#BawaGarba is a convicted criminal who has been refused leave to appeal - twice - by the same judge who overturned David Sellu's conviction and raised the legal bar to 'truly exceptionally bad' for future cases. So yes, her care was exactly as found, despite your assertion. >>
-
-
Point 2: "Dr
#BawaGarba is no criminal" Err...yes, she is a criminal. You have a profile picture with your arm around a convicted criminal. Fact. Here's the court of appeal judgement refusing her leave to appeal her conviction, in case you've forgotten: 5/ http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2016/1841.html … -
Point 3: "We won
#Sellu but my view is losing an appeal does not confirm guilt." What does confirm guilt then? Are you also of the view that winning an appeal does not confirm innocence? Meaning Sellu isn't in the clear? Can't have it both ways, try as you might. Same judge! 6/ -
Point 4: "I support proactive patient safety but not the system making scapegoats" You constantly claim
#BawaGarba has been scapegoated but you fail to explain how so many non-NHS parties have colluded to do so or why. Police CPS Coroner Judges Jurors All in on the conspiracy? /7 -
You shamelessly misdirect readers on the facts of this case imho, in order to attempt to influence opinion and gain support for reforms which are designed to secure unjustified extra protections for doctors. I've had enough of it, frankly.
#BawaGarba#BawaGarbage 8/8 -
Dear
@DrJennyVaughan John means well and you or me or even@doctorcaldwell will not change his mind. He cares a lot for#justice but he genuinly believe#BawaGarba conviction was justified. The best thing is to agree to disagree and now focus on the future. What next?@gmcuk -
Anybody can change my mind if they present me with evidence to demonstrate why I should do so, Umesh. I'm open minded. What I believe is that nobody has put an evidenced argument together which demonstrates that her conviction is unjustified. Despite impressions to the contrary.
-
I think it’s hard to say that the systemic failings were considered. All you can really say is that the systemic failings presented to, and available to the court, were considered. Not the same thing
-
I don't think anyone can say anything for sure without the trial transcript (I'm looking at you again here,
@drcmday). It's important to be clear the jury (not just the court) heard such evidence, but otherwise I wouldn't disagree. Do you think something was left out? Why, if so? - 5 more replies
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.