AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Originally Posted by AnnO'Neemus said:
Yes, the boy might want that, and I'm sure that's the case.
But the fact is, legally speaking, it's the boy's money, and the family don't have a right to help themselves to it. That would be the same in the US, if say, Britney Spears as a Disney child star was earning heaps and one of her parents was ill and needed the money to pay for healthcare. Or if one of the supporting actors in Harry Potter had a mother who needed some experimental cancer drug that wasn't available on the NHS, they wouldn't automatically be entitled to help themselves to the money either. Yes, I'm sure that in both those cases you would reasonably think it was morally right to use the money for that purpose, but there's a difference between what's morally right, and what's technically, legally correct. And there ought to be some safeguards in place to protect the child and his or her earnings. The child's interests would be protected in the US and the UK, there would be lawyers and accountants saying, hey, is this reasonable, is this justifiable, legally speaking, it's the child's money, and their future needs to be provided for, what if they need the money in future?
If this was a legal case, and I have a legal background, moral stuff wouldn't come into it, child gets paid for acting work, father appropriate's child earnings to pay for medical bills, technically, legally speaking, that's actually theft. If the child wants to gift money, fine, but someone needs to be looking out for the child's interests. I mean, where do you draw the line? An uncle shows up, he's also got TB and needs medication, and it turns out his wife and four children also have it. And then an aunty turns up, and she's got cancer. And another cousin turns up with polio. And a second cousin turns up who needs a hearing aid. And the second cousin's mother-in-law has gall stones and needs surgery, and her daughter needs a kidney transplant.
I mean, really, morally speaking, they should all get medical treatment, but the child actor needs someone to look out for their interests and say, hey, what happens if in three years time you get TB, but you've spent all your money paying for medication for relatives, and there's no money to save your life?
And from what I've read, the film company has provided for them fairly generously. They worked for a month. They were paid a month's wages. In addition to that, provision was made in the form of a trust to pay for their education. On top of which, the film company was contacted because one of the family's had lost their home. So the film company sent money to buy them a new home, which went - ahem - 'missing'. So the parents couldn't even be trusted to put a new roof over their child's head. So the film company stepped in to say that they would rehouse the children in apartments and put the properties in trust, and only sign them over when the children had completed their education.
The children need to be protected from exploitation and having their earnings siphoned off my every Tom and Dikshit and Haroon.
Knowing the effect of TB drugs is neither here nor there to the actual legal status of the situation, you're obviously projecting some of your own experiences here.
And for the record you're fucking well out of order to call me a Nazi, so you're going on ignore, you cunt.
