blame Hoyle truther movement is born1 -
Reeves crying that she couldn't take people's disability benefits away. Hot on the heels of two tier benefits Keir narrative.Taz said:Oh dear. I made the error on Twitter of saying we should be concerned to ensure Rachel Reeves, on a human level, is okay.
I don’t even know what a Simpdick is, but I am one apparently !0 -
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
No.0 -
Well that seals it, PMs having to say they are giving chancellors 'full support' normally means they are gone within the weekBig_G_NorthWales said:PM has said Reeves has not resigned and is going nowhere
PM has given her his full support0 -
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.0 -
I enjoyed Bret Devereaux’s article on wasteland warfare. His view was that the best armament would be technicals, which are used a lot for low-tech warfare in the Sahel.Malmesbury said:
Immortan Joe and the War Boys hadJosiasJessop said:I was watching Mad Max: Fury Road instead of PMQs.
There might not be much difference between Labour's internal politics and the War Boys.
Although I cannot see Starmer as Immortan Joe...
- a vision
- a clear structure for responsibly
- a taxation policy that worked
- a training system for staff that actually worked.0 -
I remember, during the Coalition, that it was considered somewhere between weird and wrong that Osbourne wasn’t working to overthrow Cameron 24/7numbertwelve said:By contrast, Blair and Brown actually actively hated each other at points during Blair’s government .
Neither would have had the lack of decency to put down the other like that. I suppose one could say the “clunking fist” thing was a backhanded compliment, but in the context it was delivered it showed support for the other.1 -
Well you're not. People using that sort of language are sheer tack.Taz said:Oh dear. I made the error on Twitter of saying we should be concerned to ensure Rachel Reeves, on a human level, is okay.
I don’t even know what a Simpdick is, but I am one apparently !
Sense, sense, sense, sensitivity, that's the beauty of Taz.1 -
It's called buyer's remorseHYUFD said:
Who would have voted to still replace Sunak and Hunt with Starmer and Reeves today?Leon said:Wow. She doesn’t just shed one tear. She BLUBS
I wonder if there is some deeper story?
Either way this feels like Sunak’s speech-in-the-rain. No matter the explanation, the symbolic power is overwhelming
But on a personal level Reeves did not deserve the betrayal by Starmer who was simply thoughtless and frankly just horrible
And he is our PM0 -
Uh oh, here comes the “let’s blame it on the Speaker” narrativeEabhal said:Rumour there was some kind of bust up with the Speaker immediately prior to her coming into the Commons.
1 -
Not sure that is true. The Letby case is pretty unique.HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
Any evidence that people stopped becoming GPs because of Shipman?1 -
My anaesthetist was a bit mad. "You're young and fit so I'll be extra disappointed if you die", as he hands me a leaflet explaining that they don't really know why the drugs work in the first place.rcs1000 said:
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.1 -
GPs are paid more than nurses and premature babies are more vulnerable life expectancy wise even than pensionersbondegezou said:
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
No.0 -
Best she doesn't visit the US like Kwasi and get booted whilst shes gone!HYUFD said:
Well that seals it, PMs having to say they are giving chancellors 'full support' normally means they are gone within the weekBig_G_NorthWales said:PM has said Reeves has not resigned and is going nowhere
PM has given her his full support1 -
I didn't watch this. How did SKS humiliate RR? What did he say or do?numbertwelve said:By contrast, Blair and Brown actually actively hated each other at points during Blair’s government .
Neither would have had the lack of decency to put down the other like that. I suppose one could say the “clunking fist” thing was a backhanded compliment, but in the context it was delivered it showed support for the other.0 -
OK, let’s accept the basic idea that Reeves was upset at something Hoyle said to her.
I’m sure she was comforted to no end for that to be immediately followed by her boss throwing her under the bus. Bet it made her feel absolutely swell.0 -
Twitter crowds are the modern day equivalent of the women knitting by the guillotineTaz said:Oh dear. I made the error on Twitter of saying we should be concerned to ensure Rachel Reeves, on a human level, is okay.
I don’t even know what a Simpdick is, but I am one apparently !1 -
Which raises the salient question - when the last Toyota low tech pickup expires, what do you bolt your ex-Soviet 14.5mm to?Sean_F said:
I enjoyed Bret Devereaux’s article on wasteland warfare. His view was that the best armament would be technicals, which are used a lot for low-tech warfare in the Sahel.Malmesbury said:
Immortan Joe and the War Boys hadJosiasJessop said:I was watching Mad Max: Fury Road instead of PMQs.
There might not be much difference between Labour's internal politics and the War Boys.
Although I cannot see Starmer as Immortan Joe...
- a vision
- a clear structure for responsibly
- a taxation policy that worked
- a training system for staff that actually worked.1 -
How on earth did the blairites coalesce around such an empathy vacuum as their new front man?0
-
@mikeysmith
Rachel Reeves said to have had an “altercation” with Speaker Lindsay Hoyle immediately prior to PMQs. “He ended up apologising,” a minister says.0 -
You are misconstruing my first point. Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual. See the case of the Dutch nurse who was convicted and later exhonerated in similar circumstances. Once a problem was identified, explanations were sought, and a case made against Letby. The construction of that case is complex, and the trial was complex and lengthy. Clearly the case was not just that there were more deaths.bondegezou said:
"If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."turbotubbs said:
There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.SonofContrarian said:https://news.sky.com/story/more-criminal-charges-being-considered-over-baby-deaths-at-lucy-letby-hospitals-13391159
But I thought it was all one woman's fault..🥴
There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted.
There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.
PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.
I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
It is also the case that the exact cases included changed over time. During the time of the the 7 babies she has been convicted of killing, 10 others died. It is not the case that the 7 that died were happy, bonny babies. They were all in need of significant levels of care.
Did the defence accept that some of the babies had been deliberately killed? I was not aware of this, and if true that is NOT the basis for the current concerns (i.e. plenty of experts believe it likely that NONE of the deaths were murder). It would also suggest that the defence was saying 'Letby wasn't the killer, someone else was" and I don't recall that.
I am dismissing no new evidence. Let it be tried in court. But I would ask this - any baby deaths that Letby may be accused of from previous institutions - what was the recorded cause of death on the Coroners report? Were any of them seen as suspicious at the time?
I have consistently said that I do not know if she is innocent or guilty. I DO think there are significant causes for concern in the conviction.2 -
One of my best friends is a surgeon, and whenever one of his patients dies, you can be sure he blames the anaesthatist.Eabhal said:
My anaesthetist was a bit mad. "You're young and fit so I'll be extra disappointed if you die", as he hands me a leaflet explaining that they don't really know why the drugs work in the first place.rcs1000 said:
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.1 -
Unless the Speaker told her “your mum is dying and that’s good cause she smells. Like you” then I cannot imaging any exchange that would leave Reeves in sobbing tearsnumbertwelve said:
Uh oh, here comes the “let’s blame it on the Speaker” narrativeEabhal said:Rumour there was some kind of bust up with the Speaker immediately prior to her coming into the Commons.
I mean, remember, because she told us, she’s the IRON CHANCELLOR0 -
Or Beverly Allitt.bondegezou said:
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
No.
Letby was not the first neonatal nurse to be convicted as a murderer.
(The Shipman case did instigate a new round of bureaucratic regulation of Doctors in general, and GPs in particular, which has made recruitment more difficult, though not the only factor).0 -
He failed to confirm she’d keep her job twice at PMQs. Didn’t even confront the question, just ignored it.kinabalu said:
I didn't watch this. How did SKS humiliate RR? What did he say or do?numbertwelve said:By contrast, Blair and Brown actually actively hated each other at points during Blair’s government .
Neither would have had the lack of decency to put down the other like that. I suppose one could say the “clunking fist” thing was a backhanded compliment, but in the context it was delivered it showed support for the other.
At best it was clumsy and thoughtless, and showed a lack of deftness. At worst he was actively signalling she was on the way out.
1 -
The quality of the testing has been questioned.rcs1000 said:
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.bondegezou said:
"If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."turbotubbs said:
There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.SonofContrarian said:https://news.sky.com/story/more-criminal-charges-being-considered-over-baby-deaths-at-lucy-letby-hospitals-13391159
But I thought it was all one woman's fault..🥴
There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted.
There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.
PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.
I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
That is: Baby F and Baby L both showed high levels of insulin, but low levels of C-peptide: a situation which, the expert witness Dr Dewi Evans testified, could only come about through the administration of synethtic insulin.
Now: it is possible that the tests were flawed, or that both babies had some rare condition that led to them having this imbalance. (That is certainly what Dr Shoo Lee believes, when he wrote his report.) If it were just the one baby, then I think the "rare condition" argument be a lot more persuasive. It just seems really unlikely that two babies would both suffer from an imbalance that does not seem to have been recorded in any other babies. The quality of the tests argument seems more plausible, and leads to the question about whether the tests were done at the same facility at the same time, and whether the laboratory in question has registered similar outliers in the past with other tests.0 -
So its a personal matter and she had a bust up with the speaker just before PMQs and the PM declined to support her all on the day after the governments welfare bill and Starmers authority fell apart.
What an unfortunate series of coincidences at such an inopportune time2 -
Well, yes.DecrepiterJohnL said:
As if the name of the bill was its most important feature.Nigelb said:
Except it's not:kinabalu said:
Oh god, really. Well that's just the pits. I give up. Congrats to the Beeb for even putting inverted commas in then. Touch of subversion in that.bondegezou said:
It's official name is the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. That's what the Congressional paperwork calls it. The BBC can't really invent an alternative namekinabalu said:
It's a cesspit over there, it really is. Presided over by an individual who is far and away the most unsuitable ever to hold office in a western democracy let alone the biggest, wealthiest, most powerful one.Gallowgate said:
You can understand where MAGA support comes from while still criticising it. In fact most of the criticism from “centrist dads” goes towards MAGA politicians who shamelessly lurch from one position to a completely contradictory one depending on what Daddy Trump says. The polls suggest that Trump’s policies do not enjoy majority support in the US so it’s not really a silent majority thing.another_richard said:
I'm trying to explain where support for MAGA comes from and that unempathetic glibness from centrist dads is self-defeating.JosiasJessop said:
You are really, really keen to blame anyone other than MAGA, aren't you?another_richard said:
That's exactly the sort of unempathetic glibness that drives support to MAGA.JosiasJessop said:
And so did previous Rep administrations. The USA was, and is, built on immigration.another_richard said:
The Dems casually allowed millions of illegal immigrants to pour in.JosiasJessop said:
You cannot compare what the GOP are doing with the Dems. I'm sorry, you just cannot.another_richard said:
They do, although with different ideas of what they want - see the Trump/Musk split.JosiasJessop said:
Trump and the GOP are making it very clear who they see the 'enemy' as being.Nigelb said:The day after lifting sanctions on some Russian banks.
White House confirms it has halted weapons that Ukraine was scheduled to receive, including PAC3 Patriots, 155mm artillery rounds, GMLRS, Stinger, AIM-7, and Hellfire missiles...
https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1940158711772979533
It is not America's traditional geopolitical enemies, who actively work against the USA's best interests.
It is the 'enemy' within. The people who do not agree with them; who look or act differently. The poor. Those with no voice or power.
Likewise many Dems also view the enemies as internal - internal within their own party and internal within their country.
What you say about the Dems can be said about 'many' in the political parties in other countries, including here. What the GOP are doing is orders of magnitude greater.
Many might view that as treasonable action or at least as a deliberate attempt to wage a socioeconomic war against internal opponents.
(Snip)
Telling people they've got to accept illegal immigration because their own ancestors migrated legally two centuries earlier is not going to get you support.
Instead it suggests you're not on the side of those 'little people' negatively affected by illegal immigration - so why should they worry about your concerns about Trump ? Perhaps the people who Trump regards as enemies might also be the enemies of the 'little people'.
And yes, previous GOP administrations did tolerate too much illegal immigration.
And that's what allowed Trump to run against the GOP establishment.
I suggest you are not on the side of decent, hard-working *legal* immigrants who are getting swept up in this mess - and that would be your attitude if similar shits came into power in this country.
Yet, sadly, you would rather scream waycisstttt than open your mind.
And what I would like to have is competent centrist government in both the USA and UK.
Unfortunately no party in either country is capable of providing that.
I note that the “Big Beautiful Bill” delays the painful provisions until 2028 so that the Democrats get the blame if they win then. That’s good politics but pretty shameless. Nobody is interested in good governance.
And look at the pathetic way he's covered in the mainstream media. The BBC headline yesterday, "Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill' is passed". I mean, wtf is that? Why is the Beeb - the Beeb - calling it that? Why is our national broadcaster playing along with his stupid infantile language?
Some might feel this is trivial but it's not. It's all part of the dumbdown poison he's spreading throughout the body politic, conversation and debate, and life in general. Grrrrr.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/07/01/congress/dems-delete-the-big-beautiful-bill-00435099
The usual BBC coverage of US politics - informed only by what GOP spokespeople tell them.
As I noted upthread, it's a mark of Schumer's uselessness that he was celebrating this as a victory.
But I don't think I'm wrong to observe that the BBC's US coverage has been effectively captured by Republican discourse for many decades now.
That's far more likely a result of journalistic laziness, and GOP efforts over the years, than any kind of ideological bent (though currently, Webb is certainly more sympathetic to the right).0 -
Good afternoon everyone.
Sunny but sufferable here - 18C.
Curtis Sliwa is a blast from the past - he founded the group in 1977 that became the Guardian Angels to ride the NY subway, 47 years ago. That was in the days when the trains were entirely covered in graffiti, and a crooked developer called Trump was attempting to make his fortune - using criminal activity even then.
My photo quota: Guardian Angels.
2 -
Bloomberg:
There’s been quite a hefty move in the pound and gilts in the last few minutes after speculation about Rachel Reeves’ future
Sterling’s dropped 0.7%, while gilt yields have jumped, with the 30-year yield up more than 15 basis points0 -
On a happier note I am supervising three Americans (from Texas) for the next few weeks. They asked me on Monday if this Friday is a day off in the UK.
(Think about the date)2 -
You're not dead under anaesthetic though.rcs1000 said:
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.0 -
Did he say "welcome to the house of commons Madam Chancellor".numbertwelve said:
Uh oh, here comes the “let’s blame it on the Speaker” narrativeEabhal said:Rumour there was some kind of bust up with the Speaker immediately prior to her coming into the Commons.
Which might have triggered her.1 -
If that's true then either Hoyle was unprofessional and should go, or Reeves was on the cusp of collapse before Hoyle said something that was entirely reasonable that somehow tipped her over.wooliedyed said:Some MPs saying there were 'cross words' between Speaker and Chancellor before PMQs.
The blame Hoyle truther movement is born0 -
Didn't he tell her off the Chamber a few days ago for some procedural thing or other?wooliedyed said:Some MPs saying there were 'cross words' between Speaker and Chancellor before PMQs.
The blame Hoyle truther movement is born0 -
Ha !!kinabalu said:
Well you're not. People using that sort of language are sheer tack.Taz said:Oh dear. I made the error on Twitter of saying we should be concerned to ensure Rachel Reeves, on a human level, is okay.
I don’t even know what a Simpdick is, but I am one apparently !
Sense, sense, sense, sensitivity, that's the beauty of Taz.
On the plus side the Sunday Sport Twitter feed agreed with me.0 -
I’ve always thought we could do with a bank holiday in early July (replacing one of the ones in May).turbotubbs said:On a happier note I am supervising three Americans (from Texas) for the next few weeks. They asked me on Monday if this Friday is a day off in the UK.
(Think about the date)
The Traitorous Yankees day sounds like a suitable “celebration”1 -
Ah ok, thanks. It must be a possibility. Let's see if Betfair put a market up.numbertwelve said:
He failed to confirm she’d keep her job twice at PMQs. Didn’t even confront the question, just ignored it.kinabalu said:
I didn't watch this. How did SKS humiliate RR? What did he say or do?numbertwelve said:By contrast, Blair and Brown actually actively hated each other at points during Blair’s government .
Neither would have had the lack of decency to put down the other like that. I suppose one could say the “clunking fist” thing was a backhanded compliment, but in the context it was delivered it showed support for the other.
At best it was clumsy and thoughtless, and showed a lack of deftness. At worst he was actively signalling she was on the way out.0 -
In our UCAS recruitment the NHS gets us to see if our candidates show NHS values (patient centred care, compassion etc). We refer to this as the Shipman test - trying to weed out Shipmans before they even start Uni.Foxy said:
Or Beverly Allitt.bondegezou said:
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
No.
Letby was not the first neonatal nurse to be convicted as a murderer.
(The Shipman case did instigate a new round of bureaucratic regulation of Doctors in general, and GPs in particular, which has made recruitment more difficult, though not the only factor).
I find it a bit odd. The students will have four years at Uni please a pre-reg year to learn all about patient centred care and the rest of the NHS values. Thats part of the training.0 -
Increasingly Friday is a day off every week...turbotubbs said:On a happier note I am supervising three Americans (from Texas) for the next few weeks. They asked me on Monday if this Friday is a day off in the UK.
(Think about the date)0 -
Sterling down a cent (Admitedly from a toppy 1.375) and UK 10 yr up ~ 0.2% on the day.0
-
Markets reacting to Crygate.
0 -
It wouldn't have been, had it simply disguised a program for government which was likely to offend sections of the electorate.turbotubbs said:
Yes the country as a whole wanted shot of the Tories (possibly forever). The vote distribution suggests that there was no real favourite for who should take over (despite the heroically large majority). And its interesting that the ming vase strategy, which can be seen to have worked so well, is now being seen as a problem.Nigelb said:
It's hardly just the media.MarqueeMark said:
To be fair to the media*, the voters were anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.Taz said:
It’s an easy answer. The media was anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.isam said:Prescient from Michael Crick, 22nd June 2024
In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".
https://x.com/michaellcrick/status/1804622969500516439?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Buyers' remorse was pretty easy to predict.
* a phrase I shan't be using ever again.
A number of our own right of centre contributors were no different - and actually voted for the government they now hold in such contempt.
It's now fairy clear that it was actually a quite accurate expression of the lack of any such program.0 -
For those exact same reasons I thought he weathered PMQs well. Nothing Kemi said derailed him. Because he is clumsy and thoughtless so was happy to plough on happily (if he was able to feel such an emotion), ignoring her questions.numbertwelve said:
He failed to confirm she’d keep her job twice at PMQs. Didn’t even confront the question, just ignored it.kinabalu said:
I didn't watch this. How did SKS humiliate RR? What did he say or do?numbertwelve said:By contrast, Blair and Brown actually actively hated each other at points during Blair’s government .
Neither would have had the lack of decency to put down the other like that. I suppose one could say the “clunking fist” thing was a backhanded compliment, but in the context it was delivered it showed support for the other.
At best it was clumsy and thoughtless, and showed a lack of deftness. At worst he was actively signalling she was on the way out.
A female chancellor sobbing quietly behind him while he refused to assure her of her future would not have made the slightest impression on him, certainly when in PM mode and most probably when in kicking back with a beer at home mode either.0 -
Scrap May Day bank holiday. Move August back to the beginning of August. Add one at the end of October.eek said:
I’ve always thought we could do with a bank holiday in early July (replacing one of the ones in May).turbotubbs said:On a happier note I am supervising three Americans (from Texas) for the next few weeks. They asked me on Monday if this Friday is a day off in the UK.
(Think about the date)
The Traitorous Yankees day sounds like a suitable “celebration”1 -
That’s where I know the name from.MattW said:Good afternoon everyone.
Sunny but sufferable here - 18C.
Curtis Sliwa is a blast from the past - he founded the group in 1977 that became the Guardian Angels to ride the NY subway, 47 years ago. That was in the days when the trains were entirely covered in graffiti, and a crooked developer called Trump was attempting to make his fortune - using criminal activity even then.
My photo quota: Guardian Angels.
And one of my favourite wrestlers, Ray Traylor, wrestled as the Guardian Angel for a short period of time.
RIP Ray.0 -
Thanks. I've got these little jingles for posters. Drop one in every so often. Very sweet and also a bit sad.Taz said:
Ha !!kinabalu said:
Well you're not. People using that sort of language are sheer tack.Taz said:Oh dear. I made the error on Twitter of saying we should be concerned to ensure Rachel Reeves, on a human level, is okay.
I don’t even know what a Simpdick is, but I am one apparently !
Sense, sense, sense, sensitivity, that's the beauty of Taz.
On the plus side the Sunday Sport Twitter feed agreed with me.1 -
Your first point is a good one. As humans, once we've come to a decision, we'll start looking for evidenec that that decision was the right one. So, if the statistics say "there was a murder", then you wil go out looking for corroborating evidence, when you should actually be doing the opposite. It's cognitive dissonance at its finest.turbotubbs said:
You are misconstruing my first point. Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual. See the case of the Dutch nurse who was convicted and later exhonerated in similar circumstances. Once a problem was identified, explanations were sought, and a case made against Letby. The construction of that case is complex, and the trial was complex and lengthy. Clearly the case was not just that there were more deaths.bondegezou said:
"If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."turbotubbs said:
There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.SonofContrarian said:https://news.sky.com/story/more-criminal-charges-being-considered-over-baby-deaths-at-lucy-letby-hospitals-13391159
But I thought it was all one woman's fault..🥴
There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted.
There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.
PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.
I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
It is also the case that the exact cases included changed over time. During the time of the the 7 babies she has been convicted of killing, 10 others died. It is not the case that the 7 that died were happy, bonny babies. They were all in need of significant levels of care.
Did the defence accept that some of the babies had been deliberately killed? I was not aware of this, and if true that is NOT the basis for the current concerns (i.e. plenty of experts believe it likely that NONE of the deaths were murder). It would also suggest that the defence was saying 'Letby wasn't the killer, someone else was" and I don't recall that.
I am dismissing no new evidence. Let it be tried in court. But I would ask this - any baby deaths that Letby may be accused of from previous institutions - what was the recorded cause of death on the Coroners report? Were any of them seen as suspicious at the time?
I have consistently said that I do not know if she is innocent or guilty. I DO think there are significant causes for concern in the conviction.
I think it is highly unlikely there was a murderer other than Letby. If she is innocent, then it will amost certainly be because there were no murders at all - just generally slightly substandard care combined with a bit of bad luck.
And I don't know the answer. She certainly could well be guilty - and the insulin evidence is very persuasive that murders actually took place. But I also recognise that once one has committed to a proposition (i.e. babies were murdered) then one will tend to dismiss all evidence that contradicts it. Ands it is entirely possible that cognitive bias led the the investigators astray.2 -
I am currently referring to Friday as Freedom Day (for the Brits).eek said:
I’ve always thought we could do with a bank holiday in early July (replacing one of the ones in May).turbotubbs said:On a happier note I am supervising three Americans (from Texas) for the next few weeks. They asked me on Monday if this Friday is a day off in the UK.
(Think about the date)
The Traitorous Yankees day sounds like a suitable “celebration”0 -
Of course much better for The NHS to have a bad actor rather than acknowledge that the whole institution is rotten and set up to kill its customers.Foxy said:
Or Beverly Allitt.bondegezou said:
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
No.
Letby was not the first neonatal nurse to be convicted as a murderer.
(The Shipman case did instigate a new round of bureaucratic regulation of Doctors in general, and GPs in particular, which has made recruitment more difficult, though not the only factor).0 -
And the media, I think, knew this and were complicit in not exposing it.Nigelb said:
It wouldn't have been, had it simply disguised a program for government which was likely to offend sections of the electorate.turbotubbs said:
Yes the country as a whole wanted shot of the Tories (possibly forever). The vote distribution suggests that there was no real favourite for who should take over (despite the heroically large majority). And its interesting that the ming vase strategy, which can be seen to have worked so well, is now being seen as a problem.Nigelb said:
It's hardly just the media.MarqueeMark said:
To be fair to the media*, the voters were anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.Taz said:
It’s an easy answer. The media was anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.isam said:Prescient from Michael Crick, 22nd June 2024
In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".
https://x.com/michaellcrick/status/1804622969500516439?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
Buyers' remorse was pretty easy to predict.
* a phrase I shan't be using ever again.
A number of our own right of centre contributors were no different - and actually voted for the government they now hold in such contempt.
It's now fairy clear that it was actually a quite accurate expression of the lack of any such program.0 -
OT - Mamdami is the anti-Trump candidate so Mamdami will win. If he is a free man, if he is arrested, if he is deported - in all of these circumstances he will win.
In the primary it was Cuomo aganst a split oppositon. Mamdami still won and out-performed his polling.
The general will be Mamdami against a split oppositon. It wn't be close and it will be even less close if the Federal Govt tries to force New Yorkers into voting a certain way. That would hurt them and not just in New York.
BTW the GOP claimed Obama was a communist. Their ignorance on such matters is not new1 -
Well what is it ? Pee or get off the pot.Eabhal said:
It’s all very well saying there’s a ‘rumour’ without any detail
It’s just ‘I know something you don’t’ bragging0 -
One of my friends, a consultant, had written instructions that in the event of him requiring emergency treatment a specific anaesthetist was not to be allowed anywhere near him. I believe she is still working at the hospital concerned.rcs1000 said:
One of my best friends is a surgeon, and whenever one of his patients dies, you can be sure he blames the anaesthatist.Eabhal said:
My anaesthetist was a bit mad. "You're young and fit so I'll be extra disappointed if you die", as he hands me a leaflet explaining that they don't really know why the drugs work in the first place.rcs1000 said:
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.0 -
Pah - maybe for you rich medics who are trying to minimise tax...Foxy said:
Increasingly Friday is a day off every week...turbotubbs said:On a happier note I am supervising three Americans (from Texas) for the next few weeks. They asked me on Monday if this Friday is a day off in the UK.
(Think about the date)
(Checks diary and realises I have had the last two fridays off and will be off on the 4th too...)0 -
The patient needs to be positive enough to control it, which is unfortunately not always possible (eg if unconscious).rcs1000 said:
One of my best friends is a surgeon, and whenever one of his patients dies, you can be sure he blames the anaesthatist.Eabhal said:
My anaesthetist was a bit mad. "You're young and fit so I'll be extra disappointed if you die", as he hands me a leaflet explaining that they don't really know why the drugs work in the first place.rcs1000 said:
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
I have only caught one probable error in 25 years, but that was an insulin infusion rate set 10x too high. It may well have been caught by one of the interlocking checking systems - which in daily practice are good, but guards need not to be relaxed.
There's something therapeutic in having to have an epidural (barrier - in my case waist down) anaesthetic and being able to watch an operation on your foot.0 -
I'll take that as support for increasing nurses' wages.HYUFD said:
GPs are paid more than nurses and premature babies are more vulnerable life expectancy wise even than pensionersbondegezou said:
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
No.0 -
Or just one more sting on top of all the others.Eabhal said:
The Speaker has certainly had his issues with her before, unbraiding her on several occasions (as he does regularly with other ministers for announcing stuff outside the Commons). Powderpuff stuff in normal circumstances, but possibly the last straw here.0 -
I will be the only member of my team working on Friday. Luckily with the US off there is minimal chance of anybody breaking anything so should be a quiet dayturbotubbs said:On a happier note I am supervising three Americans (from Texas) for the next few weeks. They asked me on Monday if this Friday is a day off in the UK.
(Think about the date)1 -
That's why you don't show up to the HoC in that state if you are the Chancellor, especially when your government is in crisis.rottenborough said:Markets reacting to Crygate.
That episode has already cost the nation yet more money.
If something in her personal life is making her react like that live to the world on TV she needs to either step down or take a leave of absence or absent herself from the public eye until its sorted.0 -
Are those the ones who have come here to avoid the depredations imposed by Mr Chump?eek said:
I’ve always thought we could do with a bank holiday in early July (replacing one of the ones in May).turbotubbs said:On a happier note I am supervising three Americans (from Texas) for the next few weeks. They asked me on Monday if this Friday is a day off in the UK.
(Think about the date)
The Traitorous Yankees day sounds like a suitable “celebration”0 -
The obviously erroneous choice made on 4th July by the US should be a matter of quiet commiseration, not a celebration. Especially when there is a test match on.Scott_xP said:
I will be the only member of my team working on Friday. Luckily with the US off there is minimal chance of anybody breaking anything so should be a quiet dayturbotubbs said:On a happier note I am supervising three Americans (from Texas) for the next few weeks. They asked me on Monday if this Friday is a day off in the UK.
(Think about the date)0 -
That's likely true, slightly more often than not.rcs1000 said:
One of my best friends is a surgeon, and whenever one of his patients dies, you can be sure he blames the anaesthatist.Eabhal said:
My anaesthetist was a bit mad. "You're young and fit so I'll be extra disappointed if you die", as he hands me a leaflet explaining that they don't really know why the drugs work in the first place.rcs1000 said:
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.0 -
Looks like this is Starmer's Leave D Day Early moment.
0 -
Didn't hear about that but it seems to be unlikely to cause her to sob in the chamber. Hoyle isnt exactly a total sociopathic arsehole like Bercowrottenborough said:
Didn't he tell her off the Chamber a few days ago for some procedural thing or other?wooliedyed said:Some MPs saying there were 'cross words' between Speaker and Chancellor before PMQs.
The blame Hoyle truther movement is born0 -
Reeves should resign now rather than waiting for Starmer to sack her (as he obviously will in due course)0
-
Badenoch lives down to expectations0
-
As I said: that is the area that looks likeliest to have been the cause of a mistake (if there is one).turbotubbs said:
The quality of the testing has been questioned.rcs1000 said:
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.bondegezou said:
"If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."turbotubbs said:
There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.SonofContrarian said:https://news.sky.com/story/more-criminal-charges-being-considered-over-baby-deaths-at-lucy-letby-hospitals-13391159
But I thought it was all one woman's fault..🥴
There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted.
There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.
PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.
I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
"And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.
"This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
That is: Baby F and Baby L both showed high levels of insulin, but low levels of C-peptide: a situation which, the expert witness Dr Dewi Evans testified, could only come about through the administration of synethtic insulin.
Now: it is possible that the tests were flawed, or that both babies had some rare condition that led to them having this imbalance. (That is certainly what Dr Shoo Lee believes, when he wrote his report.) If it were just the one baby, then I think the "rare condition" argument be a lot more persuasive. It just seems really unlikely that two babies would both suffer from an imbalance that does not seem to have been recorded in any other babies. The quality of the tests argument seems more plausible, and leads to the question about whether the tests were done at the same facility at the same time, and whether the laboratory in question has registered similar outliers in the past with other tests.
My issue is that the quality of testing is always questioned! If you ever watch a US murder trial, then there's always an expert witness who can found to suggest DNA testing was contaminated or somesuch.
What I don't know, as a layperson, is whether the tests for the two babies were done at the same time and in the same lab, which increases the possibility it was lab error. (Or rather it means that one error could affect multiple samples.) If they were done at separate times, and these readings are ones that the lab in question has never seen before, then it makes the possibility of error seem less likely.0 -
https://x.com/ghostofchristo1/status/1940149099115733403Big_G_NorthWales said:
It's called buyer's remorseHYUFD said:
Who would have voted to still replace Sunak and Hunt with Starmer and Reeves today?Leon said:Wow. She doesn’t just shed one tear. She BLUBS
I wonder if there is some deeper story?
Either way this feels like Sunak’s speech-in-the-rain. No matter the explanation, the symbolic power is overwhelming
But on a personal level Reeves did not deserve the betrayal by Starmer who was simply thoughtless and frankly just horrible
And he is our PM0 -
Isn't that Thanksgiving for us?turbotubbs said:On a happier note I am supervising three Americans (from Texas) for the next few weeks. They asked me on Monday if this Friday is a day off in the UK.
(Think about the date)1 -
It is, especially with older patients.Nigelb said:
That's likely true, slightly more often than not.rcs1000 said:
One of my best friends is a surgeon, and whenever one of his patients dies, you can be sure he blames the anaesthatist.Eabhal said:
My anaesthetist was a bit mad. "You're young and fit so I'll be extra disappointed if you die", as he hands me a leaflet explaining that they don't really know why the drugs work in the first place.rcs1000 said:
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.HYUFD said:
No but sadly I think the Letby case means fewer nurses will want to work in premature baby units even if they would want to do so for the best of motivesMalmesbury said:
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.Stuartinromford said:
Fully agree- and even if it isn't be most cost-efficient thing to do, providing clear closure to grieving relatives is the sort of thing that civilised places do.Malmesbury said:
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?HYUFD said:
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).Malmesbury said:
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general includeHYUFD said:
What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers sayTheScreamingEagles said:Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.
CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby
Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c
- Closure for the victims and then family of victims
- Public statement of what happened
- Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
- Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.
In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
But maximising the function "bad guys locked up per taxpayer dollar" is one of those ghastly Americanisms that the British right are increasingly thirsty for.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.0 -
At least somebody rates Rachel Reeves then.Leon said:Bloomberg:
There’s been quite a hefty move in the pound and gilts in the last few minutes after speculation about Rachel Reeves’ future
Sterling’s dropped 0.7%, while gilt yields have jumped, with the 30-year yield up more than 15 basis points0
This discussion has been closed.