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

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: ArMaP

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I meant I cannot know their intentions, then asked a question about their intentions withdrawing nutrients.

Why should they keep the nutrients if they thought he would die in one day or two? As I said in a previous post I think that people close to dying do not need food. Too bad we don't have a doctor to help us on this discussion, it would be great to get a professional opinion.

Not a doctor but have been involved in this stuff more times than I care to count and I have tried to explain this countless times but it feels like smashing my head against a brick wall.

People are not starved to death to facilitate death rather it just reaches a point at whitch there is no benefit and nutritional support is withdrawn. If you have terminal cancer and at the end of your life nutrition is withdrawn it’s not starvation that kills you it’s just the disease process.

What an eloquent way to say death by the state...
Do you know the biggest taker of human life on the planet is the state? More than all religion's combined. Why you and your ilk still worship at the alter of the state is beyond me. This is just another case of government overreach into the private lives of others.

I actually expected to find you here defending this insanity... Here we are...

a reply to: Kurokage

and is that joke about dental hygiene from the 18 hundreds, really topical!!

Only Theresa May

send in the troops to storm a hospital full of sick children, I'm sure that will fix everything right up,

Yes, namely will save the life of one Alfie Evans. Besides, we all know what happens with the Brits meet/met United States Marines.

Sorry, but don't expect me to pull any punches for a government that believes it has the right to writ the death of an innocent child, along with a population that aides and abets these numerous crimes against humanity.

Distasteful jokes aside, you truly believe these sick individuals deserve compassion or kindness?

Alfie's healthcare/future is the choice of his parents. Sure, the State can have their opinion. Their doctor(s) can also have their opinions. But at the end of the day, a child's parents are solely responsible for them. Period.

A State that believes it holds the keys to life and death is a terrifying prospect. Totally unacceptable.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Kurokage

and is that joke about dental hygiene from the 18 hundreds, really topical!!

Only Theresa May

send in the troops to storm a hospital full of sick children, I'm sure that will fix everything right up,

Yes, namely will save the life of one Alfie Evans. Besides, we all know what happens with the Brits meet/met United States Marines.

Sorry, but don't expect me to pull any punches for a government that believes it has the right to writ the death of an innocent child, along with a population that aides and abets these numerous crimes against humanity.

Distasteful jokes aside, you truly believe these sick individuals deserve compassion or kindness?

Alfie's healthcare/future is the choice of his parents. Sure, the State can have their opinion. Their doctor(s) can also have their opinions. But at the end of the day, a child's parents are solely responsible for them. Period.

A State that believes it holds the keys to life and death is a terrifying prospect. Totally unacceptable.

Unlikely to save his life since he died a week ago.

Still that manages to one of the less ill informed parts of your post.

a reply to: ScepticScot

Socialism is a crime against humanity.

Yeah, my factual error does little to mitigate the UK government/population's complicity in his murder.

Castigate away, but the fact is that UK government stuck its nose where it didn't belong in the first place, and yet another innocent child has lost their lives to failed UK socialism. To a government that believes it owns its subjects, and can dictate everything from their personal privacy (which according to them you don't need) to life & death.

Despicable system, despicable government and a disgraceful nation. So desensitized by your own bull# you can't even see the clear violation of Alfie's rights as an individual - not as part of some hellish "collectivist" delusion you socialist types erroneously push.

Heil the Queen.

No big deal, from the looks of things (by your government's demographic make-up), you all will be living under Sharia law soon enough. Maybe that will be what it takes to wake the once-great people that stood beside us in WW2. I sure hope so.

a reply to: ScepticScot

What about this doesn't make sense?

To a government that believes it owns its subjects, and can dictate everything from their personal privacy (which according to them you don't need) to life & death.

Are you disputing the accuracy of my statement? Otherwise, it is your reply that makes no sense and makes clear your intent to deflect/distract instead of facing the question head on. Up to you, but running away from a question only provides further validation.

If your argument can't stand up to scrutiny, perhaps it is time to get a new argument?

Besides, I've debated things with you in the past, and your deflection/dissonance isn't anything new. So, who is the "troll" again

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot

What about this doesn't make sense?

To a government that believes it owns its subjects, and can dictate everything from their personal privacy (which according to them you don't need) to life & death.

Are you disputing the accuracy of my statement? Otherwise, it is your reply that makes no sense and makes clear your intent to deflect/distract instead of facing the question head on. Up to you, but running away from a question only provides further validation.

If your argument can't stand up to scrutiny, perhaps it is time to get a new argument?

There is no argument to be had as you are simply wrong on every single level.

Let's start with the UK isn't socialist.

Then we could move on to this was nothing to do with socialism.

Possibly then meander down the line of your ignorance to the fact it was a court decision, not the government.

a reply to: ScepticScot

So you can use military-grade encryption? You have the *right* to hide things from the government/law enforcement? Right?

If your child is ill, you have the *right* to seek care as you see fit? Even if a non-parent (like a doctor) disagrees?

Surely you have the right to defend yourselves and your homes against intruders? With deadly force?

How about privacy against "hacking" and other mass-surveillance?

Surely you still have free speech? Don't you? Folks would *NEVER* be locked up for simple racial slurs/other speech you may find distasteful?

What if you oppose a specific religion on religious grounds? The government/law enforcement would *never* infringe on your beliefs to protect someone else's "delicate feelings", right?

Of course not. Doing even one of those things means you and your fellow Brits are SUBJECTS not CITIZENS



Give me a break.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: ScepticScot

So you can use military-grade encryption? You have the *right* to hide things from the government/law enforcement? Right?

If your child is ill, you have the *right* to seek care as you see fit? Even if a non-parent (like a doctor) disagrees?

Surely you have the right to defend yourselves and your homes against intruders? With deadly force?

How about privacy against "hacking" and other mass-surveillance?

Surely you still have free speech? Don't you? Folks would *NEVER* be locked up for simple racial slurs/other speech you may find distasteful?

What if you oppose a specific religion on religious grounds? The government/law enforcement would *never* infringe on your beliefs to protect someone else, right?

Of course not. Doing even one of those things means you and your fellow Brits are SUBJECTS not CITIZENS

Total gish gallop of off topic nonsense.

If you want to jack off about your personal fantasy of what the world outside of murica is like feel free but don't expect the rest of us to entertain you.

a reply to: JBurns


You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, which is about the same as usual.
As Sceptic' pointed out, Alfie passed away nearly a week ago now. Your total lack of knowledge on this subject isn't worth the time breaking down your posts to point out how wrong you are, it's pretty much every point you've tried to make.

a reply to: JBurns

I'm probably the only Brit on ATS to say it, but while the Italian doctors offered EU regulated and legal continuing care I disagree with the judge removing freedom of movement rights.
Witch doctor therapy no, EU state health service yes.
Point of principle, which I get from US members.

a reply to: CornishCeltGuy

This is my point as well, even the Vatican offered to continue care (with those very same standards). They had a helicopter on site, and I believe their services were being offered on a charitable basis.

Whether you appreciate the standard of care in the United States, the fact is that the US isn't the only option for treatment. As you said, there are plenty of other EU member states who were more than willing to "waste their time" treating this young child.

As others have pointed out (in an erroneous attempt to deflect/discredit my views), Alfie sadly passed away. This changes nothing, and provides no relief for a death-cult system that ensured a mere judge's order took the life of this helpless child.

a reply to: Kurokage

Sigh, do you enjoy making irrelevant points all day? My lack of knowledge RE: Alfie's status as a breathing human being vs. deceased victim of UK socialism is entirely moot.

The facts are unchanged. Further, my statement holds true whether Alfie is alive or dead.

So you can use military-grade encryption? You have the *right* to hide things from the government/law enforcement? Right?

If your child is ill, you have the *right* to seek care as you see fit? Even if a non-parent (like a doctor) disagrees?

Surely you have the right to defend yourselves and your homes against intruders? With deadly force?

How about privacy against "hacking" and other mass-surveillance?

Surely you still have free speech? Don't you? Folks would *NEVER* be locked up for simple racial slurs/other speech you may find distasteful?

What if you oppose a specific religion on religious grounds? The government/law enforcement would *never* infringe on your beliefs to protect someone else's "delicate feelings", right?

Of course not. Doing even one of those things means you and your fellow Brits are SUBJECTS not CITIZENS

Care to answer? Or will you run away with your tail between your legs as usual (in typical apologist fashion)

a reply to: ScepticScot

So you confess at least one of those statements are true?

I'll save you the trouble: they're all true as it pertains to the UK.

You may not consider your country a socialist hell-hole, but it is one... well, QED.

I would be ashamed to live there, personally. Then again, we Americans were smart enough to give you folks the boot a few hundred years back Almost like we knew your tyrannical ways were incompatible with a free people, or something of that nature.

Just ask Alfie or his parents how "free" they are. That's right, you can't ask Alfie anything because the UK "authorities" mandated his death.

Then again, why am I wasting my time here? You're no doubt one of those kind who believes abortion is anything except cold blooded murder. Go ahead, rail on about how this thread isn't about abortion or socialism. Any maybe not. But it sure as heck points out the extreme hypocrisy of the apologists here.

Despicable.

originally posted by: CornishCeltGuy
I'm probably the only Brit on ATS to say it, but while the Italian doctors offered EU regulated and legal continuing care I disagree with the judge removing freedom of movement rights.

I found today a second ruling, regarding the appeal done by the parents (two separate appeals) here, and in it we can see that they were appealing the decision to allow the hospital to allow Alfie do die naturally, one on the basis that there had been a change in the situation (that the boy was still living, although the doctors expected him to die) and the other base on limiting free movement in the EU. Both appeals were rejected because the situation didn't change and because the supposed limitation of free movement in the EU wasn't even proved.

I haven't seen yet any sign that the judge removed freedom of movement.

PS: I think this case was used mostly by some people to make their point known, with no care for the child or the parents, and I'm talking of more than the media, it looks like some lawyers and groups tried to used this to their advantage.

a reply to: JBurns

All of your post so far seem to be more about trying to piss if uk members than actually discuss the issue at hand.

It takes a special kind of nasty when you start to using dead kids to spread your hate.