The English baby that the British health plan want to kill should tell everyone a lot

Once again I don't see them as bad parents, why do you and the judge?





Why don't you leave them alone?


.

 

What political points, what politics does he represent?

 

There you go, appeal to emotion!

 

Because they gave birth to that child, he is not a damn robot, what happened to are UK friends and freedom?

Why does a judge have to decide when America and the Vatican provides hope?

.

 

That's all you got? You would make a great citizen of North Korea comrade.


.

 

They would not require intervention if the doctors had not kidnapped their child.

 

So what they gave birth to him? What specialist medical training do they have? How on earth can those poor people make a decision on the best interests of Charlie, they must be completely distraught.

 

Because it is the default status in nature. It is the default status in all cultures, that the parents make decisions for the child until such time as they are able to do so for themselves. Now why is the judge who doesn't know the kid from adam and has no connection to the child, better than the parents? For what purpose is the default overridden?

 

No mate, an appeal to emotion is all you have mate, nothing more.

 

The judge and you would do fine in North Korea, kill all baby's who are not perfect and might cause the state financial hardships, or in Japan, kill all the old people over 65..." Just die already"


.

 

Rubbish. It might be the default state in your culture, but not mine.

 

If they decided to move, is that their decision or the states? Say they move from a nice neighborhood in london where the schools are top notch, to one in a rural area where they aren't so hot. Or from the nice neighborhood to a favela in brazil? Can the state stop them?

 

No mate once again the Vatican and America has hope for Charlie, you just offer him a grave , forgotten in history.


.

 

And there you go again, the judge has not even made a final decision yet, and I have no part in it, but still you condemn.

 

You're english dude, the default state in your culture is parents shepherd the children's interest.
I have a law degree and we begin learning with the common law of england going back to the ****ing azzizes in the 1200's for ****'s sake. I'm not from Mars you know.

 

Health insurance in a private system is worse because cost is the ultimate consideration. . . . Hospitals MAY try to keep patients alive, but administrations will fight it if payment is not likely.

 

So what the Vatican and america have hope for him, our judiciary will make that decision, based on our law, based on our democracy. But it kills you that you cannot dictate the way we do things!

 

Again what happened to you mate? We used to look up to you ..

Now we don't, you lost freedom..





.

 

Show me where in British law the ultimate authority of what can be done to children has ever been the parents.

 

We developed logic and reason, you never know one day you might. Until then keep plugging away with your emotive images.

 

Yes they could in certain circumstances and if you have a law degree you should know that.

 

Your law is crap, it's all about political points and grand standing..ya think Winston Churchill or Margret Thatcher would of stood for this silly barbaric nonsense or even John, George, Ringo or Paul?

They would of asked for Americans help.


.

 

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/In+Loco+Parentis << For a general explanation.

For where to look more specifically see the Commentaries on the Laws of England by William Blackstone " 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 441 (1765) (“[A parent] may also delegate part of his parental authority, during his life, to the tutor or schoolmaster of his child; who is then in loco parentis, and has such a portion of the power of the parent committed to his charge, viz. that of restraint and correction, as may be necessary to answer the purposes for which he is employed”)"
You DO know who William Blackstone IS right? Do you have further queries?

 

You are off your nut if purely in the circumstances described you think the state has any power to halt the movement of the parties. Even you folk haven't fallen that far.

 

For someone with a law degree you love using emotive language, explain how doctors have kidnapped anyone?