Yes, it's impossible that they didn't at least entertain the idea that she was guilty with so many incidents and so many people speaking out. And the execs immediate response to that is to... silence the whistleblowers, to maintain the reputation of the hospital. Absolutely repulsive. They come very close to being accessories to the murders, in my opinion.
sarjalim
joined 2 years ago
This whole story is the most insane, fucked up thing I have read in years.
Especially the companion story, Hospital bosses ignored months of doctors' warnings about Lucy Letby. The hospital execs seem almost as callous as the murderer. Holy shit. You have to have some sort of psychological or empathetic disorder as manager or director to fail to act when babies are dying like flies, there is one common factor, and your response isn't to immediately investigate and take that common factor out of the equation as a safety measure.
They just refused to act for 3 years (where 17 babies died mysteriously or had near-fatal unexplained events in one year) - except silence, threaten and bully the doctor and seven (!) pediatric consultants who repeatedly raised the alarm and called for outside investigation. Since the murderer was removed from the neonatal ward in 2016, there has apparently been 1 baby death. In total, in 7 years.
I don't know how you would live with yourself knowing that you actively aided a serial killer by refusing to listen to multiple people warning you about them and pleading with you to act.
I don't remember exactly, but it used to be that you could only stream to mobile devices if you had Plex Pass (I mean, you could just use the mobile browser instead but that is ofc less convenient). Another perk with Plex Pass is that you can download content from the server to watch offline on your device, for example if you're going traveling. Skipping intros I think is also a premium feature. Possibly the built-in subtitle downloader is also a Pass/premium feature.
But otherwise I don't think it's necessary. Try it out, all the basic features are available in the free version and spinning it up is super easy. If you decide you like it you can just purchase a lifetime Plex Pass.
It's not in the headline that they are paying the same salary though, which was the question.
What are you on about, we were asked to have face masks on public transport, in grocery stores, in hospitals etc. Lots of selfish people refused to have the decency to protect others from themselves, but still.
We had worse outcomes compared to Norway, Finland, Denmark. Not necessarily due to the inability of people like you to wear masks, but nothing to brag about.
As a swede: your opinion is in the minority, and it's embarrassing that you have to invoke some sort of "Swedish superiority" mentality. Please stop importing the very worst ideas from the US.
I mean, that's possible. But I can view all the comment replies to a top-level comment (using any sorting) when using Jerboa instead of Connect. So this issue seems to be specific to Connect unfortunately!
I wrote as a top-level comment elsewhere here, but I can see some replies to a comment thread if I use Top sorting and another set of replies if I use Hot... if caching were the issue I don't think I'd be able to view different comment subthreads depending on sorting.
I had this issue in a recent comment thread. Weirdly, the "invisible" set of comments show up if I change sorting from Top to Hot for example, so I had to switch between sortings to answer different subcomment threads.
One particular reply I got, I couldn't see with either sorting: I could see it in my inbox but not view it in Connect. I had to use Jerboa to see and answer it. Very frustrating and strange.
Clarification: Jerboa shows all comment replies to a top-level comment using any sorting.
Sure, that's technically an issue, but not something that will probably ever become an issue in practice. Prosecutors who get a police report on their table evaluate the merit of the case and choose whether to dismiss it or prosecute it. So while this law could be abused because of a fuzzy definition of "creed"... It would have to be a very elaborate scheme where you'd have to fool both the public and the police that your case is within the spirit of the law, a prosecutor, and then finally a judge and five jurors (Sweden doesn't have a jury system with regular citizens), for extremely little gain? Swedish courts tend to be conservative with punishments and fines. Just wildly guessing here, but a normal fine amount for this type of crime could probably range from $500 to $5000, and this is not awarded to the defendant. There can be damages awarded as well, though damages are generally very unimpressive in Sweden and of similar amounts to fines. There are other problems with the wording of this law that I think are more egregious, I'm not under any illusion that it's a perfect law even though I agree with the sentiment and spirit.
The full law run through Google Translate:
Chapter 16, 8 § Anyone who, in a statement or in another message that is disseminated, threatens or expresses contempt for a national group or another such group of persons with allusions to race, skin color, national or ethnic origin, creed, sexual orientation or gender-transcending identity or expression, is sentenced for incitement against a national group to imprisonment for a maximum of two years or, if the crime is minor, to a fine.
Remember that, while the translation is actually very accurate imo, there are words that have a slightly different nuance in Swedish, and some words here that exist in Swedish but don't have a full equivalent in English. "National group" isn't very correct here as a translation of folkgrupp, and "creed" is an ok but not 100% translation of trosuppfattning. "Contempt" is close, but the nuance is a bit different in the original missaktning.
Some other issues: What is a "message"? What does "expresses contempt" mean here, what constitutes expressing contempt? Is a Quran burning a message, or does the context of the Quran burnings imply a message in this case? Where is the line drawn for "expressing contempt"?
Courts are very protective of the Swedish constitutional right to free speech, which is why the recent Quran burnings are characterized by many legal experts as legal and valid religious critique. But others instead argue that the main intent here was not to critique religion, it was to incite, provoke and disrespect.
It's a fuzzy line to walk, but there is a pretty high bar for sentencing something as incitement under the cited law, when it stands in opposition to the constitutional right to free speech.
I agree. You shouldn't be persecuted or harassed regardless of your religious beliefs, you should be equally protected regardless of if you are a Satanist, Wiccan, or whatever.
The actual wording of the law when translated from Swedish is closest to the English word "creed" I think, not "religious belief" as I wrote in my original comment, but I thought religious belief was a smidge clearer. I'm obviously not a native English speaker so I do my best.
And to further adress the "but what if I believe in My Little Pony would that count", I mean... the spirit of the law does matter to the judges, you'd have to make a very strong case as to why you and your three friends should count as a protected "group" and why dismembering My Little Pony figurines is necessarily incitement against your group. I'm 99% sure no prosecutor would take you seriously. But I don't know, I am not a legal practitioner. It's up to the prosecutors to decide if a case seems to have merit, and then it's up to the court to try what should and shouldn't count as incitement under the law.
Two reasons:
The law regulating what the police are allowed to forbid is very limited. They can deny permission for a demonstration due to traffic disruption, but not threats of terrorism or international relations. It's currently being debated in the Riksdag (the supreme legislative body).
Secondly, the police are in their rights to deny permission for protests/demonstrations that are clearly illegal for some reason. The legislation regulating incitement against ethnic groups (which Muslims are covered under) is fuzzy however, and this is mostly uncharted territory. Context matters for the letter of that law, in legalese the law forbids certain "verbal statements or messages" with a purpose to incite ethnic groups. But is burning the Quran a "message"? Arguably yes (imo) in this context, but it hasn't been tried.
There was a dismissed case tried in court with a Quran burning, but the context there was different. There have also been some police reports regarding other Quran burnings that were never prosecuted, because the prosecutors only put forth cases to trial that they are convinced that they can win (this is how the system is designed).
What we are waiting for is a case that fulfills, or seems to fulfill, the letter of the incitement law with regards to context, that will be prosecuted and tried in courts all the way up to the supreme court.
The previous Quran burning might fulfill those criteria (burned Quran outside a mosque during Eid). It has been reported to the police and we are waiting to see if the case will be brought to trial.
And try to force them to attend a mediation session with the murderer, actively discourage them from going to the police... Fail to report the baby deaths appropriately to the NHS, fail to do the initial investigation about the first three deaths the executive team had decided on. Fail to present to the board of trustees that the conclusion of two external reviews were that some of the baby deaths should be forensically investigated. Fail to do any investigation. Refuse to reassign the murderer for months while more murders and attempted murders happen, then reassign them into a position where they have access to manipulate the narrative. And additionally order the whistleblowers to cease email communications about the issue...
I think I missed a few things as well, there's just too many things wrong in this picture.