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

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: Grambler

Without guns, they have no voice, because their government no longer fears them.

Now I am no means recomending violence (not saying you are)

But we can see from thepost here just how things can quickly escalate.

The UK now does not have free speech; offensive speech is grounds to arrest someone.

And as at least one user here has shown, people can easily feel criticining the NHS is a vitrioic attack.

Its only short leap to criticizing an MP is a vtriolic attack that is illegal.

Or on the health issue, we dont think that a new liver will help hyou, so not only will the NHS not pay for it, but we will not allow you to pay for one out of pocket.

Heck the alfie case alone is orwellian enough

Wrong on every single level.

You keep saying that....but i don't think you know what it means.

Offensive speech is punishable as a crime in the UK. Do you dispute this?

Yes I do dispute that. Thanks for asking.

127Improper use of public electronic communications network

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character; or

(b)causes any such message or matter to be so sent.

(2)A person is guilty of an offence if, for the purpose of causing annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to another, he—

(a)sends by means of a public electronic communications network, a message that he knows to be false,

(b)causes such a message to be sent; or

(c)persistently makes use of a public electronic communications network.

(3)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale, or to both.

www.legislation.gov.uk...

Yes grossly offensive not just offensive.

Hahahahahaha!!!!!

This takes the case.

Ok so define for me the differnce between grossly offensive and just offensive.

Who gets to make this judgement?

He's right, as many others have pointed out. Grossly offensive is content that is deliberately designed to cause serious alarm, distress, trauma, thingsa like death threats, terror threats, encouraging suicide for extended periods, stalking, harrasment etc. What constitutes grossly offensive is very narrow, judges decide based on precedent. The onus is on the prosecution to show serious harm was caused intentionally by the defendant.

Tell me again how the girl that was just charged for posting rap lyrics in honor of her fallen friend was meant to deliberately cause serious alarm, distress, trauma, etc.?

How was that ruling very narrow?

a reply to: Grambler

If purely 'offensive speech' were a crime then literally the whole nation would be serving time in the Big House.

It's grossly offensive speech that can be construed as hateful.
Obviously this varies massively depending on context and interpretation, there are many, many grey areas and by and large that greatest of misnomers 'common sense' tends to prevail.

I just wish it applied to ATS these days as it seems to me far too many people - many who should know better - are far more concerned with scoring points in this seemingly never ending battle between the US and the UK rather than debating with an open mind and maybe even learning something.

ATS used to be far, far better than this!

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: howtonhawky


The Government have no influence in this, it's judges and doctors and Alfies parents, But I do think that Alfie should go home now he's off assisted breathing, and be allowed to be with his parents.

Just look at your silly comments beyond ignorant.

You are supporting a murderous system.

What will you say when alfie walks out of the hospital?

How on earth will Alfie walk out of the hospital!!!
This one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on ATS, the poor child has a degenerative brain disease, he can't even swallow. Just look at your silly comment!!

Just shows how cruel people can be.

Making comments bout how brain dead a baby is while said baby eats.

Looks like he may get to leave finally.
www.bbc.com...

Mr Justice Hayden said on Monday that Alder Hey would discuss the next steps for Alfie with his parents to "explore" the options of removing him from intensive care either to a ward, a hospice or his home

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Grambler

If purely 'offensive speech' were a crime then literally the whole nation would be serving time in the Big House.

It's grossly offensive speech that can be construed as hateful.
Obviously this varies massively depending on context and interpretation, there are many, many grey areas and by and large that greatest of misnomers 'common sense' tends to prevail.

I just wish it applied to ATS these days as it seems to me far too many people - many who should know better - are far more concerned with scoring points in this seemingly never ending battle between the US and the UK rather than debating with an open mind and maybe even learning something.

ATS used to be far, far better than this!

Oh please.

I am not the one making this a contest between the UK and US.

That would be all of the people saying "In the US the kid would have been killed cause he doesnt have money!!!"

I merely pointed out that I disagree with what is happening in the UK with the hate speech laws, and with the state telling parents they cant get treatment for their child elsewhere.

If that happened in the US, I would also call it out.

And again, explain to me how a girl posting a rap song in honor of her fallen friend is grossly offensive.

a reply to: Freeborn

It WAS illegal up until last year...
Parliament.gov.uk

The Government has now announced that it is “not minded” to challenge a Lords amendment to the Crime and Courts Bill which would remove the word “insulting” from section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.

originally posted by: Zcustosmorum
The baby is brain dead and will not recover, it's tough but I think it's cruel keeping it alive.

And this story is whack, the UK government is currently supplying weapons to Saudi Arabia who are slaughtering those in Yemen, and Israel, who are evil murderous scum anyway.

Seriously, if you're going to get mad with the idiot authorities of this country, pick better reasons, and there are plenty

Could you show me where a brain dead person could breath on their own with no machine for 15 hours?

a reply to: ScepticScot

Because parents don't have absolute rights over their children. The court makes a decision based on what it believes is best for the child, not the parent.

And in the case I mentioned from America the state was wildly wrong and that young lady is still in a wheel chair because of the states bad decisions.

The entire case for Alfie has become such a Spit show that there is no way the parents will ever come to a healthy conclusion over this, the right decision for the family is to go somewhere and be counseled without being hassled by both sides.

The kid is brain dead, the odds of a miracle are so infintesimly small as to be nearly non-existant so at this point if the health care system truly cared they would be concerned about the parents.

Let the kid be moved to italy, let the vatican counsel the family and lead them to the conclusion people like you have already reached so they can bring this whole sad situation to a healthy conclusion for all involved.

We are at 1 of 2 points right now, either Alfie is past feeling anything in which case moving him does not really cause any fear, pain or discomfort... or he still feels whats going on and the chance of a miracle is slightly bigger than what I said and cutting off his support is going to kill him not the disease.

So why not heal the parents before letting the child die.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
a reply to: ScepticScot

As a UK citizen I'd certainly say statist is a fair descriptive term for our country's political situation.
Heck it certainly applies to the case of the child in this discussion. Another EU regulated health care system is prepared to offer him care, ie Italian doctors disagree with UK doctors about starving him to death, yet the state is refusing to allow freedom of movement for the child to receive this alternative.

At least in Italy he will receive nourishment and die from the condition, not euthanasia. I stand by this if the child is capable of breathing without a ventilator, and it seems to be the case that he is.
So what if he dies in the air ambulance, the poor little mite won't know anyway. My point is similar in principle to BFFT's, there is another EU state willing to offer an alternative but the UK state disagrees, who are you to say the Italian doctors are wrong but UK judges are right, ethically or otherwise?

And had been explained over and over again it is nothing to do with where he can or can not get care.

The judgement is based on what the best option for the child is based on the medical advice given by those who have actually treated him.

You might disagree and believe that any life is better than none. That's a fair opinion, just not one I share.

However if the court has decided further treatment is not in his best interest then the views of Italian doctors (who were not offering any new treatment) are completely beside the point.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: howtonhawky


The Government have no influence in this, it's judges and doctors and Alfies parents, But I do think that Alfie should go home now he's off assisted breathing, and be allowed to be with his parents.

Just look at your silly comments beyond ignorant.

You are supporting a murderous system.

What will you say when alfie walks out of the hospital?

How on earth will Alfie walk out of the hospital!!!
This one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on ATS, the poor child has a degenerative brain disease, he can't even swallow. Just look at your silly comment!!

Just shows how cruel people can be.

Making comments bout how brain dead a baby is while said baby eats.

Looks like he may get to leave finally.
www.bbc.com...

Mr Justice Hayden said on Monday that Alder Hey would discuss the next steps for Alfie with his parents to "explore" the options of removing him from intensive care either to a ward, a hospice or his home

Stop lying. He can't eat he can only be fed medically and he is being let home to die with his family.

a reply to: ScepticScot

He can't eat

More idiocy.

You should think and read before you post.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
You might disagree and believe that any life is better than none. That's a fair opinion, just not one I share.

No, I just think that if a child is capable of breathing independently then euthanasia by starvation is wrong. If the child is expected to die from the comndition naturally while being given nourishment and fluids then starvation is not in his best interests as far as Italian doctors are concerned. I support that, not slow euthanasia through starvation.

However if the court has decided further treatment is not in his best interest then the views of Italian doctors (who were not offering any new treatment) are completely beside the point.

Not to me, or Italian doctors who do not starve their sick babies to death. You may support euthanasia through starvation but I do not so long as he is capable of breathing by himself.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: ScepticScot

Because parents don't have absolute rights over their children. The court makes a decision based on what it believes is best for the child, not the parent.

And in the case I mentioned from America the state was wildly wrong and that young lady is still in a wheel chair because of the states bad decisions.

The entire case for Alfie has become such a Spit show that there is no way the parents will ever come to a healthy conclusion over this, the right decision for the family is to go somewhere and be counseled without being hassled by both sides.

The kid is brain dead, the odds of a miracle are so infintesimly small as to be nearly non-existant so at this point if the health care system truly cared they would be concerned about the parents.

Let the kid be moved to italy, let the vatican counsel the family and lead them to the conclusion people like you have already reached so they can bring this whole sad situation to a healthy conclusion for all involved.

We are at 1 of 2 points right now, either Alfie is past feeling anything in which case moving him does not really cause any fear, pain or discomfort... or he still feels whats going on and the chance of a miracle is slightly bigger than what I said and cutting off his support is going to kill him not the disease.

So why not heal the parents before letting the child die.

That is actually the first decent argument I have heard for letting him go.

I still disagree as the fundamental point remains that the court has decided he should be allowed to die with dignity and that further prolonging his life artificially is not on his interest. If transported to Italy he would potentially be kept on life support indefinitely.

In this case the rights of the child outweigh those of the parents. No one wins here sadly.

originally posted by: howtonhawky
a reply to: ScepticScot

He can't eat

More idiocy.

You should think and read before you post.

Read up on him and his condition before you make anymore of an idiot of yourself.

originally posted by: paraphi

Judging by some of the comments in the press and online, the people who should make these complex ethical decisions would be American "pro life" campaigners and / or the Pope. What do doctors know?

.

Tou missed out Donald Trump

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot
You might disagree and believe that any life is better than none. That's a fair opinion, just not one I share.

No, I just think that if a child is capable of breathing independently then euthanasia by starvation is wrong. If the child is expected to die from the comndition naturally while being given nourishment and fluids then starvation is not in his best interests as far as Italian doctors are concerned. I support that, not slow euthanasia through starvation.

However if the court has decided further treatment is not in his best interest then the views of Italian doctors (who were not offering any new treatment) are completely beside the point.

Not to me, or Italian doctors who do not starve their sick babies to death. You may support euthanasia through starvation but I do not so long as he is capable of breathing by himself.

People can breath for prolonged periods after having life support turned off. Unfortunately at this stage it doesn't really mean anything.

Starving baby's to death is just a cheap shot at emotive language.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot
You might disagree and believe that any life is better than none. That's a fair opinion, just not one I share.

No, I just think that if a child is capable of breathing independently then euthanasia by starvation is wrong. If the child is expected to die from the comndition naturally while being given nourishment and fluids then starvation is not in his best interests as far as Italian doctors are concerned. I support that, not slow euthanasia through starvation.

However if the court has decided further treatment is not in his best interest then the views of Italian doctors (who were not offering any new treatment) are completely beside the point.

Not to me, or Italian doctors who do not starve their sick babies to death. You may support euthanasia through starvation but I do not so long as he is capable of breathing by himself.

People can breath for prolonged periods after having life support turned off. Unfortunately at this stage it doesn't really mean anything.

Starving baby's to death is just a cheap shot at emotive language.

No it is not.

The court has decided that the child should not be fed, and that will be the most likely cause of death.

The court also knows that there is competent care being offered at no cost to the NHS where the child would get fed, but it will not allow the child to recieve that care.

Therefore the court has decided it is in the best interest of the child to starve to death.

a reply to: Grambler

I am not the one making this a contest between the UK and US.

Never mentioned names, but.....if the cap fits?
It's an all too common occurrence nowadays, almost every thread I read seems to degenerate into a dick measuring contest between the two camps.

I merely pointed out that I disagree with what is happening in the UK with the hate speech laws,....

If it was just the UK then I'd tend to agree, but it's not.......people in glass houses and all that.

The infiltration of the PC Brigade and its dictates into every aspect of BOTH our societies truly sickens me.
But some people really need to start listening to the real life experiences and opinions of those who actually live here rather than the bollocks drip fed to them by those pursuing political agendas.

....and with the state telling parents they cant get treatment for their child elsewhere.

A complex subject, one maybe too close to home for me.
There's merit to all arguments and probably no right or wrong.
At the end of the day its just plain tragic and incredibly sad that this has to get played out for public consumption.

And again, explain to me how a girl posting a rap song in honor of her fallen friend is grossly offensive.

I have no idea.
Back in the day we sang about far more controversial and offensive things.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

It WAS illegal up until last year...

And it's still classed as illegal not to practice archery on a Sunday in certain parts of the UK, blah, blah, blah.

Like I said - COMMON SENSE.

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Kurokage

originally posted by: howtonhawky

originally posted by: Kurokage
a reply to: howtonhawky


The Government have no influence in this, it's judges and doctors and Alfies parents, But I do think that Alfie should go home now he's off assisted breathing, and be allowed to be with his parents.

Just look at your silly comments beyond ignorant.

You are supporting a murderous system.

What will you say when alfie walks out of the hospital?

How on earth will Alfie walk out of the hospital!!!
This one of the dumbest comments I've ever read on ATS, the poor child has a degenerative brain disease, he can't even swallow. Just look at your silly comment!!

Just shows how cruel people can be.

Making comments bout how brain dead a baby is while said baby eats.

Looks like he may get to leave finally.
www.bbc.com...

Mr Justice Hayden said on Monday that Alder Hey would discuss the next steps for Alfie with his parents to "explore" the options of removing him from intensive care either to a ward, a hospice or his home

Poor Alfie can't walk out of the hospital as you suggested, he can't eat on his own, he is being feed via a tube!!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy

originally posted by: ScepticScot
You might disagree and believe that any life is better than none. That's a fair opinion, just not one I share.

No, I just think that if a child is capable of breathing independently then euthanasia by starvation is wrong. If the child is expected to die from the comndition naturally while being given nourishment and fluids then starvation is not in his best interests as far as Italian doctors are concerned. I support that, not slow euthanasia through starvation.

However if the court has decided further treatment is not in his best interest then the views of Italian doctors (who were not offering any new treatment) are completely beside the point.

Not to me, or Italian doctors who do not starve their sick babies to death. You may support euthanasia through starvation but I do not so long as he is capable of breathing by himself.

People can breath for prolonged periods after having life support turned off. Unfortunately at this stage it doesn't really mean anything.

Starving baby's to death is just a cheap shot at emotive language.

No it is not.

The court has decided that the child should not be fed, and that will be the most likely cause of death.

The court also knows that there is competent care being offered at no cost to the NHS where the child would get fed, but it will not allow the child to recieve that care.

Therefore the court has decided it is in the best interest of the child to starve to death.

And has been pointed out repeatedly its nothing to do with cost.

originally posted by: ScepticScot
People can breath for prolonged periods after having life support turned off. Unfortunately at this stage it doesn't really mean anything.

Yes I know thanks, and they die naturally not by euthanasia through starvation.

Starving baby's to death is just a cheap shot at emotive language.

Emotive language certainly, and true.