Iranu wrote:What does people refusing healthcare or dying due to money have to do with the NHS?
That's a non 'free' health system although the service is usually better with less overstretched demand, sounds great a free system but reality is that's long waiting times that does often affect health badly to the point some die, had they been in a system that charged money they'd not have waited as long (Assuming they could afford it), it's a balancing act (UK being so overpopulated is a big issue too plus to be frank a lot of people don't deserve the NHS, those who don't take care of themselves & cost the system far more than they give back)
mick745 wrote:Iranu wrote:mick745 wrote:Cant have it both ways, more money for the NHS either means more taxation or equivalent funding cuts in other services.
The pandemic has already cost HUNDREDS of BILLIONS with furlough, roll out of vaccines and other measures. The war in Ukraine is sending prices sky high which will require more government in remedial measures.
The Tories were gutting the NHS long before the pandemic.
They have just put national insurance up 2.5% for extra NHS funding.
Every election Labour come along and say the NHS will be privatised under a Conservative government. And it hasnt been. But they'll still bang the same drum. Maybe that was one of the reasons they had their worst election result since the 1930s.
But perhaps the biggest proponent of bringing in private investment into the NHS in its history was Tony Blair.
Definitely the NHS cuts made dealing with covid far more shambolic than if it had been a healthy system, simple answer is we're overpopulated whatever system you implement. That is why lots of governments haven't responded too efficiently with covid as it overwhelmingly affects & kills pensioners & people already in bad health. Had it primarily been a disease killing working age people and children it would be handled far more urgently.
I have a low opinion of either big party but there's little that will change it's always one or the either in charge.
Pink Ball wrote:Johnny Bravo wrote:Minimum Break wrote:Johnny Bravo wrote:Wildey wrote:Cant Believe some here actually trying to find a reason why a Man Assaulted a Woman Doesn't Matter if it was provocation, it was undefendable anyway. Assault can turn out Manslaughter and has many times with Domestic Abuse.
For the millionth time, nobody is trying to defend his actions or say it was ok, I'm trying to understand WHY he did it.
It was a domestic violence incident.
Are you happy now?
No. I need all the details. Was the woman his girlfriend ? Did she parakeet ? etc
Look, I'm not sure why any of this matters. A reporter has to give a fair and accurate report. If the BBC report seems one-sided, it's probably because Wenbo doesn't have much in his favour. If he had his reasons, it would have come out in court and would have been in the report.
He pleaded guilty regardless of the circumstances. I'm sure his defence team would have used everything they had for their client, Liang may not be a big winner but he's made over a million in prize money & I'm sure some more from commercial interests, he was for a time China's 2nd top player so he'd have access to good lawyers.