Also in the News - Part 2

[The Year Of The Fox]

2 minutes ago, StanSP said:

It's not circumstantial though. It's actual evidence. She was physically witnessed to be seen at the scene of the crimes, and some of the babies had serious injuries internally to make them collapse. 

 

Of course because no one is perfect we all have some level of self doubt after a bad day at work. But to what extent do us sane people have those thoughts, and compare that to someone who's been found guilty of murdering babies? They're not really comparable, to be honest, because us sane people don't think like a serial killer. 

 

If it wasn't Letby, who was it? 

Of course she was near the scene, it was her job to be close to those babies. (And to protect them too) 

 

 

All I’m saying about the bad day at work thing is that her bad day at work consists of kids dying. If she was innocent and has wrote this sort of stuff in a diary about her blaming herself, then that’s no different to me flooding someone’s house and blaming myself and questioning my ability to do the job. 
 

A jury shouldn’t convict anyone on the basis of ‘if it isn’t Letby then who was it’ surely?

 

 

Anyway, the more I try and explain myself the more it looks like I’m defending her, or as some moron thought, that I wanted her freed.

 

 

I only stated I’m not that comfortable with convictions based on a jury’s verdict after the bloke up in Manchester. That’s hardly groundbreaking thought process is it?

 

As my solicitor mate said, ‘that’s why we shouldn’t be talking about bringing back capital punishment’ 

[StanSP]

1 minute ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Of course she was near the scene, it was her job to be close to those babies. (And to protect them too) 

 

 

All I’m saying about the bad day at work thing is that her bad day at work consists of kids dying. If she was innocent and has wrote this sort of stuff in a diary about her blaming herself, then that’s no different to me flooding someone’s house and blaming myself and questioning my ability to do the job. 
 

A jury shouldn’t convict anyone on the basis of ‘if it isn’t Letby then who was it’ surely?

 

 

Anyway, the more I try and explain myself the more it looks like I’m defending her, or as some moron thought, that I wanted her freed.

 

 

I only stated I’m not that comfortable with convictions based on a jury’s verdict after the bloke up in Manchester. That’s hardly groundbreaking thought process is it?

 

As my solicitor mate said, ‘that’s why we shouldn’t be talking about bringing back capital punishment’ 

Regarding being at the scene, she was there when she wasn't supposed to be in at least a few of the cases if I remember and read correctly. 

 

She also was witnessed to have not trying to save the babies when they were literally collapsing and dying in front of her. 

 

Like I said, the key phrase for any case in the criminal justice system is 'beyond reasonable doubt'.

I wasn't saying it was up to the jury to convict someone on that particular basis, it was more of an open question on here. Given all the evidence that's come about and is open, there doesn't seem to be any case for anyone else apart from it being Letby. 

[dsr-burnley]

24 minutes ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Of course she was near the scene, it was her job to be close to those babies. (And to protect them too) 

 

 

All I’m saying about the bad day at work thing is that her bad day at work consists of kids dying. If she was innocent and has wrote this sort of stuff in a diary about her blaming herself, then that’s no different to me flooding someone’s house and blaming myself and questioning my ability to do the job. 
 

A jury shouldn’t convict anyone on the basis of ‘if it isn’t Letby then who was it’ surely?

 

 

Anyway, the more I try and explain myself the more it looks like I’m defending her, or as some moron thought, that I wanted her freed.

 

 

I only stated I’m not that comfortable with convictions based on a jury’s verdict after the bloke up in Manchester. That’s hardly groundbreaking thought process is it?

 

As my solicitor mate said, ‘that’s why we shouldn’t be talking about bringing back capital punishment’ 

Is there a good alternative to trial by jury?

[urban.spaceman]

2 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Is there a good alternative to trial by jury?

Trial by combat?

[urban.spaceman]

For some reason that autocorrected to Trial by Wombat and that just sounds awesome.

[Grebfromgrebland]

1 hour ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Of course she was near the scene, it was her job to be close to those babies. (And to protect them too) 

 

 

All I’m saying about the bad day at work thing is that her bad day at work consists of kids dying. If she was innocent and has wrote this sort of stuff in a diary about her blaming herself, then that’s no different to me flooding someone’s house and blaming myself and questioning my ability to do the job. 
 

A jury shouldn’t convict anyone on the basis of ‘if it isn’t Letby then who was it’ surely?

 

 

Anyway, the more I try and explain myself the more it looks like I’m defending her, or as some moron thought, that I wanted her freed.

 

 

I only stated I’m not that comfortable with convictions based on a jury’s verdict after the bloke up in Manchester. That’s hardly groundbreaking thought process is it?

 

As my solicitor mate said, ‘that’s why we shouldn’t be talking about bringing back capital punishment’ 

I'm beginning to think that you have done something wrong at work and need to get it off your chest, hence your sympathy for the convicted child killer.  You seem to think that killing a child by hitting or poisoning or cutting off their oxygen supply somehow equals a bad day at work.

[urban.spaceman]

GB News ghouls really are thick as pigshit aren't they

 

 

 

[urban.spaceman]

1 hour ago, urban.spaceman said:

For some reason that autocorrected to Trial by Wombat and that just sounds awesome.

Was gonna put this into an AI but Stable Diffusion's down and according to google it's already a craft beer from New England.

 

[Bordersfox]

25 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

I'm beginning to think that you have done something wrong at work and need to get it off your chest, hence your sympathy for the convicted child killer.  You seem to think that killing a child by hitting or poisoning or cutting off their oxygen supply somehow equals a bad day at work.

Come on mate that's really not what he was saying.  

 

The point was a bad day at work as a medical professional is probably a damn sight worse that a bad day at work for many of us.  

 

It's important we can have a nuanced debate about a really disturbing case without attacking each other.  

 

Nobody is arguing that what she did isn't truly wicked, but it's okay to also say that convictions based on circumstantial evidence are always difficult.

 

And I also agree with what was said about the death sentence, more generally. 

[The Year Of The Fox]

3 hours ago, Bordersfox said:

Come on mate that's really not what he was saying.  

 

The point was a bad day at work as a medical professional is probably a damn sight worse that a bad day at work for many of us.  

 

It's important we can have a nuanced debate about a really disturbing case without attacking each other.  

 

Nobody is arguing that what she did isn't truly wicked, but it's okay to also say that convictions based on circumstantial evidence are always difficult.

 

And I also agree with what was said about the death sentence, more generally. 

I can’t believe it needed explaining clearer 😂😂

[Bellend Sebastian]

They've recovered the flight recorders from Prigozhin's jet but all that's on them is this on a loop:

 

 

 

[MPH]

8 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Of course she was near the scene, it was her job to be close to those babies. (And to protect them too) 

 

 

All I’m saying about the bad day at work thing is that her bad day at work consists of kids dying. If she was innocent and has wrote this sort of stuff in a diary about her blaming herself, then that’s no different to me flooding someone’s house and blaming myself and questioning my ability to do the job. 
 

A jury shouldn’t convict anyone on the basis of ‘if it isn’t Letby then who was it’ surely?

 

 

Anyway, the more I try and explain myself the more it looks like I’m defending her, or as some moron thought, that I wanted her freed.

 

 

I only stated I’m not that comfortable with convictions based on a jury’s verdict after the bloke up in Manchester. That’s hardly groundbreaking thought process is it?

 

As my solicitor mate said, ‘that’s why we shouldn’t be talking about bringing back capital punishment’ 

 

as someone who used to work in a pediatric intensive care unit ( little bit similar to the neonatal unit she was working on) I know a little bit of the Dynamics… usually it’s one nurse to every 1-2 babies.  Sometimes 3 on a low risk neonatal care unit. You stay with those you are in charge of caring for. Some of the babies she was seen near( who died and who crashed), she had no right to be near them. She was  not supposed to be caring for them and she certainly wasn’t supposed to be administering any medicines to them.

[ozleicester]

interesting fact, wombats do square poo...

[The Horse's Mouth]

I thought the debate with letby is that we should have hanging back, not people arguing her innocence  

[Phenom]

I hope Trump is not tried before the 2024 election. He’s not electable and Joe Biden will wipe the floor with him. Biden will have more trouble with other Republicans

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Phenom said:

I hope Trump is not tried before the 2024 election. He’s not electable and Joe Biden will wipe the floor with him. Biden will have more trouble with other Republicans

Biden could also be an electorable liability come autumn 24 

then it becomes who is most likely to make it to 2028 with their marbles intact 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Biden could also be an electorable liability come autumn 24 

then it becomes who is most likely to make it to 2028 with their marbles intact 

Yep.

 

And this is really why people should be looking more at party policy and not just the two figureheads, because that tells a much clearer, much better story.

[Leeds Fox]

15 hours ago, The Year Of The Fox said:

Of course she was near the scene, it was her job to be close to those babies. (And to protect them too) 

 

 

All I’m saying about the bad day at work thing is that her bad day at work consists of kids dying. If she was innocent and has wrote this sort of stuff in a diary about her blaming herself, then that’s no different to me flooding someone’s house and blaming myself and questioning my ability to do the job. 
 

A jury shouldn’t convict anyone on the basis of ‘if it isn’t Letby then who was it’ surely?

 

 

Anyway, the more I try and explain myself the more it looks like I’m defending her, or as some moron thought, that I wanted her freed.

 

 

I only stated I’m not that comfortable with convictions based on a jury’s verdict after the bloke up in Manchester. That’s hardly groundbreaking thought process is it?

 

As my solicitor mate said, ‘that’s why we shouldn’t be talking about bringing back capital punishment’ 

 A Judge can over rule a jury’s verdict if he/she doesn’t believe. I know this doesn’t completely remove the likelihood of an incorrect conviction, but the Judge must be content there was sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict.

 

I do agree however, if someone is working 6 out of 7 days rather than 4 out of 7, the likelihood that they’ll be present for events that happens at work increase significantly. I don’t think this is the sole reason for the conviction though. Other factors are:

 

- Mortality rate dropped significantly after her suspension.

 

- She wasn’t just at work, she was seen to be present in the room for a number of the cases.

 

- She researched the families post death.

 

- She kept things such as the medical records of the deceased babies.

 

- It appeared that she wasn’t trying to help the babies as they were in a critical state.

 

All of the above is circumstantial, however the lack of witness and DNA evidence in any murder case shouldn’t rule out a guilty verdict otherwise we’d have far more murderers on the streets than we do otherwise. 
 

It’s a tough one, as are many cases that lack concrete evidence. 

[Leeds Fox]

13 hours ago, Bordersfox said:

Come on mate that's really not what he was saying.  

 

The point was a bad day at work as a medical professional is probably a damn sight worse that a bad day at work for many of us.  

 

It's important we can have a nuanced debate about a really disturbing case without attacking each other.  

 

Nobody is arguing that what she did isn't truly wicked, but it's okay to also say that convictions based on circumstantial evidence are always difficult.

 

And I also agree with what was said about the death sentence, more generally. 

It’s not relatable though really. A plumber breaking a pipe trying to loosen a fastener or a sparky nicking a cable cutting cable management isn’t the same as what goes on in the medical profession.

 

The tradesmen aren’t facing the same consequences, the level of care taken due to the potential consequences of each action differ greatly.

 

Would a plumber have that last yank on a stuck fastening, if the result of it was the death of a baby? 

 

Has any plumber flooded 18 houses in a 2 year period? I doubt it!

 

The analogies are poor but I’m sure you get my drift. There is often no room for error in some professions.

 

The injuries/symptoms in most of the cases weren’t caused by a mistake.

 

Insulin poisoning, injection of air, trauma to the heart, trauma to the liver… these aren’t remotely similar to flooding a house by mistake.

 

Didn’t mean to come across as a rant, rather just a different perspective from some of the posts in here.

[st albans fox]

35 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep.

 

And this is really why people should be looking more at party policy and not just the two figureheads, because that tells a much clearer, much better story.

Have you observed what’s been happening with global politics over the past decade or two ?  (That was rhetorical)

 

 

Edited 26 August 2023 by st albans fox

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Have you observed what’s been happening with global politics over the past decade or two ?  (That was rhetorical)

 

 

Ain't that the damn truth.

 

But it doesn't lead anywhere good.

[The Horse's Mouth]

1 hour ago, st albans fox said:

Biden could also be an electorable liability come autumn 24 

then it becomes who is most likely to make it to 2028 with their marbles intact 

He already is let’s be honest, the US is in a worse state than when he took over. Dems don’t really have a successor though.

[leicsmac]

16 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

He already is let’s be honest, the US is in a worse state than when he took over. Dems don’t really have a successor though.

Assuming for a moment that is true (and it's highly subjective and a debate in of itself), it's not thinking nearly long-term enough.

 

I mean, the Dems aren't likely to look to the long game as well as is needed either, but they're a damn sight more likely a bet to do so than the Repubs.

[The Horse's Mouth]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Assuming for a moment that is true (and it's highly subjective and a debate in of itself), it's not thinking nearly long-term enough.

 

I mean, the Dems aren't likely to look to the long game as well as is needed either, but they're a damn sight more likely a bet to do so than the Repubs.

Bidens approval rating has only dropped and I don’t think anyone could argue that his vote size was particularly to do with him, it was more an anti trump vote. His cognitive abilities weren’t there to begin with and he’s only got increasingly worse, the idea of him making it to 2028 when you can argue that the country has gotten worse at that point will potentially put the floating voters back in the trump camp.

 

the dems do seem really lost in terms of successors though, RFK only one who has captured peoples imagination but I can only imagine the DNC would treat him like Sanders was shafted and his vax stance would potentially cause infighting.Harris seems to be hated by most of the demographics she was in to appeal to on the ticket and I think intitially she was the favourite after Biden. I know they’re talking that California governor but he seems like the ideal man for trump to go against, politician to a t,

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Bidens approval rating has only dropped and I don’t think anyone could argue that his vote size was particularly to do with him, it was more an anti trump vote. His cognitive abilities weren’t there to begin with and he’s only got increasingly worse, the idea of him making it to 2028 when you can argue that the country has gotten worse at that point will potentially put the floating voters back in the trump camp.

 

the dems do seem really lost in terms of successors though, RFK only one who has captured peoples imagination but I can only imagine the DNC would treat him like Sanders was shafted and his vax stance would potentially cause infighting.Harris seems to be hated by most of the demographics she was in to appeal to on the ticket and I think intitially she was the favourite after Biden. I know they’re talking that California governor but he seems like the ideal man for trump to go against, politician to a t,

I am in total agreement about both the approval ratings and the lack of talent at the figurehead level.

 

However, I'm also saying that people are making a massive mistake by looking at that alone with such shallowness and not considering the party platforms as opposed to just that figurehead. I'm not sure if that's just a natural drawback of a presidential system or a more recent development, but concerning what needs to get done on the part of the US and other places it's a potentially hugely damaging weakness when folks will simply follow a celebrity/cult of personality/self-interest and not actually think of the long game.

 

Cory Booker has always been a solid shout for me though on that score.