chelstongull
TFF member
Posts: 6,759
Favourite Player: Jason Fowler
|
Post by chelstongull on Oct 13, 2012 11:24:43 GMT
Top post Alpine - gets my vote.
I trust that should I venture outside Devon to France I would get the same free treatment without the need for a EHIC and/or additional health insurance?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 15:08:56 GMT
This is the headline in question:
NHS tells doctors: You must treat all foreigners to protect their human rights... but you can still turn away BRITONS
Foreigners must be given free treatment by GPs - it is their human right
New guidelines dictate that doctors must register any foreign patient
Includes asylum seekers, overseas students or tourists on a short holiday
Some GPs are furious, describing changes as a 'charter for health tourism'
Excuse me but these few lines tick all the Mail's boxes: foreigners, human rights, asylum seekers and doctors being dictated to, making some of them (how many?) furious over a "charter for health tourism". Asylum seekers are the Didis of our time and the Mail (and it's less well-written and even more rabid rival the Express even more so) make it clear day after day what they think should happen to them.
This was the main story in the Mail on 29 June:
Soft-touch Britain, the asylum seeker capital of Europe: We let in more than anyone else last year
Britain granted asylum to more people than any other European Union country last year, official figures revealed yesterday.
Some 14,360 immigrants were given asylum within the UK in 2011, compared with 13,045 in the second highest country, Germany, and 10,740 in third placed France.
The figure was the third successive rise in successful claims in the UK and an increase of 41 per cent since 2008.
Critics said the data confirmed that Britain is a soft touch when it comes to granting asylum.
In this example, letting in people who arrive claiming to be fleeing in fear of their lives makes the UK a soft touch. The critics, like the "some doctors" mentioned in today's story, are all unidentified, which makes an old cynic like me suspect that the critics in question are inhabitants of the editorial office.
Those same anonymous critics were also quoted in 2010 when the Supreme Court gave a verdict in favour of not deporting gay asylum seekers:
But critics warned it could lead to the UK - which is among the first nations to take such a position - becoming a leading destination for asylum seekers who are claiming to be gay.
Sir Andrew Green, chairman of Migrationwatch, said: 'This could lead to a potentially massive expansion of asylum claims as it could apply to literally millions of people around the world.
'An applicant has now only to show that he - or she - is homosexual and intends to return and live openly in one of the many countries where it is illegal to be granted asylum in the UK.
When they do look for a real person to make a comment the Mail chooses the chairman of Migrationwatch, a right wing organisation opposed to immigration on principle, just as they so often turn to the Taxpayer's Alliance when they want a rent-a-quote on economic issues. Both organisations, and the newspaper proprietors who support them, exist in a world which runs on intolerance and bigotry.
Here's a nifty selection of today's comments from Mail readers (current first and second pages)
NOW I UNDERSTAND WHY CAMERON IS CUTTING UK WELFARE PAYMENTS-- SO WE CAN LET EVERY SCROUNGER IN THE WORLD GET FREE MEDICAL TREATMENT. HE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HIMSELF, BUT IT`S VERY CLEAR HE`S NOT. IT`S BEYOND MY COMPREHENSION WHAT AGENDA THESE m.P.`S ARE PURSUING. NONE OF THEM ARE LIVING IN THE REAL WORLD LIKE US PLEBS. IT`S OK FOR THEM ON A VERY GOOD WAGE ,EXPENSES AND PENSIONS PAID FOR BY, YES IT`S US PLEBS. GET US OUT OF THE EU AS PROMISED IN YOUR ELECTION MANIFESTO. WE KNOW YOU WON`T BECAUSE YOUR NOT A MAN JUST A LYING POLITICIAN. I AM A 70 YEAR OLD PENSIONER(STILL PAYING INCOME TAX) WHO HAS VOTED TORY SINCE I WAS 18. NOT ANYMORE AND I HOPE ALL PENSIONERS AND THE MAJORITY OF UK VOTERS DO THE SAME. SO BOG OF CAMERON AND YOUR MOTLYCREW OR WORDS TO THAT EFFECT.
Your better off being a immigrant in this Country free NHS treatment, Free housing plus benefits yet it,s us mugs the taxpayer copping out and paying for it all, we would not get all this in another Country so why should have put up with it.We are treated with contempt we have heating bill,s going up but no help for those that that need it. Yet the Government give millions away on foriegn aid to Countries that are better off than, us where is the justice in that
Its time all those politically correct idiots who are in government or places of power where decisions are made that can affect others were actually moved out of the positions they hold and someone who can do the job was put in I can support anyone who takes ill on holiday having to be seen and treated (they will have insurance after all, if not then they pay up front just as we would have to in their country) but those who come purely to use our health system then the answer is no unless they have the money to pay then i am sorry send them back to where they came from i dont care about their rights i care about the rights of those citizens who have paid for the NHS all their lives and they cant get seen because a foreigner is given treatment before them, get it sorted or give the job to someone who will sort it
Highly annoyed after reading this here - still this shouldn't come as a surprise, another thing that made me shake my head was today I called into Costcutters for something on my way home after being out cycling, and what caught my eye was the headline on another newspaper more or less stating that the the EU are going to be given more powers to asylum seekers to come here and claim benefits. Earlier this week George Osborne announced that another £10 billion or whatever the figure was needs to be saved by cutting people's benefits, so how come people entering the UK can claim any money within hours of being here? Then it dawned on me, the cuts to benefits will just apply to UK residents born and bred here. While those from outside the UK will be given a house and other generous benefits for doing diddly squat,
I am going to stop now because my keyboard is getting tired of such ignorant nonsense (i am sorry send them back to where they came from i don't care about their rights speaks for itself, don't you think?) but before I do, and to show that not everyone who reads the Mail is a rampant fascist hyena, this comment comes from a reader in Exeter:
This is NOT true. Facts: -EU citizens must have been resident and/or working in the UK for a minimum of 30 days before they are granted a GP. Other EU nationals only can seek treatment of pre-existing or emergency conditions. 11 non-EU states, mostly British outposts in the Caribbean, have reciprocal health agreements which treat them the same. -Non-EU citizens who have lived legally in the UK for greater than one year have access to the NHS. As it is NOT POSSIBLE for non-EU citizens to claim benefits unless they have been granted indefinite leave to remain, so they would have been paying taxes. -Asylum seekers with approved or pending applications receive free prescriptions. No other non-UK resident does, unless they carry a communicable disease that threatens public health (ie TB, malaria etc). Full stop. Any GP can use discretion to give free care. There are certainly flaws with the system, but spreading lies about it is not going to solve those things that actually need fixing.
A sensible opinion, grammatically correct, non-abusive and well expressed. Must be a liberal, dammit!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 17:44:39 GMT
I quite agree with Alpine Joe. We shouldn't over-categorise - or stereotype - the readers of the Daily Mail or Daily Express. Nor any other paper for that matter. Not even the Guardian.
But I agree with Wildebeeste when he says these stories are classic Daily Mail in the way they tick all the "usual suspects" boxes. And I guess it's not the politics of the Daily Mail and Daily Express that really baffle me. It's more the obsession with decline, catastrophe and scapegoats which seems designed to play upon people's fears (actual, perceived or - date I say - encouraged). They've been doing this since the 1890s so it clearly sells newspapers and it's based on a tried and trusted formula: find a story; exaggerate and distort it; portray the prospect of something happening as if it has already occurred. Sex up health tourism? It's a piece of piss if you know how.
There's also something quite compelling in the way Alpine Joe portrays the Daily Mail as playing to the British sense of fair play. We all have a sense of fair play, don't we? Mine includes Britain helping people from other countries who might be in trouble. And, because millions of Britons are living overseas, it also strikes me as fair that people come in the other direction as well. It also sounds fair that GPs have "catchment areas" for their surgeries to spread the load. And it appears reasonable to offer medical support to visitors to this country who are ill. But it strikes me as unfair of the Daily Mail to attempt to link these two situations in our minds when they're really quite separate.
My problem with the Mail's story is that it has trouble in defining the current extent of "health tourism". I'm also at a loss to understand the true impact of the changes the Mail is reporting or, furthermore, how Britain compares alongside other countries in what it offers to non-nationals. Mind you, at this point you can start calling me the bleeding heart liberal. For, should Britain be comparatively generous in its provision for non-nationals, that actually makes me happier to be British rather than unhappier.
In purporting that the Daily Mail is merely representing our sense of fair play, I think we are coming close to saying that it is acting in a solely non-political way that is based purely upon common sense. Then, should you agree with that, it becomes all too easy to dismiss the opposite point of view as liberal, awkward and - er - "political". As if, indeed, the "pinkos" have a monopoly on "politics" whilst everybody else is talking common sense. Silly lefty buggers; they're missing the point again.
But I remain intrigued by Alpine Joe's portrayal of the Daily Mail as the bastion of fair play. Yet, when you come to think about it, most forms of politics have their origins in the notion of fairness. If this wasn't the case, it would be bloody difficult to "sell" the message. That goes for political parties, governments and individual politicians - good and bad; popular and unpopular; right and left; military and civilian; democratic and totalitarian. To ascribe "fairness" to just one outlook doesn't seem quite appropriate to me.
In fact, oddly enough, there are misguided individuals who vote Labour, read the Guardian and listen to the Today programme because each - to an extent anyway - appeals to their sense of fair play.
|
|
sam
TFF member
Posts: 341
|
Post by sam on Oct 13, 2012 20:38:49 GMT
The 'Independent' despite being owned by a Russian oligarch, the only impartial newspaper.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2012 20:44:44 GMT
The 'Independent' despite being owned by a Russian oligarch, the only impartial newspaper. And there's a 20p edition! |
|
davethegull
TFF member
Posts: 1,094
Favourite Player: Dave Caldwell
|
Post by davethegull on Oct 14, 2012 10:20:22 GMT
The opposite of liberal is fascist (in my opinion anyway). Is there anyone on here (including DTG) who would rather be a fascist than a liberal? Maybe there is, but I don't think so.
Erm, as far as I'm concerned the opposite of a fascist would be an anarchist. And yes I would far rather lean towards anarchy than fascism. As for the liberal/rightie/leftie issue, you're all peas in the same pod trying to pickpocket peoples hardearned and interfering in their lives. They can be dressed up as Greens, Cons, Labs, Pinkos, Nazis, Dems, Commies and any other label you can think of. But what they all have in common is that they want to run your life for you, control you by constant fear of the latest bogey man and stop you from questioning what they (TPTB) are up to. I would say I'm more Hayek than Keynes, more Reagan than Stalin with possibly a smidge of gobshite thrown in for good measure.
Now can I get back to "babe" watching please? we've got some really hot russians in today!
|
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Oct 14, 2012 11:13:00 GMT
The 'Independent' despite being owned by a Russian oligarch, the only impartial newspaper. With all due respect, Sam, I would take issue with the Independent's claims of impartiality. The Independent's editorial line is entirely consistent with a social democratic worldview. It accepts, for example, that liberal democracy is 'good', that the party political system is both 'fair' and meaningful, that state institutions are 'impartial'. Leaving aside the question of whether those things are true (and I would take issue with each of them), such a stance cannot possibly be described as impartial. All of this of suits the interests of people like Mr Lebvedev, the companies that advertise within the Independent and of course the majority of its readership of 'left'-leaning teachers, students, politicos and public sector workers (whose buy-in, btw, is absolutely essential for the above to remain unchallenged). |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Oct 14, 2012 11:15:49 GMT
The opposite of liberal is fascist (in my opinion anyway). Is there anyone on here (including DTG) who would rather be a fascist than a liberal? Maybe there is, but I don't think so. Erm, as far as I'm concerned the opposite of a fascist would be an anarchist. And yes I would far rather lean towards anarchy than fascism. As for the liberal/rightie/leftie issue, you're all peas in the same pod trying to pickpocket peoples hardearned and interfering in their lives. They can be dressed up as Greens, Cons, Labs, Pinkos, Nazis, Dems, Commies and any other label you can think of. But what they all have in common is that they want to run your life for you, control you by constant fear of the latest bogey man and stop you from questioning what they (TPTB) are up to. I would say I'm more Hayek than Keynes, more Reagan than Stalin with possibly a smidge of gobshite thrown in for good measure. Now can I get back to "babe" watching please? we've got some really hot russians in today! You say you tend towards anarchy, and then quote Hayek and Reagan?! Please tell me which books of Hayek's you have read. |
|
davethegull
TFF member
Posts: 1,094
Favourite Player: Dave Caldwell
|
Post by davethegull on Oct 14, 2012 15:53:27 GMT
Lambie, stop being picky. If I said I lean towards Burgerking rather than Mc D's you would get all uppity.
Just using anarchy as an example......jeez!
Possibly one of the greatest speeches ever made.
and just for fun
round 2
people like lambie are the ones who will tell you to conform and punish those that don't. they are the ones who put monitors in your bins rather than empty them, call you a "hater" if you dare to point out the unfairness of working until august to fund government waste. it's interesting that lambie and his ilk would like you to behave like sheep, carry on head down and compliant. It's not too late to take back freedom and consign politicians/banking cartels to their place.
|
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Oct 14, 2012 19:24:24 GMT
Good speech, no doubt. My problem with that point of view isn't the rejection of centralised planning, but what he advocates as its replacement. I actually agree that the state is an enemy of freedom, but I don't view 'limited' government with the primary function of protecting property from the majority as the solution. I'm happy to talk about Hayek whenever you are, but my pre-condition is that we discuss the works themselves, not youtube videos or raps. That's assuming we've both read them of course  |
|
davethegull
TFF member
Posts: 1,094
Favourite Player: Dave Caldwell
|
Post by davethegull on Oct 15, 2012 2:19:08 GMT
Oh lambie you tease, I'm not going to get pushed down that road. (see what i did there? ) Hayek's model will never be truely used. The Politicians would never allow it, the Banks could never allow it and the Socialists of both left and right (or should that be up and down?) would die to prevent it. We are stuck with more of the same Keynsian poisonous medicine. This will all end in tears, sooner rather than later. I rather like the "raps". |
|
|
|
Post by lambethgull on Oct 15, 2012 10:03:52 GMT
Hayek's model will never be truely used. The society advocated by Hayek and co. has never exisited and never will exist for the simple fact that their assumptions are false and their conclusions unrealisable. It does not follow however that central planners are the answer. As the 19th century French anarchist, Proudhon, wrote: To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place[d] under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonoured. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality. But the problem with Hayek and the 'libertarian' right isn't their critique of the state, but their failure to understand that the state and capital are two sides of the same coin. As Proudhon also wrote: "Capital"... in the political field is analogous to "government"... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit. This trinity of absolutism is as baneful in practice as it is in philosophy. The most effective means for oppressing the people would be simultaneously to enslave its body, its will and its reason. |
|
Rags
TFF member
Posts: 1,210
|
Post by Rags on Oct 15, 2012 10:51:16 GMT
But what they all have in common is that they want to run your life for you, control you by constant fear of the latest bogey man and stop you from questioning what they (TPTB) are up to. I would say I'm more Hayek than Keynes, more Reagan than Stalin with possibly a smidge of gobshite thrown in for good measure.
Now can I get back to "babe" watching please? we've got some really hot russians in today! Hope you enjoyed watching your Russians. Just make sure you don't criticise King Bhumibol or you'll be selling your body in exchange for something more substantial than cockroaches for tea, sharing a Bang Kwang cell with 12 other unfortunates. Not such a free life in Thailand after all, they certainly don't want you questioning what they are doing... |
|
davethegull
TFF member
Posts: 1,094
Favourite Player: Dave Caldwell
|
Post by davethegull on Oct 16, 2012 4:03:00 GMT
But what they all have in common is that they want to run your life for you, control you by constant fear of the latest bogey man and stop you from questioning what they (TPTB) are up to. I would say I'm more Hayek than Keynes, more Reagan than Stalin with possibly a smidge of gobshite thrown in for good measure.
Now can I get back to "babe" watching please? we've got some really hot russians in today! Hope you enjoyed watching your Russians. Just make sure you don't criticise King Bhumibol or you'll be selling your body in exchange for something more substantial than cockroaches for tea, sharing a Bang Kwang cell with 12 other unfortunates. Not such a free life in Thailand after all, they certainly don't want you questioning what they are doing... Rags, you're right, Thailand's not perfect. I take it you're not planning to visit the Land of Smiles anytime soon. But then anyone who points out that the British Royal Family arn't British gets vilified. Or if you dare to mention that the Britain is run by "jewish" Banking cartels you get leapt upon as tho you can't say that even tho it's true. Try putting the wrong sort of trash in the wrong bin and count the bureacrats diving out from behind the bushes to lable you a "global warming denier" or should that be "climate change" now they've been outed as liars. How about opening a door for the lady only to find out she's going to report you for harrassment. I was in England for 3 weeks in september after 5 years away and I was shocked at what I found. Brow beaten people who when they're not under the surviellance of cameras will express their anger at what is being foisted on them. I could not believe the number of eastern europeans I encountered. I've nothing but admiration and gratitude for the Polish nation for their role and bravery in WW2. They have the right to come to the UK and why wouldn't they act on it? But in such numbers? What's so wrong with their country that they would want to live away from their families? The whole thing is disproportionate and doesn't make sense. I was at the Argyle game. The whole experience in the ground was horrible. Over policed and stewarded, it felt more like a gulag than an place of entertainment. The hostility towards paying customers by some of the stewards was disgraceful. I seriously considered not going to the Burton game because of it. And this is just a small part of what you have to put up with. Maybe because I have been away for 5 years the difference was so big. I suppose if you have lived it for that period you have gradually been led by the nose to where you are now. For me it was a shock. So, I'll stay in a country that is run by corrupt politicians and elitist business interests. At least the weathers warm, the people friendly, no-one really bothers you if you're not bothering them, it's cheap to live and I enjoy everyday here. Why would I swap that for Britain? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2012 6:41:54 GMT
Don't usually take any notice of internet trolls but this is such utter rubbish even I can't let it pass. Does DTG honestly not see the irony of an emigrant to another country railing against immigration into the country he left behind? Incredible.
I was a visitor to Torquay v Argyle as well and no-one else who was at the game needs me to tell them that the atmosphere was nothing like that described by DTG. Maybe the police were a bit heavy handed when they ejected that lad for letting off a smoke bomb but to say the place was like a gulag is just barking mad. Or it would be so if DTG actually believed the twaddle he writes.
DTG's ignorant and anti-semitic remarks, his mysogyny and global warming denial put him in the same category as the notorious Violentacrez for writing offensive anti-contributions with the sole intention of creating an outraged reaction. He has excelled himself this time, though. Nazis all over the web would be thrilled with his comment about Jewish banking cartels and as for his no doubt thoroughly researched contempt for the 90%+ of scientists who accept man-made climate change as a fact, words fail me.
I am mad with myself for responding to DTG's provocation and since I pride myself on not suffering fools I have no intention of falling into the trap of getting involved in any dialogue with him but it worries me that there may just be a remote possibilty of a young follower of this forum being impressed by his smug and disgusting ramblings.
Let's hope DTG follows his own advice and stays as far away from Britain as possible. We need him here about as much as we need his spiritual brothers in the EDL, in the pub and on the home end at the Proact Stadium.
|
|
