Re: UK Parents of under 5s face 'nanny state' home inspections to keep children safe

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by NormanM, May 19, 2010.

  1. NormanM

    NormanM Guest

    On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:11:38 -0000, Bullwinkle wrote:

    > "MM" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "Parents of children under five are to get home checks to ensure they
    > are keeping their children safe from harm.


    Well, when the government is footing the health bill, they certainly want to
    make sure their vassals don't cost them more than necessary.

    --
    Norman
    ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
     
    NormanM, May 19, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. NormanM

    Aardvark Guest

    Re: UK Parents of under 5s face 'nanny state' home inspections tokeep children safe

    On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:00:16 -0700, NormanM wrote:

    > On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:11:38 -0000, Bullwinkle wrote:
    >
    >> "MM" <> wrote in message
    >> news:... "Parents of children
    >> under five are to get home checks to ensure they are keeping their
    >> children safe from harm.

    >
    > Well, when the government is footing the health bill, they certainly
    > want to make sure their vassals don't cost them more than necessary.


    It's obvious that you have no fucking idea of how the NHS is financed, and
    therefore any comment you pass is invalid.



    --
    Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
    your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
    <http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html>
     
    Aardvark, May 22, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. NormanM

    NormanM Guest

    On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:17:28 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:

    > On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:00:16 -0700, NormanM wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:11:38 -0000, Bullwinkle wrote:


    >>> "MM" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:... "Parents of children
    >>> under five are to get home checks to ensure they are keeping their
    >>> children safe from harm.


    >> Well, when the government is footing the health bill, they certainly
    >> want to make sure their vassals don't cost them more than necessary.


    > It's obvious that you have no fucking idea of how the NHS is financed, and
    > therefore any comment you pass is invalid.


    I was under the impression that participation in NHS is mandatory, by law.
    Even if the participants are paying, that still involves a government
    mandate, which makes the participants, "vassals of the state". And the
    government still has an interest in controlling the costs. Now, if
    participation is voluntary (i.e., no government sanctions for "opting out"),
    then the non-participants should be free from government inspection.

    --
    Norman
    ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
     
    NormanM, May 22, 2010
    #3
  4. NormanM

    Aardvark Guest

    Re: UK Parents of under 5s face 'nanny state' home inspections tokeep children safe

    On Sat, 22 May 2010 14:06:51 -0700, NormanM wrote:

    > On Sat, 22 May 2010 16:17:28 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 18 May 2010 18:00:16 -0700, NormanM wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 18 May 2010 12:11:38 -0000, Bullwinkle wrote:

    >
    >>>> "MM" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:... "Parents of
    >>>> children under five are to get home checks to ensure they are keeping
    >>>> their children safe from harm.

    >
    >>> Well, when the government is footing the health bill, they certainly
    >>> want to make sure their vassals don't cost them more than necessary.

    >
    >> It's obvious that you have no fucking idea of how the NHS is financed,
    >> and therefore any comment you pass is invalid.

    >
    > I was under the impression that participation in NHS is mandatory, by
    > law. Even if the participants are paying, that still involves a
    > government mandate, which makes the participants, "vassals of the
    > state". And the government still has an interest in controlling the
    > costs. Now, if participation is voluntary (i.e., no government sanctions
    > for "opting out"), then the non-participants should be free from
    > government inspection.


    I was right. You know jack shit about the NHS.

    **** off, dipshit.



    --
    Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
    your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
    <http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html>
     
    Aardvark, May 23, 2010
    #4
  5. NormanM

    NormanM Guest

    On Sun, 23 May 2010 00:27:09 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:

    > I was right. You know jack shit about the NHS.
    >
    > **** off, dipshit.


    From this site:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)

    It is my understanding that anything which is "publicly funded" is paid out
    of the national treasury; i.e., tax supported.

    --
    Norman
    ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
     
    NormanM, May 23, 2010
    #5
  6. NormanM

    Aardvark Guest

    Re: UK Parents of under 5s face 'nanny state' home inspections tokeep children safe

    On Sun, 23 May 2010 00:49:12 -0700, NormanM wrote:

    > On Sun, 23 May 2010 00:27:09 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:
    >
    >> I was right. You know jack shit about the NHS.
    >>
    >> **** off, dipshit.

    >
    > From this site:
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Health_Service_(England)
    >
    > It is my understanding that anything which is "publicly funded" is paid
    > out of the national treasury; i.e., tax supported.


    In other words we, the people, pay for it. I've never seen a medical bill.
    Can you say the same?



    --
    Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
    your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
    <http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html>
     
    Aardvark, May 23, 2010
    #6
  7. NormanM

    NormanM Guest

    On Sun, 23 May 2010 10:04:49 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:

    > In other words we, the people, pay for it. I've never seen a medical bill.
    > Can you say the same?


    Which brings me back to the fact that Government treasury pays for it, and
    Government paying out money has some responsibility to see that they are not
    paying for more than is necessary. If you don't want Government butting into
    your life, don't use a government funded system!

    --
    Norman
    ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
     
    NormanM, May 24, 2010
    #7
  8. NormanM

    Aardvark Guest

    Re: UK Parents of under 5s face 'nanny state' home inspections tokeep children safe

    On Sun, 23 May 2010 22:19:35 -0700, NormanM wrote:

    > On Sun, 23 May 2010 10:04:49 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:
    >
    >> In other words we, the people, pay for it. I've never seen a medical
    >> bill. Can you say the same?

    >
    > Which brings me back to the fact that Government treasury pays for it,


    Did you miss the bit where I said "we, the people, pay for it"?

    >
    > and Government paying out money has some responsibility to see that they
    > are not paying for more than is necessary.


    Do you have any idea of the comparative price of prescription drugs
    between the US and, say, the UK, France, Canada, Germany and so on?

    Fucking dope.

    > If you don't want Government
    > butting into your life, don't use a government funded system!


    Did you miss the bit where I said "we, the people, pay for it"?



    --
    Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
    your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
    <http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html>
     
    Aardvark, May 24, 2010
    #8
  9. NormanM

    NormanM Guest

    On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:39:48 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:

    > On Sun, 23 May 2010 22:19:35 -0700, NormanM wrote:


    >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 10:04:49 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:


    >>> In other words we, the people, pay for it. I've never seen a medical
    >>> bill. Can you say the same?


    >> Which brings me back to the fact that Government treasury pays for it,


    > Did you miss the bit where I said "we, the people, pay for it"?


    Do you control the Exchequer? Seriously, you don't get it, do you. "We, the
    People", are represented by our government, whether it is a Parliamentary
    government, or a Federal Republic. It isn't "your money" individually, it is
    "your money" collectively. The controllers of the collective disburse "your
    money" by a set of rules. So those controllers have the authority to attach
    strings to "your money". Until you can grasp that fact, you will fail to
    understand that the controllers of disbursement can take steps to control
    "your" expenses. To include "health and welfare inspections" of the homes of
    minor children, when minor children are cause disproportionate increases in
    cost due to parental carelessness in caretaking.

    >> and Government paying out money has some responsibility to see that they
    >> are not paying for more than is necessary.


    > Do you have any idea of the comparative price of prescription drugs
    > between the US and, say, the UK, France, Canada, Germany and so on?


    Which has what-all to do with government run "health and welfare checks in
    the home? We are not discussing prescription drugs, sir.

    > Fucking dope.


    Debate over: You lost. Bye.

    --
    Norman
    ~Oh Lord, why have you come
    ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
     
    NormanM, May 24, 2010
    #9
  10. NormanM

    Aardvark Guest

    Re: UK Parents of under 5s face 'nanny state' home inspections tokeep children safe

    On Mon, 24 May 2010 10:07:00 -0700, NormanM wrote:

    > On Mon, 24 May 2010 16:39:48 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 22:19:35 -0700, NormanM wrote:

    >
    >>> On Sun, 23 May 2010 10:04:49 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:

    >
    >>>> In other words we, the people, pay for it. I've never seen a medical
    >>>> bill. Can you say the same?

    >
    >>> Which brings me back to the fact that Government treasury pays for it,

    >
    >> Did you miss the bit where I said "we, the people, pay for it"?

    >
    > Do you control the Exchequer? Seriously, you don't get it, do you. "We,
    > the People", are represented by our government, whether it is a
    > Parliamentary government, or a Federal Republic. It isn't "your money"
    > individually, it is "your money" collectively.


    Well duh! Of course it is. It's my duty as a citizen to contribute to the
    well-being of society and those less able than myself. I'd gladly pay
    more.

    > SNIP pointless bollocks.


    I've never seen a medical bill, nor do I personally know anyone who has.
    Can you say the same? LOL.

    >>> and Government paying out money has some responsibility to see that
    >>> they are not paying for more than is necessary.

    >
    >> Do you have any idea of the comparative price of prescription drugs
    >> between the US and, say, the UK, France, Canada, Germany and so on?

    >
    > Which has what-all to do with government run "health and welfare checks
    > in the home? We are not discussing prescription drugs, sir.
    >
    >> Fucking dope.

    >
    > Debate over: You lost.


    Yeah. Right. You go ahead and worry about being made bankrupt by essential
    medical costs.

    > Bye.


    Toodle-pip.



    --
    Top posting because your cursor happens to be there is like shitting in
    your pants because that's where your asshole happens to be.
    <http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq08-topp.html>
     
    Aardvark, May 24, 2010
    #10
  11. I cannot figure out why you people in the UK put up with this shit. Let
    them try and "inspect" my home in the US. Let's see what happens. Gonna be
    a bad for that inspector.

    It was a bad day for a census worker who refused to leave a few weeks ago.
    too bad the homeowner got killed by the royal jackboot cops.

    Aardvark wrote:

    > On Sun, 23 May 2010 22:19:35 -0700, NormanM wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 23 May 2010 10:04:49 +0000 (UTC), Aardvark wrote:
    >>
    >>> In other words we, the people, pay for it. I've never seen a medical
    >>> bill. Can you say the same?

    >>
    >> Which brings me back to the fact that Government treasury pays for it,

    >
    > Did you miss the bit where I said "we, the people, pay for it"?
    >
    >>
    >> and Government paying out money has some responsibility to see that they
    >> are not paying for more than is necessary.

    >
    > Do you have any idea of the comparative price of prescription drugs
    > between the US and, say, the UK, France, Canada, Germany and so on?
    >
    > Fucking dope.
    >
    >> If you don't want Government
    >> butting into your life, don't use a government funded system!

    >
    > Did you miss the bit where I said "we, the people, pay for it"?
    >
    >
    >
     
    Robert J Harsh, Jun 4, 2010
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Len

    Face to Face Purchase Help UK

    Len, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    640
    Graham
    Nov 1, 2003
  2. Annika1980

    FACE TO FACE WITH THE D60 !!!

    Annika1980, Nov 6, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    608
    Robert A. Barr
    Nov 9, 2003
  3. Fierce Guppy
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    550
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Dec 17, 2007
  4. RichA

    OT: Nanny state gone insane

    RichA, Jan 11, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    329
    Bruce
    Jan 12, 2011
  5. RichA

    Apple brings the nanny state to the computer world

    RichA, Feb 1, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    43
    Views:
    541
    John Turco
    Feb 8, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page