No Sleeep

Yes and the next week it fell to #13, 6 weeks later it was out of the Hot 100 completely

A feeling. Like I said. He’s the kind of artist who debuts massively and then drops off rapidly. Megan’s HISS got a lot of think pieces and it disappeared as soon as it appeared

I have a feeling the Eminem song will start collapsing. Can’t see him going #1

Fifty Fifty (K-pop girl group, I’ve never heard of them) got one last year and OneRepublic did in 2022. Those are the latest I can find unless I’ve missed any

Girl groups are absolutely dead sadly. I miss the R&B groups like En Vogue, Destiny’s Child, SWV. Nowadays there’s what, Flo? And they’re hardly setting the charts alight and they’re decent but not amazing vocalists. It’s like groups are automatically seen as manufactured even when they’re not… and if they are, so what? If they can all sing and sound amazing together who cares if they had to audition for the role :lol: Mini-rant over, I’m just sick of the need for relatability nowadays

I think her defence lawyer is just extremely incompetent.

“Slimy journalism”, the New Yorker article is certainly not. @1790223930415841661

The New Yorker is far from “slimy journalism” It’s ironic that you try to insult my intelligence. You’re acting like no jury has ever gotten anything wrong before. I already cited the Sally Clark example earlier. You seem to be relishing in this so I won’t be replying any further.

@1790547912650264815

“Europapa” is a horrible name for a song

You’re framing this as something very sinister but plenty of people who work in medicine have said that’s a very normal thing for them to do in their private time after a tragedy. They also found no suspicious google searches or anything on her computers, don’t you think if she was really stalking the families digitally to bask in it she would’ve left more of a digital footprint? Also I’m not surprised more people aren’t defending her because the ones that have have had their lives ruined. Nobody wants to be associated with a “baby murderer”, you can’t even have a debate about this anywhere without being shamed for defending an “evil baby killer”. The ones who did who the New Yorker interviewed requested anonymity because of what it would do to their career if they were seen questioning her conviction. The power of groupthink and peer pressure

From the article: There are some pretty big holes to pick in this case. The “air embolism” theory is just that, a theory, because the doctors at the hospital couldn’t come up with any other explanation and one found one paper on Google . Nevermind that the author of that paper themselves has came out and said it’s a “mistake” to consider that as a cause of death simply because they can’t think of any other. And these assumptions are what the prosecution’s entire case relied on: It really shouldn’t be about your emotions in this case it should be about whether there is undeniable evidence of this woman’s guilt. They have nothing more than hearsay from a bunch of doctors whom suspicion would have fallen upon if we weren’t all too busy crucifying Lucy

By all accounts she is the exact opposite psychological profile of a serial baby killer, can you provide any evidence to the contrary? It may be the “mother of all coincidences”, but did you know the prosecution misrespresented the facts by leaving out the instances where Lucy wasn’t present for a baby’s death in the ward? Or that the death rate only dropped afterwards because they stopped caring for babies who were already in such a dire condition? This is a woman’s life we’re talking about, so yes I think due diligence should have been done and more solid evidence should have been presented to warrant 14 life sentences. It wouldn’t be the first miscarriage of justice similar to this, even in this country. Sally Clark was convicted after an “expert” witness misrepresented facts by claiming there was a 1 in 73 million chance of her two babies both dying of SIDS. She won her appeal but died of alcoholism 4 years later. It seems that when a woman is deemed to be a “baby murderer”, emotions run very high and logic goes out the window.

I don’t know why you have the idea that this is some right-wing conspiracy plot trying to prove her innocent, it is in fact quite the opposite. Rachel Aviv is a respected, award-winning journalist, the New Yorker is about as high-quality and liberal outlet as you can get, and if you check the conversations on Twitter, the people questioning this conviction are far from “Alex Jones” as you can get - it’s people with PhDs, journalists who know how media manipulation works. I would argue the “she’s an evil baby killer” mob have more in common with Alex Jones personally, resorting to emotive language and shaming people rather than looking at the facts and evidence (or, lack thereof). Outlets like the Daily Mail have controlled the narrative of this and there has never been any balanced reporting on this case in the UK, it’s refreshing to see the New Yorker restore at least some sanity.

I don’t think qualifying it with “allegedly” makes it any better. The tone of the reporting throughout the trial was very much that Lucy was guilty and evil and any dissenting opinions were strongly discouraged. It’s a long one but I strongly encourage you to read the article if you’re convinced of her guilt. The British media is godawful - they would much rather have an “Angel of Death”, makes a much more interesting story than a number of mistakes made by an incompetent hospital. Also following news coverage of a trial doesn’t make you an expert, no offence. It really reminds me of the Amber Heard case, people felt justified in their hatred of her because they had “watched the trial” when in actuality that had been manipulated by a very effective PR campaign

Very good article in The New Yorker with some new information. The media-led witch hunt against Lucy never sat right with me. Also I think it’s ironic that this article is inaccessible in the UK because of “contempt of court” laws (in case it “undermines” trust in the British justice system :rolleyes:) but newspaper headlines were already branding her an “evil baby killer” before she was convicted of anything. Whether you think she is guilty or not (I personally don’t believe she is), with a jury that was overheard saying they were convinced of her guilt from the start, it is impossible to say she had a fair trial. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and the prosecution failed to deliver that. Here’s the article if anyone wishes to read it: https://archive.ph/AWpyz

Think my prediction that Post Morgan would go the way of Homesick wasn’t far off. Going from 1.1 million to 500k in 2 days :o

Think it’ll do similar to Homesick, very impressive and hyped debut but don’t know if it’ll have staying power

Still an almost 50% decline is drastic no matter how you look at it

Their rules state: “The ESC is a non-political event. All Participating Broadcasters, including the Host Broadcaster, shall be responsible to ensure that all necessary measures are undertaken within in their respective Delegations and teams to safeguard the interests and the integrity of the ESC and to make sure that the ESC shall in no case be politicized and/or instrumentalized and/or otherwise brought into disrepute in any way.” It doesn’t matter whether you agree with the message of the song or not

Why was it ok for Ukraine to enter and win with an explicitly political song in 2016 but Israel is crucified for having a song that some interpret to be political? It just seems so hypocritical to me, the same people that celebrated Jamala are attacking Eden

The anti-semitism I’m seeing from Eurovision fans is disgusting and really needs to be addressed.

I’ve noticed that but I feel it’s getting a bit boring now! I don’t feel like something unexpected like Padam Padam going top 10 could happen this year. The streams at the top have just doubled all of a sudden since about December.

Those numbers are very depressing

MJ - Chicago getting certified seems extremely random? Happy the Sugababes finally got there with Stronger