I don't know about any legal limitations on sharing info, but I can't imagine they would apply after the conviction? Once one clinician discovers something, I've rarely found it takes long for others to catch up in the time I've been watching on tbh.https://twitter.com/c7rky/status/1023677770130440195?s=21 …
Re level of proof, it’s obv crim standard for conviction (pretty high) but what else must be proved? Resultant harm to public confidence? How? If we remove Nick ‘poke my nose in where it doesn’t belong’ Ross from the equation, I see little public support for reversing erasure. 2/
-
-
Re timing of reaction, I don’t think I’m ever going to find it anything other than strange tbh. I know I’m not alone in feeling the sudden interest over erasure (vs minimal reaction following conviction/failed appeals) appears odd at best. Self serving at worst. Hasn't helped 3/3
-
Due process has to take place. Or be seen to. I suspect many thought it would conclude very differently
-
I suspect you're right about that. :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
My understanding in Scotland is that there needs to be wilful recklessness which can’t be levied in this case. That’s not to say a lesser charge shouldn’t have happened. And professional sanction was a given
-
I'm still trying to get my head around the Scottish version inclusion of intent tbh. Don't understand how, if wilful, an act of recklessness which causes death isn't simply murder/manslaughter. But as I'm no more than a lay observer to events, my confusion is perhaps no surprise.
-
If it's deemed "grossly neglectful" a culpable homicide charge can be pursued. We covered this the other day.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
From what I’ve read online the equivalent charge would be involuntary culp hom requiring wicked recklessness or gross carelessness and so far hasn’t been successful in securing a conviction
-
Murder requires an intent to kill. Culp hom is Scotland’s manslaughter equivalent
-
Many deaths by contractors, like the family killed in larkhall 3 days before christmas in a gas explosion. No one was charged for that either. The charge is not fit for purpose & nothing to be proud of. Despite numerous campaigns Scotgov has refused to amend the definition.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.