Do what is best for Charlie

HAVING raised six offspring, all of whom I love most dearly, I have the utmost sympathy for the parents of little Charlie Gard.

Unfortunately, as deeply as this young couple obviously love and cherish their little mite, it is now, in my opinion, time to let him go.

I am of course writing this before the court’s decision on the matter, but I personally feel that even if this new American neurosurgeon can do anything to prolong his life, all the experts agree, the chances of him enjoying an existence even remotely approaching normality appear to be just about nil.

To me the adoration of his parents has now become somewhat misguided. Blinded by emotion they are, I feel, in danger of evoking a desire to prove themselves morally right, both in the eyes of the law and their numerous sympathisers than do what is right for their little boy.

Please, if you truly love him, as I’m sure you do, let him pass. Invest the money raised by the caring public into research, or a new hospital wing. Some kind of memorial to celebrate his short time among us. But for mercy’s sake let him go.

Give your own torment some closure. Begin again, bring a new little miracle into the world. Look to a bright new future knowing you did all you could for little Charlie.

I get a little peeved by the attitude of a number of the Grenfell survivors. I don’t have to reiterate how sympathetic I feel for the traumatised victims of this disaster and can understand their anger that it was able to happen in the first place.

But I truly believe the authorities are doing all they can to sort out this most complex of complicated scenarios. I also know how difficult it is to please everyone; but to hear that out of 300 offers of accommodation, only 14 have been accepted, does make me think that perhaps the co-operation with people trying to help is somewhat lacking on the part of the residents.

I was particularly put out by the attitude of a number of attendees at the initial meeting of the investigation committee. ‘You’re not one of us Mon,’ screamed one dissenter at enquiry conductor Sir Martin MooreBick.

Just what is that supposed to mean? That Moore-Bick is not an ethnic, multi-cultural immigrant of non-British decent?

If Moore-Bick himself had uttered the same statement, he would have been labelled a racist and could possibly have faced prosecution.

It would be more respectful to the memory of those who perished to bury all racial and social grievances and just allow those selected to complete this enquiry in the quickest and fairest way possible.

Keep the faith,

Love Leapy.

Leapylee2002@gmail.com