Staff employed in the administration of public services are generally referred to as Officers and, as / when they progress through the organisation they take on greater duties and responsibilities . Important issues are reported to democratically elected Committees by the CEO. or other senior eg., Director. Committees reach decisions which officers put into action - or do not as the decision dictates. . The process aims to be transparent-does it remain democratic if not ?
(There is considerable separation of responsibilities and duties at junior levels of staffing_.
As a former senior manager of public services I have experienced the problems arising from inadequate staff and other resources which result in trying to spread effort thinly across the area of responsilbility knowing that, despite the very best conscientious efforts , it is impossible to meet the standards of service that are required by everyone concerned- a situation that it is very unsatisfactory from all points of view..
However, I find it difficult to understand those who fail to acknowledge the difficulties that arise preferring to believe that poor or disastrous outcomes must be the result of malign intent.
In the case of Lucy Letby there is every reason to consider that infants died because they were extremely vulnerable at the beginning of their lives and possibly needed a greater level of care than could be provided..
But amongst all the responsibilities of several layers of management is the need to identify the resources for the task and to raise the issues accordingly.
I gather that during 2015/6 and possibly earlier there was a shortage of suitable facilities for babies needing specialist care for various reasons. Some hospitals may have been unable to make appropriate tertiary referrals and were obliged to manage "in-house".
I do not think that I have seen mention of any possible related funding during any discussions in connection with this issue which may have had some impact on problems arising at CoCH NICU.
A good Christmas Pudding needs all the traditional ingredients and the addition of the silver coin.
I understand that intake of higher acuity babies results in higher income for the hospital. Maybe 4 times as much per baby per day. I heard this from a UK professor of hospital management, economics, and organization. At a meeting of about 20 professionals in various relevant fields, he and I were the only ones who were prepared to say that they believed Lucy to be innocent. All the others agreed the trial was unfair hence the convictions unsafe, but no more than that.
The condition of the Piggy Bank depends a great deal on previous attempts to make savings. If these were drastic Brandy Sauce might be required as well as the silver coin.
I know of people who swallowed the verdicts whole plus others who cannot admit to belief in Lucy L's innocence. It might well arise from fear.
David Davis did well despite the obstacles. However, I think that the attitude which considers that all the evidence was put before a jury which decided ( not unanimously) that Lucy L., was guilty cannot and should not be sustained.. I know of at least 2 clear cases in which she could not possibly have been responsible for harm of any kind . And It is notlear to me that all the evidence was presented to the jury.. Neonatology Experts have examined case notes and discovered previously unrevealed facts. I understand that their work is continuing and there will be further reports soon.. The verdict is unreliable on many counts and it does nobody any good to suggest otherwise. I include the bereaved parents on this point. When first hearing of the deaths of their babies they must have been exceedingly upset. To be told much later that their children had been deliberately harmed must have been unbearable and a shock from which it would probably be impossible to recover..
Lucy L., should be granted a retrial for her own sake and future but also for the peace of mind of the parents- in my opinion they could better face the future in the knowledge that their children died from natural causes and not malign intent.' The Justice System and Government must listen.
The evidence put to the jury was only part of the evidence which then was available and relevant. The testimony of the prosecution experts were merely opinions and were partly adequately refuted during the trial (eg no evidence that Lucy added insulin to TPN bags, no proof the “insulin babies” were given unauthorised insulin). Let’s hope the CCRC will do the right thing, and do it rapidly.
Yesterday’s outcome did not please everyone despite the collective level of experience and qualifications of everyone involved. That the CCRC is READY TO GO is a very good thing but the fight is not yet over.
I have heard “COST” mentioned. House owners will know that maintaining their asset requires a budget to cover the costs of building maintenance including possible cleaning services plus relevant staff, heating and lighting, taxes - local and UK wide, gardening costs where appropriate, communications, household equipment etc., etc., If these expenses are not met deterioration occurs. Likewise in public services on a much more serious scale. Staffing levels including hours and qualifications can suffer along with the standard of service that can be delivered. These are very important issues and in no sense do they demean the tragic events that were considered yesterday ( and previously).
With the appeal, their rules keep it to the letter of the law. No concern for spirit. If there was any desire for justice, it would be irrelevant whether the evidence was new or extant, what would matter was whether there had been a miscarriage. Given how slow the wheels turn for CCRB, I think David Davis MP should get onto Justice secretary and push for an unconditional pardon from Charley boy. Ultimately he still has that power although I'm not holding my breath.
I agree. I also wonder how differences between the clinical notes and evidence put before the court would be categorised. If new facts emerge from the current expert examination that were not made available at the trials, would this count as evidence witheld. Did the paediatric expert witness have access to the relevant case notes - I believe so.
Court of appeal judges can make up new rules; they can invent clever legal reasons not to follow precedent. They have to realize that the authority of the court will be diminished if this time they do not do the right thing. That justice in this case has priority over consistency with current practice.
It is my recollection that any suggestions of death by air embolism, inappropriate insulin , interference with intubations, overfeeding. etc., together with incorrect interpretation of statistical "evidence " and note keeping advised by CoCH occupational health have all faced serious challenges and doubt has been expressed in at least two cases regarding events surrounding the deaths of these babies.
It is many years since I attended a particular training course but I clearly recall that if, during the examination of records( usually relating to finance or materials) something " dodgy" was unearthed, the next step was to check all the records.
As, for good reasons , doubt has been cast on the evidence used during Lucy L's case it would be justice and entirely reasonable/ logical to grant an appeal/retrial asap. I understand that a group of experts is continuing to review records . The sooner it is accepted that a relatively young nurse has been incarcerated for her lifetime on questionable information the better served the bereaved parents , confidence in the UK system of justice and the nurse and her family will be
Staff employed in the administration of public services are generally referred to as Officers and, as / when they progress through the organisation they take on greater duties and responsibilities . Important issues are reported to democratically elected Committees by the CEO. or other senior eg., Director. Committees reach decisions which officers put into action - or do not as the decision dictates. . The process aims to be transparent-does it remain democratic if not ?
(There is considerable separation of responsibilities and duties at junior levels of staffing_.
The weather is appalling here but it might be GOOD NEWS WEEK etc.,
LEEDS -will connections be made? Some are capable . Where there is denial none will be recognised.
As a former senior manager of public services I have experienced the problems arising from inadequate staff and other resources which result in trying to spread effort thinly across the area of responsilbility knowing that, despite the very best conscientious efforts , it is impossible to meet the standards of service that are required by everyone concerned- a situation that it is very unsatisfactory from all points of view..
However, I find it difficult to understand those who fail to acknowledge the difficulties that arise preferring to believe that poor or disastrous outcomes must be the result of malign intent.
In the case of Lucy Letby there is every reason to consider that infants died because they were extremely vulnerable at the beginning of their lives and possibly needed a greater level of care than could be provided..
But amongst all the responsibilities of several layers of management is the need to identify the resources for the task and to raise the issues accordingly.
just testing
A Seasonal Thought
I gather that during 2015/6 and possibly earlier there was a shortage of suitable facilities for babies needing specialist care for various reasons. Some hospitals may have been unable to make appropriate tertiary referrals and were obliged to manage "in-house".
I do not think that I have seen mention of any possible related funding during any discussions in connection with this issue which may have had some impact on problems arising at CoCH NICU.
A good Christmas Pudding needs all the traditional ingredients and the addition of the silver coin.
I understand that intake of higher acuity babies results in higher income for the hospital. Maybe 4 times as much per baby per day. I heard this from a UK professor of hospital management, economics, and organization. At a meeting of about 20 professionals in various relevant fields, he and I were the only ones who were prepared to say that they believed Lucy to be innocent. All the others agreed the trial was unfair hence the convictions unsafe, but no more than that.
The condition of the Piggy Bank depends a great deal on previous attempts to make savings. If these were drastic Brandy Sauce might be required as well as the silver coin.
I know of people who swallowed the verdicts whole plus others who cannot admit to belief in Lucy L's innocence. It might well arise from fear.
Fear and their appeal to authority.
David Davis did well despite the obstacles. However, I think that the attitude which considers that all the evidence was put before a jury which decided ( not unanimously) that Lucy L., was guilty cannot and should not be sustained.. I know of at least 2 clear cases in which she could not possibly have been responsible for harm of any kind . And It is notlear to me that all the evidence was presented to the jury.. Neonatology Experts have examined case notes and discovered previously unrevealed facts. I understand that their work is continuing and there will be further reports soon.. The verdict is unreliable on many counts and it does nobody any good to suggest otherwise. I include the bereaved parents on this point. When first hearing of the deaths of their babies they must have been exceedingly upset. To be told much later that their children had been deliberately harmed must have been unbearable and a shock from which it would probably be impossible to recover..
Lucy L., should be granted a retrial for her own sake and future but also for the peace of mind of the parents- in my opinion they could better face the future in the knowledge that their children died from natural causes and not malign intent.' The Justice System and Government must listen.
The evidence put to the jury was only part of the evidence which then was available and relevant. The testimony of the prosecution experts were merely opinions and were partly adequately refuted during the trial (eg no evidence that Lucy added insulin to TPN bags, no proof the “insulin babies” were given unauthorised insulin). Let’s hope the CCRC will do the right thing, and do it rapidly.
Yesterday’s outcome did not please everyone despite the collective level of experience and qualifications of everyone involved. That the CCRC is READY TO GO is a very good thing but the fight is not yet over.
I have heard “COST” mentioned. House owners will know that maintaining their asset requires a budget to cover the costs of building maintenance including possible cleaning services plus relevant staff, heating and lighting, taxes - local and UK wide, gardening costs where appropriate, communications, household equipment etc., etc., If these expenses are not met deterioration occurs. Likewise in public services on a much more serious scale. Staffing levels including hours and qualifications can suffer along with the standard of service that can be delivered. These are very important issues and in no sense do they demean the tragic events that were considered yesterday ( and previously).
With the appeal, their rules keep it to the letter of the law. No concern for spirit. If there was any desire for justice, it would be irrelevant whether the evidence was new or extant, what would matter was whether there had been a miscarriage. Given how slow the wheels turn for CCRB, I think David Davis MP should get onto Justice secretary and push for an unconditional pardon from Charley boy. Ultimately he still has that power although I'm not holding my breath.
I agree. I also wonder how differences between the clinical notes and evidence put before the court would be categorised. If new facts emerge from the current expert examination that were not made available at the trials, would this count as evidence witheld. Did the paediatric expert witness have access to the relevant case notes - I believe so.
Court of appeal judges can make up new rules; they can invent clever legal reasons not to follow precedent. They have to realize that the authority of the court will be diminished if this time they do not do the right thing. That justice in this case has priority over consistency with current practice.
Your second and third sentences- exactly right !
It is my recollection that any suggestions of death by air embolism, inappropriate insulin , interference with intubations, overfeeding. etc., together with incorrect interpretation of statistical "evidence " and note keeping advised by CoCH occupational health have all faced serious challenges and doubt has been expressed in at least two cases regarding events surrounding the deaths of these babies.
It is many years since I attended a particular training course but I clearly recall that if, during the examination of records( usually relating to finance or materials) something " dodgy" was unearthed, the next step was to check all the records.
As, for good reasons , doubt has been cast on the evidence used during Lucy L's case it would be justice and entirely reasonable/ logical to grant an appeal/retrial asap. I understand that a group of experts is continuing to review records . The sooner it is accepted that a relatively young nurse has been incarcerated for her lifetime on questionable information the better served the bereaved parents , confidence in the UK system of justice and the nurse and her family will be
And, as far as I can say , it's a lovely day!