Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

what gov run healthcare gets you

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

    Originally posted by reality View Post
    Governing the NHS. So yes.
    NO!

    The Home Office does not govern the NHS, at all, this is where you are going wrong, and have this notion that the NHS is responsible for this woman's incarceration. Its not all "one type" of government that fills all. The sectioning of someone is not the determination of some manager in the National Health Trusts somewhere.

    Great. So now a COURT didn't bother to appoint a lawyer. Cause thats SOOOOOOOO much better.
    The court is not obliged to appoint a lawyer! She is free to ask for representation when she herself is being tried etc, but she was not facing any court proceedings nor was she arrested, she was sectioned and there is a WORLD of difference, it does not entitle her to rights that she would otherwise be able to exorcise if she were of sound mind...you need to read the 83 MCA and then the 2003 mod. It is a lot of reading but you need to know the law.

    No, by the assessment of the great gazoo. Who else would I be speaking for here?
    And that is my point. Almost every assumption you have made here is up the wall. The philosophical argument here is one thing ; each is entitled to their own opinion. But on the interpretation of the law you are wrong ; you know what your views are but that square peg does not fit into the round hole that is the British judicial system.

    Not appointing counsel to a person being jammed in a psych ward SHOULD be punishable under law. If its not, you've got a problem.
    With all due respect, whilst you are telling British authorities to butt out of Italian affairs (not that they are) why don't you try doing the same about British affairs? Or better yet, just apologize for the title and the rant instead of finding another way to go on the offensive because your point was refuted yet again.

    They (baby and mother) should have been in the care of their respective counsels.
    Trained healthcare professionals, are they? She was in the custody of the state, for her own protection, though. Legal counsel cannot afford such a protection to a person as they are not qualified.

    and it used to be common practice. Or must I quote the scotus case "3 generations of imbeciles is enough"?
    Why would Supreme court precedence have anything binding of an effect on British Law?

    She was held for 5 weeks. She should've been stabilzed and arrangements made with her embassy/family to get her home SUPERVISED.
    This is not what an embassy is for! She may have had certain rights under the Vienna accords were she imprisoned or maybe charged with a crime. Not for being sectioned!

    Which is what I'm bitching about. It WASN"T necessary UNTIL she was PAST due or the childs health was in danger. which it wasn't when the mother was medicated. You telling me they couldn't get her back on her meds in 5 weeks? But the NHS is so great I thought?
    Again, if this involved the NHS, you may have a point...but in the larger point, she may well have much larger problems that you are totally clueless about. Meds may not have been enough ; she may have needed therapy / counseling etc, but also some of the release forms require judicial approval and of course there is the fact she would need suitable housing / accommodation etc if she were to be released and all is rather difficult when you have been in a nut house and are suffering from a break down with no employment. Her care is what they were worried about and she took another 18 months to recover, what makes you think 5 weeks was enough?

    A) she HAD the meds with her and FORGOT TO TAKE THEM ONCE. It is my suggestion that they pass her to the italian embassy or her family. There werre multiple opitons all of them cheaper and less intrusive.
    b) see A.
    The Cheaper element doesn't matter when the Home Office is trying to assure her safety. If in violation of certain protocols of the Vienna convention then British authorities could be held in contempt as signatories and this is one of those instances (caring for someone with mental difficulties / pregnant etc).

    This was the only option for her whilst on British soil ; if she didn't want that she should not have traveled to Britain.

    Shes not a resident!
    She was when she got there...

    She had outstayed her VISA!
    Makes her a resident alien....

    Its not deportation if she WANTS TO LEAVE.
    Doesn't matter whether she wants to or not, given that she overstayed and had a civil violation of her procedural process in entering the country, she would be removed by proceedings for dealing with such matters.

    WOrld view hun. Think big picture.
    Fine, and that is what the larger argument for the role of government is for. But to just point at the NHS and say "DEM BE DA BOOGEYMEN" is hardly making the case...

    Its stigmatized for good reason, all of which a) are not cogent to this thread and b) you would'nt find that terrible considering your views.
    Then stigmatize it when it has some contextual relevance...here the NHS has none. As for my views, glad you found them to be cogent to this thread.

    I would say in spite of. If that procedure hadn't gone off without a hitch yall would be FARTHER up shit creek. Go ahead and look up the failure rate of c sections.
    Try countries without the NHS...anyway the only option was for birth given the laws of the UK so there was really only one way to deal with this with an otherwise hysterical nut ; sedation and C section...

    No the meds her italian dr gave her and she took WITH her to the UK. The ones the cops could've BROUGHT WITH THEM when they picked her up.
    British officials can read and determine what they are and they could well run tests to consult for what she suffered from and worst came to worse, they could consult with Italian authorities if those tests were inconclusive. None of us knows how much of that they did and what any results were, and what else they even needed.

    The daughter CHOOSES and shes an ADULT. The MOTHER and the REST of the family applicable for guradianship live in italy by CHOICE. He's an italian citizen, so YES I would be marginally less pissed off if they would return him to the care of his own nation.
    Actually, her other kids are in the care of the grandmother, because guess what...the Italian authorities determined the same reasoning the British ones did:

    Forced C-Section Mother Tells Of Her Ordeal

    The woman has two other children aged 11 and four, by separate fathers and they are being looked after by her mother in Tuscany, after social services in Italy ruled she was not able to look after them.
    Ooooooopssss....

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #62
      Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

      Originally posted by Whipple View Post
      Doesn't that say enough about the NHS though?

      I mean it just doesn't seem possible that the doctors were so unprepared for a pregnant woman to give birth at some point that it became "imminent" and there just wasn't enough time for any third party advocacy, etc. You would think NHS, Social Services, or whatever doctors would have contacted her personal physician to find out her medical history.
      Or something she did which is what i left out in my comments to Luther ; something like her harming herself even more or attempting to which made it an immediate issue, the health of the baby in the womb, anything could have caused it to become an immediate necessity.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #63
        Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

        Originally posted by reality View Post
        Well I find it pretty thin, hence the thread.
        Giving the child back should not BE in dispute. As you have stated he is not a UK citizen by virtue of birth, he is an ITALIAN citizen. Hand him over to the proper ITALIAN authority and have done. Anything else is rampant abuse.
        Given the authorities in Italy already have 2 of her kids in their custody in Italy, why are we to assume some of the hold up is not their end?

        Though British authorities will also have a valid point eventually that the child is adapting to British surroundings, too.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #64
          Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

          Originally posted by Chloe View Post
          No this is just blatant academic dishonesty ; plain and simple. No disease about not reading, the title of this thread is just worded wrong, by any objective measure.





          I am glad you had the foresight to put the neutral in caps, it kind of gives off the notion of being confused as to who you are trying to convince more, us or yourself.



          And then you thought "hmmm...what else do i think is bad?" I know, the NHS! In my mind, 2 + 2 = bad government healthcare, i'll make the thread about the NHS!



          No, look there is no need as it has nothing to do with the NHS! Luther and a few others caught on to that real fast ; you are still talking about the NHS! That is like saying the Argentinians and Britain had gone to war over the Falkland Islands and to refute the British role we can say something good about the Argies...doesn't work like that as the Falkland Islands have nothing to do with Argentina in the first place!



          Right, when one person points and says there is something wrong with everyone else, it is definitely everyone else who is at fault...right?

          Seriously though, if that is how you feel of this forum, you are free to leave...



          What good will? You started a thread, based on a false claim of linking something where it doesn't belong and now if everyone doesn't agree to your false representation of it, you stomp your feet, have a paddy and claim victim hood to everything you can...
          so when I ask you "what does gov run healthcare get you" that is automatically a statement in a negative context? I don't remember that from all those english courses I took at all.

          Its in caps because I'm trying to get you to LOOK AT IT. See how that works? READ instead of going off half cocked.

          the story itself has quite a bit to do about the NHS. As we have discussed. I also clearly stated I was open to POSITIVE stories. Which I'm STILL WAITING ON YOU TO POST. (<see there? Wanted you to LOOK AT IT)

          As has been stated, her medical sectioning: NHS . Her care under said sectioning? NHS. Her preprocedure assessment that led to a judge saying "yeah this sounds like a good idea" would've needed ANOTHER dr. NHS. The procedure itself: NHS. Yes it ALSO has to do with social services. Hooray we can bitch about them too.

          Honey if I wanted to leave I would. I'm just interested why so many of you take so little time to actually read what someone writes and then insert all this imagined vitriol. Then you complain when I get upset because you're taking what I said out of context and not listening to me after I try to explain to you just exactly what I meant umpteen times. And yes, its the internet so this is not an isolated incident. Imagine that.

          The good will where I said "this is what I perceive and I FREELY ADMIT it could be WRONG. PLEASE POST SOMETHING POSITIVE to help change my mind". THAT good will. I simply asked a question about something that most certainly DOES have to do with the NHS and more specifically the mental health act , and said "this is something I perceive as bad. show me something GOOD". And I'm STILLLLLLLLL waiting on something good. Not ONE article. I'm not claiming victimhood on anything. I'd just like it if one of you would READ the OP without going insane and instead post something cogent to it, like a positive story where the NHS helped someone WITHOUT trampling someone's rights.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #65
            Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

            Originally posted by Chloe View Post
            So why don't we try doing that instead of you going back and throwing a dart with a blindfold blaming this on something you thought was cute but had no relevance to the discussion. This has nothing to with the NHS.



            Which is why Italian authorities (the DCF / social services counter part) have had her mom look after her other two kids, which they determine she is not fit to look after? They are abusing power too, are they?

            But like you said at the very least it should be Italian authorities so all you do is overlook the fact that the child was born in Britain and it is the role of British authorities to deal with jurisdiction...only really one thing left for you to correct yourself on.

            (I understand most libertarians like you are quite eager to cede sovereignty so i understand your obsession about attacking British authorities acting on British soil )
            As discussed this whole ordeal had a whole hell of alot to do with NHS. It ALSO deals with ss. Big fucking whoop. Doesn't negate NHS' portion of it.

            Who knows? They certainly might be. Either way it should be italian SS dealing with THEIR citizen as THEY see fit.


            The brit authorities role should be thus: Hey italy come get your fucking kid. You've freely admitted he is not a UK citizen but an italian citizen. seems cut and dried. Yes the brits have authority cause they popped him out on their soil. That doesn't mean they should be douchebags about it and hold the child back from his nation of origin where he IS a citizen. It should be a handoff, fullstop.


            (I'm gonna go ahead and ignore your insults k hun?)

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #66
              Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

              Originally posted by Whipple View Post
              Doesn't that say enough about the NHS though?

              I mean it just doesn't seem possible that the doctors were so unprepared for a pregnant woman to give birth at some point that it became "imminent" and there just wasn't enough time for any third party advocacy, etc. You would think NHS, Social Services, or whatever doctors would have contacted her personal physician to find out her medical history.
              You mustve missed the post earlier where chole proudly proclaimed that they didn't HAVE to do any of that or even contact her family while they held her in the psych ward for 5 fucking weeks. Or appoint her counsel either.
              It also took several weeks to get teh court order through and as chloe again proudly pointed out "they probably didn't tell her because they didn't want her to know". Isn't that just a wonderful system? Truly its god's country over there

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #67
                Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                NO!

                The Home Office does not govern the NHS, at all, this is where you are going wrong, and have this notion that the NHS is responsible for this woman's incarceration. Its not all "one type" of government that fills all. The sectioning of someone is not the determination of some manager in the National Health Trusts somewhere.



                The court is not obliged to appoint a lawyer! She is free to ask for representation when she herself is being tried etc, but she was not facing any court proceedings nor was she arrested, she was sectioned and there is a WORLD of difference, it does not entitle her to rights that she would otherwise be able to exorcise if she were of sound mind...you need to read the 83 MCA and then the 2003 mod. It is a lot of reading but you need to know the law.



                And that is my point. Almost every assumption you have made here is up the wall. The philosophical argument here is one thing ; each is entitled to their own opinion. But on the interpretation of the law you are wrong ; you know what your views are but that square peg does not fit into the round hole that is the British judicial system.



                With all due respect, whilst you are telling British authorities to butt out of Italian affairs (not that they are) why don't you try doing the same about British affairs? Or better yet, just apologize for the title and the rant instead of finding another way to go on the offensive because your point was refuted yet again.



                Trained healthcare professionals, are they? She was in the custody of the state, for her own protection, though. Legal counsel cannot afford such a protection to a person as they are not qualified.



                Why would Supreme court precedence have anything binding of an effect on British Law?



                This is not what an embassy is for! She may have had certain rights under the Vienna accords were she imprisoned or maybe charged with a crime. Not for being sectioned!



                Again, if this involved the NHS, you may have a point...but in the larger point, she may well have much larger problems that you are totally clueless about. Meds may not have been enough ; she may have needed therapy / counseling etc, but also some of the release forms require judicial approval and of course there is the fact she would need suitable housing / accommodation etc if she were to be released and all is rather difficult when you have been in a nut house and are suffering from a break down with no employment. Her care is what they were worried about and she took another 18 months to recover, what makes you think 5 weeks was enough?



                The Cheaper element doesn't matter when the Home Office is trying to assure her safety. If in violation of certain protocols of the Vienna convention then British authorities could be held in contempt as signatories and this is one of those instances (caring for someone with mental difficulties / pregnant etc).

                This was the only option for her whilst on British soil ; if she didn't want that she should not have traveled to Britain.



                She was when she got there...



                Makes her a resident alien....



                Doesn't matter whether she wants to or not, given that she overstayed and had a civil violation of her procedural process in entering the country, she would be removed by proceedings for dealing with such matters.



                Fine, and that is what the larger argument for the role of government is for. But to just point at the NHS and say "DEM BE DA BOOGEYMEN" is hardly making the case...



                Then stigmatize it when it has some contextual relevance...here the NHS has none. As for my views, glad you found them to be cogent to this thread.



                Try countries without the NHS...anyway the only option was for birth given the laws of the UK so there was really only one way to deal with this with an otherwise hysterical nut ; sedation and C section...



                British officials can read and determine what they are and they could well run tests to consult for what she suffered from and worst came to worse, they could consult with Italian authorities if those tests were inconclusive. None of us knows how much of that they did and what any results were, and what else they even needed.



                Actually, her other kids are in the care of the grandmother, because guess what...the Italian authorities determined the same reasoning the British ones did:

                Forced C-Section Mother Tells Of Her Ordeal



                Ooooooopssss....
                So what you're saying is a beuracrat signed off on her involuntary psych ward stay of 5 weeks? I want to be clear before I give you both barrels, that is what you are saying?


                So she has no right to counsel when she's being held incommunicado in a psych ward, involuntarily, for 5 weeks? Or when they are getting an order to perform a life threatening, permenantly maiming, medically unnessesary procedure? And the baby either cause its apparently a full person by 20 weeks? It doesn't get a lawyer either? And you're saying this is a good thing?

                YOu'll notice I didn't quote you chapter and verse of the law of the UK. Think ye that there might have been a reason for that? Could it be that I AM making the PHILOSOPHIC argument? Hence terms like "ethics" and "duty" and "justice"? Since we are talking about gov run healthcare as a concept? Nah you're right thats just silly

                Again we're talking about the CONCEPT. I'll bitch about it all I may like to just as the brits do on the gun threads etc. I believe everyone should have the representation of counsel if they are going to put in any sort of lock up or care "for their own good". Forgive me for thinking people should have rights. Gosh I'm such a terrible evil naughty sort of person.

                Care as in they should've had counsel looking out for their best interests. Someone to say "your honor I really must protest this forced c section is unprecedented in the law and goes against my clients interest in a whole body. It is not medically necessary etc" even if that were to be slapped down.

                Well since in that section we were talking about the US and the UK and that particular case drew from english common law of its day..... yeah. And please show me where I said it was binding on brit law. I was simply stating it used to be common practice. Again with the taking things out of context.

                So she has rights unless we call her crazy.... that sounds wonderful, really it does.

                and i'm sure her taking an extra 18 weeks had absolutely nothing to do with having her kid ripped from her womb without her consultation much less consent. surely her treatment had nothing to do with that.... nope... move along.. nothing to see here.

                Cheaper and less intrusive while still effective SHOULD (see that? normative judgement almost like I was disussing the CONCEPT as a whole not the particular law) always be a concern of government. Anything else is wasteful.
                Well I know I already wasn't planning to, but this sure sealed that deal.

                So what you're saying is that she overstayed her visa because they forced her to, and then she couldn't leave because she overstayed her visa.... and you like this?

                Show me where I said "them be da boogie man" punkin. Go ahead, I'll wait. Cause I didn't. ALl I tried to do was open a fucking discussion on the merits of it, I posted something I thought was bad and expected someone to post something they thought was good. Still wating by the way.

                The its stigmatized bit was about council housing, not the NHS. Though I do stigmatize it as it stands now. Gosh I wish someone would READ the OP and post a positve NHS story. Just one.

                Yeah we woulda deported her ass into italian custody LONG before she needed a c section. Again, you've got all these laws like this and you feel that's a good thing? I stifle under MY laws over here. How do you folk BREATHE over there?

                You yourself proudly announced earlier that there was absolutely no need to ASK HER DOCTOR for her medical history or contact her family. So you've claimed to know SOMETHING. The easiest thing to do would've been to get on google and find the dr on the prescription and ASK HIM/HER for their patient's history after explaining what happened. THEN to contact next of kin to say "your X is in the loony bin. thought you'd like to know".

                what you mean oops? So she DOESN"T have direct bloodkin who would take the kid? Cause your link seems to show the opposite of that. O I see. You were apologizing for your fuck up. Well I accept. Let no more be said about it.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #68
                  Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                  Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                  Given the authorities in Italy already have 2 of her kids in their custody in Italy, why are we to assume some of the hold up is not their end?

                  Though British authorities will also have a valid point eventually that the child is adapting to British surroundings, too.
                  The article did not mention that the brits had contacted ISS about it at all, and you proudly announced that they didn't have to nor did they need to appoint her counsel, or notify her family etc etc etc.

                  The brit authorities would have a point YEARS from now if the kid got adopted and was never told his story or ever had contact with his blood kin. They don't have one now.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #69
                    Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                    Originally posted by Chloe View Post
                    Or something she did which is what i left out in my comments to Luther ; something like her harming herself even more or attempting to which made it an immediate issue, the health of the baby in the womb, anything could have caused it to become an immediate necessity.
                    Apparently it wasn't much of an immediate necessity.

                    I mean I think it's a safe assumption she was kept for weeks because they believed she was a danger to herself. The alternative explanation is that your government is in the habit of kidnapping foreigners and holding them against their will but if we assume that wasn't the case then why did they keep her for several weeks without contacting a personal lawyer, doctor, or family member?

                    I could understand if she attempted suicide or something the night she was admitted but she sat around the looney bin for several weeks!
                    Last edited by Whipple; 12-03-2013, 04:32 PM.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #70
                      Re: what gov run healthcare gets you

                      Originally posted by Whipple View Post
                      Apparently it wasn't much of an immediate necessity.

                      I mean I think it's a safe assumption she was kept for weeks because they believed she was a danger to herself. The alternative explanation is that your government is in the habit of kidnapping foreigners and holding them against their will but if we assume that wasn't the case then why did they keep her for several weeks without contacting a personal lawyer, doctor, or family member?

                      I could understand if she attempted suicide or something the night she was admitted but she sat around the looney bin for several weeks!
                      and remember they had to get a high court order to perform the c section. that would take all kinds of paperwork and opinions from various types of drs etc.
                      But as chloe has proudly pointed out, she'd been sectioned and therefore had no rights

                      מה מכילות החדשות?

                      Working...
                      X