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

a reply to: Grambler

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

Would you like to express yourself more clearly so that what you are saying does not come across as gibberish?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
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.

I think I quite clearly understand

I called you out on your semantic argument and proved you wrong, so you resort to trying to fall back on your supposed expertise with providing no evidence or claims as to why the judiciary own site is wrong

And I clearly outlined my argument that I don’t feel the state should be allowed to tell families they can not seek their own private treatment if the government will no longer offer that

The fact that you keep trying to spin this as me not understanding, or using a child’s death to push an agenda shows you have no argument.

a reply to: Grambler

Perhaps you could elaborate by what you mean by "the state". I think what yo mean is different from what other people take it to mean. So, in your own words, and briefly...

What do you mean by "the state"?

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler

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

Would you like to express yourself more clearly so that what you are saying does not come across as gibberish?

Sure

So not only do you you have a woefully inadequate understanding of your countries own court system, you are terrible at arguing to boot.

Still waiting for that source showing that the judiciary’s own site is wrong, and that the courts are not part of the state

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Grambler

Perhaps you could elaborate by what you mean by "the state". I think what yo mean is different from what other people take it to mean. So, in your own words, and briefly...

What do you mean by "the state"?

What my source said.

The three parts of state

The parliament, the judiciary and the executive.

a reply to: Grambler


This is now an entirely sterile and forensic debate and as you are so obviously dying to score points let me massage your needy ego for you - yes, I admit it, I am wrong, you are right, we in the UK have State run death panels that Order babes in arms to starve to death.

Probably on the direct Orders of the PM.

Happy now, are we?

Case closed.

a reply to: sapien82

Yes, what's it to you, poke nose?

a reply to: oldcarpy

No I am not happy.

You and others were more than happy to use the semantic argument that others were wrong when they said government, when clearly the point was easy to see

So when I correct that and say state instead of government to meet your semantic requirement, you say I am wrong and I proved that in fact I was right

So I am not being unreasonable here

I am more than happy to be off of the semantic argument

The point I wanted to discuss was that I feel allowing the state to tell people they will no longer pay or be involved with treatment is from me

But to tell families they may not seek outside qualified treatment is a horrible thing to do

a reply to: Grambler


Whatever. I am off to discuss a pint...

a reply to: Grambler

OK. That's simple then.

The judiciary is part of the mechanics that enable the state to work. The Parliament provides the legislature and is essentially represented by the House of Commons and the House of Lords; the Executive is the day-to-day running controlled by Ministers; the courts/judiciary enforces the law. Each branch is separated.

How does this relate to Alfie Evans?

a reply to: paraphi

They're not (as us UK'ers have pointed out). If people had read any of the case or links provided they would know that.

All are independent of each other, despite this Grambler uses the terms interchangeably beleiving he/she has a point.

It don't make sense.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Grambler

OK. That's simple then.

The judiciary is part of the mechanics that enable the state to work. The Parliament provides the legislature and is essentially represented by the House of Commons and the House of Lords; the Executive is the day-to-day running controlled by Ministers; the courts/judiciary enforces the law. Each branch is separated.

How does this relate to Alfie Evans?

The state, rather it be the writers of law, the enforcers of law, or the interpreters of law, should not have the right to tell a family they can not seek competent care outside of state control if the state refuses to give any more care

I am sorry if I haven’t made this point clear, I have said it over and over

a reply to: Grambler

Read this.

The Judicial Power: The main function of this branch is to hear upon and resolve the matters of law. However, in the UK the judiciary has one more essential function: to develop the law through their judgements. The judiciary consists of judges in courts, as well as those who hold judicial office in tribunals. The senior judicial appointments are made by the Crown. According to various sources, the judiciary in the UK is independent of both parliament and the executive. It may be argued that this “independence" is not really genuine, because the Senior Judges are appointed by the Crown. However,once these judges are appointed they are become completely independent and have complete authority over all their actions. Their independence in protected in the “Act of Settlement - 1700", according to which, Senior Judges can only be dismissed by address to the Crown from both Houses of the Parliament.

www.lawteacher.net...

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: paraphi

They're not (as us UK'ers have pointed out). If people had read any of the case or links provided they would know that.

All are independent of each other, despite this Grambler uses the terms interchangeably beleiving he/she has a point.

It don't make sense.

I am not using the term interchangeably

It may surprise you to know that in the USA the three harangues are also separate

We call all three of them government, you call them state

The point is none of these branches should have the power to tell a family or hey can not seek treatment outside the state if the state refuses to continue treatment

That is true in the USA the U.K. or any other country

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Grambler

Read this.

The Judicial Power: The main function of this branch is to hear upon and resolve the matters of law. However, in the UK the judiciary has one more essential function: to develop the law through their judgements. The judiciary consists of judges in courts, as well as those who hold judicial office in tribunals. The senior judicial appointments are made by the Crown. According to various sources, the judiciary in the UK is independent of both parliament and the executive. It may be argued that this “independence" is not really genuine, because the Senior Judges are appointed by the Crown. However,once these judges are appointed they are become completely independent and have complete authority over all their actions. Their independence in protected in the “Act of Settlement - 1700", according to which, Senior Judges can only be dismissed by address to the Crown from both Houses of the Parliament.

www.lawteacher.net...

Unreal


YES I KNOW!!!!

It is the same in the USA!

The point is no judge, no mp, no king or queen, no minister should have the power to tell a family they can’t seek competent treatment outside of the state if the state refuses to give treatment

Ok the judge is independent

I got that! Is everyone clear I got that!

I don’t think that has any baring whatsoever on my objection

Are you people truly saying that had parliament said the child couldn’t receive treatment outside the state, that would be bad

But an independent judge, that is much different and Ok

I fail to see how somehow the independence of a judge answered the argument that no state official or branch should be telling parents they can’t seek outside competent treatment of the state refuses to give treatment

a reply to: Grambler

Oh, I see what your confusion is all about.

I disagree. The state - either via laws, the management of government and / or the judiciary in enacting laws, has a role to play, especially where parents cannot or will not make decisions that preserve the dignity of the child. Where's the dignity in this child's condition?

The reverse is true. For example, if parents refused treatment for a child e.g. a blood transfusion, the clinicians can go to the courts to ensure the child is treated.

You may not like this, but that's the way it is. Probably the same in all other advanced countries.

a reply to: Grambler

I don't know how it works in the uk but your post makes it sound like all cops on in the kingdom are given their orders by the government.

Instead of on a state by state bases like we have here.

Your saying that the cops arrested a youtuber and that the government let a child die and that they are one and the same?

a reply to: paraphi

It’s not my confusion I understand the system

It’s my objection

You are wrong that this is how all other civilized countries are

I can speak for the USA

In the us there have been court cases about forcing parents to GIVE their child treatment

But there is no such thing as the court saying the parents must let their child die and can’t receive treatment

No there have been cases where some families want to take off life support, and others do not, but that is different

In fact during talks of obama care and other state healthcare options the idea of “death panels” or panels of doctors and judges saying that certain people were not allowed to get treatment was so loathed those pushing for the state healthcare options assured everyone this would never happen

Yet as this thread shows, that is a real possibility and people will defend it, at least in the U.K.

So again, I stand by my objection

a reply to: paraphi

Clinicians fighting to keep a child alive vs fighting to kill him....not quite the same, are they?

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

This #ing country has gone to # in the last 20 years. Never seen a decline like it. early 90's so optimistic time. Now everything os pulling out, Brexit is going to be the end for our fragile economy, ten years there's going to be nothing left. It will make Syria seem like a good place. What a #ing decline in everything in Britain. No good dcan come of it. Even if you manage to struggle on they've got us cornered in to the box, red tape #ing red tape and #ing taxes. Screw the government I've had it wity this country. Grew up a proud (mind controlled) Brit, now see through their crap. and all the fcking laws................ Don't do this don't do that, play by the rules. Even doing people now for using their phones for being used as a sat nav. This country