If anything the end result is different. The hospital had decided that the 14 year old had “capacity” to make the decision, meaning they would go along with her wishes. The hospital then sought the legal opinion of the court to cover their asses. The court made a different decision, ruling that the child does not have authority to make that choice and that the doctors must act to preserve the child’s life.

Mmmm, prions.

The article doesn’t mention the parents’ opinions, but I think the angle here is that the state is considering the interests of the child and assuming some of the responsibility when the parent “fails” to meet the court’s standard of ensuring they survive the operation.

So, basically, you can refuse treatment for yourself from 18 onwards, but under 18 someone else has a duty of care. Typically your parents, but if your parents don’t meet this duty of care the courts might intervene, on behalf of the child’s interests.

Then with teenagers it’s a whole massive grey area, they’re still technically children but they are given limited agency - their opinion is considered, and here the hospital determined she had “capacity” to make the decision. Hence going to court to try and sort the whole mess out beforehand.

So the court here ruled that a 14 year old girl can’t refuse life saving treatment.

Nah, the whole point of going to court was to cover their ass legally either way, so that the operation could go ahead.

If they’d refused a transfusion and she’d died, they could get sued for not transfusing. If they’d overrode her wishes and transfused, they could get sued for that. By getting the court’s opinion beforehand they limit the chance of either happening.

The article explains that they were looking for an explanation under these specific circumstances, with a 14 year old themselves refusing, which implies the legal question has already been answered for other circumstances. I would imagine that at 18 anyone can refuse any treatment themselves, so at 18 her wishes would not be ignored.

Yeah, to be clearer it covers them either way. Their initial position was to refuse a transfusion, but if she’d died there’d be every possibility that her parents would change their tune and sue the hospital for not providing the transfusion. And, of course, if they overrode her decision by themselves they’d also be open to a lawsuit. By going to court, then whichever way the court decides it becomes the court’s legal decision, and by following that the hospital avoids any potential legal problems and costs.

In this instance it was the 16 year old child themselves refusing, and the hospital determining that she had capacity to do so. That’s why they went for a court order, so the decision and liability wouldn’t fall on them.

Lol it was British lawyers that drafted up the structure of the EU. There’s reason the UK had such a special position.

It’s not a recent thing, it’s always been that way. Something to do with the way archive.is and mirrors have their DNS set up.

That wasn’t just strangulation, he fell over and literally tugged at her throat, while his body was pressed up against her, basically half-hanging her while laying down.

The regulator also found that the App Tracking Transparency rules appear capable of generating financial benefits for Apple, even though the feature applies to its own apps as well. The only reason that Apple apps do not show an App Tracking Transparency prompt is because Apple does not track user activity across other apps and websites.

“You’re unfairly competing with us by not doing things customers don’t want us to do!!”

Fucking cry harder.

It bears repeating because articles seem to gloss over it, if not miss it out entirely: he has not been convicted of anything. He has only been charged and is being held without trial. Same with the rest of them.

She became famous for having sex with over 1,000 guys in 24 hours.

She also recently got arrested in (I think) Bangladesh for making porn, as it’s illegal over there.

Basically she chases money by being controversial.

Don’t forget removing the right to jury trial, in response to protestors who got acquitted by a jury. Literally taking away the peoples’ last chance to say the law is wrong.

Then output power will be less of a concern, the main thing will be how many charges you get out of it. Compare your phone’s mAhr rating to the power bank’s.

Nah they’re all simple. The basic specs I listed are just that, the devices themselves are completely straightforward, almost too much so. Literally just a single button to wake it up and flip between screens that show input/output values and remaining charge. Power stations will also have buttons to turn on/off AC and DC outputs separately.

The thing you pay more for is charge capacity in Ahr (they like to list mAhr as it has extra 000) and input/output power in W.

As someone who works in the sector: too fucking right. Although it will be hard, there’s a lot of mess to untangle, and frankly the government needs to compete with the private sector on pay in order to get anywhere.

But it is ludicrous that the government haven’t at least invested in the country’s own renewable generation infrastructure. It would be such a money maker - especially if they cut out the middle man and sold directly to consumers. The segregation of the generation and consumption markets has not benefitted the people in any way. Instead, we have foreign businesses owning our generation and making record profits, the network operators making even more, and the cost to the consumer keeps going up while the cost of production has fallen through the floor as renewables have zero fuel cost.

GB Energy could be a small step in that direction. It’s just focused on the generation market, with the possibility of selling directly to schools and the like, but doesn’t really tackle high bills in as significant a way as they imply.

Also FYI when making a quote in true Markdown (not reddit Markdown) you need to put a > on the lines in between paragraphs to make a continuous quote.

Like

this

There are literally tons of choices now, all pretty decent. It’s all grey label Chinese rebrands. Anker used to be the quality king, but Iniu and Ugreen are brands also on Amazon that are of the same quality.

The decision should be more about what you want from it. Power output of the ports, charge capacity, price.

If you have a laptop you should look into how much it uses to charge. 45W, 65W or 100W are common levels, and often available from power banks (although gaming laptops may prefer more, they’ll still take what they can get). Even if your laptop charger uses a barrel connector you can actually charge it from at least one of the USB ports - great to know when your relative loses their charger!

Phones don’t require that much. However you may want to consider the charging levels with multiple devices - a 100W port might downgrade to 65W if a second device is plugged in. It also might not, really depends on the product. Like I say, the choice is about what you want from it.

There’s a beefy one now with 160W max with 3 USB-C (2 with captive cables) each capable of 100W, plus a USB-A. 25Ahr charge capacity.

Also you can get a power station with an AC inverter if you really want it all. They typically have a range of outputs, even a cigarette lighter socket, and often contactless charging on top. You can also get a solar cell to charge them. However with increased capacity comes increased price.

They’ve been in prison for a year without trial. What are they supposed to do?