Another Drive4show 'Anything goes' thread

[JAS]

First topic message reminder :

Anyone fancy taking a sweep on when Labour are going to say "we've looked at the books, and it's worse than we thought, so we have to raise taxes"

Well...if Starmer hasn't done it by Friday 6:00pm it'll have to wait until next week :-p

[navyblueshorts]

What a stupid conflation Mac.

What is this in relation to?

It's in relation to your preposterous video which completely misses the real reasons why people have an objection to poorly managed/illegal immigration.

Wouldn't be surprised if you had "open borders", "be kind"  or "citizen of nowhere" on your Twitter bio along with some idiotic connected pronouns

Stop hyperventilating; it's not good for you. That video was nothing of the sort - it was a simple member of the public making some good points and stating she's had enough of the right wing zealots stirring up racist hate on her streets.

There needs to be an adult discussion on immigration (I won't hold my breath on this), and politicians of all stripes have dropped the ball on this issue, but please stop trying to justify uneducated hate fanned by Yaxley-Lennon and Farage et al as a justifiable response.

[super_realist]

That wasn't the point and as usual you've missed it.
People aren't against immigration to this country which is a benefit to this country or which enrich it economically or culturally (not even Farage is)
The video implies that because we have Indian restaurants, Chinese restaurants, Italian tailors, Filipino nurses, Polish fruit pickers  Indian doctors etc that ALL immigration must be good and that we all benefit from it.
That isn't the case and it isn't racist or bigoted to be concerned about immigration whether that is legal or illegal immigration.

Even if you look at it from the point of view of strained infrastructure it is clear we ought to be looking at immigration levels and how to deal with it better.

[JAS]

That wasn't the point and as usual you've missed it.
People aren't against immigration to this country which is a benefit to this country or which enrich it economically or culturally (not even Farage is)
The video implies that because we have Indian restaurants, Chinese restaurants, Italian tailors, Filipino nurses, Polish fruit pickers  Indian doctors etc that ALL immigration must be good and that we all benefit from it.
That isn't the case and it isn't racist or bigoted to be concerned about immigration whether that is legal or illegal immigration.

Even if you look at it from the point of view of strained infrastructure it is clear we ought to be looking at immigration levels and how to deal with it better.

Cart before horse!!

How about… we ought to be looking at an economic strategy that works for all BUT especially creates prosperity for ordinary hard working people instead a select few of the “asset hoovering” class. If ordinary people saw a future they could believe in they would be MUCH less likely to get sucked into the politics of division. Division that demonises those at the bottom of the food chain instead of the greedy illegitimate childen at the top that are hoovering up asset wealth and stashing away in offshore tax havens leaving the hard pressed ordinary tax payer to make up the short fall. THAT is what needs broadcast at the head of the news every single night until every last person realises that this perceived immigration crisis is not actually a crisis of its own making, it’s a symptom of a failed economic order that needs challenged more robustly.

[McLaren]

Jas

That's a very generous take. I'd prefer to go with the hypothesis that loads of people are racist.

[JAS]

Jas

That's a very generous take. I'd prefer to go with the hypothesis that loads of people are racist.

.

I don’t think my hypothesis and yours are mutually exclusive Mac. It’s just a different take on the root cause. When people are financially oppressed over a period of time by a greedy corrupt elite who are making out like bandits then resentment starts to ferment. Then along come people who love to indulge in feeding that fermentation and the creation/widening of division, either because they are racist or because they have a vested interest. They see division as useful. I.e. if the working class are divided along any given line (be it racism, bigotry, inequality etc) it distracts them from seeing who the real problem is.

What I’d like to know is where does Tommy 10 names income come from? Somebody must be paying him and the marketing of him to be a provocative Muppet. You have to ask yourself who? And why?

[navyblueshorts]

That wasn't the point and as usual you've missed it.
People aren't against immigration to this country which is a benefit to this country or which enrich it economically or culturally (not even Farage is)
The video implies that because we have Indian restaurants, Chinese restaurants, Italian tailors, Filipino nurses, Polish fruit pickers  Indian doctors etc that ALL immigration must be good and that we all benefit from it.
That isn't the case and it isn't racist or bigoted to be concerned about immigration whether that is legal or illegal immigration.

Even if you look at it from the point of view of strained infrastructure it is clear we ought to be looking at immigration levels and how to deal with it better.

And, as usual, you add stuff after the fact you've been pulled up on and you're off on a tangent again, in order to direct the conversation to what you prefer.

The video makes no mention of, nor relates the points made to, the wider issues you'd like to debate. Nor did Mac elaborate on what he was specifically using it as evidence for. You're just going off on one because it doesn't specifically bring up an issue you'd like to discuss. If you'd like to do that, fine, start the debate, but don't misuse something else to have a rant at me; I missed no 'point' because you hadn't made one at that point.

[navyblueshorts]

Jas

That's a very generous take. I'd prefer to go with the hypothesis that loads of people are racist.

Too simplistic, but you never did do shades of grey.

[navyblueshorts]

Jas

That's a very generous take. I'd prefer to go with the hypothesis that loads of people are racist.

.

I don’t think my hypothesis and yours are mutually exclusive Mac. It’s just a different take on the root cause. When people are financially oppressed over a period of time by a greedy corrupt elite who are making out like bandits then resentment starts to ferment. Then along come people who love to indulge in feeding that fermentation and the creation/widening of division, either because they are racist or because they have a vested interest. They see division as useful. I.e. if the working class are divided along any given line (be it racism, bigotry, inequality etc) it distracts them from seeing who the real problem is.

What I’d like to know is where does Tommy 10 names income come from? Somebody must be paying him and the marketing of him to be a provocative Muppet. You have to ask yourself who? And why?

Nowhere good, and for no benign purpose.

https://bylinetimes.com/2024/08/08/exposing-the-real-uk-race-riot-instigators-the-key-players-and-transatlantic-network-around-tommy-robinson/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Robinson_(activist)#Financial_support
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/dec/07/tommy-robinson-global-support-brexit-march
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/article/2024/aug/06/are-the-authorities-powerless-to-stop-tommy-robinsons-online-output
https://www.timesofisrael.com/why-are-us-pro-israel-groups-boosting-a-far-right-anti-muslim-uk-extremist/

Etc...

Also saw something recently about the Irish Government investigating his right to travel on/hold an Irish passport as sounds like he lied on his application. Quelle surprise...

[McLaren]

Jas

That's a very generous take. I'd prefer to go with the hypothesis that loads of people are racist.

Too simplistic, but you never did do shades of grey.

I am sure there are other layers but fundamentally you don't lash out a immigrants of only certain skin colours unless you are racist. It's not like they were burning flags outside the Swedish embassy.

[navyblueshorts]

Jas

That's a very generous take. I'd prefer to go with the hypothesis that loads of people are racist.

Too simplistic, but you never did do shades of grey.

I am sure there are other layers but fundamentally you don't lash out a immigrants of only certain skin colours unless you are racist. It's not like they were burning flags outside the Swedish embassy.

Fair point, but I'm not sure too many Swedes come here via the Channel on a small boat....

[JAS]

Anybody else on here with friends/acquaintances of a Reform persuasion notice how prolifically they are already posting misrepresentative Poopie directed at the new govt already. Of course everything that gone wrong in the past 14 years is all the fault of a government that’s been in power 6 weeks. As far as I can deduce they are already on the 2029 General election bus and giving it large.

Get the feeling I’m gonna need a black belt in factual rebuttals.

[navyblueshorts]

Anybody else on here with friends/acquaintances of a Reform persuasion notice how prolifically they are already posting misrepresentative Poopie directed at the new govt already. Of course everything that gone wrong in the past 14 years is all the fault of a government that’s been in power 6 weeks. As far as I can deduce they are already on the 2029 General election bus and giving it large.

Get the feeling I’m gonna need a black belt in factual rebuttals.

It's also noticeable that on any BBC HYS, for example, it's very similar. Basically, "Why hasn't Starmer sorted out 14 years of Tory yet? It's a disgrace!", or words to the effect that after a few weeks of the new Labour administration, they can already tell Labour are going to do this, that or the other - normally to negatively affect Daily Heil or Torygraph readers etc. On the subject of The Daily Telegraph, how that publication can still claim to be a respected journal of record is hysterical - awful rag run by non-resident individuals who don't pay their taxes to the UK Exchequer, but their rag sees fit to stoke division in a country they don't live within.

Your facts won't help - it's like trying to get people free of cults. They already 'know' the truth...

[JAS]

Anybody else on here with friends/acquaintances of a Reform persuasion notice how prolifically they are already posting misrepresentative Poopie directed at the new govt already. Of course everything that gone wrong in the past 14 years is all the fault of a government that’s been in power 6 weeks. As far as I can deduce they are already on the 2029 General election bus and giving it large.

Get the feeling I’m gonna need a black belt in factual rebuttals.

It's also noticeable that on any BBC HYS, for example, it's very similar. Basically, "Why hasn't Starmer sorted out 14 years of Tory yet? It's a disgrace!", or words to the effect that after a few weeks of the new Labour administration, they can already tell Labour are going to do this, that or the other - normally to negatively affect Daily Heil or Torygraph readers etc. On the subject of The Daily Telegraph, how that publication can still claim to be a respected journal of record is hysterical - awful rag run by non-resident individuals who don't pay their taxes to the UK Exchequer, but their rag sees fit to stoke division in a country they don't live within.

Your facts won't help - it's like trying to get people free of cults. They already 'know' the truth...

I know, and it’s fascinating looking at a selection of posters on viral threads and look at their FB posting history…weird, just weird!!

The main broad brush comment I’d make is…this whole situation we’re in now isn’t about right or left it’s about right and wrong and if people think attempting to burn down hotels with human beings in it is not wrong on ALL levels then we really really are in deep Poopie!!!

[JAS]

Meanwhile on a different topic but one that ultimately feeds in if you believe that the accepted economic orthodoxy feeding increasing inequality is what’s really generating societal discontent that manifests itself what is ultimately racist disorder…

Last week Cisco announced a $10bn+ profit and the the same breath also announced several thousand redundancies. Right there is a HUGE example of why inequality is increasing across the western world. Those are the kind of decisions the reinforce the trend of moving the into an era where corporate masters have enough money for moon missions, whilst those at the other end sleep under the moon and have to rely on one of the biggest growth areas of the past 40 years…foodbanks.

If the above decision is accepted as normal behaviour, more will do it and the trend will strengthen and cut deeper and deeper into the wider social fabric breeding further discontent.

[navyblueshorts]

Meanwhile on a different topic but one that ultimately feeds in if you believe that the accepted economic orthodoxy feeding increasing inequality is what’s really generating societal discontent that manifests itself what is ultimately racist disorder…

Last week Cisco announced a $10bn+ profit and the the same breath also announced several thousand redundancies. Right there is a HUGE example of why inequality is increasing across the western world. Those are the kind of decisions the reinforce the trend of moving the into an era where  corporate masters have enough money for moon missions, whilst those at the other end sleep under the moon and have to rely on one of the biggest growth areas of the past 40 years…foodbanks.

If the above decision is accepted as normal behaviour, more will do it and the trend will strengthen and cut deeper and deeper into the wider social fabric breeding further discontent.

Yep. Pretty much the norm in the modern, libertarian world. I 'loved' how so many companies that were bailed out/kept afloat by Government money during Covid promptly posted their best figures in ~2021, while at the same time often laying off 1000s of workers.

In your Cisco example (and many others), they're just making sure CEOs and shareholders continue to extract wealth. Of course, those needing the foodbanks etc can't buy any shares, so can't benefit from that, while those already owning shares and/or having lots of disposable assets, can continue to both be shareholders and profit from the type of really clever (#sarcasm) efficiency drives etc that maximise wealth.

I was reading Peter Geoghegan's book, 'Democracy for sale' recently. Eye opening, really, but one hysterical factoid I noticed was that Steve Baker (yes, the ex-MP and Brexit Poopie-stirrer) was (to quote Wikipedia) "...chief architect of global financing and asset service platforms at Lehman Brothers from 2006 to 2008". FFS!!! This is one of the scumbags who caused the financial crash (and disappearance of Lehman) of 2008/9 playing fast and loose with property, credit defaults etc and he was actually returned as an MP??? No wonder you see things like that Cisco example.

If you want another good read, try Sam Bright's 'Bullingdon Club Britain: the ransacking of a Nation'. I would caution reading it in some ways as it could incite a desire to murder some of the protagonists...

[JAS]

Meanwhile on a different topic but one that ultimately feeds in if you believe that the accepted economic orthodoxy feeding increasing inequality is what’s really generating societal discontent that manifests itself what is ultimately racist disorder…

Last week Cisco announced a $10bn+ profit and the the same breath also announced several thousand redundancies. Right there is a HUGE example of why inequality is increasing across the western world. Those are the kind of decisions the reinforce the trend of moving the into an era where  corporate masters have enough money for moon missions, whilst those at the other end sleep under the moon and have to rely on one of the biggest growth areas of the past 40 years…foodbanks.

If the above decision is accepted as normal behaviour, more will do it and the trend will strengthen and cut deeper and deeper into the wider social fabric breeding further discontent.

Yep. Pretty much the norm in the modern, libertarian world. I 'loved' how so many companies that were bailed out/kept afloat by Government money during Covid promptly posted their best figures in ~2021, while at the same time often laying off 1000s of workers.

In your Cisco example (and many others), they're just making sure CEOs and shareholders continue to extract wealth. Of course, those needing the foodbanks etc can't buy any shares, so can't benefit from that, while those already owning shares and/or having lots of disposable assets, can continue to both be shareholders and profit from the type of really clever (#sarcasm) efficiency drives etc that maximise wealth.

I was reading Peter Geoghegan's book, 'Democracy for sale' recently. Eye opening, really, but one hysterical factoid I noticed was that Steve Baker (yes, the ex-MP and Brexit Poopie-stirrer) was (to quote Wikipedia) "...chief architect of global financing and asset service platforms at Lehman Brothers from 2006 to 2008". FFS!!! This is one of the scumbags who caused the financial crash (and disappearance of Lehman) of 2008/9 playing fast and loose with property, credit defaults etc and he was actually returned as an MP??? No wonder you see things like that Cisco example.

If you want another good read, try Sam Bright's 'Bullingdon Club Britain: the ransacking of a Nation'. I would caution reading it in some ways as it could incite a desire to murder some of the protagonists...

Ha just finishing lunch WHSmiths is literally 50 yards away, I’ll have a look. The really sad thing is the truth about why we’re in such a mess is out there, it’s utterly fascinating and disturbing at the same time that a significant proportion of people want to purposely avoid considering the truth and preferring instead to believe and alternative that’s easier because it’s an easier fit to their prejudices.

No idea how we get out of this, it’s gonna be a long haul getting any kind of traction toward getting the majority to believe that the problem is not skint people in boats, the problem is actually at the other end of the wealth spectrum. Even IF we ever get to the point where most people do believe it, the next MUCH harder step will be addressing it. That is where I now have an issue with the Labour Party now, they accept the current economic orthodoxy which protects and promotes the vested interests of the asset rich. And the answer is not anywhere to the right of them, it HAS to come from the left and that will be extremely difficult. I know I plugged it a few months ago and Duty quite vociferously poo pooed it but have you read Gary Stevensons The Trading Game? More a personal story but it narrates his journey from Ilford poverty to to being a successful trader and how he made millions betting against the economic orthodoxy that said the economy would recover year on year after 2009

[Duty281]

Meanwhile on a different topic but one that ultimately feeds in if you believe that the accepted economic orthodoxy feeding increasing inequality is what’s really generating societal discontent that manifests itself what is ultimately racist disorder…

Last week Cisco announced a $10bn+ profit and the the same breath also announced several thousand redundancies. Right there is a HUGE example of why inequality is increasing across the western world. Those are the kind of decisions the reinforce the trend of moving the into an era where  corporate masters have enough money for moon missions, whilst those at the other end sleep under the moon and have to rely on one of the biggest growth areas of the past 40 years…foodbanks.

If the above decision is accepted as normal behaviour, more will do it and the trend will strengthen and cut deeper and deeper into the wider social fabric breeding further discontent.

Yep. Pretty much the norm in the modern, libertarian world. I 'loved' how so many companies that were bailed out/kept afloat by Government money during Covid promptly posted their best figures in ~2021, while at the same time often laying off 1000s of workers.

In your Cisco example (and many others), they're just making sure CEOs and shareholders continue to extract wealth. Of course, those needing the foodbanks etc can't buy any shares, so can't benefit from that, while those already owning shares and/or having lots of disposable assets, can continue to both be shareholders and profit from the type of really clever (#sarcasm) efficiency drives etc that maximise wealth.

I was reading Peter Geoghegan's book, 'Democracy for sale' recently. Eye opening, really, but one hysterical factoid I noticed was that Steve Baker (yes, the ex-MP and Brexit Poopie-stirrer) was (to quote Wikipedia) "...chief architect of global financing and asset service platforms at Lehman Brothers from 2006 to 2008". FFS!!! This is one of the scumbags who caused the financial crash (and disappearance of Lehman) of 2008/9 playing fast and loose with property, credit defaults etc and he was actually returned as an MP??? No wonder you see things like that Cisco example.

If you want another good read, try Sam Bright's 'Bullingdon Club Britain: the ransacking of a Nation'. I would caution reading it in some ways as it could incite a desire to murder some of the protagonists...

Ha just finishing lunch WHSmiths is literally 50 yards away, I’ll have a look. The really sad thing is the truth about why we’re in such a mess is out there, it’s utterly fascinating and disturbing at the same time that a significant proportion of people want to purposely avoid considering the truth and preferring instead to believe and alternative that’s easier because it’s an easier fit to their prejudices.

No idea how we get out of this, it’s gonna be a long haul getting any kind of traction toward getting the majority to believe that the problem is not skint people in boats, the problem is actually at the other end of the wealth spectrum. Even IF we ever get to the point where most people do believe it, the next MUCH harder step will be addressing it. That is where I now have an issue with the Labour Party now, they accept the current economic orthodoxy which protects and promotes the vested interests of the asset rich. And the answer is not anywhere to the right of them, it HAS to come from the left and that will be extremely difficult. I know I plugged it a few months ago and Duty quite vociferously poo pooed it but have you read Gary Stevensons The Trading Game?  More a personal story but it narrates his journey from Ilford poverty to to being a successful trader and how he made millions betting against the economic orthodoxy that said the economy would recover year on year after 2009

Doing very well on the fiction charts, I imagine.

[JAS]

Meanwhile on a different topic but one that ultimately feeds in if you believe that the accepted economic orthodoxy feeding increasing inequality is what’s really generating societal discontent that manifests itself what is ultimately racist disorder…

Last week Cisco announced a $10bn+ profit and the the same breath also announced several thousand redundancies. Right there is a HUGE example of why inequality is increasing across the western world. Those are the kind of decisions the reinforce the trend of moving the into an era where  corporate masters have enough money for moon missions, whilst those at the other end sleep under the moon and have to rely on one of the biggest growth areas of the past 40 years…foodbanks.

If the above decision is accepted as normal behaviour, more will do it and the trend will strengthen and cut deeper and deeper into the wider social fabric breeding further discontent.

Yep. Pretty much the norm in the modern, libertarian world. I 'loved' how so many companies that were bailed out/kept afloat by Government money during Covid promptly posted their best figures in ~2021, while at the same time often laying off 1000s of workers.

In your Cisco example (and many others), they're just making sure CEOs and shareholders continue to extract wealth. Of course, those needing the foodbanks etc can't buy any shares, so can't benefit from that, while those already owning shares and/or having lots of disposable assets, can continue to both be shareholders and profit from the type of really clever (#sarcasm) efficiency drives etc that maximise wealth.

I was reading Peter Geoghegan's book, 'Democracy for sale' recently. Eye opening, really, but one hysterical factoid I noticed was that Steve Baker (yes, the ex-MP and Brexit Poopie-stirrer) was (to quote Wikipedia) "...chief architect of global financing and asset service platforms at Lehman Brothers from 2006 to 2008". FFS!!! This is one of the scumbags who caused the financial crash (and disappearance of Lehman) of 2008/9 playing fast and loose with property, credit defaults etc and he was actually returned as an MP??? No wonder you see things like that Cisco example.

If you want another good read, try Sam Bright's 'Bullingdon Club Britain: the ransacking of a Nation'. I would caution reading it in some ways as it could incite a desire to murder some of the protagonists...

Ha just finishing lunch WHSmiths is literally 50 yards away, I’ll have a look. The really sad thing is the truth about why we’re in such a mess is out there, it’s utterly fascinating and disturbing at the same time that a significant proportion of people want to purposely avoid considering the truth and preferring instead to believe and alternative that’s easier because it’s an easier fit to their prejudices.

No idea how we get out of this, it’s gonna be a long haul getting any kind of traction toward getting the majority to believe that the problem is not skint people in boats, the problem is actually at the other end of the wealth spectrum. Even IF we ever get to the point where most people do believe it, the next MUCH harder step will be addressing it. That is where I now have an issue with the Labour Party now, they accept the current economic orthodoxy which protects and promotes the vested interests of the asset rich. And the answer is not anywhere to the right of them, it HAS to come from the left and that will be extremely difficult. I know I plugged it a few months ago and Duty quite vociferously poo pooed it but have you read Gary Stevensons The Trading Game?  More a personal story but it narrates his journey from Ilford poverty to to being a successful trader and how he made millions betting against the economic orthodoxy that said the economy would recover year on year after 2009

Doing very well on the fiction charts, I imagine.

Oh your still here? Decided not to join the riots then? Or just not get caught?

[Duty281]

Meanwhile on a different topic but one that ultimately feeds in if you believe that the accepted economic orthodoxy feeding increasing inequality is what’s really generating societal discontent that manifests itself what is ultimately racist disorder…

Last week Cisco announced a $10bn+ profit and the the same breath also announced several thousand redundancies. Right there is a HUGE example of why inequality is increasing across the western world. Those are the kind of decisions the reinforce the trend of moving the into an era where  corporate masters have enough money for moon missions, whilst those at the other end sleep under the moon and have to rely on one of the biggest growth areas of the past 40 years…foodbanks.

If the above decision is accepted as normal behaviour, more will do it and the trend will strengthen and cut deeper and deeper into the wider social fabric breeding further discontent.

Yep. Pretty much the norm in the modern, libertarian world. I 'loved' how so many companies that were bailed out/kept afloat by Government money during Covid promptly posted their best figures in ~2021, while at the same time often laying off 1000s of workers.

In your Cisco example (and many others), they're just making sure CEOs and shareholders continue to extract wealth. Of course, those needing the foodbanks etc can't buy any shares, so can't benefit from that, while those already owning shares and/or having lots of disposable assets, can continue to both be shareholders and profit from the type of really clever (#sarcasm) efficiency drives etc that maximise wealth.

I was reading Peter Geoghegan's book, 'Democracy for sale' recently. Eye opening, really, but one hysterical factoid I noticed was that Steve Baker (yes, the ex-MP and Brexit Poopie-stirrer) was (to quote Wikipedia) "...chief architect of global financing and asset service platforms at Lehman Brothers from 2006 to 2008". FFS!!! This is one of the scumbags who caused the financial crash (and disappearance of Lehman) of 2008/9 playing fast and loose with property, credit defaults etc and he was actually returned as an MP??? No wonder you see things like that Cisco example.

If you want another good read, try Sam Bright's 'Bullingdon Club Britain: the ransacking of a Nation'. I would caution reading it in some ways as it could incite a desire to murder some of the protagonists...

Ha just finishing lunch WHSmiths is literally 50 yards away, I’ll have a look. The really sad thing is the truth about why we’re in such a mess is out there, it’s utterly fascinating and disturbing at the same time that a significant proportion of people want to purposely avoid considering the truth and preferring instead to believe and alternative that’s easier because it’s an easier fit to their prejudices.

No idea how we get out of this, it’s gonna be a long haul getting any kind of traction toward getting the majority to believe that the problem is not skint people in boats, the problem is actually at the other end of the wealth spectrum. Even IF we ever get to the point where most people do believe it, the next MUCH harder step will be addressing it. That is where I now have an issue with the Labour Party now, they accept the current economic orthodoxy which protects and promotes the vested interests of the asset rich. And the answer is not anywhere to the right of them, it HAS to come from the left and that will be extremely difficult. I know I plugged it a few months ago and Duty quite vociferously poo pooed it but have you read Gary Stevensons The Trading Game?  More a personal story but it narrates his journey from Ilford poverty to to being a successful trader and how he made millions betting against the economic orthodoxy that said the economy would recover year on year after 2009

Doing very well on the fiction charts, I imagine.

Oh your still here? Decided not to join the riots then? Or just not get caught?

You're right, I am still here.

[JAS]

So...3 kids and a mum murdered in Bradford yesterday...but, unlike Southport, no riots on the streets is that because....

a) The loony right have realised that riots don't really help their argument?
b) Most of the main perpetrators and provocateurs are either in jail, on remand or hiding?
c) The murderer was not misrepresentatively cast as a small boat migrant?

Just genuinely curious re the inconsistency of far right response to child murder.

[navyblueshorts]

So...3 kids and a mum murdered in Bradford yesterday...but, unlike Southport, no riots on the streets is that because....

a) The loony right have realised that riots don't really help their argument?
b) Most of the main perpetrators and provocateurs are either in jail, on remand or hiding?
c) The murderer was not misrepresentatively cast as a small boat migrant?

Just genuinely curious re the inconsistency of far right response to child murder.

In descending order of importance, I'd go: c, a, and then b.

[McLaren]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o

I hope a new legal team can get this poor woman the justice she deserves.

[super_realist]

I didn't think we could get a worse government than the Tories have been, but Starmer has really grasped the baton. What a bunch of useless c***s.

[navyblueshorts]

I didn't think we could get a worse government than the Tories have been, but Starmer has really grasped the baton. What a bunch of useless c***s.

Yes, we know you're really a Tory voter.

They've been in for ~2 months cf. 14 years of Tory disgrace. What, pray, is it that irks you so much about Starmer at this early stage?

[super_realist]

I didn't think we could get a worse government than the Tories have been, but Starmer has really grasped the baton. What a bunch of useless c***s.

Yes, we know you're really a Tory voter.

They've been in for ~2 months cf. 14 years of Tory disgrace. What, pray, is it that irks you so much about Starmer at this early stage?

They've hardly got off to a good start have they?
Cancelling free speech in University.
Two tier policing, sentencing, court appearances  and only concerned with riots when it involves idiots from the right wing. Compete ignoring of violence at Notting Hill, or hate speech at Pro Palestinian marches.
Ignoring the migrants crisis and thinking that if he doesn't mention it, it just goes away. Zero gangs smashed, no Border Head even appointed.
Pretending he didn't know about "black hole" when he mentioned it in April.
Having a go at Tories for a rumour of cutting winter fuel payments and then cutting winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners whilst giving a 15% pay rise to already well paid train drivers.
Caving into unions without any agreement on provision of services (or eradication of Spanish practices)
Shipping out nearly 12bn to foreign countries for their "climate response"
Comical Lammy stopping some arms sales to Israel, but continuing arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria etc.
Planning to cancel single persons council tax deductions, aka a widow tax on the elderly.
Letting people out of prison early and planning to do at it 20% of sentence served.
Loss of six MPs through suspension already.
Increasing taxes.
Cancelling ability to create own energy from North Sea by cancelling future exploration licences leading to the loss of 100,000 highly taxed jobs.
Plan to put VAT on private school fees for absolutely no financial benefit.
Dreadful approval ratings.
No growth plans.
Banning smoking outdoors.

[super_realist]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o

I hope a new legal team can get this poor woman the justice she deserves.

There is quite an interesting documentary Mac on this matter. After watching it I'm no less convinced of her guilt, but it throws light on how badly the investigation and trial were conducted.

[McLaren]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o

I hope a new legal team can get this poor woman the justice she deserves. :broken:

There is quite an interesting documentary Mac on this matter. After watching it I'm no less convinced of her guilt, but it throws light on how badly the investigation and trial were conducted.

Any chance you could share a link or give me the title of this documentary?

[McLaren]

I didn't think we could get a worse government than the Tories have been, but Starmer has really grasped the baton. What a bunch of useless c***s.

:roll: Yes, we know you're really a Tory voter.

They've been in for ~2 months cf. 14 years of Tory disgrace. What, pray, is it that irks you so much about Starmer at this early stage?

They've hardly got off to a good start have they?
Cancelling free speech in University.
Two tier policing, sentencing, court appearances  and only concerned with riots when it involves idiots from the right wing. Compete ignoring of violence at Notting Hill, or hate speech at Pro Palestinian marches.
Ignoring the migrants crisis and thinking that if he doesn't mention it, it just goes away. Zero gangs smashed, no Border Head even appointed.
Pretending he didn't know about "black hole" when he mentioned it in April.
Having a go at Tories for a rumour of cutting winter fuel payments and then cutting winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners whilst giving a 15% pay rise to already well paid train drivers.
Caving into unions without any agreement on provision of services (or eradication of Spanish practices)
Shipping out nearly 12bn to foreign countries for their "climate response"
Comical Lammy stopping some arms sales to Israel, but continuing arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria etc.
Planning to cancel single persons council tax deductions, aka a widow tax on the elderly.
Letting people out of prison early and planning to do at it 20% of sentence served.
Loss of six MPs through suspension already.
Increasing taxes.
Cancelling ability to create own energy from North Sea by cancelling future exploration licences leading to the loss of 100,000 highly taxed jobs.
Plan to put VAT on private school fees for absolutely no financial benefit.
Dreadful approval ratings.
No growth plans.
Banning smoking outdoors.

Why did you copy and paste that from somewhere? What other boards do you participate on?

[super_realist]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3d93kpkl83o

I hope a new legal team can get this poor woman the justice she deserves.

There is quite an interesting documentary Mac on this matter. After watching it I'm no less convinced of her guilt, but it throws light on how badly the investigation and trial were conducted.

Any chance you could share a link or give me the title of this documentary?

I think it was on Channel 5 Mac.

[super_realist]

I didn't think we could get a worse government than the Tories have been, but Starmer has really grasped the baton. What a bunch of useless c***s.

Yes, we know you're really a Tory voter.

They've been in for ~2 months cf. 14 years of Tory disgrace. What, pray, is it that irks you so much about Starmer at this early stage?

They've hardly got off to a good start have they?
Cancelling free speech in University.
Two tier policing, sentencing, court appearances  and only concerned with riots when it involves idiots from the right wing. Compete ignoring of violence at Notting Hill, or hate speech at Pro Palestinian marches.
Ignoring the migrants crisis and thinking that if he doesn't mention it, it just goes away. Zero gangs smashed, no Border Head even appointed.
Pretending he didn't know about "black hole" when he mentioned it in April.
Having a go at Tories for a rumour of cutting winter fuel payments and then cutting winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners whilst giving a 15% pay rise to already well paid train drivers.
Caving into unions without any agreement on provision of services (or eradication of Spanish practices)
Shipping out nearly 12bn to foreign countries for their "climate response"
Comical Lammy stopping some arms sales to Israel, but continuing arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria etc.
Planning to cancel single persons council tax deductions, aka a widow tax on the elderly.
Letting people out of prison early and planning to do at it 20% of sentence served.
Loss of six MPs through suspension already.
Increasing taxes.
Cancelling ability to create own energy from North Sea by cancelling future exploration licences leading to the loss of 100,000 highly taxed jobs.
Plan to put VAT on private school fees for absolutely no financial benefit.
Dreadful approval ratings.
No growth plans.
Banning smoking outdoors.

Why did you copy and paste that from somewhere? What other boards do you participate on?

That's just a list of the top of my head Mac.
Do you think Labour are doing a good job?

[McLaren]

Super

Economies don't move that quickly. We will only know if labour is doing a good job in 3 or 4 years time.

[No name Bertie]

Lucy Letby:  Never had the time nor interest to read up on this story.   However I do monitor the BBC website and I did notice all the headlines the BBC generated day after day from the beginning.  

The BBC is a strange organisation.  For an organisation that openly promotes women's rights and feminism as part of a progressive agenda, they sure go after certain women - Lucy Letby being an example - judging by the attention they gave her and the headlines compared to other stories.   From these headlines I got the impression that the BBC considered her some sort of demonic evil woman.   The BBC do claim to be impartial - and they have a link that states this on every page, subpage, article they publish on their website.

[Duty281]

Lucy Letby:  Never had the time nor interest to read up on this story.   However I do monitor the BBC website and I did notice all the headlines the BBC generated day after day from the beginning.  

The BBC is a strange organisation.  For an organisation that openly promotes women's rights and feminism as part of a progressive agenda, they sure go after certain women - Lucy Letby being an example - judging by the attention they gave her and the headlines compared to other stories.   From these headlines I got the impression that the BBC considered her some sort of demonic evil woman.   The BBC do claim to be impartial - and they have a link that states this on every page, subpage, article they publish on their website.

Because she is. She's a child killer x 7 and tried to kill 7 other children. All while working in a caring, loving profession. Pure evil.

[No name Bertie]

Lucy Letby:  Never had the time nor interest to read up on this story.   However I do monitor the BBC website and I did notice all the headlines the BBC generated day after day from the beginning.  

The BBC is a strange organisation.  For an organisation that openly promotes women's rights and feminism as part of a progressive agenda, they sure go after certain women - Lucy Letby being an example - judging by the attention they gave her and the headlines compared to other stories.   From these headlines I got the impression that the BBC considered her some sort of demonic evil woman.   The BBC do claim to be impartial - and they have a link that states this on every page, subpage, article they publish on their website.

Because she is. She's a child killer x 7 and tried to kill 7 other children. All while working in a caring, loving profession. Pure evil.

That was the impression I got from the attention and headlines even before the trial had run its course and the decision made as to whether she was innocent or guilty.

[Soul Requiem]

Lucy Letby:  Never had the time nor interest to read up on this story.   However I do monitor the BBC website and I did notice all the headlines the BBC generated day after day from the beginning.  

The BBC is a strange organisation.  For an organisation that openly promotes women's rights and feminism as part of a progressive agenda, they sure go after certain women - Lucy Letby being an example - judging by the attention they gave her and the headlines compared to other stories.   From these headlines I got the impression that the BBC considered her some sort of demonic evil woman.   The BBC do claim to be impartial - and they have a link that states this on every page, subpage, article they publish on their website.

Charged and convicted, how exactly do you want the BBC to portray her?

[navyblueshorts]

I didn't think we could get a worse government than the Tories have been, but Starmer has really grasped the baton. What a bunch of useless c***s.

Yes, we know you're really a Tory voter.

They've been in for ~2 months cf. 14 years of Tory disgrace. What, pray, is it that irks you so much about Starmer at this early stage?

They've hardly got off to a good start have they?
Cancelling free speech in University. Nonsense.

Two tier policing, sentencing, court appearances  and only concerned with riots when it involves idiots from the right wing. Compete ignoring of violence at Notting Hill, or hate speech at Pro Palestinian marches. Nonsense.

Ignoring the migrants crisis and thinking that if he doesn't mention it, it just goes away. Zero gangs smashed, no Border Head even appointed. Nonsense. What do you expect, exactly, after two months?

Pretending he didn't know about "black hole" when he mentioned it in April. Nonsense.

Having a go at Tories for a rumour of cutting winter fuel payments and then cutting winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners whilst giving a 15% pay rise to already well paid train drivers. Who cares? Typical right-wing hyperbolae. Some pensioners will lose the allowance. Big deal. Are you suggesting those living it up in Spain, or more than wealthy enough, shouldn't be means tested for it? Good grief.

Caving into unions without any agreement on provision of services (or eradication of Spanish practices) Nonsense.

Shipping out nearly 12bn to foreign countries for their "climate response" No feel for this. Which countries? Do you ever supply a citation for your claims? If these countries are some of those disproportionately affected but tiny contributors, don't you think we should perhaps help out a bit?

Comical Lammy stopping some arms sales to Israel, but continuing arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria etc. You do realise that these sorts of things can be looked at individually, don't you? Who says arms deals to those latter won't subsequently be addressed? They've been in two months FFS.

Planning to cancel single persons council tax deductions, aka a widow tax on the elderly. Missed this. Means tested, or not? Are you suggesting a wealthy singleton in, for example, an expensive house, shouldn't lose that adjustment? Also, councils still have to supply the same services per house etc, regardless of whether single or multiple occupancy.

Letting people out of prison early and planning to do at it 20% of sentence served. Source please. I've only heard of ≥40% time served. Also, if you give me your source, I'll expect it to be a black/white decision re. ≥20% time served and there not to be any nuance re. the crimes under consideration. Or are you guilty of hiding any sensible and obvious nuance?

Loss of six MPs through suspension already. Big deal. At least Starmer is taking any claims of misbehaviour sensibly. I suppose you prefer the Tory approach of cover up/lie/grift etc?

Increasing taxes. Bless. Of course there was always going to be. Wake up and try stop being an ingénue.

Cancelling ability to create own energy from North Sea by cancelling future exploration licences leading to the loss of 100,000 highly taxed jobs. See global warming.

Plan to put VAT on private school fees for absolutely no financial benefit. Good. They're businesses, not funded by taxes. You pay VAT on such services. Suck it up.

Dreadful approval ratings. WTF does that have to do with anything? What do you expect when all the MSM is right-wing?

No growth plans. Rubbish.

Banning smoking outdoors.This is the only one I'll give you. I think it's a step too far re. civil liberties and there's no evidence of any health impact.

[navyblueshorts]

Lucy Letby:  Never had the time nor interest to read up on this story.   However I do monitor the BBC website and I did notice all the headlines the BBC generated day after day from the beginning.  

The BBC is a strange organisation.  For an organisation that openly promotes women's rights and feminism as part of a progressive agenda, they sure go after certain women - Lucy Letby being an example - judging by the attention they gave her and the headlines compared to other stories.   From these headlines I got the impression that the BBC considered her some sort of demonic evil woman.   The BBC do claim to be impartial - and they have a link that states this on every page, subpage, article they publish on their website.

Because she is. She's a child killer x 7 and tried to kill 7 other children. All while working in a caring, loving profession. Pure evil.

Still not thought properly about this, have you? I note you failed to respond to my detailed rebuttal of your earlier attempts to sound informed on this case.

[Duty281]

Lucy Letby:  Never had the time nor interest to read up on this story.   However I do monitor the BBC website and I did notice all the headlines the BBC generated day after day from the beginning.  

The BBC is a strange organisation.  For an organisation that openly promotes women's rights and feminism as part of a progressive agenda, they sure go after certain women - Lucy Letby being an example - judging by the attention they gave her and the headlines compared to other stories.   From these headlines I got the impression that the BBC considered her some sort of demonic evil woman.   The BBC do claim to be impartial - and they have a link that states this on every page, subpage, article they publish on their website.

Because she is. She's a child killer x 7 and tried to kill 7 other children. All while working in a caring, loving profession. Pure evil.

Still not thought properly about this, have you? I note you failed to respond to my detailed rebuttal of your earlier attempts to sound informed on this case.

I've thought very properly about this, having followed the case from the beginning, I just have a different view to you. She's a child killer and deserves death by hanging. Failing that, she'll hopefully get shanked in prison.

I'm unsure of any worth in replying, to be honest, though I did read your post. It would require a great effort of time and typing, and you have a tendency to (in your own words) 'dip out' of the debate when challenged, meaning all my efforts could be for naught.

Though interesting to note your view has changed:

Good thing you weren't on the jury. She should hang.

That would look like a pretty hasty decision when she gets cleared in the next decade or so.

Doh!

I'm not saying Lucy Letby is innocent but the publicly available (or at least what has made the news) evidence used to convict her is pretty weak.  I would hesitantly conclude it was an incompetently run department with some grievances that got out of hand at worst, based on the available evidence.

A bit pointless, this? You aren't party to even 1% of the actual evidence, or the context in which it was discussed, in this case. More evidence of your 'scientific method'?

[JAS]

Statisticians questioning methods of data selection & analysis do not define whether a person is innocent or guilty, jury's on the over balance of evidence do and she was judged guilty The End.

That being said...to my question last month...pointed mainly at the grifters, why wasn't there riots on the streets when Letby was found guilty? I mean 7 kids, there were only 3 killed in Southport. I'm really curious as to the real answer to this. Is it because she was white? Is it because the grifters weren't wound up by Cissy SpaceX, Tommy Ten names etc on that occasion? A new government needing to be undermined (which wasn't required when Letby was found guilty a) the gov't wasn't new and b) the incumbent govt were already doing a sterling job of undermining themselves)? Something else?

[navyblueshorts]

Lucy Letby:  Never had the time nor interest to read up on this story.   However I do monitor the BBC website and I did notice all the headlines the BBC generated day after day from the beginning.  

The BBC is a strange organisation.  For an organisation that openly promotes women's rights and feminism as part of a progressive agenda, they sure go after certain women - Lucy Letby being an example - judging by the attention they gave her and the headlines compared to other stories.   From these headlines I got the impression that the BBC considered her some sort of demonic evil woman.   The BBC do claim to be impartial - and they have a link that states this on every page, subpage, article they publish on their website.

Because she is. She's a child killer x 7 and tried to kill 7 other children. All while working in a caring, loving profession. Pure evil.

Still not thought properly about this, have you? I note you failed to respond to my detailed rebuttal of your earlier attempts to sound informed on this case.

I've thought very properly about this, having followed the case from the beginning, I just have a different view to you. She's a child killer and deserves death by hanging. Failing that, she'll hopefully get shanked in prison.

I'm unsure of any worth in replying, to be honest, though I did read your post. It would require a great effort of time and typing, and you have a tendency to (in your own words) 'dip out' of the debate when challenged, meaning all my efforts could be for naught.

Though interesting to note your view has changed:

Good thing you weren't on the jury. She should hang.

That would look like a pretty hasty decision when she gets cleared in the next decade or so.

Doh!

I'm not saying Lucy Letby is innocent but the publicly available (or at least what has made the news) evidence used to convict her is pretty weak.  I would hesitantly conclude it was an incompetently run department with some grievances that got out of hand at worst, based on the available evidence.

A bit pointless, this? You aren't party to even 1% of the actual evidence, or the context in which it was discussed, in this case. More evidence of your 'scientific method'?

Yeah, sure. You couldn't be bothered. You?!? Sure. Right. The difference between you and me would appear to be that, having realised I need to look more deeply at an issue, I do so and update my views on an issue accordingly. You clearly don't, or are incapable of so doing. I also appear to be more honest in my realisation that I hadn't paid proper attention to the case as it took place. You on the other hand did just that, which is admirable, but having done so, you don't appear to have understood anything of importance.

As for my 'dipping out' when challenged, you can, respectfully, do one. I dip out when, in my view, it's clear there's no point in continuing a discussion. I don't 'dip out' when challenged. Maybe you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that?

Don't worry about it. I know you're not capable of either understanding the actual evidence re. 'beyond all reasonable doubt' or as it pertains to actual medical science, nor are you willing to accept my own lived experience as it relates to some of the issues in this case. Bravo.

You're perfectly entitled to a different opinion to me. That's fine. Shall we sit back and see what happens on this one?

[navyblueshorts]

Statisticians questioning methods of data selection & analysis do not define whether a person is innocent or guilty, jury's on the over balance of evidence do and she was judged guilty The End.

Indeed. I don't dispute this. At all. I do, however, think our judicial system (like so much else in the country) isn't actually fit for purpose in many trials. It needs updating. I'm not advocating removal of trial by jury, but I do think jurors should have access to independent expert panel opinion on statistical data, complex financial or scientific information and other such. Too much relies on how good one's barrister is vs. that of your opponent. In cases like this one, too much is riding on the correct outcome being arrived at; for both sides. I think I'm correct in saying she hasn't been allowed leave to appeal her convictions. At all. Why is that, in a case with such importance and where a significant number of experts in relevant fields are questioning how evidence at the trial was portrayed and understood?

Perhaps at least as important is that if everyone believes in Letby's guilt, what if because of that, failings etc in neonatal care lead to more deaths in future because the assumption was it was down to one psychopath, and not system failings that might be ongoing, and occurring in other institutions? I wouldn't be surprised if relevant NHS Trusts are quietly auditing their processes in the light of this, but it'll have to be on the qui vive because any outcomes might undermine Letby's conviction. Can't have that, eh?

That being said...to my question last month...pointed mainly at the grifters, why wasn't there riots on the streets when Letby was found guilty? I mean 7 kids, there were only 3 killed in Southport. I'm really curious as to the real answer to this. Is it because she was white? Is it because the grifters weren't wound up by Cissy SpaceX, Tommy Ten names etc on that occasion? A new government needing to be undermined (which wasn't required when Letby was found guilty a) the gov't wasn't new and b) the incumbent govt were already doing a sterling job of undermining themselves)? Something else?

You're probably right. She's not an immigrant and she's white.

[Duty281]

Lucy Letby:  Never had the time nor interest to read up on this story.   However I do monitor the BBC website and I did notice all the headlines the BBC generated day after day from the beginning.  

The BBC is a strange organisation.  For an organisation that openly promotes women's rights and feminism as part of a progressive agenda, they sure go after certain women - Lucy Letby being an example - judging by the attention they gave her and the headlines compared to other stories.   From these headlines I got the impression that the BBC considered her some sort of demonic evil woman.   The BBC do claim to be impartial - and they have a link that states this on every page, subpage, article they publish on their website.

Because she is. She's a child killer x 7 and tried to kill 7 other children. All while working in a caring, loving profession. Pure evil.

Still not thought properly about this, have you? I note you failed to respond to my detailed rebuttal of your earlier attempts to sound informed on this case.

I've thought very properly about this, having followed the case from the beginning, I just have a different view to you. She's a child killer and deserves death by hanging. Failing that, she'll hopefully get shanked in prison.

I'm unsure of any worth in replying, to be honest, though I did read your post. It would require a great effort of time and typing, and you have a tendency to (in your own words) 'dip out' of the debate when challenged, meaning all my efforts could be for naught.

Though interesting to note your view has changed:

Good thing you weren't on the jury. She should hang.

That would look like a pretty hasty decision when she gets cleared in the next decade or so.

Doh!

I'm not saying Lucy Letby is innocent but the publicly available (or at least what has made the news) evidence used to convict her is pretty weak.  I would hesitantly conclude it was an incompetently run department with some grievances that got out of hand at worst, based on the available evidence.

A bit pointless, this? You aren't party to even 1% of the actual evidence, or the context in which it was discussed, in this case. More evidence of your 'scientific method'?

Yeah, sure. You couldn't be bothered. You?!? Sure. Right. The difference between you and me would appear to be that, having realised I need to look more deeply at an issue, I do so and update my views on an issue accordingly. You clearly don't, or are incapable of so doing. I also appear to be more honest in my realisation that I hadn't paid proper attention to the case as it took place. You on the other hand did just that, which is admirable, but having done so, you don't appear to have understood anything of importance.

As for my 'dipping out' when challenged, you can, respectfully, do one. I dip out when, in my view, it's clear there's no point in continuing a discussion. I don't 'dip out' when challenged. Maybe you were looking in the mirror when you wrote that?

Don't worry about it. I know you're not capable of either understanding the actual evidence re. 'beyond all reasonable doubt' or as it pertains to actual medical science, nor are you willing to accept my own lived experience as it relates to some of the issues in this case. Bravo.

You're perfectly entitled to a different opinion to me. That's fine. Shall we sit back and see what happens on this one?

Your post is a broad range of ad hominem attacks, which perfectly explains why I didn't want to write a detailed reply, because this is what I would have had in response.

We don't need to wait and see what will happen. It has already happened. Two separate juries have found the child killer guilty. Both in better positions than you and I. Three appeal court judges have also reviewed everything and found the convictions, all fifteen, above board. A wide range of expert medical evidence was presented. Only a minority of cranks think the child killer is innocent, mainly because they can't envisage a young white pretty female as capable of doing these ghastly things.

[JAS]

I didn't think we could get a worse government than the Tories have been, but Starmer has really grasped the baton. What a bunch of useless c***s.

Yes, we know you're really a Tory voter.

They've been in for ~2 months cf. 14 years of Tory disgrace. What, pray, is it that irks you so much about Starmer at this early stage?

They've hardly got off to a good start have they?
Cancelling free speech in University.
Two tier policing, sentencing, court appearances  and only concerned with riots when it involves idiots from the right wing. Compete ignoring of violence at Notting Hill, or hate speech at Pro Palestinian marches.
Ignoring the migrants crisis and thinking that if he doesn't mention it, it just goes away. Zero gangs smashed, no Border Head even appointed.
Pretending he didn't know about "black hole" when he mentioned it in April.
Having a go at Tories for a rumour of cutting winter fuel payments and then cutting winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners whilst giving a 15% pay rise to already well paid train drivers.
Caving into unions without any agreement on provision of services (or eradication of Spanish practices)
Shipping out nearly 12bn to foreign countries for their "climate response"
Comical Lammy stopping some arms sales to Israel, but continuing arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria etc.
Planning to cancel single persons council tax deductions, aka a widow tax on the elderly.
Letting people out of prison early and planning to do at it 20% of sentence served.
Loss of six MPs through suspension already.
Increasing taxes.
Cancelling ability to create own energy from North Sea by cancelling future exploration licences leading to the loss of 100,000 highly taxed jobs.
Plan to put VAT on private school fees for absolutely no financial benefit.
Dreadful approval ratings.
No growth plans.
Banning smoking outdoors.

Why did you copy and paste that from somewhere? What other boards do you participate on?

Funny you should say that Mac, I have a couple of friend/acquaintances of a right of centre persuasion and they spout EXACTLY the same nonsense almost word for word. So there’s an exercise book that they copy from somewhere. Probably from the limited company that tries to masquerade as a democratic Party, the same grifter group that has been lecturing us for over 8 years on the importance of “democracy”, the same grifter group that thinks it’s ok to set fire to hotels with human beings inside to make a point, they havent even got a democratically elected leader ffs, the irony is hilarious.

[navyblueshorts]

Your post is a broad range of ad hominem attacks, which perfectly explains why I didn't want to write a detailed reply, because this is what I would have had in response.

We don't need to wait and see what will happen. It has already happened. Two separate juries have found the child killer guilty. Both in better positions than you and I. Three appeal court judges have also reviewed everything and found the convictions, all fifteen, above board. A wide range of expert medical evidence was presented. Only a minority of cranks think the child killer is innocent, mainly because they can't envisage a young white pretty female as capable of doing these ghastly things.

No. You have no answer because you know you're overmatched here. This what you do far too often when in that position . Suggest you stick to the political sphere.

You know perfectly well what I meant when I suggested we wait and see what happens. Don't be obtuse.

The appeal judges have judged, I believe, that there's no new evidence to consider. Not that any conviction is, as you propose, above board except insofar as all necessary due process occurred.

Your reference to "cranks" sums up perfectly well your inability to even re-consider your position and your hypocrisy re. so-called ad hominem attacks.

[Duty281]

Your post is a broad range of ad hominem attacks, which perfectly explains why I didn't want to write a detailed reply, because this is what I would have had in response.

We don't need to wait and see what will happen. It has already happened. Two separate juries have found the child killer guilty. Both in better positions than you and I. Three appeal court judges have also reviewed everything and found the convictions, all fifteen, above board. A wide range of expert medical evidence was presented. Only a minority of cranks think the child killer is innocent, mainly because they can't envisage a young white pretty female as capable of doing these ghastly things.

No. You have no answer because you know you're overmatched here. This what you do far too often when in that position . Suggest you stick to the political sphere.

You know perfectly well what I meant when I suggested we wait and see what happens. Don't be obtuse.

The appeal judges have judged, I believe, that there's no new evidence to consider. Not that any conviction is, as you propose, above board except insofar as all necessary due process occurred.

Your reference to "cranks" sums up perfectly well your inability to even re-consider your position and your hypocrisy re. so-called ad hominem attacks.

No, this is incorrect. I have no interest in writing out a lengthy reply just to be met with your usual retreat. Would be a waste of everyone's time. I don't mind doing it over other things which require less effort e.g. asking why MPs are unable to research constituency issues (you retreated), asking exactly what you thought Farage's links with Russia were (you retreated), or asking what you think the Labour councillor was doing if not inciting murder (you retreated). Fine to do that when I'm just writing a couple of lines, but not interested in writing out a detailed essay to be met with your customary* 'I'm done with this'.

*And that is your customary response, not mine. No idea why you think I avoid discussion 'far too often' - this is something else I challenged you on, a few times, but you refused to substantiate.

"Comments on the validity of Lucy Letby’s convictions for murder and attempted murder have created “an enormous amount of stress” for the parents of her victims, a judge has said on the opening day of a public inquiry into events surrounding the deaths." Very true.

[McLaren]

Perhaps at least as important is that if everyone believes in Letby's guilt, what if because of that, failings etc in neonatal care lead to more deaths in future because the assumption was it was down to one psychopath, and not system failings that might be ongoing, and occurring in other institutions? I wouldn't be surprised if relevant NHS Trusts are quietly auditing their processes in the light of this, but it'll have to be on the qui vive because any outcomes might undermine Letby's conviction. Can't have that, eh?

This really is the main point. I'd love to think our healthcare system is based on evidence based medicine and it would be a real shame if the science pointed towards systemic failures but we had to pretend it was an evil villain just to keep the peace.

[McLaren]

I didn't think we could get a worse government than the Tories have been, but Starmer has really grasped the baton. What a bunch of useless c***s.

:roll: Yes, we know you're really a Tory voter.

They've been in for ~2 months cf. 14 years of Tory disgrace. What, pray, is it that irks you so much about Starmer at this early stage?

They've hardly got off to a good start have they?
Cancelling free speech in University.
Two tier policing, sentencing, court appearances  and only concerned with riots when it involves idiots from the right wing. Compete ignoring of violence at Notting Hill, or hate speech at Pro Palestinian marches.
Ignoring the migrants crisis and thinking that if he doesn't mention it, it just goes away. Zero gangs smashed, no Border Head even appointed.
Pretending he didn't know about "black hole" when he mentioned it in April.
Having a go at Tories for a rumour of cutting winter fuel payments and then cutting winter fuel payments for 10m pensioners whilst giving a 15% pay rise to already well paid train drivers.
Caving into unions without any agreement on provision of services (or eradication of Spanish practices)
Shipping out nearly 12bn to foreign countries for their "climate response"
Comical Lammy stopping some arms sales to Israel, but continuing arms sales to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Syria etc.
Planning to cancel single persons council tax deductions, aka a widow tax on the elderly.
Letting people out of prison early and planning to do at it 20% of sentence served.
Loss of six MPs through suspension already.
Increasing taxes.
Cancelling ability to create own energy from North Sea by cancelling future exploration licences leading to the loss of 100,000 highly taxed jobs.
Plan to put VAT on private school fees for absolutely no financial benefit.
Dreadful approval ratings.
No growth plans.
Banning smoking outdoors.

Why did you copy and paste that from somewhere? What other boards do you participate on?

Funny you should say that Mac, I  have a couple of friend/acquaintances of a right of centre persuasion and they spout EXACTLY the same nonsense almost word for word. So there’s an exercise book that they copy from somewhere. Probably from the limited company that tries to masquerade as a democratic  Party, the same grifter group that has been lecturing us for over 8 years on the importance of “democracy”, the same grifter group that thinks it’s ok to set fire to hotels with human beings inside to make a point, they havent even got a democratically elected leader ffs,  the irony is hilarious.

The reason I suspect he copy and pasted it is because the formatting is out of whack in the way it happens when you copy and paste between different applications.

I assumed he had written the same post somewhere else and copied it here.

[McLaren]

Duty

You are correct in saying I didn't hear the whole trial but what I can tell you is that I hope there was a lot of other evidence presented than the scientific and medical stuff. The so called medical expert for the prosecution drew on an incredibly small set of data and what he presented does not really count as science. I told you this at the time, and it now seems the medical and scientific community were equally concerned.

My concern is that I hope this case does not reflect how poorly scientific ideas are used more broadly across the legal system. Whether you think Letby is guilty or not is almost besides the point. As far as I can tell you don't have a scientific background, and I would be interesting to hear what you thought about the scientific evidence presented as you followed the trial?

[navyblueshorts]

Your post is a broad range of ad hominem attacks, which perfectly explains why I didn't want to write a detailed reply, because this is what I would have had in response.

We don't need to wait and see what will happen. It has already happened. Two separate juries have found the child killer guilty. Both in better positions than you and I. Three appeal court judges have also reviewed everything and found the convictions, all fifteen, above board. A wide range of expert medical evidence was presented. Only a minority of cranks think the child killer is innocent, mainly because they can't envisage a young white pretty female as capable of doing these ghastly things.

No. You have no answer because you know you're overmatched here. This what you do far too often when in that position . Suggest you stick to the political sphere.

You know perfectly well what I meant when I suggested we wait and see what happens. Don't be obtuse.

The appeal judges have judged, I believe, that there's no new evidence to consider. Not that any conviction is, as you propose, above board except insofar as all necessary due process occurred.

Your reference to "cranks" sums up perfectly well your inability to even re-consider your position and your hypocrisy re. so-called ad hominem attacks.

No, this is incorrect. I have no interest in writing out a lengthy reply just to be met with your usual retreat. Would be a waste of everyone's time. I don't mind doing it over other things which require less effort e.g. asking why MPs are unable to research constituency issues (you retreated), asking exactly what you thought Farage's links with Russia were (you retreated), or asking what you think the Labour councillor was doing if not inciting murder (you retreated). Fine to do that when I'm just writing a couple of lines, but not interested in writing out a detailed essay to be met with your customary* 'I'm done with this'.

*And that is your customary response, not mine. No idea why you think I avoid discussion 'far too often' - this is something else I challenged you on, a few times, but you refused to substantiate.

"Comments on the validity of Lucy Letby’s convictions for murder and attempted murder have created “an enormous amount of stress” for the parents of her victims, a judge has said on the opening day of a public inquiry into events surrounding the deaths." Very true.

Actually, I'm afraid it is correct and what I do, or do not do, in response to debate on these boards is irrelevant in the context of your reply to my last post. I'm impressed that your recollection is both so selective and so wrong. Perhaps I should invite a few others from the 'Off Topic' section to comment here on your disengagement/lack of response when you're outwitted? Let's leave it at that.

Noted your lack of challenge to my assertion of your hypocrisy.

Comments/debate re. Letby's trial might induce stress, but that doesn't mean this sort of issue can't/shouldn't be discussed. You posting that is of zero relevance.

[Duty281]

Duty

You are correct in saying I didn't hear the whole trial but what I can tell you is that I hope there was a lot of other evidence presented than the scientific and medical stuff. The so called medical expert for the prosecution drew on an incredibly small set of data and what he presented does not really count as science. I told you this at the time, and it now seems the medical and scientific community were equally concerned.

My concern is that I hope this case does not reflect how poorly scientific ideas are used more broadly across the legal system. Whether you think Letby is guilty or not is almost besides the point. As far as I can tell you don't have a scientific background, and I would be interesting to hear what you thought about the scientific evidence presented as you followed the trial?

Sorry, I don't recall you saying any such thing at the time. You just wondered about evidence that wasn't in the public domain, and I said everything had been reported on and posted the links to the trial, and you said you couldn't be bothered to read it. I don't recall you saying exactly why you think she's not guilty at any point.

Not sure what you mean about my thoughts of the scientific evidence? Anything specific?

[Sponsored content]