Blah Blah

It is right to replace the former Blackberry's in use, because Blackberry is on it's way out of the market. But why iphone over ANY android platform? Apps are not cheap to develop either.

I think the use of technology makes sense, but there ARE cheaper alternatives to apple products for the same technological benefits. The same Fiona Colley reported at a past CLP meeting that Southwark Council faces a ?20 million black hole on social care funding next year. This might be something a local Labour Party branch might want to pursue as well - why the council appear to be going for the more expensive option in providing this technology? I personally would also like to know what other alternatives they considered.

And where does that leave David Davis in terms of negotiating a 'transition phase' to protect trade? To me, that 2019 line sounds like election talk. Still keeping with Brexit means Brexit.....

The problem is that leavers have no understanding of or interest in detail. Their world is one of black and white absolutes, where you only need to change one thing for the better, to change everything for the better. Take EU immigration for example. Belguim deports anyone who does not find a job within three months and it is perfectly within EU rules to do so. But how many leaves voters even know that. What has happened is that free marketeers like Farage, who want an end to regulation so that the barons can make even more money at the cost of the rest of us, have turned the EU into the bogeyman, the source of all woes, when in fact, it is our own successive governments that have created the economy we live within. The naivety of it all is truly astounding, perfectly illustrated here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmtRUB-gM4s&list=PLrgFLlOQBmlYSTvvlLXk6JqgRGsSFSN5z

Maybe we could ask why you can't show any positivity to the EU Keano? Works both ways.

I know enough about the condition to know how impaired his cognitive function is. I have never said the child is distressed. Physical discomfort is not the same thing as cognitive function. For the child to feel a bond, he needs a certain level cognitive awareness, the ability to judge something as 'familiar'. He can not see or hear. Once the RRM2B gene began to irreversably damage his brain, his ability to recognise touch and smell also became compromised. He is also heavily sedated, necessary to have control over the forced ventilation. And that sedation will not be lifted once the ventilation is removed. It is neccessary to ease what follows. All of those things put together, hopefully help you to understand why it really doesn't matter to him where he passes. It is for the parents bereavement this request was made, understandable of course, but the responsibility of the doctors is for the child first. And that includes having control over the final environment.

After rent arrears reach a minimum of eight weeks, you can serve a notice to seek possession. This will involve going to court where a magistrate will decide to either grant a possession order for eviction, grant a suspended possession order (common for social landlords where arrears have good reason, like benefits delays etc), or decline the possession order. With private property, you are highly likely to be granted a possession order for rent arrears, providing you follow the correct process for doing so. Once you have that order granted, you can instruct bailiffs to evict. It is worth throughout this process, trying to still reach the tenant and see what the problem is. It is also worth speaking to neighbours to see if the tenant has been seen or not. Has your property been abandoned for example? Or has your tenant any issues with the property, or some personal change of circumstance, such as loss of job or benefits? If they are not repsonding to you, then you have little choice but to evict. Some useful links; https://www.gov.uk/evicting-tenants/overview http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/advice/how-to-legally-evict-your-tenant

TE44, it is not in Charlie's interests to move him from pillar to post. He is not aware of anything around him. There is no bond. He has no cognitive understanding. Moving him to the parents house is purely for the parents benefit. There is a huge difference between a hospice and his parents home. A hospice is equiped, and has purpose built facilities and premises. Even the journey there will be very risky. Forced ventilation requires precision and constant monitoring. And the language of the parents is increasingly unfair. Today they claimed GOSH were guilty of brutality in not letting Charlie die at their home. Loz is right. The parents seem to now be dragging things out as long as possible. We would not put an animal through this. Every day that they drag this out, his organs fail a little more. The judge now needs to step in and set a date for the ventilation to be removed, and let this poor child go without any more suffering. And the parents need to accept it.

Because taking him anywhere is not that simple - crossed post with Loz but the practical issues are explained there. It also reported that the parents are asking for life support to be continued at their home, for days - so yet again, no agreement from them on withdrawing life support.

Underground parking would be good, as long as it is secure, and free to cosutomers for 2 hours as it is now. It sounds a though the deveoper would like to build as many high rises as it can get away with (hence the coyness on plans). There is one tower block at that hieght nearby (council owned). We shall see what the full plans propose in due course I guess. I also wonder if that number of new retail units can be filled. There is no doubt that Peckham could do with some additional stores though.

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.