[galieos_ghost]

>UK

Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online, covers up child-rape gangs, arrests people for reporting on those cover ups, and mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die, regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country.

Your government took 1984 and used it as a blueprint. Your government see you as an actual human, they see you as their property.

[stordoff]

> Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online

Citation needed - I have _never_ heard of this happening.

> covers up child-rape gangs

Mostly local government and the police, not central government (who organised an inquiry into it).

> mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die

For the NHS, _maybe_, and even then it is only limiting care on the very fringes. Nothing is stopping you going private.

> regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country

I assume you are referring to Ashya King, a child whom was moved from the country against medical advice (which is completely different to _you_ deciding to decline treatment--the decision is being made by the parents on behalf on the child). Furthermore, when the case was decided by the high court, it was ruled that the parents _did_ have the right to pursue that line of treatment:

> Having considered the evidence, I concluded that there was no reason to stand in the way of the parents’ proposal. In some cases, this court is faced with a dispute between medical authorities and parents who are insisting on a wholly unreasonable course of treatment, or withholding consent to an essential therapy for their child – for example, a blood transfusion. This is manifestly not such a case. The course of treatment proposed by Mr and Mrs King is entirely reasonable. [...] Both courses are reasonable and it is the parents who bear the heavy responsibility of making the decision. It is no business of this court, or any other public authority, to interfere with their decision.

https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/judg...

I don't see how that supports the notion that the government can mandate your treatment.

[user982]

> > Your government currently arrests people for criticizing the government online

> Citation needed - I have _never_ heard of this happening.

A British teenager was arrested and charged for posting on Facebook that UK soldiers should go to hell.[0]

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/libertycentral/201...

[stordoff]

OK, I don't agree with that, but attacking soldiers (and saying they "should DIE & go to HELL!" is somewhat more to just saying they should go to hell) is different to criticising the government - they are NOT the government, and saying they should die is far more than criticising them.

Furthermore, his final sentence is "Azhar Ahmed must do 240 hours of community service"[1]. Whilst I disagree with him being charged at all, that doesn't seem _grossly_ disproportionate.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/oct/09/community-sentenc...

[JackCh]

> "(and saying they "should DIE & go to HELL!" is somewhat more to just saying they should go to hell)"

Is it? It just seems redundant to me. Redundancy may be offensive, but it shouldn't be illegal!

[orf]

What you have said is all spun propaganda, especially the health care bit. "Death panels" much?

I suggest you visit sometime and expand your world view.

[DanBC]

>> mandates whether citizens should receive health care or die, regardless of whether they have the money to pay for it in a foreign country.

No, this is incorrect.

Alfie Evans was going to die. There was no treatment available for him. No-one, not even foreign doctors, were offering treatment other than end of life care.

Alfie is a human, and has human rights, and the paramountcy principle used in English courts mean that his rights are more important to the courts than the parents' rights. Everything has to be done in his best interest, and it wasn't in his best interest to take him abroad to die.

The parents had excellent top tier legal advice provided for free. They went through seven legal firms because they weren't being told what they wanted. They eventually got sucked into the Christian Legal Center - an organisation whose advice was so piss-poor they face regulation.

https://nearlylegal.co.uk/2018/04/on-the-naughty-step-the-qu...

Here's a useful blog post about what actually happened: http://www.transparencyproject.org.uk/alfie-evans-best-inter...

(This is written by a mix of people, some of them represent children and families against the state.)

Note that an important difference between the US and UK law is that in the UK the doctors propose a plan, and if the parents disagree the doctors need to go to court to get permission. This is reversed in the US. The doctors propose a plan, and if the parents disagree it is they who need to go to court to stop the doctors.