Yep, that's racism!

Yahoo News wrote:Missouri town responds to officer exodus after election of black female mayor

A small city in Missouri caught national attention when roughly half of its employees resigned following the election of its first African-American female mayor.

Many news outlets and bloggers have speculated that racism and sexism drove the exodus in Parma, a city of about 700 near the Mississippi River; whereas several residents say other factors were at play.

Mayor Tyus Byrd, 40, who beat longtime incumbent Randall Ramsey, has not yet released a formal statement on the controversy, but did address it briefly after being sworn in last week.

“Moving forward, I’ll get with the board. I’ll speak here in a little bit,” she told KFVS-TV, “and we’ll talk and discuss those issues that have taken place today. And we’ll try to get things in order for the city.”

The local CBS affiliate reported that three full-time cops and two part-time cops — five of the city’s six officers — quit without notice. Several other officials, including the city attorney and city clerk, also resigned.

Nelvia Donaldson, an African-American alderman in Parma, thinks bigotry is behind the departures that followed Ramsey’s defeat, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

“I think it’s about being a woman and being black,” she told the paper. “He (Ramsey) thought he had it in the bag.”

Rich Medley, a former assistant police chief, on the other hand, said to the Post-Dispatch that he resigned out of fear that he would not be allowed to do his job properly.

He said the town’s officers had several run-ins with members of Byrd’s family.

“Rather than put my life in danger more than I do now on a daily basis, I decided to walk away,” Medley said.

Ramsey told KFVS-TV that the departures were over “safety concerns,” but none of the resignation letters have been made public.

Parma resident Martha Miller, who campaigned for Byrd, does not think the resignations have to do with race, but she disagrees with how they happened.

“I think it’s pretty dirty they all quit without giving her a chance. But I don’t think they hurt the town any by quitting, because who needs six police for 740 people,” she told KFVS-TV.

“There was absolutely no racism that had anything to do with this,” Barry Aycock, a white former alderman, said to The Associated Press. “We had an election, it’s over, and we’re all supporting the new mayor and moving forward.”

Lisa Kirk, 58, who owns a convenience store in Parma, was surprised that the town even had six people on its police force.

“There was never police around in town,” she told the wire service. “We have no idea where the six officers worked or who they are. If they did work, I don’t know where they were.”

Kirk said her shop has been burglarized nine times over the past decade.

One thing’s for sure: Byrd has attracted a lot of supporters on social media since the story broke.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

There's no need to be defensive and rude.

In reality, the word "privileged" is meaningless because there will always be someone more or less "privileged" than you, and most people don't sit there thinking that they are privileged just because they managed to get an appointment with a doctor, or because they went to school.

It's interesting that you talk about schools as being high achieving or not, rather than the pupils. What is stopping a pupil at a school on a council estate doing their homework or paying attention? One can talk about the quality of the teaching of course, but teaching is only part of it - the rest of it is up to the pupils to read, learn, and decide that they want to do well at school. In any case, the fact that one lives on a council estate doesn't necessarily mean that the school is. I went to a school many miles from where I lived.

So is it just the schooling issue which you think makes people from council estates under-privileged?

Council estates are just places with houses, the same as anywhere else. In fact, one could say that the inhabitants are more "privileged" than others since they pay less rent than others, and were allowed to buy their houses at a discount, which other tenants can't do.

I'm sorry for being rude, but you are almost deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying it seems and it is pretty annoying to be honest.

And for a variety of reasons some schools perform better than others- if you had or have children would you consider school performances when deciding where to send your child? Many would and there is a reason for that. Of course its down to the pupil but the quality of the teacher and their ability to control will factor in to the chances of a child being successful. I come from a good family, me, my siblings and cousins, all did well at school, but other children could be shits and sad though it many families on council estates are what are derogatorily referred to as 'underclass'- they disrupt and that also has an effect on how well others students perform. If you want to deny all this being the case then so be it.

Anyone, one last time- I see myself as privileged- you choose to ignore than because you want to go on a tangent. Let me ask you though, do you see yourself as privileged compared to most people in the world?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I'm sorry for being rude, but you are almost deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying it seems and it is pretty annoying to be honest.

And for a variety of reasons some schools perform better than others- if you had or have children would you consider school performances when deciding where to send your child? Many would and there is a reason for that. Of course its down to the pupil but the quality of the teacher and their ability to control will factor in to the chances of a child being successful. I come from a good family, me, my siblings and cousins, all did well at school, but other children could be shits and sad though it many families on council estates are what are derogatorily referred to as 'underclass'- they disrupt and that also has an effect on how well others students perform. If you want to deny all this being the case then so be it.

Anyone, one last time- I see myself as privileged- you choose to ignore than because you want to go on a tangent. Let me ask you though, do you see yourself as privileged compared to most people in the world?

I often read about people from council estates being less "privileged" than others, and stuff about "council estate boy made good" type stuff, as if that's some kind of miracle. I've never really understood that. Do the people who live on council estates feel that way, or is it the press and the Government who tell them they should feel that way? As I said, I think they are luckier than a lot of people.

By the way, disruptive pupils aren't confined to schools on council estates you know.

As I said, it depends on your definition of "privilege". One could say it meant "lucky" really, but then that can mean different things to different people. I guess most people would say that the royal family are privileged, in the sense that they don't have money worries, and they are pampered and cosseted. I wonder if they see it that way though, or if they see it as a burden.

I don't feel more privileged than others, except in the one way I mentioned - I wasn't born in a country where people are constantly starting civil wars with each other. However, those wars are started by people, they're not a natural disaster.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I often read about people from council estates being less "privileged" than others, and stuff about "council estate boy made good" type stuff, as if that's some kind of miracle. I've never really understood that. Do the people who live on council estates feel that way, or is it the press and the Government who tell them they should feel that way? As I said, I think they are luckier than a lot of people.

By the way, disruptive pupils aren't confined to schools on council estates you know.

As I said, it depends on your definition of "privilege". One could say it meant "lucky" really, but then that can mean different things to different people. I guess most people would say that the royal family are privileged, in the sense that they don't have money worries, and they are pampered and cosseted. I wonder if they see it that way though, or if they see it as a burden.

I don't feel more privileged than others, except in the one way I mentioned - I wasn't born in a country where people are constantly starting civil wars with each other. However, those wars are started by people, they're not a natural disaster.

Ok, I don't know anything about you.  If you lived on a council estate or not, or how much you have traveled- particularly to the developing world. BUT, if you did, and saw average working people living in absolutely atrocious conditions (we are talking sheet metal roofs, no air con but a fan in tropical conditions, earnings of much less than £200 a month), with no hope of 'climbing the social ladder' and with no chance whatsoever of seeing anything but their own city- would that not make you feel lucky or privileged by comparison?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

Ok, I don't know anything about you.  If you lived on a council estate or not, or how much you have traveled- particularly to the developing world. BUT, if you did, and saw average working people living in absolutely atrocious conditions (we are talking sheet metal roofs, no air con but a fan in tropical conditions, earnings of much less than £200 a month), with no hope of 'climbing the social ladder' and with no chance whatsoever of seeing anything but their own city- would that not make you feel lucky or privileged by comparison?

I don't think it would because I don't see climbing the social ladder as anything to write home about, and I don't see what's wrong with only seeing your own city. Of course that can get boring at times, but one place is much like another really.

Shouldn't those people with no air conditioning feel lucky compared to people in this country who don't have central heating and feel freezing cold in the winter? I don't know your age, but when I was young we didn't have central heating and double glazing. People who lived on the council estate seemed to have warm houses though.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I don't think it would because I don't see climbing the social ladder as anything to write home about, and I don't see what's wrong with only seeing your own city. Of course that can get boring at times, but one place is much like another really.

Shouldn't those people with no air conditioning feel lucky compared to people in this country who don't have central heating and feel freezing cold in the winter? I don't know your age, but when I was young we didn't have central heating and double glazing. People who lived on the council estate seemed to have warm houses though.

See this is the problem. I feel you know the point I'm making, but are deliberately missing it.

1. Climbing the social ladder may seem like nothing to  you- but there is a difference between having the opportunity or possibility and not taking it; and the opportunity simply not existing. I'm referring to the latter, and while you may not see it as much, for someone living in a slum it would be nice for that to be a realistic possibility.

2. Ok so we don't need to see other places. But as with the above, in a world of equal opportunity then we would all be able to travel wherever we desired or wherever offered better opportunities. Many people might never leave out of choice, but billions who would just can't.

3. Those people I'm talking about with no air-con live in tropical countries, they don't get freezing winters (when I said tropical wtf did you think I meant?).

You are just being awkward, you are completely incapable of thinking beyond your own country. It is obvious in how you bring it all back to what you like. As if most living in developing world slums probably are ok since the chance to rise from your beginnings and travelling are overrated anyway in your opinion- no empathy at all...

To spell it out crystal clear, to avoid further twisting- you wouldn't feel lucky or privileged to see that unlike you, so many people were forced by systems outside their control to be restricted in terms of how much they can ever earn,  how they can live, how comfortable they are, and where they can travel to?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

See this is the problem. I feel you know the point I'm making, but are deliberately missing it.

1. Climbing the social ladder may seem like nothing to  you- but there is a difference between having the opportunity or possibility and not taking it; and the opportunity simply not existing. I'm referring to the latter, and while you may not see it as much, for someone living in a slum it would be nice for that to be a realistic possibility.

2. Ok so we don't need to see other places. But as with the above, in a world of equal opportunity then we would all be able to travel wherever we desired or wherever offered better opportunities. Many people might never leave out of choice, but billions who would just can't.

3. Those people I'm talking about with no air-con live in tropical countries, they don't get freezing winters (when I said tropical wtf did you think I meant?).

You are just being awkward, you are completely incapable of thinking beyond your own country. It is obvious in how you bring it all back to what you like. As if most living in developing world slums probably are ok since the chance to rise from your beginnings and travelling are overrated anyway in your opinion- no empathy at all...

To spell it out crystal clear, to avoid further twisting- you wouldn't feel lucky or privileged to see that unlike you, so many people were forced by systems outside their control to be restricted in terms of how much they can ever earn,  how they can live, how comfortable they are, and where they can travel to?

I'm not missing your point, I just have a different point of view to you. To you, "privilege" is set in stone, and is dependent on a certain set of circumstances which you have defined. It's not like that to me, so I think it's you who is being awkward and refusing to see any point of view but your own.

1. Climbing the social ladder. If one has the opportunity but doesn't want that opportunity, then the opportunity might as well not exist because it will mean nothing to the person. It might seem desirable for some because people naturally have a tendency to want what they can't have, but that doesn't make desirable in itself.

2. You seem to be under the impression that everyone in this country can afford to travel wherever they want to and do whatever they like when they get there.

3. I think you missed my point about that one. I asked if those people who live in hot countries should feel privileged precisely because they don't have those freezing winters, so they never have to feel freezing cold.

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm not missing your point, I just have a different point of view to you. To you, "privilege" is set in stone, and is dependent on a certain set of circumstances which you have defined. It's not like that to me, so I think it's you who is being awkward and refusing to see any point of view but your own.

1. Climbing the social ladder. If one has the opportunity but doesn't want that opportunity, then the opportunity might as well not exist because it will mean nothing to the person. It might seem desirable for some because people naturally have a tendency to want what they can't have, but that doesn't make desirable in itself.

2. You seem to be under the impression that everyone in this country can afford to travel wherever they want to and do whatever they like when they get there.

3. I think you missed my point about that one. I asked if those people who live in hot countries should feel privileged precisely because they don't have those freezing winters, so they never have to feel freezing cold.

I'd say its about gratitude. I was lucky to be born British, I feel privileged as a result. I could have been born into a Middle Eastern war zone, or in a poverty stricken slum in India, or in a low income family in Cambodia, or to a factory worker in China, or in drought ridden Ethiopia. I might have had no possible chance of ever escaping or 'improving' my situation in life. Sure I'd still have appreciated life itself, but it would have been a much greater struggle day to day. Knowing all this, although it is not slant on those who do live in those places, it is impossible not to feel some sense of privilege since it is only by luck that I wasn't born into those circumstances.

If you aren't grateful for the hand you were dealt in life then I guess you wouldn't feel privileged. And certainly if you can't appreciate the struggles of others which are far removed from your own then the same is true.

Eilzel wrote:To be fair Eds the last page hasn't even been discussing racism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I'd say its about gratitude. I was lucky to be born British, I feel privileged as a result. I could have been born into a Middle Eastern war zone, or in a poverty stricken slum in India, or in a low income family in Cambodia, or to a factory worker in China, or in drought ridden Ethiopia. I might have had no possible chance of ever escaping or 'improving' my situation in life. Sure I'd still have appreciated life itself, but it would have been a much greater struggle day to day. Knowing all this, although it is not slant on those who do live in those places, it is impossible not to feel some sense of privilege since it is only by luck that I wasn't born into those circumstances.

If you aren't grateful for the hand you were dealt in life then I guess you wouldn't feel privileged. And certainly if you can't appreciate the struggles of others which are far removed from your own then the same is true.

Well there we have it. You feel lucky to be born British, and if you had been born in any of those places you mentioned, you would feel unlucky. It's as I said - "privilege" or "luck" is a matter of perception. You define those things a certain way, but others might not. For example, you are not taking into account other issues, like ill-health. Would you rather be born into a low income family in Cambodia and be healthy, or would you rather be born into a rich family but have a devastating medical condition?

Consider this - if you had been born into a low-income family in Cambodia, your parents clearly wouldn't have felt that life so awful that they didn't want to bring children into it.

I've said that the one I feel lucky about is that I wasn't born in a war-torn area, but let's face it, those wars are caused by people, and many of them choose to get involved - sometimes from a very young age. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that some of them don't actually want these wars to end.

I suspect that are quite young and rather idealistic, yes?

Eilzel wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well there we have it. You feel lucky to be born British, and if you had been born in any of those places you mentioned, you would feel unlucky. It's as I said - "privilege" or "luck" is a matter of perception. You define those things a certain way, but others might not. For example, you are not taking into account other issues, like ill-health. Would you rather be born into a low income family in Cambodia and be healthy, or would you rather be born into a rich family but have a devastating medical condition?

Consider this - if you had been born into a low-income family in Cambodia, your parents clearly wouldn't have felt that life so awful that they didn't want to bring children into it.

I've said that the one I feel lucky about is that I wasn't born in a war-torn area, but let's face it, those wars are caused by people, and many of them choose to get involved - sometimes from a very young age. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that some of them don't actually want these wars to end.

I suspect that are quite young and rather idealistic, yes?

I'd hope most are idealistic to some extent

I'm 29, my age is under my name- I don't if that's young or old to you but I'd like to think young lol

And your comparison isn't fair. Take a person, any person, ill/working class/homeless/healthy etc, and put them in one country or another- take your example, Cambodia..

Would you rather be ill in Cambodia or ill in the UK?
Would you rather be poor working class in Cambodia or poor working class in the UK?
Would you rather be homeless in Cambodia or homeless in the UK?
Would you rather be old in Cambodia or old in the UK?

PS: As I said in my previous post, whether or not you feel priviliged depends on how grateful you are with what you started with in life. But the point I'm making with those questions above is that your country of birth, depending where it is, offer certain advantages others do not- and some countries DO offer more advantages than others.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:

I'd hope most are idealistic to some extent

I'm 29, my age is under my name- I don't if that's young or old to you but I'd like to think young lol

And your comparison isn't fair. Take a person, any person, ill/working class/homeless/healthy etc, and put them in one country or another- take your example, Cambodia..

Would you rather be ill in Cambodia or ill in the UK?
Would you rather be poor working class in Cambodia or poor working class in the UK?
Would you rather be homeless in Cambodia or homeless in the UK?
Would you rather be old in Cambodia or old in the UK?

PS: As I said in my previous post, whether or not you feel privileged depends on how grateful you are with what you started with in life. But the point I'm making with those questions above is that your country of birth, depending where it is, offer certain advantages others do not- and some countries DO offer more advantages than others.

Ah, I didn't see your age under your name. Well that's young compared to me - there's that relativity again.

I don't know much about the health system in Cambodia. I do know that I can't get a hospital appointment here for love nor money.
At least if you're poor in Cambodia, you don't have to worry about being freezing in winter.
Same applies re being homeless. I don't think being homeless in the UK is a barrel of laughs when it's pouring with rain and freezing cold.
Not sure about the last one. I can't see it makes much difference really.

eddie wrote:There are positives and negatives in every situation mostly.
You could go round in circles all day with that one.

Sometime it's better to have less than more - and I don't see people over here feeling lucky - as raggs said, it's all relative.

eddie wrote:There are positives and negatives in every situation mostly.
You could go round in circles all day with that one.

Sometime it's better to have less than more - and I don't see people over here feeling lucky - as raggs said, it's all relative.

Eilzel wrote:Yes there are positives and negatives in most situations; but anyone living in Britain who thinks living in a shanty wood house on stilts which doesn't keep out rain in a monsoon, in a dirty river, with mosquitoes carrying multiple diseases, earning less than £200 a month working over 40 hours a week in temperatures usually over 32C until they are past retirement age, with no hope of a pension and a way below standard health and education system- can ever be better than living in a house in Britain, is deluding themselves and painfully lacking in empathy.

If people cannot feel grateful or lucky to at least have been be born a British citizen knowing the above is true for billions of people then they lack any appreciation of life at all.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:Yes there are positives and negatives in most situations; but anyone living in Britain who thinks living in a shanty wood house on stilts which doesn't keep out rain in a monsoon, in a dirty river, with mosquitoes carrying multiple diseases, earning less than £200 a month working over 40 hours a week in temperatures usually over 32C until they are past retirement age, with no hope of a pension and a way below standard health and education system- can ever be better than living in a house in Britain, is deluding themselves and painfully lacking in empathy.

If people cannot feel grateful or lucky to at least have been be born a British citizen knowing the above is true for billions of people then they lack any appreciation of life at all.

It can't be that bad or they wouldn't keep having children.

Eilzel wrote:Nemesis note my above comment was to rags

Nemesis wrote:

eddie wrote:There are positives and negatives in every situation mostly.
You could go round in circles all day with that one.

Sometime it's better to have less than more - and I don't see people over here feeling lucky - as raggs said, it's all relative.

Not sure how you think having less food available is better than to have more food available Eddie, in this instance more is better.
Not sure if having less access to education is better than having more educational facilities where people can then learn and have the chance for a better life, one where they need not find food or water in order to survive..Is this instance more is better.
Not sure if having less hospitals is better than having more hospitals, when countless suffer illnesses without access to medicine and treatment. In this instance more is better and you will find more is needed for those who live in real poverty.

I could go on the list is endless and why we should feel proud for one to be British because we are born into a society that provides people the best chances to have a decent life. People can bemoan things like waiting times or how some may not like immigration levels or EU etc, but these are things that it is a luxury to actually whinge about. Again for some people their only thoughts is the survival of their own family.

Of course there is different levels to privilege, but we certainly are privileged and even have the privilege to whinge about it.

Eilzel wrote:That's either the most callous or stupidest comment I've either read- most people want children and all have a right to them. Also, in case you missed it when you weren't paying attention, for many people children are their only hope of being looked after in old age- though I don't imagine that it is the main reason they have children.

Your view they wouldn't have children if it was that bad is a sickening reminder of the inhumanity of SOME RWers.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

It can't be that bad or they wouldn't keep having children.

Good thing our first ancestors never held the view point you are making, being as they did nearly become extinct..
If life is extremely tough, and its not right to have a family in your view, we shall slowly die out.
Its easy to look from far away and judge people less well off not having any family. They certainly need education around sex, family planning etc, but just because life is harsh, you will find nature will naturally continue to reproduce especially where infant mortality is higher and life expectancy is lower

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Not sure how you think having less food available is better than to have more food available Eddie, in this instance more is better.
Not sure if having less access to education is better than having more educational facilities where people can then learn and have the chance for a better life, one where they need not find food or water in order to survive..Is this instance more is better.
Not sure if having less hospitals is better than having more hospitals, when countless suffer illnesses without access to medicine and treatment. In this instance more is better and you will find more is needed for those who live in real poverty.

I could go on the list is endless and why we should feel proud for one to be British because we are born into a society that provides people the best chances to have a decent life. People can bemoan things like waiting times or how some may not like immigration levels or EU etc, but these are things that it is a luxury to actually whinge about. Again for some people their only thoughts is the survival of their own family.

Of course there is different levels to privilege, but we certainly are privileged and even have the privilege to whinge about it.

Oh I don't know. A lot of people in the UK and the US could do with less food, don't you think? The number of obese people is staggering.

I take exception to your view that moaning about hospital waiting times is a luxury. I can't be doing with people who moan about having to wait a few days to see their GP, but if you have a bad health condition and you have to wait and wait to see a doctor at a hospital, it's not exactly a minor issue.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Oh I don't know. A lot of people in the UK and the US could do with less food, don't you think? The number of obese people is staggering.

I take exception to your view that moaning about hospital waiting times is a luxury. I can't be doing with people who moan about having to wait a few days to see their GP, but if you have a bad health condition and you have to wait and wait to see a doctor at a hospital, it's not exactly a minor issue.

That is called over indulging in food, where they have no need to, that is greed, but you miss the point we have access to food in abundance and only because we import food. We have not had enough food to feed our nation for years. So you are again privileged that because of our privileged system, you do have access to this abundance of food.


Your view on waiting times?
Compare that to someone who will be lucky to even see the inside of a hospital?
We have countless medical facility and if your appointment was urgent, then you would be seen much sooner. Clearly it can wait and I am sure it is an inconvenience for you to wait, but wait indeed you can unless you need an organ transplant. Again another thing where more is far better having more donors.

The fact is I have worked for the NHS and people can get seen whether in surgery hours or OHH, if of course you do have something so pressing it needs to be seen straight away. Otherwise any things can wait and believe me they can. The only things that cannot wait are life threatening or causing further complications that need seeing straight away. Most people clog up the waiting time because they did not need to see a doctor and that is something that needs changing how we seem to demand everything as if it was ours to demand. Many of us may pay into the NHS, but that does not give people a right to demand all the time. People have clearly lost the ability to actually people grateful about the services we havein this country

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:



Good thing our first ancestors never held the view point you are making, being as they did nearly become extinct..
If life is extremely tough, and its not right to have a family in your view, we shall slowly die out.
Its easy to look from far away and judge people less well off not having any family. They certainly need education around sex, family planning etc, but just because life is harsh, you will find nature will naturally continue to reproduce especially where infant mortality is higher and life expectancy is lower

Sometimes I think that continuation of the human race isn't necessarily a good thing ....

Eilzel wrote:I said old age wasn't the main reason, Rags, you are deliberately ignoring points again. Regardless, you have a truly appalling view of you are suggesting that by having kids this shows life isn't that bad.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


That is called over indulging in food, where they have no need to, that is greed, but you miss the point we have access to food in abundance and only because we import food. We have not had enough food to feed our nation for years. So you are again privileged that because of our privileged system, you do have access to this abundance of food.


Your view on waiting times?
Compare that to someone who will be lucky to even see the inside of a hospital?
We have countless medical facility and if your appointment was urgent, then you would be seen much sooner. Clearly it can wait and I am sure it is an inconvenience for you to wait, but wait indeed you can unless you need an organ transplant. Again another thing where more is far better having more donors.

The fact is I have worked for the NHS and people can get seen whether in surgery hours or OHH, if of course you do have something so pressing it needs to be seen straight away. Otherwise any things can wait and believe me they can. The only things that cannot wait are life threatening or causing further complications that need seeing straight away. Most people clog up the waiting time because they did not need to see a doctor and that is something that needs changing how we seem to demand everything as if it was ours to demand. Many of us may pay into the NHS, but that does not give people a right to demand all the time. People have clearly lost the ability to actually people grateful about the services we havein this country

I would indeed be very lucky to see the inside of a hospital actually! Try telling someone with a chronic, disabling condition that it's not serious just because it's not going to kill them in the next ten years or so.

Tbh, it's fine for me because things seem to be under control - luckily! Others aren't so lucky.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I said old age wasn't the main reason, Rags, you are deliberately ignoring points again. Regardless, you have a truly appalling view of you are suggesting that by having kids this shows life isn't that bad.

Why is it an appalling attitude? I see news reports of children being killed in war-torn areas, and I wonder why people had those children when they knew how bad things were.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I would indeed be very lucky to see the inside of a hospital actually! Try telling someone with a chronic, disabling condition that it's not serious just because it's not going to kill them in the next ten years or so.

Tbh, it's fine for me because things seem to be under control - luckily! Others aren't so lucky.

Well again I have worked for the NHS and do see what goes on like I say and someone with a Chronic disability condition here for example they have a flare of pain can get access to medication, again with the OOH service. If their condition is poorly, the NHS Pathways cannot rule out something serious or where someone has a known complicated condition, they get to be seen by a GP. That is a fact.
The fact is you are talking about hospital waiting times for things like an operation, again it is something that can wait if not life threatening.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Eilzel wrote:I said old age wasn't the main reason, Rags, you are deliberately ignoring points again. Regardless, you have a truly appalling view of you are suggesting that by having kids this shows life isn't that bad.

Why is it an appalling attitude? I see news reports of children being killed in war-torn areas, and I wonder why people had those children when they knew how bad things were.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Well again I have worked for the NHS and do see what goes on like I say and someone with a Chronic disability condition here for example they have a flare of pain can get access to medication, again with the OOH service. If their condition is poorly, the NHS Pathways cannot rule out something serious or where someone has a known complicated condition, they get to be seen by a GP. That is a fact.
The fact is you are talking about hospital waiting times for things like an operation, again it is something that can wait if not life threatening.

And in the meantime, those people who have to wait have a miserable time. What is the point of having all these hospitals and marvellous health service if people are constantly shunted to the bottom of the list just because they're not going to die soon?

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why is it an appalling attitude? I see news reports of children being killed in war-torn areas, and I wonder why people had those children when they knew how bad things were.

Maybe because one of the greatest achievements a person can do is to create life, one born from love.

People do not ask for wars to be on their doorsteps and it is a wonder, one that I hold hat up to people in the middle of such conflicts, how people do cope through such conflicts

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

And in the meantime, those people who have to wait have a miserable time. What is the point of having all these hospitals and marvellous health service if people are constantly shunted to the bottom of the list just because they're not going to die soon?

Exageration, many people again do not even need to be seen, some will have mild discomfort waiting for an operation. Again I will repeat, if something is pressing and needs to be seen, they can be seen if not in their own surgery, but by the OOH's of the Hospital. What you miss again is it is countless people clogging up the system not needing to be seen for the likes of earaches, colds etc.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Maybe because one of the greatest achievements a person can do is to create life, one born from love.

People do not ask for wars to be on their doorsteps and it is a wonder, one that I hold hat up to people in the middle of such conflicts, how people do cope through such conflicts

Well hardly - it's not difficult. The point is that if there is an ongoing bad situation going on, why condemn children to the same situation?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Exageration, many people again do not even need to be seen, some will have mild discomfort waiting for an operation. Again I will repeat, if something is pressing and needs to be seen, they can be seen if not in their own surgery, but by the OOH's of the Hospital. What you miss again is it is countless people clogging up the system not needing to be seen for the likes of earaches, colds etc.

Tell that to someone who can't even walk half the time or who is in terrible pain, but who still have to wait because it's not going to kill them. I'm not talking about GPs, I'm talking about hospitals - people don't go to hospital for earache or colds.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tell that to someone who can't even walk half the time or who is in terrible pain, but who still have to wait because it's not going to kill them. I'm not talking about GPs, I'm talking about hospitals - people don't go to hospital for earache or colds.

You are not reading what I have said have you.
Again I know how the system works, so if this person is in terrible pain, if they are in such pain of course which such extreme pain is something so bad you cannot think about anything else. That is called severe pain and would be seen straight away. So again I know you are not making any sense. Again I know what is classed as needing to be seen or what can wait. If someone cannot move around very well and thus needs assistance then they should have carers.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


You are not reading what I have said have you.
Again I know how the system works, so if this person is in terrible pain, if they are in such pain of course which such extreme pain is something so bad you cannot think about anything else. That is called severe pain and would be seen straight away. So again I know you are not making any sense. Again I know what is classed as needing to be seen or what can wait. If someone cannot move around very well and thus needs assistance then they should have carers.

I mean chronic pain, not pain out of the blue. Sure, they can take strong painkillers, or have steroid shots or whatever, but that's just masking the problem.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean chronic pain, not pain out of the blue. Sure, they can take strong painkillers, or have steroid shots or whatever, but that's just masking the problem.

Then they need help in managing their pain, again which is an ongoing process, one that may be difficult to solve, so you really are scrapping the barrel on this I have to say. Clearly chronic pain even though bad, can be managed with medication and if this medication is not working and you cannot see your GP, then consult an OHH GP, you certainly if the pain is bad enough will get seen.

Sorry but I have work to do Rags and to be honest you are just going around in circles

Have good day

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Well hardly - it's not difficult. The point is that if there is an ongoing bad situation going on, why condemn children to the same situation?

Actually you are not looking at this from their point of view of creating life through love.

All you are doing is looking at this from your privileged view point. One where you unlikely to struggle but again for them love supersedes their struggle. If you are saying that to create life and exist is wrong, then you have to be against existence itself. The thing is wars do not last for ever in a land

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Then they need help in managing their pain, again which is an ongoing process, one that may be difficult to solve, so you really are scrapping the barrel on this I have to say. Clearly chronic pain even though bad, can be managed with medication and if this medication is not working and you cannot see your GP, then consult an OHH GP, you certainly if the pain is bad enough will get seen.

Sorry but I have work to do Rags and to be honest you are just going around in circles

Have good day

I'm scraping the barrel? Clearly, you have not experienced any problems of that kind. I'm not going to go into details because no doubt you would mock and sneer.

Fifteen patients from one hospital have died waiting for heart operations on the NHS, surgeons said yesterday.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I'm scraping the barrel? Clearly, you have not experienced any problems of that kind. I'm not going to go into details because no doubt you would mock and sneer.

Scraping the barrel was in regards to you attempting to find anything to make your view seem credible on waiting. Not your pain and again pain levels are different in everyone. I have experienced twice excruciating pain. I am not here to debate how you manage your pain levels, nor to mock your pain either, so that was silly to claim I would. What I am pointing out is how the system works and how if the problem was serious you would get seen. An ongoing chronic condition can take time to resolve where again if your pain flared up, you could again get to be seen if not in hours in the OOH if the pain was Chronic.


Right I have said my peace and have to work

Raggamuffin wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


Actually you are not looking at this from their point of view of creating life through love.

All you are doing is looking at this from your privileged view point. One where you unlikely to struggle but again for them love supersedes their struggle. If you are saying that to create life and exist is wrong, then you have to be against existence itself. The thing is wars do not last for ever in a land

No, I'm looking at it from the point of view of a person who apparently has such a terrible life that they can't wait to bring children into that same life.

Nemesis wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

No, I'm looking at it from the point of view of a person who apparently has such a terrible life that they can't wait to bring children into that same life.

So you have lived through a war torn conflict where two armies are fighting each other throughout the UK?
Do not say the IRA, as that is terrorism.
So how could you possible be able to look at their situation having never experienced this?
The fact is hardship is a normality for them, so what you see as a terrible life of which I agree it certainly is for them from our perspective. How they live daily is again terrible but normality to them. You do realise for centuries, wars have happened even in this country and people still had children.


Enjoyed the debate Rags and thanks, but again I fear it is just going around in circles

Cheers