|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 13, 2024 20:49:35 GMT
Ah, ty. Don't you think this might be pertinent? All The Best You are missing the point whatever the reasons for greater need of mental health or indeed if racism is at large in the Mental Health sector what we do not need is more of the same adding to the problem. There is little doubt that certain ethnic groups will add to the problem either by making increased demands on the system or by not getting treatment and thus making demands on social services and police and judicial system. Let us say that an African nation has trouble with malaria and treating the numbers, would they welcome many unvaccinated white folk arriving and expecting treatment in the existing system with their higher incidence of contracting malaria and less ability to fight it? I think they would be pissed off and rightly so. Are you now suggesting (as seems to be the implication) that we prohibit legal British Citizens of certain ethnicities from having children? All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Rebirth on Aug 13, 2024 21:17:47 GMT
Ah, ty. Don't you think this might be pertinent? All The Best You are missing the point whatever the reasons for greater need of mental health or indeed if racism is at large in the Mental Health sector what we do not need is more of the same adding to the problem. There is little doubt that certain ethnic groups will add to the problem either by making increased demands on the system or by not getting treatment and thus making demands on social services and police and judicial system. Let us say that an African nation has trouble with malaria and treating the numbers, would they welcome many unvaccinated white folk arriving and expecting treatment in the existing system with their higher incidence of contracting malaria and less ability to fight it? I think they would be pissed off and rightly so. He's still missing your point, and quite intentionally it would seem. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 14, 2024 7:31:46 GMT
You are missing the point whatever the reasons for greater need of mental health or indeed if racism is at large in the Mental Health sector what we do not need is more of the same adding to the problem. There is little doubt that certain ethnic groups will add to the problem either by making increased demands on the system or by not getting treatment and thus making demands on social services and police and judicial system. Let us say that an African nation has trouble with malaria and treating the numbers, would they welcome many unvaccinated white folk arriving and expecting treatment in the existing system with their higher incidence of contracting malaria and less ability to fight it? I think they would be pissed off and rightly so. Are you now suggesting (as seems to be the implication) that we prohibit legal British Citizens of certain ethnicities from having children? All The Best That reading of what I said seems like a deliberate attempt to miss the point. I shall put in simple terms. Importing thousands of people weekly whose susceptibility or need of the mental health system is demonstrably much greater than those already here is not going to help our mental health system cope. I could also add that the same groups are more susceptible to other health issues such as Type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer and cardio-vascular problems. If we add in that they are also totally unknown in terms of character and what threat they pose to UK citizens. Would you let out a room in your house to a person you knew nothing about and to whom you had to exercise responsibility and allow freedom to be near your children. I would not. |
|
|
|
Post by Dogburger on Aug 14, 2024 9:24:30 GMT
Well if it does the only person to blame apart from stabber is Starmer, he's too busy closing down right wing politics and stifling free speech he's losing control of the streets ....remembering ... Nero fiddled while Rome burned .... springs to mind. Exactly how is Starmer to blame for this? That makes no sense at all. The ONLY mitigating factor here may be mental health, and it was Thatcher (NOT Starmer) that closed down all the mental health facilities in favour of "care in the community". Did you blame Boris Johnson for this? If not, why not? All The Best Care in the community was just that , caring for people and helping them lead productive lives rather than rotting away in institutions . Thousands upon thousands of people with mental illness as well as downs syndrome (the happy people ) went on to have decent lives in their communities . What we are talking about had nothing to do with that , these people who have missed the net of being sectioned at some point in their lives which would normally happen as young people that can be detected by caring parents and medical professionals .With the right treatment most will be put back on the right path . When you have mass uncontrolled immigration there will obviously be some mental cases . They haven't grown up in our system that would have detected and treated them ,they have grown into Men with mental illnesses , sometimes with violent tendencies .Add to that many are coming from violent societies and the net result is that we are importing potential murderers into the UK without restrictions |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 9:44:01 GMT
Are you now suggesting (as seems to be the implication) that we prohibit legal British Citizens of certain ethnicities from having children? All The Best That reading of what I said seems like a deliberate attempt to miss the point. I shall put in simple terms. Importing thousands of people weekly whose susceptibility or need of the mental health system is demonstrably much greater than those already here is not going to help our mental health system cope. I could also add that the same groups are more susceptible to other health issues such as Type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer and cardio-vascular problems. If we add in that they are also totally unknown in terms of character and what threat they pose to UK citizens. Would you let out a room in your house to a person you knew nothing about and to whom you had to exercise responsibility and allow freedom to be near your children. I would not. So you only want to ban Immigrants from having kids, assuming they meet all the criteria for legal entry to the UK? Character? Your "character" is completely unknown as well (the posting record here suggests it is not a very nice character though). Should we ban you from having kids? Nobody at all knows what mental or medical health interventions someone is going to need, and while demographic tendencies are a great way of designing policy outlines, they are heartless when applied to individuals. Dementia, Alzheimer's, COPD and several very hard to treat cancers are way more prevalent in white populations, and require considerable resources per patient to manage; by your reasoning we should now stop white people having kids. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ratcliff on Aug 14, 2024 9:45:36 GMT
Starmer is in power - not Thatcher. How long do they have to be in office before it's acceptable to you for us to criticise those in power? Well how long did Tory supporters go on blaming New Labour for everything? About 14 years? Sunak was still doing it almost as he called the General Election IIRC Starmer has not had anywhere near enough time to develop, fund and implement a new Mental Health System; surely even you have to accept that. From my experience of project implementation on a vastly smaller scale I would suggest for something with the scope and scale of a national mental health systemic overhaul you'd be looking at it taking at least a year. Starmer did not close down Mental Health Services, in favour of "care in the community"; Thatcher did. So it is patently obvious to any unbiased mind, that Thatcher is more to blame for this, if Mental Health is a cause, than Starmer. It is also perfectly fair to blame both New Labour and the last 14 years of Tory rule for not seeking to deal with these issues. All The Best
My previous post demolishes your repeated lefty BS ukpoliticsdebate.boards.net/post/263001 |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 9:48:41 GMT
Exactly how is Starmer to blame for this? That makes no sense at all. The ONLY mitigating factor here may be mental health, and it was Thatcher (NOT Starmer) that closed down all the mental health facilities in favour of "care in the community". Did you blame Boris Johnson for this? If not, why not? All The Best Care in the community was just that , caring for people and helping them lead productive lives rather than rotting away in institutions . Thousands upon thousands of people with mental illness as well as downs syndrome (the happy people ) went on to have decent lives in their communities . What we are talking about had nothing to do with that , these people who have missed the net of being sectioned at some point in their lives which would normally happen as young people that can be detected by caring parents and medical professionals .With the right treatment most will be put back on the right path . When you have mass uncontrolled immigration there will obviously be some mental cases . They haven't grown up in our system that would have detected and treated them ,they have grown into Men with mental illnesses , sometimes with violent tendencies .Add to that many are coming from violent societies and the net result is that we are importing potential murderers into the UK without restrictions Care In The Community was nothing of the sort; I know people who were dumped on the street and left to fend for themselves. There are mental cases outside of the immigrant demographic as well. Why only demonise them? What is a "violent society"? Does hundreds of thugs attempting to burn people alive in a hotel not count? I am willing there are more murderers born in this country in UK prisons than those born outside this coutnry. So if this were genuinely about protecting people from murder you'd be looking there, at the "native population". But it isn't about that, its about finding semantic ways to legitimise racism. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 9:50:42 GMT
Well how long did Tory supporters go on blaming New Labour for everything? About 14 years? Sunak was still doing it almost as he called the General Election IIRC Starmer has not had anywhere near enough time to develop, fund and implement a new Mental Health System; surely even you have to accept that. From my experience of project implementation on a vastly smaller scale I would suggest for something with the scope and scale of a national mental health systemic overhaul you'd be looking at it taking at least a year. Starmer did not close down Mental Health Services, in favour of "care in the community"; Thatcher did. So it is patently obvious to any unbiased mind, that Thatcher is more to blame for this, if Mental Health is a cause, than Starmer. It is also perfectly fair to blame both New Labour and the last 14 years of Tory rule for not seeking to deal with these issues. All The Best
My previous post demolishes your repeated lefty BS ukpoliticsdebate.boards.net/post/263001Only in your mind. That similar happened in other nations does not change the FACT that it was Thatcher's Government that oversaw such in this country. BTW: I then went on, in another post, to blame New Labour for not attempting to fix things; so this has nothing to do with "lefty BS" - primarily because I am not a lefty. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Aug 14, 2024 10:16:23 GMT
Exactly how is Starmer to blame for this? That makes no sense at all. The ONLY mitigating factor here may be mental health, and it was Thatcher (NOT Starmer) that closed down all the mental health facilities in favour of "care in the community". Did you blame Boris Johnson for this? If not, why not? All The Best
All? Don't be ridiculous You've posted elsewhere that broad brush terms should not be used and yet you've done so here for your own reasons . Deinstitutionalisation (for that is apparently the correct term I've looked it up ) has been ongoing and supported in the Western world since the late 40s /50s , and in the UK , well before Mrs T , Enoch Powell's Water Tower speech in 1961 announced the shrinking of resident populations in Victorian mental hospitals apparently a result of improved pharmacologicals that began in 1954, with the marketing of Largactil for example, and the public recognition post WW2 of the appalling conditions in institutions in the western world which JFK regularly addressed . Deinstitutionalisation was not a uniquely British phenomenon, of course. Strikingly similar patterns can be observed in the United States and, later, in most advanced industrial societies. The mental hospital, once touted as ‘the most blessed manifestation of true civilization the world can present’,4 was now dismissed as a ‘total Institution’ on a par with such places as prisons and concentration camps, an anti-therapeutic engine of degradation that fomented chronicity rather than cured its inmates.5 That focus on the defects of the institution and its malign effects on those it purported to treat accounted for much of the support the new policy drew from civil libertarians and those concerned with patients’ rights
www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/asylums/special/excerpt.html#:~:text=Deinstitutionalization%20began%20in%201955%20with,of%20federal%20Medicaid%20and%20Medicare.
psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2021.160404
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinstitutionalization_in_the_United_States
www.cambridge.org/core/books/mind-state-and-society/uk-deinstitutionalisation-neoliberal-values-and-mental-health/A84AA14AA02A7DC0DCC3A9528B189ED1
www.jfklibrary.org/learn/about-jfk/jfk-in-history/john-f-kennedy-and-people-with-intellectual-disabilities
.I think he meant all as in the colloquial sense, meaning a vast number. Someone might say "all the shops are closing down" if a whole load of them have to let signs. It's Brit loose speak. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 14, 2024 11:51:31 GMT
That reading of what I said seems like a deliberate attempt to miss the point. I shall put in simple terms. Importing thousands of people weekly whose susceptibility or need of the mental health system is demonstrably much greater than those already here is not going to help our mental health system cope. I could also add that the same groups are more susceptible to other health issues such as Type 2 diabetes, prostate cancer and cardio-vascular problems. If we add in that they are also totally unknown in terms of character and what threat they pose to UK citizens. Would you let out a room in your house to a person you knew nothing about and to whom you had to exercise responsibility and allow freedom to be near your children. I would not. So you only want to ban Immigrants from having kids, assuming they meet all the criteria for legal entry to the UK? Character? Your "character" is completely unknown as well (the posting record here suggests it is not a very nice character though). Should we ban you from having kids? Nobody at all knows what mental or medical health interventions someone is going to need, and while demographic tendencies are a great way of designing policy outlines, they are heartless when applied to individuals. Dementia, Alzheimer's, COPD and several very hard to treat cancers are way more prevalent in white populations, and require considerable resources per patient to manage; by your reasoning we should now stop white people having kids. All The Best No one has said anything about having kids that has arisen in your own mind. I am referring specifically to illegal arrivals and also legal arrivals most of whom are BAME. My character can be checked with references and with police records search if I am near children as I would be in your house and even if I was accused but not found guilty I would be assumed to be a risky character. No such research is possible on illegal migrants and seems to be rarely considered on legal migrants. So now we come to heartless as the defining factor on who we should let in. Realism takes a back seat and everyone else is to blame for being heartless. Where does your heart wish to take us? Do you have a limit on numbers and if there is a limit you would have to be heartless as well on those above your limit. If we are having problems we either deal with them through more tax or restrict the increase in our problems. Which do you want? |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Aug 14, 2024 11:56:33 GMT
Care in the community was just that , caring for people and helping them lead productive lives rather than rotting away in institutions . Thousands upon thousands of people with mental illness as well as downs syndrome (the happy people ) went on to have decent lives in their communities . What we are talking about had nothing to do with that , these people who have missed the net of being sectioned at some point in their lives which would normally happen as young people that can be detected by caring parents and medical professionals .With the right treatment most will be put back on the right path . When you have mass uncontrolled immigration there will obviously be some mental cases . They haven't grown up in our system that would have detected and treated them ,they have grown into Men with mental illnesses , sometimes with violent tendencies .Add to that many are coming from violent societies and the net result is that we are importing potential murderers into the UK without restrictions There are mental cases outside of the immigrant demographic as well. Why only demonise them? All The Best That is only happening in your mind we are dealing directly with an increase in risk of things happening and it is demonstrable that BAME have significant and specific increased risks as regards several health conditions. Our health service is finding it hard to cope with what we have. Why bring in many more whose risk of poor health issues is far greater than the current British Citizens on average. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Aug 14, 2024 12:04:20 GMT
I see that little girl and her mother who were attacked in Leicester Square, by a Romanian immigrant, were Australians on the holiday of a lifetime.
Thanks to immigration and multiculturalism it's certainly one holiday they will never forget.
|
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 12:57:13 GMT
So you only want to ban Immigrants from having kids, assuming they meet all the criteria for legal entry to the UK? Character? Your "character" is completely unknown as well (the posting record here suggests it is not a very nice character though). Should we ban you from having kids? Nobody at all knows what mental or medical health interventions someone is going to need, and while demographic tendencies are a great way of designing policy outlines, they are heartless when applied to individuals. Dementia, Alzheimer's, COPD and several very hard to treat cancers are way more prevalent in white populations, and require considerable resources per patient to manage; by your reasoning we should now stop white people having kids. All The Best that has arisen in your own mind. I am referring specifically to illegal arrivals and also legal arrivals most of whom are BAME. My character can be checked with references and with police records search if I am near children as I would be in your house and even if I was accused but not found guilty I would be assumed to be a risky character. No such research is possible on illegal migrants and seems to be rarely considered on legal migrants. So now we come to heartless as the defining factor on who we should let in. Realism takes a back seat and everyone else is to blame for being heartless. Where does your heart wish to take us? Do you have a limit on numbers and if there is a limit you would have to be heartless as well on those above your limit. If we are having problems we either deal with them through more tax or restrict the increase in our problems. Which do you want? Well, you have said you want policies in place that "stop adding to the problem" - which logically means stopping those demographics that most add to the problem from breeding "more problems". Now, you may not have explicitly stated that, but it is the ONLY logical conclusion of the path you are on. This is the problem, this knee-jerk reactionary nonsense is just not properly thought through. Your character can ONLY be checked if you are already in the system; how many criminals get away with crimes for years because they are not in the system? Heck, some get away with it even if they are in the system. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Aug 14, 2024 13:03:23 GMT
I see that little girl and her mother who were attacked in Leicester Square, by a Romanian immigrant, were Australians on the holiday of a lifetime. Thanks to immigration and multiculturalism it's certainly one holiday they will never forget. Can we expect a thorough review and investigation to find out which civil service clown gave this insect leave to stay in the uk - and on what basis? It's a fine statistical argument that to say there are bound to be a few really bad apples when we let so many in - but that avoids the question as to why we let so many in |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Aug 14, 2024 13:05:19 GMT
I see that little girl and her mother who were attacked in Leicester Square, by a Romanian immigrant, were Australians on the holiday of a lifetime. Thanks to immigration and multiculturalism it's certainly one holiday they will never forget. Can we expect a thorough review and investigation to find out which civil service clown gave this insect leave to stay in the uk - and on what basis? It's a fine statistical argument that to say there are bound to be a few really bad apples when we let so many in - but that avoids the question as to why we let so many in Of course, had we not let the Australians in they could never have got hurt. /sarcasm But that is the juvenile level of this argument. All The Best |
|
