|
|
Post by khanivor on Oct 12, 2022 20:04:56 GMT
A tragic shame. Poor guy
|
|
dogbot
Full Member
Posts: 8,738
|
Post by dogbot on Oct 12, 2022 20:21:07 GMT
Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddiemercurystwin on Oct 13, 2022 16:20:24 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63244376 Anyone following this, what a tragic case, I mean if she's guilty then throw away the key but I don't think it would be the first time someone was implied to be guilty of something because they were the always in the right place at the right time, by all accounts the hospital care wasn't up to much, would hate to be a member of that jury.
|
|
dogbot
Full Member
Posts: 8,738
|
Post by dogbot on Oct 13, 2022 16:44:53 GMT
Impossible to say without seeing the evidence (much of which we may never hear about), but I think that there's more too it than just the opportunity - murder charges usually require more than just that. And the news reports suggest that they have it...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Oct 13, 2022 18:11:27 GMT
Both my kids were prem and were in NICU for some weeks. I've had to stop reading the reports, absolutely sickening if what the prosecution allege is true. If it's circumstantial evidence, there's an awful lot if it.
|
|
|
|
Post by freddiemercurystwin on Oct 13, 2022 18:34:05 GMT
I'm no conspiracy theorist but there's been enough hospital poor care scandals over the years to make me suspect the powers that be may look for scapegoats rather than start questioning their own responsibilities. Just saying, before anyone condemns me. I really am on the fence and obviously have nothing more to go on than what the press care to report.
|
|
dogbot
Full Member
Posts: 8,738
|
Post by dogbot on Oct 13, 2022 19:23:21 GMT
The press are often not allowed (for reasons of prejudice etc) to report all of the evidence which is presented during a trial - it's not necessarily the case that they are choosing to report some things and not others.
We are (likely) not party to all of the same evidence as the jury are and as such it's impossible to make proper judgements.
It's worth noting that she wasn't charged until there had been extensive investigations by the police, the results of which were passed to the CPS, who decided that there was enough evidence for a case to be prosecuted.
What may have occurred at other hospitals and their competence seems entirely irrelevant to that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Oct 13, 2022 20:48:32 GMT
Plus this is the reporting on the prosecution. The defence will also be reported too.
|
|
wunty
Full Member
Pastry Forward
Posts: 6,673
|
Post by wunty on Oct 13, 2022 21:06:26 GMT
The thing is that the number of charges against her is staggering. That's an awful lot to be coincidental. Makes for grim reading regardless. Either way you look at it, these babies have been failed by a human or humans who should have been able to care for them better, which is heartbreaking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trowel 🏴 on Oct 13, 2022 21:06:32 GMT
When I did jury service I was dead sure after the prosecution case, then the defence came in swinging and knocked it all down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dougs on Oct 13, 2022 21:08:21 GMT
I would definitely have had to recuse myself. Couldn't do it, regardless of my civic duty.
|
|
dogbot
Full Member
Posts: 8,738
|
Post by dogbot on Oct 13, 2022 21:15:37 GMT
Plus this is the reporting on the prosecution. The defence will also be reported too. Indeed. The six o'clock news had defence reporting, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 13, 2022 21:16:59 GMT
(...this is why juries are bets got rid of, are just an archaic throwback to our past....)
I've known plently of people beat themselves up when things go wrong and blame themselves, even when objectively everything was done to the best of everybody's ability given the situation. I don't think those notes she wrote proves anything.
Maybe she's guilty, maybe she's not. If she isn't guilty her name is out there and her name, reputation and career is trashed. Go justice!
|
|
H-alphaFox
Junior Member
Buy Kramer Coin now!
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by H-alphaFox on Oct 14, 2022 15:59:56 GMT
|
|
Rich
Junior Member
Posts: 1,993 
|
Post by Rich on Oct 14, 2022 16:45:59 GMT
I support their cause but they need to fuck off into the sun with this shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Trowel 🏴 on Oct 14, 2022 16:47:07 GMT
Lots of coverage of the Sunflowers, but not seen this in the news yet
|
|
|
|
Post by freddiemercurystwin on Oct 14, 2022 17:29:49 GMT
I prefer it in yellow.  |
|
|
|
Post by dfunked on Oct 14, 2022 17:35:08 GMT
I'm really not seeing the link here... Throw a tin of paint on Rees-Mogg or someone if you want to make a statement you pointless twats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 14, 2022 17:52:18 GMT
You're a narcissist, so you do something attention grabby.
You justify by refering to environmentalism, because if anybody challenges you you can just shout "THERE IS A CLIMATE EMERGENCY!!!" As all nuance is lost on twitter, a categorical error is forced when if you get called a twat by someone, they get called a climate denier.
You win.
We all lose
|
|
dogbot
Full Member
Posts: 8,738
|
Post by dogbot on Oct 14, 2022 17:54:51 GMT
The pro-argument seems to be that "they're getting attention".
As with the tyre deflation lot, maybe, but it's not convincing anyone who isn't already convinced.
They were full of tears and wails about being assaulted when they were pulled off a road the other day, though.
|
|
EMarkM
Junior Member
Well, quite...
Posts: 2,150
|
Post by EMarkM on Oct 14, 2022 17:55:33 GMT
When I did jury service I was dead sure after the prosecution case, then the defence came in swinging and knocked it all down. There’s a massive amount of evidence for the “last one you heard sticks” protocol. I can’t remember the name of it now, but, back in the eighties, when I was studying my General Studies “A” Level, we watched a series of debate documentaries, and the unique selling point was that there was a toss-up at the beginning to see which half of the debate was shown first, and which one second. We almost always came away agreeing with the second argument, whatever it was. |
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 14, 2022 17:57:53 GMT
The problem with the "raising awareness" argument is that literally nobody is unaware of the issue. The only division is if you believe it requires action and what sort.
This type of behaviours is justing entrenching climate deniers because it gives them a concrete example of environmentalists failing to make a convincing argument.
|
|
dogbot
Full Member
Posts: 8,738
|
Post by dogbot on Oct 14, 2022 18:11:49 GMT
The problem with the "raising awareness" argument is that literally nobody is unaware of the issue. The only division is if you believe it requires action and what sort. This type of behaviours is justing entrenching climate deniers because it gives them a concrete example of environmentalists failing to make a convincing argument. Indeed. There's a reasonable argument around climate and all that, but they won't win it throwing soup at art and gluing themself to trains. But fight the power, I guess. Fwiw, I think there is an historically undeniable value to direct action protest, but they need to choose the right targets. This was definitely not that. |
|
askew
Full Member
Posts: 6,822
|
Post by askew on Oct 14, 2022 20:26:20 GMT
Lost: 1 billion crabs (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fishing-alaska-snow-crab-season-canceled-investigation-climate-change/)
|
|
H-alphaFox
Junior Member
Buy Kramer Coin now!
Posts: 2,287
|
Post by H-alphaFox on Oct 15, 2022 20:30:33 GMT
|
|
cubby
Full Member
doesn't get subtext
Posts: 6,397
|
Post by cubby on Oct 15, 2022 22:41:29 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-63244376 Anyone following this, what a tragic case, I mean if she's guilty then throw away the key but I don't think it would be the first time someone was implied to be guilty of something because they were the always in the right place at the right time, by all accounts the hospital care wasn't up to much, would hate to be a member of that jury. There is a slight element that reminds me of the Sally Clark miscarriage of justice. The coverage of a lot of this case was saying about statistics and how the statistics of it were a huge factor, and that's exactly what Roy Meadow famously used in the Sally Clark case and many others when giving his evidence. In short the statistics he used weren't appropriately calibrated, because it conflated cause given effect with effect given cause, which in the case of a death (and particularly multiple deaths) should be weighted for an innocent explanation, rather than a malicious one. He completely misrepresented this statistic over and over and got a string of grieving mothers who had had multiple children die of cot death jailed based on it. Sally Clark died of alcohol poisoning after eventually having her conviction overturned. So I'd always take a prosecutor using statistics like that with a pinch of salt now |
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 15, 2022 22:51:10 GMT
The problem is that all stats like that rely on Bayesian probability, not not just straightforward frequency based probability. The former is a based on context, pre-extisting knowledge, even expert opinion, and is often counterintuitive. The Monty Hall problem is an example of how the latter counter intuitive outcomes.
Frequency based probability is just basic coin toss mechaninics and is very straightforward.
Forensic evidence is based on Bayesian models, but is often discuss and presented as frequency based probability. Again, this is why the Monty Hall problem is such a headfuck.
And also why juries of lay people should be nowhere near deciding guilt or innocence.
|
|
cubby
Full Member
doesn't get subtext
Posts: 6,397
|
Post by cubby on Oct 15, 2022 23:22:06 GMT
Well the fact that judges, who should know the law and reject prejudicial evidence from getting to the jurors in the first place, let such evidence be presented in multiple cases doesn't assuage me that a judge would be better. After all a judge sees all the evidence, whether prejudiced, irrelevant, or untrustworthy, and is only one person. The jury system at least has a chance to filter out anything that the judge may have overlooked or not understood. I don't see the decision being in the hands of one, albeit highly trained, being any safer really. There's fewer checks and balances.
|
|
|
|
Post by simple on Oct 15, 2022 23:43:35 GMT
The problem with the "raising awareness" argument is that literally nobody is unaware of the issue. The only division is if you believe it requires action and what sort. This type of behaviours is justing entrenching climate deniers because it gives them a concrete example of environmentalists failing to make a convincing argument. Indeed. There's a reasonable argument around climate and all that, but they won't win it throwing soup at art and gluing themself to trains. But fight the power, I guess. Fwiw, I think there is an historically undeniable value to direct action protest, but they need to choose the right targets. This was definitely not that. There’s a really good BBC podcast about eco-activism and where it becomes eco-terrorism and what is appropriate and effective action call Burn Wild running at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Chopsen on Oct 15, 2022 23:53:42 GMT
The prominent use of juries is a peculiarity of legal systems which owe their origins to the British Empire. A lot of the rest of the world (including continental Europe) use them very little, or have even abolished them en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trialEven in the uk many trials may be heard by magistrates which doesn't involve juries by design. More recent legislation allows for trials without juries for fraud cases or cases where there are concerns about the viability of getting an independent jury. In civil cases of deciding the implications of points of law where evidence is often a matter of opinion ("who owns this tree") sure, knock yourself out. Get a jury. In cases where it involves interpreting technical data as an epistemological exercise: get to fuck. People are idiots, don't make the effort to understand things properly and are prone to bias. Me included. Get someone to do it who does it for a living, or at least a keen regular hobby (magistrates again). We didn't have forensics in the middle ages. Hell we didn't even have science. We didn't have modern probability. Would you make a decision on which cancer treatment to go for based on the opinions of 12 randoms who'd been locked in a room to have 2 different drug companies pitch their product at them? Of course you wouldn't. That would be mental. Just because something has a long history of existing doesn't make it the best option. |
|
