Quizzes & Puzzles28 mins ago
Girl Shot By Taliban Signs £2 Million Book Deal
83 Answers
Would it be spiteful of me to say that it would be nice to see some of that ploughed back into the NHS that saved her life and safeguarded her future?
http://
http://
Answers
No, the answer is (c) - you don’t give them £100 in the first place. You keep it and spend on goods and services for the people who have paid it in (or better still, let them keep it and spend it as they wish on themselves). However, I digress. I thought I’d let the dust settle a little before expanding further on my disappointme
19:47 Fri 29th Mar 2013
Chill
I think your frustration and confusion is due to the notion that Pakistan is a homogeneous entity that just isn't doing 'a good job' against our enemies (usually labelled simplistically the Taliban) due to corruption, incompetence, weakness whatever.
In reality, the Region, the administration, the population, the armed forces are riddled with support for 'our enemies' and their underlying objectives. Those who are fighting on our side are doing so in a quasi civil war with indistinct borders.
Maybe we and the other western countries should just walk away (the Americans are a long way from that position btw) and let them tear each other up.
If Islamic extremists take over the whole region maybe it doesn't matter.
But many western strategists believe it is worthwhile holding the line here; with military support, bribes, aid, development, education or anything else we can think of.
I think your frustration and confusion is due to the notion that Pakistan is a homogeneous entity that just isn't doing 'a good job' against our enemies (usually labelled simplistically the Taliban) due to corruption, incompetence, weakness whatever.
In reality, the Region, the administration, the population, the armed forces are riddled with support for 'our enemies' and their underlying objectives. Those who are fighting on our side are doing so in a quasi civil war with indistinct borders.
Maybe we and the other western countries should just walk away (the Americans are a long way from that position btw) and let them tear each other up.
If Islamic extremists take over the whole region maybe it doesn't matter.
But many western strategists believe it is worthwhile holding the line here; with military support, bribes, aid, development, education or anything else we can think of.
No, the answer is (c) - you don’t give them £100 in the first place. You keep it and spend on goods and services for the people who have paid it in (or better still, let them keep it and spend it as they wish on themselves). However, I digress.
I thought I’d let the dust settle a little before expanding further on my disappointment. That way all the accusations of Fascism, Nazism, Racism and every other “-ism” can be made before we get back to sensible debate.
First of all, apologies to Answerprancer for publicly mentioning the “apparent joy” when it was not mentioned in the question. I didn’t realise we were restricted solely to the terms of the original question. I understood that as the debate widened we could comment on the subsequent answers. The “apparent joy” that I mentioned stems from three of the five answers that were posted prior to mine:
“…good luck to her. “
“…I wouldn't mind picking up the bill.”
“…Good for her.”
So why don’t I share this joy? Firstly, let me make it clear from the outset that I think what happened to this girl is absolutely appalling and nobody, least of all a fifteen year old girl, deserves to suffer such an atrocity. That said, it was the fault of nobody in the UK that it happened to her. It was the fault of religious nutcases who will not rest until their ridiculous religious dogma has been fulfilled (i.e. never).Given that it did happen, there is no obligation on the UK to treat the girl and there are plenty of other places, far more adjacent to her homeland, and with far more resources, that could have taken up her cause. The UK does not have spare medical capacity. Whether Pakistan is paying or not is not the issue (and I very much doubt that they are, but I care not either way) . Medical facilities in the UK should be used for people already in the UK. Moving on, I fail to see why the girl (and some of her family) should reside for evermore in the UK. Once again there are plenty of other places nearer and more suitable. But we’re always the first (and only) port of call. Meantime older people in the UK are told they have to wait, often until it is far too late, for treatment for things such as degenerative eye disease. If we’re to talk about humanity, that is where our humanity should be directed.
Sorry to be an uncaring, inconsiderate inhumane bar steward, but that’s why I don’t share the “apparent joy”.
I thought I’d let the dust settle a little before expanding further on my disappointment. That way all the accusations of Fascism, Nazism, Racism and every other “-ism” can be made before we get back to sensible debate.
First of all, apologies to Answerprancer for publicly mentioning the “apparent joy” when it was not mentioned in the question. I didn’t realise we were restricted solely to the terms of the original question. I understood that as the debate widened we could comment on the subsequent answers. The “apparent joy” that I mentioned stems from three of the five answers that were posted prior to mine:
“…good luck to her. “
“…I wouldn't mind picking up the bill.”
“…Good for her.”
So why don’t I share this joy? Firstly, let me make it clear from the outset that I think what happened to this girl is absolutely appalling and nobody, least of all a fifteen year old girl, deserves to suffer such an atrocity. That said, it was the fault of nobody in the UK that it happened to her. It was the fault of religious nutcases who will not rest until their ridiculous religious dogma has been fulfilled (i.e. never).Given that it did happen, there is no obligation on the UK to treat the girl and there are plenty of other places, far more adjacent to her homeland, and with far more resources, that could have taken up her cause. The UK does not have spare medical capacity. Whether Pakistan is paying or not is not the issue (and I very much doubt that they are, but I care not either way) . Medical facilities in the UK should be used for people already in the UK. Moving on, I fail to see why the girl (and some of her family) should reside for evermore in the UK. Once again there are plenty of other places nearer and more suitable. But we’re always the first (and only) port of call. Meantime older people in the UK are told they have to wait, often until it is far too late, for treatment for things such as degenerative eye disease. If we’re to talk about humanity, that is where our humanity should be directed.
Sorry to be an uncaring, inconsiderate inhumane bar steward, but that’s why I don’t share the “apparent joy”.
@NJ "Does not have the spare medical capacity"
Yes it does.Her being treated in no way affects waiting lists for people suffering degenerative eye disease, for example.
The clue is in the word- humanity. It extends beyond national barriers. Where you draw the line depends on resource and culture.
If you do not share the joy, that's fine, that is your perogative, but you will have to come up with better rationalisations than the rather feeble ones you have currently offered if you wish people to conclude that you are anything other than a curmudgeon :)
Yes it does.Her being treated in no way affects waiting lists for people suffering degenerative eye disease, for example.
The clue is in the word- humanity. It extends beyond national barriers. Where you draw the line depends on resource and culture.
If you do not share the joy, that's fine, that is your perogative, but you will have to come up with better rationalisations than the rather feeble ones you have currently offered if you wish people to conclude that you are anything other than a curmudgeon :)
AP, no one least of all me believes your constant fascist, nazi remarks are tongue in cheek.
I tend to agree with NJ, and whether the Pakistani government are picking up the bill this young lady could well have been treated in another country.
It is unlikely she and her family will return to Pakistan, too much of a risk for her and indeed her family.
I tend to agree with NJ, and whether the Pakistani government are picking up the bill this young lady could well have been treated in another country.
It is unlikely she and her family will return to Pakistan, too much of a risk for her and indeed her family.
I know that her treatment does not have a direct impact on waiting lists for eye surgery, LG. But the UK should not have facilities available at the drop of a hat to treat somebody unconnected with this country for a problem that was not of our doing and that occurred 5,000 miles away. If such facilities are available they should be discontinued and the cash saved used to treat people already here.
Every day we hear one group or another complaining of “the most vicious and evil cuts the world has ever known.“ Many of these complaints suggest that the health service is the target of some of those cuts and examples are given of how people in the UK (who, remember, fund the NHS) are receiving inadequate treatment for their ailments. These matters should be addressed first and only when they are satisfactorily resolved should we start opening an A&E department to treat victims of violence from places such as Pakistan. I don’t think there is anything irrational about that. If you’re happy to see your cash squandered on people from overseas whilst services for people already here are less than adequate that’s up to you. But I think you will find that I am not alone in thinking otherwise. Demonstrating humanity is all fine and dandy when you’ve got the cash. But the UK does not and those who demonstrate the most humanitarian qualities usually restrict themselves to doing so with other people’s money.
Sorry, Sharingan, I cannot answer your question. You’ll just have to know me as that old curmudgeon New Judge and draw what conclusions you will from my postings.
Every day we hear one group or another complaining of “the most vicious and evil cuts the world has ever known.“ Many of these complaints suggest that the health service is the target of some of those cuts and examples are given of how people in the UK (who, remember, fund the NHS) are receiving inadequate treatment for their ailments. These matters should be addressed first and only when they are satisfactorily resolved should we start opening an A&E department to treat victims of violence from places such as Pakistan. I don’t think there is anything irrational about that. If you’re happy to see your cash squandered on people from overseas whilst services for people already here are less than adequate that’s up to you. But I think you will find that I am not alone in thinking otherwise. Demonstrating humanity is all fine and dandy when you’ve got the cash. But the UK does not and those who demonstrate the most humanitarian qualities usually restrict themselves to doing so with other people’s money.
Sorry, Sharingan, I cannot answer your question. You’ll just have to know me as that old curmudgeon New Judge and draw what conclusions you will from my postings.
NJ do you object to all foreigners who pay for their own treatment here? NHS hospitals have private wings, available to anyone who is either not eligible for NHS treatment and pays or who wishes to have private treatment anyway. Foreigners may use these, and do.
Or do you simply object to someone who is not here already when taken ill or injured, or who is in need of specialist treatment here, and who comes here to have treatment and pay for it?
Or do you simply object to someone who is not here already when taken ill or injured, or who is in need of specialist treatment here, and who comes here to have treatment and pay for it?
I’m not sure that this young lady was treated privately, fred. But having said that I don’t particularly object to foreigners using private medical facilities provided (a) they do not cost the NHS in terms of cash or use of facilities and (b) they return home forthwith.
To the second part of your question my answer is the same. If someone comes to the UK and uses NHS facilities (even if they pay for it, which I believe very few do because the NHS is somewhat inept at collecting monies due) that patient is using facilities which should be available to patients who qualify for treatment under the NHS.
But my objection in this case is somewhat wider than that. I fail to see why the UK should be the automatic choice of destination for the victim and, usually, most of the family. Of course many will say that should make us proud. I would say it makes us a laughing stock. Obviously my humanitarian instincts do not stretch as far as other people would like my wallet to stretch.
Of course it remains to be seen whether the young lady and her family will return home. Personally I doubt that they will.
To the second part of your question my answer is the same. If someone comes to the UK and uses NHS facilities (even if they pay for it, which I believe very few do because the NHS is somewhat inept at collecting monies due) that patient is using facilities which should be available to patients who qualify for treatment under the NHS.
But my objection in this case is somewhat wider than that. I fail to see why the UK should be the automatic choice of destination for the victim and, usually, most of the family. Of course many will say that should make us proud. I would say it makes us a laughing stock. Obviously my humanitarian instincts do not stretch as far as other people would like my wallet to stretch.
Of course it remains to be seen whether the young lady and her family will return home. Personally I doubt that they will.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles63 mins ago
ChatterBank64 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles70 mins ago
Body & Soul74 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.