In the words I reproduce below, there is something very shocking about the Lucy Letby case. It comes from a speech made in the House of Commons last Wednesday, which I must quote exactly and fully for legal reasons.
It was greatly overshadowed by other events in Parliament that day and so has not – in my view – got the attention it deserved. Some of it is a little technical, but I think most people will be able to cope. It is also distressing, but that cannot be avoided.
It formed part of an attempt by the Rt Hon Sir David Davis, a former Cabinet Minister, to secure a retrial for Lucy Letby, now condemned to die in prison after being convicted of multiple murders and attempted murders.
Sir David told MPs of a major development in the case.
He said: ‘Two expert neonatologists – consultant working neonatologists –are working through the cases to establish the actual causes of the babies’ deterioration and deaths. They are doing so thoroughly, so this is taking time. So far, they have completed two detailed case reviews for babies O and C. There are five more that will be completed in the near future.’
Sir David Davis is attempting to secure a retrial for killer Lucy Letby
He continued: ‘In the case of Baby O, the prosecution claimed the baby was attacked with blunt trauma to the liver and had air injected into the nasogastric tube.
The case notes tell a different story, showing how the doctors used excessive ventilation pressure during resuscitation, which overinflated the baby’s lungs and prevented blood from flowing back to the lungs.
This caused the baby to desaturate his blood oxygen level repeatedly. The medical team responded by increasing the pressures even more, initiating a downward spiral in the baby’s condition.
The overinflation of the baby’s lungs forced the diaphragm downwards, pushing the liver into the baby’s abdominal cavity.
‘The consultant in charge took a decision to insert a needle into the abdomen to release what they thought was gas pressure in the abdomen. However, this was wrongly inserted into the right side of the baby’s abdomen.
As a result of this error, the needle penetrated the liver, causing serious internal bleeding. This was undoubtedly a significant contributory factor in the baby’s death, if not the outright cause.
The report states that the “deterioration was predictable, and his death was avoidable and resulted from sub-optimal care”. The author of that sub-optimal care, the doctor who inserted the needle into the liver, was one of the principal accusers of Lucy Letby at the trial.’
The whole speech, which contains many more disturbing facts, is easily available on the internet in the official Hansard record of the debate, columns 964 to 972, January 8, 2025. For the sake of justice, without which not one of us is safe, I urge you to read it.
Reform put Starmer in… now they want an ignoramus to rescue them
Donald Trump and Reform’s new poster boy Elon Musk
Far too many people seem to be afraid of criticising the (currently) American billionaire Elon Musk, the owner of Twitter.
Mr Musk has so far been unable to persuade most people to start calling his electronic monster ‘X’, an interesting illustration of the limits of wealth and power. Yet he has decided to rescue us from ourselves.
Comically, like many Americans, he thinks this country is still more or less stuck in the middle ages, and imagines that King Charles can dissolve Parliament at will.
Perhaps he also thinks we still gather on village greens each Sunday, to quaff ale, guzzle venison pasties and practise shooting with our longbows. Who knows?
For certain, he is not a deep political thinker. I don’t care what he thinks. I don’t think any of us should be told what to do or stampeded into opinions by a foreigner.
Likewise, if the people of the USA wish to choose Donald Trump as their President, that is entirely their affair.
I devoted much of my life last summer trying to prevent the election of the frightful Keir Starmer and his Cabinet of dingbats, a weird mixture of Bolshevik fervour and total incompetence. But the very Reform UK supporters who have now taken up their pitchforks for the man they nauseatingly call ‘Elon’, as if they knew him, were the keenest of all to put Starmer in, as I tried to explain to them at the time.
In a way it is even worse that they now look to an American ignoramus to rescue them.
The real scandal we try to avoid
I cannot see how yet another public inquiry will do much to stop any repeat or continuation of the ghastly rapes of the young by predominantly Muslim men.
But one aspect of this horror is seldom even mentioned. Where were the parents of the abused girls? Why did they not step in to save their children?
The answer is that for 60 years, British governments of both parties have systematically shut parents out of such things. The official policy has not been to discourage promiscuous sex. The state long ago stopped disapproving of that. It has been to stop girls having unwanted babies, or (if that fails) to enable them to get rid of such babies through abortion or the ‘morning-after pill’. For this scheme to work, young girls have to be able to seek contraception and abortion without their parents knowing.
Back in 1985, the rather heroic Victoria Gillick – probably the last person to call herself a housewife before the term became an insult – made a stand against this policy. Of course, the courts and the Establishment and the BBC were against her. Since then the state can secretly equip girls for underage sex, below the lawful age of consent. For me this deliberate, conscious weakening of the family has always been at least half of this scandal.
