Farage bashed by charity for suggesting UK ban migrants with HIV

by Ben Reilly Fri Oct 10, 2014 7:06 am

First topic message reminder :

Ukip leader Nigel Farage has been condemned by a leading charity after suggesting that migrants with HIV should be prevented from entering the UK.

Mr Farage reportedly said preventing people with the condition entering the country would be a "good start" in controlling the UK's borders.

The chief executive of HIV/Aids charity Terrence Higgins Trust accused Mr Farage of stooping to a "new level of ignorance" and Labour MP David Lammy said he was "trying to revive the very worst bigotry" of the 1980s.

In an interview with Newsweek Europe, Mr Farage set out the changes he would like to see, including a block on convicted killers being allowed into the UK, referring to the prime suspect in the Alice Gross murder case.

Convicted killer Arnis Zalkalns, from Latvia, was found hanged in Boston Manor Park, west London, on October 4, near where Alice was last seen on August 28 as she walked back to her family home in Hanwell.

"It's simple. That Latvian convicted murderer shouldn't have been allowed here," Mr Farage said.

Mr Farage said Ukip "want to control the quantity and quality of people who come" to the UK.

The Daily Mail reported that, asked by Newsweek whether "quality" meant people without a murder conviction, he answered: "Yes. And people who do not have HIV, to be frank. That's a good start. And people with a skill. That is what Britain should do."

He went on to say: "I have never said that we should not take refugees. We have a proud record of accepting refugees, and that must be continued."

http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/politics/farage-ban-hiv-migrants-from-uk-1.620778

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:38 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:you do realise you are barmy dont you....
you have the economic sense of a truck load of echidnas
and the practicality of a chocolate soup spoon

christ on a bike ..no wonder our economy is screwed if YOU are a typical tory.progressive....
talk about wrong priorities...

You know when a poster has lost all credibility in their argument when over 75% of their replies is nothing but insults.

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:39 pm

I'm not here for you to rub your ego on like baloo scratching his back on the tree

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:40 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:Last time I looked, India had the time and money to educate and train so many doctors that they could even have a surplus to be able to send here to UK...

And the got a space programme...

Seems they have plenty of knowledge and money....

WHy don't the well off there spend more of their money looking after the interests of their own...???

Not our responsibility.

Not our NHS responsibility either.

But back to topic.... we should not be allowing anyone in with any serious/deadly transmissable diseases.

So your view is not based on what is right or morally right, but on using on what other nations do, is that correct?

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:40 pm

as for debate...you who have the debating ability of a desicated amoeba..... Laughing

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:42 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:I'm not here for you to rub your ego on like baloo scratching his back on the tree

I think a back scratch is the best myself, maybe you should allow people to get closer to you, that maybe your issue here?
You need to stop going off topic.

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:44 pm

if they are scratching they aint getting anywhere near me...god knows what they might have...
rabies scabies jock itch and dysentry....ugh...keep away peasants

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:44 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:as for debate...you who have the debating ability of a desicated amoeba.....

So I was very much correct then in how people get not only upset over nothing, but lose ant rational sense they had and spoil a debate because they have no rational answer.

Thanks for your input Victor, we both know it was poor.

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:46 pm

Brasidas wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:I'm not here for you to rub your ego on like baloo scratching his back on the tree

I think a back scratch is the best myself, maybe you should allow people to get closer to you, that maybe your issue here?
You need to stop going off topic.

if your percieved cure for a back scratch needed is to "get closer to someone" I can only suggest the chimp colony at Chester zoo may be a more appropriate place for you...semi evolved simian.....

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:48 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

I think a back scratch is the best myself, maybe you should allow people to get closer to you, that maybe your issue here?
You need to stop going off topic.

if your percieved cure for a back scratch needed is to "get closer to someone" I can only suggest the chimp colony at Chester zoo may be a more appropriate place for you...semi evolved simian.....

I would be happy with that, it may help me further understand human origins.
It also shows how you show such discrimination for other animals, they are lesser to you, thus of less worth, because again of elitism, a pecking order, the higher food chain argument

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:50 pm

Brasidas wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:as for debate...you who have the debating ability of a desicated amoeba.....

So I was very much correct then in how people get not only upset over nothing, but lose ant rational sense they had and spoil a debate because they have no rational answer.

Thanks for your input Victor, we both know it was poor.

I'm afraid old bean that its your point that is irrational, not in its desire, but in its practicality...this is another of your dreams that anyone would suspect comes from the bottom of a hookah rather than from the rational deliberations of an intelectually gifted monkey....

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:51 pm

Brasidas wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

if your percieved cure for a back scratch needed is to "get closer to someone" I can only suggest the chimp colony at Chester zoo may be a more appropriate place for you...semi evolved simian.....

I would be happy with that, it may help me further understand human origins.
It also shows how you show such discrimination for other animals, they are lesser to you, thus of less worth, because again of elitism, a pecking order, the higher food chain argument

and?

there is a place for all gods creatures....right there ...between the mashed potatoes and the veg........... Razz

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:53 pm

I suggest a good film for you to watch Victor:

This is very apt for you:

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 10:55 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

So I was very much correct then in how people get not only upset over nothing, but lose ant rational sense they had and spoil a debate because they have no rational answer.

Thanks for your input Victor, we both know it was poor.

I'm afraid old bean that its your point that is irrational, not in its desire, but in its practicality...this is another of your dreams that anyone would suspect comes from the bottom of a hookah rather than from the rational deliberations of an intelectually gifted monkey....

So your argument is to deny making something possible/
That proves you have no view point, you ask if it can be achieved?
You know there is nothing stopping it happening other than people trying to stem change for the good.
That is people who live in fear, that is you.
That kind of person, can never adapt, that is religious literal belief for you.

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:00 pm

it aint me that will stop it happening..its those you doff your cap to ...you know the money men..the tories and bankers and captains of industry

all that will happen is that the "common folk" like me, will suffer when the NHS goes tits up because of tits like you wanting to give it all away free to any one who wants it....

now hows about me putting any RTA claims through YOUR insurance....since you are feeling so generous.....

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:02 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:it aint me that will stop it happening..its those you doff your cap to ...you know the money men..the tories and bankers and captains of industry

all that will happen is that the "common folk" like me, will suffer when the NHS goes tits up because of tits like you wanting to give it all away free to any one who wants it....

now hows about me putting any RTA claims through YOUR insurance....since you are feeling so generous.....

You use excuses as to why, not how you can change, do you see why your argument fails?
You blame.

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:10 pm

Brasidas wrote:I suggest a good film for you to watch Victor:

This is very apt for you:

there is truth in that....

and YOU are the one with the illusions....

not of your own "power" or whatever...I know you are not that much of an egoist, but you have serious illusions of the innate "goodness" of man..forget it..it doesnt (generally) exist (with the few notable exceptions that make the news...BECAUSE they are exceptions)

why do you think communism never works great though the idea is?

of course, if you wish to undertake a "cull" of those who prevent such a decent course then thats different...but until you do THEY will not let it happen....do you really think the 1% would give up their 90% of global wealth...now THAT is an illusion.....

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:12 pm

Brasidas wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:it aint me that will stop it happening..its those you doff your cap to ...you know the money men..the tories and bankers and captains of industry

all that will happen is that the "common folk" like me, will suffer when the NHS goes tits up because of tits like you wanting to give it all away free to any one who wants it....

now hows about me putting any RTA claims through YOUR insurance....since you are feeling so generous.....

You use excuses as to why, not how you can change, do you see why your argument fails?
You blame.

strewth didge...can I have a pipe full of whatever you are on tonight????

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:13 pm

Illusions you say.
Tell me if some people can be good, what is stopping others from doing the same?
All can be good, you offer again a reason to deny being good.
You know the issue then falls back to you.

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:14 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

You use excuses as to why, not how you can change, do you see why your argument fails?
You blame.

strewth didge...can I have a pipe full of whatever you are on tonight????

The above is an example of a reply that concedes.

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:40 pm

Brasidas wrote:Illusions you say.
Tell me if some people can be good, what is stopping others from doing the same?
All can be good, you offer again a reason to deny being good.
You know the issue then falls back to you.

and there is your biggest illusion

what is "good" and what is "evil" ???
both are subjective and intangible

you should be more concerned with chaos and order(also known as "lawfulness)

there is in practice little difference between "lawful good" and "lawful evil" since the definition of what contitutes good or evil is entirely dependent on your point of view and your social programming. thus one society may have a practice it considers good, and carries it out in a properly constructed way, according to whet is perceived as beneficial and contibuting to good order to that society (and is thus lawfuly good) another society may, whilst seeing understanding it is carried out within the good order of that other society, view that practice with horror and thus percieve it as lawfully evil.

Broadly speaking a lawfully evil act would not however carry the same threat as a chaotically evil act..., since the lawfulness of it is restricted to the domain of the "host nation" and the act obeys the understood laws of that nation..

that same practice carried out on a whim by anyone capable and outside of the laws and restraints of the society will be seen either as chaotically good or chaotically evil

a society could presumably survive and even appreciate a chaotically good act...but a chaotically evil act could have dire consequences

example....

the saudis burn bibles and virtually ban anything "christian" ...an act that many dvout christians no doubt consider evil..it is however "lawfully evil" and the saudis them selves would resonably consider the practice to be "lawfully good"
THAT act follows laid down principles and has proper rules and regulations, and is recognised as, for good OR evil, being "within law"

ISIS behead innocent people...out with any law or restraint.....that is chaotically evil, and even those held under the sway of ISIS are horified....
It has no law or principle behind it and carries only problems with it

chaos and order they are definable and mechanistic and the results are visible

NOT good or evil.......they are subjective and emotive and the results intangible.......

one thing though is true

it is easier for evil to become apparant when chaos is rampant

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:43 pm

There is nothing subjective about good and evil, do you dare test this?

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:46 pm

It will be interesting....

but remember this is philosophy....

and thus concrete examples are NOT the defining answer...

i'll re-edit this....time dependant concrete examples......

just because something is good or evil NOW doesnt make it necessarily so.....

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:48 pm

Cool, what do you know about good and evil?

Were you taught rights from wrongs?

I have to go so am interested in your replies mate.

Night

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:49 pm

so... starter for 10

is slavery in and of itself evil

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:50 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:so... starter for 10

is slavery in and of itself evil

Did all people agree with slavery?

To answer that question will prove my point.
Change.

by Guest Fri Oct 10, 2014 11:53 pm

Brasidas wrote:Cool, what do you know about good and evil?

Were you taught rights from wrongs?

that doesnt of neccessity define good and evil ...it may also define order from chaos...dont confues the issue with yet more subjective definitions....lets just stick to good and evil

I have to go so am interested in your replies mate.

Night

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:18 am

Brasidas wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:so... starter for 10

is slavery in and of itself evil

Did all people agree with slavery?

To answer that question will prove my point.
Change.

no but it doesnt actually answer anything.....the modern revulsion to slavery was against its worst manifestations....as practiced by the whiteman
Now the romans had a diffent idea of it.....and other societies even more different ideas about it....

this is what I mean by "time dependant concepts" which we have to avoid. change is irrelevant, since what is now, may not always have been, NOR may it remain so in the future...

the point is...philosophically speaking is the concept of slavery evil....Is there anything, fundamentaly, wrong with "owning" another person provided that you treat that other person in a proper manner? (and here we have to distinguish how we treat someone from the concept of ownership, I'm not for one moment suggesting that owning someone should equate with ill treatment) I own "lesser creatures" than man...and I dont mistreat any of them..in fact i spoil them scratch

why would I do otherwise to a human?

now i will conceede that in a modern, affluent society, there is no need for it, and any manifestation of it can only be for greed. (which is neither good nor bad it just is...it is however chaotic (in that it can lead to chaos)) BUT in other societal structures I can see that provided it is done according to reasonable law (which for instance the romans had (allowing for the brutality of the time they were quite enlightened) it has its advantages....

WE would look at the romans and consider them "evil". they woulkd look at them selves and think they did right i.e good. however we would have to both agree (the romans and us) that they were, according to the mores of the time "lawful"

this is what i mean by subjective when applied to good and evil..it all depends on ones point of view.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:40 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Did all people agree with slavery?

To answer that question will prove my point.
Change.

no but it doesnt actually answer anything.....the modern revulsion to slavery was against its worst manifestations....as practiced by the whiteman
Now the romans had a diffent idea of it.....and other societies even more different ideas about it....

this is what I mean by "time dependant concepts" which we have to avoid. change is irrelevant, since what is now, may not always have been, NOR may it remain so in the future...

the point is...philosophically speaking is the concept of slavery evil....Is there anything, fundamentaly, wrong with "owning" another person provided that you treat that other person in a proper manner? (and here we have to distinguish how we treat someone from the concept of ownership, I'm not for one moment suggesting that owning someone should equate with ill treatment) I own "lesser creatures" than man...and I dont mistreat any of them..in fact i spoil them why would I do otherwise to a human?

now i will conceede that in a modern, affluent society, there is no need for it, and any manifestation of it can only be for greed. (which is neither good nor bad it just is...it is however chaotic (in that it can lead to chaos)) BUT in other societal structures I can see that provided it is done according to reasonable law (which for instance the romans had (allowing for the brutality of the time they were quite enlightened) it has its advantages....

WE would look at the romans and consider them "evil". they woulkd look at them selves and think they did right i.e good. however we would have to both agree (the romans and us) that they were, according to the mores of the time "lawful"

this is what i mean by subjective when applied to good and evil..it all depends on ones point of view.

Excuse me, enlightened?
Where first of all do you get the impression the Romans were enlightened, when they basically were not philosophers, but war mongers and good engineers?
I completely disagree for the time their morals were right, back then, the Celts treated women with greater respect which was set back for centuries until Islam first brought about at least some equality, but nothing compared to what Celtic women had under their own laws, where they could be rulers, own their own. property, be warriors etc. The Celts were far advanced for their time and you do not even have to be subjective on this when the Romans treated women with contempt and were down right sexists. I do not consider the Romans to be barbaric, but uncivilized, where their society was founded upon an elitist, where it failed to understand the power of actual people of Rome.

You ask is there something fundamentally wrong with owning someone, well of course, you are denying them their freedom, where even if they were as poor as the cabbage they lived off, they still at least had their freedom, to the point again the Celts had far better equality for women, than any society since the Spartans. You would have made a better argument off the Spartans than the Romans, and I will leave you to consider as to why.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 4:44 am

victorisnotamused wrote:
Brasidas wrote:Cool, what do you know about good and evil?

Were you taught rights from wrongs?

that doesnt of neccessity define good and evil ...it may also define order from chaos...dont confues the issue with yet more subjective definitions....lets just stick to good and evil

I have to go so am interested in your replies mate.

Night

I ask you what you understand about right or wrong, which you fail to correspond back with and yes we are all taught right from wrong, which has been within humans for thousands of years, only religion has abused this concept by creating a false belief over what is right or wrong, when as seen now modern society disagree's with what was then claimed as divine.

by Ben Reilly Sat Oct 11, 2014 6:14 am

Freedom begins with self-ownership. So yes, people being owned by other people is bad. It doesn't matter how well a slavemaster treats a slave, unless that treatment includes releasing the slave from ownership, pays the slave for the years of forced labor and pays the slave compensation for the crime of enslaving them.

Otherwise, slaves can't, for example, move to the opposite side of the world if they feel like it and have the chance to do so.

For fuck's sake!

by eddie Sat Oct 11, 2014 8:58 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
eddie wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

Apology accepted.

Behave Raggs! Someone answering a post isn't "trolling".
I'm surprised at you actually; thought you could hold your own.

I can't be doing with him. Pardon me for not living up to your standards.

I have no standards!! Have you seen my beard?? Razz

by Ben Reilly Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:47 am

That beard is of the very highest standards.

by eddie Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:54 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:That beard is of the very highest standards.

It is highly maintained. I coat it in honey every morning and brush it one hundred times.

I also sing to it. Mostly the song "Jailhouse rock" by Elvis Presley.

by Ben Reilly Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:08 am

Well done, you're showing your beard the respect it commands ... But it will seek to define you. You must someday prove your dominance over the beard, lest you lose your self in it.

by eddie Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:13 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:Well done, you're showing your beard the respect it commands ... But it will seek to define you. You must someday prove your dominance over the beard, lest you lose your self in it.

Then I will just grow armpit hair my friend. Wink

by Lone Wolf Sat Oct 11, 2014 10:50 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Brasidas wrote:
Why?

Because it wouldn't be true.

So, Baggs'...

WHERE AND WHEN did you study your microbiology, biochemistry, epidemiology, genetics, physiology and virology ?

OH ! That's right, you didn't..

SO, tell us again, Raggs' ~ HOW is it that you know better than all of the world's medical researchers, pray tell ? cyclops

by Lone Wolf Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:15 am

sphinx wrote:
I really do not get why people struggle with the concepts.

The UK has finite resources.
The UK government is in charge of both increasing those resources and distribution of those resources.

UKIP believe that at the moment the distribution is both unfair and unsustainable............................

I myself cannot see what the problem is with these ideas. Other countries seem to operate by them automatically.

AND "Beggar thy neighbour.." all along, eh Sphinx ???

YOUR UKIP's viewpoints continue to totally ignore the contributions that the colonial powers such as Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Holland, Italy, Spain and Portugal all made at times from the 17th and 18th centuries up until the late 20th century..

THE GREAT MAJORITY of Britain's national wealth comes not from it's natural and human resources, but from booty stolen from many of those foreign lands !

by nicko Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:34 am

P eople living in Britain now are not responsible for what our ancesters did a hundred or more years ago.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 11:54 am

Our NHS is on the verge of collapse, I agree with Farage people with HIV should not be allowed in. Not unless they can fund their own treatment anyway. We cant afford it. If I get sick can I board a plane to America or Australia and get free treatment? I have been to both countries and to even get a tourist visa you have to declare if your grannys dog ever had worms! So for people to be telling us we are bad people because we wish to put our own first is laughable. Keep going though every Britain owes the world a living post is doing no more than give another vote to UKIP.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Lone Wolf wrote:
sphinx wrote:
I really do not get why people struggle with the concepts.

The UK has finite resources.
The UK government is in charge of both increasing those resources and distribution of those resources.

UKIP believe that at the moment the distribution is both unfair and unsustainable............................

I myself cannot see what the problem is with these ideas. Other countries seem to operate by them automatically.

AND "Beggar thy neighbour.." all along, eh Sphinx ???

YOUR UKIP's viewpoints continue to totally ignore the contributions that the colonial powers such as Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Holland, Italy, Spain and Portugal all made at times from the 17th and 18th centuries up until the late 20th century..

THE GREAT MAJORITY of Britain's national wealth comes not from it's natural and human resources, but from booty stolen from many of those foreign lands !

I am afraid we currently do not have the resources to treat our neighbours.

Tell Me Wolf when you only have enough food for 1 extra and both your child and your neighbour want food which one do you give it to?

And no there is not enough to split it - you have to give it one or the other.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:04 pm

Nems wrote:Our NHS is on the verge of collapse, I agree with Farage people with HIV should not be allowed in. Not unless they can fund their own treatment anyway. We cant afford it. If I get sick can I board a plane to America or Australia and get free treatment? I have been to both countries and to even get a tourist visa you have to declare if your grannys dog ever had worms! So for people to be telling us we are bad people because we wish to put our own first is laughable. Keep going though every Britain owes the world a living post is doing no more than give another vote to UKIP.

Sorry but that is a racial argument, we are all humans after all, to base again a view, that where people are born only allows for some to be treated. Humans will never progress if they take the selfish approach, of creating an illusion based around races, when none really exist.
The reality is the core problem again is on the NHS itself and the profit making companies that over price the cost of drugs, when many could be sold far cheaper all of which is being ignored here. Just because other nations also are selfish, does not provide an sound reason to do the same.
You are basically saying the same as Sphinx, tough luck to people born else where and that because you are lucky to be born here some how makes you think you can deny others.
Many people have not been given the chances in life that you have and there is no moral argument to deny them, only ones that in essence are greedy. If people come here to work, they have as much right to a system of care that you do, others wise you again are arguing for inequality to people based on no valid view point.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:09 pm

Yup tough luck, Britain is no longer a world superpower, if people need medical treatment why not go to a superpower like China? I tell you why, the Chinese are no ones mugs!

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:10 pm

sphinx wrote:
Lone Wolf wrote:

AND "Beggar thy neighbour.." all along, eh Sphinx ???

YOUR UKIP's viewpoints continue to totally ignore the contributions that the colonial powers such as Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Holland, Italy, Spain and Portugal all made at times from the 17th and 18th centuries up until the late 20th century..

THE GREAT MAJORITY of Britain's national wealth comes not from it's natural and human resources, but from booty stolen from many of those foreign lands !
I am afraid we currently do not have the resources to treat our neighbours.

Tell Me Wolf when you only have enough food for 1 extra and both your child and your neighbour want food which one do you give it to?

And no there is not enough to split it - you have to give it one or the other.

Share it between you all.
You may want to look at where people have faced such real situations, and where ita ctually pools them together to help each other. If you do not believe me, I suggest looking up for example the Siege of Malta in WW2. Again using a poor view to argue over what little you have to still deny people is again morally wrong and has no justification, when you can share what little you have. The reality is the world at present is not fully utilizing the whole earth as a resource, which it can do to provide plenty of food and medicine for the whole world. What needs to change is that both resources should not be produced driven by profit, but of a necessity.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:15 pm

Nems wrote:Yup tough luck, Britain is no longer a world superpower, if people need medical treatment why not go to a superpower like China? I tell you why, the Chinese are no ones mugs!

Actually it has everything to do with this nation once being a super power. The reality is your privileged position would not be a reality, without the wealth plundered from nations that formed the Empire. No industrial revolution would have been a reality, where such plundered allowed for scientific advancement.
Thus nothing you did made Britain as advanced as it is, yet you wish to capitalize on this, to deny others.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:20 pm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2788843/immigrants-hiv-true-cost-nhs-international-health-service-treating-patients-come-killer-disease-asks-sue-reid.html

Farage did not say refuse entry to those with HIV he said refuse entry to those with HIV who do not have adequate health insurance
It costs the UK tax payer £20000 a year and and average £1million a lift time to treat an individual with HIV
2 out of 3 heterosexual diagnoses are of people who contracted it abroad
The UK provides automatic free diagnosis and treatment for anybody and everybody regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally or even just a tourist
The UN has almost 60 countries listed who refuse entry to those with HIV full stop. Australia can use health as a reason to refuse residence.

So no other country has decided to make to health treatment free to the world. If your country does not offer free testing and lifetime free treatment to anyone and everyone regardless of their residential status please stop criticising the citizens of this country for wanting it to have the same rules as your own country. If you think that the UK is right in offering free testing and a lifetime of treatment for anyone and everyone please campaign to have your own country copy the UK.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:21 pm

Brasidas wrote:
Nems wrote:Yup tough luck, Britain is no longer a world superpower, if people need medical treatment why not go to a superpower like China? I tell you why, the Chinese are no ones mugs!

Actually it has everything to do with this nation once being a super power. The reality is your privileged position would not be a reality, without the wealth plundered from nations that formed the Empire. No industrial revolution would have been a reality, where such plundered allowed for scientific advancement.
Thus nothing you did made Britain as advanced as it is, yet you wish to capitalize on this, to deny others.

That view is killed stone dead by one sentence.

India has a space programme.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:22 pm

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2788843/immigrants-hiv-true-cost-nhs-international-health-service-treating-patients-come-killer-disease-asks-sue-reid.html

Farage did not say refuse entry to those with HIV he said refuse entry to those with HIV who do not have adequate health insurance
It costs the UK tax payer £20000 a year and and average £1million a lift time to treat an individual with HIV
2 out of 3 heterosexual diagnoses are of people who contracted it abroad
The UK provides automatic free diagnosis and treatment for anybody and everybody regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally or even just a tourist
The UN has almost 60 countries listed who refuse entry to those with HIV full stop. Australia can use health as a reason to refuse residence.

So no other country has decided to make to health treatment free to the world. If your country does not offer free testing and lifetime free treatment to anyone and everyone regardless of their residential status please stop criticising the citizens of this country for wanting it to have the same rules as your own country. If you think that the UK is right in offering free testing and a lifetime of treatment for anyone and everyone please campaign to have your own country copy the UK.

Bloody well said!
+1

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:28 pm

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2788843/immigrants-hiv-true-cost-nhs-international-health-service-treating-patients-come-killer-disease-asks-sue-reid.html

Farage did not say refuse entry to those with HIV he said refuse entry to those with HIV who do not have adequate health insurance
It costs the UK tax payer £20000 a year and and average £1million a lift time to treat an individual with HIV
2 out of 3 heterosexual diagnoses are of people who contracted it abroad
The UK provides automatic free diagnosis and treatment for anybody and everybody regardless of whether they are here legally or illegally or even just a tourist
The UN has almost 60 countries listed who refuse entry to those with HIV full stop. Australia can use health as a reason to refuse residence.

So no other country has decided to make to health treatment free to the world. If your country does not offer free testing and lifetime free treatment to anyone and everyone regardless of their residential status please stop criticising the citizens of this country for wanting it to have the same rules as your own country. If you think that the UK is right in offering free testing and a lifetime of treatment for anyone and everyone please campaign to have your own country copy the UK.

Again it is a totally unchristian argument, one that is morally wrong and promotes discrimination, proving that UKIP is basically fabricating to upholding what they see as British values.
The reality is our health service is not free, many pay for it and again many pay far more than some and yet have the same access than those who pay far less.
Again you are lucky to be in a position you did not create, where this country again only advanced through plundered wealth. Which you would now deny descendants of nations we plundered coming to this country.
Does that seem right to you?
It does not to me and shows how society is becoming more and more selfish, to try and claim rights to dictate who also can have access to a health care, where you did nothing to make the health care what it is today.
The reality is do any here teach this same view of not to share to their children?
I very much doubt it and shows why any view here to argue not to share is completely wrong.

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:30 pm

Unchristian?
Steady!

by Guest Sat Oct 11, 2014 12:32 pm

Nems wrote:
Brasidas wrote:

Actually it has everything to do with this nation once being a super power. The reality is your privileged position would not be a reality, without the wealth plundered from nations that formed the Empire. No industrial revolution would have been a reality, where such plundered allowed for scientific advancement.
Thus nothing you did made Britain as advanced as it is, yet you wish to capitalize on this, to deny others.

That view is killed stone dead by one sentence.

India has a space programme.

No it failed to address any point, so millions of Indians are to blame for being in poverty, because a government uses money elsewhere?
I think not.

by Sponsored content