UK Authorities Crack Down On Nazi Dogs And Angry Drivers While Forcing Parents To Watch Baby Die

a reply to: Grambler


Nurses, for example, are by your definition part of the state and so what of it?

a reply to: Grambler

I truly believe that an american NHS would do wonders !

the kind of money and healthcare america already has , and the wealth they have , just a few billion from that military budget and you guys would be living until you are 200

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


That is a complete misrepresentation of this sad situation. Using poor Alfie to press your agenda is pretty unedifying.

Explain what I am misreprenting

I have quite clearly outlined my position

The court has every right to say “we do not think further treatment has any chance of helping this child, therefore we will no longer pay for it”

But when they say “and even if the family can provide other qualified treatment, we will not allow that to occur” it is an aggregious example of state control

a reply to: Grambler


The issue is what is in the best interests of the child, not how much it costs.

a reply to: Grambler

Agreed , I find that the state should not dictate the final moments of the childs life, the parents are still legal guardians and they have the boys best interests at heart surely as a parent you should still have the right to say that you want to take a risk
he is dying anyway so where is the harm , he is suffering regardless

in any case even if I was taken to jail Id still want my boy to live so Id go on the Lamb and take him anywhere I could get him medical treatment !

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


Nurses, for example, are by your definition part of the state and so what of it?

The United Kingdom has three separate legal systems; one each for England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. ... The justice system is one of the three branches of the state. The other two branches are the executive, or the government, and the legislature, which is the two Houses of Parliament.

www.judiciary.gov.uk...

Please stop criticizing others for not knowing the U.K. system when it is obvious you do not

a reply to: Grambler


What do I know? I am just a lawyer.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


The issue is what is in the best interests of the child, not how much it costs.

The state should not be making that call

They are saying that starvation is in the best interest of the child, and that other qualified medical professionals offering care are not

That is an absurd power to help be the government

a reply to: Grambler


For the umpteenth time, it is not the Govt making the decision. If not the Courts, who do you suggest should decide?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


What do I know? I am just a lawyer.

Then i would be ashamed if I were you

The official judiciary site of the U.K. claims that it is a branch of the state

But please, go on. Tell me how your job as a lawyer makes you more qualified to describe the judiciary in the U.K. than the actual judiciary itself

originally posted by: FatherLukeDuke

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: paraphi
But this has little to do with the topic other than my assertion that government not allowing a child to be fed is a human rights violation.

It is not the government. I don't know why you are getting so confused about this. Willfull ignorance to fit your preconceived biases?

Who payd the judiciary?

a reply to: oldcarpy

arent you a solicitor ?

a reply to: oldcarpy

I suggest the parents just take the kid and go , # it right ,he is dying anyway and whats a little jail time if it means saving your child !

# the government and the courts , stupid #ing laws which arent worth the paper they are written on!

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


For the umpteenth time, it is not the Govt making the decision. If not the Courts, who do you suggest should decide?

See now you try to play the semantic game

I didn’t say government

I said the state is making the call, the court is a branch of the state

It should be up to individuals affected to make a decision to receive treatment they seek not paid for by the state on their own

If the individual is not able to consciously decide, it should be up to their will or wishes they have wrote down or articulated

If that hasn’t occurred it should be up to the family

The state has no right telling people they may not seek qualified treatment that the state is not paying for, and these people must watch their child starve

a reply to: Grambler


I think that I am more qualified than some chap on the internet Googling away to use a dying child to push his agenda.

a reply to: Grambler


I don't think there is much to be gained in arguing with you when you just do not understand what is going on here.

originally posted by: Grambler
So instead of saying government, it would be more appropriate to say these people are for “state” control over not allowing a child to be fed

That's just not right. Either you are purposefully misunderstanding how things work, or you have problems working out simple concepts.

The issue here is to do with a child who has no quality of life because (frankly) the child has no discernable life on account of being being mostly brain dead. The High Court judgement (previously posted, but clearly not read) covers the fact that the kid is being kept artificially alive with zero hope of any recovery. God is not going to intervene. It an undignified life.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


I think that I am more qualified than some chap on the internet Googling away to use a dying child to push his agenda.

You provide no evidence for you claim and ignore the official judiciary site that says they are a branch of state

We are just expected to believe that you being a lawyer means you are correct with you providing no evidence

So not only do you have a woefully inadequate access Nader standard ng of your countries on court system, you are terrible at arguing to boot

And again you must smear anyone who has a problem with this as using a child for their agenda

I have outlined my position clearly

But ok I can play that game too

You are so ideologically partisan that you cheer for a kids death to help prove your point

Or neither of us are doing those things, and we are having a discussion about what powers the state should have

originally posted by: paraphi

originally posted by: Grambler
So instead of saying government, it would be more appropriate to say these people are for “state” control over not allowing a child to be fed

That's just not right. Either you are purposefully misunderstanding how things work, or you have problems working out simple concepts.

The issue here is to do with a child who has no quality of life because (frankly) the child has no discernable life on account of being being mostly brain dead. The High Court judgement (previously posted, but clearly not read) covers the fact that the kid is being kept artificially alive with zero hope of any recovery. God is not going to intervene. It an undignified life.

So you respond to a post I make which is 100 percent factually correct, the courts are part of the state

You say it’s not right, but show no evidence or even why that is not the case

Please anyone, provide a source saying the courts are not part of the state, I would love to read it!

I provided from the judiciary own site saying they are, if this is incorrect surely you all will be able to provide many sources that show that to be the case

As to the rest

It does not matter if god will intervene, I also believe the child will die

The problem is with letting the state decide what is an undignified life, and not allowing families to seek no state qualified treatment

Even though the subject matter is one of serious nature, i do find the comments from some of our former colonial friends quite comical.