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.
I think dying will be just like going under anaesthetic. I've been under a couple of times and you don't remember much about the before, and wake up with a blank mind after, with no remembered dreams or thoughts. So I reckon death is just a lights out moment. The switch gets flicked and you're done and dusted. No after life, no soul drifting up to see the bearded old white fella or being dragged down for a rave in Satan's gaff. Cancel all religions, I've solved it, and it ain't 42.
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.
That's likely true, slightly more often than not.
It is, especially with older patients.
You'd need to see the numbers of deaths in his theatre to assess that, though...
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.
He’s clearly on the spectrum in a bad way. Doesn’t dream. Doesn’t understand humour. Utterly tin-eared. Devoid of empathy (at least in public)
He does what he does
For clarity I know loads of people on the spectrum who are much nicer than him. Warm, funny, sympathetic
Gilts plunging, cost of govt borrowing up steeply. On Richter scale of alarm, this one day move is roughly two-thirds of a Kwarteng on the day of his mini budget
After a Treasury spokesperson says Rachel Reeves was upset at PMQs due to a personal matter, Kemi Badenoch's spokesman tells journalists that "something strange is going on" and insists the Chancellor immediately disclose what is happening in her personal life
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.
They certainly deserve as big a payrise as junior doctors have got
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.
I think dying will be just like going under anaesthetic. I've been under a couple of times and you don't remember much about the before, and wake up with a blank mind after, with no remembered dreams or thoughts. So I reckon death is just a lights out moment. The switch gets flicked and you're done and dusted. No after life, no soul drifting up to see the bearded old white fella or being dragged down for a rave in Satan's gaff. Cancel all religions, I've solved it, and it ain't 42.
On the four occasions I've had them, I recalled the slide into unconsciousness each time. But you're right about the complete blank while under; almost no sensation of time having passed.
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.
Is not the point (an actual error).
The NHS is so established so as not really to care about the fate of its patients. At the individual level there is of course often care and attention and concern but institutionally it doesn't matter if patients live or die.
Most notable and noticeable for old people, but would easily apply to those who are very ill where a positive result might be unexpected and death rates might point to a systemic issue where that structure is wanting and "lets" people die.
Under those circumstances of course people will look for a bad actor to blame and the flawed procedures continue.
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.
I think dying will be just like going under anaesthetic. I've been under a couple of times and you don't remember much about the before, and wake up with a blank mind after, with no remembered dreams or thoughts. So I reckon death is just a lights out moment. The switch gets flicked and you're done and dusted. No after life, no soul drifting up to see the bearded old white fella or being dragged down for a rave in Satan's gaff. Cancel all religions, I've solved it, and it ain't 42.
I was once kept under for more than a week in ICU when I had an awful bug that had thrown my diabetic control off, and they could not find out what it was for some time. When I resurfaced I had a very bizarre collection of memories some of which I could not tell apart from actual events for some time.
For some I had to sit down with a counsellor and work out "did this happen?" to avoid letting them persist, as it would have made some personal and family relationships difficult.
We ended up with "assume these things did not happen" until or unless there is evidence to the contrary.
Gilts plunging, cost of govt borrowing up steeply. On Richter scale of alarm, this one day move is roughly two-thirds of a Kwarteng on the day of his mini budget
The differences is that the problem is with the MPs rather than the executive (not that they're especially inspiring!). It's a bit like football, you can sack the manager, but you can't sack the players.
Rachel Reeves had a brief altercation with Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, on entering Commons, but was already said to be in a 'difficult place' over the 'personal matter'
Hoyle is said to have pulled her up on her conduct during Treasury questions on Tuesday, when he asked her to give shorter answers. Reeves is said to have rolled her eyes in response and said 'ugh right'
Reeves denied answering back then started crying
Number 10 said earlier that she is 'going nowhere'
I don't normally watch PMQs. It's a bit of a pointless circus. Taking a look now. 1) I'd forgotten how much I enjoy Lindsay Hoyle. He's the best speaker we've had since Betty. He also has the best voice ever. 2) I'd forgotten how asinine the whole process is. Stop cheering, everyone. 3) Shut up about football, Keir. You can get away with a single mention of the NHS. 4) Kemi's being a bit oily. And that first question should just have been the last sentence. I actually used to quite like Corbyn's relatively simple approach to PMQs, albeit that his questions were a bit scattergun. 5) Kemi's clearly winning now. She has an odd way of pronouncing the word 'alone'. 6) SKS looking a bit rattled now. Rayner looking furious all the time. 7) Actually, this is really good by Kemi. Starmer not putting up a bad fight though - the Lab approach of Lab-does-x-repeat sounds more convincing and less robotic coming out of his mouth than it does out of Rachel Reeves.
... that was quite good actually I take back some of point 2. Reeves looking a bit hangdog but no tears yet. Let's scan forward a bit...
8) Here's some fella from Glasgow asking a very bland question about rail staff which SKS answers earnestly. The Reeves bottom lip is definitely quivering now. Why now? Scanning back and forwards she seemed ok before this? 9) Harriet Cross, Gordon and Buchan. I hadn't heard of her before. She's quite good, albeit on a subject I am unconvinced by. Reeves cheered herself up a little now, though her face is still at no happier than 2/10. What's she doing with her tongue? 10) Clearly wiping away tears now.
...but not really clear why? It didn't appear to be in response to anything in particular that happened in the chamber.
a) all our government debt is in our own currency, so a big foreign currency loan wouldn't help us b) unlike Greece or Ireland, we print our own currency - if we want more, we can get it easily enough. c) the IMF's resources are already strained, and it just doesn't have the resources to bail us out - we are much too large an economy for their available resources to make a difference d) it's morally wrong anyway - the IMF's funds are supposed to help developing countries in temporary capital market difficulties, not developed ones with vast capital markets but lazy and incompetent governments e) it wouldn't do us any good anyway - what we need is sensible economic policies, and we know roughly what they are, and can formulate and implement them ourselves. That they are directly opposed to what the government's instincts are isn't, and cannot be, the IMF's problem, and they would be very reluctant to become the fall guys for Reeves's and Starmer's economic illiteracy.
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.
"Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual." That's at best a very simplistic summary. There were more deaths, but there were also crucially unexpected deaths, babies who seemed fine suddenly deteriorating. Staff became suspicious of Letby early on, but Letby continued working at the hospital for a long period after those early suspicions. Management sought alternative explanations. Eventually the police were brought in. They then investigated, gathering evidence. It is wrong to imply that this was simply a high mortality rate, so they picked on Letby and constructed a case around that assumption. The new negligence charges appear to be precisely because some in management spent so long trying to excuse Letby, not accuse her.
Babies die in neonatal units, so of course there is a process of filtering out the suspicious cases. Obviously, all the babies on such a unit require significant care, but clinical staff have a good idea of the babies who require care but are on track for a healthy outcome and those likely to die. The judgements around each case were put before the court and the jury.
I misremembered the details. The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin, but those were two of the babies who survived and those were attempted murder charges. I don't think the defence accepted any of the murder charges were murder.
"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?" Harold Shipman killed about 250 patients and about 250 of them were not seen as suspicious at the time.
Rachel Reeves had a brief altercation with Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, on entering Commons, but was already said to be in a 'difficult place' over the 'personal matter'
Hoyle is said to have pulled her up on her conduct during Treasury questions on Tuesday, when he asked her to give shorter answers. Reeves is said to have rolled her eyes in response and said 'ugh right'
Reeves denied answering back then started crying
Number 10 said earlier that she is 'going nowhere'
Rachel Reeves had a brief altercation with Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, on entering Commons, but was already said to be in a 'difficult place' over the 'personal matter'
Hoyle is said to have pulled her up on her conduct during Treasury questions on Tuesday, when he asked her to give shorter answers. Reeves is said to have rolled her eyes in response and said 'ugh right'
Reeves denied answering back then started crying
Number 10 said earlier that she is 'going nowhere'
Hoyle somehow manages to outdo Bercow in pomposity and self-importance.
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.
... by Letby truthers. Appeal judges have not been swayed by the evidence put before them.
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
Regrettably true - downside of Labour collapse quite so early is the crazies coming in passing their dream agenda with a massive mandate free majority.
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.
... by Letby truthers. Appeal judges have not been swayed by the evidence put before them.
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.
If I've got this right, the blood tests in question were contemporary ones. One baby's collapse was in August 2015 and the other's in April 2016, so that implies the tests were done months apart.
After a Treasury spokesperson says Rachel Reeves was upset at PMQs due to a personal matter, Kemi Badenoch's spokesman tells journalists that "something strange is going on" and insists the Chancellor immediately disclose what is happening in her personal life
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.
As about forty countries around the world celebrate independence from the British Empire, having a day off on Friday would be a dangerous precedent.
Though if we manage to get rid of Northern Ireland at some point, I'd happily make an exception. It could be paid for out of the £15-20 billion in annual savings we'd make.
But as promised I have given you a thread on the alternative vote system.
Here's Dave Cameron (PBUH) on the "superior" AV system: “I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong. Politics shouldn’t be some mind-bending exercise.
“It’s about what you feel in your gut – about the values you hold dear and the beliefs you instinctively have. And I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong.
“There are three big problems with AV that strike at the heart of how I believe our democracy should work.
“First, I believe power should lie with the people – and AV would take some of that power away.
“Second, I believe there should be real accountability between the pledges politicians put in their manifestos and the action they take in government.
“AV would damage that chain of accountability. And third, I believe in the principle of one person, one vote.
“If you want a system that makes your politicians accountable.
“If you want a system that enshrines the principle of one person, one vote.
“You must vote on May 5th, and you must vote No to AV.
“The biggest danger right now is that Britain sleepwalks into this second-rate system, waking up on May 6th with a voting system that damages our democracy.
“We must not let that happen. So we’ve got to get out there and fight, and get out there and win.”
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
A wealth tax would be as pointless, complicated and counterproductive as some of the sillier aspects of Brexit. A land value tax could work, but it’s a long term reform not a short term fix.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
After a Treasury spokesperson says Rachel Reeves was upset at PMQs due to a personal matter, Kemi Badenoch's spokesman tells journalists that "something strange is going on" and insists the Chancellor immediately disclose what is happening in her personal life
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.
As about forty countries around the world celebrate independence from the British Empire, having a day off on Friday would be a dangerous precedent.
Though if we manage to get rid of Northern Ireland at some point, I'd happily make an exception. It could be paid for out of the £15-20 billion in annual savings we'd make.
We must stand by our brothers in Orange, at least they want to stay British as the others did not
a) all our government debt is in our own currency, so a big foreign currency loan wouldn't help us b) unlike Greece or Ireland, we print our own currency - if we want more, we can get it easily enough. c) the IMF's resources are already strained, and it just doesn't have the resources to bail us out - we are much too large an economy for their available resources to make a difference d) it's morally wrong anyway - the IMF's funds are supposed to help developing countries in temporary capital market difficulties, not developed ones with vast capital markets but lazy and incompetent governments e) it wouldn't do us any good anyway - what we need is sensible economic policies, and we know roughly what they are, and can formulate and implement them ourselves. That they are directly opposed to what the government's instincts are isn't, and cannot be, the IMF's problem, and they would be very reluctant to become the fall guys for Reeves's and Starmer's economic illiteracy.
The point of bringing in the IMF is to be able to blame an outside actor for forcing the inevitable but highly unpopular corrective action.
If you have a government with insufficient stones to do that for themselves, then it is a benefit to the country, on balance.
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
At least somebody rates Rachel Reeves then.
Fear over who may replace her. It's a sign that the crazies have the upper hand now.
Well, people keep saying they want a vision, authenticity, principles, a narrative and a plan.
Course I do too - so long as it accords with MY vision and principles.
Failing this, I'm not as down as most people on a timid "technocratic" approach that tinkers around whilst not risking hyperinflation and a gilts crisis.
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.
... by Letby truthers. Appeal judges have not been swayed by the evidence put before them.
Where's Sir Alan Bates when we need him.
In time this might very well be seen as the right comparison for this case. For now the criminal justice system is doubling down on the existing conviction with these week’s charges.
I don't want to sound callous, but if you've just had some 'personal news'/issues, then WTF are you doing sitting on the benches in PMQs in front of the cameras? Just head off to your office.
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.
"Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual." That's at best a very simplistic summary. There were more deaths, but there were also crucially unexpected deaths, babies who seemed fine suddenly deteriorating. Staff became suspicious of Letby early on, but Letby continued working at the hospital for a long period after those early suspicions. Management sought alternative explanations. Eventually the police were brought in. They then investigated, gathering evidence. It is wrong to imply that this was simply a high mortality rate, so they picked on Letby and constructed a case around that assumption. The new negligence charges appear to be precisely because some in management spent so long trying to excuse Letby, not accuse her.
Babies die in neonatal units, so of course there is a process of filtering out the suspicious cases. Obviously, all the babies on such a unit require significant care, but clinical staff have a good idea of the babies who require care but are on track for a healthy outcome and those likely to die. The judgements around each case were put before the court and the jury.
I misremembered the details. The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin, but those were two of the babies who survived and those were attempted murder charges. I don't think the defence accepted any of the murder charges were murder.
"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?" Harold Shipman killed about 250 patients and about 250 of them were not seen as suspicious at the time.
The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin.
I wonder if this it a legal approach and is to do with lack of expert knowledge coupled to a belief that a jury would likely accept evidence presented by experts? (Covoluted phrasing).
I work with analysis of samples all the time. I am aware of the hoops needed to go through for QC purposes and I am also aware that things can go wrong. IIRC the labs in question have produced erroneous data on insulin testing when other samples have been submitted. I cannot recall the details.
I think it an odd approach to accept that the babies were subject to an attack but that it wasn't Letby, as that would imply another killer was responsible. I would have thought challenging the insulin data would be a better approach,
You know criticism of the blessed Kemi isn't liked on here. She's our saviour, our next Prime Minister, who will lead us out of the valley of the shadow and to the sunlit uplands of somewhere or other.
But as promised I have given you a thread on the alternative vote system.
Here's Dave Cameron (PBUH) on the "superior" AV system: “I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong. Politics shouldn’t be some mind-bending exercise.
“It’s about what you feel in your gut – about the values you hold dear and the beliefs you instinctively have. And I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong.
“There are three big problems with AV that strike at the heart of how I believe our democracy should work.
“First, I believe power should lie with the people – and AV would take some of that power away.
“Second, I believe there should be real accountability between the pledges politicians put in their manifestos and the action they take in government.
“AV would damage that chain of accountability. And third, I believe in the principle of one person, one vote.
“If you want a system that makes your politicians accountable.
“If you want a system that enshrines the principle of one person, one vote.
“You must vote on May 5th, and you must vote No to AV.
“The biggest danger right now is that Britain sleepwalks into this second-rate system, waking up on May 6th with a voting system that damages our democracy.
“We must not let that happen. So we’ve got to get out there and fight, and get out there and win.”
- Dave in the Torygraph, 2011.
That entire screed is bollocks from start to finish.
He was naming AV but describing a PR list system. Mendacious.
You know criticism of the blessed Kemi isn't liked on here. She's our saviour, our next Prime Minister, who will lead us out of the valley of the shadow and to the sunlit uplands of somewhere or other.
a) all our government debt is in our own currency, so a big foreign currency loan wouldn't help us b) unlike Greece or Ireland, we print our own currency - if we want more, we can get it easily enough. c) the IMF's resources are already strained, and it just doesn't have the resources to bail us out - we are much too large an economy for their available resources to make a difference d) it's morally wrong anyway - the IMF's funds are supposed to help developing countries in temporary capital market difficulties, not developed ones with vast capital markets but lazy and incompetent governments e) it wouldn't do us any good anyway - what we need is sensible economic policies, and we know roughly what they are, and can formulate and implement them ourselves. That they are directly opposed to what the government's instincts are isn't, and cannot be, the IMF's problem, and they would be very reluctant to become the fall guys for Reeves's and Starmer's economic illiteracy.
The point of bringing in the IMF is to be able to blame an outside actor for forcing the inevitable but highly unpopular corrective action.
If you have a government with insufficient stones to do that for themselves, then it is a benefit to the country, on balance.
Maybe they could say that we can't afford the EU divorce payment this year and bring in the European Commission to administer the medicine.
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.
"Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual." That's at best a very simplistic summary. There were more deaths, but there were also crucially unexpected deaths, babies who seemed fine suddenly deteriorating. Staff became suspicious of Letby early on, but Letby continued working at the hospital for a long period after those early suspicions. Management sought alternative explanations. Eventually the police were brought in. They then investigated, gathering evidence. It is wrong to imply that this was simply a high mortality rate, so they picked on Letby and constructed a case around that assumption. The new negligence charges appear to be precisely because some in management spent so long trying to excuse Letby, not accuse her.
Babies die in neonatal units, so of course there is a process of filtering out the suspicious cases. Obviously, all the babies on such a unit require significant care, but clinical staff have a good idea of the babies who require care but are on track for a healthy outcome and those likely to die. The judgements around each case were put before the court and the jury.
I misremembered the details. The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin, but those were two of the babies who survived and those were attempted murder charges. I don't think the defence accepted any of the murder charges were murder.
"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?" Harold Shipman killed about 250 patients and about 250 of them were not seen as suspicious at the time.
The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin.
I wonder if this it a legal approach and is to do with lack of expert knowledge coupled to a belief that a jury would likely accept evidence presented by experts? (Covoluted phrasing).
I work with analysis of samples all the time. I am aware of the hoops needed to go through for QC purposes and I am also aware that things can go wrong. IIRC the labs in question have produced erroneous data on insulin testing when other samples have been submitted. I cannot recall the details.
I think it an odd approach to accept that the babies were subject to an attack but that it wasn't Letby, as that would imply another killer was responsible. I would have thought challenging the insulin data would be a better approach,
People who scoff at those who are worried about this conviction think that they have concluded that Letby is innocent.
It's not about that (who can know other than Letby).
It's about the extent and quality of the evidence about her and the ability of the jurors and others to understand it and interpret it correctly.
I don't want to sound callous, but if you've just had some 'personal news'/issues, then WTF are you doing sitting on the benches in PMQs in front of the cameras? Just head off to your office.
All of which assumes that they are not lying of course.
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.
He’s clearly on the spectrum in a bad way. Doesn’t dream. Doesn’t understand humour. Utterly tin-eared. Devoid of empathy (at least in public)
He does what he does
For clarity I know loads of people on the spectrum who are much nicer than him. Warm, funny, sympathetic
I don't think it's spectrum, I think it's being inculcated by family medical circumstances from a very young age to be the grown up, to do what is necessary day by day.
His adulthood came young and he is still to some degree the mature, precocious 10 year old playing at being a man.
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.
"Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual." That's at best a very simplistic summary. There were more deaths, but there were also crucially unexpected deaths, babies who seemed fine suddenly deteriorating. Staff became suspicious of Letby early on, but Letby continued working at the hospital for a long period after those early suspicions. Management sought alternative explanations. Eventually the police were brought in. They then investigated, gathering evidence. It is wrong to imply that this was simply a high mortality rate, so they picked on Letby and constructed a case around that assumption. The new negligence charges appear to be precisely because some in management spent so long trying to excuse Letby, not accuse her.
Babies die in neonatal units, so of course there is a process of filtering out the suspicious cases. Obviously, all the babies on such a unit require significant care, but clinical staff have a good idea of the babies who require care but are on track for a healthy outcome and those likely to die. The judgements around each case were put before the court and the jury.
I misremembered the details. The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin, but those were two of the babies who survived and those were attempted murder charges. I don't think the defence accepted any of the murder charges were murder.
"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?" Harold Shipman killed about 250 patients and about 250 of them were not seen as suspicious at the time.
The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin.
I wonder if this it a legal approach and is to do with lack of expert knowledge coupled to a belief that a jury would likely accept evidence presented by experts? (Covoluted phrasing).
I work with analysis of samples all the time. I am aware of the hoops needed to go through for QC purposes and I am also aware that things can go wrong. IIRC the labs in question have produced erroneous data on insulin testing when other samples have been submitted. I cannot recall the details.
I think it an odd approach to accept that the babies were subject to an attack but that it wasn't Letby, as that would imply another killer was responsible. I would have thought challenging the insulin data would be a better approach,
People who scoff at those who are worried about this conviction think that they have concluded that Letby is innocent.
It's not about that (who can know other than Letby).
It's about the extent and quality of the evidence about her and the ability of the jurors and others to understand it and interpret it correctly.
Quite. There seems to be a belief that questions are being asked because those asking are convinced of her innocence. Not the case for me - I simply do not know.
There is also a weird strand of thought that the hoopla is because she is pretty blond woman, to which I would suggest only two are true.
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.
He’s clearly on the spectrum in a bad way. Doesn’t dream. Doesn’t understand humour. Utterly tin-eared. Devoid of empathy (at least in public)
He does what he does
For clarity I know loads of people on the spectrum who are much nicer than him. Warm, funny, sympathetic
I don't think it's spectrum, I think it's being inculcated by family medical circumstances from a very young age to be the grown up, to do what is necessary day by day.
His adulthood came young and he is still to some degree the mature, precocious 10 year old playing at being a man.
I think he's the classic case of someone who knows how to rise to the top. I've come across a few people like that at work.
Gilts plunging, cost of govt borrowing up steeply. On Richter scale of alarm, this one day move is roughly two-thirds of a Kwarteng on the day of his mini budget
Is that an absolute or percentage change? I think we need to settle on a definition for a Kwarteng.
I'm picking up an increasing sense that Liz Truss was right about Britain's malaise and what do to about it. Maybe her time will come again.
"I'm picking up an increasing sense" - I'm sorry, what does it mean? Tea leaves, crystal ball, reading the runes?
As for "her time will come again", well, there's the small matter of her not being an MP let alone leader of her party (Conservative, Reform, Advance UK, who knows?). Yes, she has plenty of time (she's 50) but the historical record of ex-PMs getting another chance at the top doesn't offer much hope.
a) all our government debt is in our own currency, so a big foreign currency loan wouldn't help us b) unlike Greece or Ireland, we print our own currency - if we want more, we can get it easily enough. c) the IMF's resources are already strained, and it just doesn't have the resources to bail us out - we are much too large an economy for their available resources to make a difference d) it's morally wrong anyway - the IMF's funds are supposed to help developing countries in temporary capital market difficulties, not developed ones with vast capital markets but lazy and incompetent governments e) it wouldn't do us any good anyway - what we need is sensible economic policies, and we know roughly what they are, and can formulate and implement them ourselves. That they are directly opposed to what the government's instincts are isn't, and cannot be, the IMF's problem, and they would be very reluctant to become the fall guys for Reeves's and Starmer's economic illiteracy.
We all know what constitutes sensible economic policies? Well that's a great leap forward for everyone. I'd put that in 'major scientific discovery' territory.
Azerbaijan rift challenges Russia's post-Soviet influence https://uk.news.yahoo.com/azerbaijan-rift-challenges-russias-post-112302653.html ...Days later, Azerbaijani police raided the Baku office of Sputnik, Russia's state-run news agency, detaining three Russian journalists with the footage broadcast on pro-state TV. Bureau chief Igor Kartavykh and editor-in-chief Yevgeny Belousov were later ordered into four months of pre-trial detention on charges of fraud and money laundering..
I'm picking up an increasing sense that Liz Truss was right about Britain's malaise and what do to about it. Maybe her time will come again.
Truss' problem was she cut tax but not spending as well, if her time comes again it would likely be in Reform
Yep, the absolute hosing of money at energy bills was what tore it. She'd have probably been fine with either just that (just about) or just the tax cuts Furlough and energy bailout have completely bollocksed us
Gilts plunging, cost of govt borrowing up steeply. On Richter scale of alarm, this one day move is roughly two-thirds of a Kwarteng on the day of his mini budget
Is that an absolute or percentage change? I think we need to settle on a definition for a Kwarteng.
Both sterling and gilts have rallied in the past 30 minutes or so.
I don't want to sound callous, but if you've just had some 'personal news'/issues, then WTF are you doing sitting on the benches in PMQs in front of the cameras? Just head off to your office.
Because the chance of crying on television was perhaps 10%, while the chance of a minor scandal because you weren't present at PMQs for a "personal issue" was 100%.
The charges are because they failed to stop Letby, aren't they?
Reporting is speculative - but other negligence is rumoured.
Put it another way. If you take away all the death and incidents attributed to Letby what are you left with? If you take all the deaths and incidents after Letby was locked up, what are you left with?
I think you're clutching at (Letby truther) straws there. The investigation that led to these charges was about whether management had failed to stop Letby.
Experience with hospitals suggests that it is entirely possible they uncovered non-Letby negligence as a result of the investigation.
We don’t know at this point what the charges relate to.
We do know that more than one neo-natal unit has been found to be an utter shit show.
It’s quite possible to have a unit that is shit plus a serial killer. Indeed, it would making spotting the killer harder.
Its also, despite what some on here are wedded to, possible that Letby is totally innocent.
There are thousands of people in prison. You could say the same for each and every one of them, that it is possible they are innocent. We have a process.
I don't want to sound callous, but if you've just had some 'personal news'/issues, then WTF are you doing sitting on the benches in PMQs in front of the cameras? Just head off to your office.
Though not appearing wouldn't have helped the speculation either.
Unfortunately it is part of being in government. She is going to have to explain, or at least expand a little. Billions of pounds are resting on this.
All this talk of wealth tax, by the way. Whose wealth and how?
I would caveat what I am about to say by making very clear whatever Reeves has going on; I am sorry that she was upset and hope she is OK.
But others are right that at a time when she is under particular focus and pressure, to show that level of upset in public is really not ideal, and is monumentally bad timing. I guess that if she hadn’t been there, questions would have been asked, but if it’d been briefed beforehand than at least that would have minimised some of the damage.
As it is, at a time when there are questions about her future she is, for whatever reason, openly weeping in public and that is a terrible look.
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
We’ve covered this before - wealth taxes just don’t work - we always end up creating a replacement council tax. Now that isn’t a bad idea (as a tax) but it’s not a wealth tax
I don't want to sound callous, but if you've just had some 'personal news'/issues, then WTF are you doing sitting on the benches in PMQs in front of the cameras? Just head off to your office.
Though not appearing wouldn't have helped the speculation either.
Unfortunately it is part of being in government. She is going to have to explain, or at least expand a little. Billions of pounds are resting on this.
All this talk of wealth tax, by the way. Whose wealth and how?
Reeves' personal life is no one else's business but her own. It was unwise of her to go into the Commons if she was feeling that emotional, though and Starmer (if he was aware of a problem) should have told her to go and have a minute.
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.
... by Letby truthers. Appeal judges have not been swayed by the evidence put before them.
Where's Sir Alan Bates when we need him.
In time this might very well be seen as the right comparison for this case. For now the criminal justice system is doubling down on the existing conviction with these week’s charges.
Letby framed to deflect from NHS negligence in an unholy collaboration between the legal and medical establishment?
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
We’ve covered this before - wealth taxes just don’t work - we always end up creating a replacement council tax. Now that isn’t a bad idea (as a tax) but it’s not a wealth tax
Labour councils will also be allowed to whack up council tax too, having caved to its backbenchers and rejected big savings on benefits for the disabled and mentally ill by getting more into work and u turned on the WFA cut so average income pensioners will keep their WFA Labour now has no choice if it wants to balance the books. It will now have to whack up taxes even further
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.
"Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual." That's at best a very simplistic summary. There were more deaths, but there were also crucially unexpected deaths, babies who seemed fine suddenly deteriorating. Staff became suspicious of Letby early on, but Letby continued working at the hospital for a long period after those early suspicions. Management sought alternative explanations. Eventually the police were brought in. They then investigated, gathering evidence. It is wrong to imply that this was simply a high mortality rate, so they picked on Letby and constructed a case around that assumption. The new negligence charges appear to be precisely because some in management spent so long trying to excuse Letby, not accuse her.
Babies die in neonatal units, so of course there is a process of filtering out the suspicious cases. Obviously, all the babies on such a unit require significant care, but clinical staff have a good idea of the babies who require care but are on track for a healthy outcome and those likely to die. The judgements around each case were put before the court and the jury.
I misremembered the details. The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin, but those were two of the babies who survived and those were attempted murder charges. I don't think the defence accepted any of the murder charges were murder.
"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?" Harold Shipman killed about 250 patients and about 250 of them were not seen as suspicious at the time.
The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin.
I wonder if this it a legal approach and is to do with lack of expert knowledge coupled to a belief that a jury would likely accept evidence presented by experts? (Covoluted phrasing).
I work with analysis of samples all the time. I am aware of the hoops needed to go through for QC purposes and I am also aware that things can go wrong. IIRC the labs in question have produced erroneous data on insulin testing when other samples have been submitted. I cannot recall the details.
I think it an odd approach to accept that the babies were subject to an attack but that it wasn't Letby, as that would imply another killer was responsible. I would have thought challenging the insulin data would be a better approach,
Maybe they accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin because the evidence very clearly shows that. It takes a fair amount of chutzpah to conclude that you know better than both prosecution and defence!
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
We’ve covered this before - wealth taxes just don’t work - we always end up creating a replacement council tax. Now that isn’t a bad idea (as a tax) but it’s not a wealth tax
Labour councils will also be allowed to whack up council tax too, having caved to its backbenchers and rejected big savings on benefits for the disabled and mentally ill by getting more into work and u turned on the WFA cut so average income pensioners will keep their WFA Labour now has no choice if it wants to balance the books. It will now have to whack up taxes even further
Reformed council tax is the obvious route to a wealth (property) tax. My back-of-envelope is a flat 0.5% charge is a like-for-like replacement, and a 1% charge could replace IHT, CGT and Stamp Duty too.
Pop 0.1% or so on top to take account of a fall in house prices in the top end.
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
A wealth tax would be as pointless, complicated and counterproductive as some of the sillier aspects of Brexit. A land value tax could work, but it’s a long term reform not a short term fix.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
That's what I'm talking about. Property. And I agree the point on mainstream rate income tax. The way it's become quasi illegal to change it any way but down is a nonsense.
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.
"Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual." That's at best a very simplistic summary. There were more deaths, but there were also crucially unexpected deaths, babies who seemed fine suddenly deteriorating. Staff became suspicious of Letby early on, but Letby continued working at the hospital for a long period after those early suspicions. Management sought alternative explanations. Eventually the police were brought in. They then investigated, gathering evidence. It is wrong to imply that this was simply a high mortality rate, so they picked on Letby and constructed a case around that assumption. The new negligence charges appear to be precisely because some in management spent so long trying to excuse Letby, not accuse her.
Babies die in neonatal units, so of course there is a process of filtering out the suspicious cases. Obviously, all the babies on such a unit require significant care, but clinical staff have a good idea of the babies who require care but are on track for a healthy outcome and those likely to die. The judgements around each case were put before the court and the jury.
I misremembered the details. The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin, but those were two of the babies who survived and those were attempted murder charges. I don't think the defence accepted any of the murder charges were murder.
"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?" Harold Shipman killed about 250 patients and about 250 of them were not seen as suspicious at the time.
The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin.
I wonder if this it a legal approach and is to do with lack of expert knowledge coupled to a belief that a jury would likely accept evidence presented by experts? (Covoluted phrasing).
I work with analysis of samples all the time. I am aware of the hoops needed to go through for QC purposes and I am also aware that things can go wrong. IIRC the labs in question have produced erroneous data on insulin testing when other samples have been submitted. I cannot recall the details.
I think it an odd approach to accept that the babies were subject to an attack but that it wasn't Letby, as that would imply another killer was responsible. I would have thought challenging the insulin data would be a better approach,
Maybe they accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin because the evidence very clearly shows that. It takes a fair amount of chutzpah to conclude that you know better than both prosecution and defence!
All evidence can be challenged, you must concede that? How many repeats, when was the equipment calibrated, is it QC passed? Where other forms of analysis considered? I'm not suggesting I know better than either, although the quality of her defence has been questioned.
We are not going to agree on this, and thats fine.
The charges are because they failed to stop Letby, aren't they?
Reporting is speculative - but other negligence is rumoured.
Put it another way. If you take away all the death and incidents attributed to Letby what are you left with? If you take all the deaths and incidents after Letby was locked up, what are you left with?
I think you're clutching at (Letby truther) straws there. The investigation that led to these charges was about whether management had failed to stop Letby.
Experience with hospitals suggests that it is entirely possible they uncovered non-Letby negligence as a result of the investigation.
We don’t know at this point what the charges relate to.
We do know that more than one neo-natal unit has been found to be an utter shit show.
It’s quite possible to have a unit that is shit plus a serial killer. Indeed, it would making spotting the killer harder.
Its also, despite what some on here are wedded to, possible that Letby is totally innocent.
There are thousands of people in prison. You could say the same for each and every one of them, that it is possible they are innocent. We have a process.
State.
We have a process state.
And what's your point here? Are you saying we shouldn't have processes to determine if people are guilty or innocent? Do you prefer a Trumpian approach?
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
A wealth tax would be as pointless, complicated and counterproductive as some of the sillier aspects of Brexit. A land value tax could work, but it’s a long term reform not a short term fix.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
That's what I'm talking about. Property. And I agree the point on mainstream rate income tax. The way it's become quasi illegal to change it any way but down is a nonsense.
Power of round numbers. If it were 22% and 41% it'd be easy to bump up a percentage point. But 20 and 40 are such nice clean round numbers. Easier to do fiscal drag.
Reeves' personal life is no one else's business but her own. It was unwise of her to go into the Commons if she was feeling that emotional, though and Starmer (if he was aware of a problem) should have told her to go and have a minute.
Yes. If you cry at work you'll likely be sent home. If you cry at work on live tv and you're the person in charge of the worlds 6th largest economy on the day after your governments flagship welfare policy and the PMs authority fell apart causing bond markets to react violently it is a crisis and 'its private' won't cut it. Its not nice to be upset, have received bad news, be facing a personal crisis etc but she's not just a character in a soap opera, shes responsible for our nations prosperity or decline. Her decisions affect pensioners warmth in winter, the fate of small businesses, family farms etc. Some of the nation may want to see more feels and emotion, the markets most certainly do not. And they carry far more weight with our future prospects
The charges are because they failed to stop Letby, aren't they?
Reporting is speculative - but other negligence is rumoured.
Put it another way. If you take away all the death and incidents attributed to Letby what are you left with? If you take all the deaths and incidents after Letby was locked up, what are you left with?
I think you're clutching at (Letby truther) straws there. The investigation that led to these charges was about whether management had failed to stop Letby.
Experience with hospitals suggests that it is entirely possible they uncovered non-Letby negligence as a result of the investigation.
We don’t know at this point what the charges relate to.
We do know that more than one neo-natal unit has been found to be an utter shit show.
It’s quite possible to have a unit that is shit plus a serial killer. Indeed, it would making spotting the killer harder.
Its also, despite what some on here are wedded to, possible that Letby is totally innocent.
There are thousands of people in prison. You could say the same for each and every one of them, that it is possible they are innocent. We have a process.
State.
We have a process state.
And what's your point here? Are you saying we shouldn't have processes to determine if people are guilty or innocent? Do you prefer a Trumpian approach?
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.
"Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual." That's at best a very simplistic summary. There were more deaths, but there were also crucially unexpected deaths, babies who seemed fine suddenly deteriorating. Staff became suspicious of Letby early on, but Letby continued working at the hospital for a long period after those early suspicions. Management sought alternative explanations. Eventually the police were brought in. They then investigated, gathering evidence. It is wrong to imply that this was simply a high mortality rate, so they picked on Letby and constructed a case around that assumption. The new negligence charges appear to be precisely because some in management spent so long trying to excuse Letby, not accuse her.
Babies die in neonatal units, so of course there is a process of filtering out the suspicious cases. Obviously, all the babies on such a unit require significant care, but clinical staff have a good idea of the babies who require care but are on track for a healthy outcome and those likely to die. The judgements around each case were put before the court and the jury.
I misremembered the details. The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin, but those were two of the babies who survived and those were attempted murder charges. I don't think the defence accepted any of the murder charges were murder.
"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?" Harold Shipman killed about 250 patients and about 250 of them were not seen as suspicious at the time.
The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin.
I wonder if this it a legal approach and is to do with lack of expert knowledge coupled to a belief that a jury would likely accept evidence presented by experts? (Covoluted phrasing).
I work with analysis of samples all the time. I am aware of the hoops needed to go through for QC purposes and I am also aware that things can go wrong. IIRC the labs in question have produced erroneous data on insulin testing when other samples have been submitted. I cannot recall the details.
I think it an odd approach to accept that the babies were subject to an attack but that it wasn't Letby, as that would imply another killer was responsible. I would have thought challenging the insulin data would be a better approach,
Maybe they accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin because the evidence very clearly shows that. It takes a fair amount of chutzpah to conclude that you know better than both prosecution and defence!
All evidence can be challenged, you must concede that? How many repeats, when was the equipment calibrated, is it QC passed? Where other forms of analysis considered? I'm not suggesting I know better than either, although the quality of her defence has been questioned.
We are not going to agree on this, and thats fine.
All evidence can be challenged, but you need a good reason to challenge it. Too many start with the assumption that Letby is innocent and then try to explain away all the evidence.
So, sure, you can challenge evidence and challenged it has been, but two juries have sat and listened to a multitude of evidence and come to a conclusion. Multiple appeal court judges have re-examined the case and not found any problems.
Probably not, the new Chancellor, assuming Reeves is sacked, will just impose a massive wealth tax in the autumn
This is the dream of me and ilk. A lurch to the left with 4 years still to do stuff. I doubt it myself but it's a little more 'on' now than it was before this welfare shenanigan.
A wealth tax would be as pointless, complicated and counterproductive as some of the sillier aspects of Brexit. A land value tax could work, but it’s a long term reform not a short term fix.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
That's what I'm talking about. Property. And I agree the point on mainstream rate income tax. The way it's become quasi illegal to change it any way but down is a nonsense.
The tax system was probably approaching optimal in the mid-90s with a basic rate of 25% and higher rate of 40%. If Labour could get back to that, the public finances would be much healthier.
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.
"Why did suspicion start - because there were more deaths than expected/usual." That's at best a very simplistic summary. There were more deaths, but there were also crucially unexpected deaths, babies who seemed fine suddenly deteriorating. Staff became suspicious of Letby early on, but Letby continued working at the hospital for a long period after those early suspicions. Management sought alternative explanations. Eventually the police were brought in. They then investigated, gathering evidence. It is wrong to imply that this was simply a high mortality rate, so they picked on Letby and constructed a case around that assumption. The new negligence charges appear to be precisely because some in management spent so long trying to excuse Letby, not accuse her.
Babies die in neonatal units, so of course there is a process of filtering out the suspicious cases. Obviously, all the babies on such a unit require significant care, but clinical staff have a good idea of the babies who require care but are on track for a healthy outcome and those likely to die. The judgements around each case were put before the court and the jury.
I misremembered the details. The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin, but those were two of the babies who survived and those were attempted murder charges. I don't think the defence accepted any of the murder charges were murder.
"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?" Harold Shipman killed about 250 patients and about 250 of them were not seen as suspicious at the time.
The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin.
I wonder if this it a legal approach and is to do with lack of expert knowledge coupled to a belief that a jury would likely accept evidence presented by experts? (Covoluted phrasing).
I work with analysis of samples all the time. I am aware of the hoops needed to go through for QC purposes and I am also aware that things can go wrong. IIRC the labs in question have produced erroneous data on insulin testing when other samples have been submitted. I cannot recall the details.
I think it an odd approach to accept that the babies were subject to an attack but that it wasn't Letby, as that would imply another killer was responsible. I would have thought challenging the insulin data would be a better approach,
Maybe they accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin because the evidence very clearly shows that. It takes a fair amount of chutzpah to conclude that you know better than both prosecution and defence!
All evidence can be challenged, you must concede that? How many repeats, when was the equipment calibrated, is it QC passed? Where other forms of analysis considered? I'm not suggesting I know better than either, although the quality of her defence has been questioned.
We are not going to agree on this, and thats fine.
All evidence can be challenged, but you need a good reason to challenge it. Too many start with the assumption that Letby is innocent and then try to explain away all the evidence.
So, sure, you can challenge evidence and challenged it has been, but two juries have sat and listened to a multitude of evidence and come to a conclusion. Multiple appeal court judges have re-examined the case and not found any problems.
So a different question then, why do you think so many people have questions? Has she just become a cause celebre?
You know criticism of the blessed Kemi isn't liked on here. She's our saviour, our next Prime Minister, who will lead us out of the valley of the shadow and to the sunlit uplands of somewhere or other.
The point is we all know what Scott P thinks in advance so what does it matter?
Comments
Cancel all religions, I've solved it, and it ain't 42.
"Heathrow considering legal action against National Grid over fire"
https://news.sky.com/story/man-seriously-injured-after-sword-goes-through-visor-during-battle-re-enactment-at-bodiam-castle-in-east-sussex-13390856
We were all electric at the time.
I’ll keep an eye out for ‘watch out there’s a Humphrey about’
He does what he does
For clarity I know loads of people on the spectrum who are much nicer than him. Warm, funny, sympathetic
Gilts plunging, cost of govt borrowing up steeply. On Richter scale of alarm, this one day move is roughly two-thirds of a Kwarteng on the day of his mini budget
@adambienkov.bsky.social
After a Treasury spokesperson says Rachel Reeves was upset at PMQs due to a personal matter, Kemi Badenoch's spokesman tells journalists that "something strange is going on" and insists the Chancellor immediately disclose what is happening in her personal life
https://bsky.app/profile/adambienkov.bsky.social/post/3lsy7ilz5qs2w
The NHS is so established so as not really to care about the fate of its patients. At the individual level there is of course often care and attention and concern but institutionally it doesn't matter if patients live or die.
Most notable and noticeable for old people, but would easily apply to those who are very ill where a positive result might be unexpected and death rates might point to a systemic issue where that structure is wanting and "lets" people die.
Under those circumstances of course people will look for a bad actor to blame and the flawed procedures continue.
For some I had to sit down with a counsellor and work out "did this happen?" to avoid letting them persist, as it would have made some personal and family relationships difficult.
We ended up with "assume these things did not happen" until or unless there is evidence to the contrary.
A strange experience.
Rachel Reeves had a brief altercation with Sir Lindsay Hoyle, the Speaker, on entering Commons, but was already said to be in a 'difficult place' over the 'personal matter'
Hoyle is said to have pulled her up on her conduct during Treasury questions on Tuesday, when he asked her to give shorter answers. Reeves is said to have rolled her eyes in response and said 'ugh right'
Reeves denied answering back then started crying
Number 10 said earlier that she is 'going nowhere'
1) I'd forgotten how much I enjoy Lindsay Hoyle. He's the best speaker we've had since Betty. He also has the best voice ever.
2) I'd forgotten how asinine the whole process is. Stop cheering, everyone.
3) Shut up about football, Keir. You can get away with a single mention of the NHS.
4) Kemi's being a bit oily. And that first question should just have been the last sentence. I actually used to quite like Corbyn's relatively simple approach to PMQs, albeit that his questions were a bit scattergun.
5) Kemi's clearly winning now. She has an odd way of pronouncing the word 'alone'.
6) SKS looking a bit rattled now. Rayner looking furious all the time.
7) Actually, this is really good by Kemi. Starmer not putting up a bad fight though - the Lab approach of Lab-does-x-repeat sounds more convincing and less robotic coming out of his mouth than it does out of Rachel Reeves.
... that was quite good actually I take back some of point 2. Reeves looking a bit hangdog but no tears yet. Let's scan forward a bit...
8) Here's some fella from Glasgow asking a very bland question about rail staff which SKS answers earnestly. The Reeves bottom lip is definitely quivering now. Why now? Scanning back and forwards she seemed ok before this?
9) Harriet Cross, Gordon and Buchan. I hadn't heard of her before. She's quite good, albeit on a subject I am unconvinced by. Reeves cheered herself up a little now, though her face is still at no happier than 2/10. What's she doing with her tongue?
10) Clearly wiping away tears now.
...but not really clear why? It didn't appear to be in response to anything in particular that happened in the chamber.
a) all our government debt is in our own currency, so a big foreign currency loan wouldn't help us
b) unlike Greece or Ireland, we print our own currency - if we want more, we can get it easily enough.
c) the IMF's resources are already strained, and it just doesn't have the resources to bail us out - we are much too large an economy for their available resources to make a difference
d) it's morally wrong anyway - the IMF's funds are supposed to help developing countries in temporary capital market difficulties, not developed ones with vast capital markets but lazy and incompetent governments
e) it wouldn't do us any good anyway - what we need is sensible economic policies, and we know roughly what they are, and can formulate and implement them ourselves. That they are directly opposed to what the government's instincts are isn't, and cannot be, the IMF's problem, and they would be very reluctant to become the fall guys for Reeves's and Starmer's economic illiteracy.
Babies die in neonatal units, so of course there is a process of filtering out the suspicious cases. Obviously, all the babies on such a unit require significant care, but clinical staff have a good idea of the babies who require care but are on track for a healthy outcome and those likely to die. The judgements around each case were put before the court and the jury.
I misremembered the details. The defence accepted that Babies F and L had been poisoned with insulin, but those were two of the babies who survived and those were attempted murder charges. I don't think the defence accepted any of the murder charges were murder.
"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?" Harold Shipman killed about 250 patients and about 250 of them were not seen as suspicious at the time.
https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lsyayfryxk2g
Well, you got to start somewhere...
https://x.com/vmpirevnom/status/1940201283513958615
Though if we manage to get rid of Northern Ireland at some point, I'd happily make an exception. It could be paid for out of the £15-20 billion in annual savings we'd make.
“I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong. Politics shouldn’t be some mind-bending exercise.
“It’s about what you feel in your gut – about the values you hold dear and the beliefs you instinctively have. And I just feel it, in my gut, that AV is wrong.
“There are three big problems with AV that strike at the heart of how I believe our democracy should work.
“First, I believe power should lie with the people – and AV would take some of that power away.
“Second, I believe there should be real accountability between the pledges politicians put in their manifestos and the action they take in government.
“AV would damage that chain of accountability. And third, I believe in the principle of one person, one vote.
“If you want a system that makes your politicians accountable.
“If you want a system that enshrines the principle of one person, one vote.
“You must vote on May 5th, and you must vote No to AV.
“The biggest danger right now is that Britain sleepwalks into this second-rate system, waking up on May 6th with a voting system that damages our democracy.
“We must not let that happen. So we’ve got to get out there and fight, and get out there and win.”
- Dave in the Torygraph, 2011.
As the usually spot on Dan Neidle has written about extensively, our problem is that we’re not raising enough from the median worker. That’s partly rates but also working population demographics. Way less than we have done historically and way less than most other countries. A 1 or 2p increase in basic rate income tax would fund more than even an ambitious wealth tax.
As you say, she is costing people money.
If you have a government with insufficient stones to do that for themselves, then it is a benefit to the country, on balance.
Course I do too - so long as it accords with MY vision and principles.
Failing this, I'm not as down as most people on a timid "technocratic" approach that tinkers around whilst not risking hyperinflation and a gilts crisis.
I wonder if this it a legal approach and is to do with lack of expert knowledge coupled to a belief that a jury would likely accept evidence presented by experts? (Covoluted phrasing).
I work with analysis of samples all the time. I am aware of the hoops needed to go through for QC purposes and I am also aware that things can go wrong. IIRC the labs in question have produced erroneous data on insulin testing when other samples have been submitted. I cannot recall the details.
I think it an odd approach to accept that the babies were subject to an attack but that it wasn't Letby, as that would imply another killer was responsible. I would have thought challenging the insulin data would be a better approach,
You know criticism of the blessed Kemi isn't liked on here. She's our saviour, our next Prime Minister, who will lead us out of the valley of the shadow and to the sunlit uplands of somewhere or other.
He was naming AV but describing a PR list system. Mendacious.
https://x.com/Sam_Dumitriu/status/1940396223242158412
It's not about that (who can know other than Letby).
It's about the extent and quality of the evidence about her and the ability of the jurors and others to understand it and interpret it correctly.
His adulthood came young and he is still to some degree the mature, precocious 10 year old playing at being a man.
There is also a weird strand of thought that the hoopla is because she is pretty blond woman, to which I would suggest only two are true.
Well done Labour and Labour MPs
You’ve played a blinder
https://x.com/cutmytaxuk/status/1940400190609047921?s=61
Biggest guarantee of a sharp fall in gilt yields would be a big tax hike.
As for "her time will come again", well, there's the small matter of her not being an MP let alone leader of her party (Conservative, Reform, Advance UK, who knows?). Yes, she has plenty of time (she's 50) but the historical record of ex-PMs getting another chance at the top doesn't offer much hope.
Additional footage shows Russian FSB agents forcefully arresting Shahin Shikhlinsky, the head of the Azerbaijani diaspora in Yekaterinburg, Russia
https://x.com/PolymarketIntel/status/1940365671046812027
Two deaths in Russian custody spark rift with former ally Azerbaijan
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5y00qq8nelo
Azerbaijan rift challenges Russia's post-Soviet influence
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/azerbaijan-rift-challenges-russias-post-112302653.html
...Days later, Azerbaijani police raided the Baku office of Sputnik, Russia's state-run news agency, detaining three Russian journalists with the footage broadcast on pro-state TV.
Bureau chief Igor Kartavykh and editor-in-chief Yevgeny Belousov were later ordered into four months of pre-trial detention on charges of fraud and money laundering..
Furlough and energy bailout have completely bollocksed us
We have a process state.
Unfortunately it is part of being in government. She is going to have to explain, or at least expand a little. Billions of pounds are resting on this.
All this talk of wealth tax, by the way. Whose wealth and how?
Get the bankruptcy over and done with stat.
No point waiting around like this.
But others are right that at a time when she is under particular focus and pressure, to show that level of upset in public is really not ideal, and is monumentally bad timing. I guess that if she hadn’t been there, questions would have been asked, but if it’d been briefed beforehand than at least that would have minimised some of the damage.
As it is, at a time when there are questions about her future she is, for whatever reason, openly weeping in public and that is a terrible look.
Am I close?
Perhaps not spending money we don’t have is a better solution.
Pop 0.1% or so on top to take account of a fall in house prices in the top end.
Here’s the chart for the last 6 months up to today.
We are not going to agree on this, and thats fine.
Its not nice to be upset, have received bad news, be facing a personal crisis etc but she's not just a character in a soap opera, shes responsible for our nations prosperity or decline. Her decisions affect pensioners warmth in winter, the fate of small businesses, family farms etc.
Some of the nation may want to see more feels and emotion, the markets most certainly do not. And they carry far more weight with our future prospects
The women’s football Euros start tonight; look forward to that.
Sunset time where I am now will be 2330 tonight.
So, sure, you can challenge evidence and challenged it has been, but two juries have sat and listened to a multitude of evidence and come to a conclusion. Multiple appeal court judges have re-examined the case and not found any problems.
Oh
@cnn.com
JUST IN: Tesla reports another drop in quarterly sales amid fallout from Elon Musk's political activities and increased competition.
https://bsky.app/profile/cnn.com/post/3lsydusn4ic27
I hardly think pb is a Kemi fan club either!