this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

United Kingdom

4081 readers
14 users here now

General community for news/discussion in the UK.

Less serious posts should go in [email protected] or [email protected]
More serious politics should go in [email protected].

Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.

Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.

Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.

If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.

Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.

Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

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

Him causing 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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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

This seems to answer the question

[–] [email protected] 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

laws can, and sometime should, be changed