Scots Ebola Nurse, Pauline Cafferkey Charged Over Concealing Temperature

[johncar54]

She's a nurse, I suspect she suspected she was infected but knew she would more likely live if she got back into the UK. Maybe she only felt ill on the flight home but I bet she knew. However, who can blame her?, who would have done anything different?

As I said, like a drunken driver knowing they are drunk but taking a chance. That the driver is a great guy doing all sorts of voluntary works, donating blood, a kidney etc, would not excuse him.

Jimmy Savile did a lot of good , and raised thousands for charity, had he not died he would rightly be in prison.

Poor lady, trying to help others and then getting bad press when every single one of the journalists would have done the same.

Even if they would, and I doubt it, they are not responsible medically trained people as are nurses, doctors etc.

I am sure no doctor would have done as she appears to have done. (I say, appears, but if there was no evidence of wrong doing she would not have appeared before the committee)

As a nurse, who worked with Ebola, and knew first hand better than anyone the real risks of infecting others, and the high chance that they might then die, taking any risk was almost unbelievable and is indefensible.

I am sorry but I cannot excuse her behaviour.

[Steve.r]

As I said, like a drunken driver knowing they are drunk but taking a chance. That the driver is a great guy doing all sorts of voluntary works, donating blood, a kidney etc, would not excuse him.

Jimmy Savile did a lot of good , and raised thousands for charity, had he not died he would rightly be in prison.

Poor lady, trying to help others and then getting bad press when every single one of the journalists would have done the same.

Even if they would, and I doubt it, they are not responsible medically trained people as are nurses, doctors etc.

I am sure no doctor would have done as she appears to have done. (I say, appears, but if there was no evidence of wrong doing she would not have appeared before the committee)

As a nurse, who worked with Ebola, and knew first hand better than anyone the real risks of infecting others, and the high chance that they might then die, taking any risk was almost unbelievable and is indefensible.

I am sorry but I cannot excuse her behaviour.

You have no real right to challenge the outcome of the trial. She has been acquitted. Why do you feel the need to carry on the witch hunt against her? I just don't understand some peoples mentality sometimes.

[johncar54]

You have no real right to challenge the outcome of the trial. She has been acquitted. Why do you feel the need to carry on the witch hunt against her? I just don't understand some peoples mentality sometimes.

Doc Alan quote:
When this nurse returned from Sierra Leone in December 2014, with many other NHS volunteers, there was a screening procedure at Heathrow whereby Public Health England ( PHE ) had nurses to take the temperatures of the travellers. It appears that there weren’t sufficient screening staff, so PHE encouraged volunteers to take their own temperatures. This nurse’s temperature was high, and was taken several more times, but she is alleged to have taken paracetamol ( which would lower her temperature ) and was eventually told she could board her flight to Glasgow. The allegations of concealing high temperature may be false - but, even if true, this could be misjudgement made under stress.


The nurse had Ebola of that there is no doubt. As a nurse she would have known she had a temperature. She must have known she might be infected. She took medication to lower it to get around the regulations so she would be allowed to fly. As Doc Alan said, ".... this could be misjudgement made under stress."

Had she infected thousands or people or even one person, I do not think anyone would be jumping to her defence.

She did wrong but was lucky (twice) and so were the public.

Because people did not believe the findings when the police investigated themselves was why we now righty have an the Independent Police Complaints Commission. In-house committees are notorious for protecting their own.

[Arthur Little]

I am sorry but I cannot excuse her behaviour.

... try looking at this woman's case from a humanitarian point of view - rather than from either a "dyed in the wool" policeman's and/or judicial perspective - John. You might even surprise yourself!

See my [separate] thread: 'WHY it's IMPORTANT to *consider the BIGGER picture'.

http://filipinaroses.com/showthread....And-You-ll-see

Ok ... ... different topic, but the *same principle applies.

[johncar54]

... try looking at this woman's case from a humanitarian point of view - rather than from either a "dyed in the wool" policeman's and/or judicial perspective - John. You might even surprise yourself!

See my [separate] thread: 'WHY it's IMPORTANT to *consider the BIGGER picture'.

http://filipinaroses.com/showthread....And-You-ll-see

Ok ... ... different topic, but the *same principle applies.

Arthur try looking at the facts and not the person.

Had that person been say a paedophile, bank robber, rapist etc. I guess you would think differently.

Thinking as a detective would usually mean looking at the fact and making a decision based solely on them.

In many cases a detective will feel sympathy for the culprit but not let that blind them from the facts.

As a police officer I quite often spoke up to give information to a court which went to the favour of a defendant, when the defence had failed to do so. That assisted the court to pass the correct sentence in the circumstances. The nurse's previous good character would be something the committee would need to consider, in imposing a punishment not in deciding if what she did, when she showed an incorrect temperature reading, was wrong.

As for the nurse being acquitted, it was not a criminal court so ‘acquittal’ has no significance here.

(And sorry Arthur but "See my [separate] thread: 'WHY it's IMPORTANT to *consider the BIGGER picture'." If I understood that as you meant it, you have lost the plot.)

[Steve.r]

Arthur try looking at the facts

The only fact is that she was found not guilty.

[johncar54]

The only fact is that she was found not guilty.

No she was not. That can only happen in a criminal court. She appeared before the
Conduct and Competence Panel of the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

[URL="http:/www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37364497"] The conduct and competence panel dismissed the charges after hearing she had been impaired by illness.

That means, whilst they believed she did what was alleged, the facts mitigated her actions, i.e. that because her judgement was 'impaired by illness' she had Ebola, she was given the benefit of doubt in that she may not have 'intended to break the rules.'

And just for clarity. Even in a criminal case if the jury return a verdict of 'not guilty' that does not mean they are satisfied the person did not commit the crime, only that they cannot be satisfied 'beyond all reasonable doubt that they did'. Thus no one is ever 'proved to be innocent.' Although in English one is presumed to innocent until proved guilty.

Sorry to appear pedantic, but those without legal training, often do not understand that is the UK law.

So good luck to the nurse.