Jump to content

dirtydog

Members
  • Posts

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by dirtydog

  1. Here's one of the posts I had deleted by the BBC, by the way. I didn't call the BBC liars, or call it a climate scam, or any sort of 'provocative' language. I just said the bit in bold. Their 'rules' are evidently so broad they can delete anything they want which questions their narratives. Very Orwellian.
  2. Could be, shame they didn't explain it better or you'd already know! My understanding is we will have the ability to keep a 'landline' in a sense, ie. it will run over the internet, and I think we can even keep our old phone numbers. I believe you can plug a phone into the new router they'll provide. Two downsides are that it will no longer work if the power goes out, and also it will be digital which can result in latency, meaning 'natural' conversations you can have over 'old-fashioned' copper wires are no longer possible. If you've ever spoken to someone on the phone nowadays where one of you jumps in at slightly the wrong time, that's why - it's like you're talking to each other via satellite. Copper wires are low latency for telephone calls. So in a sense we're going backwards. I think this is going to happen though, there is probably no point trying to prevent it, it's a fait accompli. The only question remaining is how long we have left to use the old system. ie. is it late 2025 for everyone, or sooner for some? Could it be extended another 5-10 years? We don't know yet.
  3. I noticed the BBC today had yet another climate alarmist article about the warm weather we're having this week which they are tying to 'climate change'. Many of the comments to the article point out the BBC's scaremongering and the BBC moderator has been very busy deleting posts. I had a few deleted which were very mild and didn't break any of their 'rules' but have also now been put on moderation, so will never again be able to contradict their fake narratives because it will have to be approved by the censors first. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66710496 There is the right of appeal though! So I appealed and shortly afterwards received a reply. The BBC gets to mark their own homework, appeals are as much of a scam as their climate change hysteria.
  4. There should be more publicity about this, I have become dimly aware of it over the last year but it is hard to get really concrete specific info about what will happen exactly, when and where. It is something which will profoundly affect millions of homes and businesses. For example, many people still have their internet over the copper wires, even if they have fibre to the cabinet (FTTC). I have read conflicting reports about whether such people's internet will also be cut off at the end of 2025 or if it will go on for years more. If you look on the BT website or other places which purport to tell you 'all you need to know' it turns out they don't really tell you much at all, it's all very vague. I have FTTC and could get FTTP as it is in my street now. However it would be quite intrusive to get it installed as it needs a wire putting through the garden, a hole drilled in the wall and an engineer coming into the house etc. Not a massive deal maybe but given that my existing internet and phone work adequately to my liking, I have no particular desire to change if I don't have to. When will I absolutely have to? I don't know. I can do without the landline but would like to continue receiving FTTC if possible.
  5. Apparently it isn't unusual for staff to take notes home, they aren't supposed to but it isn't evidence of guilt in itself. I think if I was a sadistic serial killer under investigation and I had stuff at home which could make me look guilty, I would be disposing of it ASAP, not leaving it there for the police to find. About her behaviour and the way she spoke to people, like some of the families didn't like her manner, thought she said some inappropriate things etc. - like I think one of them was they were spending some final moments with their dying or dead child and she tried to hurry them along. On the face of it, this sounds terrible. But what does it mean? I remember what I was like when I was her age at the time (25) and I cringe at some of the stupid things I said or did. This is one of the reasons I think she might not be guilty or at least not fully criminally culpable - in the latter case she might have done some inappropriate things but not out of cold calculated malice but because she was a bit thick or stupid if that makes sense. I used to be like that. I would say or do things and people would look at me as if to say, 'did you just say that? Why did you say or do that stupid thing.' And then the penny would drop for me, as I was a bit slow, and I would realise oh no I shouldn't have said or done that. It's like autism. You don't pick up on social cues or behave appropriately, and don't realise it. I have improved a lot since then but it taught me to think carefully about how I come across to people so I don't make any more faux pas and embarrass myself or others (or offend others, even worse). And sometimes at work I would do the wrong thing in the course of my work, make a stupid mistake, and then need to have it corrected. It is embarrassing to look back. I was a bit of a late developer and I think Lucy MIGHT have been the same. This means she might have said or done some wrong things but not have grasped what she was doing. And having a sometimes less than ideal bedside manner isn't unheard of among medical professionals after all, some doctors aren't the best in that regard either. Her behaviour while giving evidence proves she isn't a cold heartless person or she wouldn't have shown such emotion at hearing the voice of the doctor she used to be friends with. This was a painful reminder of the happy life she used to have and which she would have known she is likely never going to have again. Who wouldn't be tearful at that moment? And her answers about things being a normal pattern of behaviour, or another thing she was criticised for, giving yes or no answers to some questions, all of that is ridiculous to me. People are reaching and being intent on reading things into it which just aren't there. Those sort of bland answers are what you are told to give in court, especially if asked a binary question, you should answer yes or no, not say more than you've been asked for. If the barrister wants more then they should rephrase their question. edit - although when I say rephrase the question, I don't mean like this: (I found this post on another forum) In a US court, after the prosecutor asked questions like that then the defence attorney would have objected and said 'asked and answered' and the judge would have told the prosecutor to move on. If you ask anyone the same question in very slightly different ways repeatedly, with the intent to wind them up, especially someone in a highly stressful position, they are probably going to snap aren't they? But apparently this means you have the 'look of evil'. People just see what they want to see sometimes, don't they?
  6. Yes I watch loads of these types of programmes, both from the UK and especially the US who produce a vast quantity of them, many high quality where you get to hear from the police investigators, the prosecution and/or defence lawyers and the victims' families (and sometimes the victims if they survived). Also you often see police interviews and courtroom testimony. In the UK some good ones are 24 Hours in Police Custody or Police Suspect No. 1. On American TV (which you can download here) some good ones are Accused, Guilty or Innocent, Murder Tapes, American Justice, Interrogation Raw and Accident, Suicide or Murder. I could list a few dozen more. I would recommend these types of programmes to anyone, you don't have to be interested in true crime per se. You learn so much about people watching these, and by learning about others we can also learn about ourselves I think. I find these sort of programmes fascinating, and one thing you soon learn is that nobody can be sure when someone else is lying. You often hear people say they can tell; even some police investigators believe this! Oh you can tell if they look down when you ask them a difficult question, it shows they are being evasive. Or they scratch their nose, can't keep eye contact, and so on. None of this is true at all. People can often LOOK guilty and turn out to be absolutely innocent (not just unproven guilt, but their actual innocence is proven categorically). And sometimes the ones who come across as entirely sincere, helpful, innocent etc. are guilty. Guilty people can sometimes even pass a lie detector test, and vice versa (which is why they are not allowed in court, they are unreliable - although apparently quite often correct nonetheless). Some of the cases I saw in American courts were really incredible, sometimes someone who just seems so obviously innocent early on ends up being guilty. There was one I remember where the person so sincerely pleaded their innocence that you would think nobody would disbelieve them (me included), but it turned out they were guilty and they later owned up to it as well. Some people are just incredibly good liars, they lie as easily as breathing. But suffice to say, nothing at all about Lucy Letby's behaviour when arrested, when interviewed by police or in court, proves anything either way about her guilt or innocence. That's all that really needs to be said about it. All the 'experts' saying otherwise are using pseudoscience and jumping to conclusions because it makes them look like they have some special wisdom and knowledge - they don't. In some of these investigations in America (and it does happen here too), the district attorney and all the police were 100% dead certain the accused was guilty, they laid into them in the interrogations, they treated them terribly, and later... it turned out they were dead wrong. And very tellingly, some of these cops DID NOT CARE they had got it so badly wrong, they were unrepentant. They were even angry that they'd been shown to be wrong, rather than being relieved they hadn't got an innocent person convicted. They hadn't learned to not be so sure to jump to conclusions in future, they hadn't learned to have any humility and that they might be wrong. I think the British justice system generally works quite well. It's these complex cases based on large amounts of circumstantial evidence, and science that the jury doesn't understand, that it comes up short.
  7. I think she has a hell of an uphill battle. The system in the UK is much harder to appeal than in America I believe. Our system seems more prone to miscarriages of justice for a few reasons. My understanding of this is shallow so maybe someone can correct me if I'm wrong. In the US you would be able to hire the best defence attorneys for trial, lawyers who work exclusively in defence and this means you can get someone who passionately believes in your innocence and will do their damnedest to get you off. In the UK, the barrister defending you will also work for the prosecution in other trials. In theory barristers are strictly neutral and the fact they also work for the prosecution doesn't impact their ability to put on a good defence. In practice though, to me that is dubious. And in Lucy Letby's trial it was apparent that the defence team were lacklustre and seemed to be just going through the motions. In an American court, any top attorney would be landing heavy blows left and right on the weak circumstantial evidence, they would be licking their lips at the opportunity to tear holes in the prosecution's case. Here, that didn't happen. The other thing is that the defence can't put on its own expert witnesses because it assumed they are neutral and work for the court. Sounds fine in theory but in practice hinders the defence's ability to counter the prosecution's assertions and raise reasonable doubt. I hope Lucy and her family are receiving good advice, I'm sure there will be a lot of people seeking to give it to them. Picking the good advice from the bad might be difficult, as it would be for any of us if we were in that position. I would like to donate to her appeal but I will certainly wait until there is an official request from the family themselves or their appointed representatives.
  8. It could be a lot more but on all Lucy Letby articles I've seen so far, the Mail per-moderates comments for the first few days, and they are mostly only allowing through comments which think she is guilty. Sometimes they don't allow through a single comment which says she even MIGHT be innocent, until much later, when few people will see it. The Mail does this on articles routinely where it wants to mould public opinion. Most people don't realise when their thoughts and opinions are being manipulated, which is why so many people feel so strongly that Letby is guilty - they were told to feel this way. They haven't done much or any thinking of their own. And then they see comments (which are the only ones the Mail allows to be published) from members of the public agreeing, so this reinforces their 'opinion'. It's very insidious, the Mail has a lot of power and does not use it fairly. (Not just the Mail. The Guardian is the same, although they tend to let any comment be posted initially, but rapidly delete opinions they don't want aired, on the dishonest grounds that they break their 'community standards'.)
  9. These links may be of interest, from experts who have looked at the case in detail and believe Lucy Letby did not receive a fair trial. https://gill1109.com/2023/05/24/the-lucy-letby-case/ https://rexvlucyletby2023.com/ https://www.chimpinvestor.com/post/the-travesty-of-the-lucy-letby-verdicts
  10. They've used all sorts of innuendo to convict her. For example they said she looked up some of the victims' families on social media afterwards and said this proves she was gloating at their suffering. How does that follow? She could just as easily have cared about them and wanted to see how they were doing. Same as her sending condolence cards to some of the families, which has also been held up as proof of her taunting them. It doesn't make sense to me. My understanding about the reason deaths went down soon after she left the department was because they made a policy change to no longer accommodate very sick babies who were instead sent somewhere else - and continued to die there at similar rates. The whole case against her is based on supposition and putting 2+2 together and making five. Mistaking correlation for causation. Coincidences given undue prominence. Cherry-picking statistics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias We know the state gets it terribly wrong sometimes. Look at the post office subpostmaster scandal, where it didn't dawn on anyone in the great minds of our police or prosecution service that a massive spike in this rare type of crime all of a sudden, among many different areas of the country, didn't seem odd to any of them. Or to any of the jurors who rubber stamped these miscarriages of justice. The average person isn't very bright, that's the unfortunate reality. And juries are made up of everyday people. I see the gutter press like the Daily Mail has a slew of articles on the case lately. They will keep writing about this for years no doubt. And comments are still locked down so only 'approved' pre-moderated comments are allowed, even though the trial is over, so there is no longer any risk of prejudicing the outcome or contempt of court. This comment made me laugh, which has been upvoted 3-1. Apparently, according to this person, if anyone ever protests their innocence about something, it proves their guilt! The logic of a witch hunter. Most people are pretty stupid. Heaven help anyone if they find themselves on trial where the facts aren't ultra simple, your life will be in the hands of random people who will jump to whatever conclusions they feel like. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12434663/Her-scribbled-notes-glimpse-Lucy-Letbys-twisted-mind-morbid-urge-feed-parents-pain-writes-forensic-psychiatrist-DR-SOHOM-DAS-says-extraordinary-case-hes-encountered.html
  11. This is a really unsafe conviction, there is only weak circumstantial evidence that she had anything to do with the deaths. Like Lucia de Berk who was wrongly convicted in similar circumstances, this is looking like another infamous miscarriage of justice. I wish Lucy Letby and her family well and I hope they can find the strength to get through this. I see today all the 'mob' care about is dragging her into court to endure the charade of listening to how supposedly 'evil' she is. Well maybe they should consider she is actually innocent. The British legal system is not infallible as we've unfortunately seen many times.
  12. The authorities are apparently now saying that the vaccine is 99.5%+ effective? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58545548 How then does that tally with this? https://theconversation.com/most-covid-deaths-in-england-now-are-in-the-vaccinated-heres-why-that-shouldnt-alarm-you-163671 https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/commentisfree/2021/jun/27/why-most-people-who-now-die-with-covid-have-been-vaccinated
  13. The Mail is deleting factual comments about Covid. I replied to one comment earlier which said most deaths are of UNvaccinated people. I said actually, most deaths are now among the vaccinated. It was deleted by the Mail for misinformation, supposedly because it had been reported a lot. And yet, as we know: Most COVID deaths in England now are in the vaccinated https://theconversation.com/most-covid-deaths-in-england-now-are-in-the-vaccinated-heres-why-that-shouldnt-alarm-you-163671 Is the Army's 77th brigade mass-reporting posts which make people question the vaccine? Or is the Mail itself simply a state propaganda organ no different to China? Maybe a bit of both.
  14. You patronising ****. (REDACTED BY BASKETCASE MOD)
  15. Oooh... no mate, I know nothing about anything that you don't spoon feed me. My whole existence began the day I joined this forum you see. Yes that is sarcasm. You can stop being patronising now, I didn't come down in the last shower. Fucking hell, did you have a wank while you sought to impress me with your knowledge that I already have? Was it a good one?
  16. 'Millions' is the majority now is it? Can you read bro? Or do you just see what you want to see. Fucktard did you say? Is everyone here 12 years old? Or just mentally?
  17. Whether because he's thick or because he's compromised or whatever it is, they usually seem to pick politicians who can be relied upon to do what they're told, whether wittingly or unwittingly.
  18. Jesus people here are so quick to go on the attack when someone thinks and asks questions, it's pathetic. 'your handlers' you are a moron pal. But here, you are in good company.
  19. Ok mate. I'm new to this forum, not to the internet or life in general. But maybe one day I will be as enlightened as you *yawn*
  20. This is a rational viewpoint which I think is shared by millions. My guess, if it was some sort of hoax or exaggerated threat, they probably wouldn't tell the politicians anyway, who don't exactly seem to be the sharpest tools in shed (Boris Johnson for example). It's above their pay grade. I can believe the politicians panicked and believed the dire predictions of catastrophe and overreacted, and then painted themselves (and us) into a corner. And yes, the whole thing is definitely being used to push all kinds of privacy-eroding / ending stuff through on the back of it, whether planned or opportunistically.
  21. They don't claim to cure them either though do they. Big pharma don't CLAIM to cure those things, they claim to prevent them, and as things like polio have been eradicated, are they wrong? I'm not a scientist or expert, maybe you are, but probably not. The idea some nobody went to court in Alberta and used some technical argument and got the country to remove restrictions and prove Covid is a 'hoax' (his words?) is obviously nonsense. I mean, it could be a hoax for all I know. But the idea this geezer proved it and a judge agreed is ridiculous.
  22. We also know we can catch them off other people. But anyway, I don't rule out that our (mankind's) understanding of viruses may be mistaken. Viruses as we think we know them, may not exist in that sense. But clearly, those conditions do exist, regardless of the correct term for them or whatever.
  23. What do you think of the fact that the same supposed proof that Covid DOESN'T exist, also supposedly proves things like the common cold doesn't exist? The obvious answer is that this whole thing does not mean what some people are SAYING it means at all. I mean, I assume we all agree the cold exists. Like I say, I don't know what 'Covid-19' is or isn't. But I think some people are jumping on something they don't understand, doing 2+2 and coming up with 5 here.
  24. No no no mate. Don't be coy. Tell us in plain English, do you think the common cold exists or not? You all seem to think that this thing is some sort of amazing 'gotcha' that disproves Covid exists. I don't know if it does or doesn't. But I'm pretty sure the cold and measles do as I've had both. Then again, I could be part of the conspiracy. This is asinine.
  25. Does this forum have mods? Are they on holiday? Do you go round insulting mask wearers to their face and calling them shitty names? I'm going to guess no you don't. Prick.
×
×
  • Create New...