This nurse Letby case

[Rita_Poon]

With respect that’s utter bollox.

If the Doctors who had initially raised their concerns, had been able to go to a dedicated and professional investigation dept, within the organisation, childrens lived could’ve been saved and lives not ruined.

Instead they had to go to senior managers and execs with no investigatory experience, who sat as kings and queens, ruling over their own self serving kingdoms and we end up with a serial killer, who was given a free reign to keep on killing.

FYI, I have over twenty years of experience of working with families of children and young people, who’ve died as a result of neglect, been abused, both physically and sexually and worked hand in hand within the police and other agencies, so I really do know what I’m talking about.

Your hatred of the police has unfortunately blinded you to reason and rationale.

I don't have hatred for the police or anyone else, but I do have an issue with criminals and worse that hide in their ranks. That goes also for instances elsewhere, nursing, bbc DJ's, the priesthood, etc...

 

[Rita_Poon]

And err, just to clarify, the right to not turn up to sentencing has existed (in law!) for how many decades? Suddenly it's some huge issue. Suddenly.

 

[Billy Dean]

Can't stop thinking about what drove her to it. No prior history of crime/violence etc. I wonder what it was that triggered it.

 

[Daveysgingerlovechild]

Can't stop thinking about what drove her to it. No prior history of crime/violence etc. I wonder what it was that triggered it.

That we know of.

May well be a psychopath.

 

[Joey66]

What is scaring me is how many must be dying per nurse that this didn't immediately flag a full and thorough investigation. Hope the whole level of management get wiped out for this, they all assisted her murders and attempted murders by gross negligence.

The retired ones pensions removed & face prison sentences, it won't happen though

 

[PhilM]

read as far as the bold bit. you see, not one of them was under lock and key prevented from reporting an issue to the regular police at the time. Had they felt that strongly.

Mate, let's pull it back a bit, and look at it objectively and rationally. Looking at it literally, you're entirely correct about the point you've made here.

They could, and with hindsight probably should, have contacted the police. Yet, emphasis on should here as we need to understand what their concerns were.

I don't know the case in enough detail to definitively say x, or y, so it's a bit of prediction based on what I have read of it, and other experiences etc.

First I'd ask: were their concerns suggesting her actions were illegal (e.g. did they meet a threshold for a crime) or were their concerns of negligence?

If it's the latter, then are we talking about the negligence being to the extent that it is in fact criminal, or are we talking about unintentional poor practice by her?

This is where an investigatory department should have come into play. We also have to consider the expected procedures that most organisations have.

In the simplest sense, we've probably all seen the flow charts: report to this, they go to this; not dealt with, report higher up the chain. You catch my drift.

In most cases, rightly or wrongly, it is frowned upon to come away from the policies in place, and I know of examples where pressure has been exerted.

Now, I am not excusing people here because it reached a point where, admittedly, I'm flabbergasted how it didn't a) get reported earlier, b) become public.

But, an independent investigatory department (e.g. professional standards), who are detached from the executives, could have easily picked this up.

From what I can tell, there were numerous examples of where people, likely for their own benefit, swept her criminal actions under the carpet.

Others may have done it unintentionally - protecting the reputation of the Trust or not having the knowledge to investigate - but they're still culpable.

Whether you agree with @COYBL25's recommendation that detectives sit in it or not is irrelevant to me, but people with investigatory experience would help.

People have obviously whistleblown about her, to the point numerous consultants have a wrote letter pleading for her removal, and they end up apologising to her!

 

[COYBL25]

read as far as the bold bit. you see, not one of them was under lock and key prevented from reporting an issue to the regular police at the time. Had they felt that strongly.

The fear of losing their jobs, their careers, never working in medicine again and being ostracised by the wider medical community, stopped them going to the Police.

That’s the way it works when you whistle blow.

 

[Rita_Poon]

Mate, let's pull it back a bit, and look at it objectively and rationally. Looking at it literally, you're entirely correct about the point you've made here.

They could, and with hindsight probably should, have contacted the police. Yet, emphasis on should here as we need to understand what their concerns were.

I appreciate we are all opining after the fact and thus with the benefit of hindsight.

I don't know the case in enough detail to definitively say x, or y, so it's a bit of prediction based on what I have read of it, and other experiences etc.

First I'd ask: were their concerns suggesting her actions were illegal (e.g. did they meet a threshold for a crime) or were their concerns of negligence?

If it's the latter, then are we talking about the negligence being to the extent that it is in fact criminal, or are we talking about unintentional poor practice by her?

There has come to light the possibility that she was tampering with babies so as to promote herself as incredibly diligent to a certain married doctor she was/is apparently rather keen on and to be at work in his presence so to speak. Again, we are all at the behest of the few details currently available and the hows and whys those details have made it to the public arena.

This is where an investigatory department should have come into play. We also have to consider the expected procedures that most organisations have.

I believe there is an anonymous safeguarding hotline. (or a body with a differing name to do such)

In the simplest sense, we've probably all seen the flow charts: report to this, they go to this; not dealt with, report higher up the chain. You catch my drift.

In most cases, rightly or wrongly, it is frowned upon to come away from the policies in place, and I know of examples where pressure has been exerted.

I think we have a similar angle of thinking here, I am in agreement that there will be a culture of being a 'team player' and not bringing the 'greater good' into question or disrepute. I expect this occurs in quite a few areas of working life....

Now, I am not excusing people here because it reached a point where, admittedly, I'm flabbergasted how it didn't a) get reported earlier, b) become public.

But, an independent investigatory department (e.g. professional standards), who are detached from the executives, could have easily picked this up.

Dealt with above in so far as anonymous hotline re concerns for staff and or patients etc. (Also we must have a nurse on here that can outline the basics of maintaining their pin number etc)

From what I can tell, there were numerous examples of where people, likely for their own benefit, swept her criminal actions under the carpet.

I alluded to this earlier, that her professional reputation was in question at the hands of some seven doctors/consultants is very peculiar - that the execs sided with her only now seems odd (hindsight again) but that (all of) these execs were no longer in place some 12 months later whilst the doctors/consultants were is startling. Was there bad blood between those that forced the apology and those saying their sorry forcibly. What did this do to the atmosphere on the hospital floor? Was there any favouritism shown and vice versa? This part is what's troubling me (outside of the crimes ofc).
With zero personal knowledge of the people or the working and or social relationships key around this case it is purest guesswork to suggest that employees with a documented grievance were moved around and kept apart so as to allow for the function of the health trust to recover and to keep front of house appearing settled and fit for purpose. We've seen examples similar previous.

Others may have done it unintentionally - protecting the reputation of the Trust or not having the knowledge to investigate - but they're still culpable.

If I'm a nurse on that ward and I have a suspicion or a worry or a concern, I reckon I think twice reporting it at least officially with the doctors/consultants having been reprimanded over their treatment of this lone individual. With the working situation as difficult as we are now finding out, I'm wondering if the pressure was so intense that staff were tolerating the intolerable so as to fit in and not be seen as part of the problem.

Whether you agree with @COYBL25's recommendation that detectives sit in it or not is irrelevant to me, but people with investigatory experience would help.

Who's vetting them and how, and will there be a regulatory system setup in parallel akin to the complaints commission for the police? Time, bureaucracy, appropriate skills, experience and money. Also the human aspect of the formality of being questioned by a former murderer catcher and how that reflects upon whoever is being questioned - personally and professionally.

People have obviously whistleblown about her, to the point numerous consultants have a wrote letter pleading for her removal, and they end up apologising to her!

I do find the part about them wanting to go to the police rather galling, in that they were apparently told not to, so went along with that decision. These are well educated powerful people, making important decisions on a daily basis. That being their respective jobs. None of them? Astounding.

Please forgive the breakdown, and any air of possible negativity, there is none but I thought to qualify that just in case.

 

[Rita_Poon]

The fear of losing their jobs, their careers, never working in medicine again and being ostracised by the wider medical community, stopped them going to the Police.

That’s the way it works when you whistle blow.

Then there is a greater problem at large. Anonymous reporting removes the stigma.
That their initial reporting of concerns re letby appear to have backfired so terribly, will have to be investigated, the panel forcing the apology will have to account for their decisions, and the doctors/consultants that wanted to report to the police and could easily have done so (though I admit with possible personal repercussions) but didn't will have to look themselves in the eye for the rest of their lives and ask not could I have done something different, but ''should I have done something different''.

 

[DavidH]

Mate, let's pull it back a bit, and look at it objectively and rationally. Looking at it literally, you're entirely correct about the point you've made here.

They could, and with hindsight probably should, have contacted the police. Yet, emphasis on should here as we need to understand what their concerns were.

I don't know the case in enough detail to definitively say x, or y, so it's a bit of prediction based on what I have read of it, and other experiences etc.

First I'd ask: were their concerns suggesting her actions were illegal (e.g. did they meet a threshold for a crime) or were their concerns of negligence?

If it's the latter, then are we talking about the negligence being to the extent that it is in fact criminal, or are we talking about unintentional poor practice by her?

This is where an investigatory department should have come into play. We also have to consider the expected procedures that most organisations have.

In the simplest sense, we've probably all seen the flow charts: report to this, they go to this; not dealt with, report higher up the chain. You catch my drift.

In most cases, rightly or wrongly, it is frowned upon to come away from the policies in place, and I know of examples where pressure has been exerted.

Now, I am not excusing people here because it reached a point where, admittedly, I'm flabbergasted how it didn't a) get reported earlier, b) become public.

But, an independent investigatory department (e.g. professional standards), who are detached from the executives, could have easily picked this up.

From what I can tell, there were numerous examples of where people, likely for their own benefit, swept her criminal actions under the carpet.

Others may have done it unintentionally - protecting the reputation of the Trust or not having the knowledge to investigate - but they're still culpable.

Whether you agree with @COYBL25's recommendation that detectives sit in it or not is irrelevant to me, but people with investigatory experience would help.

People have obviously whistleblown about her, to the point numerous consultants have a wrote letter pleading for her removal, and they end up apologising to her!

This isn't the right thread for that, not yet anyway

 

[peteblue]

Mate, let's pull it back a bit, and look at it objectively and rationally. Looking at it literally, you're entirely correct about the point you've made here.

They could, and with hindsight probably should, have contacted the police. Yet, emphasis on should here as we need to understand what their concerns were.

I don't know the case in enough detail to definitively say x, or y, so it's a bit of prediction based on what I have read of it, and other experiences etc.

First I'd ask: were their concerns suggesting her actions were illegal (e.g. did they meet a threshold for a crime) or were their concerns of negligence?

If it's the latter, then are we talking about the negligence being to the extent that it is in fact criminal, or are we talking about unintentional poor practice by her?

This is where an investigatory department should have come into play. We also have to consider the expected procedures that most organisations have.

In the simplest sense, we've probably all seen the flow charts: report to this, they go to this; not dealt with, report higher up the chain. You catch my drift.

In most cases, rightly or wrongly, it is frowned upon to come away from the policies in place, and I know of examples where pressure has been exerted.

Now, I am not excusing people here because it reached a point where, admittedly, I'm flabbergasted how it didn't a) get reported earlier, b) become public.

But, an independent investigatory department (e.g. professional standards), who are detached from the executives, could have easily picked this up.

From what I can tell, there were numerous examples of where people, likely for their own benefit, swept her criminal actions under the carpet.

Others may have done it unintentionally - protecting the reputation of the Trust or not having the knowledge to investigate - but they're still culpable.

Whether you agree with @COYBL25's recommendation that detectives sit in it or not is irrelevant to me, but people with investigatory experience would help.

People have obviously whistleblown about her, to the point numerous consultants have a wrote letter pleading for her removal, and they end up apologising to her!

Every major company has an Audit Committee, Audit Directors and Managers, well versed in investigating any operational, financial or business issue.

I expect the hospital had some form of Risk or Patient Safety manager …..

 

[PhilM]

@Rita_Poon you've said there is a hotline, which is correct. The point made was, who does this go to? Who does the investigation? Who decided on the findings?

It appears that in this case the trust outsourced its investigation to a body, who themselves said they lacked time to thoroughly investigate, got a report...

... and pretty much did nothing about it. In the police, each force has its own professional standards, which sits below the IOPC.

Personally, I find it disconcerting that you're questioning the procedures and processes behind a proposed investigatory department (e.g. who is vetting them)...

... rather than focusing on the potential need for one. All that can be sorted out in my humble belief, and such an organisation could have saved lives.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Somber thought at how many have got away with it over the years.

For every Shipman or Letby, how many go without detection or successfully covered up?

 

[roydo]

Somber thought at how many have got away with it over the years.

For every Shipman or Letby, how many go without detection or successfully covered up?

Thankfully, probably not many. Its why these cases resonate so much.

"Black lad stabbed in London". Next, for example.

 

[GrandOldTeam]

Thankfully, probably not many. Its why these cases resonate so much.

"Black lad stabbed in London". Next, for example.

Not sure - look at the count before detection. They're not picked up easily.

Shipman in particular - it was *lucky* how he was caught. If he never forged that will/daughter a solicitor contesting it then he'd never have been caught.