Observer1199 ,

After reading the article, it very much looks the NHS is completely to blame for the deaths and crown prosecution fucked up because the believed 2 people that had a bee in their bonnet but no actual proof. I'd say it was right for the 2 accusers to ask the question the first time but after the investigation that resulted proved no wrong doing on Lucy's part, they should have dropped it. The whole argument is that she was present, but they were short staffed so she was always called in to cover. Also most of the staff didn't have adequate neo-natal training but were working on a neo-natal ward, because they were so short staffed.

Blackmist ,
echodot ,

Of course Davis would ask a stupid question he's supposed to know the answer to. Why would he do any research when he can make himself look like an idiot instead?

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy OP , (edited )

i think it's more about informing the public information is being kept from them.

Him asking this caused me to seek out the article.

Letbys conviction never really sat right with me with the information present in the british media. less so now i have read it

edit: having read some of the discussion around this on reddit i have moved back from the "maybe she didn't do it" to "she probably did" but even still it's all very circumstantial

echodot ,

There's no conspiracy here. She's being accused of a crime and there's going to be a trial. The prosecution have to present enough evidence to convict

All that's happening here is that the media are not allowed to report on a trail that's currently ongoing which is standard practice. In the US they do it differently because there are different country, and that's fine too.

There was no reason for him to bring this up other than I don't know some kind of weird political game that he thinks he's playing it's very unclear who this performance was for.

Devi ,

She's been found guilty of a crime. They're doing a retrial on one of the counts but she's been convicted of seven murders.

protist ,

Under English law, British media are restricted in their reporting owing to Letby’s upcoming retrial.

This seems to answer the question

PrettyFlyForAFatGuy OP ,

laws can, and sometime should, be changed

13esq ,

Well yh, if you don't believe in the basic democratic principle of innocent until proven guilty.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The Conservative MP David Davis has used parliamentary privilege to ask why UK readers were barred from viewing an article in a prominent US magazine about the case of the former nurse Lucy Letby.

He told fellow MPs that the block on the story published in the New Yorker seemed “in defiance of open justice”.

Letby was convicted last summer of murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester hospital, where she was a neonatal nurse.

The New Yorker published a 13,000-word piece about her case on Monday but UK readers are blocked from accessing it online.

Under English law, British media are restricted in their reporting owing to Letby’s upcoming retrial.

I will just simply make a point on the Lucy Letby case – that the jury’s verdict must be respected.

The original article contains 298 words, the summary contains 132 words. Saved 56%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • All magazines