Russell Barnes

TV & podcasting via @ClearStoryuk & @Creating_hist. New podcast series Creating History: Summitry out now. Also producer @true_crims

[Handre @Handre]

August 1914. Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer David Lloyd George faces a brutal reality: the Great War will cost £3 million per day, but the entire government budget runs only £200 million annually. He can't possibly tax his way out of this nightmare (imagine trying to explain a 500% tax increase to voters while their sons march off to die). Instead, he cranks up the printing presses and lets the Bank of England work its magic.

The pound sterling loses 75% of its purchasing power between 1914 and 1920. Your average British housewife watches bread prices triple, coal costs quadruple, and her husband's wages buy half what they used to. Lloyd George stole her savings to pay for artillery shells through monetary expansion. Every government pulls this same sleight of hand because war taxes are political suicide, but inflation taxes hit two years later when everyone's forgotten the connection.

Fast forward to Vietnam and Nixon's identical playbook. Defense spending jumps from $50 billion to $80 billion annually while Johnson refuses to raise taxes for his precious Great Society programs. The printing presses fire up again, the dollar crashes against gold, and by 1971 Nixon abandons Bretton Woods entirely rather than admit he's been funding Southeast Asian adventures with monetary heroin. American families watch their grocery bills explode while politicians blame oil companies and labor unions.

Every major conflict since 1900 follows this script. Politicians promise quick victories funded by "temporary" monetary expansion, then act shocked when prices spiral out of control years later. Ukraine aid, Middle East interventions, the next inevitable crisis - they'll finance it all the same way while your purchasing power bleeds out slowly enough that you won't riot in the streets.

[Dr Svilena Dimitrova @NeoDoc11]

Really happy to see this amazing investigative journalism work by @guardian - credit to Felicity Lawrence and David Conn.

https://t.co/xdbAwVrTYD

So what now?

Unfortunately, I suspect you will find that neither Hindmarsh, nor the GMC, nor Cheshire Police, nor the CPS technically breached the rules. That said, the probity of Hindmarsh is certainly questionable. More importantly, I would argue that the actions - or lack of action - by the GMC, aided and abetted by Hindmarsh’s lawyers (presumably funded by his defence union), are what really need to be called out.

Let me elaborate.

Suppose a number of people - patients and/or staff members - make complaints about someone to an NHS Trust. These complaints may be vexatious, mistaken but made in good faith, well-evidenced, or any combination of the above. The Trust is then obliged to investigate. If the allegations are sufficiently serious, the Trust may impose interim conditions (e.g. gardening leave/re-deployment etc) on the individual pending a formal investigation, usually conducted under the MHPS framework (Maintaining High Professional Standards).

The quality of such investigations can vary enormously - from thorough and evidence-based to little more than carpet-sweeping exercises, with many possibilities in between. However, if the Trust ultimately concludes that serious misconduct may have occurred, it is required to refer the matter to the GMC.

What happens next?

The GMC reviews the information provided by the Trust and decides whether the case warrants a formal investigation. Importantly, the hearing itself is not conducted by the GMC but by the Medical Practitioners Tribunal Service (MPTS). The GMC may impose interim restrictions on practice while the case awaits tribunal. The MPTS then examines the evidence and determines the outcome.

Now consider where Hindmarsh stood during the Letby trial. He was clearly under formal investigation by his Trust. However, he was not strictly obliged to disclose this. The guidance only requires experts to declare matters they believe could significantly influence the proceedings. A competent lawyer could easily argue that Hindmarsh considered the allegations unfounded and therefore did not believe they were relevant to the case. In that sense, it could be framed as a private employment matter. That is simply a consequence of how lax the rules governing expert witnesses are in this country.

The next question could be, however, what would an honourable person be reasonably expected to do in that situation?

Well, I would suggest that Hindmarsh could have said to Cheshire police/the CPS: “We have a problem. I am currently under investigation by my Trust for X, Y and Z. These are the allegations, this is the evidence, and this is my response. Are you still comfortable using me as an expert witness while this is ongoing?”

Did Hindmarsh do that? According to the police, as per this article, he did not.

Now the next question.

When Hindmarsh was referred to the GMC, they imposed severe interim restrictions pending an MPTS tribunal. Hindmarsh DID disclose that to the police. But they are now saying they never saw the Trust investigation (referred to in this article as “inquiry” which is what Trust formal investigation reports are often called) that actually led to the GMC referral in the first place.

So next obvious question.

Did @cheshirepolice and the @CPSUK really understand how serious the allegations made against Hindmarsh by his own Trust were? What expertise were they relying on to judge how significant that referral actually was? Without someone who understands how these regulatory processes work, they may not even have realised that there would be a formal inquiry report for them to ask for. This, once again, is evidence that @cheshirepolice were completely out of their depth with this investigation in several respects.

When investigators do not fully understand the systems they are dealing with, important lines of inquiry can easily be missed. In this case, as we have seen time and again, @cheshirepolice appear to have overlooked large amounts of evidence that simply did not fit their “serial killer” narrative.

That should be deeply embarrassing - not just for the police, but for a criminal justice system that, more than a year after the CCRC application was filed, still appears unable to confront the scale of this MoJ. The information now emerging in the media has been known to Letby’s current legal team for many months.

Next question. Why does it have to be exposed by investigative journalists for the CCRC to take actions to resolve this clear MoJ? @VeraBaird

And back to Hindmarsh. If I were an honourable person who believed I had been vexatiously referred to the @gmcuk following a flawed or rogue Trust investigation - something that does happen, particularly to whistleblowers - I would be keen to clear my name before an MPTS tribunal.

So next question is - did Hindmarsh do that?

No. Instead, he removed himself from the GMC register and thus avoided the tribunal.

Now, it is possible he simply had enough and did not want to go through the tribunal process. MPTS hearings, like the criminal justice system itself, can sometimes go badly wrong and lead to miscarriages of justice. He is also an old man with a good pension and is likely financially secure. From that perspective, one could understand the “I can’t be bothered with this” reaction - choosing to walk away rather than endure a long, stressful public process at the end of a career.

That said, if someone had attempted to smear my name in that way at the end of my professional life, I would definitely want the opportunity to clear it, rather than choose to step away. Unless, of course, there was another reason - namely that a full hearing might have brought matters into the public domain that one would prefer to have remained behind closed doors for good…

The Letby case is an epic miscarriage of justice enabled by systemic flaws AND by individuals operating within those systems who either lack sufficient experience or have motivations that are not aligned with “doing the right thing”.

So the issue is not simply one of system failure or individual failure. It is both.

System flaws can, in principle, be fixed relatively easily. Cultural problems - where the wrong people occupy positions of authority are much harder to address.

Accountability at senior levels in this country is currently as good as non-existent. And until that changes, MoJs – which both mean innocent people being scapegoated and guilty people escaping scrutiny - and often being promoted as a consequence, aka “falling upwards” - will continue to happen.

There is still more "dirt" to come out. Thank goodness for intelligent and hard-working investigative journalists and for the brave whistleblowers who continue to come forward.

@drphilhammond @PrivateEyeNews @guardiannews @LucyLetbyTrials @Channel4News @channel5_tv @SkyNews @BBCNews @DavidDavisMP @ShabanaMahmood @ccrcupdate @cheshirepolice @CPSUK @cheshirepolice @hannahsbee @MartynPitman @drcmday @amandaknox @Michelehal7344 @reasonoverfear @ShaunLintern @Voice4theDead @VeraBaird

[Axel @axel1974]

Tremendous interview and insight into the neo-natal care at the COCH from a legal point of view. Truly staggering that this was allowed to happen in the first place. I hope the cowards who were responsible here can sleep at night.

[Dr Svilena Dimitrova @NeoDoc11]

I have now given an interview for a podcast about the Lucy Letby case.

I made this decision not simply because an innocent person is in prison, but because there continue to be no consequences for those who were responsible in orchestrating this clear miscarriage of justice.

If you’d like to listen, the links are below.

YouTube: https://t.co/vHVKZ5wGUu

Apple podcast: https://t.co/x4ETx1p7l4

@drphilhammond @ClarkeMicah @PeterElston1 @NadineDorries @Michelehal7344 @MichelleWelshMP @wesstreeting @cheshirepolice @Channel4News @channel5_tv @BBCNews @SkyNews @PrivateEyeNews @guardiannews @MartynPitman @amandaknox @Voice4theDead @guyrowlanduk @reasonoverfear

[Russell Barnes @Barnes_Russell]

‘Disagreeing agreeably’ gets dull.
So it’s refreshing to have some proper debate again on this @notanother1pod after all the chummy blur of 2025. https://t.co/OVpDZczugN

[Alonso Gurmendi @Alonso_GD]

Carney: haha we killed millions of people to sell a lie that put us on top through double standards that are now being deployed against us so now and only now we are going to say we need a new system

The establishment: *gasp* wow, what a statesman!! Brava!!

The Global South:

[Russell Barnes @Barnes_Russell]

@BDSixsmith So true. Many podcasts get stuck in a tired formula, relying on listeners returning through habit. That’s because it’s so hard to monetise them & therefore re-invest in quality over quantity. I sense that podcasting, having peaked after Covid, is entering a jaded middle age.

[Collingwood 🇬🇧 @admcollingwood]

Men! When a woman is Chancellor, it is sexist to express views on the economy, tax or spending.

[Russell Barnes @Barnes_Russell]

@arthistorynews @DrJBhattacharya Yep.

[Russell Barnes @Barnes_Russell]

Nope. The UK establishment panicked and switched to a Chinese-style lockdown model, going into full propaganda mode to justify it. And it’s stayed stuck there. Sweden followed decades-old previous WHO pandemic guidelines that acknowledged that lockdowns aren’t sustainable & store up issues for the future.

[Russell Barnes @Barnes_Russell]

@arthistorynews @DrJBhattacharya Household spread doesn’t explain it. Sweden had a superior strategy - clearer comms, a more sustainable approach in keeping schools & small businesses open, above all trusting people to behave as grown-ups rather than isolating them with experimental command & control protocols

[Russell Barnes @Barnes_Russell]

@arthistorynews Not because of ‘invasion’ technically, but the US did have to ‘de facto recognise’ on the ground realities in wars that it or its proxies lost - in North Korea, Cuba, Vietnam, Afghanistan.

[Russell Barnes @Barnes_Russell]

@arthistorynews @DrJBhattacharya Simply wish we had done what Sweden did and had better health outcomes overall. Sidestep the propaganda for a moment and look at reality.

[Jay Bhattacharya @DrJBhattacharya]

Fact check: not locking down at all (like Sweden) would have saved lives in the UK.

Hard to believe how much money the UK spent on its sham covid inquiry.

[Freddie Sayers @freddiesayers]

What a disaster that, flying in the face of the data we now have from Sweden and other states that opted for *less* stringent lockdowns rather than *harder, faster*, the British state should reach this moronic conclusion.

This is collective face-saving and motivated reasoning. The failure and panic that led to the lockdowns went so wide, and so deep, and involved so much of the political class, that to own up to it now would simply be too grave an admission. So instead we get this.

[Saganism @Saganismm]

That time when Neil deGrasse Tyson was asked who the greatest scientific mind in history was

[Crewkerne Gazette @CrewkerneGaz]

With Tim Davie (no relation to Ed) stepping down after the BBC was caught creatively editing President Trump’s speech, it only makes sense to appoint the man himself as the new Director General.

After all — who better to fix the BBC than the one it tried to cancel?

[Russell Barnes @Barnes_Russell]

@BenFRubinstein Trump has David Brent energy here.

[Russell Barnes @Barnes_Russell]

A joy - a rare dose of independent discussion & defiance within the mainstream media and its abject obsequiousness to royalty. https://t.co/A7qsVLBvuk

[Tom McTague @TomMcTague]

You will not read anything better today, this week, this month, this year.

@Will___lloyd on the royal scandal and why it is time to declare: No More Kings.

A piece written with sadness. And rage.

https://t.co/MrLUD2Ol7E