The Queen's Jubilee

[ahinton]

I made up my mind long ago that lego was the best thing in the universe..............

but that was before I discovered

Sex
Talisker
Oysters
Ligeti

still I guess it's admirable to hold on to your childhood misconceptions

I'm not sure which to write first - whether it's a well-known fact that your childhood misconceptions were about sex, Talisker, oysters and Ligeti or whether that was only the case because you insisted on experiencing them all simultaneously at the tender age of six and three quarters.

Sorry - just come away from an edition of Have I Got News For You with my delectable compatriot Kirsty Young in the chair; who needs eight records and a grossly over-populated desert island wen you can have that?...

[ahinton]

Reminds me of those in the media who said, when the Berlin Wall tumbled down, that it marked ... 'The End of History' ... I'm still trying to work that one out.

They meant the end of the history of cement! Doh! Do keep up, scotty (but don't keep me up, scotty)...

[JohnSkelton]

the most dangerous nutters ... the Most Repulsive Creep of the Year award.

As Councillor Butcher points out, it's all perfectly mainstream:

Today, Ian Duncan-Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is due to issue a statement that social security benefits will be withdrawn from alcoholics and drug addicts if they refuse to accept treatment – an approach that is consistent with what I advocate.

http://www.elmbridgeguardian.co.uk/news/9735781.Councillor_defends_two_tier_NHS_proposal/

(Though he can't spell "the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions"'s first name).

[Beef Oven]

As Councillor Butcher points out, it's all perfectly mainstream:

Today, Ian Duncan-Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is due to issue a statement that social security benefits will be withdrawn from alcoholics and drug addicts if they refuse to accept treatment – an approach that is consistent with what I advocate.

http://www.elmbridgeguardian.co.uk/news/9735781.Councillor_defends_two_tier_NHS_proposal/

(Though he can't spell "the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions"'s first name).

Outrageous attack on people's human rights.

Is it actually legal to force people to take treatment if they don't want it? I suspect it's not.

Alcoholics and drug addicts are people, not just an 'issue'.

If they they perceive their drug and alcohol use as a 'lifestyle' issue, rather than a 'health' issue that requires 'treatment', it's their choice. People should be free to choose what they want in life.

I realise that people will say that such lifestyles should not be funded by the tax-payer, but if it's alright to fund wars in Afghanistan and give the well-off in society tax-breaks, then there should be no problem in letting these people get on without state interference other than paying benefits to them; which, incidently, is everyone's right - they aren't getting any more than any other citizen is entitled to.

[JohnSkelton]

I realise that people will say that such lifestyles should not be funded by the tax-payer, but if it's alright to fund wars in Afghanistan and give the well-off in society tax-breaks, then there should be no problem in letting these people get on without state interference other than paying benefits to them; which, incidently, is everyone's right - they aren't getting any more than any other citizen is entitled to.

It's as if Swift is here, on this message board, in the person of Mr Beef Oven .

There's one doubt occurs to me about Mr Duncan-Smith's otherwise admirably modest proposal; 'refusing to accept treatment' might not be quite as clear cut as the patient saying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyltK6pmJGg, or might be influenced by factors which, you know, without wishing to be all like sentimental about anything, might actually be a bit, complicated, like. And you might even get a situation where incentivised health care professionals (say, working for admirable enterprises like Atos) might be quite keen on the patient 'refusing treatment' even though the patient is completely unaware that's what they've done.

Otherwise, as I say, awesome post.

[amateur51]

It's as if Swift is here, on this message board, in the person of Mr Beef Oven .

There's one doubt occurs to me about Mr Duncan-Smith's otherwise admirably modest proposal; 'refusing to accept treatment' might not be quite as clear cut as the patient saying http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyltK6pmJGg, or might be influenced by factors which, you know, without wishing to be all like sentimental about anything, might actually be a bit, complicated, like. And you might even get a situation where incentivised health care professionals (say, working for admirable enterprises like Atos) might be quite keen on the patient 'refusing treatment' even though the patient is completely unaware that's what they've done.

Otherwise, as I say, awesome post.

The one fly in Mr Dunkin'-Smiff's modest proposal is the delivery side - is he sure that he's got treatment places for the people co-erced into coming off/drying out? I'm convinced he hasn't because it would have to be an infinite budget at first and the Treasury won't wear that.

So the initiative is revealed as a both a publicity stunt and a means of cutting the benefits bill - to be followed in nine months time by a cri de coeur for more police to handle the increase in petty crime resulting from the cuts.

Will Theresa save his bacon by proposing decriminalisation of drugs and legalisation of their sale through regulated outlets?

Will she buffalo!

[Flosshilde]

Outrageous attack on people's human rights.

Is it actually legal to force people to take treatment if they don't want it? I suspect it's not.

Alcoholics and drug addicts are people, not just an 'issue'.

If they they perceive their drug and alcohol use as a 'lifestyle' issue, rather than a 'health' issue that requires 'treatment', it's their choice. People should be free to choose what they want in life.

I realise that people will say that such lifestyles should not be funded by the tax-payer, but if it's alright to fund wars in Afghanistan and give the well-off in society tax-breaks, then there should be no problem in letting these people get on without state interference other than paying benefits to them; which, incidently, is everyone's right - they aren't getting any more than any other citizen is entitled to.

Assuming that this can be taken at face value (& it's not as clumsy as most of BO's attempts at satire) I would agree with most of it, except for the assumption that people with drug &/or alcohol problems are receiving benefits - which is not neccessarily true. I understand that the financial services industry - especially in the more rarified sections - is full of alcoholics & drug addicts, & they manage to 'earn' a living without recourse to state benefits (unless you take into account the massive state subsidies to the banks which kept their jobs going).

[ahinton]

Outrageous attack on people's human rights.

Is it actually legal to force people to take treatment if they don't want it? I suspect it's not.

I suspect that, in most cases other than people who have been legally sectioned and those under suspicion of offences against national security, it isn't, although I do not pretend to be a legal expert in this field so, who knows, this might be challenged in the Courts.

Alcoholics and drug addicts are people, not just an 'issue'.

Indeed, but that fact does not stop alcoholism and drug addiction being "issues".

If they they perceive their drug and alcohol use as a 'lifestyle' issue, rather than a 'health' issue that requires 'treatment', it's their choice. People should be free to choose what they want in life.

I presume that, by "they", you mean the alcoholics and the drug addicts, but I think that your view here is over-simplistic; one needs in each case to know the precise circumstances that have given rise to these addictions and to bear in mind that there are many other substances and other things that can be "addictive" to the detriment of the addicat and those around him/her.

I realise that people will say that such lifestyles should not be funded by the tax-payer, but if it's alright to fund wars in Afghanistan and give the well-off in society tax-breaks, then there should be no problem in letting these people get on without state interference other than paying benefits to them; which, incidently, is everyone's right - they aren't getting any more than any other citizen is entitled to.

I agree with some of what you write here, but it is NOT all right for Britain to force its long-suffering taxpayers to fund wars in countries that have not declared war on Britain. I'm not convinced about these tax breaks that you say are being given to the well off in society; what are they? Most people can find loopholes and legitimate ways to avoid tax, not just the well off; everyone who has a personal income tax and CGT allowance, everyone who invests in ISAs and everyone who contributes to a pension (and that's pretty well every taxpayer in the land) can do so; furthermore, tax evasion (which is illegal) is by no means the exclusive province of the well off in society. I take your point about "state interference" but that should not extend to refusal of treatment by licensed medical professionals. Lastly, state benefits might be a right but they can only be paid to the extent that the Treasury has the money in its coffers from tax revenues and borrowings to enable it to do so.

[ahinton]

Assuming that this can be taken at face value (& it's not as clumsy as most of BO's attempts at satire) I would agree with most of it, except for the assumption that people with drug &/or alcohol problems are receiving benefits - which is not neccessarily true. I understand that the financial services industry - especially in the more rarified sections - is full of alcoholics & drug addicts, & they manage to 'earn' a living without recourse to state benefits (unless you take into account the massive state subsidies to the banks which kept their jobs going).

Fair comment, except that not everyone who practices in the financial services industry is a banker and so many who aren't bankers have not had their jobs secured by state subsidies of banks.

[Flosshilde]

Agreed, & I should have said "kept the jobs of some of them going". But the banks, in their non-high street sections, are central to the financial services industry (or industries), aren't they?

[Lateralthinking1]

As Councillor Butcher points out, it's all perfectly mainstream:

Today, Ian Duncan-Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, is due to issue a statement that social security benefits will be withdrawn from alcoholics and drug addicts if they refuse to accept treatment – an approach that is consistent with what I advocate.

http://www.elmbridgeguardian.co.uk/news/9735781.Councillor_defends_two_tier_NHS_proposal/

(Though he can't spell "the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions"'s first name).

Interesting. In 3.2 of his response to Brian Mackenzie, he obsesses about those who, quote, "should be excluded from positions of public responsibility and influence". That might appear to be key to his sadness. This comes at a time when his arch foe in 1981, Baroness Williams, has worked hard to save the NHS from very radical damaging reform. Her overall success there is in some doubt. What better time to proverbially stick the boot in on the woman who kept him out of Parliament. Perhaps she just can't be permitted by some to enjoy her final years believing that she has been successful. That would arguably be just too much to bear. The phrase "Ted Heath's attitude towards Margaret Thatcher" is one that seems relevant although Ted had considerable success.

And then there is that almost Shakespearian situation of a geezer heading towards his own grave and wanting to take others with him because of anger. Hence many of the public must be made to suffer. Not everyone needs a religion but perhaps he is someone who would benefit from required church attendance. In terms of emotional maturity, he could appear to be extraordinarily slight.

He goes much further than IDS in his leaked e-mail although he conveniently steers clear of that fact in his responses. Had he been briefed by Conservative Central Office in recent days, one might expect that to be the case. What he was actually proposing was the turning of half this country into inferior townships, old South Africa style. In that way, the property prices in Surrey would be kept high as others became ill and died. This in his head would mean that a quarter of a mile away from where I write, properties would have a higher value of tens of thousands than those here - while most there - ie people like him - would live to 90 rather than, say 70, which is his current age. That boundary between Surrey and Greater London is significant. If I travel a mile in one direction, I see many black people and if I travel a mile in the other, there are hardly any. I see a racial dimension to his comments. And apart from the breathtaking immorality of his position is an indication that he has learnt little from his many years in public life:

- Surrey already has some of the highest property values in the country
- An area needs young people to be able to be self-sufficient and not just very healthy 80 somethings
- Part of what he seeks to create exists anyway - the difference in lifespans between Godalming and the Gorbals
- He says that his stance would only work with sufficient planning controls when his party has ripped up planning guidance
- He is involving himself in an unrelated situation in Devon when his main position is that his own county needs insularity
- He isn't even a Surrey person, appearing to have originally been from the North West - where I was born was Surrey in 1962
- His pursuits during his time as a Royal Navy reserve were probably little different from some dangerous sports

One is minded to ask "Can't someone pension him off at the earliest opportunity?" But there is that problem with democracy again. If he is the Conservative candidate again in Cobham etc., what choice do his ordinary Tory-minded constituents actually have?

[Flosshilde]

In a democracy (unlike a state 'socialist paradise') it's surely the people's majority view that counts.

The fact that 'most people like it' should be enough to settle the matter whatever the particular view of individuals, as I'm sure Mr Skelton would concur.

Scotty, you should be careful if you rely on what 'most people' want: in the Daily Express - a headline saying that most people (80%) want a referendum on remaining in the EU.

and in believing that the largest party (even if it doesn't have an overall majority) should be the one that decides policy: 46% want out of the EU (& 27% 'don't know' - so a coalition of those two produces a clear majority in favour of leaving)

End of story ... no further debate required ... or at least it should be for any true democrat

so, you'll give up arguing that we should remain in the EU ?

[Lateralthinking1]

Just to confirm that those who are sectioned are not permitted to smoke cigarettes. They are therefore outrageously forced to go cold turkey without patches etc and to remain entirely stable during the process.

This means that the people least able to manage such a situation - with the possible adverse consequences of breaking down being a lengthier loss of freedom - are expected to cope in a way that is not expected of any other members of the public.

There is some evidence to show that schizophrenics alleviate their symptoms through the use of nicotine.

By contrast, in prisons the activity is entirely permitted on the grounds of protecting prisoners' human rights even though it is very much a workplace and the legislation is designed to address employees' health.

More broadly, one of the principal difficulties with the pro and anti positions on personal choice vis a vis all dangerous pursuits, including bungee jumping, crisp eating and heroin injecting, is that all of it takes place in a fantasy world.

That world is one in which individuals are miraculously unaffected by the wider environment where such things are promoted as well as condemned. The requirement on individuals to be responsible for change is an abrogation of political responsibility for culture.

The main problem is that simple people with power only understand situations from their own point of view.

[Beef Oven]

Just to confirm that those who are sectioned are not permitted to smoke cigarettes. They are therefore outrageously forced to go cold turkey without patches etc and to remain entirely stable during the process.

This means that the people least able to manage such a situation - with the possible adverse consequences of breaking down being a lengthier loss of freedom - are expected to cope in a way that is not expected of any other members of the public.

There is some evidence to show that schizophrenics alleviate their symptoms through the use of nicotine.

By contrast, in prisons the activity is entirely permitted on the grounds of protecting prisoners' human rights even though it is very much a workplace and the legislation is designed to address employees' health.

More broadly, one of the principal difficulties with the pro and anti positions on personal choice vis a vis all dangerous pursuits, including bungee jumping, crisp eating and heroin injecting, is that all of it takes place in a fantasy world.

That world is one in which individuals are miraculously unaffected by the wider environment where such things are promoted as well as condemned. The requirement on individuals to be responsible for change is an abrogation of political responsibility for culture.

Lat,

Are you sure people on section can't smoke? Does it matter what level of section they're on?

[Pabmusic]

I suspect that, in most cases other than people who have been legally sectioned and those under suspicion of offences against ntional security, it isn't, although I do not pretend to be a legal expert in this field so, who knows, this might be challenged in the Courts.

I'd agree with your first point (ss. Sections 2, 3 & 4 of the Mental Health Act allow for 'forced' medicine), but I doubt your second point. I know things change, and I left the Prison Service nearly three years ago, but there was no power to force medication on any prisoner.