Seriously ill boy removed from hospital by his parents.
- Thread starter terrypin
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Irresponsibility isn't a crime.
This is from the article on the BBC News website. (notice I have boldened the pertinent words for you.
It's a typical example of those in authority reckoning "they know best" (in this case doctors in Southampton, the CPS and Hampshire Police)
Sponsored Links
If the facts the family represents are true, yea.
Better the slightly higher risk of death, to avoid the kid growing up retarded and crippled for life.
N
Newboy
I think I've learnt a lesson.
I (and many others I suspect) read the initial reports which included the words Jehovah's witness' and jumped to a load of conclusions.
When a chief constable describes the situation as "not right" and the PCC questions the information given by the hospital to the police you start to wonder who had the best interests of the child at heart.
Interesting to note that the health authority is starting to come out with the usual backside covering type of statements that are usually seen when an public body has got it wrong. (there I go again jumping to conclusions!)
Hope the young lad gets whatever medical treatment is available to help him.
I (and many others I suspect) read the initial reports which included the words Jehovah's witness' and jumped to a load of conclusions.
When a chief constable describes the situation as "not right" and the PCC questions the information given by the hospital to the police you start to wonder who had the best interests of the child at heart.
Interesting to note that the health authority is starting to come out with the usual backside covering type of statements that are usually seen when an public body has got it wrong. (there I go again jumping to conclusions!)
Hope the young lad gets whatever medical treatment is available to help him.
Black Adder, can you explain (in simple terms everyone can understand) How the CPS have dropped all criminal proceedings against the King family, if they weren't charged in the first instance?? I always thought in this country, you were innocent until found guilty. I also thought the CPS couldn't start criminal proceedings unless someone had been charged?
This is why some people are asking very pointed questions to the police.
Statements made by the police, indicate that they obtained the warrent on grounds of neglect, but also said that the family wouldnt necessarly be charged with this.
The CPS have so far (unless I am out of date) refused to actually clarify if and what charges were made. I suspect that after the tribal asian rape cases, they are in panic mode and went to far the other way.
Heads could roll (though being public services probably not, and they will all get payrises).
The term 'criminal proceedings' covers a multitude of circumstances and not just charging a person with an offence.
There are other ways to instigate the commencement of criminal proceedings without a formal charging process. For example, a summons is another method of bringing a person before a court - the person would never have been 'charged' with the offence(s) [albeit the matter(s) is/are put to the person by the court at first appearance]
In the same way as a summons is applied for, an arrest warrant also needs an 'information' to be laid before the court.
The court then decides whether to grant the summons or warrant based on that 'information.'
The laying of such an 'information' counts as the commencement of criminal proceedings in the strictest sense.
The normal process for a European Arrest Warrant [in this case an arrest - not a conviction EAW] is somewhat the same. However, the police will always seek the earliest advice from The CPS who will direct their actions.
As a general rule, The CPS will ask the police to submit an advice file and The CPS will then direct the police to obtain a normal domestic (UK) warrant for the alleged crime. Once issued by a court (following the laying of the 'information' mentioned above) to the police, it is normally the role of The CPS to decide if an application for a European Arrest Warrant is justified and, if so, The CPS apply to the court (not necessarily the same on which issued the domestic warrant) for an EAW.
The court have to satisfy the criteria necessary for the issue of an EAW and, if satisfied, they issue one.
That EAW is then usually circulated in the normal way [via Interpol etc.]
All of this process can be described as the commencement of criminal proceedings.
Whilst the police appear to be the butt of the criticism here, the police would have acted on CPS advice and that, in itself, would have been based on the information supplied to the police by The NHS.
Normal procedure would then have been for The CPS to have directed police and for The CPS themselves to then apply to the court for the EAW.
The Judge/Magistrate must then have agreed to issue it.
FWIW, the police are between a rock and a hard place here. They are only responsible for collating the information (evidence) and, in this case, that will be wholly based on what The NHS have said. The police then present it to The CPS. Once done, the matters are for The CPS to decide.
Aside from the question as to whether this was a sledgehammer to crack a nut (that sledgehammer presumably having been wielded by The CPS - not the police), the key issue is if the police (and CPS) had done nothing and the child had died en route to Spain, what would have been said then?
All just IMHO of course.
There are other ways to instigate the commencement of criminal proceedings without a formal charging process. For example, a summons is another method of bringing a person before a court - the person would never have been 'charged' with the offence(s) [albeit the matter(s) is/are put to the person by the court at first appearance]
In the same way as a summons is applied for, an arrest warrant also needs an 'information' to be laid before the court.
The court then decides whether to grant the summons or warrant based on that 'information.'
The laying of such an 'information' counts as the commencement of criminal proceedings in the strictest sense.
The normal process for a European Arrest Warrant [in this case an arrest - not a conviction EAW] is somewhat the same. However, the police will always seek the earliest advice from The CPS who will direct their actions.
As a general rule, The CPS will ask the police to submit an advice file and The CPS will then direct the police to obtain a normal domestic (UK) warrant for the alleged crime. Once issued by a court (following the laying of the 'information' mentioned above) to the police, it is normally the role of The CPS to decide if an application for a European Arrest Warrant is justified and, if so, The CPS apply to the court (not necessarily the same on which issued the domestic warrant) for an EAW.
The court have to satisfy the criteria necessary for the issue of an EAW and, if satisfied, they issue one.
That EAW is then usually circulated in the normal way [via Interpol etc.]
All of this process can be described as the commencement of criminal proceedings.
Whilst the police appear to be the butt of the criticism here, the police would have acted on CPS advice and that, in itself, would have been based on the information supplied to the police by The NHS.
Normal procedure would then have been for The CPS to have directed police and for The CPS themselves to then apply to the court for the EAW.
The Judge/Magistrate must then have agreed to issue it.
FWIW, the police are between a rock and a hard place here. They are only responsible for collating the information (evidence) and, in this case, that will be wholly based on what The NHS have said. The police then present it to The CPS. Once done, the matters are for The CPS to decide.
Aside from the question as to whether this was a sledgehammer to crack a nut (that sledgehammer presumably having been wielded by The CPS - not the police), the key issue is if the police (and CPS) had done nothing and the child had died en route to Spain, what would have been said then?
All just IMHO of course.
Criminal proceedings aside for the moment, I just don't understand their logic, other than to create such a swell of public opinion that they managed to force the issue and get the proton beam treatment, which it seems they have managed to do. But we don't yet know if the treatment is even suitable for the boy.
Why would anyone subject their sick child to a journey of hundreds or thousands of miles on the basis (reputedly) of selling a foreign property to finance the treatment? It's not as if the sale was imminent such that the funds would be immediately available. Also, as yet, I haven't heard any doctors reports that the boy is suited to the treatment. I understand the parents are desperate to give him the best they can, but where is the professional opinion confirming that?
So was it their intention all along to create such a furore that authorities felt duty-bound to agree to the treatment regardless of who ends up paying for it, whether it is beneficial or not? The press reports have decreased now so it is hard to keep track but it does raise those questions for me. Something doesn't quite ring true.
Why would anyone subject their sick child to a journey of hundreds or thousands of miles on the basis (reputedly) of selling a foreign property to finance the treatment? It's not as if the sale was imminent such that the funds would be immediately available. Also, as yet, I haven't heard any doctors reports that the boy is suited to the treatment. I understand the parents are desperate to give him the best they can, but where is the professional opinion confirming that?
So was it their intention all along to create such a furore that authorities felt duty-bound to agree to the treatment regardless of who ends up paying for it, whether it is beneficial or not? The press reports have decreased now so it is hard to keep track but it does raise those questions for me. Something doesn't quite ring true.
There is of course another possible reason for seeking publicity in the way that they did...
The hospital apparently threatened (or according to the hospital they 'mentioned') that the child would/could be taken into care should the parents not accede to the medical demands of the hospital doctors...
In that case it is almost certain that the UK's notorious secret family courts would have prevented any reporting of the case, and if the family had spoken out they would have been jailed - thus negating the effect of publicity over the case!
It seems now that they took the only decision they could to address the problem of when a parent disagrees with authority over the care of their child!
And don't think this issue doesn't affect all parents...
How long before those of us weighing up the pros and cons of various vaccinations are threatened in a similar way if we as parents don't comply?
The hospital apparently threatened (or according to the hospital they 'mentioned') that the child would/could be taken into care should the parents not accede to the medical demands of the hospital doctors...
In that case it is almost certain that the UK's notorious secret family courts would have prevented any reporting of the case, and if the family had spoken out they would have been jailed - thus negating the effect of publicity over the case!
It seems now that they took the only decision they could to address the problem of when a parent disagrees with authority over the care of their child!
And don't think this issue doesn't affect all parents...
How long before those of us weighing up the pros and cons of various vaccinations are threatened in a similar way if we as parents don't comply?
That may be so. As yet we don't know IF he can be treated this way, let alone what the outcome may be. And I still don't agree that their actions were in his best interests - the trip alone could have killed him. What would the opinions have been in that instance?
But what would the opinions have been in the instance that the child had been taken into care and not received the appropriate treatment?
Oh that's right - we wouldn't be able to express an opinion because we wouldn't have heard about it due to the UK's secret family courts!
Southampton Hospital Switchboard has been inundated by abusive telephone calls from members of the public, staff have been accosted and verbally insulted and abused, abusive emails have been sent to the Hospital and Senior Staff members,
One Cancer Specialist recieved an Email saying " I hope you all die of Cancer"
A person was removed from the Childrens Medical section after verbally abusing Staff.
All down to the "The Power of the Press" !!!
The King Family are now considering legal action against Southampton Hospital / Hampshire Police for wrongful arrest, defamation, and false imprisonment
They are lucky Aysha survived the journey to Spain or they would be facing a charge of Manslaughter now.
One Cancer Specialist recieved an Email saying " I hope you all die of Cancer"
A person was removed from the Childrens Medical section after verbally abusing Staff.
All down to the "The Power of the Press" !!!
The King Family are now considering legal action against Southampton Hospital / Hampshire Police for wrongful arrest, defamation, and false imprisonment
They are lucky Aysha survived the journey to Spain or they would be facing a charge of Manslaughter now.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- Lincsbodger
- General Discussion
