Rico1304
-
Posts
37,227 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Recent Profile Visitors
30,754 profile views
Rico1304's Achievements
-
No. That’s not what’s happening. They are independent events, the accuracy of a report years ago is not influenced by the lack of accuracy in a report done last year. There is no doubt they made mistakes in the new report. You can check yourself, you’ve read it. It was kind of worth popping back.
-
No - you do realise other people can read this right? That what your writing is actually visible. I’ve demonstrated where this report is wrong. Very basic and yet fundamental errors. You’ve challenged none of that. Instead you’ve tried to straw man my argument into something it isn’t. Shoo’s earlier report was peer reviewed and accepted as correct by people far more knowledgeable than I ever could be. But in this latest one he’s had a baby dead when it was in another hospital. He’s made up evidence about a disease and said a baby’s birth was traumatic when it was no such thing. How does that impact on your confidence in the report?
-
I honestly don’t know how you can keep doing this. It’s truly remarkable. ThIS report that Shoo is responsible for isn’t very good. Does that mean he can’t ever get anything else right, does that mean he’s never been right before? NO. It’s actually hilarious you think this way.
-
I guess it goes to the motivation of the people on the panel. They really are the last chance Letby has. But they get so much wrong. Wouldn’t you at least make sure you got the timeline correct?
-
No it isn’t, I’m calling you out for trying to put words in my mouth and straw manning my argument. You just aren’t used to being challenged by someone who knows what they are talking about. I have no problem with Shoo, I have a problem with the report he’s presenting as world class when it; a) Gets basic fundamentals wrong b) creates evidence then relies on that made up evidence to reach conclusions C) was compiled without access to key information - the medical reports of the murder victims. You rowed back within 10 mins of me posting and others are now popping up and pointing out you are talking nonsense. You haven’t done the reading you claimed, you haven’t tried to validate information and it shows.
-
One thing that has been bothering me is how the Press have swallowed Shoo’s report as gospel without checking any of the detail. The PR team have got loads of airtime with Hitchens and Davies regularly interviewed on telly and not challenged at all. If a moron like me can find the huge mistakes and clear factual errors plus the fact that Shoo hasn’t seen medical records why aren’t journalists doing the same?
-
Baby I - Shoos panel decided this baby died on 15th due to an infection in its intubation tube. Problem is that the baby was alive on 15th and transferred to a different hospital before being returned to Chester having had antibiotics and not being intubated as the poor thing was ready to go home. She was murdered on 23rd. What would you take from this kind of error?
-
What more did you know about the evidence when she was charged? The evidence behind the charging decision was immediately sub judice.
-
No it fucking isn’t! The amount of dishonesty and straw manning in that post is incredible. I have been very careful to limit my comments to this report. It was founded on incomplete data (not all of the medical reports, which I think is conceded as true despite I think LS yesterday saying wasn’t true) and makes a huge and fundamental error by creating a disease the baby didn’t have. I think the 3 errors in total mean this report cannot be viewed as the holy grail you do. I don’t think it means everything he’s ever written is wrong. That’s you straw manning. I think you’ve read a few headlines and they’ve confirmed your bias.
-
I have done no such thing. You cannot accept that your lauded panel of experts have made a fundamental error in attributing a disease to a child and from that mistake deriving the cause of death. They’ve done similar at least 3 times. I suspect partly because they didn’t have the medical data - something else that you won’t admit. You’ve not read as widely as you claimed have you? Fantastic effort at straw manning too. Logical fallacies abound!!!
-
No - that’s absolutely not what happened. He says the child had a medical condition that contributed to the death but the child didn’t have it. I thought you’d read this stuff?
-
But in reaching his conclusions Shoo relies on the baby having a disease it doesn’t have. A fundamental error. Agreed?
-
As ever I can’t understand it for you.
-
Baby A? Anything?
-
Did you see Streeting in the news today? I said this would happen.
