Search results

Also, there’s a grand total of one US doctor quoted in the piece (well, South African, but working at Harvard) and he doesn’t talk about the UK healthcare system at all. So I have to ask, did you actually read it?

I don’t see why the nationalities are that relevant here. As for “familiarity of the case”, both the prosecution and defence relied on expert witnesses who weren’t familiar with the case until being tasked with it - that’s how a trial works, isn’t it? Yes, there are assumptions and heart...

If Nick is concerned about the legal implications then I’ll happily remove the link.

I think I saw it’s 13,000 words - it’s not a short article by any journalistic or academic standard. Still not sure what your point is - we don’t decide someone’s guilt by word count.

The journalist (it’s a woman btw) is openly critical of the sensationalist coverage of murder trials in the article, which I assume you’ve read. This is The New Yorker, not a Netflix series. She seems to have spoken to many of the key players involved in the case, including some of the key...

What’s your point?

It’s a deeply reported piece, with dozens of interviews with hospital administrators, former colleagues, medical experts, and key figures from the prosecution and the defence. It will have taken months if not years to put together, and The New Yorker’s approach to fact checking is notoriously...

It was a genuine question - I don’t recall it happening in the past, have no idea if they’d offer anything competitive.

A short piece?

When has this ever been the case in the past?

I don’t think anyone on here has

Did you read the article?

https://archive.ph/2024.05.14-044149/https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2024/05/20/lucy-letby-was-found-guilty-of-killing-seven-babies-did-she-do-it

Wow - The New Yorker has published a 13,000 word article questioning the conviction, placing the case alongside previous examples of miscarriages of justice in the medical profession. The article isn’t available online in the UK for legal reasons, but is viewable elsewhere.

We’re both wrong - it was: 1) Croatia 2) Israel 3) Ukraine https://www.aberdeenlive.news/news/aberdeen-news/eurovision-2024-full-voting-results-9279304.amp

Pretentious?! Is this a John Smiths ad? Needless goals being scored are fun and good, actually.

I didn’t say there was, I’m not following Eurovision especially closely. Maybe the Israeli song sweeping the public vote in the middle of a deeply controversial and unpopular war was just a coincidence!

VAR is shite Refusing to shoot? There are more goals than ever so… Arsing around at the back is way more enjoyable to watch than an almighty HOOOOOOF

I mean, it seems quite plausible to me that right wingers across Europe could launch a protest vote campaign for Israel for a variety of reasons, some of them shared, some of them more local/esoteric. But seems like you have other things on your mind.