RANT CORNER

[greenmark]

The standard of ranting has really slumped.

[Derek27]

My automation laid the draw at 1.08, and then again at 1.04. When the goal went in I realised I had a one-tick offset that were both snapped up.

[Derek27]

Another trip to the hospital. Ten minutes searching for a way out ... only to find I've gone around in a big circle.

£3.50 for a coffee and they don't even use full-cream milk, £1.65 for a pack of two ... just two, biscuits!

And another cab driver with his tongue apparently removed!

[Derek27]

Just popped out for a fag. It's flipping freezing out there. Feels like February!

[conduirez]

What's Lucy Letby trying to do? Get her sentence cut to just five life sentences?

Derek wrote this in "Where are all the jokes" about Letby appeal.

I personally no longer trust the Justice system in the UK, nor the capabilities of the NHS to provide good care in some of its departments.

I don't know if Letby is guilty or not, but with the state of baby death rates in all NHS hospitals around the country, I actually have worries about this conviction on the statistics ground and so do distinguished statisticians.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... d-in-trial

There have been previous cases of miscarriages of justice around the world, including a nurse in the Netherlands, a mother in Australia who spent 20 years in jail, from bad statistics, simply because prosecutors will look for statisticians who lend weight to their case, but this is not right. If your interested read this other article.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... oddy-stats

[Derek27]

What's Lucy Letby trying to do? Get her sentence cut to just five life sentences?

Derek wrote this in "Where are all the jokes" about Letby appeal.

I personally no longer trust the Justice system in the UK, nor the capabilities of the NHS to provide good care in some of its departments.

I don't know if Letby is guilty or not, but with the state of baby death rates in all NHS hospitals around the country, I actually have worries about this conviction on the statistics ground and so do distinguished statisticians.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... d-in-trial

There have been previous cases of miscarriages of justice around the world, including a nurse in the Netherlands, a mother in Australia who spent 20 years in jail, from bad statistics, simply because prosecutors will look for statisticians who lend weight to their case, but this is not right. If your interested read this other article.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... oddy-stats

The evidence was pretty overwhelming. She was on duty for every death plus they found bizarre notes about them in her home, which she couldn't explain. I would trust the jury got that case right.

[greenmark]

What's Lucy Letby trying to do? Get her sentence cut to just five life sentences?

Derek wrote this in "Where are all the jokes" about Letby appeal.

I personally no longer trust the Justice system in the UK, nor the capabilities of the NHS to provide good care in some of its departments.

I don't know if Letby is guilty or not, but with the state of baby death rates in all NHS hospitals around the country, I actually have worries about this conviction on the statistics ground and so do distinguished statisticians.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... d-in-trial

There have been previous cases of miscarriages of justice around the world, including a nurse in the Netherlands, a mother in Australia who spent 20 years in jail, from bad statistics, simply because prosecutors will look for statisticians who lend weight to their case, but this is not right. If your interested read this other article.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... oddy-stats

The evidence was pretty overwhelming. She was on duty for every death plus they found bizarre notes about them in her home, which she couldn't explain. I would trust the jury got that case right.

The notes found are open to interpretation. If you are genuinely a nurse by vocation. Losing patients would be crushing therefore outpouring of emotion in the privacy of your own home is probably not a reliable indicator of guilt. And I can easily imagine that kind of dedicated person would blame themselves and use damning language. But we'll never know. Justice isn't truth.

[Derek27]

Derek wrote this in "Where are all the jokes" about Letby appeal.

I personally no longer trust the Justice system in the UK, nor the capabilities of the NHS to provide good care in some of its departments.

I don't know if Letby is guilty or not, but with the state of baby death rates in all NHS hospitals around the country, I actually have worries about this conviction on the statistics ground and so do distinguished statisticians.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... d-in-trial

There have been previous cases of miscarriages of justice around the world, including a nurse in the Netherlands, a mother in Australia who spent 20 years in jail, from bad statistics, simply because prosecutors will look for statisticians who lend weight to their case, but this is not right. If your interested read this other article.

https://www.science.org/content/article ... oddy-stats

The evidence was pretty overwhelming. She was on duty for every death plus they found bizarre notes about them in her home, which she couldn't explain. I would trust the jury got that case right.

The notes found are open to interpretation. If you are genuinely a nurse by vocation. Losing patients would be crushing therefore outpouring of emotion in the privacy of your own home is probably not a reliable indicator of guilt. And I can easily imagine that kind of dedicated person would blame themselves and use damning language. But we'll never know. Justice isn't truth.

If you're a nurse, you shouldn't be the last person to care for every baby that dies. It wasn't just coincidence, there was evidence of tampering with the machinery, oxygen, milk temperature, etc.

[Derek27]

Just got home and there's cat fur on my keyboard! WTF does the cat get up to when I'm out?

[greenmark]

The evidence was pretty overwhelming. She was on duty for every death plus they found bizarre notes about them in her home, which she couldn't explain. I would trust the jury got that case right.

The notes found are open to interpretation. If you are genuinely a nurse by vocation. Losing patients would be crushing therefore outpouring of emotion in the privacy of your own home is probably not a reliable indicator of guilt. And I can easily imagine that kind of dedicated person would blame themselves and use damning language. But we'll never know. Justice isn't truth.

If you're a nurse, you shouldn't be the last person to care for every baby that dies. It wasn't just coincidence, there was evidence of tampering with the machinery, oxygen, milk temperature, etc.

What if she was in fact the last person to care for a baby that dies? By a quirk of process or rota?
As we know statistics can be twisted to suit the agenda.
One thing for sure is there will be journalists etc all over this case looking for flaws. We shall see what that process produces.

[Derek27]

The notes found are open to interpretation. If you are genuinely a nurse by vocation. Losing patients would be crushing therefore outpouring of emotion in the privacy of your own home is probably not a reliable indicator of guilt. And I can easily imagine that kind of dedicated person would blame themselves and use damning language. But we'll never know. Justice isn't truth.

If you're a nurse, you shouldn't be the last person to care for every baby that dies. It wasn't just coincidence, there was evidence of tampering with the machinery, oxygen, milk temperature, etc.

What if she was in fact the last person to care for a baby that dies? By a quirk of process or rota?
As we know statistics can be twisted to suit the agenda.
One thing for sure is there will be journalists etc all over this case looking for flaws. We shall see what that process produces.

Jurors look at the evidence, not hypotheticals.

The trial was quite a while ago and my memory is sketchy, but I think there were perfectly healthy babies when the previous shift ended, only for them to be seriously ill at the end of her shift. Can't believe that was a coincidence, but she wasn't convicted purely on the basis that it was no coincident, there was a lot of other incriminating evidence.

[greenmark]

If you're a nurse, you shouldn't be the last person to care for every baby that dies. It wasn't just coincidence, there was evidence of tampering with the machinery, oxygen, milk temperature, etc.

What if she was in fact the last person to care for a baby that dies? By a quirk of process or rota?
As we know statistics can be twisted to suit the agenda.
One thing for sure is there will be journalists etc all over this case looking for flaws. We shall see what that process produces.

Jurors look at the evidence, not hypotheticals.

The trial was quite a while ago and my memory is sketchy, but I think there were perfectly healthy babies when the previous shift ended, only for them to be seriously ill at the end of her shift. Can't believe that was a coincidence, but she wasn't convicted purely on the basis that it was no coincident, there was a lot of other incriminating evidence.

Was there a lot of incriminating evidence? My memory was no direct evidence and lots of circumstantial, statistical data.

[Derek27]

What if she was in fact the last person to care for a baby that dies? By a quirk of process or rota?
As we know statistics can be twisted to suit the agenda.
One thing for sure is there will be journalists etc all over this case looking for flaws. We shall see what that process produces.

Jurors look at the evidence, not hypotheticals.

The trial was quite a while ago and my memory is sketchy, but I think there were perfectly healthy babies when the previous shift ended, only for them to be seriously ill at the end of her shift. Can't believe that was a coincidence, but she wasn't convicted purely on the basis that it was no coincident, there was a lot of other incriminating evidence.

Was there a lot of incriminating evidence? My memory was no direct evidence and lots of circumstantial, statistical data.

My memory recalls a lot of both. I think her superiors reported suspicious behaviour or made allegations against her but they ended up being forced to apologise to her.

From Wiki: In a text message sent to a friend on 9 April 2016 two hours after the collapse of Child M, Letby wrote: "Work has been shit but... I have just won £135 on Grand National!! [horse emoji]." and, in a group chat after the winning bet: "Unpacking party sounds good to me with my flavoured vodka ha ha.

We get all sorts of stuff about a trial reported on the news, but remember, the jury hears all of that and much more. They're in a much better place to weight up the evidence. What I hear on the news about a case never convinces me of innocence or guilt, but may make me feel the jury's likely to have reached the right conclusion.

[greenmark]

Jurors look at the evidence, not hypotheticals.

The trial was quite a while ago and my memory is sketchy, but I think there were perfectly healthy babies when the previous shift ended, only for them to be seriously ill at the end of her shift. Can't believe that was a coincidence, but she wasn't convicted purely on the basis that it was no coincident, there was a lot of other incriminating evidence.

Was there a lot of incriminating evidence? My memory was no direct evidence and lots of circumstantial, statistical data.

My memory recalls a lot of both. I think her superiors reported suspicious behaviour or made allegations against her but they ended up being forced to apologise to her.

From Wiki: In a text message sent to a friend on 9 April 2016 two hours after the collapse of Child M, Letby wrote: "Work has been shit but... I have just won £135 on Grand National!! [horse emoji]." and, in a group chat after the winning bet: "Unpacking party sounds good to me with my flavoured vodka ha ha.

We get all sorts of stuff about a trial reported on the news, but remember, the jury hears all of that and much more. They're in a much better place to weight up the evidence. What I hear on the news about a case never convinces me of innocence or guilt, but may make me feel the jury's likely to have reached the right conclusion.

How I wish trusted Justice as you do.
But you very well may be right, as were the jurors. I just have my doubts. How did OJ be found innocent?

[Derek27]

Was there a lot of incriminating evidence? My memory was no direct evidence and lots of circumstantial, statistical data.

My memory recalls a lot of both. I think her superiors reported suspicious behaviour or made allegations against her but they ended up being forced to apologise to her.

From Wiki: In a text message sent to a friend on 9 April 2016 two hours after the collapse of Child M, Letby wrote: "Work has been shit but... I have just won £135 on Grand National!! [horse emoji]." and, in a group chat after the winning bet: "Unpacking party sounds good to me with my flavoured vodka ha ha.

We get all sorts of stuff about a trial reported on the news, but remember, the jury hears all of that and much more. They're in a much better place to weight up the evidence. What I hear on the news about a case never convinces me of innocence or guilt, but may make me feel the jury's likely to have reached the right conclusion.

How I wish trusted Justice as you do.
But you very well may be right, as were the jurors. I just have my doubts. How did OJ be found innocent?

I don't remember the OJ trial but he was great on Naked Gun.

I think there are occasions where you can form a firm opinion from what you hear on the news, like the pathetic excuse Ian Huntley had for "accidentally" killing poor Holly and Jessica, or Oscar Pistorius firing bullets through a toilet door without simply saying, "Darling, is that you?".

I'm only halfway through both of these series, but I'm hoping by the time I've competed them, they'll have made a few more. It's not as if they're getting short of material.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_Evil_Killers