I note the Petition Title "The petition was asking for ‘a change in the process which allows wrongful convictions based solely on unscientifically proven theories’. The group met Beaconsfield MP Dominic Grieve and MP John Hemming outside Parliament before setting off to the Ministry of Justice in Victoria Street, and then on to Downing Street, to hand over the petition"
So what do they mean by "unscientifically proven theories"? Do they mean biomechanical experiments that have not been peer reviewed or proven as a theory? :). These words just fall out of good old Mr Henderson and his team's mouth without giving it a single thought. Has anyone thought what Mr Henderson and his team means by these sentences? I don't think even he knows. Of course, what they mean is theories that have not been proven :). What they have written of course is something completely ambiguous.
Not so long ago, Mr Hemming was asked about the Scientific basis of the oxygen dissociation curve. He failed to respond to this. He was then asked on the Guardian about cyanosis in children and how they survived, he failed to tell us what the scientific basis of that was. It is of course nice timing on his front for some soundbites given the Liberal Dimocrats are having a conference :).
Nicely coordinated to maximise the publicity for Panorama too :).
In truth, Mr Hemming hasn't a remote clue about paediatrics or neonatology. That is what no one knows what the petition means either.
The article soundbites also neatly stated "AN appeal against the manslaughter conviction of a childminder has been submitted to the High Court"
Wow, I wonder how many other innocent poor souls put in their appeals this week with no media coverage at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment