I agree with that, which is why the GMC appears wrong, and the MPS apologia is suspect. But it was the bit about the tribunal I was questioning, because that was scrutinised precisely because it was provided.
-
-
The word ‘may’ signals uncertainty, not assumption.
-
I agree. The 'may' here is what avoids it being assumption and introduces the uncertainty required to instead be viewed as just speculation.
-
Yes, he was pointing out the speculative nature of Kate’s question.
-
Indeed. And I'm pointing out the equally speculative nature of his reply. We need that transcript!
-
Kate’s speculation is an established fact! We only need the transcript if we are attempting a complete retrial. We can identify and discuss general issues without needing to reach a verdict on any particular case.
-
If attempts should emerge to try and change something about the law as a result of this case, then I do think we need the transcript. Retrial or not.
-
I don’t think there’s any need to change the law. BG’s defense relied on human factors, but awareness of human factors science remains poor.
-
I agree entirely. Now let's see what comes from Hunt's review and hope it reflects that stance.
- 3 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.