Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
How could they not continue to play him? Are they supposed to fire him and effectively name him on day one? As soon as he is arrested?
If no charges had been made, he would have been unjustly treated for three years. Not as unjustly treated as, say, being raped. But still.
I seem to recall a few years ago there was an Everton player arrested for alleged “child offences” who was never named by the press but named elsewhere who was just quietly dropped from the squad.
Arsenal could have probably claimed he was injured and not played him if they had wanted to.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
How could they not continue to play him? Are they supposed to fire him and effectively name him on day one? As soon as he is arrested?
If no charges had been made, he would have been unjustly treated for three years. Not as unjustly treated as, say, being raped. But still.
There's a major problem when an investigation like this takes nearly three and a half years, and it hasn't even gone to trial. Needs to be a lot faster.
The met sent the charging decision to the CPS six months ago. Convenient that they only decided to bring those charges 4 days after his contract ended. They literally let a man who the police believe they have enough evidence to get a rape conviction (which is a very high bar) walk around for an extra six months for "reasons". Genuinely disgusted by that decision.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
I cry at the opening of a crisp packet. I think I'm probably still a 'man' despite this.
@HYUFD's "(with the possible exception of gay men)," above is classic.
Is it at that point you remember that prawn cocktail flavour is truly disgusting?
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Who was found not guilty and likely a case of mistaken identity as was noted in the judgement. Yeah these are not the same. You literally cheered for someone who you all knew was facing rape charges and accusations from multiple women and having seen the story from the alleged victim from the Spanish incident first hand.
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
How could they not continue to play him? Are they supposed to fire him and effectively name him on day one? As soon as he is arrested?
If no charges had been made, he would have been unjustly treated for three years. Not as unjustly treated as, say, being raped. But still.
There's a major problem when an investigation like this takes nearly three and a half years, and it hasn't even gone to trial. Needs to be a lot faster.
The met sent the charging decision to the CPS six months ago. Convenient that they only decided to bring those charges 4 days after his contract ended. They literally let a man who the police believe they have enough evidence to get a rape conviction (which is a very high bar) walk around for an extra six months for "reasons". Genuinely disgusted by that decision.
No, the statement is that the CPS made the charging decision today. I don't know if 6 months is a long time for a police file to be reviewed in England, but my simple road traffic offence took over 4 months (and then another year for a trial).
Arsenal may have got a tipoff in the last fortnight though because they stopped negotiating a new contract last week.
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
How could they not continue to play him? Are they supposed to fire him and effectively name him on day one? As soon as he is arrested?
If no charges had been made, he would have been unjustly treated for three years. Not as unjustly treated as, say, being raped. But still.
There's a major problem when an investigation like this takes nearly three and a half years, and it hasn't even gone to trial. Needs to be a lot faster.
The met sent the charging decision to the CPS six months ago. Convenient that they only decided to bring those charges 4 days after his contract ended. They literally let a man who the police believe they have enough evidence to get a rape conviction (which is a very high bar) walk around for an extra six months for "reasons". Genuinely disgusted by that decision.
No, the statement is that the CPS made the charging decision today. I don't know if 6 months is a long time for a police file to be reviewed in England, but my simple road traffic offence took over 4 months (and then another year for a trial).
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
People get suspended in real life based on allegations.
Depends on their contract
Not in education. He'd never work again in the sector, even if found Not Guilty. From the moment of first allegation he'd have been suspended and escorted off the premises.
Which is totally wrong, if acquitted in criminal court you should be able to resume your life as before, certainly if you don't lose a civil case related to sex abuse claims held after the criminal one
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
I cry at the opening of a crisp packet. I think I'm probably still a 'man' despite this.
@HYUFD's "(with the possible exception of gay men)," above is classic.
Is it at that point you remember that prawn cocktail flavour is truly disgusting?
Nah, it's when I remember I'm in training for a race and I can't eat crisps, so I hand the pack over to my son...
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Whether fair or not it is seen as a weakness in a leader and letting emotion overcome you
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
How could they not continue to play him? Are they supposed to fire him and effectively name him on day one? As soon as he is arrested?
If no charges had been made, he would have been unjustly treated for three years. Not as unjustly treated as, say, being raped. But still.
There's a major problem when an investigation like this takes nearly three and a half years, and it hasn't even gone to trial. Needs to be a lot faster.
The met sent the charging decision to the CPS six months ago. Convenient that they only decided to bring those charges 4 days after his contract ended. They literally let a man who the police believe they have enough evidence to get a rape conviction (which is a very high bar) walk around for an extra six months for "reasons". Genuinely disgusted by that decision.
No, the statement is that the CPS made the charging decision today. I don't know if 6 months is a long time for a police file to be reviewed in England, but my simple road traffic offence took over 4 months (and then another year for a trial).
Arsenal may have got a tipoff in the last fortnight though because they stopped negotiating a new contract last week.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Who was found not guilty and likely a case of mistaken identity as was noted in the judgement. Yeah these are not the same. You literally cheered for someone who you all knew was facing rape charges and accusations from multiple women and having seen the story from the alleged victim from the Spanish incident first hand.
Careful Max - they are exactly the same until Partey is convicted in court.
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Who was found not guilty and likely a case of mistaken identity as was noted in the judgement. Yeah these are not the same. You literally cheered for someone who you all knew was facing rape charges and accusations from multiple women and having seen the story from the alleged victim from the Spanish incident first hand.
Careful Max - they are exactly the same until Partey is convicted in court.
TSE doesn't give a f*** about OGH today.
I am not refreshing PB every three seconds.
You're first instinct should have been to shutdown discussion of it.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Whether fair or not it is seen as a weakness in a leader and letting emotion overcome you
It's a sad day when someone like you can criticise anyone for showing emotion, and certainly I do not respect the idea a leader is weak if overcome with emotion
You have no idea what caused Reeves to break down or indeed any high profile leader
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Who was found not guilty and likely a case of mistaken identity as was noted in the judgement. Yeah these are not the same. You literally cheered for someone who you all knew was facing rape charges and accusations from multiple women and having seen the story from the alleged victim from the Spanish incident first hand.
Careful Max - they are exactly the same until Partey is convicted in court.
TSE doesn't give a f*** about OGH today.
I am not refreshing PB every three seconds.
You're first instinct should have been to shutdown discussion of it.
But you had to give your two penneth.
In my job I have had to suspend one person for a rape allegation.
From being arrested to being charged to being found not guilty took nearly five years and this was pre-pandemic.
When I took external advice the business were at safeguarding issues if we didn't suspend him.
We offered the accused plenty of support but it had to be done offsite.
I've said for years it is problematic that these sort of allegations take so long and there's a binary choice facing employers.
As I was told if you're father/brother/mother/sister would you want a loved one working up close and personal with somebody accused of a serious sexual offence?
Her lawyers will make their case, but her media cheerleaders won't help one way or another. Miscarriages happen but the Letby defender arguments seem to shift a lot depending on how much they know of the details of the trial, so if she has a case they do a poor job advancing it.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Apparently the police are investigating further allegations v Letby, so it is wise to wait for the outcomes
Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
Delighted to hear that He Is Risen and will found a new political party (provisionally named WE ARE ALL PALESTINE ACTION apparently).
I have joined this new party and can announce further political luminaries who have joined - sensible names for a sensible Britain:
Wrong-Daily Richard Ding Dong Burgon Laura Pidcock Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Jo Jacobs Lloyd-Mole the various MPs for Gaza elected last year Galloway obviously
Unite the Union are providing financial support and auditing
Delighted to hear that He Is Risen and will found a new political party (provisionally named WE ARE ALL PALESTINE ACTION apparently).
I have joined this new party and can announce further political luminaries who have joined - sensible names for a sensible Britain:
Wrong-Daily Richard Ding Dong Burgon Laura Pidcock Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Jo Jacobs Lloyd-Mole the various MPs for Gaza elected last year Galloway obviously
Unite the Union are providing financial support and auditing
Today Islington tomorrow Gaza
EDIT - I have just heard that Owen Jones is also joining the party. Sorry, a line has to be drawn somewhere, I'M OUT
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Who was found not guilty and likely a case of mistaken identity as was noted in the judgement. Yeah these are not the same. You literally cheered for someone who you all knew was facing rape charges and accusations from multiple women and having seen the story from the alleged victim from the Spanish incident first hand.
Careful Max - they are exactly the same until Partey is convicted in court.
TSE doesn't give a f*** about OGH today.
I am not refreshing PB every three seconds.
You're first instinct should have been to shutdown discussion of it.
But you had to give your two penneth.
In my job I have had to suspend one person for a rape allegation.
From being arrested to being charged to being found not guilty took nearly five years and this was pre-pandemic.
When I took external advice the business were at safeguarding issues if we didn't suspend him.
We offered the accused plenty of support but it had to be done offsite.
I've said for years it is problematic that these sort of allegations take so long and there's a binary choice facing employers.
As I was told if you're father/brother/mother/sister would you want a loved one working up close and personal with somebody accused of a serious sexual offence?
Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Who was found not guilty and likely a case of mistaken identity as was noted in the judgement. Yeah these are not the same. You literally cheered for someone who you all knew was facing rape charges and accusations from multiple women and having seen the story from the alleged victim from the Spanish incident first hand.
Careful Max - they are exactly the same until Partey is convicted in court.
TSE doesn't give a f*** about OGH today.
I am not refreshing PB every three seconds.
You're first instinct should have been to shutdown discussion of it.
But you had to give your two penneth.
In my job I have had to suspend one person for a rape allegation.
From being arrested to being charged to being found not guilty took nearly five years and this was pre-pandemic.
When I took external advice the business were at safeguarding issues if we didn't suspend him.
We offered the accused plenty of support but it had to be done offsite.
I've said for years it is problematic that these sort of allegations take so long and there's a binary choice facing employers.
As I was told if you're father/brother/mother/sister would you want a loved one working up close and personal with somebody accused of a serious sexual offence?
Presumption of innocence goes out of the window.
There is also the Benjamin Mendy precedent
As in Man City did the same as Arsenal?
I think TSE is arguing the moment allegations are made, they should be suspended.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Should politicians be getting involved in individual cases in this manner, anyway ?
(Unless, for example, it the individual in question is a constituent.)
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
Delighted to hear that He Is Risen and will found a new political party (provisionally named WE ARE ALL PALESTINE ACTION apparently).
I have joined this new party and can announce further political luminaries who have joined - sensible names for a sensible Britain:
Wrong-Daily Richard Ding Dong Burgon Laura Pidcock Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Jo Jacobs Lloyd-Mole the various MPs for Gaza elected last year Galloway obviously
Unite the Union are providing financial support and auditing
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
Should Blair have been disqualified for exploiting the James Bulger case?
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Who was found not guilty and likely a case of mistaken identity as was noted in the judgement. Yeah these are not the same. You literally cheered for someone who you all knew was facing rape charges and accusations from multiple women and having seen the story from the alleged victim from the Spanish incident first hand.
Careful Max - they are exactly the same until Partey is convicted in court.
TSE doesn't give a f*** about OGH today.
I am not refreshing PB every three seconds.
You're first instinct should have been to shutdown discussion of it.
But you had to give your two penneth.
In my job I have had to suspend one person for a rape allegation.
From being arrested to being charged to being found not guilty took nearly five years and this was pre-pandemic.
When I took external advice the business were at safeguarding issues if we didn't suspend him.
We offered the accused plenty of support but it had to be done offsite.
I've said for years it is problematic that these sort of allegations take so long and there's a binary choice facing employers.
As I was told if you're father/brother/mother/sister would you want a loved one working up close and personal with somebody accused of a serious sexual offence?
Presumption of innocence goes out of the window.
The intolerable injustice here - to both accused and presumed victim - is the absurd length of time it takes to bring these cases to trial.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Whether fair or not it is seen as a weakness in a leader and letting emotion overcome you
It’s not fair and it’s a damning indictment on society that it is picked on as weakness.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
lol. The actual prime minister changed government policy and lectured the world because he was triggered by a TV drama about “toxic masculinity” - tho only a masculinity of a certain kind that it’s acceptable to be angry about
Starmer makes Farage look like an amateur when it comes to leaping aboard the next moral express train.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Whether fair or not it is seen as a weakness in a leader and letting emotion overcome you
It's a sad day when someone like you can criticise anyone for showing emotion, and certainly I do not respect the idea a leader is weak if overcome with emotion
You have no idea what caused Reeves to break down or indeed any high profile leader
The world needs compassion in spades right now
The world needs compassion, empathy and more nuclear weapons.
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Who was found not guilty and likely a case of mistaken identity as was noted in the judgement. Yeah these are not the same. You literally cheered for someone who you all knew was facing rape charges and accusations from multiple women and having seen the story from the alleged victim from the Spanish incident first hand.
Careful Max - they are exactly the same until Partey is convicted in court.
TSE doesn't give a f*** about OGH today.
I am not refreshing PB every three seconds.
You're first instinct should have been to shutdown discussion of it.
But you had to give your two penneth.
In my job I have had to suspend one person for a rape allegation.
From being arrested to being charged to being found not guilty took nearly five years and this was pre-pandemic.
When I took external advice the business were at safeguarding issues if we didn't suspend him.
We offered the accused plenty of support but it had to be done offsite.
I've said for years it is problematic that these sort of allegations take so long and there's a binary choice facing employers.
As I was told if you're father/brother/mother/sister would you want a loved one working up close and personal with somebody accused of a serious sexual offence?
Presumption of innocence goes out of the window.
There is also the Benjamin Mendy precedent
As in Man City did the same as Arsenal?
I think TSE is arguing the moment allegations are made, they should be suspended.
No Man City suspended Mendy, he was found innocent then sued them for loss of earnings
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Triggers Leon ?
I sense he's upset it's faded as a story. The hope was for several days lurid headlines followed by a resignation.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
Should Blair have been disqualified for exploiting the James Bulger case?
{The Peado Finder General has entered the chat and accused everyone, for political profit}
Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.
I simply don't know.
The idea that Letby was scapegoated doesn't neatly fit what happened. There were many months when clinical staff had raised concern, but hospital management went out of their way to defend Letby and say it wasn't her (which is why negligence charges appear now to have been brought). They were doing the opposite of scapegoating her; they were defending her.
In two cases, both prosecution and defence agreed that someone tried to kill babies with insulin. In multiple other cases, the deaths were highly suspicious in nature. They just don't fit a theory of "procedural and other failures at the hospital". They look like homicides/attempted homicides. That alone doesn't prove it's Letby, but it implies it has to be Letby or another killer.
Letby stole medical records. Letby falsified medical records. Letby wrote notes to herself implying guilt. Letby was twice observed acting inappropriately with babies. This evidence was impactful at trial and, again, doesn't fit with an idea that it was just other failings at the hospital.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
lol. The actual prime minister changed government policy and lectured the world because he was triggered by a TV drama about “toxic masculinity” - tho only a masculinity of a certain kind that it’s acceptable to be angry about
Starmer makes Farage look like an amateur when it comes to leaping aboard the next moral express train.
You truly can't judge equivalence, can you. Blind spot.
'A council has removed all transgender-related books from the children's sections of its libraries, its leader has said.
In a post on social media, Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran said the books were to be removed with immediate effect in a "victory for common sense in Kent".
Paul Webb, Reform UK's communities portfolio holder who oversees libraries, said the move came after a "concerned member of the public" contacted him.
The BBC has contacted the council and Webb to find out which books have been removed. Both are yet to respond.
The Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition, Antony Hook, said: "It is bizarre that the leader of the council is making announcements on social media, rather than to the council....Defending the decision, Webb said: "In our society, children are quite rightly and properly protected from items and actions that could cause them harm – for example alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.
"My fellow Reform members and I believe that our young people should be protected from exposure to potentially harmful ideologies and beliefs such as those held by the trans lobbyists."
When the BBC asked if Reform UK had carried out an assessment to understand the impact of removing the books, Webb said: "As far as impact assessments are concerned, I would have thought that question should have been asked before these books were placed in the children's section to begin with."
Ms Kemkaran added: "Telling children they're in the wrong body is wrong and simply unacceptable."
Hook said he had written to the head of Kent library services to ask for an update on what books were to be removed.
He said: "The announcement made by Ms Kemkaran is vague. She does not specify what books she is referring to. This needs to be properly explained."
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
Should Blair have been disqualified for exploiting the James Bulger case?
Well I didn't vote for him. And I certainly won't vote for Farage, either.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Should politicians be getting involved in individual cases in this manner, anyway ?
(Unless, for example, it the individual in question is a constituent.)
Could be harmful to her defence I'd have thought. To those less than enthusiastic about Farage it might implant the notion, however subconsciously: if Nigel's jumping on this particular bandwagon she must be guilty (Cf. everything else he's ever pontificated about).
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Triggers Leon ?
I sense he's upset it's faded as a story. The hope was for several days lurid headlines followed by a resignation.
Happily the Guardian has revived it with their major analysis of Tiny Tears and her Commons Blubfest
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Who was found not guilty and likely a case of mistaken identity as was noted in the judgement. Yeah these are not the same. You literally cheered for someone who you all knew was facing rape charges and accusations from multiple women and having seen the story from the alleged victim from the Spanish incident first hand.
Careful Max - they are exactly the same until Partey is convicted in court.
TSE doesn't give a f*** about OGH today.
I am not refreshing PB every three seconds.
You're first instinct should have been to shutdown discussion of it.
But you had to give your two penneth.
In my job I have had to suspend one person for a rape allegation.
From being arrested to being charged to being found not guilty took nearly five years and this was pre-pandemic.
When I took external advice the business were at safeguarding issues if we didn't suspend him.
We offered the accused plenty of support but it had to be done offsite.
I've said for years it is problematic that these sort of allegations take so long and there's a binary choice facing employers.
As I was told if you're father/brother/mother/sister would you want a loved one working up close and personal with somebody accused of a serious sexual offence?
Presumption of innocence goes out of the window.
There is also the Benjamin Mendy precedent
As in Man City did the same as Arsenal?
I think TSE is arguing the moment allegations are made, they should be suspended.
No Man City suspended Mendy, he was found innocent then sued them for loss of earnings
Sorry, I meant as in Man City had continued to play him until he was charged.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
Should Blair have been disqualified for exploiting the James Bulger case?
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
lol. The actual prime minister changed government policy and lectured the world because he was triggered by a TV drama about “toxic masculinity” - tho only a masculinity of a certain kind that it’s acceptable to be angry about
Starmer makes Farage look like an amateur when it comes to leaping aboard the next moral express train.
You truly can't judge equivalence, can you. Blind spot.
You’re also wrong on my aspirations
The ideal outcome for me - as a reform-y right winger - is that reeves staggers on, damaged, and likewise starmer - clumsily grinding Labour into the dust. If they both went there is the horrible chance Labour might find someone unexpectedly popular
Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.
I simply don't know.
The idea that Letby was scapegoated doesn't neatly fit what happened. There were many months when clinical staff had raised concern, but hospital management went out of their way to defend Letby and say it wasn't her (which is why negligence charges appear now to have been brought). They were doing the opposite of scapegoating her; they were defending her.
In two cases, both prosecution and defence agreed that someone tried to kill babies with insulin. In multiple other cases, the deaths were highly suspicious in nature. They just don't fit a theory of "procedural and other failures at the hospital". They look like homicides/attempted homicides. That alone doesn't prove it's Letby, but it implies it has to be Letby or another killer.
Letby stole medical records. Letby falsified medical records. Letby wrote notes to herself implying guilt. Letby was twice observed acting inappropriately with babies. This evidence was impactful at trial and, again, doesn't fit with an idea that it was just other failings at the hospital.
Knowing the way many institutions can work, I can very easily imagine that Letby is guilty and that the various enquiries will reveal a cesspit, in addition.
For some reason I think of the Father Briwn story of a murder hidden. On a battlefield.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
lol. The actual prime minister changed government policy and lectured the world because he was triggered by a TV drama about “toxic masculinity” - tho only a masculinity of a certain kind that it’s acceptable to be angry about
Starmer makes Farage look like an amateur when it comes to leaping aboard the next moral express train.
I note the only defence both you and william can come up with for Farage here is whataboutery.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Whether fair or not it is seen as a weakness in a leader and letting emotion overcome you
It’s not fair and it’s a damning indictment on society that it is picked on as weakness.
It’s a loss of control and a surrender to helpless emotion. It should be condemned just as much as a male leader who loses his temper and smashes cellphones or thumps employees
Doing it on live tv with the cameras rolling? As pitiful as it is unforgivable
Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.
I simply don't know.
You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?
That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
Should Blair have been disqualified for exploiting the James Bulger case?
'A council has removed all transgender-related books from the children's sections of its libraries, its leader has said.
In a post on social media, Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran said the books were to be removed with immediate effect in a "victory for common sense in Kent".
Paul Webb, Reform UK's communities portfolio holder who oversees libraries, said the move came after a "concerned member of the public" contacted him.
The BBC has contacted the council and Webb to find out which books have been removed. Both are yet to respond.
The Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition, Antony Hook, said: "It is bizarre that the leader of the council is making announcements on social media, rather than to the council....Defending the decision, Webb said: "In our society, children are quite rightly and properly protected from items and actions that could cause them harm – for example alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.
"My fellow Reform members and I believe that our young people should be protected from exposure to potentially harmful ideologies and beliefs such as those held by the trans lobbyists."
When the BBC asked if Reform UK had carried out an assessment to understand the impact of removing the books, Webb said: "As far as impact assessments are concerned, I would have thought that question should have been asked before these books were placed in the children's section to begin with."
Ms Kemkaran added: "Telling children they're in the wrong body is wrong and simply unacceptable."
Hook said he had written to the head of Kent library services to ask for an update on what books were to be removed.
He said: "The announcement made by Ms Kemkaran is vague. She does not specify what books she is referring to. This needs to be properly explained."
Whatever your view on the Transgender issues, no one should be banning books. Reform are quick enough to moan when books are removed for 'woke' reasons.
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
Should Blair have been disqualified for exploiting the James Bulger case?
How anyone thinks Letby is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt when world experts don't baffles me..🥴
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
lol. The actual prime minister changed government policy and lectured the world because he was triggered by a TV drama about “toxic masculinity” - tho only a masculinity of a certain kind that it’s acceptable to be angry about
Starmer makes Farage look like an amateur when it comes to leaping aboard the next moral express train.
I note the only defence both you and william can come up with for Farage here is whataboutery.
That’s because I’m not defending Farage, I’m taunting the ridiculous @kinabalu
FWIW I think Farage is ill-advised to get involved in this. It’s foolish and it could easily backfire
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
Should Blair have been disqualified for exploiting the James Bulger case?
I must have missed Tony Blair demanding that Bulger's killers should have a retrial.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Whether fair or not it is seen as a weakness in a leader and letting emotion overcome you
It’s not fair and it’s a damning indictment on society that it is picked on as weakness.
It’s a loss of control and a surrender to helpless emotion. It should be condemned just as much as a male leader who loses his temper and smashes cellphones or thumps employees
Doing it on live tv with the cameras rolling? As pitiful as it is unforgivable
If we agree that it’s no problem for a people to cry because of the stress of work, even if you are one of the country’s most senior politicians, then why invent the story, if they did invent it, that it was a personal issue, nothing to do with work?
It would be interesting for an interviewer to actually ask him what he knows about the case. @bondegezou (I think) could come up with some good questions.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
Farage knows he can get some publicity about it and build a narrative that suits his needs. Farage has little care as to what the truth actually is.
Sees the Lucy train. Likes the look of it. Jumps aboard.
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
lol. The actual prime minister changed government policy and lectured the world because he was triggered by a TV drama about “toxic masculinity” - tho only a masculinity of a certain kind that it’s acceptable to be angry about
Starmer makes Farage look like an amateur when it comes to leaping aboard the next moral express train.
You truly can't judge equivalence, can you. Blind spot.
You’re also wrong on my aspirations
The ideal outcome for me - as a reform-y right winger - is that reeves staggers on, damaged, and likewise starmer - clumsily grinding Labour into the dust. If they both went there is the horrible chance Labour might find someone unexpectedly popular
Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.
I simply don't know.
You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?
That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.
Is that what you really mean?
I have no opinion on the Letby case as I have no real knowledge beyond the basic story in the media.
But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
'A council has removed all transgender-related books from the children's sections of its libraries, its leader has said.
In a post on social media, Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran said the books were to be removed with immediate effect in a "victory for common sense in Kent".
Paul Webb, Reform UK's communities portfolio holder who oversees libraries, said the move came after a "concerned member of the public" contacted him.
The BBC has contacted the council and Webb to find out which books have been removed. Both are yet to respond.
The Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition, Antony Hook, said: "It is bizarre that the leader of the council is making announcements on social media, rather than to the council....Defending the decision, Webb said: "In our society, children are quite rightly and properly protected from items and actions that could cause them harm – for example alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.
"My fellow Reform members and I believe that our young people should be protected from exposure to potentially harmful ideologies and beliefs such as those held by the trans lobbyists."
When the BBC asked if Reform UK had carried out an assessment to understand the impact of removing the books, Webb said: "As far as impact assessments are concerned, I would have thought that question should have been asked before these books were placed in the children's section to begin with."
Ms Kemkaran added: "Telling children they're in the wrong body is wrong and simply unacceptable."
Hook said he had written to the head of Kent library services to ask for an update on what books were to be removed.
He said: "The announcement made by Ms Kemkaran is vague. She does not specify what books she is referring to. This needs to be properly explained."
Whatever your view on the Transgender issues, no one should be banning books. Reform are quick enough to moan when books are removed for 'woke' reasons.
Banning? Pah. Their next act must be the ritualistic BURNING of these books.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Whether fair or not it is seen as a weakness in a leader and letting emotion overcome you
It’s not fair and it’s a damning indictment on society that it is picked on as weakness.
It’s a loss of control and a surrender to helpless emotion. It should be condemned just as much as a male leader who loses his temper and smashes cellphones or thumps employees
Doing it on live tv with the cameras rolling? As pitiful as it is unforgivable
If we agree that it’s no problem for a people to cry because of the stress of work, even if you are one of the country’s most senior politicians, then why invent the story, if they did invent it, that it was a personal issue, nothing to do with work?
Panic?
One does wonder, if Tiny Tears from Accounts can fall apart like a frightened six year old threatened by a scary thing, when she is live on air in the commons, exactly how pathetic and hysterical is she in private?
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Whether fair or not it is seen as a weakness in a leader and letting emotion overcome you
It’s not fair and it’s a damning indictment on society that it is picked on as weakness.
It’s a loss of control and a surrender to helpless emotion. It should be condemned just as much as a male leader who loses his temper and smashes cellphones or thumps employees
Doing it on live tv with the cameras rolling? As pitiful as it is unforgivable
If we agree that it’s no problem for a people to cry because of the stress of work, even if you are one of the country’s most senior politicians, then why invent the story, if they did invent it, that it was a personal issue, nothing to do with work?
Panic?
One does wonder, if Tiny Tears from Accounts can fall apart like a frightened six year old threatened by a scary thing, when she is live on air in the commons, exactly how pathetic and hysterical is she in private?
you seem a bit tetchy today, have you not had enough attention?
Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.
I simply don't know.
You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?
That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.
Is that what you really mean?
The trial and verdict *do* hold weight for me. But:
There have been several cases where, from the reporting, I have thought: "They got the right person!", only for their conviction to be later quashed on appeal (*). Sometimes after more than one appeal.
Courts often get things right. Sometimes they get things right with the evidence given at trial, but are proved to be wrong later.
I am not a lawyer. I am not a medical expert. I was not at the trial, and did not see all the evidence. Letby was put through a criminal process and was found guilty. She is, to my mind, guilty.
*But* I would be unsurprised if her conviction was later found to be unsafe, because that occasionally does happen. And the evidence in this case was, also to my mind, not the strongest.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Whether fair or not it is seen as a weakness in a leader and letting emotion overcome you
It’s not fair and it’s a damning indictment on society that it is picked on as weakness.
It’s a loss of control and a surrender to helpless emotion. It should be condemned just as much as a male leader who loses his temper and smashes cellphones or thumps employees
Doing it on live tv with the cameras rolling? As pitiful as it is unforgivable
If we agree that it’s no problem for a people to cry because of the stress of work, even if you are one of the country’s most senior politicians, then why invent the story, if they did invent it, that it was a personal issue, nothing to do with work?
Panic?
One does wonder, if Tiny Tears from Accounts can fall apart like a frightened six year old threatened by a scary thing, when she is live on air in the commons, exactly how pathetic and hysterical is she in private?
you seem a bit tetchy today, have you not had enough attention?
Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.
I simply don't know.
You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?
That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.
Is that what you really mean?
I have no opinion on the Letby case as I have no real knowledge beyond the basic story in the media.
But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
Miscarriages of justice absolutely do happen and we should be vigilant about them. However, the vast majority of people found guilty are guilty. If someone has been found guilty by juries in two separate trials and multiple appeal judges have not found flaws in the cases, that seems to me to add quite strongly to the evidence that they really are guilty. That said, we, sensibly, do have mechanisms to try to avoid miscarriages of justice, including appeal mechanisms and the Criminal Cases Review Commission. Letby's lawyers, having exhausted their appeal options, have made an application to the CCRC and we await a decision on that.
'A council has removed all transgender-related books from the children's sections of its libraries, its leader has said.
In a post on social media, Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran said the books were to be removed with immediate effect in a "victory for common sense in Kent".
Paul Webb, Reform UK's communities portfolio holder who oversees libraries, said the move came after a "concerned member of the public" contacted him.
The BBC has contacted the council and Webb to find out which books have been removed. Both are yet to respond.
The Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition, Antony Hook, said: "It is bizarre that the leader of the council is making announcements on social media, rather than to the council....Defending the decision, Webb said: "In our society, children are quite rightly and properly protected from items and actions that could cause them harm – for example alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.
"My fellow Reform members and I believe that our young people should be protected from exposure to potentially harmful ideologies and beliefs such as those held by the trans lobbyists."
When the BBC asked if Reform UK had carried out an assessment to understand the impact of removing the books, Webb said: "As far as impact assessments are concerned, I would have thought that question should have been asked before these books were placed in the children's section to begin with."
Ms Kemkaran added: "Telling children they're in the wrong body is wrong and simply unacceptable."
Hook said he had written to the head of Kent library services to ask for an update on what books were to be removed.
He said: "The announcement made by Ms Kemkaran is vague. She does not specify what books she is referring to. This needs to be properly explained."
Whatever your view on the Transgender issues, no one should be banning books. Reform are quick enough to moan when books are removed for 'woke' reasons.
Banning? Pah. Their next act must be the ritualistic BURNING of these books.
Its just common sense.
I'm wondering if they will be banning Fahrenheit 451, like chunks of Magaland.
'A council has removed all transgender-related books from the children's sections of its libraries, its leader has said.
In a post on social media, Kent County Council leader Linden Kemkaran said the books were to be removed with immediate effect in a "victory for common sense in Kent".
Paul Webb, Reform UK's communities portfolio holder who oversees libraries, said the move came after a "concerned member of the public" contacted him.
The BBC has contacted the council and Webb to find out which books have been removed. Both are yet to respond.
The Liberal Democrat leader of the opposition, Antony Hook, said: "It is bizarre that the leader of the council is making announcements on social media, rather than to the council....Defending the decision, Webb said: "In our society, children are quite rightly and properly protected from items and actions that could cause them harm – for example alcohol, cigarettes and gambling.
"My fellow Reform members and I believe that our young people should be protected from exposure to potentially harmful ideologies and beliefs such as those held by the trans lobbyists."
When the BBC asked if Reform UK had carried out an assessment to understand the impact of removing the books, Webb said: "As far as impact assessments are concerned, I would have thought that question should have been asked before these books were placed in the children's section to begin with."
Ms Kemkaran added: "Telling children they're in the wrong body is wrong and simply unacceptable."
Hook said he had written to the head of Kent library services to ask for an update on what books were to be removed.
He said: "The announcement made by Ms Kemkaran is vague. She does not specify what books she is referring to. This needs to be properly explained."
Whatever your view on the Transgender issues, no one should be banning books. Reform are quick enough to moan when books are removed for 'woke' reasons.
Banning? Pah. Their next act must be the ritualistic BURNING of these books.
Funny how the mods aren't worried about OGH getting into trouble on this one.
Funny how Arsenal fans all knew this since the Spain let off but we're happy with him playing for the club. It's literally been an open secret that he had this coming for the last three years.
I guess the thinking is if you suspend every player with an allegation against them you won't have a team left before long.
Spurs fans dishing it out but they still signed Yves Bissouma.
Who was found not guilty and likely a case of mistaken identity as was noted in the judgement. Yeah these are not the same. You literally cheered for someone who you all knew was facing rape charges and accusations from multiple women and having seen the story from the alleged victim from the Spanish incident first hand.
Careful Max - they are exactly the same until Partey is convicted in court.
TSE doesn't give a f*** about OGH today.
I am not refreshing PB every three seconds.
You're first instinct should have been to shutdown discussion of it.
But you had to give your two penneth.
In my job I have had to suspend one person for a rape allegation.
From being arrested to being charged to being found not guilty took nearly five years and this was pre-pandemic.
When I took external advice the business were at safeguarding issues if we didn't suspend him.
We offered the accused plenty of support but it had to be done offsite.
I've said for years it is problematic that these sort of allegations take so long and there's a binary choice facing employers.
As I was told if you're father/brother/mother/sister would you want a loved one working up close and personal with somebody accused of a serious sexual offence?
Presumption of innocence goes out of the window.
There is also the Benjamin Mendy precedent
As in Man City did the same as Arsenal?
I think TSE is arguing the moment allegations are made, they should be suspended.
No Man City suspended Mendy, he was found innocent then sued them for loss of earnings
Sorry, I meant as in Man City had continued to play him until he was charged.
Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.
I simply don't know.
You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?
That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.
Is that what you really mean?
I have no opinion on the Letby case as I have no real knowledge beyond the basic story in the media.
But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
Of course. There's been plenty and there'll be plenty more.
Thomas Partey: Former Arsenal footballer charged with multiple rapes
Two-and-a-half-year investigation leaves Premier League club facing intense criticism after midfielder charged with five counts of rape
Thomas Partey, the former Arsenal footballer, has been charged with five counts of rape and one count of sexual assault, the Crown Prosecution Service has announced.
The bombshell case leaves the Premier League club facing intense criticism for continuing to play him for almost three years in full knowledge of an investigation.
Telegraph Sport had exclusively revealed in July 2022 how a Premier League international had been arrested but only now can his name be published.
Partey, 32, one of the club’s top earners, has been a key figure in three consecutive title challenges and last season’s run to the Champions League semi-final.
How could they not continue to play him? Are they supposed to fire him and effectively name him on day one? As soon as he is arrested?
If no charges had been made, he would have been unjustly treated for three years. Not as unjustly treated as, say, being raped. But still.
Don't you find it convenient that he got charged 4 days after his Arsenal contract ended? Do you really think it took the police 3 years to bring charges or that they were holding back for some reason? Scum club does what scum clubs do.
Sounds more like corrupt police if that's true.
Waiting for his contract legal support to lapse. ?
I can't read the Telegraph these days due to it being ranty. But I was surprised to listen to the 1Jul2025 Daily Telegraph "Daily T" podcast which, whilst I didn't agree with all of it, it was still expressed in a quiet reasonable manner by well-spoken people in a non-asylum manner.
I can't read the Telegraph these days due to it being ranty. But I was surprised to listen to the 1Jul2025 Daily Telegraph "Daily T" podcast which, whilst I didn't agree with all of it, it was still expressed in a quiet reasonable manner by well-spoken people in a non-asylum manner.
The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good
Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign
Thatcher and May cried when they left No 10
TMay cried live on air like a pathetic baby
La Thatch cried privately in a car and was caught by a paparazzo
That’s the difference
Yes but Thatcher still knew cameras could catch her tears but cried anyway. I think women are generally more emotional and prone to tears than most men (with the possible exception of gay men), doesn't mean they can't do the job but that is human nature. Remember too Hillary Clinton's tears in that NH cafe in the 2008 primaries after she had lost Iowa to Obama? Like Thatcher she was supposed to be the toughest of women.
The one exception of an uber powerful woman who never showed emotion in public was perhaps the late Queen (apart from when Britannia was decomissioned and a few tears were silently shed)
What’s wrong with crying? Male or female. Anywhere.
Whether fair or not it is seen as a weakness in a leader and letting emotion overcome you
It’s not fair and it’s a damning indictment on society that it is picked on as weakness.
It’s a loss of control and a surrender to helpless emotion. It should be condemned just as much as a male leader who loses his temper and smashes cellphones or thumps employees
Doing it on live tv with the cameras rolling? As pitiful as it is unforgivable
If we agree that it’s no problem for a people to cry because of the stress of work, even if you are one of the country’s most senior politicians, then why invent the story, if they did invent it, that it was a personal issue, nothing to do with work?
Panic?
One does wonder, if Tiny Tears from Accounts can fall apart like a frightened six year old threatened by a scary thing, when she is live on air in the commons, exactly how pathetic and hysterical is she in private?
you seem a bit tetchy today, have you not had enough attention?
Comments
And now this today
Arsenal could have probably claimed he was injured and not played him if they had wanted to.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35687079/lucy-letby-convenient-scapegoat-farage/
Arsenal may have got a tipoff in the last fortnight though because they stopped negotiating a new contract last week.
I bet Farage knows f-all about it, either way.
But you had to give your two penneth.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c5ygjjxjlplo
You have no idea what caused Reeves to break down or indeed any high profile leader
The world needs compassion in spades right now
From being arrested to being charged to being found not guilty took nearly five years and this was pre-pandemic.
When I took external advice the business were at safeguarding issues if we didn't suspend him.
We offered the accused plenty of support but it had to be done offsite.
I've said for years it is problematic that these sort of allegations take so long and there's a binary choice facing employers.
As I was told if you're father/brother/mother/sister would you want a loved one working up close and personal with somebody accused of a serious sexual offence?
Presumption of innocence goes out of the window.
Mind you, wise and Farage is an alien concept
I have joined this new party and can announce further political luminaries who have joined - sensible names for a sensible Britain:
Wrong-Daily
Richard Ding Dong Burgon
Laura Pidcock
Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Jessie Jo Jacobs
Lloyd-Mole
the various MPs for Gaza elected last year
Galloway obviously
Unite the Union are providing financial support and auditing
Today Islington tomorrow Gaza
I simply don't know.
I think TSE is arguing the moment allegations are made, they should be suspended.
(Unless, for example, it the individual in question is a constituent.)
The victims? The truth? Who cares.
It's disgusting imo and ought to be disqualifying behaviour for a guy running to be PM.
"The Collective and Arise"
Doesn't sound very catchy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy0wvkg492ro
Starmer makes Farage look like an amateur when it comes to leaping aboard the next moral express train.
In two cases, both prosecution and defence agreed that someone tried to kill babies with insulin. In multiple other cases, the deaths were highly suspicious in nature. They just don't fit a theory of "procedural and other failures at the hospital". They look like homicides/attempted homicides. That alone doesn't prove it's Letby, but it implies it has to be Letby or another killer.
Letby stole medical records. Letby falsified medical records. Letby wrote notes to herself implying guilt. Letby was twice observed acting inappropriately with babies. This evidence was impactful at trial and, again, doesn't fit with an idea that it was just other failings at the hospital.
John McDonnell and Diane Abbott say they will not leave Labour to join new hard-Left rival"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/07/04/leading-corbynites-reject-new-party/
And I certainly won't vote for Farage, either.
But I'd missed this:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/ckg7dd1595lo
I am surprised he wasn't suspended on full pay.
The ideal outcome for me - as a reform-y right winger - is that reeves staggers on, damaged, and likewise starmer - clumsily grinding Labour into the dust. If they both went there is the horrible chance Labour might find someone unexpectedly popular
For some reason I think of the Father Briwn story of a murder hidden. On a battlefield.
Reminds me of Soraidh Slan & The Rise by Skerryvore. Only with less pipes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oe9z_EB-Uc
Doing it on live tv with the cameras rolling? As pitiful as it is unforgivable
That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.
Is that what you really mean?
Whatever your view on the Transgender issues, no one should be banning books. Reform are quick enough to moan when books are removed for 'woke' reasons.
FWIW I think Farage is ill-advised to get involved in this. It’s foolish and it could easily backfire
But starmer is a far bigger fool
Might happen one day.
But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
Its just common sense.
One does wonder, if Tiny Tears from Accounts can fall apart like a frightened six year old threatened by a scary thing, when she is live on air in the commons, exactly how pathetic and hysterical is she in private?
ONE member of the public?
They need to learn to work democratically for their whole community.
There have been several cases where, from the reporting, I have thought: "They got the right person!", only for their conviction to be later quashed on appeal (*). Sometimes after more than one appeal.
Courts often get things right. Sometimes they get things right with the evidence given at trial, but are proved to be wrong later.
I am not a lawyer. I am not a medical expert. I was not at the trial, and did not see all the evidence. Letby was put through a criminal process and was found guilty. She is, to my mind, guilty.
*But* I would be unsurprised if her conviction was later found to be unsafe, because that occasionally does happen. And the evidence in this case was, also to my mind, not the strongest.
(*) Apols if these are not the correct terms...
NEW THREAD
Just that the contract with Arsenal expired before charges were brought.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ebOklb5LlzY
I recommend it from time to time; there are sometimes rubies in the dust.
It's seems to have improved as it becomes less unapologetically Trumpist.