A TV drama

[Siderite]

The discourse over that Adolesence drama is genuinely bonkers. Like all good drama, it raised talking points, but to get to government policy is mad. Starmer having meetings with the show creators and trying to have it shown in schools. Now we have talking heads saying Badenoch is abandoning her duty as leader of the opposition for not watching or commenting on it!

https://x.com/LBC/status/1907010846141579634

When all is said and done, it’s a work of fiction. The creators did well to raise themes and get people thinking, but they aren’t necessarily experts in the field. Treating it like a documentary is wild.

I hope Starmer and these talking heads don’t watch Dr Who or they might get worried about the ignored threat of hostile dustbin like aliens out to exterminate us.

[NorthWestIron]

It seems I’m in the minority, but I didn’t find it particularly earth shattering. I also think Stephen Graham is an exceptionally lucky man,to receive the continual plaudits he does. An average actor, probably lauded,as he is a working class scouser.

[Gurnelista]

Siderite wrote:

Like all good drama, it raised talking points, but to get to government policy is mad.

Good dramas can have exactly that kind of impact – raising public awareness leading to demands for change, most recently, Mr Bates v the P.O.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/jan/09/bates-post-office-scandal-13-tv-shows-shook-britain

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Iron-awe]

Haven’t seen Adolescence but Mr Bates v the Post Office was absolutely brilliant and revealing IMO, the cast were excellent and it opened a lot of people’s eyes about what actually went on and not how some of it was reported.

[Siderite]

I don’t mind them discussing the issues raised, but that should be the focus, not whether the TV show has been watched. The issues raised are real, but the TV show is a fictionalised account all the same and shouldn’t be treated as something vital for the issue to be tackled.

[Gurnelista]

“Fictionalized” means characters or events didn’t actually exist or happen. All drama is necessarily like that, to some extent, e.g. did the kid really say those things to his mother, were the PO people pottering in the kitchen when they heard they were about to be arrested, and so on.

But, if the key points are clearly made and drive home important facts, such as the innocence of imprisoned PO workers, or the Birmingham six (who’d be in the ground, never mind prison, if we had the death penalty) it can only be in the public interest.

It will be interesting to see if one on Lucy Letby is forthcoming. The more you hear about her case, the more likely there could have been a miscarriage. Here’s a sensible view of it, particularly the second half.

[Siderite]

Like I said, I am not disputing that the drama raises issues of interest. The idea that it’s a dereliction of responsibility for a politician not to watch it is still absurd. The bigger issue is whether Kemi has any idea how to approach the issues raised, and evidence suggests she doesn’t, not whether she watched a TV show. She could have formulated some ideas without having to have seen the show. And, while it may raise themes and discussion, it is not gospel. There has to be a more thorough way of tackling the issues of disaffected young males.

As for Letby, the whole defence seems to bear the hallmarks of the fake news outlets undermining actual verdicts in favour of a contrarian message, regardless of evidence. Cherry picking aspects to make it seem more wafer thin than it is. Of course there is the possibility that it may be deserving of being overturned, as many cases are, but the Letby truthers don’t seem to be willing to tackle the case in a manner which would truly demonstrate it. As said, they cherry pick aspects and rely on others not knowing the complex case and the science to any level to make it sound dodgy. Letby was found guilty through a multifaceted case where the prosecution successfully linked many circumstantial pieces of evidence together to demonstrate this wasn’t the case of understaffing or other problems. The Letby truthers tend to focus in on one detail, take it out of context, and say this is flimsy. They neglect to do any kind of holistic analysis.

I am no expert, but have read accounts of the court notes and it is clear that for it to be overturned it needs to be shown how the many pieces of evidence for guilt are just coincidences. The aspects they cherry pick over are also disputed and were so in court. Some of the recent revelations of ‘injustice’ were discussed in court and were refuted. I am still sceptical of it being injustice. The understaffing explanation doesn’t seem to account for why there were no or few abnormal emergency counts when Letby wasn’t on shift. I think it’s a stretch to believe Letby happened to only work shifts when the hospital was understaffed.

Anyway, to reiterate, I could be wrong, but those who sat through the court felt the same and it’s up to Letby’s team to prove otherwsie, through proper means. However, the refused appeals show they are struggling and there is no evidence that they are being refused for incorrect reasons. For the other side, someone more knowledgable than me talks here:

[Gurnelista]

Someone more knowledgeable?! C’mon Siderite, you mean a video you found by someone you agree with, like the one you posted some time back on Islam. But, if you take a minute to read around online, you’ll see Oliver and dog isn’t even a medical doctor, and broadcasts obsessively on all sorts of stuff.

When this case was first tried, I thought the same as you still do about Letby. Now however, I really don’t know. But it does appear there may be new evidence which hadn’t been previously considered.

A quick look on the WWW reveals Letby is something of a focal point for the culture warriors. Why is this? Why don’t some people want to consider new evidence? Is it because what initially seemed an open and shut case was in fact far, far more complicated, and the outcome may be just the opposite of what everybody was led to believe? A bit like believing the sun goes round the Earth, then being told by some heretics that the opposite is true (and for which scientists were executed).

But when new evidence does come forward, it’s incumbent on all of us to consider it, as with all previous miscarriages. Just ask the B’ham 6. Or Copernicus and co.

[Siderite]

You do realise that this video isn’t the only thing I have come across on this? Have you bothered to watch or read up on what might contradict the evidence claimed by the people on Letby’s side? For example, they make claims of skin discolouration by the defence are debunked by peer reviewed research which says the opposite. Evidence that had nothing to do with the case, even. Or does the fact that they are doctors make the qualified to have authority, even if others disagree? Just like the climate change ‘sceptics’ who wheel out the ‘expert scientist’ who can make them sound like they have authority.

I have previously made errors, but if my error in an unrelated thread precludes me from arguing from a position of consideration, I don’t see why I should not view your position as equally based on what you want to believe.After all, you believed those not so trusty Hamas casuality figures without consideration for the context or reliability of live updates of casuality figures from a warzone. If a dubious video origin can dismiss me, this can with you.

You’re right though in that it has created the ‘culture warriors’ and conspiracist craze. Peter Hitchens and the conspiracists have seized on this to show how the lying ‘experts’ and ‘MSM’ have damned poor Lucy. If I can be so glibly dismissed based on your own prejudice, the same can be applied to you.

Moreover, I have not said it is beyond the realms of possibility that this was a miscarriage. However, it would be a huge coincidence based on the many pieces of circumstantial evidence and there is no medical evidence arisen that has changed the mind of myself, or more importantly the judge. The thoughts otherwise, from people who are (like me) not experts, are just that and the fact that they are not being considered is not necessarily evidence of a refusal to consider new evidence, but maybe that they have not understood the evidence and there is no conspiracy to silence their ‘greater understanding’ than us mere fools who must think the evidence can’t be enough to overturn the verdict because of our own biases. Only the ‘free thinkers’ who may misunderstand some things can critically assess anything, not the jury, judges and more.

Of course, I may be wrong, but so might you be and the burden is on the doubters to overturn the evidence and not just dismiss videos that question their stances as some cover-up or because they’re ‘sheep’. The point is that I am not dismissing the possibility of new evidence. The point is that the Letby defenders have not yet produced anything that can fully withstand scrutiny. Hence why it has (likely) been dismissed for appeal. Mistrials happen, but the defenders have failed to produce anything convincing to the court. Previous mistrials don’t magically make this one.

Maybe consider that those who disagree aren’t doing so because they want to believe something, but because maybe they have interpreted the situation different to you and it doesn’t make them below your own rationality.

[Siderite]

And, yes, I do think someone with a PhD in nanomedicine and has activity within the field is more knowledgable in medical matters than me, who has no medical degree whatsoever. It doesn’t mean I am saying that because I agree with her; I am saying it because that is likely the case. A doctor is more qualified to express an opinion than a layman like me who might be wrong and whose understanding is not based on expertise (neither is yours, so far as I know). It doesn’t make her automatically correct, medicine is a wide field with many specialities. However, it doesn’t make me on a par with her, does it?

[Gurnelista]

Sid, to go down that way of thinking (that Letby must be guilty) and stay doggedly locked into it no matter what, is a hinderance when there is new information to consider.

It’s a mindset that denies any evidence which contradicts tightly held beliefs, and shuts out any dissenting voices. It’s what led to Brexit, and the PO, and other cases too. There’s more than a whiff of this to the Letby case.

Unlike the ‘expert’ Dame Edna and her pooch, I don’t know if Letby is innocent or not, but there appears to be an increasing amount of new information which suggests the original decision could be faulty. If that information comes from reputable sources, which it does, I’m prepared to listen to it and think again. We all should.

[Siderite]

I am so dogged in my opinion that I have stated I could be wrong (more than once). I said this specifically to state that it’s not some set in stone opinion. However, for it to be overturned, it has to deal with the issues that I have with their reasoning. Such as the before mentioned discrepancies over claims about skin colour, as well as others about how the adminmistered insulin in one case could be a false positive. Yet, there is evidence this spike of insulin came after administered bags and there was more than one positive test (where false positives are something like 1 in 200, from what I read when looking at this – quite a coincidence for false positives). These are some of the claims made by those claiming foul at her guilty verdict and they don’t wash because they don’t explain away what I have read, not because everyone who disagrees with you is some rigid thinker below your own rationality.

If Letby is innocent, she has the courts to go by, the proper route. So far she has failed, and instead of assuming it’s because of anything awry ith the courts, maybe the Letby defenders should self-reflect first over their understanding. Much of these ‘revelations’ came up in the court case and other experts disagreed. The jury agreed with them. It’s funny when this is being compared to Brexit thinking. It was claimed that it was Brexit arguing against due process and such.

That is my position. That it is up to the courts to decide; so far they have decided guilty and it doesn’t look like changing. To reiterate, maybe consider that there is a reason why and look into it first. My own opinion is based off what I have read. I may be wrong, but consider you might be and these claims are not that shattering for a change of opinion (and that those who disagree might not be such complete ignoramuses). For all your claims of ‘rigid thinking’ I was more sceptical of the verdict initially because of the claims made by defenders. I looked into it more, including the court notes and what it was based on, and became sceptical of the defending claims, which didn’t match with what was presented. I reiterate, I may be wrong, but I don’t think it’s because of ‘rigid thinking’ because you have a habit of dismissing anyone who disagrees as being some gammony, stuck in their ways rigid thinker. For all your talk of rigid Brexit thought, you seem to denigrate anyone who disagrees. Including a scientist and science communicator who lays out some of the issues with the defender claims. She is apparently Dame Edna and her pooch.

[Siderite]

I have noted that anti-vaxxer, covid denialist, chemtrail believing conspiracy theorists tend to sway towards Letby is innocent messaging. I don’t think these people are being particularly rational and see this as another crusade against the mainstream view. However, I don’t think it would be fair to say all people who disagree with me are like this. I am not suggesting you are. This creates a couple of categories of people on this side. The conspiracy theorists and those who disagree, but are more critical. Maybe consider the opposite is true and don’t assume those who disagree are doing it because they want to believe in her guilt, they are culture warriors or some other reason. They might know something you don’t (or they might not) and consider this, rather than treating anyone who disagrees as someone who cannot hope to match your own thinking.

It’s assuredness which can blind to faults.

[Gurnelista]

Siderite wrote:

I have noted that anti-vaxxer, covid denialist, chemtrail believing conspiracy theorists tend to sway towards Letby is innocent messaging.

It’s assuredness which can blind to faults.

Can’t agree with the first statement – a quick look on youtube reveals unlikely bedfellows from David Davis to Phil Hammond and of course Letby’s defence lawyer Mike Mansfield QC (and a few others) who think there is new information to consider. Hardly nutters/cranks/conspiracy theorists!

But believing in a blinkered way certainly blinds to faults. That’s the crux of the matter here, and why there’s a reluctance to review the case. I think it applies to the video you posted, too.

Dame Edna is a charlatan. Just look – the sofa, the little dog, the folksy image and twee ornaments – it’s all a contrivance to fool the gullible into thinking she hasn’t an agenda. That alone, should make anyone question her credibility straight away. Ask yourself ‘Why is this woman pretending to be an ordinary suburban housewife while talking about important scientific and legal matters?’

Answer: She’s a crank who’s set herself up as a full-time opinion former/influenza/sorry, influencer, taking a stance on all manner of things and broadcasting it to the world in a bid to get clicks and followers. That cosy suburban look appeals to other suburbanites, who are cynical about or just can’t understand experts. It makes them think that she’s like them – ordinary, but just a bit cleverer.

Why does she do it? Who knows? It’s probably one of the few thrills she gets out of life! Maybe some punters send her coffee money. But, if she was really an expert on anything at all, she wouldn’t be sounding off on all manner of topics, like she does in her other videos. She’d stick to her specialism, keep it professional, and probably do it on a blog or something, from within her own organisation/university/scientific institute.

Thing is Siderite, more people should be aware of how to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to getting info online. Sadly, they aren’t, and even on here some people like Les and the jonnies know this very well. They exploit it when they have an agenda to push, like with Brexit and getting Jonny into Brussels. “Copy paste this and send it to your Aunt Doris!” Remember that? And guess what, lots of folk did, thinking it was all true. And it worked, even tho’ it was BS!

So, folk should choose their sources more carefully. While the odd-looking Dame might be right on some topics in her video library, she’s not a reliable source of information, particularly on something as specialised as Letby. But hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, eh?

[Siderite]

If you read my previous response I make it clear that not all are conspiracists. However, it is something I have noted. Peter Hitchens has some conspiracist beliefs, as has this guy:

You keep trying to dismiss others as unthinking and prone to propaganda just because they disagree with you, so the point I am making is that if there are some who are ignoramuses who think Letby is guilty, and you’re just going to dismiss anything contrary to your own opinion like this, I can pull up examples like this to say gthe opposite. It’s a point to show how illogical it is.

“She was paid off by the elites” – Sounds kinda Johnny Brexity, doesn’t it?

I do note that you have nothing substantial to say about what was stated in said videos. Just attacks on style, not substance. Of course she has some things in her youtube to sell, to make herself popular to an audience. It doesn’t inherently make it ‘crankery’. Youtubers I watch regularly (I don’t with this person) also have gimmicks; an archaeologist graduate who has made a lot of videos debunking Atlantis, Graham Hancock’s pre-Ice Age advanced civilisation rubbish, civilisations below the pyramids, ancient civilisations on Anarctica, pyramids were power plants etc is a favourite of mine and has gimmicks. His humour, making a drink for each debunk and other things like an attire is also a play to the audience. It doesn’t make him wrong and the Atlantis, ancient aliens type nonsense some brave truth telling against Brexity thinking to just accept what mainstream archaeology is saying though. I can’t say I have watched many of Susan’s videos, so maybe I have missed something, but from that video alone she cites peer reviewed research that disputes this from experts in the field, even if her speciality is different. Stuff which can be checked out and that does dispute some of the claims, and while I am not an expert myself, the claims made by the defence team are contradicted by statements there. That is what is crucial for me. Not this woman, but the disputes by the experts (in relevant fields) who have been mentioned by her in the videos I have seen, the papers cited and the experts in the court notes. The experts who have spoken up since have not said much different to what was in court; they failed then and it doesn’t make it different now that people who rely on using their figure as an authority (logical fallacy) are making out that because experts have said something it makes it inherently incorrect. Other experts have contradicted and were more convincing in court, to me and others (because we read their arguments and saw that these ‘shocking’ claims are not that revelatory, at least according to opinion). Or maybe these experts had cutsie dogs and twee ‘live, laugh, love’ signs at home, which makes them a crank.

I agree people should be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, which is why I am not agreeing with your evidence free post, which relies on experts who happen to agree with you because they have experts and big names like David Davis. I have read the actual disagreements from these experts and other experts (not from Susan, directly) and seen that the claims from the Letby defence are dubious and not fully supported by the evidence in court or the scientific literature. That’s what matters and until that can be resolved, I am unlikely to change my mind. I will if it does, but it is based on evidence, not because Gurny says so and you must be irrational to disagree with him.

And, yes, I may be wrong, but so might you. Think on that before making out anything that disagrees with you is rigid Brexity thinking.

[Author]

Posts