General News

[st albans fox]

10 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

 

 

An example; the statistical evidence of Letby being on duty for all the deaths. Looks damning. However, the stats show that due to staff rotas, the chance of an individual nurse being on duty for all the cases was relatively realistic. It just so happened that one nurse was Letby. 

 

Why wasn't that brought up by the defence  to chip away at the stats evidence? 

 

I have to say too, that during her trial, she didn't do herself any favours with apparent cold, monotone, perfunctory answers under cross examination. 

 

That’s sufficient in cluedo 

 

, unless there is new compelling evidence (in which case the state should pay for a retrial), - hearing the evidence again would be very harrowing for the parents 

Edited 9 September 2024 by st albans fox

[Paninistickers]

1 minute ago, st albans fox said:

That’s sufficient in cluedo 

 

, unless there is new compelling evidence (in which case the state should pay for a retrial), - hearing the evidence again would be very harrowing for the parents 

I'd be interested to hear a profiler's view. 

 

Isn't it usual that there is escalation? From attempted murders and then, usually, a specific MO? 

 

The variety - air embolism, insulin overdose, over feeding - all virtually undetectable means of murder, is questionable. Let's say an air embolism worked aa.a.means of killing.... it's very strange a serial killer would then switch MO to attempt death by insulin 

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

I'd be interested to hear a profiler's view. 

 

Isn't it usual that there is escalation? From attempted murders and then, usually, a specific MO? 

 

The variety - air embolism, insulin overdose, over feeding - all virtually undetectable means of murder, is questionable. Let's say an air embolism worked aa.a.means of killing.... it's very strange a serial killer would then switch MO to attempt death by insulin 

maybe i just have too much faith in the system ……..

 

all the points that you raise should have been addressed during the trial - if they weren’t then that’s potentially compelling new evidence ??   If the evidence was overly circumstantial then that’s a very tricky scenario because reasonable doubts  would likely lead to a not guilty verdict if the case was heard several times. 
 

is there some compelling evidence of guilt in the case which has been ignored by those looking for reasons why other evidence is shaky ??

Edited 9 September 2024 by st albans fox

[Trav Le Bleu]

7 hours ago, Daggers said:

Spelling mistake. Should read "voles".

 

No idea why publishers are now placing rodents into books, reckon it's probably linked to your point regarding people not reading fiction. There must be a demand for it, I guess?

 

We could test the hypothesis by going into Waterstones and stapling some shrews on the flysheets of some Steven King novels. Maybe a bunch of field mice onto some Penny Jordans too. 

 

I tried cellotaping my Retriever to an Iain Banks and, to be quite frank, it looked ridiculous. No one would go for that on a shelf.

 

But then I also guess that if we've thought of it, the major publishing houses have already tested it to see what works best.

Surely voles should be in Banks' novels?

[MPH]

With regards to Lucy Letby, let’s not forget that colleagues repeatedly raised suspicions about her behavior and  shared their concerns… we’re not just talking about people in the room for a minute collecting the rubbish, we are talking about  consultants and nurses… it’s not just circumstantial evidence they have..

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66120934.amp

Hospital bosses ignored months of doctors' warnings about Lucy Letby

 

 

Edited 9 September 2024 by MPH

[Fox in the North]

James Earl Jones…RIP

[CheeseHead]

1 hour ago, Fox in the North said:

James Earl Jones…RIP

Long live that voice

[Trav Le Bleu]

Thulsa Doomed 

[Tommy G]

The winter fuel pension payment has been a complete cock up and PR disaster for Starmer, what a strange hill to die on. 

[Torquay Gunner]

12 hours ago, Fox in the North said:

James Earl Jones…RIP

Loved watching him in so many films. He just had that instant gravitas that certain actors possess,  not least because of that amazing voice. 

[ealingfox]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

The winter fuel pension payment has been a complete cock up and PR disaster for Starmer, what a strange hill to die on. 

 

Why? They're all getting nearly 500 quid extra next year anyway. Someone had to draw a line somewhere and I'm glad they've done it.

 

Pensioners are the wealthiest they've ever been as a cohort and we're now all paying sky high taxes to pay for a period where young people had to make big sacrifices in the interests of protecting them (and to pay for their pensions to boot).

[leicsmac]

7 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why? They're all getting nearly 500 quid extra next year anyway. Someone had to draw a line somewhere and I'm glad they've done it.

 

Pensioners are the wealthiest they've ever been as a cohort and we're now all paying sky high taxes to pay for a period where young people had to make big sacrifices in the interests of protecting them (and to pay for their pensions to boot).

...because unfortunately in this era perception often trumps the facts you're quoting here and viewpoints, as well as elections, are often decided on that perception.

 

Believe me, I wish it weren't the case, it makes doing the logical thing an order of magnitude more difficult for people like Starmer, and I've no idea how he can work on changing perception of this policy.

 

The same matter sadly bleeds over into other, still more important, policy areas too.

[Foxdiamond]

5 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Why? They're all getting nearly 500 quid extra next year anyway. Someone had to draw a line somewhere and I'm glad they've done it.

 

Pensioners are the wealthiest they've ever been as a cohort and we're now all paying sky high taxes to pay for a period where young people had to make big sacrifices in the interests of protecting them (and to pay for their pensions to boot).

You do realise that most pensioners will pay tax on the increase so not £500 net. That pensioners are not as poor as they once were does not mean they can be described as all wealthy. A lot of younger people with children rely on the free childcare taken on by grandparents. Also a lot of older folks started fulltime work at 15 or 16 and paid into the system unlike a lot of younger people who or are students till 21.

[ealingfox]

9 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

You do realise that most pensioners will pay tax on the increase so not £500 net. That pensioners are not as poor as they once were does not mean they can be described as all wealthy. A lot of younger people with children rely on the free childcare taken on by grandparents. Also a lot of older folks started fulltime work at 15 or 16 and paid into the system unlike a lot of younger people who or are students till 21.

 

Yeah and the ones who need it will still get it. They're means-testing it, not removing it entirely.

 

[Foxdiamond]

3 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Yeah and the ones who need it will still get it. They're means-testing it, not removing it entirely.

 

There will be a sizable minority that will be just above the threshold that will notice the loss. I understand the need for the government to make savings. Not saying you are having a go but whenever pensioners and pensions are discussed there is a tendency to assume all are in clover and ripe for a bashing in forums.

[Zear0]

The fact that there's more kick back against this rather than Labour not lifting the two child benefit cap is utterly disgusting.  I know all this rage is stirred up by the Tory rags, who are supporting their base, but it doesn't make it any easier to comprehend.

[leicsmac]

32 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

The fact that there's more kick back against this rather than Labour not lifting the two child benefit cap is utterly disgusting.  I know all this rage is stirred up by the Tory rags, who are supporting their base, but it doesn't make it any easier to comprehend.

Can I ask for further details on why this is problematic?

[Tommy G]

54 minutes ago, Foxdiamond said:

There will be a sizable minority that will be just above the threshold that will notice the loss. I understand the need for the government to make savings. Not saying you are having a go but whenever pensioners and pensions are discussed there is a tendency to assume all are in clover and ripe for a bashing in forums.

Agreed and they aren't, and to effectively U turn on a policy that is completely anti left wing is bizarre '' look how tough we are, we are making the decisions that matter bla bla''

 

Pensioners suffer because they caved on generous settlements with unions.

 

The pension uplft in line with inflation next year is to help with the rising cost of living as a whole and not just to ''cope''with the loss of the winter fuel payments.

Edited 10 September 2024 by Tommy G

[Zear0]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Can I ask for further details on why this is problematic?

It's problematic as I'm, like most decent human beings, generally not in favour of child poverty.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Zear0 said:

It's problematic as I'm, like most decent human beings, generally not in favour of child poverty.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

There certainly shouldn't be a cap on such benefits as they affect families now - as you say, that's simply the decent thing to do as it does enhance child poverty.

 

However, though perhaps "development" of nations does organically reduce family sizes without any other incentives/disincentives, I would be encouraging the UK and other nations to be working towards overall world population stability ASAP. This has come up before, but I fear it may become a real issue not too far down the line, and a demographic crisis based on age with a stable population could well be the least worst outcome.

[izzymuzzet]

4 hours ago, Zear0 said:

The fact that there's more kick back against this rather than Labour not lifting the two child benefit cap is utterly disgusting.  I know all this rage is stirred up by the Tory rags, who are supporting their base, but it doesn't make it any easier to comprehend.

Would say the two child benefit cap is a much bigger problem within the PLP than the fuel allowance issue though. The leadership have kicked the can down the road for now by announcing a child poverty taskforce but ultimately they'll have to make a decision whether to scrap the cap or not. Speaking to a couple of people close to this issue they think it will eventually be scrapped but the government need to roll the pitch beforehand because the cap is, depressingly, quite popular with the public.

[Tuna]

 

[leicsmac]

28 minutes ago, Tuna said:

 

I'm sure that those inside will enact their own particular brand of justice upon him, given the chance.

[Daggers]

7 hours ago, Zear0 said:

The fact that there's more kick back against this rather than Labour not lifting the two child benefit cap is utterly disgusting.  I know all this rage is stirred up by the Tory rags, who are supporting their base, but it doesn't make it any easier to comprehend.

The sketch is that there's a difference between not reversing a bad thing and actively doing something that is a bad thing, I guess? 

[MPH]

10 hours ago, Tommy G said:

The winter fuel pension payment has been a complete cock up and PR disaster for Starmer, what a strange hill to die on. 

 

honestly I think he had such a dominant win that he felt he had the backing to be a bit bolder  and less reserved in his decision making… but yea… could have been better ways to save money surely…