(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.
My wife has just called Starmer a ' bastard " and she never swears
That video is going to haunt Starmer for the rest of his tenure.
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
Trump and the GOP are making it very clear who they see the 'enemy' as being.
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.
They do, although with different ideas of what they want - see the Trump/Musk split.
Likewise many Dems also view the enemies as internal - internal within their own party and internal within their country.
You cannot compare what the GOP are doing with the Dems. I'm sorry, you just cannot.
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.
The Dems casually allowed millions of illegal immigrants to pour in.
Many might view that as treasonable action or at least as a deliberate attempt to wage a socioeconomic war against internal opponents. (Snip)
And so did previous Rep administrations. The USA was, and is, built on immigration.
That's exactly the sort of unempathetic glibness that drives support to MAGA.
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.
You are really, really keen to blame anyone other than MAGA, aren't you?
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.
I'm trying to explain where support for MAGA comes from and that unempathetic glibness from centrist dads is self-defeating.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 name
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.
Get tae f*ck. Get in the effin sea. These dweebs are children
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.
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.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 2m The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.
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?
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
Trump and the GOP are making it very clear who they see the 'enemy' as being.
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.
They do, although with different ideas of what they want - see the Trump/Musk split.
Likewise many Dems also view the enemies as internal - internal within their own party and internal within their country.
You cannot compare what the GOP are doing with the Dems. I'm sorry, you just cannot.
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.
The Dems casually allowed millions of illegal immigrants to pour in.
Many might view that as treasonable action or at least as a deliberate attempt to wage a socioeconomic war against internal opponents. (Snip)
And so did previous Rep administrations. The USA was, and is, built on immigration.
That's exactly the sort of unempathetic glibness that drives support to MAGA.
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.
You are really, really keen to blame anyone other than MAGA, aren't you?
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.
I'm trying to explain where support for MAGA comes from and that unempathetic glibness from centrist dads is self-defeating.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 name
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.
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?".
It’s an easy answer. The media was anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.
To be fair to the media*, the voters were anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.
Buyers' remorse was pretty easy to predict.
* a phrase I shan't be using ever again.
It's hardly just the media.
A number of our own right of centre contributors were no different - and actually voted for the government they now hold in such contempt.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.
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.
The Letby case is fascinating; both for the case itself, and for the reflection it shows on ourselves.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
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'.
Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.
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.
What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
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.
And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I 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.
You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it
Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.
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
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'.
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 are you thinking of? Assisted places for finishing schools in Gstaad?
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.
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 Church
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.
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.
The Letby case is fascinating; both for the case itself, and for the reflection it shows on ourselves.
Indeed: the amount of certainty people express is extraordinary.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
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...
Immortan Joe and the War Boys had
- a vision - a clear structure for responsibly - a taxation policy that worked - a training system for staff that actually worked.
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.
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.
I remember, during the Coalition, that it was considered somewhere between weird and wrong that Osbourne wasn’t working to overthrow Cameron 24/7
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
Not sure that is true. The Letby case is pretty unique.
Any evidence that people stopped becoming GPs because of Shipman?
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
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.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?
No.
GPs are paid more than nurses and premature babies are more vulnerable life expectancy wise even than pensioners
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.
I didn't watch this. How did SKS humiliate RR? What did he say or do?
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.
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...
Immortan Joe and the War Boys had
- a vision - a clear structure for responsibly - a taxation policy that worked - a training system for staff that actually worked.
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.
Which raises the salient question - when the last Toyota low tech pickup expires, what do you bolt your ex-Soviet 14.5mm to?
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
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.
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.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
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.
One of my best friends is a surgeon, and whenever one of his patients dies, you can be sure he blames the anaesthatist.
Rumour there was some kind of bust up with the Speaker immediately prior to her coming into the Commons.
Uh oh, here comes the “let’s blame it on the Speaker” narrative
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 tears
I mean, remember, because she told us, she’s the IRON CHANCELLOR
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?
No.
Or Beverly Allitt.
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).
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.
I didn't watch this. How did SKS humiliate RR? What did he say or do?
He failed to confirm she’d keep her job twice at PMQs. Didn’t even confront the question, just ignored it.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.
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.
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 time
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
Trump and the GOP are making it very clear who they see the 'enemy' as being.
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.
They do, although with different ideas of what they want - see the Trump/Musk split.
Likewise many Dems also view the enemies as internal - internal within their own party and internal within their country.
You cannot compare what the GOP are doing with the Dems. I'm sorry, you just cannot.
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.
The Dems casually allowed millions of illegal immigrants to pour in.
Many might view that as treasonable action or at least as a deliberate attempt to wage a socioeconomic war against internal opponents. (Snip)
And so did previous Rep administrations. The USA was, and is, built on immigration.
That's exactly the sort of unempathetic glibness that drives support to MAGA.
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.
You are really, really keen to blame anyone other than MAGA, aren't you?
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.
I'm trying to explain where support for MAGA comes from and that unempathetic glibness from centrist dads is self-defeating.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 name
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.
The usual BBC coverage of US politics - informed only by what GOP spokespeople tell them.
As if the name of the bill was its most important feature.
Well, yes. 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).
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.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
Some MPs saying there were 'cross words' between Speaker and Chancellor before PMQs. The blame Hoyle truther movement is born
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.
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.
I didn't watch this. How did SKS humiliate RR? What did he say or do?
He failed to confirm she’d keep her job twice at PMQs. Didn’t even confront the question, just ignored it.
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.
Ah ok, thanks. It must be a possibility. Let's see if Betfair put a market up.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?
No.
Or Beverly Allitt.
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).
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. 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.
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?".
It’s an easy answer. The media was anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.
To be fair to the media*, the voters were anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.
Buyers' remorse was pretty easy to predict.
* a phrase I shan't be using ever again.
It's hardly just the media.
A number of our own right of centre contributors were no different - and actually voted for the government they now hold in such contempt.
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.
It wouldn't have been, had it simply disguised a program for government which was likely to offend sections of the electorate. It's now fairy clear that it was actually a quite accurate expression of the lack of any such program.
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.
I didn't watch this. How did SKS humiliate RR? What did he say or do?
He failed to confirm she’d keep her job twice at PMQs. Didn’t even confront the question, just ignored it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s where I know the name from.
And one of my favourite wrestlers, Ray Traylor, wrestled as the Guardian Angel for a short period of time.
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?
No.
Or Beverly Allitt.
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).
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.
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?".
It’s an easy answer. The media was anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.
To be fair to the media*, the voters were anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.
Buyers' remorse was pretty easy to predict.
* a phrase I shan't be using ever again.
It's hardly just the media.
A number of our own right of centre contributors were no different - and actually voted for the government they now hold in such contempt.
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.
It wouldn't have been, had it simply disguised a program for government which was likely to offend sections of the electorate. It's now fairy clear that it was actually a quite accurate expression of the lack of any such program.
And the media, I think, knew this and were complicit in not exposing it.
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 new
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
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.
One of my best friends is a surgeon, and whenever one of his patients dies, you can be sure he blames the anaesthatist.
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.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
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.
One of my best friends is a surgeon, and whenever one of his patients dies, you can be sure he blames the anaesthatist.
The patient needs to be positive enough to control it, which is unfortunately not always possible (eg if unconscious).
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.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
Did Harold Shipman lead to a big drop in people wanting to be GPs?
No.
GPs are paid more than nurses and premature babies are more vulnerable life expectancy wise even than pensioners
I'll take that as support for increasing nurses' wages.
Rumour there was some kind of bust up with the Speaker immediately prior to her coming into the Commons.
‘Rumour’ 🙄
No flesh on the bones then.
Well either it's true or a ridiculous attempt at throwing up chaff.
Or just one more sting on top of all the others.
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.
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)
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 day
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. 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.
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)
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 day
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.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
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.
One of my best friends is a surgeon, and whenever one of his patients dies, you can be sure he blames the anaesthatist.
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.
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.
"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."
"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.
By far the strongest piece of evidence in the trial was the insulin and C-peptide levels of two of the babies.
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.
The quality of the testing has been questioned.
As I said: that is the area that looks likeliest to have been the cause of a mistake (if there is one).
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.
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 say
The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include
- 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.
Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).
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
What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?
Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
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.
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.
If you want true cost efficiency, end all treatment for premature babies.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
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 motives
You would think that people wouldn't want to work with people who go around killing patients.
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
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.
One of my best friends is a surgeon, and whenever one of his patients dies, you can be sure he blames the anaesthatist.
Comments
*orders Thracian popcorn*
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.
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.
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?
'This is hell'
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.
Aside from the medical and lifetime costs, think of the savings on trials and negligence cases.
#Aktion4U
“Rayner sits there with a face saying ‘he’s not with me’”
lol. Exactly right
I don’t even know what a Simpdick is, but I am one apparently !
- a vision
- a clear structure for responsibly
- a taxation policy that worked
- a training system for staff that actually worked.
Mind you, I find that true of ordinary life
The blame Hoyle truther movement is born
No flesh on the bones then.
No.
Yet hospitals seem to have no problems getting people to work with anaesthatists.
Sense, sense, sense, sensitivity, that's the beauty of Taz.
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 PM
Any evidence that people stopped becoming GPs because of Shipman?
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.
Rachel Reeves said to have had an “altercation” with Speaker Lindsay Hoyle immediately prior to PMQs. “He ended up apologising,” a minister says.
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 mean, remember, because she told us, she’s the IRON CHANCELLOR
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).
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.
What an unfortunate series of coincidences at such an inopportune time
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).
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.
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 points
(Think about the date)
Which might have triggered her.
On the plus side the Sunday Sport Twitter feed agreed with me.
The Traitorous Yankees day sounds like a suitable “celebration”
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.
It's now fairy clear that it was actually a quite accurate expression of the lack of any such program.
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.
And one of my favourite wrestlers, Ray Traylor, wrestled as the Guardian Angel for a short period of time.
RIP Ray.
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.
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 new
It’s all very well saying there’s a ‘rumour’ without any detail
It’s just ‘I know something you don’t’ bragging
(Checks diary and realises I have had the last two fridays off and will be off on the 4th too...)
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.
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.
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.
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.