Under English law, British media are restricted in their reporting owing to Letby’s upcoming retrial.
This seems to answer the question
this post was submitted on 16 May 2024
20 points (88.5% liked)
United Kingdom
4103 readers
150 users here now
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
laws can, and sometime should, be changed
Well yh, if you don't believe in the basic democratic principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Of course Davis would ask a stupid question he's supposed to know the answer to. Why would he do any research when he can make himself look like an idiot instead?
i think it's more about informing the public information is being kept from them.
Him asking this caused me to seek out the article.
Letbys conviction never really sat right with me with the information present in the british media. less so now i have read it
edit: having read some of the discussion around this on reddit i have moved back from the "maybe she didn't do it" to "she probably did" but even still it's all very circumstantial
There's no conspiracy here. She's being accused of a crime and there's going to be a trial. The prosecution have to present enough evidence to convict
All that's happening here is that the media are not allowed to report on a trail that's currently ongoing which is standard practice. In the US they do it differently because there are different country, and that's fine too.
There was no reason for him to bring this up other than I don't know some kind of weird political game that he thinks he's playing it's very unclear who this performance was for.
She's been found guilty of a crime. They're doing a retrial on one of the counts but she's been convicted of seven murders.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Conservative MP David Davis has used parliamentary privilege to ask why UK readers were barred from viewing an article in a prominent US magazine about the case of the former nurse Lucy Letby.
He told fellow MPs that the block on the story published in the New Yorker seemed “in defiance of open justice”.
Letby was convicted last summer of murdering seven babies at the Countess of Chester hospital, where she was a neonatal nurse.
The New Yorker published a 13,000-word piece about her case on Monday but UK readers are blocked from accessing it online.
Under English law, British media are restricted in their reporting owing to Letby’s upcoming retrial.
I will just simply make a point on the Lucy Letby case – that the jury’s verdict must be respected.
The original article contains 298 words, the summary contains 132 words. Saved 56%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!