Its down to Israel's geopolitical value to the West rather than skin colour. That's not to argue that we are anything other than spineless on the issue though. In the case of Ukraine the correct moral standpoint and our own interests just happen to align, thats the difference.
Sadly, similar is developing with India. There's an understandable desire to remain on good terms with India given its size, increasing economic power, and its strategic position relative to China. The problem is that Modi has helped to cement a particularly odious brand of Hindu ethnonationalism, and the violence that has occurred to date pales in comparison to the violence that will be committed in the future. I don't think the EU/NA countries are fully prepared for how to respond if the death toll from the next outbreak of sanctioned-not-sanctioned mob violence is in the thousands rather than the dozens, because there's every chance we're heading there.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/judge-...mpled-on-free-speech-on-social-media-29334362 I remember when I was told that this was just a conspiracy theory
The district court judge was appointed by Trump, and has a history of really stupid rulings that get overturned. He's especially fond of issuing national injunctions, despite the fact that district court judges are the lowest level of the federal judiciary (he's on a district court that covers less than 1% of the population of the United States, so shutting things down nationwide isn't really meant to be his business), and national injunctions are meant for only the absolute most pressing of issues...not enjoining anyone, including people who aren't even members of the federal government, from having any contact with social media companies. But don't take my word for it. Here's Orin Kerr, member of the arch-conservative Federalist Society, mocking this ruling for its ridiculous overreach: Trump appointed a bunch of firebrands to district courts for exactly this reason: hard right plaintiffs can jurisdiction-shop their pet issues to ensure that they end up on the docket of these judges, who will then issue rulings that are basically intended just as outrage-bait for the right. They then get overturned by appellate courts, because they are utterly ****ing nuts, but they weren't ever intended to make law, just to make headlines. Mission accomplished. Here's a primer on the art of judge-shopping, for any curious. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65246823
Trump appointed thick as **** judge acting out of his authority making a fool out of himself and anyone taking his ruling without checking it's veracity.
According to who, some right wing outrage baiting conspiraloons quoting debunked nonsense? Trumps judicial appointments top to bottom are driven by right wing ideology they're a threat against democracy.
One of the greatest achievements of humankind is 75 years old today. We have to make sure it reaches its centenary, as the current government certainly don’t want it to.
Successive governments from 2010 have under resourced the NHS, in fact all aspects of public service.
Patient satisfaction with NHS service peaked at 75% in 2010. In March 2022 it had dropped to 36%, the lowest since 1997. The NHS is not safe under Tory governments, it’s very simple.
The NHS needs huge reform as it's a completely broken & wasteful organisation and no amount of money will fix that.
The list goes on. Fire and ambulance services, social care, the police, prison and probation services, education from primary to university, the judicial system has been undermined, life has gotten worse across the board under the curse of the tory lurch to the right.
I don’t disagree with you, it’s not simply about money though, although it is worth remembering that in terms of money spent on healthcare per head of population, the UK spends less than the other G7 countries except Italy. More money needs to be spent on keeping people healthy rather than treating them when they are ill, in very simplistic terms.
Yeah I agree completely. Just there seems to be this myth that the only reason its failing is due to lack of investment which is complete nonsense and it frustrates me as I've seen first hand just how bad it is. The whole system and culture needs a shake up and there needs to be a bigger focus on social care than what there is currently. No one wants to pay for social care though, look at the uproar when tax rises were increased up fund it. Also, and this may be controversial, but I think there needs to be a conversation about whether it's worthwhile spending hundreds of thousands to keep people in their 90s 'alive'.
The UK is lagging across the board from preventive medicine to intensive care, people are dying unnecessarily when early diagnosis and treatment saves lives as well as money. The rise in heart disease deaths is a case in point.
It’s the woke that has the obsession with forcing their sexual preference on the world, not the other way around. 99% of us are totally happy with the male/female society.
Totally agree that fundamental change is needed. It’s totally crazy the amount that gets wasted. I have said before on here that I used to be very pro-NHS, but after working in/around it for a couple of years I am now staunchly of the opinion that it can’t be saved. It’s just not fit for purpose in its current form, and it’s a national disgrace the way the staff are treated. The last point that you touched on regarding old people is a total minefield of a conversation. in theory old people have paid the most tax, so why shouldn’t they be justified to healthcare if they want/need it? Plus why stop the conversation at 90 year olds. Surely obese people, smokers, addicts, non-taxpayers also should have limited access if you choose to go down that route.
Since teaching, I have moved to the University and currently work in close connection to medical research. You wouldn’t believe some of the advances we are making - and how they will make patient care more efficient. For example, AI models that can read a blood sample and tell you the correct anti-biotic to use. We are 50 years away from having no antibiotics, by the way. What we need is to integrate all the amazing things going on without getting ripped off by outside companies promising to put computer systems together- and failing. We need to not sell all the patents to big pharma and have them sell all this **** back to us. But we do need basic investment in employment. We need to train and employ enough doctors and nurses. We need mental health teams that are fit for purpose. We need places to put the elderly who don’t need hospital beds. That is about spending money - on each other.
I'm still very pro NHS as I believe in the general principles. However I have zero faith in the organisation/s to be well run and deliver gold value for money based on working in two separate trusts and a friend who works in a third - all 3 have exactly the same problems which are a drain on public resources. There's a reason I chose to make myself unemployed during a cost of living crisis and had to spunk a load of savings on paying rent. And it's not because I fancied a few months off but because there's only so much timr you can spend trying to improve things and being cut off by senior management before you get sick of it. The whole culture is ****ed to the point where there's a total lack of willingness to deal with poor performance (let's just recruit instead) and you see situations where people have a 30% absence rate for 3 consecutive years and not receive any warnings (cos we can't risk upsetting them). These things, among others of course, is why the percentage of admin staff has increased dramatically in recent times. And yeah agree it's a total minefield but it's a conversation thar needs to happen without the hyperbole on each side imo. The thing is we've made some incredible advances in medicine in recent times. Truly mind boggling some of the treatments that are available but a lot of it is extremely expensive and it's simply not affordable long term. Way I see it is if you've got an 87 year old who's beaten cancer 3 times, has had strokes and has heart disease and/or dementia. If that person then gets cancer again should we really be spending a few hundred grand to maybe keep that person alive another 6 months, 3 of which they'll spend in hospital anyway? And for me the answer there is no we shouldn't because it's not sustainable and they've had a fantastic life. I admit I'm biased here of course though as I don't ever wanna get that old and become a burden to my Son - as long as I reach 60 then I'll be happy and death can take me whenever it likes.
