Discussion
Breadvan72 said:
I am no fan of the parents, but your rant calls for one point of clarification: The case was not about EU law, and was only partly about human rights law (and, by the way, the ECHR is not an EU instrument, and was drafted mainly by a Tory Lord Chancellor. The ECtHR is not an EU Court). The case turned on common law principles as to the determination of a child's best interests.
PS: I wonder what "entreprunership" might be.
Can you elaborate a bit more on this. I was under the impression that the case revolved around the rights of the parents. The parents disagreed with the hospital and felt that they had the ultimate say in treatment. "My child, my decision" as it were. The hospital disagreed. Irrespective of what the parents want, the childs rights came before those of the parents, and they disagreed.PS: I wonder what "entreprunership" might be.
Or is that what you actually wrote, just me not being a lawyer completely misinterpreting it?
The parents don't particularly have rights, the child as an individual does which is why they have an advocate.
The case was around a disagreement about how to proceed and what course best represented the best interests of the child, and whether treatment was possible or whether it was best to stop.
Beyond that it was details of treatments and prognosis.
At least that's my understanding.
The case was around a disagreement about how to proceed and what course best represented the best interests of the child, and whether treatment was possible or whether it was best to stop.
Beyond that it was details of treatments and prognosis.
At least that's my understanding.
That is a fair summary. This case was not really about "parents rights", and it is arguable that there are no such things, or that the rights of parents are limited to such things as being consulted about decisions. Children are not items of property. The rights that were really involved were the rights of the child, including the right of the child not to be exposed to suffering.
e21Mark said:
Jonesy23 said:
The parents don't particularly have rights, the child as an individual does which is why they have an advocate.
They have a duty of care (as opposed to rights) but they didn't appear to understand the difference. twoblacklines said:
Wonder if the couple is gonna be making a few million quid a year or two later like the McCanns do.
...
I hesitate to mention the M word, but I will try and make this a general question, and it does have some bearing on the thread (because the parents acted through ignorance and bizarre beliefs) . Do people really belief stuff such as that posted by twoblacklines? Does he believe what he writes? Or is this just ranty rhetoric? ...
In these days of Brexit and Trump, where post-truth and anti-truth are so powerful, I am genuinely interested in the weird stuff that people believe. NPE is for the most part a fairly right wing echo chamber, often awash with bizarre beliefs, open prejudices, and confident refusal to engage with evidence, but even within NPE there are extremes of the extreme. Where do those who believe the whackjob stuff get it from? The internet, obviously; but why the credulousness and lack of critique? Why the rejection of data, analysis, scepticism and fact checking?
Some possible answers in the link below. This article is about the US, but it bears on the UK and on the Charlie Gard case also:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/...
Breadvan72 said:
twoblacklines said:
Wonder if the couple is gonna be making a few million quid a year or two later like the McCanns do.
...
I hesitate to mention the M word, but I will try and make this a general question, and it does have some bearing on the thread (because the parents acted through ignorance and bizarre beliefs) . Do people really belief stuff such as that posted by twoblacklines? Does he believe what he writes? Or is this just ranty rhetoric? ...
In these days of Brexit and Trump, where post-truth and anti-truth are so powerful, I am genuinely interested in the weird stuff that people believe. NPE is for the most part a fairly right wing echo chamber, often awash with bizarre beliefs, open prejudices, and confident refusal to engage with evidence, but even within NPE there are extremes of the extreme. Where do those who believe the whackjob stuff get it from? The internet, obviously; but why the credulousness and lack of critique? Why the rejection of data, analysis, scepticism and fact checking?
Some possible answers in the link below. This article is about the US, but it bears on the UK and on the Charlie Gard case also:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/...
The article itself does the same thing, and can't help but sneer. It notes that all of us are a mix of "rational" and "irrational" but then seems to paint a picture that suggests only extreme "irrationality" is "bad". I'm from an engineering/science background and so am naturally predisposed to "logic"/"facts" but whilst I probably sit quite far down the "rational" side of the spectrum (or think I do!), I can see that extremes of either are bad news (not all the time, but often).
The problem with many of the scenarios where people demonstrate these "alternative" view points is cold, hard "facts" either don't exist, or in isolation can't explain a situation and when used in combination subjectivity and doubt are often introduced. We tend to think we know more about the world than we do which doesn't help either.
I don't think it's hard to see where views like the one you quoted come from - the press. "Facts" about the amounts raised etc aren't hard to find. Google it...I have little interest in the story and so just did. You only have to scan the first page of links to start to get some understanding as to why people might hold these views.
Charlie Gard - ditto.
And look at the Google employee episode for another.
I don't know what the answer is, but I know it isn't perpetuating the sneering and condescending tones that seem to be de rigeur. That won't convince those with the alternative views to change their minds. It will actually reinforce their views which just widens the gap. I suspect better controls on the press and social media would potentially be useful, but equally suspect that would probably be counterproductive even if it was technically possibly to implement.
To add some irrationality to my thoughts, maybe this is all just nature's way of balancing the system out again. Disease etc hasn't been wholly effective with the human race, so it's capacity for thought/lack of thought in equal measure will prompt it to turn in on itself
I suggest that the internet, which provides access to all the clever, but also to all the stupid, is tending to legitimise the bad idea that all opinions are equal, that opinions can be free standing and need no support from data or reasoning, and to accentuate the subjective over the objective. Even quite clever and well educated people can fall for this hoo hah - witness the success of post-modernism and the trigger warning/safe space culture at smart universities, and see for example the meretricious claptrap purveyed by fake philosopher John Gay in popular clever-nonsense books such as "Straw Dogs".
Breadvan72 said:
I suggest that the internet, which provides access to all the clever, but also to all the stupid, is tending to legitimise the bad idea that all opinions are equal, that opinions can be free standing and need no support from data or reasoning, and to accentuate the subjective over the objective. Even quite clever and well educated people can fall for this hoo hah - witness the success of post-modernism and the trigger warning/safe space culture at smart universities, and see for example the meretricious claptrap purveyed by fake philosopher John Gay in popular clever-nonsense books such as "Straw Dogs".
I suspect that's another element to it, but far from the only one.And what about when data sets disagree with one another? Look at the "green" arguments (that the article you linked to references). Cold hard facts, largely opposing opinions from them, both sides adamant they are right. Or debate where hard facts are presented as causation rather than correlation?
Sifting the "clever" from the "stupid" isn't easy, but who decides what should be there and what shouldn't?
Breadvan72 said:
I hesitate to mention the M word, but I will try and make this a general question, and it does have some bearing on the thread (because the parents acted through ignorance and bizarre beliefs) . Do people really belief stuff such as that posted by twoblacklines? Does he believe what he writes? Or is this just ranty rhetoric?
Two facts for you.1,
In the Daily Mail, the parents are quoted "It is scary when you realise the State has more power over your children than you do" which leads me to believe the Gards believe as parents, that their child belonged to them, that they take ownership of the childs rights as the child is yet to turn 18, and that they decided that their selfish needs came first over the safety and wellbeing of their child.
THEIR WORDS NOT MINE.
2.
The McCanns have made millions of pounds from the tragedy that is their daughter going missing.
[quote]
Accounts lodged with Companies House show the fund received £1.4million in bank donations, another £391,000 over the internet and £64,000 from the sale of T-shirts and wristbands.
In total, it received £1.85million in its first ten months and earned £33,424 in interest. It spent £815,113 on the search for Madeleine in that time.
Then they took £500k of that and put it into an investment account.
So there are two facts I have stated.
And you just write it off as "ranty rhetoric" because it does not match your opinion or agenda.
Sigh ..., I rather suspected that attempts to talk of the general would tend to descend to the particular (this is NPE, after all), but never mind.
1. I tend to agree with you re the Gard parents, as ought to be apparent from my posts earlier in this thread.
2. Re the McCanns, your can give vent to your spleen towards them on their very own thread if you wish. There are some legitimate questions about the fund raising and the use of funds for unwise lawsuits and so forth, but suggestions that the McCanns have become personally wealthy through donations are, I suggest, wide of the mark.
1. I tend to agree with you re the Gard parents, as ought to be apparent from my posts earlier in this thread.
2. Re the McCanns, your can give vent to your spleen towards them on their very own thread if you wish. There are some legitimate questions about the fund raising and the use of funds for unwise lawsuits and so forth, but suggestions that the McCanns have become personally wealthy through donations are, I suggest, wide of the mark.
Breadvan72 said:
Some possible answers in the link below. This article is about the US, but it bears on the UK and on the Charlie Gard case also:
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/...
I was happily reading that until the article, something I was deeply engrossed in, happened to then mention that a quarter of Americans believe in witches. As though that was proof of irrational thinking?https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/...
Ummm witches are real.....
The late and impossibly great Carl Sagan getting it right (and witching it up, big style) back in ye olden days -
https://twitter.com/TheBrandonMorse/status/8953871...
https://twitter.com/TheBrandonMorse/status/8953871...
Breadvan72 said:
Sigh ..., I rather suspected that attempts to talk of the general would tend to descend to the particular (this is NPE, after all), but never mind.
1. I tend to agree with you re the Gard parents, as ought to be apparent from my posts earlier in this thread.
2. Re the McCanns, your can give vent to your spleen towards them on their very own thread if you wish. There are some legitimate questions about the fund raising and the use of funds for unwise lawsuits and so forth, but suggestions that the McCanns have become personally wealthy through donations are, I suggest, wide of the mark.
Well tell me where over a million pounds has gone exactly, please?1. I tend to agree with you re the Gard parents, as ought to be apparent from my posts earlier in this thread.
2. Re the McCanns, your can give vent to your spleen towards them on their very own thread if you wish. There are some legitimate questions about the fund raising and the use of funds for unwise lawsuits and so forth, but suggestions that the McCanns have become personally wealthy through donations are, I suggest, wide of the mark.
You can't, can you.
twoblacklines said:
Well tell me where over a million pounds has gone exactly, please?
You can't, can you.
I'm struggling here: you quote figures for the fund's first 10 months, and the accounts filed at Companies House for the period to 31 March 2008 roughly match those figures.You can't, can you.
You then question where a million pounds has gone - it hadn't gone anywhere, it's sat on the balance sheet of those accounts.
Europa1 said:
I'm struggling here: you quote figures for the fund's first 10 months, and the accounts filed at Companies House for the period to 31 March 2008 roughly match those figures.
You then question where a million pounds has gone - it hadn't gone anywhere, it's sat on the balance sheet of those accounts.
They paid off their mortgage with some of the money - that doesn't show in expenditure on CH for that period, so it was after 2008.You then question where a million pounds has gone - it hadn't gone anywhere, it's sat on the balance sheet of those accounts.
twoblacklines said:
Europa1 said:
I'm struggling here: you quote figures for the fund's first 10 months, and the accounts filed at Companies House for the period to 31 March 2008 roughly match those figures.
You then question where a million pounds has gone - it hadn't gone anywhere, it's sat on the balance sheet of those accounts.
They paid off their mortgage with some of the money - that doesn't show in expenditure on CH for that period, so it was after 2008.You then question where a million pounds has gone - it hadn't gone anywhere, it's sat on the balance sheet of those accounts.
When did they allegedly pay off their mortgage? The only reports I can find are from October 2007. Paid off their mortgage or paid off part of their mortgage? There is a huge difference between the reported value of their house at the time (£500,000), how big their mortgage may have been, and 2 instalments of £2,000 being paid by the Foundation (as reported by the Daily Telegraph; other more sensationalist newspapers are available).
I have no idea what total sales were for the book, but in one year just over £700,000 of profit from that was donated to the Foundation.
If Wiccan of Darkness is about - thank you for explaining so cogently back at the start of this thread the precise nature of Charlie's illness. I joined Pistonheads purely to thank you but have been banned from posting on this thread for a fortnight (I suspect because the Charlie's Army nutters were piling in). Bit late but no other option!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff