Charlie Gard 20

[CremeFresh]

Don't know if anyone else has started a new thread .

To be honest I am glad they are hidden..

thanks all ah prob blocked them then

thy shold just block for now

Today 08:21 RJnomore1

Oh I'm so cross with the daily mail website today headlining Charlie's "untimely death"

It was an untimely death.

I hope we read soon of people being prosecuted for threatening behaviour towards GOSH.

I expect there will be a petition for 'Charlie's Law' doing the rounds soon, calling for more parental 'rights'.

Today 11:16 Edsheeranalbumparty

Wow, lots.of competitive grieving on the CA page - 'you mean so much to me Charlie' 'i miss you so much' etc from people I assume never met him.

I feel sorry for these people really. How empty must their lIves be?

How very patronising. Can you not see the irony of writing such a thing?

It was an untimely death.[ confused]

I suppose it depends how you view the phrase "untimely death". If you take it to mean a death that takes place at an unusually early age, yes it was untimely. If you take it as meaning an unexpected death, then no it wasn't.

Thank you Kesstrel. Very moving and I'm blubbing again.
I'm so relieved to read that the extubation was very measured and controlled for baby Martha. I've been really worried about that dreadful moment throughout this case. Our wonderful NHS.

Edsheeranalbumparty If there is a petition, I won't be signing it.

The only petition I will sign is the one that says bad reporting by our media including the BBC should be outlawed.

Today 12:12 Ellie56

It was an untimely death.[ confused]

I suppose it depends how you view the phrase "untimely death". If you take it to mean a death that takes place at an unusually early age, yes it was untimely. If you take it as meaning an unexpected death, then no it wasn't.

Without diving into the semantics, I think it is clear to most that the comment is related to dying at a young age.

Untimely just means wrong time.
It was the wrong time for his parents ( ie to early)
And it could be said wrong time for Charlie, where he was allowed to live long after he was meant to go.

too

The only petition I will sign is the one that says bad reporting by our media including the BBC should be outlawed.

Too bloody right on that one!

I expect and hope it will all die down now and charlies parents donate that money to a worthwhile cause, could even donate it to GOSH who have done more to help them than they'll probably ever realise.

To be fair to the BBC their Health Correspondent Fergus Walsh (I think) always spoke with total balance and with a full grasp on the facts of the case. Unfortunately a lot of their broadcasts and web news were not written by him so lacked the same balance.

The BBC is politically biased so what do you expect? That they were ever unbiased is a British urban myth.

I think we will have to wait till after the funeral and see just how far this grudge of the parents against gosh goes I saw that Bradley's mum put a video if him on line just before he passed dancing and having fun. What amazing parents they were, dignified all the way through.
I hope c&c will use the money for research it would be a fitting memorial to Charlie. To have it to change the law on parents rights, would IMO, be an insult to Charlie.

The BBC is politically biased so what do you expect? That they were ever unbiased is a British urban myth

In the 80s, the BBC reported IRA action as "committed by the IRA, a sectarian group in NI"
They reported violence and terrorism by British identifying groups as "a sectarian act" - implying it was IRA! Implying that the only terrorists acting in NI were Irish-identifying!
Always.
Proof: the amount of people who rely on BBC for their news, for whom "IRA" and "Sinn Fein" are household names, who didn't know that the DUP were "baddies" until our last election

BBC were never unbias, have always been a propoganda machine. Their news is never the most "raw"

Agree tinsel

It would be very interesting to see how many signatures a petition for Charlie's law would actually attract. However, the reality is that neither of the main parties is likely to support it, so it won't happen. Thank goodness.

Hope your right Veto, but with the ignorance out there about this case, which has been horrendous, I bet there might be more then a few signatures.

TinselTwins - I was shocked to the point of tears recently when I read a timeline of the various terrorists acts of violence in NI. I'd always been aware that there was also violence by British-identifying groups, but I'd bought into the line that it was "better" violence because only the IRA went after civilian targets. I guess I'd got that idea from my parents, who probably got their information from the BBC and the Telegraph. I was gobsmacked to read the long list of civilian dead on both sides.

Channel 4 is my preferred news source on TV I have to say. The BBC annoyed me so much with all the emotive, beautiful pictures of Charlie before he began to show real signs of his illness.

Poor little chap, still thinking about him a lot today.

The "Troubles" were always incredibly well reported in The Observer. It just depends what you choose to read. I certainly knew about Loyalist Paramilititaries and the bias against Catholics in NI. Being widely read is a key to getting a balanced and informed view. Question your parents!

I think now sm drives too much reporting. Instead of journalist investigating and being experts in their fields, they just report Sm. There are some notable exceptions of course and the Fergal Walsh pieces have been accurate. So have the official court reports that everyone should take the time to read.

I never understand why anyone would give "opinion" writers the time of day - Katie Hopkins, Sarah Vine etc. Who needs their poison views? What do they do other than to be divisive and self-serving?

Subscribing to media outlets that have high quality journalists who, even if you don't agree with them, argue from a reasoned standpoint. It is important and the BBC is better then most. We would be worse off without it. SM is not a substitute.

Ceto Re:children's rights in the us , specifically medically..it's all very fuzzy and seems to vary from state to state and is very situational. I don't believe there is anything like the children's act I'm hearing about in the U.K..unless another American can shed more light. It really makes me uncomfortable. I was raised in a very fundie redneck household where as a child I had 0 rights to even my own body so it's something I have a strong reaction to, which is what I think drew me to this case.

on every article I go on just about, it seems most commenters are more on the "side" of the hospital and understand why it was never possible for Charlie ..including buzzfeed, which surprised me