What Case?

The CPS have placed the Aysha King case under review.

Excuse me?

What precisely has happened here? The parents of a child removed him from hospital in order to seek alternative treatment abroad. Is this now illegal? Er, no, it is not. The parents are the child’s legal guardians, so are responsible for his care. They have exercised that duty. They apparently took him away without consent. Excuse me? We now need the state’s consent to remove a child from hospital and seek treatment abroad? When did that legislation get Queenie’s signature? Er, no, actually we do not need the consent of the hospital.

No crime has been committed. There is no negligence no child cruelty – or any of the other hysterical claims made in newspaper headlines this past few days. In fact, no crime has been committed. So, in fact, there is no case. What there is, is a malevolent over-reaching state apparatus that has bullied, harassed and illegally detained a law-abiding couple who were doing no more than trying to seek the best possible treatment for their child. Following which, the Hampshire police abused the European Arrest  Warrant designed supposedly for criminals and terrorists to unlawfully detain law-abiding citizens going about their lawful business. In the face of the evidence of this outrageous abuse of power, the Hampshire Chief Constable remains unrepentant and refuses to apologise. Apologise? He should be sacked immediately with loss of all pension rights and made to crawl on his hands and knees over broken glass from Southampton to Spain to grovel in person to the victims of his behaviour, so heinous was the crime committed by his force, so vile was the abuse of power and the corruption of the rule of law.

Meanwhile, Spain demonstrates that it is no better by detaining these law-abiding citizens in prison.

Repeat after me; the state is not your friend, the state is not your friend, the state is not your friend. Indeed, the state is malignant, greedy, power-crazed and downright evil.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

19 Comments on What Case?

  1. Couldn’t agree more.

    The state hasn’t been our friend for a long long time, it will almost certainly never be so again.

    Pharmaceutical medicine is a killing machine, while alternatives are systematically
    crushed by laws to create a BIG PHARMA monopoly.

  3. Here is a child with a tumour known as medulloblastoma – a serious condition that is hard to treat, with only two options that have been shown to the general public.

    The treatment protocol on offer at Southampton General Hospital is called the packer regime and includes high dose radiotherapy to the entire neck, back, head and spine and a prolonged chemotherapy cycle with vincristine and cisplatin – all of which are cytoxic drugs with devastating side effects.

    The drugs cause hearing loss, neuropathy and kidney damage; and the long-term effects of the regime include pituitary gland deformity and secondary malignant tumours. Vox Political is advised that it is commonly known that unfortunately the regime often has devastating effects long term.

    The problem with medulloblastoma is that if even a small amount of tumour is left over after resection, the tumour can grow back very quickly; this is why the chemo- and radiotherapy is commenced so quickly after the tumour is removed.

    The other side effect of cranial resection arise from the fact that the entry port of the skull is not replaced, leaving a hole that – although sutured – can and does represent a serious risk of brain infection; also the pressure of the meningeal fluid is altered.

    The other treatment is proton beam therapy, a type of radiation therapy that uses beams of protons – or small parts of atoms – rather than high energy X-rays, as with conventional radiotherapy.

    The protons can be directed at a tumour more precisely than X-rays and unlike conventional treatments the beams stop once they hit the target, rather than carrying on through the body. Experts say this causes less damage to surrounding tissue and reduces side-effects.

    On a level playing field, the choice would be a no-brainer. But this isn’t a level playing field. The King family were refused the option of proton beam therapy by doctors at Southampton, apparently because of the cost – £100,000 per patient, although this appears to be based on the cost of sending Ashya to the USA, which is the most expensive country in which the treatment is provided.

    His family want him to have the proton beam treatment in the Czech republic, which is much cheaper, and intended to pay for the treatment themselves.

    This is where the story takes on a more sinister aspect, because the doctors at Southampton – along with the police – have decided to overrule one of the most important principles of healthcare – that the patient must consent to treatment.

    In the case of people aged under 16, a person with parental responsibility must give consent for treatment to to take place, unless the patient has the understanding and intelligence to appreciate what is involved.

    If the person with parental responsibility refuses treatment and doctors believe that decision could lead to death or severe permanent injury an application can be made to the court of protection to overrule them.

    Ashya’s parents did not consent to the treatment on offer. Who can blame them, when one considers the terrible and lasting side-effects that are likely, alongside the fact that a much less harmful treatment seemed to be available but was being denied to them?

    That is why they took their son out of the hospital and travelled to Europe – stopping in Spain on their way to the Czech Republic, where it seems they have arranged for treatment to take place. The diversion was in order to sell property there, in order to pay for the treatment.

    In these circumstances – and especially in the light of the fact that Ashya seems to be as well as can be expected at the moment, receiving treatment in a Spanish hospital – it is hard to understand why the hospital had him made a ward of court and Hampshire Police obtained a European Arrest Warrant on the grounds that the Kings were neglecting their son.

    The truth appears to be quite the opposite – Ashya would suffer more serious harm at the hands of the Southampton doctors.

    Parents Brett and Naghemeh King were arrested on Saturday, despite the fact that no crime has been alleged against them. Appearing in court in Madrid today, they refused to consent to extradition and a High Court judge in that country is now considering whether to grant bail.

    While it is reasonable to allege that Mr and Mrs King endangered their son by removing him from hospital, it must also be recognised that they were put into a situation where neither of the choices available to them were desirable and they had to choose what they believed to be the lesser of two evils.

    Now they are sitting in jail while the British authorities – both the NHS and the police – await their opportunity to seize their son and subject him to a process that may relieve the immediate danger to his life but will almost certainly – and irreparably – harm the quality of that life.

    And in the midst of all this, Downing Street has issued a statement in support of the British authorities, saying – with no apparent irony – that Ashya should receive “the very best medical care”.

  4. Perhaps if the doctors had been a little less dogmatic and arrogant in the first place then this would never have happened.

    The Czechs seem to be prepared to treat the boy, so it would have saved shedloads of money to just send him there in the first place wouldn’t it?

    From recent experience, the NHS is full of tossers who make crap decisions.
    My last [blog post] ..Cameron gets tough with Jihadists…

  5. A crime was committed here and Misconduct in public office seems to cover it –

    link to en.wikipedia.org

  6. Even the CleggMoron is having doubts about the use of his beloved European Arrest Warrant.

    • I noticed that. He also said that the relevant authorities – police and NHS must do what is necessary. Er, they are the ones that overreached their authority. And as a crime has not taken place, there is no need for any police involvement – apart from disciplinary action for everyone involved in this affair.

      • The thing is, it is Clegg’s responsibility as a politician to ensure that these circumstances are fully considered and that the law is framed so that abuses like this cannot happen.

        I am certain that these kinds of scenarios were put forward in debate but Clegg – spineless wanker that he is – took no notice.

        Now the thing is proved to be corrupt and a tool of zealots in Social Services (rather than for the prosecutions of just terrorists and kiddie-fidders, remember) Clegg is retreating from his position the same as the rest of them.

        Shame on you Clegg. You’re supposed to be a bloody liberal and you have instead played a direct and significant part in the eventual persecution of these innocent people via the law you supported.

      • It reads to me that the CPS will be reviewing the behaviour of the hospital and the Hampshire constabulary…… 😉

  7. theonlygoodeuisadeadeu // September 2, 2014 at 19:33 //

    The King family were trying to avoid their child becoming a victim of iatrogenisis, i.e. Death By Doctoring.
    link to en.wikipedia.org
    I wouldn’t be at all surprised if iatrogenisis was the biggest single cause of death in the UK.

  8. What we are witnessing is nothing less than the screeching sound of vast numbers of public servants now trying to save face and – more importantly – thier arses.

    What started out as a straightforward piece of NHS bullying of some parents, which resulted in an EAW being issued by the unquestioningf cretins at Hants Police and the CPS, which resulted in a completely innocent family who had performed NO CRIME being seperated from thier sick child and arrested like common criminals.

    I salute Mr & Mrs King for thier actions. If they had not whisked the family to Spain immediately and posted thier movie on social media, Portsmouth Council would have declared the child a Ward of Court (in fact they did, but the family had gone to quick to stop them) and this would have been transferred to the notorious Court of Protection, where gagging orders of family, friends and press are routine, and the bullying of the Kings by the NHS and Portsmouth Social Services could have continued unimpeded.

    But the Kings didn’t read the script. They exposed this appalling treatment to public gaze, and now – 4 days later in the face of huge public and media outrage – they are foerced to retreat.

    Already the fuckers are covering thier arses and blaming each other. The Doctors are defending thier interference, the Police are blaming the doctors, the doctors are blaming Portsmouth CC for the EAW, Portsmouth CC are blaming the doctors for exaggerating the medical risks – like ferrets in a bag they are fighting to save thier arses now. Watching all the faux-apologies, declarations of inquiries are a complete smokescreen.

    Nobody is going to be disciplined. Nobody is going to lose thier job. Nobody is going to be charged with laying false charges. Eventually it will go to court and be settled with the Kings – out of the public purse, but none of the fuckers who carried out this abuse of the King’s rights or abused the legal process will have to pay a penny or even say sorry.

    And that is why the people have no confidence in public servants anymore. The world expects bankers to be garrotted over trading losses, but when a Chief Policeman abuses the law and the EAW he keeps his job, keeps his pension, and certainly won’t have to admit he was wrong and say sorry.

    I am sickened by this case. Is this the democratic society and the rule of law we are supposed to be defending?

    • Ted Treen // September 3, 2014 at 12:10 //

      “…Is this the democratic society and the rule of law we are supposed to be defending?..”

      Of course not. Democracy in the UK is but an illusion; a sop thrown to the populace to make them feel they have a power and a say in things. In reality it has long since been manipulated by the ruling élite, who merely suborn the electorate with benefit payments & pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.

      Similarly, most of our law is there to ensure that those of us who choose to work to support ourselves can continue to be treated as milch cows by the same élite, and even the few unequivocal laws that might have accidentally strayed onto the statute books are subsequently ‘interpreted’ by one bewigged buffoon or another, and generally ‘interpreted’ in a way which means “heads, they win – tails, we lose”.

      Our law has rarely had anything to do with justice – ignoring the mealy-mouthed equivocations and sophistry from politicos & establishment mouthpieces – and is generally concerned with protection of property – i.e. transferring wealth to the élite, and having transferred it, ensuring it stays there.

  9. More than anything else, and tragic as the individual circumstances of this appalling case are, this whole business has shone a very unwelcome spotlight on a much wider malaise in our society, i.e. how our state-funded institutions now view us – the people whom they are ostensibly supposed to serve. They clearly no longer regard their role as “public servants,” there to offer the kind of essential services which are necessary but not always viable as business models if everyone is to benefit from them, but instead regard themselves as “public authorities,” with the emphasis on the “authority” bit, whose function is to corral, control and instruct the public what to do, what to think, what to say and how to behave in virtually every aspect of life, including crucial ones like this and, as we have seen, to ensure that their instructions are obeyed, by force if necessary.

    No wonder, as the story broke and public condemnation increased, the CPS decided to drop all charges, as they have now done. The sound of backpeddling has never been so loud or seemed so urgent, and I’ve no doubt that this is part of the aforementioned scrabbling to cover their tracks in the hope that over time the public will forget this unfortunate incident which threatened so dangerously to show the true psyche which drives our public institutions. It’s unfortunate that for huge swathes of the public this will be the case – next week they’ll all have moved off their angry chair and will be more concerned again about who will be the England captain or who’ll be shagging who in Eastenders. But not all of us. For some of us, particularly those on here, this story will remain as one of those “told you so,” moments which showed how right our cynicism about our public services has always been; and for just a few others, it might be a turning point whereby they can no longer deny that, as LR has so often said, the State really is not their friend.

    Public authorities of all kinds are fast becoming subjects of exactly the same kind of contempt, dislike and mistrust as are politicians, and for the same reasons. If there’s one good thing to come out of this sad story, it must surely be that it may well accelerate this process still further.

    • Ted Treen // September 3, 2014 at 14:19 //

      Agreed, especially with your last paragraph, but I fear too many will continue to be distracted by the “Bread & Circuses” approach of our current élite.

      “Until they become conscious they (the proles) will never rebel, and until after they they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.”
      – George Orwell, 1984

  10. Starship Fighter // September 4, 2014 at 12:09 //

    I first heard of this story over the weekend on the Radio 4 news. Coincidentally I had been talking with a dear friend the evening before about his Father’s death from a brain tumour in the late 80’s and how his parents had been drawn in by a quack charlatan. This had resulted in them travelling to Mexico numerous times during his illness for some kind of expensive, wacky treatment which ultimately meant that my friend was not with his father during his last months, leaving him angry and resentful throughout much of his teenage years. When we heard this story we were expecting it to be either a religious objection to treatment or else a desire for the boy to be treated by a similarly wacky charlatan that had relieved my friend’s family of much of their money and their last precious months with his father, and true to form the BBC news reporter described the treatment as ‘controversial photon beam therapy’. We rolled our eyes hard and decried the parents for their irresponsibility. However, a small amount of googling later it became apparent that ‘controversial photon beam therapy’ is a perfectly normal, acceptable and successful treatment for tumours like those suffered by Aysha King, but just not one that the NHS believes is good value for money. It seems that the BBC were operating fully in their capacity of the mouthpiece of the state in this case, trying desperately to spin the story as the NHS, social services and the police would like it to be spun, heavily implying that the parents were putting this poor boy in jeopardy through their actions.
    It is often said that the BBC has a liberal bias. It seems that in this case it attempted to smear the parents of Aysha King in support of a corrupt, overreaching state to the detriment of every single parent in the country. I usually believe that the BBC is generally more reliable than the privately owned media as it does not have to defer to commercial concerns. This case proves that it is quite prepared to smear through innuendo at the behest of the state, which to my mind is a far more dangerous situation.

    • The BBC is staffed almost exclusively by arts graduates. These people struggle to understand even the most basic science, so they’ve taken to replacing journalistic due diligence with talking head “experts” who are chosen mainly on their availability, rather than actual expertise in a subject.

      (Remember: this is the same channel that wheeled a *taxi driver* into the studio. Not a single member of staff realised the poor chap wasn’t Guy Kewney.)

      In this case, it’s clear they just took the word of the NHS staff involved in the matter at face value, without bothering to check any of the facts.

      Unfortunately, so did almost every other news outlet, so the BBC are in distressingly good company.

    • The BBC has ‘institutional’ bias. That is, it has undue respect to large and established organisations (notably, though not exclusively, the public and third sectors.. as an undercurrent of anti-corporate feeling tempers their respect for business). This means that the NHS and the likes will always be believed.. the police and social services will be parroted. Above all, the government of the day, and the established opposition, will get an easy ride.

      It is the voice of the establishment. It always has been, and it always will be.

Comments are closed.