House wife's father now blames the UK

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Did you expect an unbiased, truthful answer?
You knew you would be disappointed if you were.
It was more of a rhetorical question.

:confused: so u dont know than himmagin ?

Well I will speculate ;) that they are on benefits , untill the said speculation is proved to be incorrect :)
 
Sponsored Links
Said on the news earlier that her baby has passed away due to pneumonia ?

3 weeks old an innocent victim of this entire affair

This will
Be the 3rd child that has died
 
Said on the news earlier that her baby has passed away due to pneumonia ?

3 weeks old an innocent victim of this entire affair

This will
Be the 3rd child that has died

Whatever anyone says about this, an innocent child has died who could have possibly been saved by allowing the Child into this Country
 
Yes, it's not just a question of being allowed back.

It seems to the case, for some reason, that Britain should go and get her/them. I don't know why.
 
Medical services, the child had no connection with ISIS so should have been allowed to live .
Without commenting on the morality of the situation, I think legally, the mother took the child (even though he wasn't conceived yet) beyond the jurisdiction of the UK. Therefore, the UK was powerless to act on the child's welfare alone.
In order to bring the child out, the UK would have to make arrangements for the mother to be brought out. It is improbable that she would have agreed to the child being brought out without her.
 
It is improbable that she would have agreed to the child being brought out without her.
If the child's life was in imminent danger (about to die etc) and there was a chance that child could survive by being somewhere where the mother could not be, then the mother would likely part company with that child.
 
If the child's life was in imminent danger (about to die etc) and there was a chance that child could survive by being somewhere where the mother could not be, then the mother would likely part company with that child.
Should we have sent in a British team to get him out?
 
If the child's life was in imminent danger (about to die etc) and there was a chance that child could survive by being somewhere where the mother could not be, then the mother would likely part company with that child.
I don't disagree. It would however throw up enormous political and moral dilemmas.
Not to mention the setting of precedent of rescuing other children.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsored Links
Back
Top