LL isn't the first ever accused healthcare killer, and its unlikely she'll be the last. I'm not sure why you think this case is, or will be if she's found guilty, so politically important. Harold Shipman killed 250 people and nothing like what you're saying/implying happened because of his case. So what makes LL so different?
(edit for clarity: yes things get looked into, practices get changed etc, but these kinds of things are pretty standard and routine to happen after a bad event, nothing particularly out of the ordinary at all)
It's not politically important in particular, I simply imagine that persons holding ministerial duties as mentioned will be being kept informed as to where the case is at, at this stage, or if not then as part of "important" headlines. It is also possible that given it will become front page news, that some form of attempts at coordination might be taking place in order to manage that.
It's really not that unreasonable and is being misrepresented and misread that it will be more of a priority than it is in the wider scheme of things. I also think that these kinds of cases have an memetic impact on the consciousness of the populace and this warrants consideration by gov, and that positive and negative impacts of the news and the amount of focus on this kind of trial at its outcome stage are worth considering in wellbeing terms.
There is, I contend, a (dis)benefit to society beyond the more direct impacts of the alleged crimes perpetuated and a conduct of that can be the media. I do basically concur with what Marantz said though I totally disagree with the idea that this is a garden variety trial. It may be being run no differently, but you could say in the same way Hiroshima was simply an ordinary aerial bombing, or of Jack the Ripper "nothing to see here, move along", the Nuremberg trials, just a bog standard tribunal. Perhaps my earlier ramblings created an unintended sense of sensationalism. However, I fully stand by the thesis for now that it is not a case that is likely to be ignored at the high level.
It really is not unreasonable to expect to see this case hitting the House of Commons after the verdict, eg leading to joint statements made during PMQs, and you don't often get that with ordinary trials. You could very well say "so what?" But that would be complacent it is a sign of political interest being taken in the case and its ramifications. It could easily go beyond that into wider debates around risks and high reliability organizations (HROs) such as with previous NHS safety, care quality and mortality rate scandals.
So to some extent it does enter into the political scenes of life as more outwardly manifest, through the media and in the ways politicians behave. This at least suggests a wave of some sort through the fabric of society, even if only a difficulty-to-detect disturbance on the lake surface waters and not a bombshell of any seismic proportions. I do think as well that those mentioned who are the higher-ups have had sight of this particular case and potentially there is an effort to discuss, obtain some kind of steer or view, and coordinate the response. So I don't think my imagined "behind the scenes" activity is simply fantasy or was absurd as has been claimed in the put-downs of the grand high muckety mucks and Lord Snootys of the thread. Because it really isn't.
That doesn't mean that I might think or suggest in any way that might be a top priority or even in the top 1000 priorities of British Government top-list if there was such a thing.
But this thread on an impending verdict is not about those other matters. Nor do I suggest remotely that this is somehow at the absolute forefront of the awarenesses of any particular person or organ of governance or justice delivery.
Imagine also that there is a major media attack on NHS HR, management and care standards after this case, regardless of verdict, but related to the case. Would it not be entirely complacent for civil servants, for example, to have failed to have briefed their ministers frequently and well, or in some way at least that this could be coming? Would it not be a failing to have not at least tried to collaborate with the court in seeking to manage the matter from a perspective of understanding timings and the extent to which restrictions on reporting might be in place, in advance? Perhaps it would be a step too far to
request restrictions - I concede on that. However, I respectfully suggest there are ways of requesting which might not be explicit or unsubtle, neither constituting influence nor interference in any capricious sense, rather in full respect and harmony with the sovereignty of the Court and its agents. It is perfectly reasonable to expect all of this - and given it is NHS-related invariably qualifies as a political matter, given the sheer size, and societo-economic importance of the NHS, and the very important matters others have highlighted around values and expectations such as trust, and both this trust-brokenness issue and a much wider narrative in media, society and indeed high politics, about positions of power and abuse.
Just for the absolute avoidance of doubt, I submit respectfully, still as conjecture though, of course, that it is nevertheless reasonable and perhaps even normal for coordination to occur between those involved in "governance" and those involved in "the law and the courts "to be able to speak to each other, on an entirely professional basis, and be cooperative in coordinating matters in which unity, or an understanding of desirable and/or intended approaches may be helpful. This does not constitute "interference", "undue pressure" or anything else untoward or warranting some sort of adversarial, suspicious or concerned reaction. It is perfectly reasonable to conjecture this to be the case,
Also, echo
infra VERDICT WATCH - UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, Faces 22 Charges - 7 Murder/15 Attempted Murder of Babies #28, thank you
@esther43.
