A TV drama

[Siderite]

The discourse over that Adolesence drama is genuinely bonkers. Like all good drama, it raised talking points, but to get to government policy is mad. Starmer having meetings with the show creators and trying to have it shown in schools. Now we have talking heads saying Badenoch is abandoning her duty as leader of the opposition for not watching or commenting on it!

https://x.com/LBC/status/1907010846141579634

When all is said and done, it’s a work of fiction. The creators did well to raise themes and get people thinking, but they aren’t necessarily experts in the field. Treating it like a documentary is wild.

I hope Starmer and these talking heads don’t watch Dr Who or they might get worried about the ignored threat of hostile dustbin like aliens out to exterminate us.

[NorthWestIron]

It seems I’m in the minority, but I didn’t find it particularly earth shattering. I also think Stephen Graham is an exceptionally lucky man,to receive the continual plaudits he does. An average actor, probably lauded,as he is a working class scouser.

[Gurnelista]

Siderite wrote:

Like all good drama, it raised talking points, but to get to government policy is mad.

Good dramas can have exactly that kind of impact – raising public awareness leading to demands for change, most recently, Mr Bates v the P.O.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2024/jan/09/bates-post-office-scandal-13-tv-shows-shook-britain

1 user thanked author for this post.

Iron-awe

[Iron-awe]

Haven’t seen Adolescence but Mr Bates v the Post Office was absolutely brilliant and revealing IMO, the cast were excellent and it opened a lot of people’s eyes about what actually went on and not how some of it was reported.

[Siderite]

I don’t mind them discussing the issues raised, but that should be the focus, not whether the TV show has been watched. The issues raised are real, but the TV show is a fictionalised account all the same and shouldn’t be treated as something vital for the issue to be tackled.

[Gurnelista]

“Fictionalized” means characters or events didn’t actually exist or happen. All drama is necessarily like that, to some extent, e.g. did the kid really say those things to his mother, were the PO people pottering in the kitchen when they heard they were about to be arrested, and so on.

But, if the key points are clearly made and drive home important facts, such as the innocence of imprisoned PO workers, or the Birmingham six (who’d be in the ground, never mind prison, if we had the death penalty) it can only be in the public interest.

It will be interesting to see if one on Lucy Letby is forthcoming. The more you hear about her case, the more likely there could have been a miscarriage. Here’s a sensible view of it, particularly the second half.

[Siderite]

Like I said, I am not disputing that the drama raises issues of interest. The idea that it’s a dereliction of responsibility for a politician not to watch it is still absurd. The bigger issue is whether Kemi has any idea how to approach the issues raised, and evidence suggests she doesn’t, not whether she watched a TV show. She could have formulated some ideas without having to have seen the show. And, while it may raise themes and discussion, it is not gospel. There has to be a more thorough way of tackling the issues of disaffected young males.

As for Letby, the whole defence seems to bear the hallmarks of the fake news outlets undermining actual verdicts in favour of a contrarian message, regardless of evidence. Cherry picking aspects to make it seem more wafer thin than it is. Of course there is the possibility that it may be deserving of being overturned, as many cases are, but the Letby truthers don’t seem to be willing to tackle the case in a manner which would truly demonstrate it. As said, they cherry pick aspects and rely on others not knowing the complex case and the science to any level to make it sound dodgy. Letby was found guilty through a multifaceted case where the prosecution successfully linked many circumstantial pieces of evidence together to demonstrate this wasn’t the case of understaffing or other problems. The Letby truthers tend to focus in on one detail, take it out of context, and say this is flimsy. They neglect to do any kind of holistic analysis.

I am no expert, but have read accounts of the court notes and it is clear that for it to be overturned it needs to be shown how the many pieces of evidence for guilt are just coincidences. The aspects they cherry pick over are also disputed and were so in court. Some of the recent revelations of ‘injustice’ were discussed in court and were refuted. I am still sceptical of it being injustice. The understaffing explanation doesn’t seem to account for why there were no or few abnormal emergency counts when Letby wasn’t on shift. I think it’s a stretch to believe Letby happened to only work shifts when the hospital was understaffed.

Anyway, to reiterate, I could be wrong, but those who sat through the court felt the same and it’s up to Letby’s team to prove otherwsie, through proper means. However, the refused appeals show they are struggling and there is no evidence that they are being refused for incorrect reasons. For the other side, someone more knowledgable than me talks here:

[Gurnelista]

Someone more knowledgeable?! C’mon Siderite, you mean a video you found by someone you agree with, like the one you posted some time back on Islam. But, if you take a minute to read around online, you’ll see Oliver and dog isn’t even a medical doctor, and broadcasts obsessively on all sorts of stuff.

When this case was first tried, I thought the same as you still do about Letby. Now however, I really don’t know. But it does appear there may be new evidence which hadn’t been previously considered.

A quick look on the WWW reveals Letby is something of a focal point for the culture warriors. Why is this? Why don’t some people want to consider new evidence? Is it because what initially seemed an open and shut case was in fact far, far more complicated, and the outcome may be just the opposite of what everybody was led to believe? A bit like believing the sun goes round the Earth, then being told by some heretics that the opposite is true (and for which scientists were executed).

But when new evidence does come forward, it’s incumbent on all of us to consider it, as with all previous miscarriages. Just ask the B’ham 6. Or Copernicus and co.

[Siderite]

You do realise that this video isn’t the only thing I have come across on this? Have you bothered to watch or read up on what might contradict the evidence claimed by the people on Letby’s side? For example, they make claims of skin discolouration by the defence are debunked by peer reviewed research which says the opposite. Evidence that had nothing to do with the case, even. Or does the fact that they are doctors make the qualified to have authority, even if others disagree? Just like the climate change ‘sceptics’ who wheel out the ‘expert scientist’ who can make them sound like they have authority.

I have previously made errors, but if my error in an unrelated thread precludes me from arguing from a position of consideration, I don’t see why I should not view your position as equally based on what you want to believe.After all, you believed those not so trusty Hamas casuality figures without consideration for the context or reliability of live updates of casuality figures from a warzone. If a dubious video origin can dismiss me, this can with you.

You’re right though in that it has created the ‘culture warriors’ and conspiracist craze. Peter Hitchens and the conspiracists have seized on this to show how the lying ‘experts’ and ‘MSM’ have damned poor Lucy. If I can be so glibly dismissed based on your own prejudice, the same can be applied to you.

Moreover, I have not said it is beyond the realms of possibility that this was a miscarriage. However, it would be a huge coincidence based on the many pieces of circumstantial evidence and there is no medical evidence arisen that has changed the mind of myself, or more importantly the judge. The thoughts otherwise, from people who are (like me) not experts, are just that and the fact that they are not being considered is not necessarily evidence of a refusal to consider new evidence, but maybe that they have not understood the evidence and there is no conspiracy to silence their ‘greater understanding’ than us mere fools who must think the evidence can’t be enough to overturn the verdict because of our own biases. Only the ‘free thinkers’ who may misunderstand some things can critically assess anything, not the jury, judges and more.

Of course, I may be wrong, but so might you be and the burden is on the doubters to overturn the evidence and not just dismiss videos that question their stances as some cover-up or because they’re ‘sheep’. The point is that I am not dismissing the possibility of new evidence. The point is that the Letby defenders have not yet produced anything that can fully withstand scrutiny. Hence why it has (likely) been dismissed for appeal. Mistrials happen, but the defenders have failed to produce anything convincing to the court. Previous mistrials don’t magically make this one.

Maybe consider that those who disagree aren’t doing so because they want to believe something, but because maybe they have interpreted the situation different to you and it doesn’t make them below your own rationality.

[Siderite]

And, yes, I do think someone with a PhD in nanomedicine and has activity within the field is more knowledgable in medical matters than me, who has no medical degree whatsoever. It doesn’t mean I am saying that because I agree with her; I am saying it because that is likely the case. A doctor is more qualified to express an opinion than a layman like me who might be wrong and whose understanding is not based on expertise (neither is yours, so far as I know). It doesn’t make her automatically correct, medicine is a wide field with many specialities. However, it doesn’t make me on a par with her, does it?

[Author]

Posts