Image 01 Image 03

UK Police Threaten to ‘Act Upon’ Social Media Posts Referencing Alfie Evans or the Hospital

UK Police Threaten to ‘Act Upon’ Social Media Posts Referencing Alfie Evans or the Hospital

In case you needed another reason to be thankful for the American Revolution…

Are we still considering the UK part of western civilization? Because this is what statist countries do, but I repeat myself.

Alfie Evans is the almost two-year-old suffering from a degenerative neurological condition. A judge ruled that because most of his brain is not functioning properly, Evans would be removed from life support.

Pope Francis intervened, Italy granted Evans citizenship and had private transport and a hospital bed waiting for him. Yet still, the judge refused to allow Evans to leave Alder Hey Hospital. In their last and final legal opportunity, the judge again denied Alfie’s parents permission to take their sick child elsewhere for care saying it’s in the best interest of the baby to die at Alder Hey. Alfie’s parents are not allowed to take him home because the judge believes they’re a flight risk.

Can’t have a child sentenced to suffocate and starve to death by the NHS prove he’s able to live despite their abhorrent decision, you see.

So far, baby Alfie has made it 36 hours and counting off of life support.

Protestors have surrounded the hospital and some reports say as many as 30 guards are stationed outside and throughout the hospital to protect staff and ensure Alfie’s parents don’t make a break for it with their baby.

Now, local law enforcement has threatened to ‘act upon’ individuals commenting about the horrific situation on social media.

In Internet Land, words like ‘tyranny’ and ‘fascism’ are so overused and misapplied that they’ve practically lost all meaning. But this is as tyrannical as anything: a government has decided a child must die “with dignity” (which is just a bullshit term used to whitewash advocating for the death of an undesirable) and is now threatened to punish any private citizen who objects.

As an added bonus, a British man was sentenced to 8 months in jail for flipping a traffic camera the bird and driving with a laser jammer.

There is no free speech in the UK. Not anymore.

And be sure to remember all of this next time people in our country sing the praises of the British healthcare system and government. Because you can bet your bottom dollar this is where the U.S. is headed unless we experience a quick and swift change of course.

Terrifying. All of it.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.



regulus arcturus | April 25, 2018 at 5:05 pm


Britain is lost.

JusticeDelivered | April 25, 2018 at 5:28 pm

Is this a worldwide ban on speach?

Britain is a full blown fascist police state. Aside from death camps, there is no substantial difference between Britain and Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy. And with the rising power of anti-semitic Muslims, the camps are sure to follow.

Canada, Australia and New Zealand are pretty far down the same road. We need to get free of them. Canadians are a bigger threat to us than Mexicans or the drug cartels. Trump’s wall should be on the Canadian border.

Good thing some of my ancestors were involved in the effort to free us from British rule. The British seem to have forgotten all about their history, from Magna Carta to the Glorious Revolution.

I am re-posting my comment from an early thread in response to someone that made the statement that ACA was needed because insurance companies ration care and deny coverage.

Several things wrong with your comment (and common and missinterepted talking point)

1) There is no qualified immunity for health insurance company or employees as compared with government employees,
2) insurance companies make their money via maintaining or increasing market share. Denying coverage causes bad publicity, bad customer relations and puts serious dents in market share which is the real driver of profitability.
3) The insurance companies are not denying treatment., they may be denying coverage , but the cant deny treatment.
4) For those who remember Hillarycare, There was numerous criminal statutes that applied when healthcare providers engaged in practices to circumvent the anticipated bottlenecks that universal healthcare would create.

The British have fallen, and they can’t get up.

Somebody slap a DNR order on them. Maybe they need the Liverpool Care Pathway to urge them along.

This should be a very clear reminder that the concept of true free speech (even eroded as it may be at this time) is a fairly unique concept. Much like our right to bear arms our rights to free speech are what make America and frankly, yes, it makes us better than most of the free world.

But, but, but…. the Brits make TV shows that gives PBS viewers erections and we all get to pay for them (the TV shows, not the erections).

“judge ruled that because most of his brain is not functioning properly,”

Slippery slope…Couldn’t this be said about most liberals? 🙂

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to rduke007. | April 25, 2018 at 6:36 pm

    Yes, that is already true of liberals!


    Aarradin in reply to rduke007. | April 26, 2018 at 3:56 am

    …and virtually all “judges”.

    As sympathetic as I am, this is yet another incident in the long-running war on language. His brain isn’t merely “not functioning properly”. Most of the volume where his brain should be is filled by water. His brain stem is still there i.e. involuntary functions like breathing, and that’s “most of the way” rather than fully, it would seem… but this is way beyond “not functioning properly”.

    It’s sad reading, but nonetheless, mankind has yet to invent a medical treatment that can cope with something on that scale.

      Observer in reply to JBourque. | April 26, 2018 at 10:02 am

      That’s not really the point. If his brain is mostly gone and the remaining part is mush, then giving him further treatment in Italy couldn’t possibly hurt him. Yet the U.K. authorities are refusing to allow the child to be taken from the U.K. hospital on the grounds that further treatment would be not only futile, but also “unkind and inhumane.”

      But it can’t possibly be “unkind and inhumane” to the child, since the U.K. authorities say that he can’t perceive or feel anything in his condition. So why are they still refusing?

      It’s about control. The U.K. is asserting the state’s right to control the child’s life, over the wishes of the child’s parents. That’s the issue.

      And BTW, the state is also insisting that the parents accept the U.K. doctors’ opinions about the child’s condition as irrefutable fact. But what if they’re wrong? Medical “experts” get things wrong all the time. Just this past week, there were reports of how the long “settled science” of shaken baby syndrome has recently been debunked. Seems the “expert” medical opinions were not so expert after all. And how many innocent people have gone to prison for crimes they didn’t commit because the FBI’s “arson science experts” or “hair analysis experts” testified to juries about “scientific findings” that were later revealed to be total b.s.?

      The condition of the baby’s brain may be just as the U.K. doctors say, or it may not. But the parents should be able to take their baby out of that hospital and get another opinion, if they wish to do so.

        Robert Arvanitis in reply to Observer. | April 26, 2018 at 10:06 am

        Yes. That’s what dirigistes ALWAYS do.

        I recognize your shaken baby syndrome angle. Perhaps you posted to that effect on some other website. It’s not the point. This is not an academic debate about brain wiring. If the white matter of the brain has become liquefied, a physical situation measured with a physical scan, that’s not an issue of “medical opinion”. The only options are stupidity, unprofessional behavior, or fraud.

        Well? It’s not a case of one doctor, it’s a case of a bunch of doctors coming to identical conclusions. Which is it?

          Observer in reply to JBourque. | April 26, 2018 at 12:36 pm

          All brain scans are interpreted by the doctors who view the scans. Sometimes all the doctors agree on what they see, sometimes they don’t. The scans are pictures, and the meaning of the pictures are interpreted by the doctors who view them.

          And where in my comment did I say it was only one doctor’s opinion? I referred to the U.K. doctors, plural. They apparently all agree with one another about the extent of the brain loss/damage. As I said, they may be correct in their assessment. But if the parents wish to seek other doctors’ opinions outside the U.K. system, they should have the right to do that.

    Arminius in reply to rduke007. | April 26, 2018 at 6:27 pm

    “’judge ruled that because most of his brain is not functioning properly,’

    Slippery slope…Couldn’t this be said about most liberals?”

    “Bob Hope on Democrats”

Hang on, the notice says “any offences, including malicious communications and threatening behaviour, will be investigated, and where necessary will be acted upon”. What’s your objection to that? There is not a police force in the USA that would not issue the exact same warning. It’s true that the UK doesn’t have the same protections for the freedom of speech that we do, but the first amendment does not protect threats, harassment, defamation, or any other offences just because they’re committed on social media.

    The problem is there have already been prosecutions of political speech

    scaulen in reply to Milhouse. | April 25, 2018 at 7:09 pm

    The threats are to show up and help the parents take their child out from under armed guard so he can brought to the Italian consulate. Italy has offered to care for him as England is no longer willing to. So the police are more interested in policing the internet of bad words then a child’s life. As for Schiavo I really don’t remember any armed guards enforcing the right to live or die.

      “The threats are to show up and help the parents take their child out from under armed guard so he can brought to the Italian consulate.”

      I’m going to use an especially large helping of understatement and simply say, that’s well beyond merely calling the doctors and nursing staff nasty names.

The same thing happened with Terry Schiavo, and the police in Florida took the same attitude to any threats made on the net.

The English need to mount an armed insurrection against their government. I pray for them.

As someone who stood on the side of the road for hours trying to bring awareness to the plight of the Pelletier family, all I can say is be vigilant. Medical fascism is already here in the US and must be quashed wherever it rears its ugly head.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to labrat. | April 26, 2018 at 3:22 pm

    That case went beyond malpractice and was simply a state sponsored kidnapping.

    Considering the issue was caused by a “research” psychiatrist who was still in residency and had stated that (regardless of the massive research that to the contrary) she did not believe that the condition that Justina had been diagnoses with and had a grant funded research project that they forced Justina into.

    As I have said before I have been a nurse for 20+ years and every physician and Nurse who participated in that travisty should lose their ability to practice and be jailed.

The Uk has been in decline since Maggie! clear proof the decline is ongoing.

This rank alarmism is unseemly and deceptive.

a British man was sentenced to 8 months in jail for flipping a traffic camera the bird and driving with a laser jammer.

He was not. He was incarcerated for trying to hide evidence by throwing his jammer in a river.

The supercilious gestures are not a crime even in England; they were what brought him to the attention of law enforcement.

The guy’s an idiot. But he wasn’t jailed for being an idiot, either.

Act upon this, scum. Can’t believe the world is gonna sit on its fat ass while the powerful starve a sick baby to death before its eyes…again.

Makes me ashamed to be here.

And this is England? Seems more like China or Nazi Germany!

England never HAD freedom of speech as Americans understood it. Please enjoy and appreciate the freedoms you enjoy.

    Aarradin in reply to JBourque. | April 26, 2018 at 3:54 am

    yeah, but they never got around to actually writing their Constitution out. And, of course, neither did they write down what their actual Rights were.

    Now, they have none at all.

Someone ought to remind the British (and their police) that this nonsense is why Americans have the right to own guns.

“…any offences, including malicious communications and threatening behaviour, will be investigated, and where necessary will be acted upon”.

I wonder if this will apply to the Italian government. They gave the child Italian citizenship to facilitate Alfie’s transfer to Italy and even offered to provide a military air ambulance. They have threatened to charge all involved with the murder of an Italian citizen if they removed Alfie from life support. Which they have done.

Milhouse has asked who can possibly object to the above tweet. I can. The police and the legal establishment in the UK have adopted the position that if you do something that’s legal with the wrong motives, you perfectly legal communication can become “malicious” if they don’t like why you did it.

“‘…If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.’

…It should be obvious now that whatever the Met’s gobbledegook may mean, this is nonsense. There is no offence of having an unlawful reason for doing something. Thought-crime does not exist in English law.

Does all this matter? Why, you may ask, are you wasting our time on a lengthy and frankly rather boring dissection of a website that was probably written by a Met PR person who has just worded a couple of sentences rather clumsily?

I think it matters quite a lot. Most people have only a fairly sketchy idea of the criminal law. People look to the police for guidance on what is and isn’t a crime. They won’t get it from this; or, which is even worse, they will get it. Despite its many failings the Met still has a reputation as a reasonably efficient, impartial and reliable upholder of the law. Padding out its website with gibberish does not enhance that reputation. It is even worse when, if you do manage to discern some meaning from the garbled prose, it fundamentally mis-states the law.

So a badly written website misleads the public and damages the reputation of the Metropolitan Police. That does matter.

There is another problem. People reading the website, or more likely the extract that has been spread around the internet in the last few days, will quite understandably conclude that it means what it appears to say: that you can be prosecuted for doing something legal because of your “reasons for doing it.” They can hardly be blamed for believing that “thought-crime” is a reality in English law, after all the Metropolitan Police says that it is…”

This isn’t actually too far off from the courts that are unconstitutionally blocking executive order banning entry from certain countries, mostly Muslim majority countries, from entry into the US. It’s perfectly legal; even plaintiffs suing the government over the executive order have admitted that it would be perfectly legal if Obama or had she won Clinton had issued the exact same travel order. But because Trump committed thought-crime and wrong-speak it’s illegal for Trump to do what would be perfectly legal for any President that they approve of.

Margaret Thatcher really was the Last Man in England.

Robert Arvanitis | April 26, 2018 at 7:13 am

For the Anglosphere, be of good cheer. Recall that Iberia was lost to barbarism for 700 years until it was liberated.
Likewise, Islam got to the very gates of Vienna before being repulsed.
And yet again, as in the two World Wars, America now leads the restoration against statists and dirigisme.
England, thanks to Brexit, is free of the baleful EU. Soon enough the damage will be corrected.

I imagine there is some ego involved here as well. There would be egg on a few faces if Alfie went to Italy and was cured, not to mention the British having to justify its medical system that is willing to kill, in the name of efficiency, the otherwise curable.

    From what I’ve heard of the medical details, there is little risk of that. It’s a very sad case.

    No. Don’t misrepresent the medical issues involved herein.

    From what I understand of the medical diagnosis, he will ALWAYS be on 100% care, and a vegetable (if we can still use that non-Politically Correct, unscientific term).

    There is life, but not consciousness or intelligence. Medical ethicists have fighting over the right course of actions in these circumstances for decades.

    He will not “recover” from his underlying condition.

      I’m cutting slack because not everyone has looked into the medical reports in detail, and not everyone wants to assume media reports are accurate at first glance. These are not unreasonable positions. However, they should yield when more detail becomes clear. They won’t always, of course…

        Robert Arvanitis in reply to JBourque. | April 26, 2018 at 10:45 am

        Mr. Borque. There is no slack to be cut. Please see the cogent point above, by Observer | April 26, 2018 at 10:02 am.
        Medically hopeless? Very well, conserve NHS resource, although that is risible at an operation where bureaucrats outnumber licensed medical professionals.
        But it is sheer dirigiste spite to block alternatives, in order to impose statist authority.

          I’m trying to advance the conversation without coming off as mean because of my enormous sympathy for the parents. Observer is suggesting that the doctors are simply wrong that the child has no (brain) white matter left to work with. A physical fact like that is much easier to determine than what caused it. And, if it is true, it’s not even slightly reasonable that it can be cured or improved.

          So, that leaves us with the suggestion that it’s OK to treat a patient even if it’s not for the patient’s benefit, but rather, to make other people feel better about themselves. I’ve spent twenty minutes trying to address it. I’m giving up. I do not desire to defend the doctors’ priorities. You think they are wrong; I am at peace with this.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Chuck Skinner. | April 26, 2018 at 3:14 pm

      What’s your point.

      The parents want it and he is their child. End of issue, especially since it will cost no money.

      Also, just as in the case of Charlie Gard not letting him go is hurting medical research into his condition. So while he may never recover any advancement that may come from trying will be lost and that is just as large of a crime.

        I have no issue with letting him go to be maintained. But it WILL be maintained. He will NEVER improve past what he is now (unless there is some Quantum Leap in medical treatment which allows for development of brain tissue, which is not currently in research and development).

        I have an issue with the representation that by letting him go, and being cared for in some other location that the child will magically be “cured” of his condition, and that the British are only not letting him go because they don’t want to be seen as not being willing to spend the resources to cure this child.

        The representation by MarkS indicated that this condition was “curable” but that the British didn’t want to spend the resources to “cure.” That is both NOT true AND it dilutes the argument as to why this SHOULD be allowed.

You can’t have a welfare state without a police state.

Guess the British Empire hasn’t crumbled after all…..It extends to this family and to this little boy’s failing health & brain.

Are we contending over the notion that the state has the authority to limit one’s medical options, un-related to the state, or are we contending over the potential recovery of the child based on his current medical state?

The latter seems fairly simple to resolve. No competent neurologist should be able to misinterpret a missing brain, so let the opposition select a licensed neurologist to examine the evidence.

But the former, now that’s interesting. I can see the state assuming a duty to protect… if there is a potential for the person in question to suffer. But to suggest there is a duty to protect the person from the indignity of continued life without hope of recovery is too ripe with potential for abuse and error. There is no harm to the state if the person is removed from their custody, and there is no harm to the person if they are simply an empty vessel.

Regardless of who is right or wrong here, the best and simplest solution is just to write all of the UK off as a loss.

The only thing I am certain of here is that what is best for Alfie is now at the bottom of the priority list. It is all about who gets to make decisions for whom, and sadly the choice is between the state and the church, since the individual was dropped from the equation long long ago.

“You’re all bloody peasants to me.” J. lennon.

“…The latter seems fairly simple to resolve. No competent neurologist should be able to misinterpret a missing brain, so let the opposition select a licensed neurologist to examine the evidence.”

They have selected a board certified neurologist. He’s Italian, working at the Vatican’s Children’s Hospital in Rome. It could be a she; the hospital will actually provide the doctor. The Italians want to examine Alfie Evans and, if the current diagnosis is correct they do not plan on keeping him alive artificially indefinitely. Rather they plan on offering palliative care, which was withdrawn by the NHS simply to hasten the child’s death.

I wouldn’t trust another British neurologist as you’re only going to find another NHS doctor. They do not have a good track record of predicting how long someone has left to live. Primarily because it’s scientifically impossible. But they used to routinely make such predictions when dealing with elderly patients. For these reasons:

1. To free up hospital beds for people more “deserving” of treatment.
2. To save costs; the NHS gave bonuses to hospitals that cut costs.
3. The elderly and sick are more difficult to deal with, and the staff just doesn’t want to be bothered. This is also why they’d sedate these patients into unconsciousness. When they’d put patients on the “Liverpool Care Pathway” they’d withdraw food, water, and potentially lifesaving medicine. But not pain killers or sedatives. For the convenience of staff, as they found it annoying to have to listen to patients beg for water. Unconscious patients can’t beg for water.

So in addition to having a poor track record of predicting how long someone may live, they have a long track record of putting anybody BUT the patient’s interests first. There is no reason to believe they have Alfie Evans best interests at heart. The same goes for the judges who have simply sided with the government in the spirit of “Big Brother knows best.”

“NHS doctors are prematurely ending the lives of thousands of elderly hospital patients because they are difficult to manage or to free up beds, a senior consultant claimed yesterday.

…Professor Pullicino, a consultant neurologist for East Kent Hospitals and Professor of Clinical Neurosciences at the University of Kent, was speaking to the Royal Society of Medicine in London.”

This is no lightweight. When he made these accusations it made news, obviously. NHS doctors would routinely diagnose patients as having only hours or at most a few days to live. Essentially, as Prof. Pullicino put it, despite the fact that assisted suicide and euthanasia are illegal in Britain the doctors were using the LCP as a form of euthanasia. The fact of the matter is the NHS was killing elderly and difficult patients for their own convenience. Prof. Pullicino personally rescued at least one 71 y.o. patient from the LCP and despite the fact the NHS insisted that death was imminent the man lived for over a year when his ailments (complications from pneumonia and epilepsy) were actually treated. He recovered well enough to be discharged and sent home to his loving family in four weeks.

And there’s a principle involved. The government is never compassionate. But parents are. It’s the parents who have the right to make these decisions, not the courts or government doctors.