kdubya Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Is it only me or is there something fundamentally wrong in that we allow an obviously loving set of parents to be locked up and separated from their terminally ill son, whilst seemingly having committed no crime other than wanting the best possible chance of survival for that son even to the point of selling property and attempting to buy a radical treatment abroad. I cannot believe the crassness and pompousness of the police (shame they were not so vigilant in Rotherham?) and Hampshire social services who made the child a ward of court, I truly hope the idiots who cannot see the difference between real child abuse and the desperate attempts made by a pair of truly loving parents to do the best for their son have difficulty sleeping after this.I have nothing but total admiration and respect for the parents who must be going through hell thanks to their attempts to do nothing other than trying to get the best for a sick kid, and nothing but contempt for the stupidity and arrogance of the authorities involved in this. This is bureaucracy and control at its very very best nothing more nothing less, KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyska Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 I too find this very confusing, does anyone know what they were arrested for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 On the face of it I agree KW, seems no rhyme or reason to the actions of the authorities. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cranfield Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 I agree with you 100% kdubya and have said so from the beginning. I thought it was a nice touch by the Authorities "leaking" their Jehovahs Witness membership and then having to admit that the parents had never refused any treatment on religious grounds. They had no right to pursue them, nor to involve them in overseas Court proceedings. Its interesting that nobody can say what law they have broken. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentalmac Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 So, the parents are being extradited and the son is in the hospital on his own with no family member allowed to see him. Poor kid. My kids would be in bits if they were in hospital and wasn't allowed me there to visit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Thanks for confirming that Cranfield, i knew the JW connection was there but thought this was the reason behind the arrest i.e they were blocking treatment but it's the opposite. Mad! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 A very strange one and just why they are being pursued so rigorously seems in stark contrast to the other instances mentioned. You could throw Rochdale and others into the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypig Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Prevention of Cruelty and Exposure to Moral and Physical Danger Offences 1 Cruelty to persons under sixteen. (1)If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and [F1has responsibility for] any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable— (a)on conviction on indictment, to a fine . . . F2 or alternatively, . . . F3, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding [F4ten] years; (b)on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding [F5£400] pounds, or alternatively, . . . F3, or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding six months. (2)For the purposes of this section— (a)a parent or other person legally liable to maintain a child or young person [F6, or the legal guardian of a child or young person,] shall be deemed to have neglected him in a manner likely to cause injury to his health if he has failed to provide adequate food, clothing, medical aid or lodging for him, or if, having been unable otherwise to provide such food, clothing, medical aid or lodging, he has failed to take steps to procure it to be provided under [F7the enactments applicable in that behalf]; (b)where it is proved that the death of an infant under three years of age was caused by suffocation (not being suffocation caused by disease or the presence of any foreign body in the throat or air passages of the infant) while the infant was in bed with some other person who has attained the age of sixteen years, that other person shall, if he was, when he went to bed, under the influence of drink, be deemed to have neglected the infant in a manner likely to cause injury to its health. (3)A person may be convicted of an offence under this section— (a)notwithstanding that actual suffering or injury to health, or the likelihood of actual suffering or injury to health, was obviated by the action of another person; (b)notwithstanding the death of the child or young person in question. (4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F8 (5),(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F9 (7)F10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 I was discussing this very matter with my boys in the car this morning. We cannot understand the police involvement and see nothing that warrants any of the media coverage. Two loving parents remove their extremely poorly son from NHS care in order to take him to Spain in the hope of getting the treatment they seek, all this done against the medical advice of the team in Hampshire. Why were the police involved at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 We were discussing this at the weekend also at work and not one person I do spoken to can see what the parents have done wrong. Or what crime have they committed. It's been said a few times the police and authorities have to answer for this. Figgy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 So, the parents are being extradited and the son is in the hospital on his own with no family member allowed to see him. Poor kid. My kids would be in bits if they were in hospital and wasn't allowed me there to visit. The parents have refused extradition to the UK and now reside in Spanish police custody! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypig Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Always difficult. What would the posts be if this child had died as a result and the police had not acted as seems to be the suggestion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Always difficult. What would the posts be if this child had died as a result and the police had not acted as seems to be the suggestion Without the treatment in Spain that the parents have requested the child will probably die! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypig Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) See how difficult it is. Are we advocating that police ignore the opinions of the child's doctors in the uk? Just to clarify I have no knowledge of this other than what is reported in the news Edited September 1, 2014 by happypig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted September 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Always difficult. What would the posts be if this child had died as a result and the police had not acted as seems to be the suggestion The parents had been told there was nothing further they could do for him at Southampton, are they supposed to say OK fair enough! KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted September 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Without the treatment in Spain that the parents have requested the child will probably die! I believe they went to Spain to sell a property then they were going to Czechoslovakia to try to obtain proton beam treatment costing 90K in the hope that that would save his life. Where the hell is the criminal intent there then? KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 The police should seek further expert medical opinions on the condition the child is suffering,and what care the child is getting before going straight in all guns blazing. There must be other doctors and consultants sat thinking what on earth have you done, setting the police on the parents. The parents were on the news showing the care they are giving. Figgy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 I believe they went to Spain to sell a property then they were going to Czechoslovakia to try to obtain proton beam treatment costing 90K in the hope that that would save his life. Where the hell is the criminal intent there then? KW Thanks for that KW I had heard mention of a property in Spain but wasn't aware of the Czechoslovakian element to this terrible story. Ultimately I feel that somewhere along the line Hampshire police have gone rather over the top! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happypig Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 I'm going to bow out of this one. Damned if do, damned if don't Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
figgy Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 The treatment they are seeking for their child is not available in the uk yet as the hospitals and treatment centres for this are not finished yet. So the parents are going to give the same treatment the NHS would if it had it and will in the future. Countries like the Czech Republic have it and we don't , there was me thinking we were a first world country bailing out all and sundry because we have that much cash this country wants for nothing. Wonder if the costs of this police authority legal debacle could have paid for his treatment? Figgy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keg Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 Without the treatment in Spain that the parents have requested the child will probably die! Not probably, they have given the poor mite 4 months. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 We as adults can refuse treatment/ sign ourselves out of hospital with no recriminations, After being told the NHS can offer no further treatment the parents should have (as the child's legal guardian) told the hospital what they were planning to do. I believe it all kicked off when they simply took the child with no notification, The hospital were still in charge of the child's care until the parents should have "signed him out" Do I think what the police/hospital did was right? NO But I can understand the reasoning behind it. The parents were at fault for not going down the self discharge route as the child's legal guardians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLuke Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 (edited) What I can't understand is why they are being accused of neglect? Also if they are being accused of it then surely the McCann's should have been tried? One husband and wife goes out eating and drinking during which time they leave their daughter alone and she is kidnapped never to be seen again. One husband and wife have a terminally ill child that they travel across Europe in an attempt to sell a property to pay for treatment the NHS wouldn't. Both receive national press coverage, one is met with outrage, the other sympathy. For me these two reactions were the wrong way round. Edited September 1, 2014 by LondonLuke Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toontastic Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 We as adults can refuse treatment/ sign ourselves out of hospital with no recriminations, After being told the NHS can offer no further treatment the parents should have (as the child's legal guardian) told the hospital what they were planning to do. I believe it all kicked off when they simply took the child with no notification, The hospital were still in charge of the child's care until the parents should have "signed him out" Do I think what the police/hospital did was right? NO But I can understand the reasoning behind it. The parents were at fault for not going down the self discharge route as the child's legal guardians. How are they at fault?, doctor told them if they seek other treatment the hospital would take out an injunction against them to stop them having access to the child. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
islandgun Posted September 1, 2014 Report Share Posted September 1, 2014 This looks like good cause for a public collection the British public will soon have enough for the lads operation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.