Welcome To The UK You Magnificent B@stard.

'Those damn millenials! Struggling to find jobs in an insanely competitive market and ruining my lovely high street!'

Sent from my COR-L29 using Tapatalk

Frank. I don't understand. Yes we have the best system but that doesn't mean, doesn't mean what? I don't understand the conclusion or what I'm googling. What are you comparing it to? GDP or something? The Commonwealth index is the most used index in the world.


The WHO ratings that the UN use actually put us at number 2 for 2019, so we have slumped from 1st to second according to the UN.


worldpopulationreview.com/countries/best...thcare-in-the-world/

And what's your view? Should we have pay based health care?

At least you’ve finally admitted you don’t understand, admitting you have a problem is half the battle.

That article you’ve just put the link up for is totally irrelevant, it clearly states that 3 Scandinavian countries are the top 3 and the table shows countries in order of population - once again you’ve misinterpreted your own links!!

Really Frank? Did you read it? It measures the quality of healthcare in proportion to the population so it takes into account the size of the population.

You said the UK had the best system but ........and then some drivel. This was to show you that factoring other items like population size we are still the best or thereabouts. The article says using its metrics Finland has the best system unlike the Commonwealth that puts us at no 1. The system though is something that according to you doesn't make any difference! Factor in population, and we are number 2, factor in geographical diversity and you'll get something different. But we are still right up there, right until the long term unemployed decide it would be a genius idea to add 500 quid a month to their outgoings and vote in an immoral cretin like Farage

Firstly, the original article which you referred to from the BBC shows we have the best SYSTEM out of 11 wealthy countries, this doesn’t translate to the best health service in the world unfortunately. It’s okay having a good health system or healthcare plan but if it isn’t used properly and not managed properly then the service suffers, as the UK’s has. If you care to read the bottom of the article the lady is quite right in saying that the “quality of care” isn’t the best and it certainly isn’t “the envy of the world”, as you wrongly claimed.

If you google “quality of healthcare by country” you’ll find a variety of various articles showing actual quality of healthcare throughout the world and the UK is predominantly well down the list. Most damning to your argument is the WHO report which shows overall efficiency of healthcare systems of 191 countries. We are shown as 18th, so once again not the best as you claim.

My point is that you can have a good system but if implemented badly it doesn’t translate to the best service, as is shown by the numerous articles I’ve eluded to.

I still don’t understand how an MEP and the President of America can scrap the NHS?
Maybe lm missing something, or maybe it’s just not [censored] possible.
Anyway, no comments on Trump’s interview with Piers Morgan where he stated the NHS was ‘off the table’ in trade talks. O comments on Nippy giving a £2m contract to an American company to run a part of the NHS?
Not fit anyone’s agenda?

As for my view which you asked earlier, no I don’t think we should have a pay based system but I can understand why it’s been explored by more than one government in the past and still is. The NHS is in a mess, there’s no doubt about it and there’s no easy solution.

My thoughts on a subject I admit I have little knowledge of are that we need to get back to providing a NATIONAL health service as opposed to the current INTERNATIONAL health service, by that I mean get out of the EU and stop providing for up to 500m people when the system was set up to provide for 50m people.

Renegotiate the criminal PFI’s which were set up by Labour which are crippling the NHS. People talk about privatisation within the system but PFI’s are proof that privatisation is already widespread.

Cut middle management and pen pushers who are stealing a living within the system and are quite often not needed. Also better regulate the role doctors are playing as they’re fast becoming a drain on finances with their immoral working practices.

Lastly, which is more in hope than expectation, is to educate the population in how to be more responsible health-wise.

Marko will have nearly choked with excitement on his Muesli this morning as Farage got his comeuppance in Peterborough.

As the Brexit Party were 2/9 on and Labour 5/2, UK Politics just gets better.............

Muesli, ugh.

Brilliant day for Donald yesterday. Castigated nasa for wanting to go back to the moon, something he ordered himself. In his rant he declared that the moon was part of Mars. Superb

The great One’s meeting with the Irish PM is fantastic Marko-I think it’s on YouTube

His first words in the meeting were:

[on Brexit]..."I think it'll all work out, it'll all work out very well, also for you with your wall, your border, I mean, we have a border situation in the United States and you have one over here, but i hear it's gonna work out very well, I think it's both gonna work out well, it's gonna work out very well here."

The interview with Piers Morgan is also highly entertaining, eg:

"I'm in the midst of a couple of trade negotiations, trade negotiations which I think are gonna work out very successfully because we have the cards, I've all the cards, you know we're the piggy bank, we're the bank everyone wants to steal from and rob and when you have that you have the cards and I do have the cards and I have the cards on Mexico, cleaning up the country, their country, so that we don't have the onslaught of millions of people trying to rush our border, so we have a lot of things I'm working on, they're good things, I didn't have to work on em..."

and (on guns):

on the Parish massacre, he said "if one or two or three of those people (the victims) had had a gun, it would never have happened"; when Morgan (saying he was in favour of licensed guns for hunting and even for the right to bear basic arms) asked him why people in the US need a semi auto matic AR-15 assault rifle at home, Trump said "well a lot of em use em for entertainment."


Amazing material but I suppose he does this all the time.

Haven't seen the Irish interview. I did see the one where he forgot which country Melania was from but he thought it was in Scandinavia

He seems to have got his own way...again..

"Mexico has agreed to take "unprecedented steps" to help stem the flow of migrants to the US in order to avoid trade tariffs threatened by President Donald Trump.
Mr Trump revealed that a deal had been reached to suspend the tariffs "indefinitely" in a series of tweets."

thesilentone wrote: He seems to have got his own way...again..

"Mexico has agreed to take "unprecedented steps" to help stem the flow of migrants to the US in order to avoid trade tariffs threatened by President Donald Trump.
Mr Trump revealed that a deal had been reached to suspend the tariffs "indefinitely" in a series of tweets."

He had them by the balls really.

Just like we should be behaving towards the EU with their demanding of all those billions.

We wont though because the Conservatives and Labour are now Liberal.

munchymagic wrote:

thesilentone wrote: He seems to have got his own way...again..

"Mexico has agreed to take "unprecedented steps" to help stem the flow of migrants to the US in order to avoid trade tariffs threatened by President Donald Trump.
Mr Trump revealed that a deal had been reached to suspend the tariffs "indefinitely" in a series of tweets."

He had them by the balls really.

Just like we should be behaving towards the EU with their demanding of all those billions.

We wont though because the Conservatives and Labour are now Liberal.

Come on munchy we know by liberal you really mean completely [censored] useless

Brexit seems more and more a massive con, to get anything through obviously Parliament have to agree but when you have Labour who want to stay in the EU against the country's wishes who just say 'no' to everything, good deal, bad deal or no deal then what was the point of the referendum vote?

Labour put us in the EU without a referendum, a referendum happens and they still cannot accept things - practically Labour are 'demanding' that we stay in the EU regardless of public opinion and that stinks.

Farage and Robinson are better politicians than Corbyn as at least they are not trying to destroy democracy like Corbyn currently is.

If Corbyn gets his way then democracy is dead, not that the terrorist will mind one jot as he will se it as mission accomplished.

See the Jewish community in London have come out in support. He saved their cemetery when Margaret hodge was trying to shut it down

I see Tommys been a bad lad at the England game the other night.

www.thescottishsun.co.uk/video/news/tomm...nations-league-game/

We couldn't wait to get into Europe in June 1944.

munchymagic wrote: Brexit seems more and more a massive con, to get anything through obviously Parliament have to agree but when you have Labour who want to stay in the EU against the country's wishes who just say 'no' to everything, good deal, bad deal or no deal then what was the point of the referendum vote?

Labour put us in the EU without a referendum, a referendum happens and they still cannot accept things - practically Labour are 'demanding' that we stay in the EU regardless of public opinion and that stinks.

Farage and Robinson are better politicians than Corbyn as at least they are not trying to destroy democracy like Corbyn currently is.

If Corbyn gets his way then democracy is dead, not that the terrorist will mind one jot as he will se it as mission accomplished.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think you are wrong here. It's a criminal offence to support terrorism. Corbyn is one of the most scrutinized people in the country, everything about him and his past is closely examined constantly. If it was true that he supports terrorism, then why hasn't he been charged with it?

Kessler wrote:

munchymagic wrote: Brexit seems more and more a massive con, to get anything through obviously Parliament have to agree but when you have Labour who want to stay in the EU against the country's wishes who just say 'no' to everything, good deal, bad deal or no deal then what was the point of the referendum vote?

Labour put us in the EU without a referendum, a referendum happens and they still cannot accept things - practically Labour are 'demanding' that we stay in the EU regardless of public opinion and that stinks.

Farage and Robinson are better politicians than Corbyn as at least they are not trying to destroy democracy like Corbyn currently is.

If Corbyn gets his way then democracy is dead, not that the terrorist will mind one jot as he will se it as mission accomplished.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, I think you are wrong here. It's a criminal offence to support terrorism. Corbyn is one of the most scrutinized people in the country, everything about him and his past is closely examined constantly. If it was true that he supports terrorism, then why hasn't he been charged with it?

They let the IRA out of prison, fat chance of getting him in there now is there?

munchymagic wrote: They let the IRA out of prison, fat chance of getting him in there now is there?

Some were released early, but that was only because of specific terms in the Good Friday Agreement which do not apply in this case. It is a crime to support terrorism and people can be jailed for it. For example in 2016 Anjem Choudary was convicted for inviting support for a terrorist organization. If Corbyn also supports terrorism, why hasn't he been charged under the same offence?

Because they went soft on it, he is Labour and Labour let the scumbags out.

If you can get let out of prison for killing someone or plotting to kill them then you simply are not going to be sent to prison for collaborating with them.

Who knows what went on behind the scenes and how dirty his hands got, he is tarnished.

Labour are finished.

munchymagic wrote: If you can get let out of prison for killing someone or plotting to kill them then you simply are not going to be sent to prison for collaborating with them.

It doesn't work the way you seem to think it does. People have been sent to prison for collaborating with terrorists even though the GFA allowed the release of other terrorists. The reason for this is that while the GFA allowed early release, it was limited to them. It can't be used as a defence by other people. If what you were saying was true, then people could freely declare support for terrorism on our streets and nothing could be done about it. When arrested they would simply say that if terrorists were released early under the GFA, then there's no way they should be sent to jail just for supporting or collaborating with them.

People can be prosecuted for supporting terrorism. I gave you an example. So if Corbyn does support terrorism, why hasn't he been charged like many other people have been since the GFA?

munchymagic wrote: Who knows what went on behind the scenes

Well if you don't know for sure what happened, why are you making such a serious accusation against him? Don't you believe in innocent until proven guilty?

Kessler wrote:

munchymagic wrote: Who knows what went on behind the scenes

Well if you don't know for sure what happened, why are you making such a serious accusation against him? Don't you believe in innocent until proven guilty?

Michael Jackson was never found guilty either but it doesn't stop me believing the accusations against him.

munchymagic wrote:

Kessler wrote:

munchymagic wrote: Who knows what went on behind the scenes

Well if you don't know for sure what happened, why are you making such a serious accusation against him? Don't you believe in innocent until proven guilty?

Michael Jackson was never found guilty either but it doesn't stop me believing the accusations against him.

But you aren't just believing the accusations are you, you are going around repeating them and claiming them to be true, even though there is no evidence for it and no court has found him guilty of anything. I think that's wrong because we're meant to give people the benefit of the doubt, we say that people are innocent until proven guilty. If you hear an accusation about someone and you think it's true (like Michael Jackson) then fair enough. But is it fair to go around spreading that accusation when by your own admission you don't actually know what happened?

My instinct has always trusted me well - I would not have trusted MJ in any capacity - neither would I with Corbyn.

Just how it is but don't forget that my vote and a +1 will cancel yours out and give to the nearest opposition party.

munchymagic wrote: My instinct has always trusted me well - I would not have trusted MJ in any capacity - neither would I with Corbyn

And no one is saying you have to. But you are going beyond not trusting someone, you are making serious accusations against them even you you admit you don't actually know what happened. Do you think that's fair to them? How would you like it if people went around accusing you of supporting the IRA munchy?

Kessler wrote:

munchymagic wrote: My instinct has always trusted me well - I would not have trusted MJ in any capacity - neither would I with Corbyn

And no one is saying you have to. But you are going beyond not trusting someone, you are making serious accusations against them even you you admit you don't actually know what happened. Do you think that's fair to them? How would you like it if people went around accusing you of supporting the IRA munchy?

You just have to read my views on here to realise that I am no IRA supporter.

It is hardly like I 'hang out' with them like Corbyn - big difference.

munchymagic wrote: You just have to read my views on here to realise that I am no IRA supporter.

But the thing is if you repeat something often enough and loudly enough then eventually some people start believing it, even though it's untrue. So how would you like it if people kept making the same accusation about you, and slowly over time a few people here and there began to believe it? You've made it clear you don't trust Corbyn, that's fine that's up to you. Nobody has a problem with you having a private opinion. But you are going further than that, you are making accusations about him. If they were true then that would be fair enough, but you've admitted you don't actually know what happened. I think it's unfair to keep making accusations about someone if you aren't sure they are actually guilty of them. It's meant to be innocent until proven guilty.

Out of interest do you consider Theresa May a terrorist sympathizer? She has met with Trump, the head of a government well known for providing support for terrorist groups when it suits their interests to destabilize countries and get "regime change". In your opinion is she a terrorist sympathizer munchy?

When you compare May to Corbyn in the terrorist stakes then you have lost the argument.

May is forced to meet many leaders that she would probably not wish to meet yet Corbyn 'chose' to play with the IRA.

And I am not even a May supporter, her hands are certainly cleaner than that scumbags are though.

I care not a jot what Corbyn has or has not been accused of but his mannerisms and demeanour smack of someone who is anti British, perhaps more so anti English, disliked by the government of our biggest and most imortant allies.

Disliked by our the majority own military, seems to actually thrive on the pretence of being anti semetic.

Turns a complete blind eye to the actions of his bully boy Momentum members and in reference to the above keeps the company of some very unsavoury bedfellows.

Espouses the fiscal policies of a tin pot South American dictatorship, gives positions to some of the poorest calibre of MP's in history.

Him becoming prime minister is a far more frightening and sinister than the thought of Brexit.

What's the difference between the ira killing innocent civilians in Belfast and the British army killing innocent civilians in Syria?

Markovitch wrote: What's the difference between the ira killing innocent civilians in Belfast and the British army killing innocent civilians in Syria?

Nothing, but unfortunately you have to decide where your loyalties lie, we have just commemerated D- Day, you may well ask who were worse for mass bombings of innocents in WW2.

If you think the British were, perhaps you would have been happier living in Nazi Germany.

So killing innocent people is ok when we do it? I don't subscribe to that

Markovitch wrote: What's the difference between the ira killing innocent civilians in Belfast and the British army killing innocent civilians in Syria?

If you cannot distinguish between terrorists planning and executing the innocent, and the innocent being killed in a war, then their is no point in arguing, they are not a comparable.

Unless of course, you're a terrorist sympathiser.

What war? The tories didn't want to get involved in a dispute at the post office but we have to send troops to Syria to depose the leader. However corrupt and criminal the ira may be they believe on some level they are fighting a war in their own country for their own people. How many people here wake up in the morning and fear attack by Syria? The ministry of defence is there to defend. But tough to justify when you are funding rebels in Libya who then come here and blow up British teenagers.

So, you are clearly the latter of the two.........

thesilentone wrote: So, you are clearly the latter of the two.........

You aren't answering his question though and I think it's a very valid question to ask. Look at all the times our government has supported terrorists when it suits them, and explain why it's ok for them to do that, but Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer because he's open to the idea of having peace talks with groups? I still remember how often our government issued statements of support for terrorists in Syria, calling them moderate rebels and saying they were the rightful leaders of the country. Imagine the outrage if Corbyn had called the IRA moderate and said they deserved to be in charge.

Corbyn has had no time to mix with his terrorist buddies lately. His new mate is Tariq Mahmood, Labours Peterbrough campaign organiser. Who's been to jail for electoral fraud. Can we have a recount and an investigation?

Didn't the Tory who kept farage out of parliament get done for election fraud?

Kessler wrote:

thesilentone wrote: So, you are clearly the latter of the two.........

You aren't answering his question though and I think it's a very valid question to ask. Look at all the times our government has supported terrorists when it suits them, and explain why it's ok for them to do that, but Corbyn is a terrorist sympathizer because he's open to the idea of having peace talks with groups? I still remember how often our government issued statements of support for terrorists in Syria, calling them moderate rebels and saying they were the rightful leaders of the country. Imagine the outrage if Corbyn had called the IRA moderate and said they deserved to be in charge.

Sadly people have very short memories, I traveled several times to Ireland when the atrocities of Warren Point, Ballygawley and Enniskillin (plus all the other atrocities on the UK mainland) happened. Enniskillin in particular had nothing to do with Governments or Military, it was because the Protestant and Catholic communities had initiatives to get closer together, which were working. Pure wanton slaughter by a terrorist organisation, it had the desired effect and created the divide they wanted, sadly the leader of the opposition saw fit to sit round the table with the IRA and attend various events.

Questioning what Governments do is our prerogative, choices are made at the Polling Station, however you also have to decide which side you are on, tough sometimes, but that's life.

Hitlers followers also chose that they would support an extreme right wing regime that slaughtered people abroad

thesilentone wrote: Pure wanton slaughter by a terrorist organisation, it had the desired effect and created the divide they wanted, sadly the leader of the opposition saw fit to sit round the table with the IRA and attend various events.

And when terrorists in Libya were slaughtering people, the Conservative-led coalition gave military assistance to them. The Libyan Civil War would have ended very quickly with a decisive government victory over the rebels if it had not been for Western intervention, which prolonged the war and led to many more deaths and the terrorists seizing power. If you think Corbyn is wrong to be willing to sit down and talk with terrorists then fair enough, but surely then you would also think it wrong for the government to provide military assistance to terrorists like in Libya?

thesilentone wrote: however you also have to decide which side you are on, tough sometimes, but that's life.

That's a false dichotomy, you're suggesting the only choice is that you must chose a side to support. You're ignoring the third option of trying to negotiate peace rather than taking sides. People will mock the idea and suggest it's impossible, but the Good Friday Agreement is proof that it sometimes does work.

Kessler wrote:

thesilentone wrote: Pure wanton slaughter by a terrorist organisation, it had the desired effect and created the divide they wanted, sadly the leader of the opposition saw fit to sit round the table with the IRA and attend various events.

And when terrorists in Libya were slaughtering people, the Conservative-led coalition gave military assistance to them. The Libyan Civil War would have ended very quickly with a decisive government victory over the rebels if it had not been for Western intervention, which prolonged the war and led to many more deaths and the terrorists seizing power. If you think Corbyn is wrong to be willing to sit down and talk with terrorists then fair enough, but surely then you would also think it wrong for the government to provide military assistance to terrorists like in Libya?

thesilentone wrote: however you also have to decide which side you are on, tough sometimes, but that's life.

That's a false dichotomy, you're suggesting the only choice is that you must chose a side to support. You're ignoring the third option of trying to negotiate peace rather than taking sides. People will mock the idea and suggest it's impossible, but the Good Friday Agreement is proof that it sometimes does work.

Corbyn and Mcdonnell were both against the peace process, stating at the time the only solution was a united Ireland.

For six or seven years running, during the height of the troubles Corbyn attended memorial services for the IRA.

15 years ago Mcdonnell was given an award for his support, presented by a former IRA bomber who shot a prison officer in the head.

Those aren't the actions of sympathisers, more like collaborators.

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: Corbyn and Mcdonnell were both against the peace process, stating at the time the only solution was a united Ireland.

They were giving their opinion on what they thought would be needed for peace, that's literally how a peace process works. And many felt the same back in those days.

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: For six or seven years running, during the height of the troubles Corbyn attended memorial services for the IRA.

I can sort of understand that. Any peace process has to involve both sides acknowledging the other side as human beings who are fighting for what they think is right. Attending a memorial service doesn't mean you agree with what those people did, it just means you acknowledge they were human beings and you would have preferred it if they could have peacefully resolved their differences with their enemy rather than fight over them.

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: Those aren't the actions of sympathisers, more like collaborators.

I disagree, I think it's the actions of people who would prefer to have peace rather than war, and are willing to sit down and talk with the enemy even though it isn't a popular decision and the natural instinct is to fight against such people.

Kessler wrote:

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: Corbyn and Mcdonnell were both against the peace process, stating at the time the only solution was a united Ireland.

They were giving their opinion on what they thought would be needed for peace, that's literally how a peace process works. And many felt the same back in those days.

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: For six or seven years running, during the height of the troubles Corbyn attended memorial services for the IRA.

I can sort of understand that. Any peace process has to involve both sides acknowledging the other side as human beings who are fighting for what they think is right. Attending a memorial service doesn't mean you agree with what those people did, it just means you acknowledge they were human beings and you would have preferred it if they could have peacefully resolved their differences with their enemy rather than fight over them.

Dentonholmersimpson wrote: Those aren't the actions of sympathisers, more like collaborators.

I disagree, I think it's the actions of people who would prefer to have peace rather than war, and are willing to sit down and talk with the enemy even though it isn't a popular decision and the natural instinct is to fight against such people.

Convenietly missed the bit about the award for Mcdonnell, I could quote loads more stuff, like Corbyn being part of an editorial team of a left wing publication that praised the Brighton bombers with quotes like " Four tories dead, good start"or " Norman, try riding your bike now".

All part of the peace process I guess.

120,000 people have died, British people, due to tory austerity. You can ignore that but an unfortunate, ill advised comment is unforgivable?