M
Malced
Guest
So you’re referencing how we treated murderers from the 1960s and 1970s.
The world has moved on a lot since then.
Lucy Letby
- Thread starter glasshalffull
- Start date
So you’re referencing how we treated murderers from the 1960s and 1970s.
The world has moved on a lot since then.
M
Malced
Guest
I don’t know. Denying she did it may be part of her mental issues. First and foremost I feel for the victims and her families. But I do think she should be going into a hospital not a prison.
td53
Well-known member
I noted that one of the key reasons that the suspicions weren't properly investigated was that it would 'damage the hospitals reputation'
We have placed a huge focus on things like 'consuner satisfaction' and 'scoring' institutions that aren't really consumer institutions. What can easily happen is public institutions then forget about their core purpose (the public duty to care or educate or whatever) and start to focus on the reputational metrics above the actual stuff.
In this instance, you have a management team directly culpable of putting external perceptions ahead of internal realities. This might be ok in a business making leisure wear or to flog a consumer good but 'reputational damage' is the last thing anyone should consider in a situation like this.
Having worked in the public sector in various forms for a long time, it is horrifying how much time is spent on 'perceptions' and whilst I've never ever been involved in anything even slightly like this, there are times when you think 'aren't we missing the point of why we're actually here and what we're here for'
There something absurdly and chillingly tragically ironic about a hospital manager being too scared to risk the reputation of the hospital and this being the ultimate outcome. It's ** awful.
We should also be looking at that at a systemic level.
We have placed a huge focus on things like 'consuner satisfaction' and 'scoring' institutions that aren't really consumer institutions. What can easily happen is public institutions then forget about their core purpose (the public duty to care or educate or whatever) and start to focus on the reputational metrics above the actual stuff.
In this instance, you have a management team directly culpable of putting external perceptions ahead of internal realities. This might be ok in a business making leisure wear or to flog a consumer good but 'reputational damage' is the last thing anyone should consider in a situation like this.
Having worked in the public sector in various forms for a long time, it is horrifying how much time is spent on 'perceptions' and whilst I've never ever been involved in anything even slightly like this, there are times when you think 'aren't we missing the point of why we're actually here and what we're here for'
There something absurdly and chillingly tragically ironic about a hospital manager being too scared to risk the reputation of the hospital and this being the ultimate outcome. It's ** awful.
We should also be looking at that at a systemic level.
look.its.luke
Well-known member
I think that would make it harder for some victims families though, in that insanity excuses her from some of the guilt.
Hospitals for the criminally insane aren't holiday camps, so I don't have strong feelings on where she's locked up.
I just think they need to weigh up the message it sends about her culpability versus the opportunity to examine her and catch future offenders earlier.
M
Malced
Guest
It’s not apples and oranges.
It’s not the offence that matters. Nor is it the number of others convicted and imprisoned for that offence. It’s the principle. The principle doesn’t change by volume or offence type.
You’re effectively saying anyone who doesn’t confess shouldn’t be allowed visitors. There’s no special case for offence types.
The punishment is the loss of freedom. Denying visitors is unnecessary and inhumane.
Yes the offences were inhumane but it’s not an eye for an eye.
If someone does believe they’re innocent then it’s incredibly important to let them see their family. Imagine if you were wrongly convicted and you didn’t therefore pleaded not guilty. Imagine being convicted and denied access to your family visitors. It would lead to miscarriages of justice because people would effectively be coerced into saying they were guilty as the alternative would be to not have family visitors.
The justice system already makes sufficient distinction for those that admit their guilt. It gets taken into account on sentencing. Maybe not in cases where they will be given a whole life sentence. But if you only granted visits if they admitted guilt you’d effectively prevent a convict from ever seeing their family again.
Seeing a family member is sometimes fundamental and vital for the person to pursue a case review.
Paradiddle_01
Well-known member
One phrase that will undoubtedly be voiced in any subsequent NHS internal enquiry is.....
'We offer our sincere apologies to everyone involved in this sad case. We have reviewed our practices, and have learned lessons'
How many times have we heard that?! Nothing changes, and should anybody be suspected of heinous crimes in the future, staff will no doubt reflect on how the doctor who initially raised concerns re the Letby issues was 'brushed off' by senior management, and was more or less castigated for his 'whistleblowing', meaning another psycho can, and will stay under the radar.
'We offer our sincere apologies to everyone involved in this sad case. We have reviewed our practices, and have learned lessons'
How many times have we heard that?! Nothing changes, and should anybody be suspected of heinous crimes in the future, staff will no doubt reflect on how the doctor who initially raised concerns re the Letby issues was 'brushed off' by senior management, and was more or less castigated for his 'whistleblowing', meaning another psycho can, and will stay under the radar.
Lala
Well-known member
Great post td, and absolutely spot on
TotallyTangerine
Well-known member
Yes of course it has and rightly so.
I chose those two names because they were considered to be ‘evil’ and and I don’t recall ever hearing anyone say that we should retrospectively make allowances for their heinous crimes because they were probably suffering from mental health issues. I’m asking why we should afford Lucy Letby such a let off?
Tangerinemoss
Well-known member
Spot on.
Our local hospital had a significant bullying issue over many years, and the over riding aim of the board was to control reputational damage, even at the loss of some of their best and brightest.
Personally think whistleblower legislation needs huge reform, and some sort of independent agency with teeth.
Edited to add, this isn't just a public sector issue, the only time I have been bullied at work was a PLC.
Last edited:
During my working life I've had to deal with a couple of cases - alleged theft and alleged sexual harrassment.
In both instances ironically the allegations were against people who i would otherwise have asked to investigate the complaints!
My initial reaction in both cases was disbelief as these were people I regarded as friends and who I trusted implictly. To my amazement and disappointment the theft case proved to be true. The person was dismissed and prosecuted.
In the other case the alleged harrassment was found to be untrue, and the person alleging this was eventually found to be a serial "victim" who'd made similar allegations in previous jobs.
From a managers point of view both cases were extremely traumatic - but that went with the territory. I felt especially sorry for the person accused of sexual harrassment. They were never the same afterwards.
In those days the "reputation" of the organisation never came into our heads, but I don't know just what was the mindset of the managers at the Countess of Chester Hospital. If, as some have suggested they were having to look over their shoulders all of the time I can see why they were hesitant.
In those days our insurers strict instructions to everyone was never admit liability for anything.
In both instances ironically the allegations were against people who i would otherwise have asked to investigate the complaints!
My initial reaction in both cases was disbelief as these were people I regarded as friends and who I trusted implictly. To my amazement and disappointment the theft case proved to be true. The person was dismissed and prosecuted.
In the other case the alleged harrassment was found to be untrue, and the person alleging this was eventually found to be a serial "victim" who'd made similar allegations in previous jobs.
From a managers point of view both cases were extremely traumatic - but that went with the territory. I felt especially sorry for the person accused of sexual harrassment. They were never the same afterwards.
In those days the "reputation" of the organisation never came into our heads, but I don't know just what was the mindset of the managers at the Countess of Chester Hospital. If, as some have suggested they were having to look over their shoulders all of the time I can see why they were hesitant.
In those days our insurers strict instructions to everyone was never admit liability for anything.
Dark_Side_of_the_Lune
Well-known member
So true
Bend it like Suddick
Well-known member
We used to do that in the 70's and 80's even using quite a lot of legal force if required and usually on the direction of Judge or Magistrate
Mcewans Mullet
Well-known member
It's impossible in todays modern age.
A simple barricade would require staff to make entry into a cell, then staff to restrain and relocate a person on to a vehicle.
Court escort services, serco, G4S very rarely take anyone under restraint on to their vehicles. It would then require court staff at the other end to remove a person off a vehicle and to then relocate, restrain, them in to court, all timed to be there at the point of sentencing direction.
Then reverse the process.
Not saying its right but unfortunately is just not feasible at these times.
A simple barricade would require staff to make entry into a cell, then staff to restrain and relocate a person on to a vehicle.
Court escort services, serco, G4S very rarely take anyone under restraint on to their vehicles. It would then require court staff at the other end to remove a person off a vehicle and to then relocate, restrain, them in to court, all timed to be there at the point of sentencing direction.
Then reverse the process.
Not saying its right but unfortunately is just not feasible at these times.
Bisphamtang
Well-known member
Diabolical crimes - as somebody who has worked in MH I'm not sure this can be attributed to mental health. Some people are bad and not mad- luckily freaks like her are very rare.
All thoughts with the families ,their lives have changed forever.
I also picked up on hospital managers and the CEO ignoring the concerns of senior clinicians in order to protect the reputation of the nhs Trust.
That is criminal and that CEO did not give one shite about reputation, apart from his own.Due to his mendacity, narcissim and arrogance ,opportunities to stop this modern day monster were missed.
She can rot in the segregation wing of some prison .The CEO should be investigated and charged .
All thoughts with the families ,their lives have changed forever.
I also picked up on hospital managers and the CEO ignoring the concerns of senior clinicians in order to protect the reputation of the nhs Trust.
That is criminal and that CEO did not give one shite about reputation, apart from his own.Due to his mendacity, narcissim and arrogance ,opportunities to stop this modern day monster were missed.
She can rot in the segregation wing of some prison .The CEO should be investigated and charged .
JOHNMAJORTOM
Well-known member
A couple of thoughts. Because she will be a high profile prisoner given that she WILL recieve a whole life tarriff. what measurse will be put into place to ensure that someone or some persons do not try to get at her. FIFTY years or therabouts is an awful long time to make sure she does not end up dead or badly injured. personally i dont think she will last very long in a brutal prison regime. i am not being on the side of this woman but she no doubt has to be kept at great expense for a long time.
M
Malced
Guest
Who has proposed a let off?
You acknowledge that the world has moved on, and so has our understanding of lots of things, including mental health.
All I’ve suggested is that this lady is very ill, mentally, in a way most mortals cannot comprehend.
Pointing to our attitudes towards, and punishment of, serial killers in the 60s and 70s, doesn’t detract from my point.
Precedents with convictions don’t have to mean we must treat all future offenders the same, ad infinitum.
Sentencing guidelines are reviewed all the time. You might have a point that if we changed our approach towards present day convictions, it could have an impact on past convictions. But I’m not a legal expert so I can’t comment on potentially opening up Pandora’s
Box.
I think this lady needs a mental institution for assessment and treatment. In that way we might eventually get some real insight as to why she did it.
Last edited by a moderator:
TotallyTangerine
Well-known member
I meant a let off in respect that you appear to be automatically putting her killing spree down to serious mental health issues and not considering the fact that perhaps she is just an evil person, hence my comparison to Bundy and Hindley, who I would also class as evil. They do exist and all the assessing in the world won’t determine why they do what they do…
I often agree with your posts but on this occasion, we’re just going to have to agree to disagree….
M
Malced
Guest
I respect your views. In fact the legal system is in line with your thinking.
Following her conviction, she's now classed as evil by much of the press and the public. But I think this case is one that deserves more scrutiny. Serial killers become such for various reasons, e.g. they're sexual predators, or for financial gain.
But what has driven a young nurse to do this to these babies?
I don't think she'll have been psychologically assessed, other than the formality to determine whether she was mentally capable of undergoing a trial and comprehending what was going on.
So the public has their evil killer put away for life I expect. But shouldn't we try to establish what possessed her via medical professionals, rather than merely having the speculation by a far from impartial prosecution team?
I think we're missing a trick to go straight down the prison route. She should be comprehensively mentally assessed, and treated if necessary. She could go into prison eventually to serve the rest of her sentence, but only after psychological assessments and treatment.
I do believe there's evil in the world, but this case seems complex. To say 'oh well, she's evil, lock her up', is in my view, the easy way out, and far too simple. We can and should be doing more, and by doing so we can give a potentially better version of closure to the families, and potentially learn something that could be used to inform mental health case studies going forward.
I don't expect you to agree. We just see it differently.
traffordtang
Well-known member
I actually think I feel more anger towards the management. Letby clearly has some kind of madness but what’s their excuse? They knew something was wrong in that unit. It was pointed out to them. It was discussed by them but it seems their only concern was for their reputation. It almost feels like collusion. Even when they eventually moved her they put her in an office where she would potentially have access to information about her and the claims against her. There will always sadly be Letbys out there but there should be systems in place which ensure that management have to act decisively as soon as any concern is raised. It should never be down to judgement and it most definitely should never have got to this stage.
They need to be brought to account for their actions, but probably never will. Judging by there statements there’s little signs of remorse.
They need to be brought to account for their actions, but probably never will. Judging by there statements there’s little signs of remorse.
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
There is a fair amount of comment that this case demonstrates the antipathy between the “Nurses” cadre and the “Doctors” profession. Four out of five of the senior managers involved in this case, controlling the future of Letby came up through the Nursing ranks - the CEO of the hospital trust, the manager in charge of the neonatal wing, the Director of the Nurses and the Director in charge of “Patient Safety and Risk”. Only the Medical Director was a qualified doctor.
However, all of them took the stubborn attitude that the doctors voicing their concerns about Letby, that is all the Consultants working directly with her, were guilty of bullying. That is, these managers considered the doctors were using their status to demean and threaten a nursing colleague. These managers even apologised to Letby and forced the Consultants to apologise to her as well, while dismissing the strong circumstantial evidence presented to them.
That says a lot about these managers’ attitudes - did they feel inferior to, or antipathetic to the doctors just because they were not good enough in school/college/studying to have the opportunity to become doctors themselves? But they obviously had the social skills to convince people they could “manage”.
That is one of the disturbing aspects of this case. Doctors might appear to be nerdy and relatively poor communicators (not “smooth”) and so specialised that few understand their detailed skills so that, in this case, their opinions were regarded as just prejudice against “lowly and despised” nurses rather than the objective views of professional scientists. Yes, I understand that Consultants can appear to be arrogant, but often they have a lot to be arrogant about.
Clearly, the Consultants’ views based upon direct observation and logical analysis were not taken seriously, compared to the managers’ worries about “reputational damage”. To the extent that the Consultants had to decide to become whistleblowers to get the police involved in the face of these managers’ intransigence.
However, all of them took the stubborn attitude that the doctors voicing their concerns about Letby, that is all the Consultants working directly with her, were guilty of bullying. That is, these managers considered the doctors were using their status to demean and threaten a nursing colleague. These managers even apologised to Letby and forced the Consultants to apologise to her as well, while dismissing the strong circumstantial evidence presented to them.
That says a lot about these managers’ attitudes - did they feel inferior to, or antipathetic to the doctors just because they were not good enough in school/college/studying to have the opportunity to become doctors themselves? But they obviously had the social skills to convince people they could “manage”.
That is one of the disturbing aspects of this case. Doctors might appear to be nerdy and relatively poor communicators (not “smooth”) and so specialised that few understand their detailed skills so that, in this case, their opinions were regarded as just prejudice against “lowly and despised” nurses rather than the objective views of professional scientists. Yes, I understand that Consultants can appear to be arrogant, but often they have a lot to be arrogant about.
Clearly, the Consultants’ views based upon direct observation and logical analysis were not taken seriously, compared to the managers’ worries about “reputational damage”. To the extent that the Consultants had to decide to become whistleblowers to get the police involved in the face of these managers’ intransigence.
Last edited:
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
My experience is in working in the nuclear and chemical industries for the last 40 years. Ever since Chernobyl, the culture has been inculcated that a questioning attitude is positively encouraged. Every challenge about safe operation from no matter whom, whether they be the poorest paid technician or the CEO, must be taken seriously and fully addressed. If that does not happen you can get incidents like Fukushima.
Last edited:
S
Scratcher67
Guest
Personally I'd prefer not to dwell on the fate of Letby. There is no understanding, no reckoning or reason for some evil. It just is. Societal rules and regs catch most but a few will always get through. She should spend the rest of her life behind a locked door, who cares where.
Focus should be with the parents and on the system that perhaps allowed her to continue unchecked for longer than she should .. were effective protocols in place. The only microscopic grain of positivity for those affected will be that change was made following this.
Focus should be with the parents and on the system that perhaps allowed her to continue unchecked for longer than she should .. were effective protocols in place. The only microscopic grain of positivity for those affected will be that change was made following this.
Lala
Well-known member
Thats an interesting observation Archie.
M
Malced
Guest
There’s a good piece on sky news that which tries to delve into her mind to understand what possessed her. I know it’s not something that all will care one jot about.
But I can’t see something so abhorrent as this, without trying to comprehend it more and get some answers.
Rather that, than the silly headline on one Sunday paper which says something like ‘the devil lived amongst us’.
The sky article contains interviews with various criminal psychologists. They debunk the theory that she was seeking attention. They say she’s not like other serial killers where there’s been an obvious motivation. They’re left quite bemused and perplexed.
That makes it even more important to try and understand more. Throwing in a prison and labelling her evil does serve justice. But surely she can be imprisoned in a hospital and evaluated/assessed?
If the criminal experts are flummoxed then surely it’s worth trying to understand. We have time and opportunity. She might not comply but it’s worth exploring.
But I can’t see something so abhorrent as this, without trying to comprehend it more and get some answers.
Rather that, than the silly headline on one Sunday paper which says something like ‘the devil lived amongst us’.
The sky article contains interviews with various criminal psychologists. They debunk the theory that she was seeking attention. They say she’s not like other serial killers where there’s been an obvious motivation. They’re left quite bemused and perplexed.
That makes it even more important to try and understand more. Throwing in a prison and labelling her evil does serve justice. But surely she can be imprisoned in a hospital and evaluated/assessed?
If the criminal experts are flummoxed then surely it’s worth trying to understand. We have time and opportunity. She might not comply but it’s worth exploring.
Lala
Well-known member
I think it’s definitely worth trying to understand.
And to a point I agree with you that she has to be mentally ill to do this. I think most serial killers have to be mentally ill.
When they have the capacity to know right from wrong though it also throws them into the evil category in my opinion.
She won’t see daylight again whatever, and I’m sure she will be mentally assessed on some level wherever she ends up.
It’s just a shame non of it will bring the babies back or end the suffering of these poor parents. And that’s the crux of all this for me. I’m not concerned enough with how things pan out for her.
M
Malced
Guest
Yes and I agree with most of that.
I too don’t care how it pans out for her. I don’t think she should ever be released. My concerns aren’t for her, but rather for society as a whole and the relatives. Getting to the bottom about why she did it must be a good thing and worth pursuing.
Archibald Knox
Well-known member
Chambers, the ex-CEO of the Chester Hospital Trust is now openly and directly blaming the consultant doctors on the neonatal ward ! Well, I hope he turns up to give evidence under oath at the Inquiry.
www.theguardian.com
Hospital chief claims he acted ‘promptly’ to move Letby off ward
Tony Chambers says he was not aware of serious concerns being raised until June 2016 – a year after the nurse was linked to a series of unusual infant deaths
www.theguardian.com
Last edited:
Sometimes we just need to suck up the expense.
Wizaard
Well-known member
Very true. And that's the issue brought about by bringing in such things as competition into something that is a public service. Artificial targets drive perverse behaviour. If someone isn't seen within the target, it actually makes perverse sense not to see them, and focus on those approaching the target date, as the overall percentage of cases seen within target will remain below that target. Some poor sap becomes the statistical outlier.
This is what happens when public bodies are forced into artificial competition rather than focusing on customer need.
Lala
Well-known member
Good post Wiz and very true.
Gods honest truth
Well-known member
Lucy Letby Whole life term ,and will never be released .
Mcewans Mullet
Well-known member
Received a whole life term for each murder, and each attempted murder. 14 in total, unprecedented and literally means hundreds of years.
Last edited:
BFC_53
Well-known member
In this computerised age, there should be no excuse for the management teams' inaction. If the staff rota's, clock in/clock out, and incidence/death rates are all recorded digitally, a simple program can spot unusual patterns very easily. If this were deployed, there would be no worry from anyone that anyone was being bullied, it would simply be a threshold that law should dictate requires further investigation. It doesn't mean anyone's guilty necessarily, just that it needs to be looked at. The same should go for GPs. The problem here was that it was left to people to decide, who are influenced by a whole raft of things that shouldn't be in consideration.
There should be law changes following this, because when you look at the death rate and staff rota, it's outrageous that nothing was done for so long.
There should be law changes following this, because when you look at the death rate and staff rota, it's outrageous that nothing was done for so long.
Macseasider
Well-known member
May she rot in hell. Disgusting piece of shit. There aren't really words to express ones utter contempt for this psychopath.
1966_and_all_that
Well-known member
I suspect that her sentence won't last long.
Macseasider
Well-known member
I imagine her fellow inmate cannot wait to make her acquaintance. I hope the staff feed her to the wolves.
Spoonerfudj
Well-known member
Cannot begin to believe how the bereaved must feel, in this and similar cases, even when the guilty party is sentenced.
Challenging, however, for HMPPS, whose role is to create and maintain a rehabilitative culture for those in their care, whatever the reasons behind any offence.
Changing lives and reducing reoffending is difficult enough, without public and media clamouring for what they believe to be suitable "justice".
Must be hard to be non-judgemental in the performance of one's professional duties; theirs is not to mete further punishment, but to offer a safe, decent and secure environment.
The lady in question obviously suffers from severe mental ill-health to act in the manner she did (in this layperson's opinion) and will undergo extensive psychiatric and psychological intervention.
No, nothing will bring back the victims, nor will families ever recover from their loss, but a duty of care must still be exercised by staff.
Challenging, however, for HMPPS, whose role is to create and maintain a rehabilitative culture for those in their care, whatever the reasons behind any offence.
Changing lives and reducing reoffending is difficult enough, without public and media clamouring for what they believe to be suitable "justice".
Must be hard to be non-judgemental in the performance of one's professional duties; theirs is not to mete further punishment, but to offer a safe, decent and secure environment.
The lady in question obviously suffers from severe mental ill-health to act in the manner she did (in this layperson's opinion) and will undergo extensive psychiatric and psychological intervention.
No, nothing will bring back the victims, nor will families ever recover from their loss, but a duty of care must still be exercised by staff.
TangerineBayern
Well-known member
Hope so otherwise she’s going to cost a fuckin fortune to keep safe!
Bend it like Suddick
Well-known member
I would think suicide watch and Solitary for the foreseeable future
Threepeaksphil
Well-known member
it was thought that Dr Shipman killed the elderly because of some warped control/playing god idea and perhaps the nurse did the same. She should have been dragged screaming and kicking into the court. Will the bosses at the hospital at the time be charged for not taking action when the consultants flagged it up and making them apologize to her. You couldn’t make it up.
Bend it like Suddick
Well-known member
They need to be interviewed for corporate manslaughter. Surely there must be enough evidence as there is certainly evidence of their atrocious failings already in the public domain.
JOHNMAJORTOM
Well-known member
SO now there are posts on tik tok claiming all sorts. Medical racism. that an indian doctor flagged up concerns wih LETBY. and because it wasnt a white doctor he was basicslly dismissed. and off course the hang and flog brigade who would have her hung dismembered in public. but wpuld they be the one actually carrying out the actual sentence. dont think so. Albert Pierpoint executed round about 600 prisoners throughout his time as chief hangman. and after wards was asked DID it make an ounce o difference. NO was the answer. lets be CLEAR on this. SHE wil have to be securely held. NO way should some be able to do her harm. its NOT justice. its eye for and eye. if hanging WAS still on the statute book. then SO BE IT. I have NO sympathy for this woman . BUT we CANNOT resort to MOB rule.
SeasideKurt
Well-known member
Did I read it right somewhere she refused to go to her sentencing?
Lala
Well-known member
She did, and they can’t be made to apparantly.
Heard an interesting debate on this today and I agree with the suggestion that the sentencing should be played into her cell (or anyone else who refuses to attend their sentencing) and her reaction also filmed, so that the family of the victims can observe, as part of their limited closure.
premierdream2010
Well-known member
Deserves a bullet in the back of the head save the tax payers money on keeping this piece of shit alive. Hopefully she’ll have to stay in solitary or other prisoners may get to her. Nice if they did.
Macseasider
Well-known member
It's terrible that people do not have to face the judge and the court in person. As reported on the news she ended up retaining control over those families right to the end. She should have been dragged in by her hair.
Last edited:
SeasideKurt
Well-known member
I didn't know that. It's disgusting.