tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post8409636979900269255..comments2024-03-02T02:56:21.007+00:00Comments on ......SHOT BY BOTH SIDES: HumanKerryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02377996092374137641noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-21499833159294656662009-06-04T13:52:16.172+01:002009-06-04T13:52:16.172+01:00Ms McCarthy, you are clearly human, and a nice ope...Ms McCarthy, you are clearly human, and a nice open-hearted and caring one at that.<br /><br />I would prefer to see you acknowledge that people are angry, rather than enter into this kind of non-productive dispute.<br /><br />You are absolutely right in your opinions, and I think you are very tolerant of those commenters whose problems are not of your causing. I strongly suspect they would perform very badly, if faced with the issues that you handle so well.<br /><br />People are angry. Seriously angry, and in very large numbers. Simply defending your position is not going to win them over.<br /><br />But I wish you and all your near relatives the best of health, and speedy, sure recovery.Fred Trellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06058958571094830467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-14259869379388646582009-04-14T21:53:00.000+01:002009-04-14T21:53:00.000+01:00For what is almost certainly not the last time... ...For what is almost certainly not the last time... this was not about MPs' privacy! And therefore I am not going to get led down that path. I don't suppose there's any chance you could just go away? No? Nothing better to do? Really?Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02377996092374137641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-70590087130930458162009-04-14T14:11:00.000+01:002009-04-14T14:11:00.000+01:00For what it's worth, I agree entirely with your po...For what it's worth, I agree entirely with your point of view on the private and family lives of public figures. I think the parts of your life the taxpayer doesn't finance (not much, in the case of many of your colleagues, but let's give you the benefit of the doubt here) are none of my business. Where we part company, as your voting record as an MP shows, is that you don't feel the same about my private life. Such hypocrisy.Tom Painehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01254163054362676487noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-30592080494483107092009-04-14T13:09:00.000+01:002009-04-14T13:09:00.000+01:00But are you proud of the corruption, dishonesty an...But are you proud of the corruption, dishonesty and fascist tendencies? Because that is what you will be remembered for.<br /><br />Is that a legacy you want to be part of? The ongoing destruction of everything which made British Values worth defending? Turning Britain from a beacon of freedom to the world to one of the most repressive countries in Europe? Because that is what you are doing.CountingCatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15841607896289745472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-83408918955746571862009-04-14T12:21:00.000+01:002009-04-14T12:21:00.000+01:00I think you're being rather childish.
And for the...I think you're being rather childish.<br /><br />And for the record, I'm immensely proud of a great deal of what Labour has achieved in Government since 1997.Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02377996092374137641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-69002155997258268092009-04-14T09:56:00.000+01:002009-04-14T09:56:00.000+01:00I give up. I really do.
Good. One less to deal wi...I give up. I really do.<br /><br />Good. One less to deal with.<br /><br />Kerry, I understand why you get upset and frustrated, but there is a reason why people are so hostile to you.<br /><br />We are being governed by what we have come to view as the most corrupt, dishonest, mendacious and totalitarian group of people to achieve power since the reform act, and you, freely and of your own will, choose to identify and stand with these vile individuals.<br /><br />By your own choice you make clear that you are one of them, so why would you expect to be treated in any way differently? You have to understand, we hate them, I mean we really hate them, with every fibre of our being, and you choose to be one of the ‘them’ we hate.<br /><br />If you find this unpleasant then there is a solution. Quit.<br /><br />You don’t have to quit parliament, just that repulsive Labour Party thing. Express your outrage at the corruption, dishonesty and fascist tendencies of your party brothers and sisters, and move to the cross benches. Show some integrity and do the right thing, then you may get some respect. Until then, expect the loathing and contempt you demonstrate towards us to be reciprocated.<br /><br />Sorry, but that is the reality. You made your choice, live with the consequences.CountingCatshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15841607896289745472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-74082109735399384642009-04-12T21:41:00.000+01:002009-04-12T21:41:00.000+01:00@ James Burr"There is a world of difference betwee...@ James Burr<BR/>"There is a world of difference between "education" and social engineering through advertising"<BR/><BR/>Please. 'Social engineering' - this is paranoia to an extreme which I have never seen before.<BR/><BR/>How about the government may like to see people make informed choices and in doing so reduce the cost to "the taxpayer" of that socialist phenomenon, bureaucratic maze and scourge of our society that is the NHS. To many these campaigns are the first introduction they've had to 'health education', and I can't be bothered to enter into the smoking ban v civil liberties debate, I favour the authoritarian ban and reserve my right to clean air in public spaces. Cue outrage.BevaniteElliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04032582004452737280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-62461814595038848952009-04-12T21:13:00.000+01:002009-04-12T21:13:00.000+01:00No, I don't think people should be banned from fos...No, I don't think people should be banned from fostering cos they smoke or are fat - and I don't believe that happens systematically. The sign was clearly an error, and meant 'people smoking' - I'd certainly have no objection to them saying 'no hijabs beyond this point' at a school or whatever. Equally, it's not wrong for workplaces to encourage healthy behaviour in their staff. But I agree, as I said earlier, that it's gone too far with smoking. <BR/><BR/>What I do not accept is that it has been done to infringe your rights - it has been done to protect others (though of course it may have been over-done in certain cases), just as a ban on hijabs in certain places would be done to help others communicate. That you feel put out is largely trivial collateral damage. Sometimes your rights are trumped by others', sometimes vice versa - that's life, get used to it. And you do live in a more tolerant, fair society than you used to - it's just a shame that you care more about fags than other people's wellbeing, so you can't see it.John Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944339001639521267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-63235915138574482422009-04-12T20:58:00.000+01:002009-04-12T20:58:00.000+01:00@ John Buckingham:I was going to leave - I've spen...@ John Buckingham:<BR/><BR/>I was going to leave - I've spent far too long on here today. But you raise an interesting point with your hypothetical situation, and yes, one that is difficult to answer.<BR/><BR/>I'll start with the last point first as that IS easy to answer.<BR/><BR/>"Suppose the same social worker decided that it was worth funding some CBT to help the mother get over the domestic abuse, and to give her some skills training and substance abuse treatment to help her get a job; suppose a state welfare-to-work system was also in place to ensure she didn't languish on benefits to the detriment of her family's finances."<BR/><BR/>From my point of view this is fine as long as she actually WANTED the help. She didn't abuse herself, after all, so as such is not responsible for her predicament. The State funding such interventions is no different to providing a decent infrastructure IMO. <BR/><BR/>However, if she chose to NOT accept that help then she would be within her rights to do so (and have to bear the responsibility for the consequences of that decision in that she would not then be allowed to languish on benefits (in the same way I wouldn't - in the previous post - if I decided to drink myself incapable).<BR/><BR/>"You've got a child growing up in a dilapidated council house which is utterly filthy with a smell that knocks you back as you open the door; the single mother has never worked, is an addict and previously a victim of domestic abuse. <BR/><BR/>Now, suppose a social worker decided that she would get this mother to help her clean the house. Would that be an unwarranted, infantilising, freedom-crushing state intervention, or would it actually enhance the freedom of the kids? I think the latter."<BR/><BR/>This may sound heartless but responsibilities and freedoms are intertwined. She should clean her own house. If, as you said earlier she has been the victim of abuse that has led to her abusing substances then she should be OFFERED help in dealing with it. She has the right to refuse but has to bear in mind the consequences of such a decision i.e. continuing to live in filth. <BR/><BR/>If these conditions result in her children being victims of "neglect" than, as a criminal offence, action should be taken to place the children in better surroundings. <BR/><BR/>Some people seems to think Libertarianism means a desire for no State, some kind of anarchy where people are murdering and raping and crying, "It's my choice to do this!"<BR/><BR/>No, it's not. Neglect would be as much a crime in such a world as murder and fraud and theft, and indeed, in the above circumstances the State would then have to intervene.<BR/><BR/>I'm not arguing for "survival of the fittest" State-free world. Just one where, you can do what you like as long as no-one else is being harmed.<BR/><BR/>An interesting scenario though.<BR/><BR/>But now I REALLY must go.James Burrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17887499076992310207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-7078312701318589262009-04-12T20:37:00.000+01:002009-04-12T20:37:00.000+01:00Kerry,In the original post I said I'd been done th...Kerry,<BR/><BR/>In the original post I said I'd been done three times - and not once had I gone over 33mph (i.e 3 mph or walking pace) was the most I had ever gone over. Indeed, the Police's own guidelines recommend that 33mph be ignored. They must have been having a slow day.<BR/><BR/>In addition, I also got stopped for doing 30mph on the one stretch of road ( a week after my "offence") by the Police for driving too slowly. Seriously.<BR/><BR/>However, I don't want to sideline a thread by going into my motoring history or debating the accuracy of otherwise of speed cameras and car speedometers. But I am now in serious danger of losing my license (I have a year before the first offence gets wiped). But if you really think that 33 mph is "speeding" or "dangerous driving" that merits such a severe penalty then I don't know what to say. Hell, even the insurance company (hardly the most humanitarian group of people in the world) don't think I am a life-endangering speed-criminal. I pay about ten quid a year now I have 9 points than I did when I had a clean license.<BR/><BR/>But anyway. Apologies - we've gone off-topic.<BR/><BR/>MPs. Media intrusion. Private lives. Carry on! :)<BR/><BR/>(And thanks Kerry, for allowing such open discourse. Sorry to have taken it off-topic).James Burrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17887499076992310207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-84122536633297578372009-04-12T20:29:00.000+01:002009-04-12T20:29:00.000+01:00@ bevanite"so when you lose your job because ...@ bevanite<BR/><BR/>"so when you lose your job because of what could be uninformed choices (as the state has no evident role in educating it's citizens according to you) should the state pick up the pieces of your "personal" choice and fill your belly and provide your roof?"<BR/><BR/>To a point, yes, but that is where personal responsibility comes in. If I chose to continue to render myself unemployable by drinking too much, as I would be beholden to the State for my continued existence THEN and only then, would it be right or the State to interfere. I would still have the right to continue to drink - but I would not get State funding if I continued to do so. <BR/><BR/>Also, I have never said I am against Health Education. There is a world of difference between being told that "something is bad for you, continue to do it at your own risk" and the continued denormalising propaganda that this Government spews. The latest anti-smoking advertising campaign - it's what? The second campaign to be pulled by the Advertising Standards Authority, because it goes too far and is intended to scare rather than educate?<BR/><BR/>Millions are spent on this every year - does anyone REALLY claim ignorance as to the health dangers of booze, lack of exercise, fatty food etc. There is a world of difference between "education" and social engineering through advertising. <BR/><BR/>@ John Buckingham:<BR/><BR/>"Jesus, is that the best you can do? And are you really equating a choice-based behaviour (smoking) to things like poverty, homosexuality and race which are explicitly not a choice? Don't make me laugh."<BR/><BR/>No, but I'm equating it with other lifestyle choices like religious orientation or Hell, even obesity or liking Dungeons & Dragons. If you think it would be fine for people to be sacked or excluded from public areas or denied the right to foster children because they are too fat or have hobbies you don't approve of then I have nothing more to add. Presumably a sign in a public hospital that said, "No Moslems beyond this point" wouldn't fill you with disgust - after all, it's a lifestyle choice. <BR/><BR/>I also note that that you ignore the fact that the sign WASN'T the best I could find, but ignored the refusal of medical treatment to smokers, the Council-sanctioned prohibition of smokers in many areas to foster children and increasing cases of discrimination in the workplace, including a friend of mine whose shoddy treatment I saw first hand. <BR/><BR/>"If a semantic error in a hospital is the worst example you can find of yourself being oppressed then I think you'd better take a look at some other countries in the world and then feel thoroughly ashamed for daring to believe you're somehow marginalised or discriminated against."<BR/><BR/>I would prefer a tolerant, fair society to live in. Your argument is no better than saying that those who lived in East Germany should have been counting their lucky stars and saying, "Hey, we've got it bad but at least we're not in Cambodia!"James Burrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17887499076992310207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-67941880017892536532009-04-12T20:28:00.000+01:002009-04-12T20:28:00.000+01:00"This isn't a totalitarian state, and real freedom..."This isn't a totalitarian state, and real freedom has expanded hugely under Labour."<BR/><BR/>Christian fundamentalists/evangelicals/pentecostals use a particular text regualarly - "The truth shall set you free". This is the truth as they percieve it to be, freedom being living according to their strict doctrines.<BR/><BR/>They even have a way of getting round things they don't like which are a problem because of absence of divine instruction or even instruction which appear contrary. For example, they are teetotal. Hang on, Jesus turned water into wine. Yes, but the Bible does not say that the wine was fermented. But St Paul tells Timothy to "take a little wine for the stomach". Yes, but that is medical.<BR/>One more example. The Bible does not tell you not to smoke. No, but "your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit".timbonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06985165416240833253noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-59781733055232819072009-04-12T20:19:00.000+01:002009-04-12T20:19:00.000+01:00Kerry, yes I used to live in New York and very goo...Kerry, yes I used to live in New York and very good it was too. My prescription for health care would be NHS Accident and Emergency services and perhaps a role in primary health care, vaccinations etc, GP services even. All other health care, maybe even GP services people have the choice to opt out of state taxes and go private.<BR/><BR/>For those who cannot afford to pay, the state would pay their premiums. The NHS, except at doctor and nurse level, is a bloated bureaucratic mess. Why is the NHS the largest employer in Europe and the 3rd in the world after Indian Railways and The Chinese arwmy?DaveAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249090980650806030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-25496266286796909572009-04-12T20:17:00.000+01:002009-04-12T20:17:00.000+01:00James - your point about waste/management is of co...James - your point about waste/management is of course correct - but hardly novel. The Unions and Labour left have been saying the same for years. <BR/><BR/>The thing is, we both believe in expanding freedom - the difference being that you equate it to being left alone, whereas we see that acquiring freedom requires a leg up. Let me give an example. You've got a child growing up in a dilapidated council house which is utterly filthy with a smell that knocks you back as you open the door; the single mother has never worked, is an addict and previously a victim of domestic abuse. <BR/><BR/>Now, suppose a social worker decided that she would get this mother to help her clean the house. Would that be an unwarranted, infantilising, freedom-crushing state intervention, or would it actually enhance the freedom of the kids? I think the latter. Suppose the same social worker decided that it was worth funding some CBT to help the mother get over the domestic abuse, and to give her some skills training and substance abuse treatment to help her get a job; suppose a state welfare-to-work system was also in place to ensure she didn't languish on benefits to the detriment of her family's finances. Are these really infringements on freedom, or are they actually expanding freedom by helping people realise their potential?<BR/><BR/>You can argue all you like about people being infantilised by the welfare state, but the fact is that some people have pretty shitty lives, and they may not be able to cope without the state there to support them and help them get over their problems. I'm afraid you're not going to convince me that that is somehow totalitarian, a waste of money or morally wrong, because it is not. You can legitimately counter that it infringes your freedom to spend your money as you choose, but thankfully most right-thinking people would say that a child's right to grow up in a decent home trumps that every time - and thank God for that.John Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944339001639521267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-57121208445214873522009-04-12T20:09:00.000+01:002009-04-12T20:09:00.000+01:00John, Kerry is going to have a blue baby at, pardo...John, Kerry is going to have a blue baby at, pardon the pun, reigniting the smoking debate. <BR/><BR/>I am the socialists nemisis, I am a working class Tory. However I try to remain objective. I was for the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan and I am not going to be a hypocrite in criticising them. Last year I was unemployed for 3 months and expect the same to happen to me again in the near future. Again I largely do not blame Labour for it.<BR/><BR/>However the smoking ban is something I am reminded at least 3 times a week when I visit a pub how my civil rights have been trampled on. Pubs are private property and while I support your rights not to have smell smoke, I cannot see why I cannot have a smoking pub or a smoking room.<BR/><BR/>On costs to the NHS smokers cost the taxpayer £1.7 billion and pay in taxes £9.8 billion. Also because smokers die earlier a Dutch study stated that lifetime costs work out at £45,000 per smoker. Approximately 150,000 smokers die each year = a saving in pensions and NHS treatment of £6,750,000,000 a year. <BR/><BR/>We pay our way and get our rights takn away from us.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=512333&in_page_id=1774&in_page_id=1774&expand=true#StartCommentsDaveAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249090980650806030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-74529029469028403102009-04-12T19:42:00.000+01:002009-04-12T19:42:00.000+01:00Dave - you've obviously made a careful study of th...Dave - you've obviously made a careful study of the US health system then?Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02377996092374137641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-52675959952474696082009-04-12T19:40:00.001+01:002009-04-12T19:40:00.001+01:00No-one loses their licence for a one-off offence o...No-one loses their licence for a one-off offence of driving at 33mph. Even if you don't approve of speed limits (and if not, I'd like to know why - or is it just that you don't think they should apply to you?), I would have thought common sense would have suggested that it would be a good idea to drive a tad more slowly for a while. You can't blame anyone else for your situation.Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02377996092374137641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-67415919770119675842009-04-12T19:40:00.000+01:002009-04-12T19:40:00.000+01:00Firstly here is the provenance for James' denormal...Firstly here is the provenance for James' denormalisation of smokers, it as quoted in the Guardian 24th une 2007, said by Sir Liam Donaldson.<BR/><BR/>Infortunately taxes are compulsory in this country, but I am sure if there was minimal tax in this country people could provide for their own unemployment and health insurance. It would be a lot more efficient handled by a private enterprise insurance company.<BR/><BR/>This is the point, you have made us dependent on the state and many people want something for nothing.<BR/><BR/><BR/>http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jun/24/health.smokingDaveAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07249090980650806030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-41633344962278159242009-04-12T19:22:00.000+01:002009-04-12T19:22:00.000+01:00Yes, and the near-impending punishment for my doin...Yes, and the near-impending punishment for my doing the grossly irresponsible speed of 33mph of losing my license and thus my job and home is of course deeply proportionate!<BR/><BR/>Especially when the technology involved was shown by Watchdog to be capable of picking up brick walls doing 8mph.<BR/><BR/>And to answer your question as to who pays for my unemployment benefits - well, the taxpayers would - just as they would for the Military, Police force and road builders. But a state that simply did what I outlined before would cost a fraction of what it does now. I don't think any Libertarian argues for the abolition of the State or the abolition of tax. But if the State was simply responsible for certain limited, functions of national infrastructure rather than employing hordes of non-job lifestyle "managers" the cost would be a fraction of what we pay now.<BR/><BR/>I briefly worked for a Local Council and was stunned that just in my division there were 8 layers of management above me, all on salaries many times the average wage. Often, up to a third of them would be ill for months on end with no discernible change in the functioning of the Department - indeed, when they were ill things often ran smoother as the mindless diktats they spouted to justify their positions ceased, as did the need for the lower levels of management to pass the buck for decisions they were afraid to make themselves, up the chain. This was one department in one Council, but the whole Public Sector is full of these posts. <BR/><BR/>No sane person would argue that the NHS doesn't need cleaners, nurses, Doctors, radiographers, pharmacists.... Often, what they get is 5 a Day Managers, Patient Experience Officers and Community Liaison Consultants.<BR/><BR/>If our tax money was not wasted on such positions not only would we get Public Services that were efficient, the endless haranguing and personal intrusion would also stop. When people use a Library they want personal service from someone in the Library; they don't want a team of people, each on £60,000, revising the "Community Information Vision Statement" every 12 months. When people go to a hospital they want their illness diagnosed and treated; they don't need to be given a leaflet for an "Alcohol Awareness" workshop and a session with an "Healthy Lifestyle Facilitator" to be told that the glass of wine they have every other night is killing them. <BR/><BR/>I'm not against the State. I'm just against a bloated, over funded State that uses my tax money to scare and "denormalise" me.James Burrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17887499076992310207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-11189816988858739792009-04-12T18:46:00.000+01:002009-04-12T18:46:00.000+01:00Jesus, is that the best you can do? And are you re...Jesus, is that the best you can do? And are you really equating a choice-based behaviour (smoking) to things like poverty, homosexuality and race which are explicitly not a choice? Don't make me laugh. If a semantic error in a hospital is the worst example you can find of yourself being oppressed then I think you'd better take a look at some other countries in the world and then feel thoroughly ashamed for daring to believe you're somehow marginalised or discriminated against. Labour's social policies have made more people free; if the Tories get in, we'll see more kids living in crap housing, fewer pensioners able to afford to travel to see friends, and fewer people getting the NHS treatment the need - ergo, fewer people being free to do what they want, to fulfil their potential and live comfortable lives. <BR/><BR/>The trouble with freedoms is that they collide: your freedom to smoke, in some circumstances (and of course laws can't provide for all eventualities) infringes others' freedoms. But you're more than free to smoke at home, and I'm more than happy to pick up the tab. Why? Because most smokers couldn't afford treatment on their own, but they still deserve it. I would agree much smoking advertising goes too far - e.g. the throat cancer pictures on packs - but it's not wrong for government to promote healthy behaviours. Just as its not wrong for the state to promote social, as opposed to antisocial behaviour: ASB is bad for the individuals themselves and for their communities. I suppose you'd oppose compulsory vaccinations too, on the basis that it should be up to the individual to assess their own risk and act accordingly?John Buckinghamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12944339001639521267noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-46457935668098983052009-04-12T18:33:00.000+01:002009-04-12T18:33:00.000+01:00@James Burrthe state "should provide a safety net ...@James Burr<BR/><BR/>the state "should provide a safety net so that...those unfortunate enough to be out of work have food in their bellies and a roof over their heads."<BR/><BR/>yet "If I REALLY drink too much I'll lose my family and job. "<BR/><BR/>so when you lose your job because of what could be uninformed choices (as the state has no evident role in educating it's citizens according to you) should the state pick up the pieces of your "personal" choice and fill your belly and provide your roof? <BR/><BR/>warped logic I think. <BR/><BR/>What has caused this economic crisis? A relaxing of regulation by the State. What will protect those who cannot afford to be hit by the downturn? The State. <BR/><BR/>We've emerged from a period which shows what economic liberalism or libertarianism can do when left unchecked. We're heading into a period where that won't wash. We're in this together, with the State. Get used to it.BevaniteElliehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04032582004452737280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-46945001658852324582009-04-12T18:27:00.000+01:002009-04-12T18:27:00.000+01:00And who picks up the tab for your health problems,...And who picks up the tab for your health problems, or supports you when you lose your job? Presumably you'd be happy for us to say 'you're on your own mate'?<BR/><BR/>And by the way, I'm glad to see you believe the state should 'enforce law and order' - apart from when it comes to you breaking the speed limit...Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02377996092374137641noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-65736919873282736612009-04-12T17:51:00.000+01:002009-04-12T17:51:00.000+01:00I can't speak for DK, but the State does have cert...I can't speak for DK, but the State does have certain responsibilities - namely to do those things that I can not do for myself.<BR/><BR/>It should protect our borders from hostile incursions;<BR/><BR/>It should provide a good infrastructure so private enterprise and wealth creation can be encouraged;<BR/><BR/>It should enforce law and order so that crimes against the person and property can be discouraged and punished;<BR/><BR/>And yes (and I suspect DK my disagree with me here, but I don't know) it should provide a safety net so that those who are incapable of work such as the elderly, disabled or those unfortunate enough to be out of work have food in their bellies and a roof over their heads.<BR/><BR/>And that is it! I'll decide if my lifestyle is "acceptable" or not. If I eat too much, I'll get fat. If I drink too much I'll get a hangover. If I REALLY drink too much I'll lose my family and job. I'll phone or email who I like about what I like - it's none of the State's business.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that's too much to ask. Apparently it is.James Burrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17887499076992310207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-39801976218163868752009-04-12T17:39:00.000+01:002009-04-12T17:39:00.000+01:00I agree - the changes to gay marriage were well ov...I agree - the changes to gay marriage were well overdue. <BR/><BR/>So what? That was a Libertarian measure! What business does the State have in saying what is, or isn't a "proper" partnership?<BR/><BR/>And the idea that Labour is responsible for "lifting children out of poverty" by doling out pocket money like tax credits whilst simultaneously presiding over a boom and bust that has led to a Depression AND driving the country into historic levels of debt is simply laughable. <BR/><BR/>@ John Buckingham: <BR/><BR/>"You see, freedom's not just about civil liberties - it's about the practical ability to live your life without having to jump over hurdles at every turn because you are poor, excluded or despised."<BR/><BR/>Well, apart from the fact that Civil Liberties are ALL about living your life without having to jump over State-created hurdles, I know exactly how living like that is. You see I am a driver and a smoker. I have a Government that has said in official documents that I am to be "denormalised" (their actual word). I am defined by one aspect of my being - not my character, not my profession, not my deeds. But by the fact I smoke. I have seen former colleagues lose their job because they smoke, yet they have no legal redress or support from Unions as they are not an "accepted" group that can be discriminated against. I have seen smokers refused the right to foster despite the obvious need for loving homes by desperate children. I have seen junk science produced to prove that I "emit toxins" (quote from actual "research") and should be herded into a designated smoking area. There is serious discussion in medical circles that despite my massive tax contributions I should be denied NHS medical care, and I have seen hospitals that have signs that say "NO SMOKERS BEYOND THIS POINT!" (Not smokING, SmokERS) - clearly the "No Dogs, Blacs or Irish" signs were taken. <BR/><BR/>In addition I have 9 points on my license (for none of the "offences" was I doing over 33 mph in a 30 zone) so now face possible banning and the loss of my income and home if "caught" again.<BR/><BR/>So yes - I know all about jumping through hoops and not being allowed to live my life. I just want to work, pay my taxes, drive my 1 litre car and relax with friends. Yet at every turn this Government has DELIBERATELY stuck its oar in - even deliberately tried to make me seem "abnormal."<BR/><BR/>And as for:<BR/><BR/>"This isn't a totalitarian state, and real freedom has expanded hugely under Labour."<BR/><BR/>Now I give up. You don't seriously believe this, do you? Really?James Burrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17887499076992310207noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7647685282789008730.post-44325683560423216912009-04-12T17:19:00.000+01:002009-04-12T17:19:00.000+01:00DK lives in a parallel universe where he doesn't u...DK lives in a parallel universe where he doesn't use the roads or public transport or need street lighting or his bins emptied or in any way benefit (directly or indirectly) from a state education system or scientific/ medical research or environmental protection or a police force or the armed forces or any other publicly funded services you care to name, and will never need to use the NHS or live in social housing or have his home adapated for a disabled child, spouse or parent (or even himself) or claim a state pension or incapacity benefit or tax credits -and therefore he should be exempt from paying taxes. That's right, isn't it, DK?Kerryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02377996092374137641noreply@blogger.com