"Middle-class white men banned from public sector internship National Audit Office’s six-week paid programme only accepts female, black heritage or lower socio-economic applicants" (£)
The details of my life are quite inconsequential...
Very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving corner shop owner from Zanzibar with low-grade lethargy and a penchant for psephology. My mother was a 20-year-old newsreader named Gargi with gap-teeth.
My father would plagiarize; he would snigger. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the opinion poll. Sometimes, he would accuse free-range eggs of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the insane possess and the genius lament...
My childhood was typical: summers in Penarth... sudoku lessons... In the spring, we'd make Quorn helmets... When I was insolent I was placed in a Sinclair C5 and beaten with Tory Party leaflets - pretty standard, really. At the age of 12, I received my first Coelacanth.
At the age of 14, a Bristolian named Brenda ritualistically shaved my buttocks. There really is nothing like a shorn bottom - it's breathtaking... I suggest you try it!
I genuinely understand none of this.
It’s a riff on the Dr Evil speech from Austin Powers.
Thanks. Still absolutely no idea of the context.
Austin Powers is the main character from the Austin Powers movie series, which is a parody of James Bond movies. The character Dr Evil, who is a parody of Blofeld, who was the main (but not only) villain from said movies, makes the speech that Sunil quotes in the first movie.
Errr, no.
Dr No gives the speech in the first James Bond film.
I was in a pub quiz team with someone who knew the actor who played Dr No. Extraordinary. If anyone knows it without Googling (I don't - I've already forgotten), I'll be impressed.
I don't - which is disappointing for a Bond fan. What I can say, however, is when I was a student in South Ken I often came across the chap who played Blofeld in some of the films. He was perhaps the only person who spent more time in the local pubs than me.
Charles Gray ? (He has that look.)
Didn't Donald Pleasance play Blofeld too?
Indeed, but I don't think he was a piss artist.
One of my favourite actors. Seeing him as the saintly Mr Harding in The Barchester Chronicles was quite the revelation.
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
"Middle-class white men banned from public sector internship National Audit Office’s six-week paid programme only accepts female, black heritage or lower socio-economic applicants" (£)
The details of my life are quite inconsequential...
Very well, where do I begin? My father was a relentlessly self-improving corner shop owner from Zanzibar with low-grade lethargy and a penchant for psephology. My mother was a 20-year-old newsreader named Gargi with gap-teeth.
My father would plagiarize; he would snigger. He would make outrageous claims like he invented the opinion poll. Sometimes, he would accuse free-range eggs of being lazy. The sort of general malaise that only the insane possess and the genius lament...
My childhood was typical: summers in Penarth... sudoku lessons... In the spring, we'd make Quorn helmets... When I was insolent I was placed in a Sinclair C5 and beaten with Tory Party leaflets - pretty standard, really. At the age of 12, I received my first Coelacanth.
At the age of 14, a Bristolian named Brenda ritualistically shaved my buttocks. There really is nothing like a shorn bottom - it's breathtaking... I suggest you try it!
I genuinely understand none of this.
It’s a riff on the Dr Evil speech from Austin Powers.
Thanks. Still absolutely no idea of the context.
Austin Powers is the main character from the Austin Powers movie series, which is a parody of James Bond movies. The character Dr Evil, who is a parody of Blofeld, who was the main (but not only) villain from said movies, makes the speech that Sunil quotes in the first movie.
Errr, no.
Dr No gives the speech in the first James Bond film.
I was in a pub quiz team with someone who knew the actor who played Dr No. Extraordinary. If anyone knows it without Googling (I don't - I've already forgotten), I'll be impressed.
I don't - which is disappointing for a Bond fan. What I can say, however, is when I was a student in South Ken I often came across the chap who played Blofeld in some of the films. He was perhaps the only person who spent more time in the local pubs than me.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
They can already get married or civil partnered, a waste of legislation
Indeed. A problem which nobody was agitating for, with a solution that is widely available and cheap. Next week there will be a public consultation on cures to the problem of scratching one's bottom and picking one's nose without washing the hand. I am no fan of Andy Burnham but the sooner he ends this silliness the better.
Burnham is at least still vaguely Roman Catholic whereas atheist Starmer's religion seems to be wokeism
They can already get married or civil partnered, a waste of legislation
Indeed. A problem which nobody was agitating for, with a solution that is widely available and cheap. Next week there will be a public consultation on cures to the problem of scratching one's bottom and picking one's nose without washing the hand. I am no fan of Andy Burnham but the sooner he ends this silliness the better.
Burnham is at least still vaguely Roman Catholic whereas atheist Starmer's religion seems to be wokeism
Pope Leo XIV on war in Iran: "I think this has already been made very clear: the notion of a just war no longer applies. The problem is that just war theory developed in centuries when no one could have imagined the weapons we have today or humanity's capacity for destruction." https://x.com/ClaireGiangrave/status/2063172692904169502
That is quite a change in doctrine.
It still does if a nation is invaded or a mass genocide occurs provided nuclear weapons aren't used
The following was posted in Another Place. Do PB's finance types concur or dissent?
"The FT is a paper read by people who don't work in finance assuming that people in finance read it. It hasn't been relevant in finance or even business for many years now. You can also tell this from the comments section which has, like the paper, turned into establishment/"centrist dad" central.
WSJ and Bloomberg took a lot of the top markets/companies people almost a decade ago now (Andrea Felstead was one, genuinely someone who knew UK retail very well). The majority of the remaining columnists either worked in politics or are politics-adjacent. There is almost no detailed finance market coverage. The UK companies stuff was spun out into the Shares magazine 20 years ago.
The FT reflects British society, nothing could be more grubby than becoming involved in commerce. Many of the people who moved up and out go into political journalism because that is high status (i.e. Peston). The FT also has a nasty habit of creating special jobs for people if they are high status enough (Kuper is one, Keynes is the new one, there are many more). The FT is a basically unreformed backwater that is a bit like it was 80s, nothing has really changed. I know a few people who work there in undemanding roles (every couple of weeks attending an expenses paid dinner with a celebrity) and got their job through nepotism. It isn't like anywhere else in UK business or even journalism because of the corporate subscription revenue, the editor is able to run it like a fief.
To give specific examples: Chris Giles is somewhat notorious for being a complete hack. If you are somewhat familiar with how news is made, you should be able to read his stories and work out exactly what conversations led to that story being written. In many cases it is Giles talking to someone adjacent to or in politics. Martin Wolf is a complete dinosaur, if he writes a column you can predict exactly what his take will be because he hasn't had a new idea since 1990. JBM is probably the only journalist who actually writes interesting things, these things however often seem to be conflicted with his personal interests/conversations with civil servants. Stuart Kirk...how does he have a column? Barely worked in markets, somehow the markets guy. Shrimsley, politics guy. Cavendish, worked for Cameron. Beattie, basically a Martin Wolf-lite. Pilita Clark, Lidl Kellaway. It goes on and on. Ineffectual posh people with the most anodyne, pro-establishment positions boring everyone to death with their thoughts."
The following was posted in Another Place. Do PB's finance types concur or dissent?
"The FT is a paper read by people who don't work in finance assuming that people in finance read it. It hasn't been relevant in finance or even business for many years now. You can also tell this from the comments section which has, like the paper, turned into establishment/"centrist dad" central.
WSJ and Bloomberg took a lot of the top markets/companies people almost a decade ago now (Andrea Felstead was one, genuinely someone who knew UK retail very well). The majority of the remaining columnists either worked in politics or are politics-adjacent. There is almost no detailed finance market coverage. The UK companies stuff was spun out into the Shares magazine 20 years ago.
The FT reflects British society, nothing could be more grubby than becoming involved in commerce. Many of the people who moved up and out go into political journalism because that is high status (i.e. Peston). The FT also has a nasty habit of creating special jobs for people if they are high status enough (Kuper is one, Keynes is the new one, there are many more). The FT is a basically unreformed backwater that is a bit like it was 80s, nothing has really changed. I know a few people who work there in undemanding roles (every couple of weeks attending an expenses paid dinner with a celebrity) and got their job through nepotism. It isn't like anywhere else in UK business or even journalism because of the corporate subscription revenue, the editor is able to run it like a fief.
To give specific examples: Chris Giles is somewhat notorious for being a complete hack. If you are somewhat familiar with how news is made, you should be able to read his stories and work out exactly what conversations led to that story being written. In many cases it is Giles talking to someone adjacent to or in politics. Martin Wolf is a complete dinosaur, if he writes a column you can predict exactly what his take will be because he hasn't had a new idea since 1990. JBM is probably the only journalist who actually writes interesting things, these things however often seem to be conflicted with his personal interests/conversations with civil servants. Stuart Kirk...how does he have a column? Barely worked in markets, somehow the markets guy. Shrimsley, politics guy. Cavendish, worked for Cameron. Beattie, basically a Martin Wolf-lite. Pilita Clark, Lidl Kellaway. It goes on and on. Ineffectual posh people with the most anodyne, pro-establishment positions boring everyone to death with their thoughts."
(Continued below)
"Exceptions: Lucy Kellaway, long gone now but she was very good (nothing to do with business or finance though, more social commentary). Janen Ganesh, also good (again, social commentary). In actual business or finance...nothing interesting. John Lee was quite interesting. MSW was somewhat interesting but also said catastrophically incorrect things often...but she was good for marketing if you started a fund and actually was primarily a fund management journalist (although at the FT she often strayed into politics).
Also, a special mention for Lionel Barber...admitted to leaking stories to traders in a documentary, there are multiple laws against this in the UK, never charged, never investigated. A lot of what changed with the paper happened because of Barber and his opinions on things like Brexit where he interpreted the role of the FT as being a political activist first. Same thing has happened at the Economist when Micklethwait left, the lure of politics and being culturally relevant is too strong.
Lex is also useless. They had some decent people there writing on niche topics. But after the incident with Barber/Wirecard, there has been a big change in how that part of the world works. Many years ago, you would call up someone from Lex to leak a fake M&A rumour and (if you gave them something real later) they would "leak" it (this was confirmed publicly in the Operation Tabernula trial, this is why many papers have pulled back completely on any market-adjacent coverage...afaik, Mark Kleinman is basically the only person trying to do this stuff anymore and it is a million miles from what it once was)."
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
There was a bit dissimilar case I followed up to about a decade ago.
Ex Falklands paramedic name of Eddie Gilfoyle, who pregnant wife hung herself.
GMP fitted him up for murder despite overwhelming evidence for the contrary and he served well over 20 years before being reprieve. He was offered parole but to get it had to admit his guilt. He refused.
The case was taken up by Paul Foot and eventually he was released by Court of Appeal.
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
The following was posted in Another Place. Do PB's finance types concur or dissent?
"The FT is a paper read by people who don't work in finance assuming that people in finance read it. It hasn't been relevant in finance or even business for many years now. You can also tell this from the comments section which has, like the paper, turned into establishment/"centrist dad" central.
WSJ and Bloomberg took a lot of the top markets/companies people almost a decade ago now (Andrea Felstead was one, genuinely someone who knew UK retail very well). The majority of the remaining columnists either worked in politics or are politics-adjacent. There is almost no detailed finance market coverage. The UK companies stuff was spun out into the Shares magazine 20 years ago.
The FT reflects British society, nothing could be more grubby than becoming involved in commerce. Many of the people who moved up and out go into political journalism because that is high status (i.e. Peston). The FT also has a nasty habit of creating special jobs for people if they are high status enough (Kuper is one, Keynes is the new one, there are many more). The FT is a basically unreformed backwater that is a bit like it was 80s, nothing has really changed. I know a few people who work there in undemanding roles (every couple of weeks attending an expenses paid dinner with a celebrity) and got their job through nepotism. It isn't like anywhere else in UK business or even journalism because of the corporate subscription revenue, the editor is able to run it like a fief.
To give specific examples: Chris Giles is somewhat notorious for being a complete hack. If you are somewhat familiar with how news is made, you should be able to read his stories and work out exactly what conversations led to that story being written. In many cases it is Giles talking to someone adjacent to or in politics. Martin Wolf is a complete dinosaur, if he writes a column you can predict exactly what his take will be because he hasn't had a new idea since 1990. JBM is probably the only journalist who actually writes interesting things, these things however often seem to be conflicted with his personal interests/conversations with civil servants. Stuart Kirk...how does he have a column? Barely worked in markets, somehow the markets guy. Shrimsley, politics guy. Cavendish, worked for Cameron. Beattie, basically a Martin Wolf-lite. Pilita Clark, Lidl Kellaway. It goes on and on. Ineffectual posh people with the most anodyne, pro-establishment positions boring everyone to death with their thoughts."
(Continued below)
I never really read it, would give it a cursory flick through in the morning but when you had Bloomberg terminals on your desk churning out news and data by the second the FT was not a lot more use than the Times etc. I read Barrons and a few other industry papers but found the FT to be something people bought to look like they were in the markets. Their biggest plus point was probably the “How to spend it” supplement.
Edit to add, I did work with Peston for a bit but didn’t have to interact much, just read his screed and had the odd meeting in house. Find it odd that he became the journalist he is as obviously thought of him as a financial data chap.
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
The following was posted in Another Place. Do PB's finance types concur or dissent?
"The FT is a paper read by people who don't work in finance assuming that people in finance read it. It hasn't been relevant in finance or even business for many years now. You can also tell this from the comments section which has, like the paper, turned into establishment/"centrist dad" central.
WSJ and Bloomberg took a lot of the top markets/companies people almost a decade ago now (Andrea Felstead was one, genuinely someone who knew UK retail very well). The majority of the remaining columnists either worked in politics or are politics-adjacent. There is almost no detailed finance market coverage. The UK companies stuff was spun out into the Shares magazine 20 years ago.
The FT reflects British society, nothing could be more grubby than becoming involved in commerce. Many of the people who moved up and out go into political journalism because that is high status (i.e. Peston). The FT also has a nasty habit of creating special jobs for people if they are high status enough (Kuper is one, Keynes is the new one, there are many more). The FT is a basically unreformed backwater that is a bit like it was 80s, nothing has really changed. I know a few people who work there in undemanding roles (every couple of weeks attending an expenses paid dinner with a celebrity) and got their job through nepotism. It isn't like anywhere else in UK business or even journalism because of the corporate subscription revenue, the editor is able to run it like a fief.
To give specific examples: Chris Giles is somewhat notorious for being a complete hack. If you are somewhat familiar with how news is made, you should be able to read his stories and work out exactly what conversations led to that story being written. In many cases it is Giles talking to someone adjacent to or in politics. Martin Wolf is a complete dinosaur, if he writes a column you can predict exactly what his take will be because he hasn't had a new idea since 1990. JBM is probably the only journalist who actually writes interesting things, these things however often seem to be conflicted with his personal interests/conversations with civil servants. Stuart Kirk...how does he have a column? Barely worked in markets, somehow the markets guy. Shrimsley, politics guy. Cavendish, worked for Cameron. Beattie, basically a Martin Wolf-lite. Pilita Clark, Lidl Kellaway. It goes on and on. Ineffectual posh people with the most anodyne, pro-establishment positions boring everyone to death with their thoughts."
(Continued below)
I work in finance and read the FT. So do most of my colleagues.
Now obviously you have Bloomberg and dedicated research pieces for more detailed info and analysis in your area of specialism. But the FT is very good for the highlights of the financial and business world.
But it is fair to say it grounded in the British political centre in its opinion pieces.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
It is highly alarming that after decades of steady progress, the country's population control is now in reverse gear. Government agencies appear to have lost control of population growth, leading to an undesirable increase in the birth rate. A nationwide survey, jointly conducted by the UNICEF and the Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS), reveals a sharp rise in the average number of children per woman. The Total Fertility Rate (TFR), which measures the number of children a fertile woman gives birth to in her lifetime, has jumped from 2.17 in 2024 to 2.4 in 2025. This reversal is unprecedented in the country's history.
Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst
Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.
Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.
“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
I don't want to get bogged down in the case again but its complicated. The keeping of records relating to babies that had died in her own house was positively weird and there was other circumstantial evidence which raises questions but I agree that the insulin was the clearest cut part of the case which makes the expert views expressed since concerning.
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst
Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.
Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.
“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”
If Starmer knocked every door in the UK and handed over a few grand he'd still have a negative rating.
As the Makerfield by-election campaign continues, Reform UK has risen to 29%. This is their highest vote share in three months.
➡️REF 29% 🌹LAB 20% 🌳CON 17% 🌍GRN 14% 🔶LD 11%
In the actual Makerfield polls though Burnham leads and the hypothetical polls show a Burnham led Labour would get a bounce which could see them take a small lead
They can already get married or civil partnered, a waste of legislation
Indeed. A problem which nobody was agitating for, with a solution that is widely available and cheap. Next week there will be a public consultation on cures to the problem of scratching one's bottom and picking one's nose without washing the hand. I am no fan of Andy Burnham but the sooner he ends this silliness the better.
Burnham is at least still vaguely Roman Catholic whereas atheist Starmer's religion seems to be wokeism
Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst
Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.
Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.
“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”
If Starmer knocked every door in the UK and handed over a few grand he'd still have a negative rating.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
I'm convinced she's been stitched up initially to cover a senior doctor, subsequently to protect the system.
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst
Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.
Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.
“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”
If Starmer knocked every door in the UK and handed over a few grand he'd still have a negative rating.
Let’s face it, he offered everyone a Ming Vase, far more valuable than a few grand, and nobody likes him. Maybe he is the problem?
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
Where were you in 1966 for the World Cup final? Me? - the Russian boat had stopped in Copenhagen just in time to see the result on TV in a café.
I was in utero in a bar in Munich!
She put on a St Laurent tunic I said "ah" She told me that her eggs were frisky I said "In that case, I'll have rum and whisky" She said "fine" And then in thirty seconds time, she said
[Chorus] "I wanna live like common foetuses I wanna do whatever common foetuses do Wanna be with common foetuses I wanna be with, common foetuses like you"
Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst
Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.
Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.
“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”
If Starmer knocked every door in the UK and handed over a few grand he'd still have a negative rating.
Scotland was probably after London one of the better results for the Tories in May. Although the Scottish Tories still lost MSPs whereas London Tories made net gains of council seats, they held most of their Holyrood constituencies. Whereas in provincial England outside London lots of Tory councillors lost their seats particularly to Reform and Scottish Tories got a higher voteshare in the Holyrood vote than Welsh Tories did in the Senedd.
Kemi also still has a reasonable 20% favourable rating in Scotland. The Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine Holyrood seat which largely overlaps with the Aberdeen South Westminster seat was also one of a minority of constituencies in Scotland where the Tories beat Reform and were still in the top 2 against the SNP. Indeed the Tories were just 4% behind the SNP so if they squeeze the 17% who voted Reform then they could beat the SNP and win the seat.
Arbroath is the type of seat Labour might win back if Burnham wins the Makerfield by election and replaces Starmer as Labour leader and PM but it won't while Starmer remains PM which he still will be when the by elections are held
How is going from 31 MSPs to 12 in Scotland one of the Tories' "better results"?
As most of those were list seats going Reform, in terms of FPTP seats the Tories only lost 1 Holyrood constituency seat, Eastwood. As I said the Tories also got a higher voteshare in Scotland than in Wales.
In London the Tories even made net gains on FPTP council seats despite significant loss of council seats elsewhere in England.
So ironically the Kemi Tories are now performing best in Remain areas like London and Scotland because Reform are weaker there and where their opponents are Labour or the SNP not the LDs, where they are collapsing is in strong Leave areas Boris won which are electing Reform
The Conservative performance in London is one of those double edged swords.
Yes, the Conservatives did well against Labour in a number of Boroughs (Wandsworth, Westminster, Harrow, Hounslow, Brent, Barnet and Enfield to name but seven) and held off Reform in Bromley and Bexley but let's not forget the big losses to Reform in Havering (23) and to the LDs in Sutton (20) and the fact is there are now 10 Boroughs with no Conservative representation (up from 7).
Havering is more Greater Essex than London and Sutton more Greater Surrey than London.
Overall the London results were very good, indeed the Tories voteshare in London was slightly higher in May than it was in GB overall
Come on, are you now trying to argue "London" is only the bits where the Conservatives do well?
Shall we try arguing Bromley is "Greater Kent"?
What of those areas of London now bereft of Conservative Councillors such as Newham, Southwark, Haringey, Barking, Lambeth and Lewisham or are you going to try and tell me they aren't part of London either?
As for the vote share, five perecent down on 2022 but similaer to the 2024 GE number so yes, not as bad as in other parts of the country.
Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst
Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.
Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.
“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”
'Following Tony Blair’s intervention in the debate over Labour’s future direction, voters are more likely to believe he would make a better Prime Minister than any of Labour’s leading figures.
Blair holds a substantial advantage over Keir Starmer, with 39% saying he would do a better job compared with 16% who think he would do worse. He also leads Wes Streeting comfortably and is narrowly preferred to Andy Burnham.
The findings suggest that many voters remain unconvinced that Labour’s current leadership generation offers a clear improvement on the party’s recent past.'
Scotland was probably after London one of the better results for the Tories in May. Although the Scottish Tories still lost MSPs whereas London Tories made net gains of council seats, they held most of their Holyrood constituencies. Whereas in provincial England outside London lots of Tory councillors lost their seats particularly to Reform and Scottish Tories got a higher voteshare in the Holyrood vote than Welsh Tories did in the Senedd.
Kemi also still has a reasonable 20% favourable rating in Scotland. The Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine Holyrood seat which largely overlaps with the Aberdeen South Westminster seat was also one of a minority of constituencies in Scotland where the Tories beat Reform and were still in the top 2 against the SNP. Indeed the Tories were just 4% behind the SNP so if they squeeze the 17% who voted Reform then they could beat the SNP and win the seat.
Arbroath is the type of seat Labour might win back if Burnham wins the Makerfield by election and replaces Starmer as Labour leader and PM but it won't while Starmer remains PM which he still will be when the by elections are held
How is going from 31 MSPs to 12 in Scotland one of the Tories' "better results"?
As most of those were list seats going Reform, in terms of FPTP seats the Tories only lost 1 Holyrood constituency seat, Eastwood. As I said the Tories also got a higher voteshare in Scotland than in Wales.
In London the Tories even made net gains on FPTP council seats despite significant loss of council seats elsewhere in England.
So ironically the Kemi Tories are now performing best in Remain areas like London and Scotland because Reform are weaker there and where their opponents are Labour or the SNP not the LDs, where they are collapsing is in strong Leave areas Boris won which are electing Reform
The Conservative performance in London is one of those double edged swords.
Yes, the Conservatives did well against Labour in a number of Boroughs (Wandsworth, Westminster, Harrow, Hounslow, Brent, Barnet and Enfield to name but seven) and held off Reform in Bromley and Bexley but let's not forget the big losses to Reform in Havering (23) and to the LDs in Sutton (20) and the fact is there are now 10 Boroughs with no Conservative representation (up from 7).
Havering is more Greater Essex than London and Sutton more Greater Surrey than London.
Overall the London results were very good, indeed the Tories voteshare in London was slightly higher in May than it was in GB overall
Come on, are you now trying to argue "London" is only the bits where the Conservatives do well?
Shall we try arguing Bromley is "Greater Kent"?
What of those areas of London now bereft of Conservative Councillors such as Newham, Southwark, Haringey, Barking, Lambeth and Lewisham or are you going to try and tell me they aren't part of London either?
As for the vote share, five perecent down on 2022 but similaer to the 2024 GE number so yes, not as bad as in other parts of the country.
Bromley is arguably Greater Kent, indeed it was part of Kent until 1965. The Tories have not had even 1 MP in any of the 6 areas you mention this century so they aren't anywhere near as relevant to the Tories as gains in Westminster, Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Enfield and Barnet were
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
(Snip). So I am told by legal types.
To this layman it seems hard to believe that someone so confused about the concepts of innocence and guilt could ever have become a lawyer never mind be such an eminent judge.
As the Makerfield by-election campaign continues, Reform UK has risen to 29%. This is their highest vote share in three months.
➡️REF 29% 🌹LAB 20% 🌳CON 17% 🌍GRN 14% 🔶LD 11%
In the actual Makerfield polls though Burnham leads and the hypothetical polls show a Burnham led Labour would get a bounce which could see them take a small lead
This 20% for Labour already has a Burnham effect in it. That’s the only reason they're not polling lower than the Tories.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
(Snip). So I am told by legal types.
To this layman it seems hard to believe that someone so confused about the concepts of innocence and guilt could ever have become a lawyer never mind be such an eminent judge.
Denning was great on divorce reform. Other areas? Hmmmm....
On the Birmingham Six, Denning is reported to have said: “We shouldn’t have all these campaigns to get them released if they’d been hanged. They’d have been forgotten and the whole community would have been satisfied.”
He always insisted these remarks had been taken out of context.
Blimey, makes me wonder about the Bedchamber Crisis now
Revealed: cover-up of attempted rape that let Lord Palmerston into No 10
The Victorian leader told a woman that no one would believe her if she told anyone of the attack in 1837, a memo in the Royal Archives has shown
He is lionised as one of Britain’s greatest prime ministers, but a 185-year-old memo reveals Lord Palmerston was involved in a scandal that could have stopped him ever getting to Downing Street.
In 1837, Palmerston, 52, who was then foreign secretary, was visiting Queen Victoria when he attempted to rape one of her ladies-in-waiting, Susan Brand, 22.
The memo, which was recently discovered in the Royal Archives and will be published in a new book this month, reveals for the first time the extraordinary operation that swung into action to cover up the incident.
Victoria’s adviser, Baron Stockmar, and her first prime minister, Lord Melbourne, feared the ensuing scandal would “damage” the character of the Queen, who was then 18. She had acceded to the throne just three months earlier and had not yet been crowned. They also anticipated that it would cause the “immediate break-up” of Melbourne’s administration, in which Palmerston held a key position.
Their decision to suppress the incident — the memo describes them persuading and bribing eyewitnesses into “silence” — meant that Palmerston, an Anglo-Irish viscount, never faced any consequences for the assault. He remained in office with his reputation intact and in 1855 became a popular prime minister.
Jehanne Wake, the historian and biographer, stumbled across the memo on a visit to the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle while she and her daughter, Katie, were researching their upcoming book The Countess: Seduction, Power and the Extraordinary Life of Emily Cowper, which will be published on June 25.
Countess Cowper, Melbourne’s sister, was at the time of the assault Palmerston’s long-term mistress. They married two years later. Wake found the memo among Cowper’s papers, some of which are held at Windsor.
As the Makerfield by-election campaign continues, Reform UK has risen to 29%. This is their highest vote share in three months.
➡️REF 29% 🌹LAB 20% 🌳CON 17% 🌍GRN 14% 🔶LD 11%
In the actual Makerfield polls though Burnham leads and the hypothetical polls show a Burnham led Labour would get a bounce which could see them take a small lead
This 20% for Labour already has a Burnham effect in it. That’s the only reason they're not polling lower than the Tories.
It doesn't really, Starmer is still PM and Labour leader and unless and until Burnham returns as an MP and leads Labour any Burnham bounce will be negligible
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
At what point will the US government having to bail it out cause the huge correction in the value of the AI bubble?
SpaceX IPO and the two big AI IPO’s could very well do it.
SpaceX feels like a pump and dump with retail and index trackers being on the hook. Valued at 100 times earnings. Not for me.
Trackers and index funds will be able to add it very quickly too.
Will be obliged to, surely, if they are tracker funds ?
It's been exclude, I think, for 12 months from one of the largest (S&P 500), but otherwise they are forced buyers of a grossly overvalued IPO, for which the ordinary rules have been waived.
As the Makerfield by-election campaign continues, Reform UK has risen to 29%. This is their highest vote share in three months.
➡️REF 29% 🌹LAB 20% 🌳CON 17% 🌍GRN 14% 🔶LD 11%
In the actual Makerfield polls though Burnham leads and the hypothetical polls show a Burnham led Labour would get a bounce which could see them take a small lead
This 20% for Labour already has a Burnham effect in it. That’s the only reason they're not polling lower than the Tories.
It doesn't really, Starmer is still PM and Labour leader and unless and until Burnham returns as an MP and leads Labour any Burnham bounce will be negligible
You'd have to be living under a rock not to know that Starmer is on his last legs.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
I don't want to get bogged down in the case again but its complicated. The keeping of records relating to babies that had died in her own house was positively weird and there was other circumstantial evidence which raises questions but I agree that the insulin was the clearest cut part of the case which makes the expert views expressed since concerning.
The over lap between Letby Truthers and enthusiasts for the death penalty is surprisingly large
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
(Snip). So I am told by legal types.
To this layman it seems hard to believe that someone so confused about the concepts of innocence and guilt could ever have become a lawyer never mind be such an eminent judge.
An absolute masterpiece of a judgment bringing together a series of equitable remedies explaining their underlying basis and principles. One of the outstanding judgments in English law.
So I am voting tomorrow in an election for the first time in my life. It’s potentially a pivotal election for the island. It’s been very bad tempered. We have one party called “Reform”, they are the ideological opposite to Reform UK and must be gutted that Farage called his party Reform after they had formed.
Reform got the hump because a group (not a party) of like minded candidates had someone hire Messina group to advise and were kicking off whilst failing to mention that they had a load of money from Unite Union.
I can vote for 9 Senators who are elected on a whole island basis and a number of Deputies who are district based and then the Connétable for my Parish.
I’m only voting for four Senators and I have to hold my nose with one of my Deputy votes for a moderate Reform candidate as, apart from my preferred choices, there is an absolute shitbag 17 year old standing and I have to hope he gets rejected.
My Connétable choice is the chap who gave me my driving licence back painlessly which as good a reason as any.
As the Makerfield by-election campaign continues, Reform UK has risen to 29%. This is their highest vote share in three months.
➡️REF 29% 🌹LAB 20% 🌳CON 17% 🌍GRN 14% 🔶LD 11%
In the actual Makerfield polls though Burnham leads and the hypothetical polls show a Burnham led Labour would get a bounce which could see them take a small lead
This 20% for Labour already has a Burnham effect in it. That’s the only reason they're not polling lower than the Tories.
It doesn't really, Starmer is still PM and Labour leader and unless and until Burnham returns as an MP and leads Labour any Burnham bounce will be negligible
Burnham becomes leader and 20% becomes 25% minimum.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
I don't want to get bogged down in the case again but its complicated. The keeping of records relating to babies that had died in her own house was positively weird and there was other circumstantial evidence which raises questions but I agree that the insulin was the clearest cut part of the case which makes the expert views expressed since concerning.
The over lap between Letby Truthers and enthusiasts for the death penalty is surprisingly large
They are as bad as doctors. They want to bury their mistakes.
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
I was thinking of Letby in relation to this discussion from a different angle.
The Malkinson case is somewhat unusual in that the DNA evidence doesn't only show that his conviction was unsafe - in that it was no longer beyond reasonable doubt - but I understand it is quite definitive in exonerating him. Thus it is easy to feel sympathy for his plight and experience without qualification, and to consider that he is hard done by to have to pay for his board and losing and legal fees to prove that he was wrongfully convicted.
But consider the Letby case. Perhaps there will be a development which leads to the conclusion that the conviction is unsound, and she will be released from prison. But we may not be able to say definitively that she is innocent. I think some people would feel some disquiet about providing lavish compensation without qualification to someone who might be guilty.
It's fear of that public reaction to borderline cases of terrible crimes they will encourage politicians not to act to make the system fairer for a person like Malkinson.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
I don't want to get bogged down in the case again but its complicated. The keeping of records relating to babies that had died in her own house was positively weird and there was other circumstantial evidence which raises questions but I agree that the insulin was the clearest cut part of the case which makes the expert views expressed since concerning.
The over lap between Letby Truthers and enthusiasts for the death penalty is surprisingly large
They are as bad as doctors. They want to bury their mistakes.
They can already get married or civil partnered, a waste of legislation
Indeed. A problem which nobody was agitating for, with a solution that is widely available and cheap. Next week there will be a public consultation on cures to the problem of scratching one's bottom and picking one's nose without washing the hand. I am no fan of Andy Burnham but the sooner he ends this silliness the better.
Burnham is at least still vaguely Roman Catholic whereas atheist Starmer's religion seems to be wokeism
They can already get married or civil partnered, a waste of legislation
Indeed. A problem which nobody was agitating for, with a solution that is widely available and cheap. Next week there will be a public consultation on cures to the problem of scratching one's bottom and picking one's nose without washing the hand. I am no fan of Andy Burnham but the sooner he ends this silliness the better.
Burnham is at least still vaguely Roman Catholic whereas atheist Starmer's religion seems to be wokeism
Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst
Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.
Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.
“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”
If Starmer knocked every door in the UK and handed over a few grand he'd still have a negative rating.
Let’s face it, he offered everyone a Ming Vase, far more valuable than a few grand, and nobody likes him. Maybe he is the problem?
Ming vase is standard if it's yours to lose. Burnham is doing it now.
They can already get married or civil partnered, a waste of legislation
Indeed. A problem which nobody was agitating for, with a solution that is widely available and cheap. Next week there will be a public consultation on cures to the problem of scratching one's bottom and picking one's nose without washing the hand. I am no fan of Andy Burnham but the sooner he ends this silliness the better.
Burnham is at least still vaguely Roman Catholic whereas atheist Starmer's religion seems to be wokeism
God doesn't believe in marriage either.
Christ does, as do the main Abrahamic holy books
Christ never married either!
'His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.”
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
I don't want to get bogged down in the case again but its complicated. The keeping of records relating to babies that had died in her own house was positively weird and there was other circumstantial evidence which raises questions but I agree that the insulin was the clearest cut part of the case which makes the expert views expressed since concerning.
The over lap between Letby Truthers and enthusiasts for the death penalty is surprisingly large
They are as bad as doctors. They want to bury their mistakes.
And parents of children with Hamsters.
Seems a little harsh to bury the children but if it gets rid of the blasted destructive hamsters I can kinda see your point.
As the Makerfield by-election campaign continues, Reform UK has risen to 29%. This is their highest vote share in three months.
➡️REF 29% 🌹LAB 20% 🌳CON 17% 🌍GRN 14% 🔶LD 11%
In the actual Makerfield polls though Burnham leads and the hypothetical polls show a Burnham led Labour would get a bounce which could see them take a small lead
This 20% for Labour already has a Burnham effect in it. That’s the only reason they're not polling lower than the Tories.
It doesn't really, Starmer is still PM and Labour leader and unless and until Burnham returns as an MP and leads Labour any Burnham bounce will be negligible
Burnham becomes leader and 20% becomes 25% minimum.
Reform and Tories down 2 or 3 points
Actually the biggest swing to Burnham Labour polling shows would be from the Greens and LDs who would be the biggest losers.
Reform would be slightly down but largely hold their vote and the Tories vote would hold up best against Burnham
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
At what point will the US government having to bail it out cause the huge correction in the value of the AI bubble?
SpaceX IPO and the two big AI IPO’s could very well do it.
SpaceX feels like a pump and dump with retail and index trackers being on the hook. Valued at 100 times earnings. Not for me.
Trackers and index funds will be able to add it very quickly too.
Will be obliged to, surely, if they are tracker funds ?
It's been exclude, I think, for 12 months from one of the largest (S&P 500), but otherwise they are forced buyers of a grossly overvalued IPO, for which the ordinary rules have been waived.
Surely the point isn't the x100 valuation and whether it's worth that (it isn't) but whether you think somone else out there will pay more than you in 12 months.
It's not what it's really worth that matters but if someone else thinks it's worth more.
That for me is why we are getting such crazy valuations and into a bubble, the same disconnect between fundamentals and emotion that leads to a crash.
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
At what point will the US government having to bail it out cause the huge correction in the value of the AI bubble?
SpaceX IPO and the two big AI IPO’s could very well do it.
SpaceX feels like a pump and dump with retail and index trackers being on the hook. Valued at 100 times earnings. Not for me.
Trackers and index funds will be able to add it very quickly too.
Will be obliged to, surely, if they are tracker funds ?
It's been exclude, I think, for 12 months from one of the largest (S&P 500), but otherwise they are forced buyers of a grossly overvalued IPO, for which the ordinary rules have been waived.
Yes, but it’s the speed at which SpaceX will be added. The NASDAQ has changed its eligibility criteria, for certain IPOs, from up to a year to 15 trading days.
The S&P 500 inclusion criteria is unaltered. So its not excluded by design.
Scotland was probably after London one of the better results for the Tories in May. Although the Scottish Tories still lost MSPs whereas London Tories made net gains of council seats, they held most of their Holyrood constituencies. Whereas in provincial England outside London lots of Tory councillors lost their seats particularly to Reform and Scottish Tories got a higher voteshare in the Holyrood vote than Welsh Tories did in the Senedd.
Kemi also still has a reasonable 20% favourable rating in Scotland. The Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine Holyrood seat which largely overlaps with the Aberdeen South Westminster seat was also one of a minority of constituencies in Scotland where the Tories beat Reform and were still in the top 2 against the SNP. Indeed the Tories were just 4% behind the SNP so if they squeeze the 17% who voted Reform then they could beat the SNP and win the seat.
Arbroath is the type of seat Labour might win back if Burnham wins the Makerfield by election and replaces Starmer as Labour leader and PM but it won't while Starmer remains PM which he still will be when the by elections are held
How is going from 31 MSPs to 12 in Scotland one of the Tories' "better results"?
As most of those were list seats going Reform, in terms of FPTP seats the Tories only lost 1 Holyrood constituency seat, Eastwood. As I said the Tories also got a higher voteshare in Scotland than in Wales.
In London the Tories even made net gains on FPTP council seats despite significant loss of council seats elsewhere in England.
So ironically the Kemi Tories are now performing best in Remain areas like London and Scotland because Reform are weaker there and where their opponents are Labour or the SNP not the LDs, where they are collapsing is in strong Leave areas Boris won which are electing Reform
The Conservative performance in London is one of those double edged swords.
Yes, the Conservatives did well against Labour in a number of Boroughs (Wandsworth, Westminster, Harrow, Hounslow, Brent, Barnet and Enfield to name but seven) and held off Reform in Bromley and Bexley but let's not forget the big losses to Reform in Havering (23) and to the LDs in Sutton (20) and the fact is there are now 10 Boroughs with no Conservative representation (up from 7).
Havering is more Greater Essex than London and Sutton more Greater Surrey than London.
Overall the London results were very good, indeed the Tories voteshare in London was slightly higher in May than it was in GB overall
Come on, are you now trying to argue "London" is only the bits where the Conservatives do well?
Shall we try arguing Bromley is "Greater Kent"?
What of those areas of London now bereft of Conservative Councillors such as Newham, Southwark, Haringey, Barking, Lambeth and Lewisham or are you going to try and tell me they aren't part of London either?
As for the vote share, five perecent down on 2022 but similaer to the 2024 GE number so yes, not as bad as in other parts of the country.
Bromley is arguably Greater Kent, indeed it was part of Kent until 1965. The Tories have not had even 1 MP in any of the 6 areas you mention this century so they aren't anywhere near as relevant to the Tories as gains in Westminster, Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Enfield and Barnet were
Whereas in Sutton, Richmond, Kingston and Havering, the Conservatives have had MPs until recently and all they have left is Julia Lopez clinging on by her fingertips in Hornchurch.
Scotland was probably after London one of the better results for the Tories in May. Although the Scottish Tories still lost MSPs whereas London Tories made net gains of council seats, they held most of their Holyrood constituencies. Whereas in provincial England outside London lots of Tory councillors lost their seats particularly to Reform and Scottish Tories got a higher voteshare in the Holyrood vote than Welsh Tories did in the Senedd.
Kemi also still has a reasonable 20% favourable rating in Scotland. The Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine Holyrood seat which largely overlaps with the Aberdeen South Westminster seat was also one of a minority of constituencies in Scotland where the Tories beat Reform and were still in the top 2 against the SNP. Indeed the Tories were just 4% behind the SNP so if they squeeze the 17% who voted Reform then they could beat the SNP and win the seat.
Arbroath is the type of seat Labour might win back if Burnham wins the Makerfield by election and replaces Starmer as Labour leader and PM but it won't while Starmer remains PM which he still will be when the by elections are held
How is going from 31 MSPs to 12 in Scotland one of the Tories' "better results"?
As most of those were list seats going Reform, in terms of FPTP seats the Tories only lost 1 Holyrood constituency seat, Eastwood. As I said the Tories also got a higher voteshare in Scotland than in Wales.
In London the Tories even made net gains on FPTP council seats despite significant loss of council seats elsewhere in England.
So ironically the Kemi Tories are now performing best in Remain areas like London and Scotland because Reform are weaker there and where their opponents are Labour or the SNP not the LDs, where they are collapsing is in strong Leave areas Boris won which are electing Reform
The Conservative performance in London is one of those double edged swords.
Yes, the Conservatives did well against Labour in a number of Boroughs (Wandsworth, Westminster, Harrow, Hounslow, Brent, Barnet and Enfield to name but seven) and held off Reform in Bromley and Bexley but let's not forget the big losses to Reform in Havering (23) and to the LDs in Sutton (20) and the fact is there are now 10 Boroughs with no Conservative representation (up from 7).
Havering is more Greater Essex than London and Sutton more Greater Surrey than London.
Overall the London results were very good, indeed the Tories voteshare in London was slightly higher in May than it was in GB overall
Come on, are you now trying to argue "London" is only the bits where the Conservatives do well?
Shall we try arguing Bromley is "Greater Kent"?
What of those areas of London now bereft of Conservative Councillors such as Newham, Southwark, Haringey, Barking, Lambeth and Lewisham or are you going to try and tell me they aren't part of London either?
As for the vote share, five perecent down on 2022 but similaer to the 2024 GE number so yes, not as bad as in other parts of the country.
Bromley is arguably Greater Kent, indeed it was part of Kent until 1965. The Tories have not had even 1 MP in any of the 6 areas you mention this century so they aren't anywhere near as relevant to the Tories as gains in Westminster, Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Enfield and Barnet were
Whereas in Sutton, Richmond, Kingston and Havering, the Conservatives have had MPs until recently and all they have left is Julia Lopez clinging on by her fingertips in Hornchurch.
Can you quantify these gains in Westminster where the Tories made a net loss of seats.
Scotland was probably after London one of the better results for the Tories in May. Although the Scottish Tories still lost MSPs whereas London Tories made net gains of council seats, they held most of their Holyrood constituencies. Whereas in provincial England outside London lots of Tory councillors lost their seats particularly to Reform and Scottish Tories got a higher voteshare in the Holyrood vote than Welsh Tories did in the Senedd.
Kemi also still has a reasonable 20% favourable rating in Scotland. The Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine Holyrood seat which largely overlaps with the Aberdeen South Westminster seat was also one of a minority of constituencies in Scotland where the Tories beat Reform and were still in the top 2 against the SNP. Indeed the Tories were just 4% behind the SNP so if they squeeze the 17% who voted Reform then they could beat the SNP and win the seat.
Arbroath is the type of seat Labour might win back if Burnham wins the Makerfield by election and replaces Starmer as Labour leader and PM but it won't while Starmer remains PM which he still will be when the by elections are held
How is going from 31 MSPs to 12 in Scotland one of the Tories' "better results"?
As most of those were list seats going Reform, in terms of FPTP seats the Tories only lost 1 Holyrood constituency seat, Eastwood. As I said the Tories also got a higher voteshare in Scotland than in Wales.
In London the Tories even made net gains on FPTP council seats despite significant loss of council seats elsewhere in England.
So ironically the Kemi Tories are now performing best in Remain areas like London and Scotland because Reform are weaker there and where their opponents are Labour or the SNP not the LDs, where they are collapsing is in strong Leave areas Boris won which are electing Reform
The Conservative performance in London is one of those double edged swords.
Yes, the Conservatives did well against Labour in a number of Boroughs (Wandsworth, Westminster, Harrow, Hounslow, Brent, Barnet and Enfield to name but seven) and held off Reform in Bromley and Bexley but let's not forget the big losses to Reform in Havering (23) and to the LDs in Sutton (20) and the fact is there are now 10 Boroughs with no Conservative representation (up from 7).
Havering is more Greater Essex than London and Sutton more Greater Surrey than London.
Overall the London results were very good, indeed the Tories voteshare in London was slightly higher in May than it was in GB overall
Come on, are you now trying to argue "London" is only the bits where the Conservatives do well?
Shall we try arguing Bromley is "Greater Kent"?
What of those areas of London now bereft of Conservative Councillors such as Newham, Southwark, Haringey, Barking, Lambeth and Lewisham or are you going to try and tell me they aren't part of London either?
As for the vote share, five perecent down on 2022 but similaer to the 2024 GE number so yes, not as bad as in other parts of the country.
Bromley is arguably Greater Kent, indeed it was part of Kent until 1965. The Tories have not had even 1 MP in any of the 6 areas you mention this century so they aren't anywhere near as relevant to the Tories as gains in Westminster, Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Enfield and Barnet were
Reform tried floating the 'bring Bexley and Bromley back into Kent' anti-Khan schtick and it's sunk without trace.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
Letbys case stands or falls on the insulin evidence. If that can be explained without the need for exogenous administration then I think she may well be innocent.
doesn't explain why the babies stopped dying in that unit
Were any other medical staff moved?
Senior medical staff?
Dunno, but Letby's defence never ran with that idea.
Tonight's Opinium numbers have very little change and are very close to the equivalent poll in early March which goes to show (as is often the case) not how much has changed but how little.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
I was thinking of Letby in relation to this discussion from a different angle.
The Malkinson case is somewhat unusual in that the DNA evidence doesn't only show that his conviction was unsafe - in that it was no longer beyond reasonable doubt - but I understand it is quite definitive in exonerating him. Thus it is easy to feel sympathy for his plight and experience without qualification, and to consider that he is hard done by to have to pay for his board and losing and legal fees to prove that he was wrongfully convicted.
But consider the Letby case. Perhaps there will be a development which leads to the conclusion that the conviction is unsound, and she will be released from prison. But we may not be able to say definitively that she is innocent. I think some people would feel some disquiet about providing lavish compensation without qualification to someone who might be guilty.
It's fear of that public reaction to borderline cases of terrible crimes they will encourage politicians not to act to make the system fairer for a person like Malkinson.
It will be interesting how many Letby Truthers want her looking after their new born.
DecrepiterJohnL said: Andy_JS said: Can we please continue to talk about why Paul Quinn hasn't received a longer sentence after allowing Andrew Malkinson to spend 17 years in prison?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfbLCXIaZBo Or should we talk about why Malkinson was not released for more than 12 years after DNA evidence exonerated him? Or why the CCRC turned him down twice. Or even how he came to be wrongly convicted in the first place.
I did some research into this and read the various reports. So if there's any interest, happy to share.
Please do share Cyclefree.
I am just bewildered that the CCRC turned the case down twice after the DNA evidence was available. How could they possibly have thought it was a safe conviction after that?
The judicial system has a deep seated fear of acknowledging the system is capable of error. "We do not err. We cannot err. If we are fallible - the system collapses. Regardless of the cost to poor individuals, we have to hold the line."
As evidenced by Lord Denning. The former Master of the Rolls Denning’s was involved in 1980, with the still-incarcerated Birmingham Six’s civil claim against the police. Dismissing the case, he said:
“Just consider the course of events if their action were to proceed to trial… If the six men failed it would mean that much time and money and worry would have been expended by many people to no good purpose. If they won, it would mean that the police were guilty of perjury; that they were guilty of violence and threats; that the confessions were involuntary and improperly admitted in evidence; and that the convictions were erroneous… That was such an appalling vista that every sensible person would say, ‘It cannot be right that these actions should go any further’.”
Denning did many good things and wrote many fine judgments. That was most certainly not one of them.
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
I was thinking of Letby in relation to this discussion from a different angle.
The Malkinson case is somewhat unusual in that the DNA evidence doesn't only show that his conviction was unsafe - in that it was no longer beyond reasonable doubt - but I understand it is quite definitive in exonerating him. Thus it is easy to feel sympathy for his plight and experience without qualification, and to consider that he is hard done by to have to pay for his board and losing and legal fees to prove that he was wrongfully convicted.
But consider the Letby case. Perhaps there will be a development which leads to the conclusion that the conviction is unsound, and she will be released from prison. But we may not be able to say definitively that she is innocent. I think some people would feel some disquiet about providing lavish compensation without qualification to someone who might be guilty.
It's fear of that public reaction to borderline cases of terrible crimes they will encourage politicians not to act to make the system fairer for a person like Malkinson.
It will be interesting hoow many Letby Truthers want her looking after their new born.
Reminds me of a politician, can’t remember who, responding to accusations and complaints after post 9/11 airport security who effectively said “ok, we can have flights without the new security and flights with, which one are you taking your family on?”.
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
At what point will the US government having to bail it out cause the huge correction in the value of the AI bubble?
SpaceX IPO and the two big AI IPO’s could very well do it.
SpaceX feels like a pump and dump with retail and index trackers being on the hook. Valued at 100 times earnings. Not for me.
Trackers and index funds will be able to add it very quickly too.
Will be obliged to, surely, if they are tracker funds ?
It's been exclude, I think, for 12 months from one of the largest (S&P 500), but otherwise they are forced buyers of a grossly overvalued IPO, for which the ordinary rules have been waived.
Yes, but it’s the speed at which SpaceX will be added. The NASDAQ has changed its eligibility criteria, for certain IPOs, from up to a year to 15 trading days.
The S&P 500 inclusion criteria is unaltered. So its not excluded by design.
SpaceX have been denied rapid access though, haven't they?
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
At what point will the US government having to bail it out cause the huge correction in the value of the AI bubble?
SpaceX IPO and the two big AI IPO’s could very well do it.
SpaceX feels like a pump and dump with retail and index trackers being on the hook. Valued at 100 times earnings. Not for me.
Trackers and index funds will be able to add it very quickly too.
Will be obliged to, surely, if they are tracker funds ?
It's been exclude, I think, for 12 months from one of the largest (S&P 500), but otherwise they are forced buyers of a grossly overvalued IPO, for which the ordinary rules have been waived.
Surely the point isn't the x100 valuation and whether it's worth that (it isn't) but whether you think somone else out there will pay more than you in 12 months.
It's not what it's really worth that matters but if someone else thinks it's worth more.
That for me is why we are getting such crazy valuations and into a bubble, the same disconnect between fundamentals and emotion that leads to a crash.
Peter.
The likes of Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs are making forecasts of staggering numbers for prospective future earnings too.
I’m not buying it.
It’s all a happy coincidence. I log on to my HL account. There’s a countdown to the IPO on the homepage. I log on to Freetrade and the homepage has ‘Find out More/Open and Account’ plug for SpaceX
There’s alot of hype.
I never predict market crashes or bubbles but the three big tech IPO’s this year could be a watershed.
Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst
Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.
Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.
“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”
I don’t know about you but I was celebrating this news story by standing outside my house clapping and banging pans together at the same time. Our NHS Wedding.
Peter Phillips is not a working royal and has no title and works as a sports executive, this was more a private family wedding than a royal wedding. He is only 19th in line to the throne.
Interesting as divorcees they opted for a church wedding rather than a blessing after a civil ceremony as the King and Camilla had. Now an option in the C of E of course if the vicar agrees but if they were Roman Catholic the Vatican still forbids remarriage of divorcees in church unless the originally marriage is ruled invalid
Scotland was probably after London one of the better results for the Tories in May. Although the Scottish Tories still lost MSPs whereas London Tories made net gains of council seats, they held most of their Holyrood constituencies. Whereas in provincial England outside London lots of Tory councillors lost their seats particularly to Reform and Scottish Tories got a higher voteshare in the Holyrood vote than Welsh Tories did in the Senedd.
Kemi also still has a reasonable 20% favourable rating in Scotland. The Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine Holyrood seat which largely overlaps with the Aberdeen South Westminster seat was also one of a minority of constituencies in Scotland where the Tories beat Reform and were still in the top 2 against the SNP. Indeed the Tories were just 4% behind the SNP so if they squeeze the 17% who voted Reform then they could beat the SNP and win the seat.
Arbroath is the type of seat Labour might win back if Burnham wins the Makerfield by election and replaces Starmer as Labour leader and PM but it won't while Starmer remains PM which he still will be when the by elections are held
How is going from 31 MSPs to 12 in Scotland one of the Tories' "better results"?
As most of those were list seats going Reform, in terms of FPTP seats the Tories only lost 1 Holyrood constituency seat, Eastwood. As I said the Tories also got a higher voteshare in Scotland than in Wales.
In London the Tories even made net gains on FPTP council seats despite significant loss of council seats elsewhere in England.
So ironically the Kemi Tories are now performing best in Remain areas like London and Scotland because Reform are weaker there and where their opponents are Labour or the SNP not the LDs, where they are collapsing is in strong Leave areas Boris won which are electing Reform
The Conservative performance in London is one of those double edged swords.
Yes, the Conservatives did well against Labour in a number of Boroughs (Wandsworth, Westminster, Harrow, Hounslow, Brent, Barnet and Enfield to name but seven) and held off Reform in Bromley and Bexley but let's not forget the big losses to Reform in Havering (23) and to the LDs in Sutton (20) and the fact is there are now 10 Boroughs with no Conservative representation (up from 7).
Havering is more Greater Essex than London and Sutton more Greater Surrey than London.
Overall the London results were very good, indeed the Tories voteshare in London was slightly higher in May than it was in GB overall
Come on, are you now trying to argue "London" is only the bits where the Conservatives do well?
Shall we try arguing Bromley is "Greater Kent"?
What of those areas of London now bereft of Conservative Councillors such as Newham, Southwark, Haringey, Barking, Lambeth and Lewisham or are you going to try and tell me they aren't part of London either?
As for the vote share, five perecent down on 2022 but similaer to the 2024 GE number so yes, not as bad as in other parts of the country.
Bromley is arguably Greater Kent, indeed it was part of Kent until 1965. The Tories have not had even 1 MP in any of the 6 areas you mention this century so they aren't anywhere near as relevant to the Tories as gains in Westminster, Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Enfield and Barnet were
Reform tried floating the 'bring Bexley and Bromley back into Kent' anti-Khan schtick and it's sunk without trace.
Bring Havering back into Essex though clearly had momentum
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
At what point will the US government having to bail it out cause the huge correction in the value of the AI bubble?
SpaceX IPO and the two big AI IPO’s could very well do it.
SpaceX feels like a pump and dump with retail and index trackers being on the hook. Valued at 100 times earnings. Not for me.
Trackers and index funds will be able to add it very quickly too.
Will be obliged to, surely, if they are tracker funds ?
It's been exclude, I think, for 12 months from one of the largest (S&P 500), but otherwise they are forced buyers of a grossly overvalued IPO, for which the ordinary rules have been waived.
Yes, but it’s the speed at which SpaceX will be added. The NASDAQ has changed its eligibility criteria, for certain IPOs, from up to a year to 15 trading days.
The S&P 500 inclusion criteria is unaltered. So its not excluded by design.
SpaceX have been denied rapid access though, haven't they?
They can already get married or civil partnered, a waste of legislation
Indeed. A problem which nobody was agitating for, with a solution that is widely available and cheap. Next week there will be a public consultation on cures to the problem of scratching one's bottom and picking one's nose without washing the hand. I am no fan of Andy Burnham but the sooner he ends this silliness the better.
Burnham is at least still vaguely Roman Catholic whereas atheist Starmer's religion seems to be wokeism
God doesn't believe in marriage either.
Christ does, as do the main Abrahamic holy books
Christ never married either!
'His followers said to Him, “If that is the way of a man with his wife, it is better not to be married.” 11 But Jesus said to them, “Not all men are able to do this, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are some men who from birth will never be able to have children. There are some men who have been made so by men. There are some men who have had themselves made that way because of the holy nation of heaven. The one who is able to do this, let him do it.”
Scotland was probably after London one of the better results for the Tories in May. Although the Scottish Tories still lost MSPs whereas London Tories made net gains of council seats, they held most of their Holyrood constituencies. Whereas in provincial England outside London lots of Tory councillors lost their seats particularly to Reform and Scottish Tories got a higher voteshare in the Holyrood vote than Welsh Tories did in the Senedd.
Kemi also still has a reasonable 20% favourable rating in Scotland. The Aberdeen Deeside and North Kincardine Holyrood seat which largely overlaps with the Aberdeen South Westminster seat was also one of a minority of constituencies in Scotland where the Tories beat Reform and were still in the top 2 against the SNP. Indeed the Tories were just 4% behind the SNP so if they squeeze the 17% who voted Reform then they could beat the SNP and win the seat.
Arbroath is the type of seat Labour might win back if Burnham wins the Makerfield by election and replaces Starmer as Labour leader and PM but it won't while Starmer remains PM which he still will be when the by elections are held
How is going from 31 MSPs to 12 in Scotland one of the Tories' "better results"?
As most of those were list seats going Reform, in terms of FPTP seats the Tories only lost 1 Holyrood constituency seat, Eastwood. As I said the Tories also got a higher voteshare in Scotland than in Wales.
In London the Tories even made net gains on FPTP council seats despite significant loss of council seats elsewhere in England.
So ironically the Kemi Tories are now performing best in Remain areas like London and Scotland because Reform are weaker there and where their opponents are Labour or the SNP not the LDs, where they are collapsing is in strong Leave areas Boris won which are electing Reform
The Conservative performance in London is one of those double edged swords.
Yes, the Conservatives did well against Labour in a number of Boroughs (Wandsworth, Westminster, Harrow, Hounslow, Brent, Barnet and Enfield to name but seven) and held off Reform in Bromley and Bexley but let's not forget the big losses to Reform in Havering (23) and to the LDs in Sutton (20) and the fact is there are now 10 Boroughs with no Conservative representation (up from 7).
Havering is more Greater Essex than London and Sutton more Greater Surrey than London.
Overall the London results were very good, indeed the Tories voteshare in London was slightly higher in May than it was in GB overall
Come on, are you now trying to argue "London" is only the bits where the Conservatives do well?
Shall we try arguing Bromley is "Greater Kent"?
What of those areas of London now bereft of Conservative Councillors such as Newham, Southwark, Haringey, Barking, Lambeth and Lewisham or are you going to try and tell me they aren't part of London either?
As for the vote share, five perecent down on 2022 but similaer to the 2024 GE number so yes, not as bad as in other parts of the country.
Bromley is arguably Greater Kent, indeed it was part of Kent until 1965. The Tories have not had even 1 MP in any of the 6 areas you mention this century so they aren't anywhere near as relevant to the Tories as gains in Westminster, Wandsworth, Hillingdon, Enfield and Barnet were
Whereas in Sutton, Richmond, Kingston and Havering, the Conservatives have had MPs until recently and all they have left is Julia Lopez clinging on by her fingertips in Hornchurch.
The first 3 more Greater Surrey than London, the LDs are nowhere outside SW London in the capital really. Havering as I said basically Greater Essex
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
At what point will the US government having to bail it out cause the huge correction in the value of the AI bubble?
SpaceX IPO and the two big AI IPO’s could very well do it.
SpaceX feels like a pump and dump with retail and index trackers being on the hook. Valued at 100 times earnings. Not for me.
Trackers and index funds will be able to add it very quickly too.
Will be obliged to, surely, if they are tracker funds ?
It's been exclude, I think, for 12 months from one of the largest (S&P 500), but otherwise they are forced buyers of a grossly overvalued IPO, for which the ordinary rules have been waived.
Surely the point isn't the x100 valuation and whether it's worth that (it isn't) but whether you think somone else out there will pay more than you in 12 months.
It's not what it's really worth that matters but if someone else thinks it's worth more.
That for me is why we are getting such crazy valuations and into a bubble, the same disconnect between fundamentals and emotion that leads to a crash.
Peter.
No, it is more complicated than greater fool theory. First, as Nigelb & Taz have said, there is the issue of index funds needing to buy; second is (and this was also true of Tesla) that it is partly a punt not just on rockets but on what else Elon may or may not bundle with it in future – Starlink, Starshield, AI, solar power, whatever, and also whether NASA wants to go to Mars.
Aren’t the Royals and the NHS two separate and occasionally intertwined cults?
Perhaps. We let them get away with using private healthcare though. Give it a few decades and King William will be breathing his last in an NHS mixed ward...
Aren’t the Royals and the NHS two separate and occasionally intertwined cults?
Perhaps. We let them get away with using private healthcare though. Give it a few decades and King William will be breathing his last in an NHS mixed ward...
Comments
One of my favourite actors. Seeing him as the saintly Mr Harding in The Barchester Chronicles was quite the revelation.
‘ BREAKING: President Trump says the Trump Administration might buy equity stakes in US AI companies and that he will host a meeting with AI executives as soon as next week, per Reuters.’
https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/2063257505854013952?s=61
Cases like that are why I have always opposed the death penalty. If the judicial system gets it wrong it is often in the most egregious of cases (of which Letby might be one).
"The FT is a paper read by people who don't work in finance assuming that people in finance read it. It hasn't been relevant in finance or even business for many years now. You can also tell this from the comments section which has, like the paper, turned into establishment/"centrist dad" central.
WSJ and Bloomberg took a lot of the top markets/companies people almost a decade ago now (Andrea Felstead was one, genuinely someone who knew UK retail very well). The majority of the remaining columnists either worked in politics or are politics-adjacent. There is almost no detailed finance market coverage. The UK companies stuff was spun out into the Shares magazine 20 years ago.
The FT reflects British society, nothing could be more grubby than becoming involved in commerce. Many of the people who moved up and out go into political journalism because that is high status (i.e. Peston). The FT also has a nasty habit of creating special jobs for people if they are high status enough (Kuper is one, Keynes is the new one, there are many more). The FT is a basically unreformed backwater that is a bit like it was 80s, nothing has really changed. I know a few people who work there in undemanding roles (every couple of weeks attending an expenses paid dinner with a celebrity) and got their job through nepotism. It isn't like anywhere else in UK business or even journalism because of the corporate subscription revenue, the editor is able to run it like a fief.
To give specific examples: Chris Giles is somewhat notorious for being a complete hack. If you are somewhat familiar with how news is made, you should be able to read his stories and work out exactly what conversations led to that story being written. In many cases it is Giles talking to someone adjacent to or in politics. Martin Wolf is a complete dinosaur, if he writes a column you can predict exactly what his take will be because he hasn't had a new idea since 1990. JBM is probably the only journalist who actually writes interesting things, these things however often seem to be conflicted with his personal interests/conversations with civil servants. Stuart Kirk...how does he have a column? Barely worked in markets, somehow the markets guy. Shrimsley, politics guy. Cavendish, worked for Cameron. Beattie, basically a Martin Wolf-lite. Pilita Clark, Lidl Kellaway. It goes on and on. Ineffectual posh people with the most anodyne, pro-establishment positions boring everyone to death with their thoughts."
(Continued below)
Also, a special mention for Lionel Barber...admitted to leaking stories to traders in a documentary, there are multiple laws against this in the UK, never charged, never investigated. A lot of what changed with the paper happened because of Barber and his opinions on things like Brexit where he interpreted the role of the FT as being a political activist first. Same thing has happened at the Economist when Micklethwait left, the lure of politics and being culturally relevant is too strong.
Lex is also useless. They had some decent people there writing on niche topics. But after the incident with Barber/Wirecard, there has been a big change in how that part of the world works. Many years ago, you would call up someone from Lex to leak a fake M&A rumour and (if you gave them something real later) they would "leak" it (this was confirmed publicly in the Operation Tabernula trial, this is why many papers have pulled back completely on any market-adjacent coverage...afaik, Mark Kleinman is basically the only person trying to do this stuff anymore and it is a million miles from what it once was)."
Ex Falklands paramedic name of Eddie Gilfoyle, who pregnant wife hung herself.
GMP fitted him up for murder despite overwhelming evidence for the contrary and he served well over 20 years before being reprieve. He was offered parole but to get it had to admit his guilt. He refused.
The case was taken up by Paul Foot and eventually he was released by Court of Appeal.
Edit to add, I did work with Peston for a bit but didn’t have to interact much, just read his screed and had the odd meeting in house. Find it odd that he became the journalist he is as obviously thought of him as a financial data chap.
Now obviously you have Bloomberg and dedicated research pieces for more detailed info and analysis in your area of specialism. But the FT is very good for the highlights of the financial and business world.
But it is fair to say it grounded in the British political centre in its opinion pieces.
https://x.com/OpiniumResearch/status/2063335116101898629
@OpiniumResearch
🚨 Latest Opinium @ObserverUK poll 🚨
As the Makerfield by-election campaign continues, Reform UK has risen to 29%. This is their highest vote share in three months.
➡️REF 29%
🌹LAB 20%
🌳CON 17%
🌍GRN 14%
🔶LD 11%
US taxpayers end up as bagholders.
Or just more up to date than other numbers in this thread? (The editorial was originally published on 30 November 2025.)
Badenoch gave best response on Henry Nowak case according to the public, Nigel Farage the worst
Following the release of bodycam footage relating to the murder of Henry Nowak, voters are most likely to approve of Kemi Badenoch’s response to the case.
Badenoch records a net approval score of +12 on her handling of the issue. Ed Davey is marginally positive, while Keir Starmer, Zack Polanski and Nigel Farage all receive net negative ratings. Farage receives the weakest assessment overall, with more respondents disapproving than approving of his response.
“For all the debate sparked by Tony Blair and the ‘hot essay summer’, the public still lean towards saying he was a bad rather than a good prime minister. Perhaps more worrying for Labour, they also struggle to see any of the party’s current leadership contenders as offering a markedly better alternative.”
Full details of polling
https://www.opinium.com/resource-center/voting-intention-3rd-june-2026/
There will come a time when they have to stop burning cash and actually make some money.
We won that battle too.
It will look totally shite when the bubble bursts.
SpaceX feels like a pump and dump with retail and index trackers being on the hook. Valued at 100 times earnings. Not for me.
Trackers and index funds will be able to add it very quickly too.
I said "ah"
She told me that her eggs were frisky
I said "In that case, I'll have rum and whisky"
She said "fine"
And then in thirty seconds time, she said
[Chorus]
"I wanna live like common foetuses
I wanna do whatever common foetuses do
Wanna be with common foetuses
I wanna be with, common foetuses like you"
Davenports Beer At Home Addvert every break.
Happy Days
Shall we try arguing Bromley is "Greater Kent"?
What of those areas of London now bereft of Conservative Councillors such as Newham, Southwark, Haringey, Barking, Lambeth and Lewisham or are you going to try and tell me they aren't part of London either?
As for the vote share, five perecent down on 2022 but similaer to the 2024 GE number so yes, not as bad as in other parts of the country.
Blair holds a substantial advantage over Keir Starmer, with 39% saying he would do a better job compared with 16% who think he would do worse. He also leads Wes Streeting comfortably and is narrowly preferred to Andy Burnham.
The findings suggest that many voters remain unconvinced that Labour’s current leadership generation offers a clear improvement on the party’s recent past.'
This is a warning to all politicians, it is the cost of living, immigration and health they have to deal with and to be fair I think Burnham gets that
Beer at Home Means Davenports, that’s the beer, lots of cheer.
So I am told by legal types.
To this layman it seems hard to believe that someone so confused about the concepts of innocence and guilt could ever have become a lawyer never mind be such an eminent judge.
On the Birmingham Six, Denning is reported to have said: “We shouldn’t have all these campaigns to get them released if they’d been hanged. They’d have been forgotten and the whole community would have been satisfied.”
He always insisted these remarks had been taken out of context.
Senior medical staff?
It's been exclude, I think, for 12 months from one of the largest (S&P 500), but otherwise they are forced buyers of a grossly overvalued IPO, for which the ordinary rules have been waived.
An absolute masterpiece of a judgment bringing together a series of equitable remedies explaining their underlying basis and principles. One of the outstanding judgments in English law.
Reform got the hump because a group (not a party) of like minded candidates had someone hire Messina group to advise and were kicking off whilst failing to mention that they had a load of money from Unite Union.
I can vote for 9 Senators who are elected on a whole island basis and a number of Deputies who are district based and then the Connétable for my Parish.
I’m only voting for four Senators and I have to hold my nose with one of my Deputy votes for a moderate Reform candidate as, apart from my preferred choices, there is an absolute shitbag 17 year old standing and I have to hope he gets rejected.
My Connétable choice is the chap who gave me my driving licence back painlessly which as good a reason as any.
Reform and Tories down 2 or 3 points
The Malkinson case is somewhat unusual in that the DNA evidence doesn't only show that his conviction was unsafe - in that it was no longer beyond reasonable doubt - but I understand it is quite definitive in exonerating him. Thus it is easy to feel sympathy for his plight and experience without qualification, and to consider that he is hard done by to have to pay for his board and losing and legal fees to prove that he was wrongfully convicted.
But consider the Letby case. Perhaps there will be a development which leads to the conclusion that the conviction is unsound, and she will be released from prison. But we may not be able to say definitively that she is innocent. I think some people would feel some disquiet about providing lavish compensation without qualification to someone who might be guilty.
It's fear of that public reaction to borderline cases of terrible crimes they will encourage politicians not to act to make the system fairer for a person like Malkinson.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 19:1-12&version=NLV
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/2063340343077076999
Voters disapprove of Nigel Farage's response to Henry Nowak's murder more than any other leader
Approve / disapprove
Nigel Farage: 26% / 32%
Keir Starmer: 26% / 27%
Zack Polanski: 12% / 17%
Kemi Badenoch: 28% / 15%
Via Opinium, 2,051 people
Turns your snack in to a feast
Straight from Brewery to your home
Why collect we'll deliver
Soon you'll know why folks all say
Beer at home means Davenports
Reform would be slightly down but largely hold their vote and the Tories vote would hold up best against Burnham
It's not what it's really worth that matters but if someone else thinks it's worth more.
That for me is why we are getting such crazy valuations and into a bubble, the same disconnect between fundamentals and emotion that leads to a crash.
Peter.
The S&P 500 inclusion criteria is unaltered. So its not excluded by design.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj9gl0x7lj9o
"King's nephew Peter Phillips marries NHS nurse"
https://www.fool.com/investing/2026/06/05/spacex-will-not-get-fast-tracked-entry-into-the-sp-500-heres-what-that-means-for-investors/
I’m not buying it.
It’s all a happy coincidence. I log on to my HL account. There’s a countdown to the IPO on the homepage. I log on to Freetrade and the homepage has ‘Find out More/Open and Account’ plug for SpaceX
There’s alot of hype.
I never predict market crashes or bubbles but the three big tech IPO’s this year could be a watershed.
As I said the other day.
Interesting as divorcees they opted for a church wedding rather than a blessing after a civil ceremony as the King and Camilla had. Now an option in the C of E of course if the vicar agrees but if they were Roman Catholic the Vatican still forbids remarriage of divorcees in church unless the originally marriage is ruled invalid
I wasn’t saying they have to the S&P500.
However after 15 trading days it should enter the NASDAQ and therefore all of then NASDAQ trackers.
https://x.com/theathletic/status/2063339993922466250?s=61
Thats the key, the campaign to utterly discredit Starmer from day 1 has succeeded. It's built in and nothing will chenge it.
In reality he made the most effective comments and has followed it up with even better, but because it's Starmer he gets no credit.