DerbysLane

Baffling UK jury vote:

12 Portugal

10 Switzerland

8 Croatia

7 Ireland

6 Sweden

5 Italy

4 Luxembourg

3 Latvia

2 Germany

1 Cyprus

Switzerland was a great performance, but Spain was the best song.

The UK public’s vote:

Israel – 12
Ireland – 10
Lithuania – 8
Croatia – 7
Ukraine – 6
Switzerland – 5
Latvia – 4
Finland – 3
France – 2
Greece - 1

22 hours ago, Comrade 86 said:

So are we. We're in this up to our necks. When I say 'we', what I actually mean is this absolute disgrace of a government.

I don't read the daily telegraph, but I do quite often flick through the headlines on their website.  The daily telegraph seems to set the agenda for the conservatives and consequently the current government so it is useful to keep an eye on what the telegraph are saying (even though most of it is crazy).

Anyway, they have been noticeably ramping up war talk, we should get prepared to go to war with Russia etc.  Mental.

I thought this topic was going to be about Mary Earp's underwear is outerwear dress.

Whilst most posters have focused on b4's positivity, he could at times develop a pathological dislike to certain players.

Whenever Stephen Warnock appears on the TV or radio I'm reminded of b4 because he was one such player.  Being sent off in an FA cup game was an unforgivable offence.  Chris Baird was another, but I can't remember if there was a trigger incident.  Nick Blackman has already been mentioned by other posters.

Is it possible to name an 11 of b4 dislikes?  I guess Eric Steele could be in goal.

I only read this sad news at lunchtime today.

I'm not a crier.  I don't ever cry when there is some sad story on the news.  I've never understood how anyone could cry at the death of a celebrity or a member of the royal family, people they've probably never met.

Yet for most of this afternoon I found myself blubbing my eyes out over the loss of b4.  I've never met Daniel.  Being an infrequent poster I've only read his messages on this forum.

B4 was the definition of a supporter.  Towards the end of a season I'll find myself looking at the fixtures imagining an unexpected turn around of form, an amazing sequence of results that will project Derby into the playoffs or autos.  Of course I'll never publicly express these dreams, we've mostly been conditioned as adults to have a cynical outlook.  B4 believed though and was not afraid to say so.

I hope B4s family and friends can take some comfort from these messages.  He will be missed.

This conflict has exposed how morally bankrupt the leaders in this country are.  Not just politicians (my voting intention for the general election has now changed), but religious leaders too. 

You'd think it would be the natural position for the head of the Church of England to seek out peace, to minimize the loss of life, but no, Welby talks about Israel having a right and duty to defend itself.  Hamas is described as evil, but the same description is not applied to Israel when they kill thousands of children.  

ITV news last night had an interview with the Chief Rabbi.  While we may bend over backwards to make a distinction between the Jewish faith and Israel, it was obvious last night that the rabbi makes no such distinction.  Rather than trying to calm anxiety, he ramps it up, describing the protestors as thousands of Hamas supporters.  Again the conflict is described in terms of good vs evil.  No concern shown for the Gaza civilians (although I accept this maybe due to editing).

The vast majority of protestors just want an end to the violence/deaths.  Why not focus on that?

11 hours ago, MaltRam said:

I let a lot of what you say on here slide Mostyn, because I feel that, like myself, you may not be the full 9 yards at times...but you should hang your head in crying shame for having typed that. Shame on you.

That is the same ratio of reported/actual deaths I've seen suggested by a world leader for the Gaza hospital bombing.  President Biden doubts the casualty figures in Gaza as a whole.  Are you calling for them to hang their head in shame too?

Personally I believe the Gaza figures.  I also believe the Israel figures.  But I don't believe everything that is reported, for example, I think it is now widely accepted that 40 babies weren't beheaded by Hamas.  However, if you do a search for 'Palestine' on twitter you'll easily come across videos of beheaded babies from Israeli bombing.

6 hours ago, Carl Sagan said:

Just leaving this here.

What is he trying to achieve with those illuminated vans?  Or the people who put up posters with the faces of kidnapped Israelis?  Do they think there is a network of Hamas leaders in London that will suddenly have sympathy and order the return of the hostages?  Or is this a not very subtle attempt to show support for the actions of Israel and put pressure on the UK government to continue its support of the Israel military?

The police obviously think it could be seen as the latter and have done the correct thing in stopping it driving in the direction of protestors who support Palestine.  I really don't see the problem.

Does the guy in the video think it would be okay for somebody to wave a Palestinian flag outside a synagogue?

On 19/10/2023 at 15:08, PistoldPete said:

The IHRA definition says it’s ok to criticise Israel but no more than any other country for similar acts.

I get the theory behind this, but it doesn't and can never work in practice.  To demonstrate this here are three tweets from Rachel Riley on Oct 15th:

Quote

An estimated 1.3million Uyghur Muslims are currently in concentrations camps in China in the first genocide the UK has recognised while it is happening.

Why does no one care?

Quote

Iran killed 5000 protesters in just one month last year.

Where is the global solidarity?

Quote

It is over 12 years since the conflict in Syria began. The conflict has killed more than 350,000 people and caused the displacement of half the Syrian population. Chemical weapons have also been deployed.

Where are the protests?

Presumably these were in response to the pro-Palestinian rallies held last weekend.  What are we to take from this spectacular whataboutery?  Is she hinting that the protestors or the UK in general are anti-Semitic based on the IHRA definition?

I'm pretty sure the UK has seen in the past protests about China, Syria and Iran.  The whole reason for protest is to demand change.  Syria and Iran are already under strict sanctions.  The UK government has criticised China over its treatment of Muslims.  What more is the UK supposed to do?  Further protests in the UK are just going to be ignored by the leaders/dictators of those countries, it would be pointless.

On the other hand Israel is a democracy and supposedly an allie of the UK.  What Israel does reflects on the UK, especially when our Prime Minister says things like "we hope you win".  Taking to the streets to support Palestine is far more relevant in this present time and with our relationship with Israel.  The fact that Israel is a democracy that receives billions in weapons aid should mean it comes under greater scrutiny.

Also, people have different connections with different countries/areas.  If your family comes from Palestine or you have friends from there then you will obviously be more engaged with the issues surrounding that small region.

The IHRA definition is a nonsense.  A bit like claiming an octopus is anti-Semitic.

On 18/10/2023 at 20:52, PistoldPete said:

So if Hamas launch a rocket aimed at an Israeli plane and it lands on a hospital , is that a murder of innocent civilians? I would say not. It is self defence. Same with Israeli attacks they are acts of self defence.

It has been reported that since Israel started it's bombing, a child has died in Gaza every 15 minutes. Is that a reasonable form of self-defence?

Of course it isn't.  A reasonable self-defence would be increasing troop numbers around the border, building better barriers, erecting watch towers, etc.

Self-defence is not an excuse to do what you like.  Besides, Hamas could equally claim that they killed Israeli citizens in self-defence, that guerrilla warfare is the only way they can take on Israel.

How are we to reasonably judge the aggressor?  Number of people killed?  Land occupied?  It doesn't stack up well for Israel.

If Jewish people are concerned that the actions of Israel reflects badly on Jewish people then they should call out the actions of Israel, not try and justify it.

52 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

In reality there is no democratic Government anywhere in the world that would ever get reelected if they literally did nothing in response to such atrocities. 

Not true.  After Pan Am flight 103 exploded the UK re-elected the Tory government and the USA re-elected a Republican president.  I was only a child at the time, but I don't recall us bombing the crap out of Libya to 'defend ourselves'.

When I say do nothing I mean take no military action.

On 17/10/2023 at 17:01, PistoldPete said:

You can call it reckless , even potentially a war crime if you prefer, but they do not on purpose kill civilians . 

Hamas have injured and killed civilians.  They have taken those lives for their own objectives.

Israel maybe aiming to kill Hamas, but they do so with the near certain knowledge that dropping a bomb in Gaza is going to injure and kill civilians.  They too are taking civilian lives for their own purposes.

They are fundamentally the same act.

It is ludicrous to keep saying, "but they do not on purpose kill civilians" as if that makes it okay.  When Olivia Pratt-Korbel was killed in Liverpool we didn't say to the killer "oh never mind you weren't aiming at her".  Nor did we charge him with the lesser manslaughter.  He was convicted of murder.  It was irrelevant that Olivia was not the target.

Now war is messy and accidents do happen, a rocket misfires etc and civilians get killed.  But what Israel is doing is not an accident.  The deaths of civilians are entirely predictable.

As far as I can see the only way the death of a civilian can be purposefully taken is if it ultimately saves more lives.  I would suggest a lot more lives have to be saved.  Israel cannot claim this.

The invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11 was a mistake, worse was the invasion of Iraq.  Why do we never learn from history and endlessly repeat the same mistakes?  

I'm not a philosopher, but given the already high number of civilian deaths and the high number of military deaths (on both sides) that will come in a ground invasion, I think the morally correct thing for Israel to have done/do is nothing.

11 minutes ago, PistoldPete said:

 No it really isn’t. They are going after Hamas. Precision bombing is not that precise and that will result in tragic loss of civilian life. But they are not going after civilians it is ridiculous to claim that. 

In your opinion, how many children is it acceptable to kill in order to kill one member of Hamas?

22 hours ago, Rev said:

Tbh @DerbysLane, it doesn't matter if the press have interpreted the evidence correctly, or if they have presented facts fairly, they weren't the jury. 

 

It is relevant though for the thread title "Why are police forces still getting away with this crap?".  Firstly it is for the defence to stop them, but after that the only ones who can realistically hold them to account are the press?

Yet it seems in this case the police are briefing exaggerated sensational stuff and the press are lapping it up. Let's face it a serial killer on a children's ward sells a lot more papers than another story of yet another failing NHS maternity unit.

It seems like the diary entries only played a minor role in this case, but you wouldn't think it from the headlines "Lucy Letby used secret code written in her diary to keep a catalogue of her horrific crimes, police reveal".  Having looked into it a bit more, the 'LD' really is the 'secret code' they are talking about.  Except it is not a secret code to probably every nurse in the country.  It is written on days when she isn't accused of anything, so neither is it a marker of crimes. 

The various news articles go on "a code of coloured asterisks among the documents, marking 'significant events' in the police investigation, detectives said".  I cannot find any further details about asterisks, but her diary is obviously colour coded: work stuff in blue and social events in pink.  This seems entirely normal, I bet a huge percentage of women in the 20-30 age bracket do the same.  Not the sinister stuff it is made out to be is it?

The so called trophies she kept also generated lots of headlines, with the obvious implication that she must be guilty because of it.  The reality is the police found hundreds of handover notes and other documents relating to the 'suspected cases' as well as non suspect cases.  There was no difference as far as I can tell.  Easily explained by not emptying your pockets when you go home.  I bet lots of nurses have a similar bag full of this stuff, you can't put it out with the recycling.  Unfortunately the judge has accepted the spin the prosecution/police have put on it and referred to trophies in his summing up.

Take away this sensationalised stuff and the case is all medical interpretation.  The 'hero' z-list TV doctor now vividly remembers unusual purple marks on the skin that he repeatedly failed to make a clinical note of at the time.  This allows new theories to be made, injected air etc, overturning the autopsies that showed nothing suspicious.  Just how do you inject air into a baby without being noticed by the four other people in the small room?

I'm sorry, but this case screams unsafe conviction.

1 hour ago, GboroRam said:

I think you answered your own question. If you read biased reports, and it sounds like these are, you will be potentially listening to a warped perspective. 

Please point me to these unbiased reports.  

6 hours ago, SSD said:

I'm puzzled why people seem to think why Lucy Letby is an innocent person.

I'm similarly amazed that there are people who don't have doubts.  I think I'm right when I say the murder convictions weren't unanimous decisions.

Quote

Unless all the whistleblowing and planting of fake diaries was a big conspiracy against her, which I highly doubt. 

Literally nobody is suggesting they are fake diaries or notes.  What people are questioning is the cherry picking of sentences from the post it notes and suggesting these are undeniably a confession.  Take the 'green post it note' described in the Sky article linked above.  The article highlights the "I AM EVIL I DID THIS" and "I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough.".  What the article doesn't describe is the note also says "I haven't done anything wrong".  In fact the article crops out this bit of the note from the picture.  So much for unbiased reporting?

It's very hard to decipher the note as sentences are overlaid on top of each other and the hand writing is not the clearest.  Above the "I killed them on" is what appears to be "They wen't" i.e. the complete sentence might be "They wen't I killed them on purpose because I'm not good enough to care for them and I'm a horrible evil person".  So it could be she is just recounting the words of her accusers. The note was written after she had been arrested/suspended from the neonatal ward.

I can't find any reliable information on the secret diary codes.  If you do a search all you get is a load of articles from the 24th of Aug.  These clearly all copy each other as they all go on about an 'LO' code.  The basis for this is a screenshot from an hour long documentary that Cheshire police released on YouTube.  Now I'm rubbish at reading other people's handwriting, but even I can see that it is not LO, but is LD.  This is apparently a common code for Long Day.  Surely there is more to this secret code than that?  The journalists writing these articles have obviously not been present during court proceedings, or it would appear even spoken to the police about it before writing these articles.

A diary is for recording significant events, I don't see it as that unusual that she might write the names of babies that died.  What I do find concerning is the police have said they used the diary to find her victims.  That is just bonkers as you just have circular confirmation.

Quote

The key for me is the lack of emotion. If you'd been innocent of this crime, you'd be horrified and sobbing throughout the trial.

I don't get this.  Maybe I'm a serial killer too?

Quote

She showed no emotion, lacked cooperation and to top it off didn't even appear for her sentencing.

As far as I know she answered every question asked of her.  Not once did she say "No comment".  

If you are innocent and are about to have the key thrown away then I can understand not turning up in disgust.

10 hours ago, Rev said:

I had my doubts anyway, but now an anonymous blogger has cast new light, I too am in.

 

I know I sound like a lunatic, but they're probably way more reliable than the headlines you've read in the mainstream media.  Take the 'confession note', which is nothing more than a jumbled up mess of scribble from a clearly anguished person.

I think this guy https://gill1109.com/?amp=1 provided the statistics that helped free a Dutch nurse jailed in similar circumstances to Letby.  So the Dutch courts took him seriously.

There are a few sites questioning the evidence that was presented at trial.  It is quite convincing, albeit many of the people making the claims seem to be the conspiracy theory, climate change denying, Trump supporting type.  I have such little faith in the police or NHS hospital consultants that I'm more inclined to believe these random internet people.

For example, https://www.chimpinvestor.com/post/more-remarkable-statistics-in-the-lucy-letby-case or there is a whole series of posts at https://lawhealthandtech.substack.com/p/scepticism-in-action .  These https://www.scienceontrial.com/ are even raising money for a re-trial.

You are bound to feel the outside pressure to find her guilty.  How many times did they see the trial reported on TV or in the newspapers? How many podcasts followed the trial?  Social media?  You can't keep yourself in a bubble for 10 months.  The police had a whole department investigating this for years, you have to be a brave juror to go against all that.

Having sat through 10 months they were guaranteed to find her guilty.

14 days after this thread was started, Lucy Letby was sentenced to life imprisonment.  A conviction based on incredibly weak evidence.  Anybody else have doubts about it?

On 24/09/2022 at 15:14, Stive Pesley said:

As per above - for me, it's nothing to do with her having that opinion, it's the language she uses when doing so that make her seem transphobic. When she talks about people "choosing to be trans-sexual" and people "wishing to live as a trans-sexual", that immediately marks her out as having absolutely zero idea what people with gender dysphoria have to deal with. They don't choose any of it any more than someone chooses to be disabled, chooses to be black or chooses to be gay - it's just who they are. 

I have zero idea about the subject too, but from my ignorant viewpoint she is right, people do choose to be trans-sexual?  They may not have a choice about gender dysphoria, but they can choose how to treat/live with it.  In the recent past it was easy, there was no option you just had to accept your birth sex/gender.  You would hope that nowadays phycologists could help make that easier, to accept reality.  Instead we have clinicians (e.g. Tavistock) and the media encouraging young people to run with their thoughts and live as a trans-sexual.

My nephews tell me there is now such a thing as trans-disabled.  People who believe they should be disabled and are purposefully injuring themselves so they have a disability.

I was happy until I read "although the Timothy Dalton phase was a bit cheesy".  The Living Daylights is the best Bond film.