Jump to content
CUNTS CORNER TWITTER ACCOUNT ID @CuntsCorner ×
Donations towards site upkeep will be thankfully received and faithfully applied....

European Courts and the Charlie Gard decision


Guest Mingeeta

Recommended Posts

Guest DingTheRioja
37 minutes ago, Bill Stickers said:

Come on Ding, come up with some fabricated bollocks about this Ethics Committee.

We're all waiting.

Did someone squeak?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingTheRioja
2 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

...not too clear where an insurance advert comes into this Ding.

As for the nonsense about my "attempt to get [you] to divulge personally identifiable information", you volunteered that you had worked with an ethics committee. I merely asked under what capacity. Since there are currently 104 such committees licenced to oversee medical research by the United Kingdom Ethics Committee Authority and that this is in addition to countless other hospital, university and commercial interest ethics committees I suspect you are simply laying on more BS.

Fuck me, you are thick aren't you?

Memory like a sand fly....

 

Oh, and no, of course you are not searching for shit on me, 104 you say?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DingTheRioja said:

Fuck me, you are thick aren't you?

Memory like a sand fly....

 

Oh, and no, of course you are not searching for shit on me, 104 you say?

This is simply a long-winded version of "whoosh". We can all read the discourse. You're all front and bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingTheRioja
7 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

This is simply a long-winded version of "whoosh". We can all read the discourse. You're all front and bullshit.

Yes we can all read the discourse.  You tried to accuse me of saying the poor kid should be kept alive for research purposes, I told you that you're wrong, and now you've gone off on a tangent about ethics committees because you're never wrong, you can't simply shut the fuck up.

 

104 you say?

http://www.eurecnet.org/information/uk.html

Quote

as of April, 2012

 

 

Oh, and the only shit you can smell is yours, take your head out of your arse and the smell will diminish. Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DingTheRioja said:

Yes we can all read the discourse.  You tried to accuse me of saying the poor kid should be kept alive for research purposes, I told you that you're wrong, and now you've gone off on a tangent about ethics committees because you're never wrong, you can't simply shut the fuck up.

 

104 you say?

http://www.eurecnet.org/information/uk.html

 

 

Oh, and the only shit you can smell is yours, take your head out of your arse and the smell will diminish. Maybe.

*whoosh*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingTheRioja
31 minutes ago, The Lady Penelope said:

EUREC .. Your Wreck.

Have you read what that organisation is?  It's an "association" of ethics committees, one that the committees can apply to, it is not an official body, it does not represent ethics committtees in any official capacity, merely a group of individuals who got EU funding for a pet project.  Try looking at the official government website regarding ethics committees...

http://www.hra.nhs.uk/news/rec/

9 pages, 10 per page, but less than 10 on the last page..

Can you count?

 

Fucking simpletons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DingTheRioja said:

Yes we can all read the discourse.  You tried to accuse me of saying the poor kid should be kept alive for research purposes, I told you that you're wrong, and now you've gone off on a tangent about ethics committees because you're never wrong, you can't simply shut the fuck up.

 

104 you say?

http://www.eurecnet.org/information/uk.html

 

 

Oh, and the only shit you can smell is yours, take your head out of your arse and the smell will diminish. Maybe.

Wheesht. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll come to your little temper tantrum in another post but in the meantime,

25 minutes ago, DingTheRioja said:

Have you read what that organisation is?  It's an "association" of ethics committees, one that the committees can apply to, it is not an official body, it does not represent ethics committtees in any official capacity, merely a group of individuals who got EU funding for a pet project.  Try looking at the official government website regarding ethics committees...

http://www.hra.nhs.uk/news/rec/

9 pages, 10 per page, but less than 10 on the last page..

Can you count?

 

Fucking simpletons.

Yeah, that refers to REC's set up by the NHS, Ding.

The 2014 Care Act, s708 ss6, requires the Health Research Authority to ensure individual NHS REC's policy documents do not conflict with The Clinical Trials Regulations which is regulated by the UKECA a statutory body under control of the four ministers from each of the countries that make up the UK.  That's actually in line with the second para of your first link. Did you read it? "Fucking simpletons" indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lady Penelope

What interests me is here that so many of the members here who support keeping Charley alive regardless are same ones who are using insults like "mong", and "spack" and generally inferring that people who have cerebral palsy or downs syndrome (conditions in which people can have purposeful and happy lives) should be put down or at best treated as not human, yet here in a case where there is clearly no hope of him ever having any form of brain function or being more than in a non-responsive vegetive state you are all pouring with angst and desperate for him to be given a non-existent chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, The Lady Penelope said:

What interests me is here that so many of the members here who support keeping Charley alive regardless are same ones who are using insults like "mong", and "spack" and generally inferring that people who have cerebral palsy or downs syndrome (conditions in which people can have purposeful and happy lives) should be put down or at best treated as not human, yet here in a case where there is clearly no hope of him ever having any form of brain function or being more than in a non-responsive vegetive state you are all pouring with angst and desperate for him to be given a non-existent chance.

I counter your argument with this: You are old, and you only want him to die because you want to take as many people as possible with you into the abyss.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DingTheRioja said:

Yes we can all read the discourse.  You tried to accuse me of saying the poor kid should be kept alive for research purposes, I told you that you're wrong, and now you've gone off on a tangent about ethics committees because you're never wrong, you can't simply shut the fuck up.

 

104 you say?

http://www.eurecnet.org/information/uk.html

 

 

Oh, and the only shit you can smell is yours, take your head out of your arse and the smell will diminish. Maybe.

If you're going to go postal over splitting hairs Ding, I actually intimated that I was being generous in my original assertion that your argument borders on advocating that the youngster be kept alive purely for the purposes of medical research. As an aside I mentioned that you piqued my interest when you said that you had worked with ethics committees. I enquired as to under what capacity this was. This could have been as a committee member (over the years this number would be well into the tens of thousands), or as a third party commissioned to submit an independent report (including myself, again one of many, many thousands) or as a part of a group making a submission due to having an interest in a particular issue (again, many thousands) or, as someone cruelly suggested, as the janitor. Cue (possibly manufactured) outrage rabbiting on about soliciting personal identifying data. As I said you're full of BS who shouts "whoosh" when you're unable to articulate a counter argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest DingTheRioja
2 hours ago, Mrs Roops said:

I'll come to your little temper tantrum in another post but in the meantime,

Yeah, that refers to REC's set up by the NHS, Ding.

The 2014 Care Act, s708 ss6, requires the Health Research Authority to ensure individual NHS REC's policy documents do not conflict with The Clinical Trials Regulations which is regulated by the UKECA a statutory body under control of the four ministers from each of the countries that make up the UK.  That's actually in line with the second para of your first link. Did you read it? "Fucking simpletons" indeed.

I shall repeat... You say 104?

Also, please explain where is this "licence" from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DingTheRioja said:

I shall repeat... You say 104?

Also, please explain where is this "licence" from?

Ding, Ding, Ding, you're getting totally pwned here. Best to simply accept the bitch-slapping and slink away.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lady Penelope
5 minutes ago, Cuntybaws said:

Ding, Ding, Ding, you're getting totally pwned here. Best to simply accept the bitch-slapping and slink away.

It is time that Ding returned to the town of his Scottish ancestors and took refuge behind the Dingwall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, The Lady Penelope said:

It is time that Ding returned to the town of his Scottish ancestors and took refuge behind the Dingwall.

He who flounces and slinks away, lives to multi-quote another day.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...