Discussion
Mojooo said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
One post on PH, to support the authorities. And self named as 'honest'. Well that don't stink much!
Every now and again you stumble on a forum post so crazy (or whatever) you just have to sign up and post. I have probably done it in the past.Risk of aspiration pneumonia in tube fed patients can be mitigated. There are pills and patches available that greatly diminish or remove travel sickness although the correct dose for a child is not known to me.
Presuming a normal Channel crossing, it's only an hour or so and you make sure he's not been fed for at least an hour before.
But detailing how it's not a problem wouldn't make a case for extradition so one gets the risks without the fact that you can manage them.
Presuming a normal Channel crossing, it's only an hour or so and you make sure he's not been fed for at least an hour before.
But detailing how it's not a problem wouldn't make a case for extradition so one gets the risks without the fact that you can manage them.
Slidingpillar said:
Risk of aspiration pneumonia in tube fed patients can be mitigated. There are pills and patches available that greatly diminish or remove travel sickness although the correct dose for a child is not known to me.
Presuming a normal Channel crossing, it's only an hour or so and you make sure he's not been fed for at least an hour before.
But detailing how it's not a problem wouldn't make a case for extradition so one gets the risks without the fact that you can manage them.
Suffice it to say that provision of a private jet was not an optional luxury.Presuming a normal Channel crossing, it's only an hour or so and you make sure he's not been fed for at least an hour before.
But detailing how it's not a problem wouldn't make a case for extradition so one gets the risks without the fact that you can manage them.
grumbledoak said:
Good news.
Was the doctor who threatened to have their child removed if they did not do as they were told ever named?
Gary NicolinWas the doctor who threatened to have their child removed if they did not do as they were told ever named?
http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/ContactUs/Directoryofconsult...
IanA2 said:
What does 'shocking' mean in this context?That Hants. police aren't unapologetic for being 'proactive' reminded me of the interview with former undercover police spy Peter Francis on the Today programme on Radio 4 this morning when discussing the almost £1/2 Million payout to 'Jackie' that had a child with his boss Gilbert. He made the point that they apologised 'unreservedly' but didn't make a comment about the right or wrongs or embarking on an sexual relationship as part of a police cover facade.
The usual worst case 'the sky could fall in' FUD excuses in public sector excusespeak.
I think they have proton beam treatment on the part of the brain that realises when to say 'Yeah, we messed up'. Oh yeah, they did mention that they regretted a 'communication breakdown'.
It puts the Fox Hunting ban into perspective doesn't it? We place more importance on treating animals humanely.
The usual worst case 'the sky could fall in' FUD excuses in public sector excusespeak.
I think they have proton beam treatment on the part of the brain that realises when to say 'Yeah, we messed up'. Oh yeah, they did mention that they regretted a 'communication breakdown'.
It puts the Fox Hunting ban into perspective doesn't it? We place more importance on treating animals humanely.
IanA2 said:
singlecoil said:
What does 'shocking' mean in this context?
I find it shocking and terrible that the family could be in such a state of fear that they don't feel able to return to the UK. What else could it mean?
La Liga said:
Good to hear the child is responding well.
It would do no harm for the UK authorities to make their position/s clear to the families by speaking to them.
the king family are the ones that flounced and we also know they attitude towards the expert advice of specialist practitioners with a deep understanding of the issues at hand. It would do no harm for the UK authorities to make their position/s clear to the families by speaking to them.
also are the king family actually UK residents given that the children were apparently registered with Spansih schools ... or just typical intellectual blind -spot ex-pats ...
mph1977 said:
La Liga said:
Good to hear the child is responding well.
It would do no harm for the UK authorities to make their position/s clear to the families by speaking to them.
the king family are the ones that flounced and we also know they attitude towards the expert advice of specialist practitioners with a deep understanding of the issues at hand. It would do no harm for the UK authorities to make their position/s clear to the families by speaking to them.
also are the king family actually UK residents given that the children were apparently registered with Spansih schools ... or just typical intellectual blind -spot ex-pats ...
With hindsight, the proton beam therapy was the best option, and looks like it's been successfully (in the context of the condition).
Without the parents taking the course of action they did, this would just not have happened.
Having lost faith with the doctor's, can you really expect them to suddenly be all trusting again?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff