Discussion
IanA2 said:
mph1977 said:
You appear to have a difficulty in understanding, no-one is comparing the McCanns to the Kings, only pointing out that becasue the McCanns and the Kings were 'people of means' , the reaction of the public is far more sympathetic, possibly to the point of overly sympathetic than if they had been doleites ...
I really think that to suggest that the Ashya and his family of attracted near universal sympathy for the position they have found themselves in because they are: "..people of means", is very very far off the mark. I think you should reconsider that position.
k are you on about.
mph1977 said:
IanA2 said:
mph1977 said:
You appear to have a difficulty in understanding, no-one is comparing the McCanns to the Kings, only pointing out that becasue the McCanns and the Kings were 'people of means' , the reaction of the public is far more sympathetic, possibly to the point of overly sympathetic than if they had been doleites ...
I really think that to suggest that the Ashya and his family of attracted near universal sympathy for the position they have found themselves in because they are: "..people of means", is very very far off the mark. I think you should reconsider that position.0000 said:
mph1977 said:
no-one is comparing the McCanns to the Kings, only pointing out that becasue the McCanns and the Kings were 'people of means'
Sounds like a comparison to me.What means?
there really does seem to be some deliberate misunderstanding going one here
without regard for the situations
do you really think that McCanns would have got the reception and ongoing coverage of their case if they hadn't been suppoedly responsible professionals who 'made a terribly poor and unlucky choice '
Ditto with the king family, because mr King appeared eloquent (if misguided) in the video his eldeset lad put on you tube ...
in answer to the poster who mentioned the hyundai - well the King family are certainly sufficient affluent to maintain a number of properties ...
0000 said:
How can you say they're affluent when you don't know what equity level they have but do know that a £90k bill has them looking to sell one of the number? Is that non-specific number 2? Let alone then draw conclusions about that having any relevance...
you really are missing the point , their exact equity and levle of affluence is only of relevance i nthe PH bubble , in the real life world , they are people with more than one house and the ability to up and off to Spain at the drop of a hat ... this is very fdifferent world to that of the 'working poor' or even someone earning the national median wage ... I kind of get it
Loads of kids go missing every year and we never hear about it. We've just had 1400 largely in care sexually abused in Rotherham and while it was happening nobody gave a stuff. The McCanns are on the front page of news papers. Not sure its money but the nature of the couple (upstanding pillars of the community) that does it.
The Kings I think are different. Not sure how many kids are taken out of hospital but there are plenty neglected by parents and there was a documentary recently about kids having all their teeth taken out, maybe not life threatening but still appalling with parent sitting there saying "well he like a fizzy drink and chocolate when he goes to bed". Kings I suspect got the press interest because they thought it was on religious grounds which is a lot more interesting than the mundane. I suspect the press would not have picked up on this at all if they were CoE.
Loads of kids go missing every year and we never hear about it. We've just had 1400 largely in care sexually abused in Rotherham and while it was happening nobody gave a stuff. The McCanns are on the front page of news papers. Not sure its money but the nature of the couple (upstanding pillars of the community) that does it.
The Kings I think are different. Not sure how many kids are taken out of hospital but there are plenty neglected by parents and there was a documentary recently about kids having all their teeth taken out, maybe not life threatening but still appalling with parent sitting there saying "well he like a fizzy drink and chocolate when he goes to bed". Kings I suspect got the press interest because they thought it was on religious grounds which is a lot more interesting than the mundane. I suspect the press would not have picked up on this at all if they were CoE.
Jon1967x said:
I kind of get it
Loads of kids go missing every year and we never hear about it. We've just had 1400 largely in care sexually abused in Rotherham and while it was happening nobody gave a stuff. The McCanns are on the front page of news papers. Not sure its money but the nature of the couple (upstanding pillars of the community) that does it.
The Kings I think are different. Not sure how many kids are taken out of hospital but there are plenty neglected by parents and there was a documentary recently about kids having all their teeth taken out, maybe not life threatening but still appalling with parent sitting there saying "well he like a fizzy drink and chocolate when he goes to bed". Kings I suspect got the press interest because they thought it was on religious grounds which is a lot more interesting than the mundane. I suspect the press would not have picked up on this at all if they were CoE.
exactly jon, this is the point - that the press/ public perception of people involved in an incident can make or break the story and public opinion ... Loads of kids go missing every year and we never hear about it. We've just had 1400 largely in care sexually abused in Rotherham and while it was happening nobody gave a stuff. The McCanns are on the front page of news papers. Not sure its money but the nature of the couple (upstanding pillars of the community) that does it.
The Kings I think are different. Not sure how many kids are taken out of hospital but there are plenty neglected by parents and there was a documentary recently about kids having all their teeth taken out, maybe not life threatening but still appalling with parent sitting there saying "well he like a fizzy drink and chocolate when he goes to bed". Kings I suspect got the press interest because they thought it was on religious grounds which is a lot more interesting than the mundane. I suspect the press would not have picked up on this at all if they were CoE.
The wardship judgment, which is admirably clear.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/201...
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/201...
Breadvan72 said:
The wardship judgment, which is admirably clear.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/201...
"(although it should be noted that the order did not prevent the parents visiting the child in hospital)"http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/201...
I wonder who was telling the parents otherwise... badly advised by their lawyers?
Breadvan72 said:
The wardship judgment, which is admirably clear.
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/201...
As you say, admirably clear, and humane.http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/201...
Methinks Mr Justice Baker would not be welcome in PH for he has the temerity to state that he cannot make decisions without knowledge of the facts.
IanA2 said:
Methinks Mr Justice Baker would not be welcome in PH for he has the temerity to state that he cannot make decisions without knowledge of the facts.
I doubt there are many more equally popular sub-forums as SP&L, where on so many occasions the regular posters within it are reminding people judgements can't be made / are limited without the full information and facts.Those who contributed to this topic who concluded there were some sinister conspiracy by the NHS would do well to be remember that.
The idea that the police were going to challenge information like this when assessing the risk was, unsurprisingly, farcical.
The arrest warrant does appear to be a step-too far, or at the every least sustained too long.
Breadvan72 said:
According to PH, all Judges are remote idiots intent only on letting crazed drug dealing foreigners roam the streets.
Not all of PH.I particularly liked the end of section 32 - "I make no comment ... I merely observe ...". Given that he makes no comment, he still manages to leave little doubt as to his opinion.
Have the police explained why they thought a course of action that inevitably would lead to the parents' imprisonment was a good idea, or the hospital why they thought that their consent was required (as implied by their statement) by the parents to remove Ashya yet?
johnao said:
The statement from University Hospital Southampton dated 2 September 2014 states, in adjacent paragraphs...
"Despite this, the Trust agreed with the family to refer Ashya for proton radiotherapy, as the family had indicated that they could fund it privately.
On 28 August 2014, during unsupervised leave on the Trust’s grounds, Ashya’s family chose to remove him without informing or seeking the consent of medical staff."
The paragraph indicating the hospital's agreement to refer the child for proton therapy has been placed immediately before the paragraph stating that the family removed the child from the hospital without notice.
This juxtaposition conveys the impression that the hospital gave it's consent prior to the child's removal by the family. It seems bizarre, from what has been reported in the media, that this was the actual chronology of events. The impression given by the media is that the decision by the hospital to refer the child didn't occur until after the family was found in Spain. Does anyone know if the juxtaposition of the two paragraphs is correct or, should they be reversed?
For clarity:"Despite this, the Trust agreed with the family to refer Ashya for proton radiotherapy, as the family had indicated that they could fund it privately.
On 28 August 2014, during unsupervised leave on the Trust’s grounds, Ashya’s family chose to remove him without informing or seeking the consent of medical staff."
The paragraph indicating the hospital's agreement to refer the child for proton therapy has been placed immediately before the paragraph stating that the family removed the child from the hospital without notice.
This juxtaposition conveys the impression that the hospital gave it's consent prior to the child's removal by the family. It seems bizarre, from what has been reported in the media, that this was the actual chronology of events. The impression given by the media is that the decision by the hospital to refer the child didn't occur until after the family was found in Spain. Does anyone know if the juxtaposition of the two paragraphs is correct or, should they be reversed?
The Hospital do not have the power to consent or approve the treatment.
They *only* have the power to refer to the approval committee, which had already taken place - so yes, it did happen before this story hit the media.
The committee is the "Proton Beam Therapy Clinical Reference Panel" who review individual cases on a clinical basis (not financial).
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff