Blah Blah

Yes, strange indeed, as this final hearing was to consider 'new' evidence. And a most recent scan would surely have qualified as new evidence, if independent doctors were presenting a counter. From what I understand, there was no 'new' treatment possibility anyway, as the American doctor concerned had spoke with GOSH back in December and it had been agreed back then that the treatment would have no level of impact to change prognosis. So the claim the parents make that treatment could have improved prognosis to the extent of the child leading a healthy life (had it been tried earlier), and that GOSH doctors somehow failed in their treatment, is false. It is quite clear that GOSH did consult with experts around the world as part of their treatment in the early stages of diagnosis, which is what you would entirely expect from a leading hospital. I don't think the public understands just how much cutting edge research emanates from our hospitals. The NHS employs some of the best experts in the world in many areas, feeding into some of the best global research networks.

I think the parents have though shown a contant inability to understand the prognosis. For example, the mother claimed that the child's head was growing when scans clearly show it wasn't. She also claimed he was responsive and could see when the medical evidence could show the opposite. So there is a constant challenge of belief from the parents throughout all the court cases. Obviously, they were going through immense pain themselves and that will often cloud thinking. And it is a normal human response to try and find any glimmer of hope. They have never acknowledged that this condition has no known cure.

I don't know why the hopsital's legal team had the latest scan results and not the parents. But that does not change the underlying apsects of the case, that there was no treatment that could help this child and stave off the inevitable. That is what this case was really about.

No the NHS is not free from that, which is why the case went to court four times and the NHS won the case every time. Why? Because infantile onset encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS) is degenerative and fatal in every case. There is no miracle treatment or cure for it.

TE44, the condition is degenerative in every case. In other words, the symptoms of the genetic disorder always result in muscle wasting and organ failure, always result in a shutting down of brain function. There was no long term prognosis of improvement, and the experimental treatment at best offered 10% for the muscles only. It offers nothing to address the genetic aspect of the illness, i.e the underlying cause. Your article is the parent's statement in which they reflect the conflicting views of their doctors and those of the hospital. It can not be a given that their view of their son's illness is a correct one. At no point do they ever, or have they ever mentioned the genetic aspect of his illness. The illness is called Infantile onset encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). The word depletion is the critical thing here. The defect hinders the mitochondria, which drives the energy of cells to function, replicate etc. The brain had stopped growing before showing signs of irreversable damage, yes - but there is no known treatment for that. This claim they have that their child could have lived and happy and normal life is just fantasy. That tells me that they do not understand his condition at all. As Edcam shows, these 'new' doctors, gave opinion without having seen any of the child's medical records. This is the problem. This case went to court four times (including the latest hearing). And on all four occasions, the court agreed with the hospital. If there had been any treatment out there that could have helped this child, he would have received it.

That is not quite true Capitals. There is no treatment on the planet that can halt or cure his condition, none. The experimental treatment he was being offered, would only have impacted on muscle wasting, and only by a small percentage. The parents in their press statement claimed that had he been given this treatment months ago, that he could have led a normal and healthy life. They too are also wrong. Of course they are not selfish. But they are misguided, and seem to have no understanding of the reality of the genetic disorder that Charlie is suffering from.

What we have to remember here is that Charlie's condition means that he will die, whether life support is removed or not. The experimental treatment being offered with the 10% 'improvement' refers to improvement in muscle response. It does not offer any solution to the underlying cause or progression of the muscle waste. It does nothing for the lack of brain growth and development. We give doctors the say we do because they are doctors, with expert knowledge that parents just don't have. The hypocratic oath requires doctors to hold the patients best interests above all else. That also means means sparing from prolonged suffering, protecting from futile intervention (sought out of desperation or otherwise), and allowing death to occur as gently as possible. And we have to remember that court action did not come about because of the latest offer of treatment abroad. It came because the parents always struggled to accept the prognosis that their son has an untreatable and degenerative condition. In this case, the parents do not have a better understanding of their child's condition than doctors, and therefore can never be the ones to make the final decision. That may sound harsh, but it is the child and his suffering that matters here. I think the comment made by someone above, that we now expect everything to be preventable, treatable and curable is right. We know that we all die one day, and hopefully some of us get to lead very long and healthy lives before that happens. But we seem to be not very good sometimes at facing death in others, especially those we are close to. That is a normal human response. Nothing is easy about this case for both doctors and parents alike.

I would think that the balcony forms part of the external walls which the council are responsible for. If it is the balcony outside a front door, then you are definitely not allowed to even put a gate there, let alone enclose it. Southwark has clear rules on keeping those areas clear that apply to all tenants and leaseholders alike.

There is a lack of medical understanding from the public on this Uncleglen. People threatening hospital staff or anyone are clearly in the wrong. The media angle seems to be one of parental right vs doctors. But this case is not about that at all. All of the arguments presented in court are medical ones, based on complex medical evidence. This I think is the problem with media involvement on this. No doctor or nurse ever takes the decision to withdraw life support easily. And even if kept on life supported indefinitely, this baby will still die. This is what those making threats don't understand.

This child is dying. Infantile onset encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS) has no cure and is fatal. He has reached the terminal stage and the life support does not stop the progression of the disease. MDDS starves muscles, kidneys, and brain of the energy needed to function. He also suffers from epileptic encephalopathy, which causes frequent seizures and has extensive, irreversible brain damage (both at the structure and cell levels). The parents were in a place where they had agreed to let go (having lost two court challenges). But then Trump and the Vatican and a physician that have not seen the relevant medical files made claims that have given false hope in a very difficult case. Taking a child to America, when the outcome will be the same, is just prolonging the innevitable. I completely understand the pain the parents are in, but they are in denial. It's time for them to let this poor child go.

https://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/developer-shows-off-shopping-complex-plans-ground-floor-aylesham-centre-housing-scheme/ Tiger Developments publish ground pans but not the residential plans because ?We know that the 20-storey aspect will take up a lot of attention, so we want to get the first step right.? This will be another one for Peckham Vision to challenge but why does any developer think 20 storey high buildings are ok in an area that has nothing that high? Are they not aware of previous successful local challenges to building height? Also the plans completely remove the car park around Morrisons. No point building all those lovely new shops if there is nowhere for people to park to shop in them. I wonder what Morrisons make of that too?

The difference UG us that it was a manifesto pledge, and all parties, as you are aware, offer policies that appeal to a level of self interest in those they think will vote for them. In return they are scrutinised on those pledges and have to make the case for how they will pay for them. The public then decide if they agree or not through the ballot box ?1bn to NI was not in any manifesto. It is a fee being paid in return for parliamentary support. That is something completely different.

The DUP bribe is shameful but May is damned if shes does and damned if she doesn't. But at every budget, any plans to take meals away from kids, to take fuel allowances away from the elderly, in fact any talk of cuts or more austerity, will be met with how easy it was to find ?1bn to buy DUP votes.

Just brilliant :D

It's not just butter, all food prices are up. Some of it is related to the fall in the pound, because we import more than half of our food.

I think it is quite clear those manifesto pledges were dropped because she will never get them through the house, and is merely saving her party the embarassment. Let's remember why May wanted this election. She needed an increased majority, mainly to outflank the power of backbench rebels. Although we are going for Brexit, the Tory party is still split over the issue. The only way of guaranteeing getting the Brexit she wants, was to increase that majority. Similarly, Hammond wanted the freedom to raise taxes, and scrap tax credits and enact a few other things that have been forced U-turns. Again, he needed an increased majority for the same reasons. Instead, those backbench rebels now have more power. There will have to be cross party consensus, or government will stagger and stumble. And on Brexit, even with the DUP on board, she is unlikely to have the support of those Scottish Tory MPs for a hard Brexit. I would not be surprsied if we do end up with another referendum, just on whether we stay in the single market or not.

But the money given to the Royal Family is a proportion of the money made by the Crown Estate, with the treasury keeping most of it. So while the Queen gets ?40 million, the treasury gets ?285 million. It's a myth that the money paid to the Monarchy is tax payers money. It is not.

It is over for May and Hard Brexit. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/09/ruth-davidson-planning-scottish-tory-breakaway-challenges-theresa/

I challenge this idea of pedestrians and 'right of way'. Most of us meander in a way that flows with everything around us. How many times have any of us been walking behind a slow moving pedestrian for example, unable to pass by, and feeling irritated by it. It's the irritation that leads to these arguments of right of way. We all think we should be able to get from a-b without having to slow down, or stop, or go around anything! Personally, if I see a 6 year trundling along the pavement on a bicycle, I step out of their way with a smile. Have I really been inconvenienced by doing that? Of course not. People need to just live and let live a little. There are far more important things to worry about.

Class is defined by background, culture and upbringing, which is linked to a self preserving establishment and heirarchy. And wealth is one measure amongst many others. That heirarchy exists in America as it does in any society. If you grow up in the Hamptons, you are going to have a whole range of opportunities that you will not have if you grow up in the Bronx. Ivy league universities are full of the kids of top lawyers, doctors, politicians and business CEOs. There is an establishment in America just as much as there is here. The origins may be different, but it exists all the same.

rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This thread is so revealing of the mindset of many > Conservative supporters. It speaks volumes. You also have to factor in the London experience. Go to he North East for example, and you won't see much meritocracy there. So much of this debate is shaped by the London factor. Yes there is opportunity here, and that one kid who grew up on an estate and did well at state school, in site of the general standard of the school, and got himself into a top university, again against the odds, and came to London etc, is just that one kid in thousands. Look around in any profession and ask how many of those at the top went to public school. Right there is the answer. We live in a plutocracy.

If Corbyn parachutes his son into a safe seat then he loses all credibility imo. Momentum are on the rocks too, split down the middle between Lansman and the hard left who have essentially been sidelined, as being a member of Momentum now requires also being a member of the Labour Party - a direct move to keep out those expelled former party members who were slowly starting to take over Momentum. I too wish I'd stuck with Yvette Cooper Otta, and on having the chance to chat with her recently, only felt that more. She really made Teresa may squirm at PMQs in a way that Corbyn failed to do so. And she was right. You can not trust anything Teresa May says. Political expediency is a primary requirement of being a Tory MP. The real fear here is twofold. The Tories will make this an election on Brexit, as too will the Libdems. They both will pick up seats from Labour. Corbyn has decided that a range of other issues are more important, but yet again, I think he has misjudged the public mood. You can bet that the Tories will field pro brexit candidates in those marginals they seek to gain that voted leave. And then there is everything else that is at risk. We will see further decimation of public services, further privatisation of the NHS, further cuts to welfare and that pension triple lock is probably no longer safe either. With an increased majority and these things as part of a manifesto, there will be nothing to stop them. What the Tories write in their Manifesto is extremely important. Cameron and Osborne deliberately left detail out of theirs, which is why they ran into trouble over tax credits and why Hammond ran into trouble over NI rises for the self employed. I would expect both of those things to be back on the table with an increased majority. And there will be people who swing to vote Tory, to ensure they get Brexit, who will be asking why they voted for all the other stuff when the impacts hit them. In that sense Corbyn is right to raise all the other issues, but his style is to speak from a revolutionary stance, and people are turned off by that. I get the sense that no-one is really listening to him. And he doesn't like engaging with MSM either. On Farron and his evangelical views. It's hard to know if that will impact on him. I suspect it's likely to have more of an impact on younger voters than older ones.

But the NUT voted in previous days not to affiliate with the Labour Party, because of the current leadership and there is evidence elsewhere of union support dropping away. There is also the issue of falling party donations. Do labour even have the money to effectively fight a General Election right now. Some think not. We seemed short of resources for the EU referendum campaign. Corbyn and his allies are in a world of their own. They don't look at polling, electoral data or any of the other things that every other party does to guage public support. Labour has continued to lose voting share in all regions but two since Corbyn took over. They think half a million members means a socialist revolution is coming - yet don't have any interest in the fact that 40% of that membership are in London and are predominently middle class. There is no mass rush to membership in the rest of the country. It will take a heavy electoral defeat to get the message through to them, and even then, they will blame everyone else but themselves. Momentum are already in a mess - split down the middle. On one side, the Lansman camp, who own Momentum and have ruled that to be a member of Momentum, you must also be a member of the Labour Party, and the other side, the hard left with it's numberous members expelled from the Labour Party, setting up a splinter group called Grassroots Momentum. Corbyn will be forced out, but that means a genuinely credible progressive left candidate, like Clive Lewis for example could stand. Dan Jarvis, Emily Thornberry, etc might come forward too. Corbyn has served his purpose, which is to open up the debate on how we make economics fairer and genuinely regenerate the economy for everyone. But he is not the person to deliver that.

If you keep U-Turning you never arrive anywhere. Agree that the LibDems will pick up marginals. Agree that Labour will be annihilated. Agree that Corbyn will try to stay on (backed by the membership) but he will be forced out, because the party will split and very few will stand with him, and no court will give the party name and ownership to him. As a Labour member, this is the only way to be rid of him, and as much as I hate the prospect of May till 2022, with Corbyn at the helm, we would have been looking at 2025 at least. So Labour finally gets itself a chance of a credible leader and rebuilds.

Sothwark completely messed up on the contract they negotiated - it's what happens when you put council employees up against hardened corporate contract negotiators and Lendlease fought tooth and nail to keep that contract secret (some of it was subsquently ruled to be published from court action). The whole thing is a disgrace from start to finish. And to think that some still serving council and cabinet members - like Fiona Colley, gave media interviews praising this whole development and the deal done with it - thinking far more about the increased level of council tax coming to the council coffers from these properties, along with the commercial business rates, than the wellbeing of ordinary borough residents that have been dsplaced. This is why it matters greatly, that local people continue to challenge every aspect of planning applications for the remainder of the Elephant and Castle redevelopment area, along with the Aylesbury estate redevelopment and the coming Old Kent Road area redevelopment plan. The worst thing about all of these redevelopments, is that they are creating stagnant ghost towns, where there is no community, no children playing, nothing - just bland investment flats and yet more shops. It's density and profit over meaningful architcture that actually improves peoples lives - and we've been there before.