my friend applied to join the met police, and had to give consent to have his social media accounts checked (I assume to make sure he was a suitable candidate)
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
No no no! That’s not weird at all. That’s traumatic for you because you knew that person. We’re talking about it in a professional position. Please don’t feel bad for that.
After the disasters with the Met police recently I don’t blame them! I agree with checking, I have absolutely nothing to hide. But, it’s made me very careful about opinion sharing or engaging in debates online. You have to be so careful.
I think you’re getting annoyed over nothing, There’s a huge difference between the needs of your SEN child and a safeguarding issue that poster was talking about. I spent years as a legal Secretary so I can see why a social worker would check up on a parent where abuse of a child is suspected. Its absolutely relevant if a vulnerable woman should keep away from a man known for child abuse, is telling you they do yet posts photos of them together on FB.
If that happens then the legalities of how they use and collate that information come into play. Sometimes its a bit like the police, a 'crime' has to be committed before they act.
It’s not just any parents it’s parents of the babies killed which is extremely strange I think . I don’t see why she would search child e family every month and then again a long while after death .
I think it happens far more than we realise tbh. I had a traumatic first birth, and I requested my notes afterwards, there were several things written that were totally different to mine and my mum (a nurse) recollection.
My child was admitted to hospital with sepsis at 18 months, again I requested the notes because things didn’t add up, and quite an important piece of information hadn’t been documented.
Do things get missed in the heat of the moment?
A while ago when it first come out about letby a girl commented on the news article and tagged her husband saying I told you so I told you she was hurting our baby and nobody believed me . She went to police after it come out . I wonder now if her child will be in this court case now
What has she been found guilty of already? You’re putting the cart before the horse. Once the trial ends the questions will start and then we'll have a review of everything, possible further charges if she’s found guilty, and heads that will roll.
This case is going to be around for the next couple of years at least.
im pretty sure after she was first questioned procedures were changed or am I dreaming that? It was so long ago now.
I have a similar story. A child i taught years ago passed away due to a terminal illness. I check his parents facebook every now and then to see how they are doing. Yes I was a professional, still am, but cared about this child and care about his family.
Exactly this! I went into shock after the birth of my second daughter. I have no idea why but my partner was told to leave the hospital while I was in resus and the nurse was to take care of our new born baby.
Her father swears blind they said I was stable and he could go home for a few hours. But documentation suggested I was stable at another time after the time he left the hospital.
Lots of missing bits of info on my notes. It is worrying.
I don't think it's that weird tbh. But I also don't think it's the same as the searches mentioned by the prosecution. She barely knew those families and when someone's a nurse they see tons of patients in a professional capacity - your example was someone from your personal life and I do think there's a difference. There's little reason to take a particular interest in certain families. I think that it's morbid to do repeated fb searches for parents of babies who died in your care. Christmas day too?! People usually have better things to do on Christmas day esp Lucy who has family of her own. It's being described as a 'very unusual interest' which makes it sound more obsessive than general interest. Of course, that alone is definitely no proof of guilt! I just think it's extremely creepy. Imagine being a parent whose baby died, then finding out a nurse from the hospital is going through your facebook posts on Christmas day? It would feel like a violation imo.
Last edited:
Sorry but I'm leaning more towards the hospital not wanting to admit they massively ducked UP. Lots of blood loss, did nothing. Unusually difficult to resuscitate, did nothing. Her colleague said she basically defied orders and was there when a baby was taken very poorly for no apparent reason, did nothing.
I'm sorry but no. I don't think for a second that them being short staffed should have been a factor. That's basically the hospital failing. They should have had someone able to double check all the medicines etc. Otherwise they shouldn't have been allowed to look after premature babies like they were, surely? They failed massively and they did nothing when they should have done. The blood loss alone, they could have just reported it. If they knew she was suspicious and her attitude was borderline insubordination, she shouldn't have been working.
It's so bizarre how nobody is looking at them and saying 'you failed those babies by not raising the alarm.' They're were many chances and I really bleeping hope thay the defence are smart enough to point out their failings, because they shouldn't get away with basically leaving it when a child had unusual issues... weird
I'm sorry but no. I don't think for a second that them being short staffed should have been a factor. That's basically the hospital failing. They should have had someone able to double check all the medicines etc. Otherwise they shouldn't have been allowed to look after premature babies like they were, surely? They failed massively and they did nothing when they should have done. The blood loss alone, they could have just reported it. If they knew she was suspicious and her attitude was borderline insubordination, she shouldn't have been working.
It's so bizarre how nobody is looking at them and saying 'you failed those babies by not raising the alarm.' They're were many chances and I really bleeping hope thay the defence are smart enough to point out their failings, because they shouldn't get away with basically leaving it when a child had unusual issues... weird
Memory can be unreliable, however NICU staff will deal with very sick babies day in, day out, not to sound harsh but if someone was asked to recall specific events/times relating to one patient months or even a year later, they may not be able to, which is part of the reason why they rely so heavily on the notes (as others have said, if it's not written in the notes, it didn't happen). Whereas for a parent, it will be a very unusual period in their lifetime, and their recall may be better simply because it's not an everyday occurrence for them.
You still haven’t shown the legislation that pertains to your particular point though. I am well aware and understand the GDPR legislation generally for businesses but no where is there black & white legislation to say that it is unlawful or a breach of GDPR to look at a public social media page.
bottom line - people need to understand that if you post on publicly available social media pages and you have no security or privacy settings in place then anyone can - and will - look you up and have a dig around. Wether they are supposed to or not. People are just completely careless with what they post on social media. It’s sometimes laughable actually, and then they try and play the “privacy” card when they have taken no steps to protect their own privacy.
Playing devil's advocate here and trying to look at everything objectively.
Child E was the sibling to child F who they will discuss after lunch and who is one of the 2 who was allegedly poisoned by insulin. If I remember correctly, both of the children of the insulin incident survived.
If LL is innocent, then I guess she could have been searching to see how the other child was doing as they had also been very unwell whilst on the unit.
Again in isolation, it may not be weird. And perhaps she thought of them on Christmas day as its a day lots of people reflect on.
So hard to say at this stage
Child E was the sibling to child F who they will discuss after lunch and who is one of the 2 who was allegedly poisoned by insulin. If I remember correctly, both of the children of the insulin incident survived.
If LL is innocent, then I guess she could have been searching to see how the other child was doing as they had also been very unwell whilst on the unit.
Again in isolation, it may not be weird. And perhaps she thought of them on Christmas day as its a day lots of people reflect on.
So hard to say at this stage
Regarding all the ‘she doesn’t look the type’ stuff, I find it fascinating from a psychology POV! Anyone know of any books/papers on the phenomenon of doubting someone’s guilt who has a pretty face over someone less so?
But if you have a wide open public social media profile where you’ve taken no steps to protect your privacy what do people expect?! Yes obviously a professional nurse probably wouldn’t bother to look a patient up but not all nurse (or other medical staff) are professional - im willing to bet loads of them have a sneaky look at social media.
If she is guilty I wonder if she will every admit it or say why she picked which child to murder.
And did she only do Facebook searches of children that died , that’s not clear.
I also think that surely some consultant on the ward should have been alarmed earlier at all the unexpected or unexplained deaths.
And did she only do Facebook searches of children that died , that’s not clear.
I also think that surely some consultant on the ward should have been alarmed earlier at all the unexpected or unexplained deaths.
I find it fascinating too. I often wonder if that's how Ted Bundy got away with a lot. Not only did be appear vulnerable at times, he was, I think very good looking and therefore he played on that and helped people trust him.
I don't care if LL looks the spit of baby spice or myra hyndley- I need to hear both sides.
For a baby to be bleeding and a doctor says for it be highly unusual but then not deem a post mortem necessary? Insane. Regardless of whether Lucy is responsible for the bleed not.
And my point is they're not. Whether or not a person 'deserves it' because of lack of vigilance is not my concern.
- Status