Aren’t the Royals and the NHS two separate and occasionally intertwined cults?
I think the Royals would love to have the NHS popularity figures.
NHS has a 78% favourable rating with Yougov, above the King at 47% but little different to the Prince of Wales at 74% and just below the late Queen Elizabeth II at 79%
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
Not wishing to be pedantic but the modern London Borough of Richmond consists of the former Municipal Borough of Richmond and the Municipal Borough of Barnes which were indeed part of Surrey until 1965 and the Municipal Borough of Twickenham which was part of Middlesex.
Also part of Greater Middlesex were Enfield, Hillingdon and Harrow or doesn't that count?
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
Not wishing to be pedantic but the modern London Borough of Richmond consists of the former Municipal Borough of Richmond and the Municipal Borough of Barnes which were indeed part of Surrey until 1965 and the Municipal Borough of Twickenham which was part of Middlesex.
Also part of Greater Middlesex were Enfield, Hillingdon and Harrow or doesn't that count?
Middlesex doesn't exist and was abolished as far back as 1965 and absorbed into Surrey, Herts and Greater London
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
Not wishing to be pedantic but the modern London Borough of Richmond consists of the former Municipal Borough of Richmond and the Municipal Borough of Barnes which were indeed part of Surrey until 1965 and the Municipal Borough of Twickenham which was part of Middlesex.
Also part of Greater Middlesex were Enfield, Hillingdon and Harrow or doesn't that count?
Middlesex doesn't exist and was abolished as far back as 1965 and absorbed into Surrey, Herts and Greater London
And Havering, Redbridge, Waltham Forest, Barking und Dagenham, and Newham were transferred to Greater London in 1965.
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
Not wishing to be pedantic but the modern London Borough of Richmond consists of the former Municipal Borough of Richmond and the Municipal Borough of Barnes which were indeed part of Surrey until 1965 and the Municipal Borough of Twickenham which was part of Middlesex.
Also part of Greater Middlesex were Enfield, Hillingdon and Harrow or doesn't that count?
Middlesex doesn't exist and was abolished as far back as 1965 and absorbed into Surrey, Herts and Greater London
Although it does in the case of sport and sports administration.
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.”
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
Not wishing to be pedantic but the modern London Borough of Richmond consists of the former Municipal Borough of Richmond and the Municipal Borough of Barnes which were indeed part of Surrey until 1965 and the Municipal Borough of Twickenham which was part of Middlesex.
Also part of Greater Middlesex were Enfield, Hillingdon and Harrow or doesn't that count?
Middlesex doesn't exist and was abolished as far back as 1965 and absorbed into Surrey, Herts and Greater London
I'm not sure the people of Kingston, Sutton and Richmond would see themselves as part of a "Greater Surrey" even if you think they do or should.
Indeed, the residents of Spelthorne have often campaigned to be taken out of Surrey and become a new London Borough.
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...
Blue bloods and plebs using bedpans in close proximity? Never!
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.
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
Not wishing to be pedantic but the modern London Borough of Richmond consists of the former Municipal Borough of Richmond and the Municipal Borough of Barnes which were indeed part of Surrey until 1965 and the Municipal Borough of Twickenham which was part of Middlesex.
Also part of Greater Middlesex were Enfield, Hillingdon and Harrow or doesn't that count?
Middlesex doesn't exist and was abolished as far back as 1965 and absorbed into Surrey, Herts and Greater London
A stanza from Betjeman's elegy to Middlesex, the county in which I was brought up:
Gentle Brent, I used to know you Wandering Wembley-wards at will, Now what change your waters show you In the meadowlands you fill! Recollect the elm-trees misty And the footpaths climbing twisty Under cedar-shaded palings, Low laburnum-leaned-on railings Out of Northolt on and upward to the heights of Harrow hill.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
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.
Letby's defence barely ran with a defence though.
Yes, the Shaggy “it wasn’t me” defence hasn’t worked for some time.
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
Not wishing to be pedantic but the modern London Borough of Richmond consists of the former Municipal Borough of Richmond and the Municipal Borough of Barnes which were indeed part of Surrey until 1965 and the Municipal Borough of Twickenham which was part of Middlesex.
Also part of Greater Middlesex were Enfield, Hillingdon and Harrow or doesn't that count?
Middlesex doesn't exist and was abolished as far back as 1965 and absorbed into Surrey, Herts and Greater London
I'm not sure the people of Kingston, Sutton and Richmond would see themselves as part of a "Greater Surrey" even if you think they do or should.
Indeed, the residents of Spelthorne have often campaigned to be taken out of Surrey and become a new London Borough.
They mostly vote LD now, like most of Surrey but unlike most of London. Spelthorne still has a Tory MP
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.
Letby's defence barely ran with a defence though.
The court case ran for nearly a year. Her defence said plenty in that time. Maybe they didn’t say more because they knew that the various pieces of supposed evidence that people go on about now wouldn’t stand up in court.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
After 30 minutes of this game the odds on Scotland winning the WC are surely tumbling. Positively weird.
What on earth is Henderson playing for - indeed why was he even in the squad ?
I'm watching Scotland who have been excellent in this half and are 3-0 up. The selection of Henderson in the England squad was nothing short of perverse.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
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
If they were Roman Catholic, he wouldn’t be 19th in line to the throne.
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
If they were Roman Catholic, he wouldn’t be 19th in line to the throne.
True and of course the C of E was created by a divorcee as the Pope refused him a divorce
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
If they were Roman Catholic, he wouldn’t be 19th in line to the throne.
Dave changed the law to stop the anti-Catholic bigotry and make Catholics to be the monarch.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for 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.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
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
If they were Roman Catholic, he wouldn’t be 19th in line to the throne.
Dave changed the law to stop the anti-Catholic bigotry and make Catholics to be the monarch.
Nope. Read what it says there. He removed the rule that banned those in line from marrying Catholics, but being Catholic still makes you ineligible to be king or queen.
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
If they were Roman Catholic, he wouldn’t be 19th in line to the throne.
True and of course the C of E was created by a divorcee as the Pope refused him a divorce
I think because the Pope refused him an annulment technically.
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
If they were Roman Catholic, he wouldn’t be 19th in line to the throne.
Dave changed the law to stop the anti-Catholic bigotry and make Catholics to be the monarch.
Yes but we are playing the All Blacks whilst you are playing those guys with the pan pipes and colourful ponchos rounded up from tourist sites.
Bolivia beat Brazil 1-0 in a qualifier last September. Struggling to find any great results for NZ. Haiti, that we play next weekend, thrashed them 4-0 recently ( a result that caused some real consternation up here).
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
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
If they were Roman Catholic, he wouldn’t be 19th in line to the throne.
Dave changed the law to stop the anti-Catholic bigotry and make Catholics to be the monarch.
Nope. Read what it says there. He removed the rule that banned those in line from marrying Catholics, but being Catholic still makes you ineligible to be king or queen.
Note the time and date PBers, this one of those very rare occasions when I am wrong.
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
Though our new Reform Leader has already knocked the idea on the head.
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.
Sneaking suspicion that, outside Southampton, a lot of voters haven't really been following the big story of the week- and most of us who have been have largely made our minds up already.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
With Kemi they will recover and ask me in 2029
So you're prepared to comment on Labour now but not the Tories.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
With Kemi they will recover and ask me in 2029
So you're prepared to comment on Labour now but not the Tories.
Far from being mere titillation, experts reveal the surprising benefits of the ‘bonkbuster’ – not just for your sex life
Dr Laura Clark, an NHS GP and co-founder of women’s health clinic SHE Health, explains: “Watching programmes with explicitly erotic scenes automatically triggers our animal instincts and our body’s hormonal response.
“Simply watching shows that feature intimate scenes is enough to flood your body with oxytocin, creating an overall sense of happiness, and significant benefits for your cardiovascular system.”
Known as the “love hormone”, oxytocin is one of the body’s most powerful feel-good chemicals. Released during moments of closeness and intimacy, it is associated with lower stress levels, improved emotional wellbeing and stronger feelings of connection, while studies have also linked it to benefits for heart health and blood pressure regulation.
Alongside oxytocin, racier TV dramas can encourage the release of dopamine, the neurotransmitter more commonly known as the brain’s “reward chemical”. This hormone plays a central role in the brain’s pleasure and reward pathways and has been linked to improved motivation, concentration, memory and mood regulation. Higher levels are also associated with greater feelings of happiness and satisfaction.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
With Kemi they will recover and ask me in 2029
So you're prepared to comment on Labour now but not the Tories.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
With Kemi they will recover and ask me in 2029
So you're prepared to comment on Labour now but not 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.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
With Kemi they will recover and ask me in 2029
So you're prepared to comment on Labour now but not the Tories.
Noted.
Why do you have such a beef with BigG? Most of us post things that are wrong or questionable on here in many ways but you seem to pick on his posts. He’s actually quite a useful bellwether as a large chunk of the voting public will be seeing or interpreting things the same way from the same sources.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
With Kemi they will recover and ask me in 2029
So you're prepared to comment on Labour now but not the Tories.
Noted.
Why do you have such a beef with BigG? Most of us post things that are wrong or questionable on here in many ways but you seem to pick on his posts. He’s actually quite a useful bellwether as a large chunk of the voting public will be seeing or interpreting things the same way from the same sources.
I don’t think it deserves such targeting.
I have no beef, it's just the ludicrous hyperbole which I pick others up on, like I did with Brixian the other night.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
With Kemi they will recover and ask me in 2029
So you're prepared to comment on Labour now but not the Tories.
Noted.
Why do you have such a beef with BigG? Most of us post things that are wrong or questionable on here in many ways but you seem to pick on his posts. He’s actually quite a useful bellwether as a large chunk of the voting public will be seeing or interpreting things the same way from the same sources.
Right now, any Prime Minister in this sort of position has to say that, even if it isn't true. Because once you even hint at anything different, the focus becomes "who's next?" and whatever little authority you have leaks away.
It's the same for anyone in an exposed leadership position. In teaching, you can't tell a class that they are having someone else next year... not if you plan to get any more work out of them.
Thatcher said something similar in 1990. Major and Sunak's manifestoes for elections where they must have known they were doomed are cut from the same cloth.
It's something that Prime Ministers have to say, because politics is sometimes a dirty business. And, however much some people have cause to resent it, Sir Keir Starmer KC is our Prime Minister, for at least a bit longer.
Right now, any Prime Minister in this sort of position has to say that, even if it isn't true. Because once you even hint at anything different, the focus becomes "who's next?" and whatever little authority you have leaks away.
It's the same for anyone in an exposed leadership position. In teaching, you can't tell a class that they are having someone else next year... not if you plan to get any more work out of them.
Thatcher said something similar in 1990. Major and Sunak's manifestoes for elections where they must have known they were doomed are cut from the same cloth.
It's something that Prime Ministers have to say, because politics is sometimes a dirty business. And, however much some people have cause to resent it, Sir Keir Starmer KC is our Prime Minister, for at least a bit longer.
Personally I am hoping for a rerun of 2022 and when every 10 minutes a minister resigned trying to get Boris Johnson to quit.
He was in a televised session with the Liaison Committee and Sky News had a resignation counter that kept on going up with Boris Johnson oblivious to the number resigning (or the fact several cabinet ministers were waiting for him in Number 10 ready to tell him to quit.)
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
With Kemi they will recover and ask me in 2029
So you're prepared to comment on Labour now but not the Tories.
Noted.
Why do you have such a beef with BigG? Most of us post things that are wrong or questionable on here in many ways but you seem to pick on his posts. He’s actually quite a useful bellwether as a large chunk of the voting public will be seeing or interpreting things the same way from the same sources.
I don’t think it deserves such targeting.
I have no beef, it's just the ludicrous hyperbole which I pick others up on, like I did with Brixian the other night.
To be honest you do tend to critise me and more often than others
Indeed it has made me wonder why, as I am a conservative, and even whether I can be bothered continuing to contribute
I do enjoy the debate but the nitpicking is getting tedious
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
Right now, any Prime Minister in this sort of position has to say that, even if it isn't true. Because once you even hint at anything different, the focus becomes "who's next?" and whatever little authority you have leaks away.
It's the same for anyone in an exposed leadership position. In teaching, you can't tell a class that they are having someone else next year... not if you plan to get any more work out of them.
Thatcher said something similar in 1990. Major and Sunak's manifestoes for elections where they must have known they were doomed are cut from the same cloth.
It's something that Prime Ministers have to say, because politics is sometimes a dirty business. And, however much some people have cause to resent it, Sir Keir Starmer KC is our Prime Minister, for at least a bit longer.
Personally I am hoping for a rerun of 2022 and when every 10 minutes a minister resigned trying to get Boris Johnson to quit.
He was in a televised session with the Liaison Committee and Sky News had a resignation counter that kept on going up with Boris Johnson oblivious to the number resigning (or the fact several cabinet ministers were waiting for him in Number 10 ready to tell him to quit.)
Had this happened before? My parliamentary history is poor...
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.”
She's the first Tory leader since early PM Boris to get a hearing from the public. Which is noteable.
Really
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished. He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Read tonight's Opinium about the mess Labour are in and learn
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
Is that the Opinium poll that has Labour 3% ahead of the Tories?
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
With Kemi they will recover and ask me in 2029
So you're prepared to comment on Labour now but not the Tories.
Noted.
Why do you have such a beef with BigG? Most of us post things that are wrong or questionable on here in many ways but you seem to pick on his posts. He’s actually quite a useful bellwether as a large chunk of the voting public will be seeing or interpreting things the same way from the same sources.
I don’t think it deserves such targeting.
I have no beef, it's just the ludicrous hyperbole which I pick others up on, like I did with Brixian the other night.
It just does come across a bit targeted. Like I said, he’s posting things which a lot of people also probably think or read/hear and it’s useful, even when wrong so worth reading.
Obviously Brixian talks utter bollocks but maybe live and let live a bit on BigG. He’s big and could crush you in his giant arms, be warned.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Only if advanced as a clincher rather than as a piece of the circumstantial pie.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
Right now, any Prime Minister in this sort of position has to say that, even if it isn't true. Because once you even hint at anything different, the focus becomes "who's next?" and whatever little authority you have leaks away.
It's the same for anyone in an exposed leadership position. In teaching, you can't tell a class that they are having someone else next year... not if you plan to get any more work out of them.
Thatcher said something similar in 1990. Major and Sunak's manifestoes for elections where they must have known they were doomed are cut from the same cloth.
It's something that Prime Ministers have to say, because politics is sometimes a dirty business. And, however much some people have cause to resent it, Sir Keir Starmer KC is our Prime Minister, for at least a bit longer.
Personally I am hoping for a rerun of 2022 and when every 10 minutes a minister resigned trying to get Boris Johnson to quit.
He was in a televised session with the Liaison Committee and Sky News had a resignation counter that kept on going up with Boris Johnson oblivious to the number resigning (or the fact several cabinet ministers were waiting for him in Number 10 ready to tell him to quit.)
Had this happened before? My parliamentary history is poor...
Not at this level, the closest comparison I said at the time was the Norway debate when a rebellion ousted a Prime Minister but that was backbench rather than ministerial.
In 2022 I think a third of the government resigned.
Edit
In early July 2022, 62 of the United Kingdom's 179 government ministers, parliamentary private secretaries, trade envoys, and party vice-chairmen resigned from their positions in the second administration formed by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister....
...This marked both the largest number of ministerial resignations in a 24-hour period since the British Empire Economic Conference in 1932, and the largest number of such resignations on record.[
Right now, any Prime Minister in this sort of position has to say that, even if it isn't true. Because once you even hint at anything different, the focus becomes "who's next?" and whatever little authority you have leaks away.
It's the same for anyone in an exposed leadership position. In teaching, you can't tell a class that they are having someone else next year... not if you plan to get any more work out of them.
Thatcher said something similar in 1990. Major and Sunak's manifestoes for elections where they must have known they were doomed are cut from the same cloth.
It's something that Prime Ministers have to say, because politics is sometimes a dirty business. And, however much some people have cause to resent it, Sir Keir Starmer KC is our Prime Minister, for at least a bit longer.
Little bit like DC when asked if he would stay in the event of a Leave vote.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
When she was on night shifts, the unusual deaths were at night. When she moved to day shifts, the unusual deaths were in the day.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
The commentators pointed out that the Tampa Bay stadium has a giant pirate ship as part of the stadium to reflect the Buccanneers nickname. As Old Trafford is also owned by the Glazers is it just a matter of time until there is a massive Vagina incorporated into Old Trafford?
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
Scotland football fans say they are devastated as last-minute changes to travel permits could prevent them from travelling to the World Cup.
UK citizens who want to go to the United States for up to 90 days without a visa need to apply to the country's Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).
But dozens of fans who filled out the form have said on social media that their application status had changed this week from "approved" to "travel not authorised".
Some have told BBC Scotland News they could lose out on thousands of pounds in travel costs due to the changes, with Scotland's first World Cup game kicking off in less than two weeks.
Burnham is 1.21 to win Makerfield but only 1.45 to be next PM.
Implies there is a far from trivial chance he does not become PM even if he wins Makerfield.
There's many a slip 'twixt cup and lip, I guess. It would be no surprise at all if Burnham's ascension to PM is not as smooth as he hopes, or possibly expects, in these unpredictable times. I suspect he'll make it, though.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
When she was on night shifts, the unusual deaths were at night. When she moved to day shifts, the unusual deaths were in the day.
The deaths that were deemed suspicious, a list tha5 chopped and changed, as did the probable mode of death. There were deaths when she wasn’t on shift, including insulin cases.
Fair enough and it would be up to Labour members who they want in a 3 way contest between Starmer, Burnham and Streeting if he stands again
Streeting doesn't have the numbers. If he had we wouldn't be where we are.
Of course, having the numbers to trigger a leadership contest and having the numbers to join a leadership contest that is already underway are not identical considerations.
‘ 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.
Sure, there's a FOMO effect, but what's truly egregious about the SpaceX IPO is that there are rules being waived to allow it rapidly to enter indexes which otherwise would have been barred to it for some time. And that obliges tracker funds to buy large amounts of stock, so existing shareholders get more opportunity to dump stock.
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
The unit stopped handling such sick babies - arguably it shouldn’t have been in the first place. We should be better at stats than that. It’s like councils reducing a speed limit on a road after a couple of fatal accidents and then claiming it worked because no more accidents occur.
They made some changes but not of enough significance to explain the sharp fall.
If there are say 100 units handling premature babies what are the chances that one will have a spike in deaths like that seen at Chester? And that the spike will the regress to the mean?
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
I believe that the unit was downgraded and stopped treating the seriously unwell, very premature babies. And as this is a betting site there is always the chance that the unit was the outlier unit, the statistical freak among the national units.
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
My father has done his research on this case given his former job and his view now is that whilst her behaviour screams dodgy he thinks there's reasonable doubts on her guilt and if he were a juror he would have voted to acquit.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
A panel of medical experts organised by her legal team think she might not be guilty. I’m not certain they count as being representative of the wider medical community.
The key factor was Dr Shoo Lee, his original study was used by the prosecution.
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
It’s not usual practice to go get the authors of research papers to come be expert witnesses. There’s nothing unusual about Lee not being approached or informed.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
And the deaths stopped when she was removed.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
For non-Latin speakers:
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
Scotland football fans say they are devastated as last-minute changes to travel permits could prevent them from travelling to the World Cup.
UK citizens who want to go to the United States for up to 90 days without a visa need to apply to the country's Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).
But dozens of fans who filled out the form have said on social media that their application status had changed this week from "approved" to "travel not authorised".
Some have told BBC Scotland News they could lose out on thousands of pounds in travel costs due to the changes, with Scotland's first World Cup game kicking off in less than two weeks.
Comments
https://yougov.com/en-gb/topics/institution/NHS
https://yougov.com/en-gb/topics/public_figure/King_Charles_III
https://yougov.com/en-gb/topics/public_figure/William_Prince_of_Wales
https://yougov.com/en-gb/topics/public_figure/Queen_Elizabeth_II
Also part of Greater Middlesex were Enfield, Hillingdon and Harrow or doesn't that count?
Cricket, Rugger, soccer and others.
Indeed, the residents of Spelthorne have often campaigned to be taken out of Surrey and become a new London Borough.
Gentle Brent, I used to know you
Wandering Wembley-wards at will,
Now what change your waters show you
In the meadowlands you fill!
Recollect the elm-trees misty
And the footpaths climbing twisty
Under cedar-shaded palings,
Low laburnum-leaned-on railings
Out of Northolt on and upward to the heights of Harrow hill.
https://allpoetry.com/Middlesex
I have no idea if she was guilty or not. I've read extensively and sadly the debate is very polarised (what isn't these days?) She did some weird things for sure - the notes, the online searches etc. But the idea of her putting insulin into feed bags that would be used on another shift is stretching and explanation to fit a theory. If it is possible for neo nates to have unusual ratios of insulin c-peptide then I think the case against her is in big trouble as those convictions were the key to all the rest.
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished.
He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield
IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
Certainly not in recent By Elections
Certainly not in recent Council Elections
Certainly not in Wales or Scottish Elections.
One thing has happened in the past 4 weeks that is notable which has given her a bit more exposure in right leaning media.
Farage has vanished.
He's neutered himself with £5m donation
Thats the only difference.
IF Burnham wins Makerfield
IF Burnham challenges Starmer
Coronation or Contest, it will be Labour leader v Farage, Tories and Bedenich won't get a look in other than at PMQ where she's better but still misses countless own goals.
This had quite the impact on the wider medical community.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgl5yyg1x6o
Amazing even after all the onslaught against Kemi you cannot even spell her name
GOAL Bolivia 0-4 SCOTLANDpublished at 45
45
Che Adams
IS THIS THE REAL LIFE? IS THIS JUST FANTASY!?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-32073399
If Labour are in a mess what adjective would you use for the Tories?
That goal at Bristol City last game of the season to stop up !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EYLrws2_s0
Lee became involved in the Letby case after being made aware that one of his research papers, a 1989 paper on pulmonary vascular air embolism in newborns, was used by the prosecution’s leading expert witness, retired consultant paediatrician Dewi Evans, to support his theory that Letby had injected air into the bloodstream of babies. Lee was not asked to give evidence at the time of the original case and only afterwards became aware that his paper was used.
https://www.bmj.com/content/388/bmj.r250
Fun fact:
At USA 1994, Bolivia had the first red card of the tournament when they played Germany, losing 1-0.
https://thehaveringdaily.co.uk/2026/05/29/hexit-would-leave-residents-significantly-worse-off-says-councillor-prince-new-reform-council-leader/
His cabinet need to tell him to go
Should have stuck a few quid on Scotland winning the tournament before this game started. Odds will be shite now. What a team.
Noted.
The Tories are not.
Far from being mere titillation, experts reveal the surprising benefits of the ‘bonkbuster’ – not just for your sex life
Dr Laura Clark, an NHS GP and co-founder of women’s health clinic SHE Health, explains: “Watching programmes with explicitly erotic scenes automatically triggers our animal instincts and our body’s hormonal response.
“Simply watching shows that feature intimate scenes is enough to flood your body with oxytocin, creating an overall sense of happiness, and significant benefits for your cardiovascular system.”
Known as the “love hormone”, oxytocin is one of the body’s most powerful feel-good chemicals. Released during moments of closeness and intimacy, it is associated with lower stress levels, improved emotional wellbeing and stronger feelings of connection, while studies have also linked it to benefits for heart health and blood pressure regulation.
Alongside oxytocin, racier TV dramas can encourage the release of dopamine, the neurotransmitter more commonly known as the brain’s “reward chemical”. This hormone plays a central role in the brain’s pleasure and reward pathways and has been linked to improved motivation, concentration, memory and mood regulation. Higher levels are also associated with greater feelings of happiness and satisfaction.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/wellbeing/sex/why-watching-smut-on-tv-is-good-for-your-health/?recomm_id=e68de104-c592-47bd-998e-1e13c4520a0e
If he had we wouldn't be where we are.
The prosecution case was not reliant on that particular piece of evidence. The evidence of insulin overdoses was more important. As also was the fact Letby had stolen medical records and hidden them under her bed, written guilty notes, conducted unusual web searches, her inappropriate behaviour around grieving parents, and the witness evidence about her behaviour around two babies.
I don’t think it deserves such targeting.
Right now, any Prime Minister in this sort of position has to say that, even if it isn't true. Because once you even hint at anything different, the focus becomes "who's next?" and whatever little authority you have leaks away.
It's the same for anyone in an exposed leadership position. In teaching, you can't tell a class that they are having someone else next year... not if you plan to get any more work out of them.
Thatcher said something similar in 1990. Major and Sunak's manifestoes for elections where they must have known they were doomed are cut from the same cloth.
It's something that Prime Ministers have to say, because politics is sometimes a dirty business. And, however much some people have cause to resent it, Sir Keir Starmer KC is our Prime Minister, for at least a bit longer.
He was in a televised session with the Liaison Committee and Sky News had a resignation counter that kept on going up with Boris Johnson oblivious to the number resigning (or the fact several cabinet ministers were waiting for him in Number 10 ready to tell him to quit.)
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2oKdgSxWuRs
Indeed it has made me wonder why, as I am a conservative, and even whether I can be bothered continuing to contribute
I do enjoy the debate but the nitpicking is getting tedious
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/_F1uLFPJcYI
Obviously Brixian talks utter bollocks but maybe live and let live a bit on BigG. He’s big and could crush you in his giant arms, be warned.
Implies there is a far from trivial chance he does not become PM even if he wins Makerfield.
In 2022 I think a third of the government resigned.
Edit
In early July 2022, 62 of the United Kingdom's 179 government ministers, parliamentary private secretaries, trade envoys, and party vice-chairmen resigned from their positions in the second administration formed by Boris Johnson as Prime Minister....
...This marked both the largest number of ministerial resignations in a 24-hour period since the British Empire Economic Conference in 1932, and the largest number of such resignations on record.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_2022_United_Kingdom_government_crisis
"After this, therefore because of this". It is the faulty assumption that because one event happened after another, the first event must have caused the second.
UK citizens who want to go to the United States for up to 90 days without a visa need to apply to the country's Electronic System for Travel Authorization (ESTA).
But dozens of fans who filled out the form have said on social media that their application status had changed this week from "approved" to "travel not authorised".
Some have told BBC Scotland News they could lose out on thousands of pounds in travel costs due to the changes, with Scotland's first World Cup game kicking off in less than two weeks.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy2yleex87o
It would be no surprise at all if Burnham's ascension to PM is not as smooth as he hopes, or possibly expects, in these unpredictable times.
I suspect he'll make it, though.
And that obliges tracker funds to buy large amounts of stock, so existing shareholders get more opportunity to dump stock.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745669/