Police Threaten Arrest If Citizens Speak Out Against the State-Sanctioned Death of Baby Alfie Evans

originally posted by: MissPronounce
So you think Tom and Kate wanted to move him ...and then just didnt....for no reason. Do you think they appealed multiple times simply for something to do? Facepalm

No, I need to know what they appealed against, I don't trust newspaper articles' opinions about an official document, I need to read the document.

a reply to: murphy22

This is what you get with "socialized (universal) healthcare".

Which is 18 months a year and a half for a hopeless case.

That same case in the US the insurance companies would cut them off at 14 weeks.


I know this because I had to face that with my own family. Once the doctors determine that life support is “futile treatment” insurance will cut off funding and if you are not independently rich to pay out of pocket no hospital will continue it for free.

a reply to: notsure1

If he had been permitted to receive care elsewhere, survived, got better and went home the whole socialized medical scam would collapse. It's better for the system and people in charge that people believe they are receiving the best care verses band-aid. Socialized health care is for people who aren't really that sick, everyone else must die so as not to waste resources.

originally posted by: Bramble Iceshimmer
a reply to: notsure1

If he had been permitted to receive care elsewhere, survived, got better and went home the whole socialized medical scam would collapse. It's better for the system and people in charge that people believe they are receiving the best care verses band-aid. Socialized health care is for people who aren't really that sick, everyone else must die so as not to waste resources.

Total and utter nonsense. Unlike in countries that rely on private healthcare cost wasn't the issue here.

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: MissPronounce
So you think Tom and Kate wanted to move him ...and then just didnt....for no reason. Do you think they appealed multiple times simply for something to do? Facepalm

No, I need to know what they appealed against, I don't trust newspaper articles' opinions about an official document, I need to read the document.

Unfortunately the most recent court transcripts for the case are not yet available on the UK government website. I think the most recent one available is from february 20th. But have you been following Toms live interviews with the news outside the hospital over the course of the past week?

a reply to: murphy22

Seeing our infant mortality rates are better here in the UK then the USA you are talking bollocks.

a reply toScepticScot

"By the courts"? I see. So it has nothing to do with "law"? Regardless of what the parents want? Don't fool yourself that that it has nothing to do with "cost". The courts wouldn't even be involved if it wasn't about cost. But yes, you're right. The "judges" could've thrown the case out and required some effort on the "social services" side. "Best for the child"? What's best for this child? Obviously killing him, is "best"? I totally get how I'm wrong "on every level". Validation of my belief, does not convince me otherwise.

originally posted by: MissPronounce
Unfortunately the most recent court transcripts for the case are not yet available on the UK government website. I think the most recent one available is from february 20th.

That's the one I just read.

But have you been following Toms live interviews with the news outside the hospital over the course of the past week?

No, I haven't, but the same thing applies: if people want me to comment on a court ruling on an appeal I need to know what both the ruling and the appeal say.

originally posted by: murphy22
a reply toScepticScot

"By the courts"? I see. So it has nothing to do with "law"? Regardless of what the parents want? Don't fool yourself that that it has nothing to do with "cost". The courts wouldn't even be involved if it wasn't about cost. But yes, you're right. The "judges" could've thrown the case out and required some effort on the "social services" side. "Best for the child"? What's best for this child? Obviously killing him, is "best"? I totally get how I'm wrong "on every level". Validation of my belief, does not convince me otherwise.

Ehmmm courts rules on the law on individual cases? What bit if that is unclear to you?

No it has nothing to do with cost. Saying it was is an outright lie.

originally posted by: ArMaP

That's the one I just read.

Then you will notice that even back in February, Justice Hayden identified multiple reasons as to why flying to Italy may not be appropriate. Obviously it was ok for this child to die....but only in the place and manner the judicial system wanted it.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

I don't have the power or authority to give you applause for your activity in this thread, but I sure would if I could, and I can give you this:


I would only add to everything you've already said so well that this is exactly what we should expect when healthcare is NOT a right!!! This goes far beyond simple parental rights. If government can force this on a child, government can force this on anyone and everyone.

If someone else can decided what healthcare we can have, they can also decide IF we can have any healthcare at all. And from there it's just a hop, skip and a jump to deciding who deserves healthcare "more"... or at all.

We have no right to demand that anyone else nurse and nurture our bodies. But we sure as hell have the right to nurse and nurture our own health and lives, and the right to do so in cooperation and consultation with anyone so inclined.

Britain had no right to deny Alfie this right. They had the "right" to make the decision not to do any more themselves... they had no "right" to make the decision for Alfie and his parents.

originally posted by: MissPronounce
Then you will notice that even back in February, Justice Hayden identified multiple reasons as to why flying to Italy may not be appropriate.

But he didn't rule against it, so the parents couldn't be forbidden from moving the child to Italy based on that ruling.

a reply to: testingtesting

We are also a bigger nation. Though "Western civilized". America is not the U.K. Mathematics would absolutely prove you right and wrong. Don't get all pollster and "educated" on me. But we are also a better nation, and don't need the socialist healthcare or the government interference in the life and death of our American children. To much of that already. Most of us, are still fighting to be unlike Europe. That said. By who's data?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Kurokage

So now the UK government can shut down all opposing views and opinions about the subject, while threatening legal force, because of a few random social media posts? How do we even know those people are real?

This is the world we're living in now, and it's like something you would read in a George Orwell novel.

No it can't. Stop making stuff up.

It can't? Didn't they just fine a girl and sentence her to community service for posting rap lyrics on her own page? Didn't they also do the same for a guy and his dog video on YouTube???? Sorry buddy recent history flies in the face of your denial

That is LITERALLY legal and criminal action for posts on social media, which your denying exists....

You keep saying "people are making stuff up" but you post no rebutals w evidence other than your opinion..... These two cases LITERALLY just happened in the last few months.

Maybe you should do more research

The "police threaten arrest"? That's what you get with "socialized healthcare", police "threats"? Why are the "police" even involved?

a reply to: murphy22

You have nearly the worst infant mortality rate in the western world plus the most expensive and you think you have the best nation? I would take UK healthcare over us health care anyday of the week.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

What treatment were the Italian doctors going to offer that the UK doctors couldn't/wouldn't offer?

I'm only asking because you seem to be banging on about ethical versus unethical medical alternatives, so I assume you know what the Italians were going to do that the British were not.

For therecord, if the Italians were going to be offering some revolutionally new treatment that would have improved Alfies quality of life then I would be all for him being moved, If they were simply going to continue the process of keeping the poor child alive via clinical machinery, then I don't see the point.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Kurokage

So now the UK government can shut down all opposing views and opinions about the subject, while threatening legal force, because of a few random social media posts? How do we even know those people are real?

This is the world we're living in now, and it's like something you would read in a George Orwell novel.

No it can't. Stop making stuff up.

It can't? Didn't they just fine a girl and sentence her to community service for posting rap lyrics on her own page? Didn't they also do the same for a guy and his dog video on YouTube???? Sorry buddy recent history flies in the face of your denial

That is LITERALLY legal and criminal action for posts on social media, which your denying exists....

You keep saying "people are making stuff up" but you post no rebutals w evidence other than your opinion..... These two cases LITERALLY just happened in the last few months.

Maybe you should do more research

Which has nothing to do with what you claimed.

Now not only are you making stuff up you can't even remember what you made up.

originally posted by: murphy22
The "police threaten arrest"? That's what you get with "socialized healthcare", police "threats"? Why are the "police" even involved?

Because people made threats against the hospital and staff. You think the police shouldn't be involved?

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Konduit
a reply to: Kurokage

So now the UK government can shut down all opposing views and opinions about the subject, while threatening legal force, because of a few random social media posts? How do we even know those people are real?

This is the world we're living in now, and it's like something you would read in a George Orwell novel.

No it can't. Stop making stuff up.

It can't? Didn't they just fine a girl and sentence her to community service for posting rap lyrics on her own page? Didn't they also do the same for a guy and his dog video on YouTube???? Sorry buddy recent history flies in the face of your denial

That is LITERALLY legal and criminal action for posts on social media, which your denying exists....

You keep saying "people are making stuff up" but you post no rebutals w evidence other than your opinion..... These two cases LITERALLY just happened in the last few months.

Maybe you should do more research

Which has nothing to do with what you claimed.

Now not only are you making stuff up you can't even remember what you made up.

Lol yes it does. The state def DOES arrest people for social media posts

YouTuber arrested UK

Teen charged in UK for rap lyrics

Talk in circles all you want, stick fingers in your ears.... Deny deny deny

But to sit here and say that the UK doesnt take legal and police action against social media posts is a flat out lie

Again the facts are against you