I have witnessed two separate court cases against the NHS and on both occasions, when the NHS discovered the possibility of legal action, the NHS had a "computer failure" which resulted in the loss of all of the medical records of the patient, so that the claimant could not have that evidence in court. I would not trust the evidence of NHS.
"It never occurred to me that there could be such serious and fundamental faults with the case, though I confess that it occurred to colleagues of mine very quickly."
I'm glad this was acknowledged because there were many of us who spotted the patterns very early on in this case but, as is always the case, were dismissed (even by the 'based') as conspiracy theorists.
A lady (albeit a North American) responded to your recent note on this case saying "I really think this is a case of stupidity rather than malice..." which highlights the real issue here. I disagree that a 'collapse of trust in our institutions' or 'overpaid managers' is the problem, these along with other things you've listed here are merely symptoms of the problem.
The real problem is that lady who responded to your note, and the 100's of millions like her, who, even when confronted with a dead cat thrown on the table in front of them, still insist it's Hanlon's Razor.
Specifically regarding the clear travesty of justice perpetrated through the British court system I suggest that you invite the incredibly learned Graham Moore (Chairman of the English Constitution Society) to the Jolly Heretic. He would very much enjoy telling your audience how the Muslim Rape gang members could all very easily have been given mandatory life sentences without parole had they been correctly tried for torture. He was particularly interested in the Letby case also.
The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, the Soham stitch-up (ongoing; it was a black American GI, but that couldn't be admitted in the lead up to Blair's rape-and-pillage of Iraq)... who is still trusting the British Justice system? It has been rotten from the top down for 100 years at least.
At the time, there were glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the official story, as well as ludicrous claims. Huntley was brought for questioning for 24 hours, then 48 hours, then 72 hours, then 96 hours! This, supposedly, though they had incontrovertible evidence, recovered from places where it had very obviously been planted. They then put him in a mental instiution until a hearing, when he was brought out in a wheelchair, drooling and completely zombified, supposedly having made a written 'confession'. Blair resisted efforts for an enquiry into the murders. The bodies were found buried right outside a US base, among whose GI's was a guy convicted previously of the murder of a young girl. // There was a website for years listing the contradictions and weaknesses of the case, and people were working to overturn the fake conviction. But I lost track of it since. It had all the markings of a stitchup, right from the start. Blair was all gung-ho to invade Iraq, and the scandal, if an American GI been found guilty of this horrible double murder, might well have scuppered his evil plans. I can't remember most of the details, but there were much more.
I've never come across this analysis of the Soham murders but what you describe is the same MO we see rolled out over and over.
Richard D Hall has meticulously scrutinised, investigated and documented the serious inconsistences with scores of establishment cover-ups including the Manchester Arena bombing, the murder of Jo Cox, the 7/7 terror attacks, the Lee Rigby murder, Madeleine McCann and so many more (https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre_menu.php?gen=1). The trick is not to focus on his conclusions because he's just trying to make sense of a cover up like the rest of us. Instead, focus on the reams of evidence that just don't stack up, exactly like the Lucy Letby serial baby murders.
The state (or whoever) gets away with it every single time because the average man and woman wants to believe they live in a safe, secure and civilised society. When presented with evidence to the contrary the instinct is to reject it. If you can't show them exactly how it did happen with a smoking gun and neat bow tied round it they'll immediately dismiss you as a conspiracy theorist and carry on safely in the knowledge that what their government tells them is based on the truth or, at worst, they're covering up incompetence (Hanlon's Razor).
I have witnessed two separate court cases against the NHS and on both occasions, when the NHS discovered the possibility of legal action, the NHS had a "computer failure" which resulted in the loss of all of the medical records of the patient, so that the claimant could not have that evidence in court. I would not trust the evidence of NHS.
"It never occurred to me that there could be such serious and fundamental faults with the case, though I confess that it occurred to colleagues of mine very quickly."
I'm glad this was acknowledged because there were many of us who spotted the patterns very early on in this case but, as is always the case, were dismissed (even by the 'based') as conspiracy theorists.
A lady (albeit a North American) responded to your recent note on this case saying "I really think this is a case of stupidity rather than malice..." which highlights the real issue here. I disagree that a 'collapse of trust in our institutions' or 'overpaid managers' is the problem, these along with other things you've listed here are merely symptoms of the problem.
The real problem is that lady who responded to your note, and the 100's of millions like her, who, even when confronted with a dead cat thrown on the table in front of them, still insist it's Hanlon's Razor.
Specifically regarding the clear travesty of justice perpetrated through the British court system I suggest that you invite the incredibly learned Graham Moore (Chairman of the English Constitution Society) to the Jolly Heretic. He would very much enjoy telling your audience how the Muslim Rape gang members could all very easily have been given mandatory life sentences without parole had they been correctly tried for torture. He was particularly interested in the Letby case also.
The Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four, the Maguire Seven, the Soham stitch-up (ongoing; it was a black American GI, but that couldn't be admitted in the lead up to Blair's rape-and-pillage of Iraq)... who is still trusting the British Justice system? It has been rotten from the top down for 100 years at least.
Are you privy to information regarding the Soham murders of which I am unaware?
At the time, there were glaring contradictions and inconsistencies in the official story, as well as ludicrous claims. Huntley was brought for questioning for 24 hours, then 48 hours, then 72 hours, then 96 hours! This, supposedly, though they had incontrovertible evidence, recovered from places where it had very obviously been planted. They then put him in a mental instiution until a hearing, when he was brought out in a wheelchair, drooling and completely zombified, supposedly having made a written 'confession'. Blair resisted efforts for an enquiry into the murders. The bodies were found buried right outside a US base, among whose GI's was a guy convicted previously of the murder of a young girl. // There was a website for years listing the contradictions and weaknesses of the case, and people were working to overturn the fake conviction. But I lost track of it since. It had all the markings of a stitchup, right from the start. Blair was all gung-ho to invade Iraq, and the scandal, if an American GI been found guilty of this horrible double murder, might well have scuppered his evil plans. I can't remember most of the details, but there were much more.
I've never come across this analysis of the Soham murders but what you describe is the same MO we see rolled out over and over.
Richard D Hall has meticulously scrutinised, investigated and documented the serious inconsistences with scores of establishment cover-ups including the Manchester Arena bombing, the murder of Jo Cox, the 7/7 terror attacks, the Lee Rigby murder, Madeleine McCann and so many more (https://www.richplanet.net/richp_genre_menu.php?gen=1). The trick is not to focus on his conclusions because he's just trying to make sense of a cover up like the rest of us. Instead, focus on the reams of evidence that just don't stack up, exactly like the Lucy Letby serial baby murders.
The state (or whoever) gets away with it every single time because the average man and woman wants to believe they live in a safe, secure and civilised society. When presented with evidence to the contrary the instinct is to reject it. If you can't show them exactly how it did happen with a smoking gun and neat bow tied round it they'll immediately dismiss you as a conspiracy theorist and carry on safely in the knowledge that what their government tells them is based on the truth or, at worst, they're covering up incompetence (Hanlon's Razor).