Refugee Family Set to Win Millions from NHS

First topic message reminder :




for Not Using Foreign Language to Explain Importance of Feeding Newborn



http://www.breitbart.com/london/2018/04/15/refugee-family-set-win-millions-nhs-foreign-language/


This hasnt gone down well

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


1) You did

where...please quote the exact lines where I claimed to be a refugee......

2) So you prove your ignorance

unlike you didge I dont have the time to troll evey news item on every dot on the map every day

3) It does not matter whether they were refugees or not.

well yes it does...one could and should expect a tourist to have adequate insurance to cover any reasonably likely costs of their travel.....Also IF...note IF......they had arrived here as refugees and she was already pregnant.....my view would likely be different, HOWEVER and this IS important.....they had that child, knowing full well they could not understand the language, and thus knew full well that they could not expect to understand any instructions or advice given......THAT is the hight of irresponsibility.....

why is it didge that you suppoert the "right" of people to be totally irresponsible at the expence of everyone else

This was a new born baby, and does not matter if a baby either. We have a duty of care to help people and money should not be something that should conflict with that.

Do you fucking understand that?

Seriously

So it does not matter what you think or whether you think they are refugees or not

What the midwivies did was wrong and what was even worse, is idiots like you supporting a white supremacist twat in gelico that publishes disinformation

I mean even the Mail was not as bad as her Breibart link

Your rely is all messed up in posts sort it out now or dont expect a reply

learn to post properly

cop out, there is nothing wrong with that post, my replys are in red below the relevant comment you made....anyone with an ounce of sense can see what my comments are refering to......oh wait............

Okay, I will give gelico another chance

Does she apologise for spreading false information about Hilary Clinton, claiming she was part of a peado gang. Even though, this story has been debunked as nothing more than the made up story from the alt-right.

Will she admit, she was wrong and taken in by lies?

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Your rely is all messed up in posts sort it out now or dont expect a reply

learn to post properly

cop out, there is nothing wrong with that post, my replys are in red below the relevant comment you made....anyone with an ounce of sense can see what my comments are refering to......oh wait............

You never even answered my points

Sort your replies out or you wont get a reponse

I dread to think what would have happened to this child if the parents had stayed in Sri Lanka, it would probabaly have died of starvation. If women over the centuries had to be instructed to feed their babies the human race would be barely hanging on. How often do the parents not eat for 15 hours, the buck stops with the parents, many people have babies and don't speak good if any English yet I don't see too many reports on this kind of thing.
As someone said try ignoring a hungry baby for 15 hours.

Vintage wrote:I dread to think what would have happened to this child if the parents had stayed in Sri Lanka, it would probabaly have died of starvation. If women over the centuries had to be instructed to feed their babies the human race would be barely hanging on. How often do the parents not eat for 15 hours, the buck stops with the parents, many people have babies and don't speak good if any English yet I don't see too many reports on this kind of thing.
As someone said try ignoring a hungry baby for 15 hours.

well, quite

I answered your points 1,2 and 3,

1 you claimed i said I was (or could claim to be a refugee) so post the exact lines where I did that
2 you said i proved my ignorance (as regards the affairs in sri lanka) my reply is in the above post IN RED underneath your point 2......

3 you claim it doesn not matter if they were refugees or not...my answer is once again IN RED under that point of yours


like I said a cop out you have used previously when cornered

Vintage wrote:I dread to think what would have happened to this child if the parents had stayed in Sri Lanka, it would probabaly have died of starvation. If women over the centuries had to be instructed to feed their babies the human race would be barely hanging on. How often do the parents not eat for 15 hours, the buck stops with the parents, many people have babies and don't speak good if any English yet I don't see too many reports on this kind of thing.
As someone said try ignoring a hungry baby for 15 hours.

So what is the point of midwives then?

You think all women know how to handle the situation?

Why is it the conservative minded actually ignore the evidence on here.

Why did the judge find the midwives at fault

You cannot place a position based on what you think that knowledge should be based on

Hence why any judge would never rule on what you think

Lord Foul wrote:I answered your points 1,2 and 3,

1 you claimed i said I was (or could claim to be a refugee)  so post the exact lines where I did that
2 you said i proved my ignorance (as regards the affairs in sri lanka) my reply is in the above post   IN RED underneath your point 2......

3 you claim it doesn not matter if they were refugees or not...my answer is once again IN RED under that point of yours


like I said a cop out you have used previously when cornered

So as stated, you ignore most of my points

You are not even responding to my points

Again properly reply or do not expect a reponse

the ONLY other point you mentioned was

"This was a new born baby, and does not matter if a baby either. We have a duty of care to help people and money should not be something that should conflict with that."

the rest was irrelevant chest beating

so in answer to that point.....
WHO SAYS we have a "duty of care" in an unrestricted and universal sense?? no legislation thats for sure...NOT even the HRA goes that far......

and thats not to mention that there is ALSO a duty on the individual to act responsibly


again, why do you support the "right" of individuals to act irresponsibly , to the cost of us all?

do you support the right to drink and drive or text and drive by any chance????

I wonder who advised them to take legal action - presumably not a person who speaks English or they wouldn't have "understood". They didn't feed the kid and looked around for someone to blame.

Lord Foul wrote:the ONLY other point you mentioned was

"This was a new born baby, and does not matter if a baby either. We have a duty of care to help people and money should not be something that should conflict with that."

the rest was irrelevant chest beating

so in answer to that point.....
WHO SAYS we have a "duty of care" in an unrestricted and universal sense?? no legislation thats for sure...NOT even the HRA goes that far......

and thats not to mention that there is ALSO a duty on the individual to act responsibly


again, why do you support the "right" of individuals to act irresponsibly , to the cost of us all?

do you support the right to drink and drive or text and drive by any chance????

Who says we have a duty of care?

The fact that everyone has a free health service, from the momeent they are are born

It means, we care and rightly so for the value of life

To say this should only be based on the geographically boundaries of where people are born, falls flats, as this child was born in the UK. Thus making this child a British citizen. So are you going to deny this child help, even based on your poor reasoning

What did you not understand by the Judges decision

I dispair at you bigoted cultural pessimism. That think the piss poor amount of money you have paid into the system, comes anywhere near paying for what you had free in an education and health care.

having paid in over 2/3rd of my income in taxation since the day I started earning, I's say I've done my share

****when you take into account, income tax, vat, duty NI etc***********

for instance the vat and duty on fuel is about 3/4 of the pump price

and you pay that pro rata on TOP of the cost of every thing you buy, since those costs are charged by the transporters of those goods to the cost of delivery

so every sausage you buy carries a proportion of fuel vat and duty, a propotion of the income tax paid for every employer (since that is part of an employers "costs" ultimately and so on

If you buy a vat rateable item you pay firstly the vat, then the vat and duty pro rata for the delivery costs ..etc etc etc

you are effectively taxed on everything you buy with both the taxed and the untaxed proportion of your income....

go work out exactly how much you in reality pay.......we even pay tax on taxes..the duty portion of the cost of a dutiable item is subject to VAT ......

Didge wrote:

Lord Foul wrote:the ONLY other point you mentioned was

"This was a new born baby, and does not matter if a baby either. We have a duty of care to help people and money should not be something that should conflict with that."

the rest was irrelevant chest beating

so in answer to that point.....
WHO SAYS we have a "duty of care" in an unrestricted and universal sense?? no legislation thats for sure...NOT even the HRA goes that far......

and thats not to mention that there is ALSO a duty on the individual to act responsibly


again, why do you support the "right" of individuals to act irresponsibly , to the cost of us all?

do you support the right to drink and drive or text and drive by any chance????

Who says we have a duty of care?

The fact that everyone has a free health service, from the momeent they are are born

It means, we care and rightly so for the value of life

To say this should only be based on the geographically boundaries of where people are born, falls flats, as this child was born in the UK. Thus making this child a British citizen. So are you going to deny this child help, even based on your poor reasoning

What did you not understand by the Judges decision

I dispair at you bigoted cultural pessimism. That think the piss poor amount of money you have paid into the system, comes anywhere near paying for what you had free in an education and health care.

what I dont understand about the judges reasoning is that it failsn utterly to take into consideration the irresponsibility of the parents....

NOW..I agree that the child, born in britain and thus a british subject may have a valid claim, however.....he should be made ward of court and placed with foster carers and his parents left no better off as a result of this....it ULTIMATE responsibility was and is irremoveably THEIRS.

Lord Foul wrote:

Didge wrote:


Who says we have a duty of care?

The fact that everyone has a free health service, from the momeent they are are born

It means, we care and rightly so for the value of life

To say this should only be based on the geographically boundaries of where people are born, falls flats, as this child was born in the UK. Thus making this child a British citizen. So are you going to deny this child help, even based on your poor reasoning

What did you not understand by the Judges decision

I dispair at you bigoted cultural pessimism. That think the piss poor amount of money you have paid into the system, comes anywhere near paying for what you had free in an education and health care.

what I dont understand about the judges reasoning is that it failsn utterly to take into consideration the irresponsibility of the parents....

NOW..I agree that the child, born in britain and thus a british subject may have a valid claim, however.....he should be made ward of court and placed with foster carers and his parents left no better off as a result of this....it ULTIMATE responsibility was and is irremoveably THEIRS.

I do not dispute that the parents also have a responsibility of care, but again the midwives should have ensured better instructions here

Do not disagree on any other points