First casualty of England's Ashes humiliation as 2005 hero resigns

Bloody hell, she's on all our coins too isn't she?

She's on our stamps JN. Can you imagine the logistics of having to change stamps that go on letters? Hmmm?

And Columbus “found” America.” :laughing:

Yeah we blocked that one . I remember 1994 I think , the Queen visiting South Africa . Rides this Rolls Royce down Cape Rd in Port Elizabeth . Nobody watched . Might as well being just another grand car on the road . Nah not for us thanks . You all want to hang tough with them go for it . I don’t understand why tho . I truly don’t get it .

For sure. But they weren't European-white, didn't have open-ocean sailing vessels and didn't write the history books. So that history doesn't count. Thank god for the missionaries to set them straight and "bring them into line". - Yes, there's a huge history of trade between peoples of the Australian continent and near neighbours going back thousands of years. But then again, they never created a Mrs Macquarie's Chair, so, you know.. I mean, they did create their own stuff, but unfortunately Rio Tinto blew examples of that up in 2020. Oh well.

But you know what also Jeff … Aboriginal people along the northern coast from Cape York to the Pilbara region used to have contact and trade with people from the south of Sulawesi for a good century before the British incursion at Botany Bay.

The Aboriginal people had known of the continent's existence for many years prior to either.

I lament we never adopted the flag of New Holland. But at least the tri-colours remain the same. -- Much has been made today re "finding the Endeavour". Many would not realise that the Dutchman Dirk Hartog landed in WA in 1616, engraved a plate re his landing and left it on-land for future generations (which is now in a museum in WA). It was a 150 years earlier than Cook, but Cook seems to be the one that is credited with "finding" Australia. I guess it depends on which side of the country the school curriculum is set.

Unfortunately yes, and it grates me. Unfortunately too many Australians are apathetic to it. Same as having their flag on part of ours.

I mean is the Queen of England still like titular ( whatever that means ) head of Australia ? Geez guys credited you with more pride than that .

I’ll just continue …. So anyway, the individual numbers, rounded for ease of example, were 150 women sentenced to death for murder in 20th century Britain until abolition, of whom 135 were reprieved, while of the 600 men sentenced to death only240 were reprieved … this at least tells us that 80% of people convicted of murder were men, but this is more ‘interesting’ rather than crucial as it doesn’t answer the higher rate of reprieve for women, nor does it prove or disprove whether or not the system was biased towards women. So, to cut to the chase, a really bright spark (not me) did some very painstaking research and looked at every single capital case and found that there seemed to be an unwritten rule in the Home Office, that people who committed murder using either guns or poison were as good as never reprieved. Now, I don’t know what the precise breakdown was, but let’s imagine that of the 15 women hanged that 10 used either a gun or poison to commit their murder, and that say 300 of the 360 men hanged did the same. Suddenly the dissected numbers look like this: 80% of men who committed murder by means other than guns or poison were reprieved, while 96% of women who committed murder by means other than guns or poison were reprieved. So, in summary, we have a raw stat that miss-leadingly tells us that being reprieved or not was a matter of gender, whereupon proper analysis actually reveals it was not a matter of gender, but rather choice of murder weapon. Raw stats in any sport are a bit like this.

Yes, that is probably a reasonable assumption from those figures. I'd prefer to know more before leaping in but the percentage differences are significant

You’re obviously busy at work, being day time and all over there … so, would it be a safe assumption that the majority of people would look at that raw stat and come to the conclusion that Britain’s judiciary system was biased towards women when it came to capital cases?

That's my aim right there

Alright … Britain abolished the death penalty for murder in 1969, and the last execution was either 64 or 65. Up until that point in the 20th century, about one person was hanged for murder per month. 90% of women sentenced to death were reprieved (in 20th Century Britain), whereas only 40% of men were (reprieved). What conclusion could we draw from that raw stat?

Ok … now please understand I am not leading you into a trap here, nor showing you up personally … I am only highlighting the folly of raw overall numbers and how they tell us nothing …

Yes, my daughter is starting to study 20th century Britain at school, so very much so

Yeah I thought so - was just double checking … are you interested in a non-cricket stat involving 20th Century Britain?

I live in London. Before that 7 years in SA but raised in Sydney