Changes to the law

[JOHNNYAITCH]

Who mentioned children or people with learning difficulties ? I suspect you're playing devils advocate, but I presumed we were talking adults who can make educated decisions for themselves. If this is the case, then I stand by my comments.

 

I know I said I'd leave it but....here's what I asked (I've added some emphasis to make it clearer)

 

"So to be clear we should not treat anyone who is addicted to anything to help them stop their addiction because in every case it's all their own fault."

 

Your reply was "Yes. Simple as that"

 

I presumed you were answering the question fully...seems you were not as there are exceptions to "Simple as that." I'm not playing devil's advocate I was seeking clarity.

 

Don't get me wrong I'm all for personal responsibility and that comes with taking responsibility to follow the treatment plan, to take one's medication, to attend clinics,.,.basically to take advantage of the help when made available. I'm not advocating that the addict has no responsibility here.

 

Enuff...I' moving on now to other 'laws'

[JOHNNYAITCH]

The first was standardised sentencing... with life to mean life as the second [forgot the enter]

simple solution to the second being dont sentence to life unless thats what is meant. solution to first is more difficult with mitigating circumstances etc.

The third is law to be applied to everyone...

fourth.... I dont completely agree with your reasoning [smoking pubs]

Decriminalising prostitution is a step short for me, it wouldnt control it and it needs control

 

Re smoking ban in pubs..I think it originally started because laws were in place regarding smoking in the workplace and people working in pubs were being exposed to the smoking of customers so it was a natural extension to ban it in pubs etc.

 

As a non-smoker (never have) my instincts are that it should be up to the landlord and he takes the risk of missing out on good staff who won't work in a smoking pub and customers who don't want to go into a smoking pub but that does not take into account the employee who has no choice of where to work and so exposes his or herself to smoke cos they are desperate for the job. So all in all I think it should remain.

[RailwayRowdy]

Re smoking ban in pubs..I think it originally started because laws were in place regarding smoking in the workplace and people working in pubs were being exposed to the smoking of customers so it was a natural extension to ban it in pubs etc.

 

As a non-smoker (never have) my instincts are that it should be up to the landlord and he takes the risk of missing out on good staff who won't work in a smoking pub and customers who don't want to go into a smoking pub but that does not take into account the employee who has no choice of where to work and so exposes his or herself to smoke cos they are desperate for the job. So all in all I think it should remain.

I agree with your comments that smoking should remain banned in public buildings, in particular pubs, but for different reasons. I, like yourself, have never smoked. When smoking was allowed in pubs, as a regular (if not heavy) drinker, I continually had to have my health affected by something I chose not to do myself. Now people said to me " you don't have to go in pubs". Correct I didn't. But if I wanted a drink and a night out, I did. All I get now from smokers is " what about my rights ?" Well what about MY rights ! I don't wish to breath in that c**p. This is yet another problem with this country when the tail is allowed to wag the dog.

[Regal Beagle]

I'd like some sort of law to try and tackle bogus whip lash claims.

[RailwayRowdy]

I'd like some sort of law to try and tackle bogus whip lash claims.

Good point. But the problem here is the unscrupulous firms who make unsolicited calls, who even stop people in the street, "touting" for business. These are the firm's who should be targeted. Without their input, I suspect bogus claims would be negligible.

[Bea Smith]

I'd like some sort of law to try and tackle bogus whip lash claims.

 

They're not really a problem, and it might stop people who are genuinely claiming being paid out.

[philpvfc]

I'd like some sort of law to try and tackle bogus whip lash claims.

 

Insurance companies too happy to pay out rather than properly investigate.

[Regal Beagle]

They're not really a problem, and it might stop people who are genuinely claiming being paid out.

 

there I go again hating all car crash victims.

 

I said BOGUS claims, not genuine. And it's a massive problem.

[pensioner]

Of course they are victims. Whether their initial decision to consume was down to desperation, stupidity, peer pressure, whatever, the fact that they are then trapped in the hopeless spiral of addiction means that only a truly heartless **** could see them as anything other than warranting society's help.

 

So by that train of thought then all drunk drivers should be treated and not prosecuted - They may also have chosen to "consume" for the very same reasons. So should drunk drivers be excused because it is an "illness"

[Bea Smith]

there I go again hating all car crash victims.

I said BOGUS claims, not genuine. And it's a massive problem.

 

 

 

You posted those words, I bet you sit there having converstaions with yourself in your head about what half of your brain thinks someone else MIGHT say - you really have got a problem - and it manidfests itself by false quotes, the emji does not make a bit of difference, I think you need help.

 

Please demonstrate how you know it is a massive problem. The only real problem, as Railway Rowdy correctly points out, is profiteering slimy companies who prey on accidents to try and make money out of them.

[Yukon]

They're not really a problem, and it might stop people who are genuinely claiming being paid out.

 

I disagree, it's a massive problem. That sort of claim and the process is a blight on the he legal profession. ATE insurance (aka no win, no fee) for spurious claims undermines the legal profession.

[Bea Smith]

Insurance companies too happy to pay out rather than properly investigate.

 

Have you any evidence of that ?

[Bea Smith]

I disagree, it's a massive problem. That sort of claim and the process is a blight on the he legal profession. ATE insurance (aka no win, no fee) for spurious claims undermines the legal profession.

 

The companies is a different issue, I agree they are to blame. But Royal Beogie never mentioned companies.

[Bea Smith]

So by that train of thought then all drunk drivers should be treated and not prosecuted - They may also have chosen to "consume" for the very same reasons. So should drunk drivers be excused because it is an "illness"

 

Driving is not an addiction, drinking can be.

Even if you are in serious trouble with alcohol addiction (or drug addiction) the addiction does not affect your decision whether to risk your own or others lives by driving. It is not the same.

[Regal Beagle]

You posted those words, I bet you sit there having converstaions with yourself in your head about what half of your brain thinks someone else MIGHT say - you really have got a problem - and it manidfests itself by false quotes, the emji does not make a bit of difference, I think you need help.

 

Please demonstrate how you know it is a massive problem. The only real problem, as Railway Rowdy correctly points out, is profiteering slimy companies who prey on accidents to try and make money out of them.

 

It was a joke. Based on the fact that you accused me of hating all victims only the other day.

 

You really need to get a grip on your emotions. The opening post said post a serious or non serious change that you'd LIKE to see.

 

I'd LIKE to see BOGUS whip lash claims stopped.

 

How on earth you have somehow trumped up an issue with that I do not know.