The Activist

The Controversial ‘Coconut’ Placard

Fact:

When a person of colour behaves in a way perceived to be associated with white people, they could be called a 'coconut'. 

The Case:

Around the time of the Palestine marches in 2023 - 2024, Marieha Hussain, a teacher, faced legal action for holding a placard up showing Rishi Sunak and Suella Braverman as coconuts. Regardless of any humour which she insisted it was, the racial context was flagged as pejorative or derogatory. Although Hussain was acquitted, she lost her career and faced online abuse, but still defended the placard as satire throughout. It can appear petty to be put trial over a placard, but is it always so? Marieha Hussain's protest board does pale in comparison to modern celebrity racism scandals. 

The Placard

It was unfortunate that the Hussain family faced such harsh treatment. However, despite the racial nature of her legal proceedings, Hussain spoke to the press and accused the system of misusing hate speech laws against ethnic minorities: 

'The laws on hate speech must protect us, but this trial shows they are weaponised to target ethnic minorities'. 

Naturally, the uncivilised treatment she endured would have warranted her to bite-back, so to speak. However, objectively, one trial—of which she was acquitted—is not proof of an entire systemic persecution of the ethnic population. 

The reality

An insightful blog here shows terms like 'coconut' and 'Oreo' are not new. They mean brown on the outside, 'white on the inside' and they are hurled at black or brown people who don’t conform to their racial stereotype. If Marieha Hussain fully understood the term before creating the placard, it wouldn't have been a surprise. Consider the archetypal activist; bold, purpose driven, passionate and focused on improving things. In certain circumstances, 'coconut' metaphors are not considered racist. When the law advises caution with these practices, should we ask ourselves if it is wise to be more tolerant towards racial offences? Especially after years of high profile racism? People will gamble with low level race offences. 

Race Politics

Think back to the Black Lives Matter movement in the UK, when Sasha Johnson openly criticized whiteness as perpetuating systemic racism. She promoted Blackness with the intensity of a supremacist. Once, on camera this BLM matriarch bullied a black man, calling him a 'coon,' a deeply offensive slur implying conformity to racist stereotypes. It’s not unreasonable to suggest that a non-Black individual would likely have been prosecuted for the same act. The same laws are needed for everyone. 

Holding a candle to our inherent racial differences will eventually lead to stereotyping, strengthening our racial biases or racism. The racialist may present their ideology as a political agenda or choose to defend a specific race from another. Professor Andrews is an expert in black studies, and he spoke in defence of the placard, stating:

'Who says it’s racialised? These terms, coconut, come from struggle, from others... you can’t tell me I should be proud to have a brown prime minister and a brown home secretary and then say, well, actually, when they do things which are racist, we can’t criticise them. This is political language, and the judge made it clear this is political satire!'

Judge for yourselves, but if Andrews' argument is that Sunak and Braverman’s 'whiteness' is inherently racist, he is undeniably reinforcing negative racial stereotypes and demonizing white people—which is racism. In an ideal world, we would practice forgiveness and champion care before speaking. In reality, we need rules to live by.

 

Final Thoughts on The Matter

The trial raises important questions about whether such debates are ultimately more harmful or helpful. Human diversity—cultural, physical, historical, linguistic, and genetic—demands respect for each individual. However, this respect is often lacking.

Excessively labeling every slight as 'racist' can exacerbate modern racial hostility rather than building better bonds with people. As we venture these grounds, it’s crucial to strike a balance that acknowledges and respects our wonderful differences without failing standards of decency and good faith. 

Letby: Monster by Public Decree?

Demagogaery

Everyone Saw The New Reports 

The nation was captured right from the first news report. It was a case that got under everyone's skin; familiar TV reporters all told us of the rising death toll among babies and infants in the Countess of Chester Hospital. The wider media would speculate, were these deaths negligence? Maybe there was a criminal element or incompetence? The knock-on effect for the police was the tremendous public expectation to catch someone. It was 2017 when coverage began and the news story itself created intense 'turn the telly up' moments, amplifying the daily need to find out if they had uncovered that one person. 

The Early Media Coverage Was Attention Grabbing:

Initial Reports

It was quite speedy how the focus turned to Lucy Letby. However, the young nurse was present during infant deaths. I was convinced, most of us were! The reports said she was directly in the locations where the tragedies took place. Our news is really trusted by everyone I know, it must be right? Right? 

Public Reaction Where I Was Living Was Strong! 

The country allowed that Angel of Death archetype to take shape, we stoked our own fires; did any of your circles go on about bringing back the death sentence? Mine certainly did. Western social media ascribed a 'psycho vibe' to her, which contributed to the presumption of guilt despite her incomplete investigation! It was a bad climate for any investigative process, let alone trial proceedings and all that legal drudgery! 

Looking Back At The Evidence:

A Picture of Numbers

The prosecution’s case very much relied on statistical evidence to link the recorded deaths solely when Letby was on duty. The correlations are usually noticeable. Strangely, six deaths occurred when Letby was not on duty. Even so, numbers don't prove the cause of death or identify the offender. 

The Guardian newspaper wrote that Dr John Gibbs emailed his colleagues in 2016 saying: 'The increase in neonatal mortality that we have experienced over the last 18 months might be within ‘expected’ statistical variance (but I’m not sure because my stats isn’t good enough). 

Medical Experts Argued Over Evidence Validity 

Testimonials came from expert witnesses analysing and theorising how infants died. It mostly involved air embolisms and insulin overdoses, which implied intent to harm. One expert, an ex-consultant paediatrician, Dr. Evans, claimed babies had their nasal feeding tubes injected with air. 

He said air embolus was also injected into a catheter or line, but there are clinicians who still question his reasoning, suggesting the methods were not feasibly practical. Admittedly, it presents like a fiddly and awkward M.O, especially when the result of much of it, is said to be wind. No one wrote about Letby by balancing scrabble pieces in a bath. 

One of the best of the best experts from Europe, Professor Jones, informed the court that the tests used for proving insulin poisoning, such as the immunoassay test, needed to be validated with a better analytical method if solid evidence was required. His solid evidence was rejected—results lacked the strength for conviction, undoubtedly making many NHS workers uneasy about their jobs.

The Focus of Handwritten Notes

Regardless of solid evidence, the prosecution must have thought they had struck gold after they found a handwritten note! Why? Well, it featured troubling references, baseless sentences, which could be used to smear Letby's character as a clinical killer. Goodness knows how many people were swayed by scribblings, it was literally interpreted as an admission of guilt. Is she guilty? 

Her legal team said the notes were fictional, and expressions of her emotionally distressing job as a paediatric nurse. Nursing is not easy. For example, as a student nurse, years ago, I was reprimanded because of my notepad! It was, likewise, full of unsavoury handwritten reflections which I accidentally left at the cook's station. It was taken as an insult. Surely any other type of nurse can do the same? Letby's note may well have been incidental. 

The Multidisciplinary Contributions:

Lucy Letby's Psychiatric Assessments

No evaluation of Letby has found any sinister diagnosis, evil genius or psychopathology you might expect to see in Arkham Asylum. Cleared. Of course, she would have experienced the understandable emotional distress during the trial’s media exposure. She had no motive for her crime. 

Her Behavioral Analysis Holds Significance

Lucy Letby had no psychological disorder either. These are personality disorders divided into three clusters in the DSM5. 

Systemic and Institutional Factors:

Hospital Conditions 

All of my life, every news outlet has said the NHS is struggling. It's the state of the UK. It has been underfunded for decades. Working in hospital wards can be depleting work. The Countess of Chester Hospital had its own equipment problems, it was typically understaffed with a high volume of infants who required care. The demand must have been high. Nurses are beneath doctors, HCA's are beneath nurses, there is a hierarchy. Nurses and HCA's spend most time attending to patients. Would a busy nurse be more likely to plan a complicated killing in a busy ward, or something more direct? 

As of 2024 the hospital came under investigation for manslaughter. After the media attention, the hospital increased staff, decrease admissions and improved equipment resulting with improved mortality. Would mortality rates have been safe if Letby's team had worked in a gold star private hospital instead? 

Compromising Factors

Sensationalism and public scrutiny likely pressurised the investigation’s direction. We all wanted our witch to stand trial for what we perceived to be the worst of all crimes, which in reality, may never have happened. It was the hospital vs the witch. Solid evidence was rejected, instead notes and speculation was considered sufficient. 

The Final Stretch of The Trial

Has the Lucy Letby case been scrutinised enough? Was the evidence compiled by professionals throughout the trial all taken into account?

Various broadcasting intellectuals including Peter Hitchins, have spoken out about the need for a fair trial. One talk show expert mentioned taking the case to the Prime Minister. 

Meticulously Planned Murders or a Zoned Out Nurse in an Under-staffed Ward?  

In a striking moment of revelation, a member of staff, Doctor Jayaram, claimed that he informed hospital admin of Letby standing over an infant, its breathing tube was unlodged, and she calmly watched as the oxygen reading decreased. His testimony may well have ruined her hopes of an appeal. 

However, Professor Philip Dawid of Cambridge university along with twenty four experts have written to the secretaries of Health and Justice about the poor use of evidence. Future NHS related court trials is clearly a concern. They made a request for the Letby hospital inquiry to be postponed for improved evidence processing.