Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 17:05 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:23:39 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >Are you implying that access to treatment should be on the basis of what the >patient _thinks_ they need and can afford, rather than what the doctor >thinks is the best treatment? I would imagine that under a system where anyone can visit any specialist at any time, the best specialists would be inundated with rich hypochondriacs wasting their time.
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 17:10 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:56:02 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: > >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> >> > And how do you find a doctor? >> >> Well in my case, there is a GP practice about 4 miles away. If I was >> somewhere else and it was urgent I would go to see the nearest doctor. > >I'll add that most ppl are already 'registered' with a regular doctor ( or >practice ) of their choice whom they would normally see. In my case I am registered with the practice about seven minutes walk from here, but there are others within reach that I could use if I preferred. It's all a matter of patient choice. Up to a point. If a patient chooses a health centre on the other side of the city, they might well refuse to add the patient to their books, on the basis that it would be rather too far to make a home visit when necessary. Once, wen we moved across the city, we stayed registered with our old doctor, because she lived near our new home and so could do a home visit on her way home. That's unusual. The main point to be made is that is an easy and stress-free system. If you need treatment from a doctor, you go and see a doctor, and that's all there is to it. Heh, almost.
From: Ben Newsam on 11 Nov 2006 17:22 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 20:38:34 -0000, "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >In the instance you cite above it is a harder call as to the law for double >jeopardy, but it remains that a law has been changed because of emotional >issues. While I don't know the ins and outs of the new legislation, unless >is hinges on the defendant later admitting guilt I cant see how it is fair. >While double jeopardy was a "law" it required the prosecution build the >strongest possible case, knowing they only had one shot. I am not saying it >_will_ happen but there is now the possibility of many smaller, poorly >evidenced trials on the "off chance" that the jury will convict. Although it >has the best intentions, this is a popularist law which has the potential of >causing more harm than good. I don't think the changes as a result of the Dunlop case were done for emotional reasons. It took 20 years to mget the conviction after a lot of hard work. Apart from the unusual and gruesome circumstances of the discovery of the body, it was an unremarkable murder in other ways. As I understand it there has to be either an admission of guilt, as in the Dunlop case, or compelling new evidence. DNA evidence would count as new in many cases of course. I don't have a problem with that. If someone is guilty and can be proved to be, then they should be prosecuted. I am reasonably confident that there are enough checks and balances against the wilful multiple prosecution of suspects merely hoping for a lucky conviction in the end. The media would jump on it, for one thing. Well, I hope they would anyway. >Another example is the recent trial of Nick Griffin (the leader of the BNP), >in which a court has acquitted him of race hate. Now personally I find it >shocking to acquit the likes of Griffin and it is somewhat similar to saying >the Pope isn't Catholic but at the end of the day, whether I like it or not, >he has been acquitted. Following this John Reid says current laws may need >reviewing. Surely this is madness. John Reid has judged Griffin guilty and >intends to change the laws until he can get a jury to think the same. Well, there I agree with you completely. Odious though the fellow's views are, in the words of the Law Lords in a case I was acquainted with: "There is no need to regret the failure of an attempt to make the facts fit a law that was not meant to contain them".
From: unsettled on 11 Nov 2006 18:09 T Wake wrote: > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> wrote in message > news:9cibl21gu2d8b4hfoo2trilmmcenvqnied(a)4ax.com... > >>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:37:20 -0000, "T Wake" >><usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >> >>>What War on Christianity am I waging? I have no concerns as to the >>>religion >>>people practice in their own homes. I do object to being subject to >>>religion-derived law though. >> >>--- >>Like the prohibition of murder and theft? > > > Existed in English common law long before Christianity. Nice try though. So which "religion-derived" laws do you object to then? Care to list a few?
From: unsettled on 11 Nov 2006 18:15
T Wake wrote: > "Ben Newsam" <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote in message > news:433cl2514om42jo75su25lm6ug1ljmdsm0(a)4ax.com... > >>On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:25:00 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> >>wrote: >> >> >>>Ben Newsam wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 21:41:23 -0500, krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>The fact is that some jobs >>>>>aren't worth "minimum wage". >>>> >>>> >>>>Are you saying that you consider some jobs to be so menial that you >>>>would actually pay someone less than enough to live on to do them? >>>> >>>>The trouble with naked capitalism is that it doesn't just produce >>>>winners and wealth, it actually requires losers and poverty to >>>>operate. Because otherwise there would be no incentive to do anything, >>>>would there? The "pure" capitalist system actually requires that some >>>>people starve to death just to make sure that the oiks get back to >>>>their slave labour. >>> >>>Been reading too much Marx of late? >> >>ha! If you think I am anywhere near being a Marxist, you know very >>little about anything. > > > I think that is pretty much a given. Gratuitous bullshit. |