UK - Nurse Lucy Letby, murder of babies, 7 Guilty of murder verdicts; 8 Guilty of attempted murder; 2 Not Guilty of attempted; 5 hung re attempted #38

[Marantz4250b]

How did the police invite the press? Weren’t they just doing their job, looking for hidden items?

Given they were digging at the home of a once in a generation possible serial killer nurse, fairly sure any self respecting press would attend themselves!

Are you seriously asking if there is a conspiracy theory by the consultants, police and entire establishment to unlawfully convict an innocent nurse? Like dude, why?

All MOO

Indeed!

And, tbh, I've never been convinced they actually did any digging at her house anyway.

I think it was mentioned in one press report that police officers were seen taking shovels into the property but I haven't seen a single picture of them doing any actual digging.

 

[Ruthbullock]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

Due to not following procedure and completing the Datix and SUDICs properly, by Dr J’s own admission in the inquiry. They made the connection when Dr B did a staffing mortality assessment in the review he did and linked Letby.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-13-November-2024.pdf

 

[Marantz4250b]

Due to not following procedure and completing the Datix and SUDICs properly, by Dr J’s own admission in the inquiry. They made the connection when Dr B did a staffing mortality assessment in the review he did and linked Letby.

https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/Thirlwall-Inquiry-13-November-2024.pdf

That link is to 108 pages. What particular section are you referring to?

Let's not kid ourselves that the "chart" referred to in the post I responded to is the chart produced by the prosecution at the trial.

The premise of the post continues the incorrect assertion that her activities were first noticed after people studied death and collapse records which is false.

Numerous doctors,nurses and other staff members had made the anecdotal connection to her in the course of their work and some had commented on it.

THIS is how she first came under suspicion, not the fact that her name jumped out of some audit of death!

 

[Charlot123]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

OK so maybe I am the only one who doesn’t know what happened? All I hear is “statistics has nothing to do with what happened here”, or “life is more complex than science.” I am in another country and can only see that a big chunk of information is missing. But, we also hear that British officials themselves are questioning the “safety” of this conviction, so obviously they are unaware of any insider’s information either.

Lots of cases start with hushed information. A priest opens the privacy of the confession; a boyfriend might submit an anonymous tip. A friend might call.

(In one of our current high-profile cases, relatives may be testifying for the prosecution; if it happens, people will connect the dots).

But, usually, at a certain point in time, all becomes obvious. In LL’s case, nothing of sorts. I see two doctor witnesses whose names are protected. But as we heard, for one of them, the initial covers his personal frolicking and another, as one can guess, is not above criticism either?

So it is an interesting story; there is no evidence of the case starting from anonymous signal. Yet there are traces of police patchwork, curious lapses in memory, trial consultants more invested in putting the defendants behind bars than in justice. Finally, fourteen doctors said, the infants deaths are not LL’s fault, and why don’t you think of something better than air embolism to explain the deaths?

The most puzzling thing, it is as if the doctors first got firmly convinced that “Lucy did it”, then tried to find out the way, “how”, ended up never proving how, and now it is, “we don’t know how she did it, but she did it.”

See the lack of any logic?

So with this, we are left to believe that the case started with Dr. Breary saying, “someone must be a killer here”.

BTW, lack of transparency leaves public perplexed. No one pretends to be Inspector Margret and yet people don’t like to be fed some unrealistic mishmash. Especially if there is evidence of cases being hastily stitched backwards. That ends up in multiple groups questioning the validity of the convictions. We see it in too many cases. Many times it ends up poorly. The first time anyone involved is found to be the fallen idol, just watch the speed with which the flimsy fabric of prior cases gets unwoven.

 

[Ruthbullock]

That link is to 108 pages. What particular section are you referring to?

Let's not kid ourselves that the "chart" referred to in the post I responded to is the chart produced by the prosecution at the trial.

The premise of the post continues the incorrect assertion that her activities were first noticed after people studied death and collapse records which is false.

Numerous doctors,nurses and other staff members had made the anecdotal connection to her in the course of their work and some had commented on it.

THIS is how she first came under suspicion, not the fact that her name jumped out of some audit of death!

Start at the top, it’s pretty much straight to the point. I promise I’m not asking to be pedantic- but exactly who are the numerous doctors and nurses you refer to and can you reference this (if not names/ initials will do), a lot seemed to have a different stance in the inquiry and I would like to read what they said in the inquiry. When reading more into it, I have the impression it started with Dr J & Dr B and then people got caught up the gossip, rather than it being based on lots of people’s separate suspicions being brought together. The group herd mentality started after Dr B had done his case review and the staffing mortality review. Honestly though I don’t think we can put to much emphasis on how it started, because it had to start being documented somehow by someone and this is just the way it is. I would like to be reminded though if it was just those 2 that started collating information, or if others tried prior to that to raise concerns.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

OK so maybe I am the only one who doesn’t know what happened? All I hear is “statistics has nothing to do with what happened here”, or “life is more complex than science.” I am in another country and can only see that a big chunk of information is missing. But, we also hear that British officials themselves are questioning the “safety” of this conviction, so obviously they are unaware of any insider’s information either.

Lots of cases start with hushed information. A priest opens the privacy of the confession; a boyfriend might submit an anonymous tip. A friend might call.

(In one of our current high-profile cases, relatives may be testifying for the prosecution; if it happens, people will connect the dots).

But, usually, at a certain point in time, all becomes obvious. In LL’s case, nothing of sorts. I see two doctor witnesses whose names are protected. But as we heard, for one of them, the initial covers his personal frolicking and another, as one can guess, is not above criticism either?

So it is an interesting story; there is no evidence of the case starting from anonymous signal. Yet there are traces of police patchwork, curious lapses in memory, trial consultants more invested in putting the defendants behind bars than in justice. Finally, fourteen doctors said, the infants deaths are not LL’s fault, and why don’t you think of something better than air embolism to explain the deaths?

The most puzzling thing, it is as if the doctors first got firmly convinced that “Lucy did it”, then tried to find out the way, “how”, ended up never proving how, and now it is, “we don’t know how she did it, but she did it.”

See the lack of any logic?

So with this, we are left to believe that the case started with Dr. Breary saying, “someone must be a killer here”.

BTW, lack of transparency leaves public perplexed. No one pretends to be Inspector Margret and yet people don’t like to be fed some unrealistic mishmash. Especially if there is evidence of cases being hastily stitched backwards. That ends up in multiple groups questioning the validity of the convictions. We see it in too many cases. Many times it ends up poorly. The first time anyone involved is found to be the fallen idol, just watch the speed with which the flimsy fabric of prior cases gets unwoven.

<off topic, personalizing>

You can only see a big chunk of information is missing because it was a 10 month trial with a 1 month retrial. Her full evidence was purchased and re-recorded by a youtuber who attended the trial so you can hear what she was asked and how she answered. And you list a bunch of examples of people having knowledge of activities turning rat on a suspect and say that didn't happen. In this case medical doctors noticed a disturbing pattern, a pattern which other doctors even said 'yes, these 4-5 cases specifically aren't obvious to me and need to be looked into further' and pressured their bosses to take the case to the police.

Her family not turning up for the prosecution doesn't mean she's innocent. There are plenty of families who don't turn on their killer family members.

Anonymity orders were not granted because the man was having an emotional affair nor is it appropriate to suggest that the anonymity is due to "not being above criticism". They're not on trial. And there are plenty of witnesses granted anonymity beyond those two doctors. Which brings us back to bias: you're villifying the doctors because you've consumed conspiratorial media.

There's no need for evidence "starting from anonymous signal". This is not a thing except from your personal theory.

Police patchwork: such as?

Curious lapses in memory: you mean Lucy Letby, who remembered perfect details when they helped shift blame but then didn't know what people were asking her when it made her look guilty?

Trial consultants duty is to the court, not to the defense or the prosecution. So this is again, nonsense.

Those 14 doctors were quickly discovered to have completely botched their analysis and were called out at the Thirlwall Inquiry for inventing causes of death that were not supported by the medical notes detailed fully in the Annex how inappropriate and incorrect their publicity stunts were: https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk...sion-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf

Lucy Letby was the first person to suggest air embolism in a DATIX filing attempting to cover her track and then tried to pretend she didn't know what they were in a police interview.

That's not what the doctors did. The first person to compile a list of commonalities between incidents was Eiriann Powell. The concern was the possibility of poor practice, not intentional harm. The intentional harm theory only gained traction as more babies experienced unexplained collapses and died. They demanded an investigation to find out how she was doing it which is completely logical, not puzzling. And they've made very clear how they believe she did it.

She inflicted physical trauma on at east two children and poisoned two, possibly 3, others while using a combination of other methods she was cycling through to harm the rest - including air embolism. And they are investigating her for 6 other cases across two hospitals where she's suspected of having had a hand in using the same methods (identified by another neonatologist uninvolved in the original trial) speculated in the first trial.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

Start at the top, it’s pretty much straight to the point. I promise I’m not asking to be pedantic- but exactly who are the numerous doctors and nurses you refer to and can you reference this (if not names/ initials will do), a lot seemed to have a different stance in the inquiry and I would like to read what they said in the inquiry. When reading more into it, I have the impression it started with Dr J & Dr B and then people got caught up the gossip, rather than it being based on lots of people’s separate suspicions being brought together. The group herd mentality started after Dr B had done his case review and the staffing mortality review. Honestly though I don’t think we can put to much emphasis on how it started, because it had to start being documented somehow by someone and this is just the way it is. I would like to be reminded though if it was just those 2 that started collating information, or if others tried prior to that to raise concerns.

Multiple doctors and nurses are protected by anonimity orders. "Exactly who" is not relevant: there are examples of detailed evidence given by multiple coworkers who expressed their concerns with Letby's behaviour before they knew what she was accused of.

And most acknowledged the likelihood of Letby's guilt at the Inquiry after the justice system ran its course.

People didn't get caught up in gossip when she was behaving inappropriately at work in front of them. Several nurses and doctors made a point to highlight conversations or interactions which were suspicious at the time and made worse in retrospect once they pieced together what she was doing.

It was not herd mentality. Herd mentality doesn't explain why babies who were healthy suddenly had physical trauma comprable to car crashes with no explanation (and no - neonatal CPR could not account for what had happened and was ruled out by forensic pathologist Marnerides at trial). Herd mentality doesn't explain the red flag behaviour of predicting the deaths of babies (a hallmark of several health care angel of deaths).

The entire point of Letby's attacks and the rota sheet was to illustrate that her attacks were spread out among different members of staff - the second most common person in attendance wasonly present for 10 of the incidents brought to trial: less than half. This means that these collapses weren't getting noticed as quickly because the staff was not uniform - they were spread out. And in reviewing the cases, the concern was not that she was intentionally harming them initially but that there was the possibility of poor practice. It was only when the collapses kept continuing with no obvious medical cause that the suspicions started to grow towards something potentially sinister.

And it should be clear that the doctors wanted her removed from the unit. Had she been removed and the collapses still continued, then the doctors would have to understand that there was something else going on. Instead the unit was downgraded (not that this means much considering how many of the babies would still have accepted there and still had unexplained collapses anyway) and she was removed only after the attack on the triplets.

At this point to presume her innocence is to ignore the multitude of evidence pointing towards guilt. Insulin poisonings don't just happen and despite what conspiracy theorists, defense approached foreigners and the scientifically illiterate will insist, the tests are reliable, they are evidence and they are consistent and supported by medical evidence pointing towards a poisoning. Then there's the physical trauma which was horrific and inflicted by someone who can only be described as a monster that happened not to one child but multiple.

 

[Furore]

<modsnip - referenced post was removed>

Dedicated clinicians, working in one of the hardest and most emotionally testing specialties, requiring lifelong shift work, trying to figure out why such a spike in deaths, really don’t deserve your scorn. I often wonder if those so happy to criticise from their armchair are ever routinely awake in the early hours of the morning in the same way these nurses and medics are, caring for something so perfect and vulnerable, when they could earn similar money elsewhere, for less emotional and physical graft. JMOO

 

[Parker Knoll]

Multiple doctors and nurses are protected by anonimity orders. "Exactly who" is not relevant: there are examples of detailed evidence given by multiple coworkers who expressed their concerns with Letby's behaviour before they knew what she was accused of.

And most acknowledged the likelihood of Letby's guilt at the Inquiry after the justice system ran its course.

People didn't get caught up in gossip when she was behaving inappropriately at work in front of them. Several nurses and doctors made a point to highlight conversations or interactions which were suspicious at the time and made worse in retrospect once they pieced together what she was doing.

It was not herd mentality. Herd mentality doesn't explain why babies who were healthy suddenly had physical trauma comprable to car crashes with no explanation (and no - neonatal CPR could not account for what had happened and was ruled out by forensic pathologist Marnerides at trial). Herd mentality doesn't explain the red flag behaviour of predicting the deaths of babies (a hallmark of several health care angel of deaths).

The entire point of Letby's attacks and the rota sheet was to illustrate that her attacks were spread out among different members of staff - the second most common person in attendance wasonly present for 10 of the incidents brought to trial: less than half. This means that these collapses weren't getting noticed as quickly because the staff was not uniform - they were spread out. And in reviewing the cases, the concern was not that she was intentionally harming them initially but that there was the possibility of poor practice. It was only when the collapses kept continuing with no obvious medical cause that the suspicions started to grow towards something potentially sinister.

And it should be clear that the doctors wanted her removed from the unit. Had she been removed and the collapses still continued, then the doctors would have to understand that there was something else going on. Instead the unit was downgraded (not that this means much considering how many of the babies would still have accepted there and still had unexplained collapses anyway) and she was removed only after the attack on the triplets.

At this point to presume her innocence is to ignore the multitude of evidence pointing towards guilt. Insulin poisonings don't just happen and despite what conspiracy theorists, defense approached foreigners and the scientifically illiterate will insist, the tests are reliable, they are evidence and they are consistent and supported by medical evidence pointing towards a poisoning. Then there's the physical trauma which was horrific and inflicted by someone who can only be described as a monster that happened not to one child but multiple.

AMEN !

 

[Marantz4250b]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

OK so maybe I am the only one who doesn’t know what happened? All I hear is “statistics has nothing to do with what happened here”, or “life is more complex than science.” I am in another country and can only see that a big chunk of information is missing. But, we also hear that British officials themselves are questioning the “safety” of this conviction, so obviously they are unaware of any insider’s information either.

Lots of cases start with hushed information. A priest opens the privacy of the confession; a boyfriend might submit an anonymous tip. A friend might call.

(In one of our current high-profile cases, relatives may be testifying for the prosecution; if it happens, people will connect the dots).

But, usually, at a certain point in time, all becomes obvious. In LL’s case, nothing of sorts. I see two doctor witnesses whose names are protected. But as we heard, for one of them, the initial covers his personal frolicking and another, as one can guess, is not above criticism either?

So it is an interesting story; there is no evidence of the case starting from anonymous signal. Yet there are traces of police patchwork, curious lapses in memory, trial consultants more invested in putting the defendants behind bars than in justice. Finally, fourteen doctors said, the infants deaths are not LL’s fault, and why don’t you think of something better than air embolism to explain the deaths?

The most puzzling thing, it is as if the doctors first got firmly convinced that “Lucy did it”, then tried to find out the way, “how”, ended up never proving how, and now it is, “we don’t know how she did it, but she did it.”

See the lack of any logic?

So with this, we are left to believe that the case started with Dr. Breary saying, “someone must be a killer here”.

BTW, lack of transparency leaves public perplexed. No one pretends to be Inspector Margret and yet people don’t like to be fed some unrealistic mishmash. Especially if there is evidence of cases being hastily stitched backwards. That ends up in multiple groups questioning the validity of the convictions. We see it in too many cases. Many times it ends up poorly. The first time anyone involved is found to be the fallen idol, just watch the speed with which the flimsy fabric of prior cases gets unwoven.

Both of which are true, which you would know if you'd followed the trial in detail.

There is no "missing" information. Her initial trial took up ten months, god knows how many hours of time by seriously high-level lawyers and likely ran into the millions, cost wise. Her legal team could have introduced any evidence they pleased. Nothing has been hidden or covered up - if it had been she would have walked an appeal.

I'll also call you out on the second bolded point; no one has their name "protected" in any of this. This is another point that is being dragged up and is going to lend fuel to the ridiculous conspiracy theory fire.

The court made orders that the names of some people can not be published. People need to note that these orders refer ONLY to publication of the names. They were not anonymised in court and their full names were given in open court. It's simply the case that those names can not be published. For the avoidance of doubt - there were not anonymous witnesses.

Third bolded point; no one has ever suggested that it was.

Fourth bolded point; people who were NOT in court; who DID NOT offer evidence at the time and people who have, in most cases, self admittedly, not read the trial transcripts. And, let's not forget, the lead man on this committee has formed his case around a theory which was comprehensively and unequivocally dismissed at trial with even the defence admitting that it did not happen!

<modsnip - personalizing>

 

[katydid23]

“She replied that “there were insufficient details in records” and it would probably have been impossible “to record in anything but real time” the precise causes of some collapses, including if there were any “sinister” cause. But she emphasised she had “concerns” about the unit’s response to babies’ medical conditions, referring to “subtle signs” being missed “or not escalated or responded to”. There may have been “an inherent system or leadership problem,” she said.”

In my opinion, the reason there were 'insufficient details in records' and a lack of 'precise causes of some collapses' and 'subtle signs' were being missed and not responded to in time WAS BECAUSE A SERIAL KILLER WAS IN THE UNIT.

There were 27 unexplained, sudden collapses, some happened 2 or 3 times in a day.

Some happened with babies who were totally fine and about to be released from the hospital.

Some happened with twins and triplets. crating chaos within the families.

The 'insufficient details' complaint may have been because there were very little available details. A nurse would be caring for a 2 week old preemie who had strong vitals, eating well, breathing well, having comfort visits with parents, and there was not much to report.

The nurse would go on her dinner break, and return to the unit to see that her patient was coding and being resuscitated by the Emergency Team.

Incidents like that were hsaoppening because of malicious attacks which came out of nowhere. The nurses were being blindsided by a coldhearted psychopath, so they did not see many 'subtle signs' because there often weren't any. Things went downhill fast in many of the cases.

I'm pretty sure these criticisms of 'insufficient detailed' notes and 'missing subtle cues' were not a problem after the serial killer was removed from the nurseries. IMO

This question was raised by Dr Hawdon at the time, and I think it has been the biggest question raised since- neither time has it been fully addressed, I remain optimistic it will be addressed by the inquiry- but it’s all a little too late.

The convictions of Lucy Letby: should they be overturned?

When the former nurse was found guilty of murdering seven babies and attempting to murder seven others, a 1980s research paper was key to the prosecution’s case. But the author of the paper himself believes there has been a miscarriage of justice – and so too do other doctors

www.theguardian.com

 

[katydid23]

I would assume the police can do that without having to bring the press along?

Speaking of Letby's backyard, her house has French doors out into the garden and it backs on to Blacon Crematorium which, eerily, has a memorial garden for babies.

Looking on Google Maps using the Layers view, the Baby Memorial Garden is directly behind Letby's home. I see iit's got square hedges around it with the dolphin sculpture in a hedged semi-circle. My guess is Letby would have been able to see it in winter when the trees are bare from the upper storey of her house.

So she could see it from her upstairs bedroom---: Baby Memorial Garden to feature new bronze dolphin sculpture

 

[OhDannyBoi]

<modsnip - quoted post was removed>

<modsnip - personalizing>

You're accusing Brearey of lacerating a liver: this is a conspiracy theory and defamatory claim made by Richard Taylor or whichever fool was at that press conference. It has no merit and is actively libelous. Page 150 of this document submitted to Thirlwall Inquiry directly calls this into question: https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk...sion-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf

<modsnip - personalizing>

Your criticism of Evans changes nothing. He has a long history of working in the medical field having established a neonatology unit in the hospital in which he worked and his work as an expert witness leading to convictions is of no issue. Being an expert and using it to secure convictions isn't a criticism. If he were crap at his job, he wouldn't be used as an expert at all.

Unproven accusations? It is a fact that she is being investigated for multiple cases between the Countess and Liverpool Women's Hospital. How about instead of mounting this conspiratorial nonsense you stick with actual facts?

Letby questioned under caution for further cases:

Lucy Letby interviewed in prison over baby deaths and collapses

The serial killer nurse has been interviewed over more deaths and collapses at two hospitals.

www.bbc.com

Police Still Probing 2 baby deaths:

Police still probing two baby deaths - Letby inquiry

Police have reviewed the care of 4,000 babies who were in hospital during Lucy Letby's employment.

www.bbc.com

 

[Furore]

<modsnip. - personalizing> You're accusing Brearey of lacerating a liver: this is a conspiracy theory and defamatory claim made by Richard Taylor or whichever fool was at that press conference. It has no merit and is actively libelous. Page 150 of this document submitted to Thirlwall Inquiry directly calls this into question: https://thirlwall.public-inquiry.uk...sion-of-Family-Group-2-and-3-7-March-2025.pdf

<modsnip - personalizing>

Your criticism of Evans changes nothing. He has a long history of working in the medical field having established a neonatology unit in the hospital in which he worked and his work as an expert witness leading to convictions is of no issue. Being an expert and using it to secure convictions isn't a criticism. If he were crap at his job, he wouldn't be used as an expert at all.

Unproven accusations? It is a fact that she is being investigated for multiple cases between the Countess and Liverpool Women's Hospital. How about instead of mounting this conspiratorial nonsense you stick with actual facts?

Letby questioned under caution for further cases:

Lucy Letby interviewed in prison over baby deaths and collapses

The serial killer nurse has been interviewed over more deaths and collapses at two hospitals.

www.bbc.com

Police Still Probing 2 baby deaths:

Police still probing two baby deaths - Letby inquiry

Police have reviewed the care of 4,000 babies who were in hospital during Lucy Letby's employment.

www.bbc.com

That Thirlwell document is incredible thank you. No one reading it in full can rightly be convinced by the easy “new evidence” (spoiler; none of it is new!) reported in Letbyist circles - case by case takedown of the fourteen expert panel.

It’s absolutely shameful parents of dead children even had to do this to be frank…all MOO.

 

[OhDannyBoi]

That Thirlwell document is incredible thank you. No one reading it in full can rightly be convinced by the easy “new evidence” (spoiler; none of it is new!) reported in Letbyist circles - case by case takedown of the fourteen expert panel.

It’s absolutely shameful parents of dead children even had to do this to be frank…all MOO.

Yes, it's an excellent breakdown about why Mark McDonald's efforts are nothing more than a disgusting publicity stunt and his experts aren't to be taken seriously.

This international panel was a farce. The press conferences were just a vector to spread misinformation and more conspiracy theorist nonsense into the air.

These parents are revictimized every time McDonald pulls these stunts and the conspiracy theories that they're selling are nothing but a dangerous distraction from a killer being in prison and forgotten.

 

[Sweeper2000]

is there any updates on what happened with that press conference? macdonald said some stuff but not sure if he has given anything else after.

 

[Marantz4250b]

is there any updates on what happened with that press conference? macdonald said some stuff but not sure if he has given anything else after.

I suspect that we won't be hearing anything soon about this case.

I'm curious as to how McDonald earns his fees, tbh.

 

[Furore]

Forgive me if I’m wrong but the press conference was irrelevant to the court process in the sense they didn’t need to hold that press conference to re submit to the appeal court, and I don’t think the appeal court will admit an appeal as I don’t think any of the evidence has materially changed - indeed in places the “expert panel” have just restated what was disproven in court cases (and by their own admission the panel didn’t follow the trial evidence).

I therefore expect there will be no appeal on those cases granted, and we are yet to hear on other untested cases whilst the evidence is gathered. MOO

 

[Charlot123]

That Thirlwell document is incredible thank you. No one reading it in full can rightly be convinced by the easy “new evidence” (spoiler; none of it is new!) reported in Letbyist circles - case by case takedown of the fourteen expert panel.

It’s absolutely shameful parents of dead children even had to do this to be frank…all MOO.

<modsnip - off topic, combative, rude>

Thirlwell document, among other things, contains amazing, illuminating emails. Thank the document, indeed.

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

The thread is being closed overnight.

This discussion has turned into a disgrace to Websleuths. Whichever Moderator comes on in the morning should not have to deal with all this personalizing, bickering and rudeness and the extra work that is involved in review and cleanup.

If our Moderator who comes on in the morning wishes to reopen the discussion, we'll leave that decision to them. Failing that, we can go with a Media Only *No Discussion thread* which is what happens when our members can't bother to comply with our basic rules of being civil and respectful toward one another.