UK Authorities Crack Down On Nazi Dogs And Angry Drivers While Forcing Parents To Watch Baby Die

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
My point is that the judiciary is paid by the government and utilizes government law to rule.

They are government.

Your logic is wrong. By your definition a care worker, or a road sweeper - both paid by taxes - are government. Besides, the point is moot. In the UK (England and Wales) there is a clear division between the judiciary and the government executive, meaning they are independent.

The medical profession work within the law.

a reply to: angelchemuel

I'm up to date, I have neuro degeneration damage myself (hetrotopic grey matter of latteral vesicles and basal ganglia/ganglions). Neither openning eyes or 'breathing' involve executive function and are not evidence of brain activity.

The claim he's better than expected based on the 20 hours of being off life support was the one that's just been thrown out of court because the clainms had no substance =, evidence and had b een exagerrated out of all reality or medical ability/knowledge by some strange fundie Christian group exploiting the situation.

a reply to: paraphi

Yes. Government employees recieve government paychecks.

The jidiciary....so independent that the laws they rule on come from the government.

The laws come from precedents and statutes, an act of parliament may occur but the judiciary are completely independent of government and if they disagree with a law they can find the person not guilty on that basis (which eventually triggers a review of the law if enough of the public do it).

The particular laws they're voting on were formed by judges and the judicial system and have absolutely nothing to do with government.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The life support is oxygen and food and fluids. People die of lack of oxygen before they die of lack of fluids, they die of lack of fluids before they die of starvation. This is basic science.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
The jidiciary....so independent that the laws they rule on come from the government.

Er, that's because the judiciary cannot make laws per se. However, they inform how law is interpreted and enacted, as in setting precedent in common law.

The judiciary is independent from government so as to ensure impartiality. If the judiciary created laws then they would be the government and no separation would exist. That's what goes on in China and other dictatorships.

a reply to: paraphi

I hear what you are saying. The US is fed the same bs illusion.

"Follow the money" tells you who controls what.

But this has little to do with the topic other than my assertion that government not allowing a child to be fed is a human rights violation.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: paraphi
But this has little to do with the topic other than my assertion that government not allowing a child to be fed is a human rights violation.

It is not the government. I don't know why you are getting so confused about this. Willfull ignorance to fit your preconceived biases?

a reply to: burgerbuddy

of course they will , the nurses and doctors that are there are effectively state reps!

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan
In the USA we say the judiciary is one of the three branches of government

They use different terminology in the U.K.

So instead of saying government, it would be more appropriate to say these people are for “state” control over not allowing a child to be fed

As if somehow that change in semantics makes it ok

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

yeh anyone getting paid by the public coffers are government !


as for the markus meechan trial and the "hate speech" act

the act itself is based on a logical fallacy , that if markus meechan said A, B , or C , about nazis and jews that another person would commit acts of violence against persons of jewish religious background or semitic ethnicity

so I have two questions for the law and the act itself

how can a law be based on logical fallacy ?

how can the law carry out criminal proceedings based on subjective states of consciousness
which cannot be proven in a court of law?

the act , states that a non criminal act can be "perceived" as causing offense to a person or group of people and can be considered as hate speech as its is "perceived" as an offense.

we are being treated as objects of the law and not as subjects as we should be treated as free agents within society !
Agents able to reason and understand one another through compassion

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ultimately this issue and the type of responses we are seeing will do more to stop government control of healthcare in the states than any argument we could have made

This is proof that not only will the state tell parents they have no right to get private treatment of their children if the state stops paying, but many supporters of the state will cheer that in and some will even slander parents that want to pay for their own care as disgusting people

So I will save this thread for the future when proponents of state controlled health care tell me this would never happen

a reply to: Grambler


The legal system in the US is completely different to the UK.

The judiciary here is, as has been pointed out here, fiercely independent of the Govt.

It has often ruled against the Govt.

I don't think you have much of a clue how things work over here.

a reply to: Grambler


State controlled health care? Do you mean the NHS?

For all its faults its a darn sight better system than in the US.

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


The legal system in the US is completely different to the UK.

The judiciary here is, as has been pointed out here, fiercely independent of the Govt.

It has often ruled against the Govt.

I don't think you have much of a clue how things work over here.

The judiciary committee n the us also rules against “the government “ and is independent

The U.K. basically calls the legislative branch or parliament “government” the us calls all three branches government

So the word state would apply more aptly

So yes, this is cheering for state control, it’s just semantics

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


State controlled health care? Do you mean the NHS?

For all its faults its a darn sight better system than in the US.

I mean the courts, which are part of the state, telling a family they can’t get independent treatment for a child

That is a dnegrous and disgusting amount of state control over people health decisions

a reply to: Grambler


Not really, no.

a reply to: oldcarpy

Most of the Uk citizens have already reaped the benefits of the NHS

and that was when we were all born!

think of new mothers in the developing world how much care they need to ensure the safe survival of their child

I have used the NHS a grand total of 3 times , once when I was 3 I fell on a toy car and needed stitched in my eyebrow
then again when I was 20 and broke the right metatarsal on my right foot and when i was assualted in greenock and thought Id broken my nose but hadnt!
Each time it was fine , never faulted the service once.

I am quite happy to contribute to the NHS and education , but not the war machine

originally posted by: oldcarpy
a reply to: Grambler


Not really, no.

So you are denying the U.K. courts are part of the state?

a reply to: Grambler


That is a complete misrepresentation of this sad situation. Using poor Alfie to press your agenda is pretty unedifying.

a reply to: Grambler

I dont get it either the courts are under the service of the crown , and we are a constitutional monarchy
so they all work for lizzie , if they get paid by the people you work for government