Charlie Gard Case 5

[LovelyBath77]

A new thread to follow on from the others about this case.

I understand that people feel very invested in this case but is it really necessary to personally track down the relevant person in an HR department so you can get someone sacked?

If you believe there's a genuine threat of violence contact the police.

And I do not think it is appropriate to refer to Charlie's parents as "barbaric" any more than I think it is appropriate to refer to GOSH as "barbaric".

This should never have been played out so publicly and it's got completely out of control IMO.

zee thank your for the info re testing on mice.

i know nothing about law but can they appeal again aftr tomorrow or does it com undr the same ruling as last month?

And the person might have put the angry face about the girl having the condition rather than outrage at fundraising, IYSWIM?

No, I can't see how it could possibly be interpreted as that, but I will leave it there. The whole post was about fundraising for GOSH.

The Wee Witch, that Dawkins quote is great.

I love this one from Prof Brian Cox

"The problem with today’s world is that everyone believes they have the right to express their opinion AND have others listen to it.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!"
Brian Coxx*

So good to hear that our Facebook messages of support for GOSH are being passed on to the staff and are making a difference. It must be so hard for them even though they all know they are doing the right thing.

Also have done a reporting spree on the CA Facebook page and will do some more later. FB need to start taking more responsibility for the mayhem being caused on this and all sorts of other issues.

I just read a lengthy editorial about Charlie in a leading French Catholic magazine (Famille Chrétienne).
Their conclusion waa that as the child is stable he should be kept alive even in pain and switching off the machines would basically amount to euthanasia.
They argue for the sanctity of life over quality of life and were strongly critical of the courts' compassionate take on Charlie's suffering.

So I guess even though it was presented in a far more eloquent and rational way, the argument was the same as the American fundies.

I understand that people feel very invested in this case but is it really necessary to personally track down the relevant person in an HR department so you can get someone sacked?

They won't get sacked, I cannot comprehend how you would defend that sort of online behaviour.

The royal family thing is odd in that you feel that CA hate the royal family and yet still think they could change what happens, by overruling the law.

It's the way that the CA members are all striving to be the mostest caring out of anyone because they're the bestest in the world. The oneupmanship is quite amusing or it would be if a babies suffering wasn't at the centre of it.

All the praying, singing and writing songs and poems. Sending money and pasting blue hearts all over their profile photos.

Sickening.

CA know jack.

zeezeek The parents have, I feel, been very badly advised by various publicists. I imagine that would include advice on how to present themselves. All the 'posed' photographs were copyright of Featureworld. The parents didn't look relaxed and happy in any of them.

I don't think anything should be assumed from dress/grooming.

I remember the Australian 'Dingo Baby' trials in which the mother was hugely vilified for being overly well-groomed and wearing bright summer dresses in court. According to the hunz of the day it meant she must have murdered her baby.

I feel desperately sorry for the parents.

rabbit not defending their behaviour in the slightest. But I think it's excessive for a complete stranger to take matters into their own hands and personally track down their HR manager.

You have no idea whether or not they will get sacked.

It is actually a really difficult and long process to do (lab based research). Firstly you need the money ...

Is anyone else wondering whether the money issue has motivated these "7 experts" in any way?

After all, if exaggerating the potential benefits of your research helped in getting funding, wouldn't it be quite tempting to make more of it than there is?

After the hearing at the High Court tomorrow, if the decision is that the original ruling stands and Charlie's life support be withdrawn - is it possible for the Judge to order a news blackout?

I'm just thinking if it's lawful to do so, I'd be tempted if I was sat there.

rabbit I think most of us agree that if you are going to have your employee details on Fb and make threats of violence them you deserve to be reported to your employer and dealt with for breaching social media policy.

But in the example of an angry face icon, they are allowed to disagree online as long as they aren't bringing the service into disrepute. Professional standards won't "have a word" with them about it.

nicky it won't be for professional standards as she is not a police officer.

I think that a quiet word in her ear is just what's needed

As for saying that she will get sacked babyhamster, yes, I do know that she won't be.

Anyway, enough detracting from me, if people want to report, they should do so.

Are MRI scans safe for children? I mean if they have more than one - my DD has had 3 MRIs and 1 CT.

BabyHamster most companies have a Social Media Policy which includes not doing anything to bring the company into disrepute. If your stupid enough to make threatening comments about another person AND have an open profile which allows the world and his wife to see where you work, then frankly you deserve everything you get.

I doubt that anyone will be sacked, more likely a verbal or written warning. If they do get sacked however it will be entirely their own fault.

Today 13:35 BabyHamster

I understand that people feel very invested in this case but is it really necessary to personally track down the relevant person in an HR department so you can get someone sacked?

Get real. If a person working with the public in a position of trust, makes comments such as those, she deserves to be reported.

is it possible for the Judge to order a news blackout?

I've no idea, Trampire, but I imagine it's one thing to order a halt to social media posts and quite another to prevent the family from making them ...

Gah "if you're stupid enough" that should say!

rabbit Professional standards will investigate/deal with members of police staff who are not police officers.

And she deserves to face the consequences of her foolish loose talk.