Archie Battersbee thread 5

[henryhihat]

New thread...

Lots of displacement activity, there. The reality is unbearable, so an alternative narrative has to be found and clung to.

Sue and report what? The hospital did everything they could. Hollie would be laughed out of court and then vilified by the public for trying

Probably. Mum has said she doesn't have any proof his organs are failing and no one can give her any when asked. So if he does pass by himself you can see where that narrative will go...hopsital killed him blahhh.

Yes, they were done to be able to remember the dead person, that would have been the only image the family had. So sad.

I will stand corrected but my understanding is that the appeal to the Supreme Court was in relation to the decision of the Court of Appeal not to stay the withdrawal of treatment. They weren’t appealing the refusal of permission to appeal, because they have no right to. However the court of appeal made a substantive decision in relation to a stay of the order, which they could appeal.

I've seen refernces to the lad's guardian. Why would he have a guardian?

Sue and report what? The hospital did everything they could. Hollie would be laughed out of court and then vilified by the public for trying

Those thoughts won't enter her head. She'd just carry on appealing upwards.

Let's hope that when this is all over she can sit back and start to rationalise things.

But, there's the inquest and the funeral to get through, it could be some time before her life settles down (if it does).

@Mountainpika all children subject to court proceedings are allocated a guardian, for that purpose.

MN have asked us to be respectful, so maybe we shouldn't be speculating about something on Twitter.

Not sure if this has been asked.
Due to all the court case fiasco, the courts and doctors saying this isn't in Archie's best interest.
Why didn't they make him a ward of court?
It's obvious to anyone that this is about holly.

@Mountainpika, the guardian represents the child's best interests.

Has any hospice agreed to take him in?

@drinkingwineoutofamug - that's what his guardian is for. His interests are being represented.

This is tangential so apologies, but although 14 years old this Guardian article is quite instructive about Andrea Williams, now CEO of Christian Concern and the CLC (and her links with Nadine Dorries) following the C4 Dispatches documentary 'In God's Name'.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/may/21/fundamentallyflawed

However wrongheaded Hollie Dance may be about this, she is in the hands of people with a very longstanding agenda. I am grateful for the legal system that is prioritising the dignity of this poor child.

i don't believe that. I think the whole push for his death is in fact for his serums, his cells, his organs. There is no other resason to all of a sudden give him double vasopressin. He is not necrotic anywhere....he is very much alive all over

Above

That's a post from the Archie's Army page. This is the level of hideous behaviour....often Hollie herself is tagged. That group needs shutting down. They are trying to find out doctors names. Dangerous

To add: having a guardian is standard in court cases about the welfare of children. In most of them the child(ren) is/are able to express themselves to the guardian, who then advocates for what she/he thinks is best for them. In Archie's case the guardian will have to take a purely theoretical approach based on ethics and rights and any past evidence of what the child wants.

In the Alfie Evans and Charlie Gard cases, the child's guardian agreed with the hospital, as they do in this case too.

I suspect she is so far down this pathway now that she cannot turn back or admit defeat. This level of rage is hard to sustain and I fear she will crash and burn soon just at the point she needs to find some peace.

I don't like the idea we can't discuss things in the public eye because it's a difficult discussion or because it may mean saying negative things about someone who is having a really difficult time
I do agree we should t drag up "dirt" from the past
However I also think it's fine to discuss things in cases where the person being discussed has said or posted them personally - so they have put it or are putting it in The public eye
Linking to or stating information others have put out there as fact (which will have a bias) is dodgy ground imo

A thoroughly well balanced post which I very much agree with

While we mostly agree with the need for compassion, there's also the point that it can become dangerous if someone's seen to be above even the mildest criticism - dangerous for others, that is, because it can lead to abhorrent behaviour becoming accepted to the point it's normalised

And frankly I don't believe that helps anyone

She should have normal grief activities to sustain her- funeral planning, sorting his belongings, arguing with extended family over what his favourite colour is and whether to serve sausage rolls or sandwiches. She should be getting sweaty with the local authority who don't want a life size statue of her baby in the cemetery. She should be raging aghast at the cost of a glass coach pulled by horses.

All the usual stuff we fill our heads with, to distract us from the terrible truth.

No, she isn't. If she had the humility to say, "OK I've listened to all of the doctors, the nurses, the judges, and heard what they have to say, and I understand that it's the only way forward," EVERYONE would have sympathy for her and comfort her.

She's not a desperate mother trying her best for her child. To suggest that this is how a truly loving desperate mother behaves is an insult to all of those who have lost children without attacking, insulting, threatening and denigrating those caring for them.

On the subject of Hollie sueing this and that person once Archie's legally declared dead, I'll ask again who'd want to fund it?

I can't see it being CLC because there'll no longer be anything in it for them and they'll probably be hunting for the next person to use, and does anyone seriously imagine Hollie would use "her own" money which has been raised on GoFundMe?

£34,486 and counting on the GoFundMe.

BBC News that they are appealing again, if that fails can they appeal againto the Supreme Court etc,as this will be on a different reason ?

I think they'd seriously struggle to find lawyers to take that on, unless CLC decide it suits their agenda. Lawyers don't take on no-win no-fee cases unless there is a reasonable chance of winning.

Facebook has a lot to answer for.