I think we’re seeing a similar phenomenon unfolding up in Liverpool. That is to say, the mass of people involved act as a group and the group ends up inflicting the wrong. Members of the group may not even intend malice, at least consciously. Where they do, they may never have articulated this thought to colleagues.
I’ve trying to understand the events that led to the nurse ending up in prison. I can quite readily imagine relatively influential individuals wanting an explanation for ending up working in a unit with poor performance. A creeping sense of wanting an explanation that didn't reflect badly on ones self would have pervaded all, and where ideas coincided with influence and opportunity, the case against a useful scapegoat emerged.
That doesn't necessarily mean those key actors were bad people, or lied to support their emerging theory - it just means that the system coalesced to punish the scapegoat…
Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
- simonineaston
- Posts: 8618
- Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
- Location: ...at a cricket ground
Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
Is this about the convictions of Letby for murder?simonineaston wrote: ↑5 Oct 2024, 4:19pm I think we’re seeing a similar phenomenon unfolding up in Liverpool. That is to say, the mass of people involved act as a group and the group ends up inflicting the wrong. Members of the group may not even intend malice, at least consciously. Where they do, they may never have articulated this thought to colleagues.
I’ve trying to understand the events that led to the nurse ending up in prison. I can quite readily imagine relatively influential individuals wanting an explanation for ending up working in a unit with poor performance. A creeping sense of wanting an explanation that didn't reflect badly on ones self would have pervaded all, and where ideas coincided with influence and opportunity, the case against a useful scapegoat emerged.
That doesn't necessarily mean those key actors were bad people, or lied to support their emerging theory - it just means that the system coalesced to punish the scapegoat…
Jonathan
- simonineaston
- Posts: 8618
- Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
- Location: ...at a cricket ground
Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
Yes. And makes the assumption that the same thing has happened to LL as happened to the spms. But the point I was seeking to make and may not have done adequately, was to do with the inconvenience that these super complex legal issues are extremely difficult to unpick and its a natural human reaction to want to identify a simple solution and to be able to say individual x, y and z are guilty of such&such a crime.
Whereas, I’m wondering if one of the big factors - maybe even the most important factor - is the way many individuals start to act together as a unit, perhaps without any member of that group having specific malice aforethought. Thus the observer is deprived of the satisfaction of being able to direct their ire towards any individuals who’ve carried out a clearly identifiable and easily to be understand crime.
In both cases - at the post offices and at the CoCh - the groupthink or system appears to have worked in ways that have resulted in relatively powerless individuals bearing the brunt of the way the system has conspired to act against them. That doesn't mean members of the groups deliberately set out to achieve that aim, but rather the system itself acted in that way, by virtue of multiple input from people, who may not have set out to act illegally, or amorally. Of course there may well have been group members who did deliberately act badly, but did so entirely on their own, without ever mentioning their intention to anyone else - or even actually admitting that intent to themselves!
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
There are some differences though as you'd expect there to be eg there were people in the post office and horizon who knew all was not right with the system but actively choose to subvert these facts. Not sure about the Lucy Letby case/s but there was a very interesting radio 4 program on the other day interviewing some of the doctors and consultants who had major doubts about LL's conviction/s. So I think I can agree with your theory about groups unconsciously conspiring to find a scapegoat and this may have happened to some extent in both scenarios.
I think this is the radio 4 program I was listening to
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0023 ... are-mobile
You'll get it on the BBC Sounds app 1St of October
I think this is the radio 4 program I was listening to
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0023 ... are-mobile
You'll get it on the BBC Sounds app 1St of October
I am here. Where are you?
Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
There was an interview with Chris Mullin on R4 yesterday in which he reflected on the miscarriages of justice he's studied and been involved with over the years - the Birmingham Six, Guilford 4, etc. He said they have one thing common - lack of disclosure of evidence to the defence.
As I have suggested upthread, the PO enquiry is at heart an examination of the judicial system rather than an IT system and the same issue is at the core of what went so catastrophically wrong - lack of disclosure of evidence to the defence.
Whether this is also true with Letby, and to what extent, may become apparent down the line, but there are some similarities. A powerful institution laying the blame on a lowly individual. She may well be a mass murderer but there were clearly system failures that allowed it to happen.
As I have suggested upthread, the PO enquiry is at heart an examination of the judicial system rather than an IT system and the same issue is at the core of what went so catastrophically wrong - lack of disclosure of evidence to the defence.
Whether this is also true with Letby, and to what extent, may become apparent down the line, but there are some similarities. A powerful institution laying the blame on a lowly individual. She may well be a mass murderer but there were clearly system failures that allowed it to happen.
-
- Posts: 1052
- Joined: 1 Sep 2019, 3:07pm
Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
Re Toontra's comment.Lack of Disclosure.Also most importantly Cost.Unless your very rich the prosecution has the upper hand.Most unfair.
Get a bike. You will never regret it. If you live. (Mark Twain)
I ride Brompton, Hetchins 531
Get a bike. You will never regret it. If you live. (Mark Twain)
I ride Brompton, Hetchins 531
Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
Lack of disclosure of evidence is a recurring concern. Could the legal people in this discussion enlighten us a little to how this is controlled?
Additionally, there is this:
Is it possible there are often 'bad actors' involved in such situations who remaining very effectively concealed behind 'the system'? Is it possible some realise how easy it is for their actions to remain anonymous, so act out their dysfunctions with little chance of being caught?simonineaston wrote: ↑5 Oct 2024, 5:34pm
its a natural human reaction to want to identify a simple solution and to be able to say individual x, y and z are guilty of such&such a crime.
...
Whereas, I’m wondering if one of the big factors - maybe even the most important factor - is the way many individuals start to act together as a unit
...
the groupthink or system appears to have worked in ways that have resulted in relatively powerless individuals bearing the brunt of the way the system has conspired to act against them. That doesn't mean members of the groups deliberately set out to achieve that aim, but rather the system itself acted in that way, by virtue of multiple input from people, who may not have set out to act illegally, or amorally. Of course there may well have been group members who did deliberately act badly, but did so entirely on their own, without ever mentioning their intention to anyone else - or even actually admitting that intent to themselves!
Additionally, there is this:
Biospace wrote: ↑24 Aug 2024, 12:01pm And fortunately it has been exposed just how susceptible people are to authority and how unquestioning compliance can lead to harmful actions. Other situations may not have been exposed, or may not presently be exposed - yet.
I'm reminded of Hannah Arendt's "Banality of Evil" comment, how ordinary (including the well educated and successful) people become complicit in terrible acts. The desire to conform is under-estimated.
-
- Posts: 3442
- Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 12:20pm
Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
“I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche
― Friedrich Nietzsche
Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
Lo and behold - from an article in today's Guardian:toontra wrote: ↑5 Oct 2024, 9:15pm As I have suggested upthread, the PO enquiry is at heart an examination of the judicial system rather than an IT system and the same issue is at the core of what went so catastrophically wrong - lack of disclosure of evidence to the defence.
Whether this is also true with Letby, and to what extent, may become apparent down the line, but there are some similarities. A powerful institution laying the blame on a lowly individual. She may well be a mass murderer but there were clearly system failures that allowed it to happen.
The case against Letby was largely built on statistical "evidence", yet when the expert they approached (Hutton) refused to substantiate their claim that it "proved" her guilt, she was quietly sidelined. Yet none of this was disclosed to Letby's defence.Neither the initial engagement with Hutton (professor of statistics at the University of Warwick) nor the CPS instruction to the police to drop their line of inquiry into the “validity of the statistical evidence in the case” were disclosed to Letby’s defence team, the Guardian understands.
In the case of the Post Office, their in-house and 3rd party lawyers are almost certainly guilty of non-disclosure (which is why the whole tragedy happened) and will hopefully face disbarment and possibly criminal proceedings. It's a serious offence!
I'm back at the PO enquiry tomorrow to hear the last day of Read's evidence.
Last edited by toontra on 10 Oct 2024, 6:38pm, edited 1 time in total.
- simonineaston
- Posts: 8618
- Joined: 9 May 2007, 1:06pm
- Location: ...at a cricket ground
Re: Ex-Post Office CEO Paula Vennells
The protests re Letby are growing. More & more experienced experts in a range of fields are speaking out now. An idea has been suggested that good quality defence witnesses can be difficult to find here in the UK due in large to a number of such folk having their careers trashed as a consequence. See what happened to Waney Squier here.
Now though, there appears to be enough of the sort of calibre of commentators speaking out that there might be a critical mass, with individuals perhaps thinking that there’s strength in numbers. Perhaps no coincidence too that a goodly few of same are retired and thus have little to fear from a threat to a career.
Now though, there appears to be enough of the sort of calibre of commentators speaking out that there might be a critical mass, with individuals perhaps thinking that there’s strength in numbers. Perhaps no coincidence too that a goodly few of same are retired and thus have little to fear from a threat to a career.
S
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)
(on the look out for Armageddon, on board a Brompton nano & ever-changing Moultons)