Charlie Gard 17 re started

[muckypup73]

Ok guys, we have been very lucky to discuss this, please lets not give anyone anything to complain about, Mhq have been more than accomodating.

Vincent McAviney @Vinny_LBC
·
34s

Replying to @Vinny_LBC and @LBC
Strong words from Judge saying the notion of the NHS and state being responsible for #CharlieGard's death should be entirely dismissed.

The judge probably needs to order an on or before date for the child's passing.

I'm getting an awful feeling that the parents may find it impossible to let him go.

I wouldn't get too excited about the lack of a CV. They've presumably only found this man today.

It could have been e-mailed though, surely.

@JoshuaRozenberg
1s
Armstrong: I tried to avoid giving a precise date for Charlie’s death yesterday.

I am a little bit in love with the judge

Ah posted to soon, she doesn't need to be at court. Connie could have been with charlie and let the legal team be in court.

Frustrating now that they wont just admit they want to get to his birthday.

Very much hoping the judge will do what is best for Charlie and not his parents, especially since it is possible hes in pain and suffering.

If she is worried about time missed then why is she in court now not with her husband who is presumably with their son?

How are registered GOSH nurses managing to get a week off work to allow them to "volunteer" anyway? Especially at this time of year!

Lapin Me too. He seems so level headed and I've personally met a fair few who are not. (And those were in care proceedings - god forbid)

...but they want to reach the birthday? Maybe?

@JoshuaRozenberg
0s
Armstrong: I apologise to Katie Gollop QC for suggesting that she had disclosed information that was not then in the public domain.

But he's experiencing pain though.

None of this is about Charlie at all is it?

He does seem very patient but doesn't miss anything. It must be a very difficult position to be in (judge)

Has the - any - hospice agreed to this plan?

incitatis it doesn't appear to be...

FFS, why is Armstrong not just getting on with things!!

The trouble with giving several days because CY has missed time with him is that that means several days more pain and distress, more oedema, more deterioration, which the courts decided wasn't acceptable back in April. Yet again, it's about Charlie's interests, not his parents'.

What is the apology about, anyone know?

Sirzy perhaps the nurses volunteering are on leave but have said they'll give that up

You'd have thought that they would have come to court prepared today wouldn't you? No CV, no doctor. It's boggling.

I'm shocked that GOSH nurses have volunteered to attend.

JoshuaRozenberg
0s
Armstrong was referring to the proposed four-day period leading to Charlie’s death, which he thought Gollop had wrongly mentioned openly.

^^Lovely

The hospice setting is a better plan for Charlie than the home idea so if they've come round to that I'm pleased. A week is too long for him though and the judge needs to limit that.

I can more understand Charlie's nurses offering to help if the proposal is to move him to a hospice.

In that case, they would be helping by showing the hospice staff how they care for Charlie specifically and just helping rather than having the full responsibility of being in the Gard's home in actual charge of Charlie's care.

If they are proposing the latter then undoubtedly they are braver people than I.

It actually shows how much GOSH staff must care for patients when they would consider doing this despite all that's happened.

I do hope Connie and Chris realise that.

Yes, the lawyers don;t seem very professional or organised on the CG side.