Is Britain Broken? Page 2

  • Page

    of 10 First / Last

  • Salaman 10 Jul 2007 10:37:51 18,241 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    pjmaybe wrote:
    Britain's been broken for years. It's not a money problem, it's just a general fuckarsed attitude in a lot of people who truly believe that they're the only person living on the planet, and everyone else is just some weird illusion.

    Walk in a straight line down your average high street and see how many times people try to walk through you rather than round you.


    Peej


    People insisting on walking in a straight line down a busy Main Street is a prime example of the general fuckarsed attitude a lot of people have. They truly believe they are the only person living on the planet and everyone else is just a weird illusion.
  • Load_2.0 10 Jul 2007 10:38:24 18,197 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I love it here as well, more so than New Zealand.

    If the locals would shut the fuck upo with their bitching about Foreigners gays and young people it would be better. But hey ho at least I can get some atmosphere in a pub and some decent TV.

  • kincaide 10 Jul 2007 10:39:28 5,063 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Retroid wrote:
    Seriously, tax booze to the fucking moon and back, anything to stop / reduce the drunken fucks who think a good night out is to get utterly shitfaced.
    +1.

    I also think that people should pay for any medical treatment they receive whilst drunk/intoxicated
  • Psychotext 10 Jul 2007 10:43:37 52,781 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    kincaide wrote:
    Retroid wrote:
    Seriously, tax booze to the fucking moon and back, anything to stop / reduce the drunken fucks who think a good night out is to get utterly shitfaced.
    +1.
    Wont help in the least bit. The sort of people you're talking about would just get cheap booze from abroad and drink it all in one go before they go out... making the problem worse.
  • JuanKerr 10 Jul 2007 10:44:32 36,094 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kincaide wrote:

    I also think that people should pay for any medical treatment they receive whilst drunk/intoxicated

    I agree in principle, but then that opens up a whole can of worms - should smokers pay for NHS treatment if they get lung cancer from smoking? Should a driver who crashed because he/she was driving like a cunt pay to get their spine realigned? Should heavy boozers pay for liver treatment?
  • Goban 10 Jul 2007 10:45:56 8,996 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Surely it would be better to have a higher rate of income tax for single people.
  • JuanKerr 10 Jul 2007 10:46:44 36,094 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Goban wrote:
    Surely it would be better to have a higher rate of income tax for single people.

    That would go down well ...
  • kincaide 10 Jul 2007 10:49:01 5,063 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    JuanKerr wrote:
    kincaide wrote:

    I also think that people should pay for any medical treatment they receive whilst drunk/intoxicated

    I agree in principle, but then that opens up a whole can of worms - should smokers pay for NHS treatment if they get lung cancer from smoking? Should a driver who crashed because he/she was driving like a cunt pay to get their spine realigned? Should heavy boozers pay for liver treatment?

    Smokers pay for lung cancer - yes
    Driver crashed due to being a cunt - no (hard to prove)
    Boozers for liver treatment - yes


    Although I think you could start with people intoxicated (eg: a certain amount of alcohol found in the blood, or other such measurement) paying for treatment, and then go from there if successful
  • speedofthepuma 10 Jul 2007 10:49:11 13,246 posts
    Seen 31 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    JuanKerr wrote:
    kincaide wrote:

    I also think that people should pay for any medical treatment they receive whilst drunk/intoxicated

    I agree in principle, but then that opens up a whole can of worms - should smokers pay for NHS treatment if they get lung cancer from smoking? Should a driver who crashed because he/she was driving like a cunt pay to get their spine realigned? Should heavy boozers pay for liver treatment?

    should internet users pay for wrist sprain treatment?

    I've turned off all the avatars and crap, so don't expect me to be impressed by yours.

  • kincaide 10 Jul 2007 10:50:22 5,063 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Goban wrote:
    Surely it would be better to have a higher rate of income tax for single people.

    Regarding income tax - I believe everyone should pay the same percentage of income (say 10%). We could do away with complicated "bands" that we currently have - and rich people would still pay more than poor.

    The way it should be
  • JuanKerr 10 Jul 2007 10:50:34 36,094 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kincaide wrote:

    Smokers pay for lung cancer - yes
    Driver crashed due to being a cunt - no (hard to prove)
    Boozers for liver treatment - yes

    Although I think you could start with people intoxicated (eg: a certain amount of alcohol found in the blood, or other such measurement) paying for treatment, and then go from there if successful

    Ohhh, you've really pissed off smokers saying that! I can hear the cries of "we already contribute billions to the economy with tax on fags, so why should we have to pay again?" ...

    I agree with you, by the way.
  • JuanKerr 10 Jul 2007 10:51:06 36,094 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    speedofthepuma wrote:

    should wanking-addicted internet users pay for wrist sprain treatment?

    Fixed.
  • kincaide 10 Jul 2007 10:51:09 5,063 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    speedofthepuma wrote:
    JuanKerr wrote:
    kincaide wrote:

    I also think that people should pay for any medical treatment they receive whilst drunk/intoxicated

    I agree in principle, but then that opens up a whole can of worms - should smokers pay for NHS treatment if they get lung cancer from smoking? Should a driver who crashed because he/she was driving like a cunt pay to get their spine realigned? Should heavy boozers pay for liver treatment?

    should internet users pay for wrist sprain treatment?

    no - (hard to prove)
  • JuanKerr 10 Jul 2007 10:52:05 36,094 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kincaide wrote:

    rich people would still pay more than poor.


    They already do though (40%).
  • kincaide 10 Jul 2007 10:52:31 5,063 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    JuanKerr wrote:
    Ohhh, you've really pissed off smokers saying that!
    Can they be more pissed off than they must be already?? July 1st must have hit them hard
  • Stickman 10 Jul 2007 10:53:16 29,407 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Bit of National Service would sort this country out. Hanging's too good for 'em.

    THIS SPACE FOR RENT

  • Ajay 10 Jul 2007 10:53:16 2,412 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    kincaide wrote:
    Smokers pay for lung cancer - yes
    Driver crashed due to being a cunt - no (hard to prove)
    Boozers for liver treatment - yes


    Although I think you could start with people intoxicated (eg: a certain amount of alcohol found in the blood, or other such measurement) paying for treatment, and then go from there if successful
    Where do you draw the line, then? People who play casual sports know there's an element of risk of injury there, right? So we'll make them pay for any sporting injuries. Anyone who crosses the road and gets hurt away from a designated crossing point is taking their life into their own hands, so we'll have to make them pay too. Sounds fair?

    If you start making people pay for things which you personally don't approve of you're going a dangerous route.
  • kincaide 10 Jul 2007 10:53:33 5,063 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    JuanKerr wrote:
    kincaide wrote:

    rich people would still pay more than poor.


    They already do though (40%).
    I know - that's why I said "still"
  • afray 10 Jul 2007 10:53:50 2,251 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    kincaide wrote:
    Goban wrote:
    Surely it would be better to have a higher rate of income tax for single people.

    Regarding income tax - I believe everyone should pay the same percentage of income (say 10%). We could do away with complicated "bands" that we currently have - and rich people would still pay more than poor.

    The way it should be

    Ok, but the tax level would have to be much higher than that to make up for the lost revenue from loaded people. So their reduced burden would be placed upon the poorer people. Seems fair.
  • JuanKerr 10 Jul 2007 10:54:31 36,094 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Ajay wrote:

    Where do you draw the line, then? People who play casual sports know there's an element of risk of injury there, right? So we'll make them pay for any sporting injuries. Anyone who crosses the road and gets hurt away from a designated crossing point is taking their life into their own hands, so we'll have to make them pay too. Sounds fair?

    If you start making people pay for things which you personally don't approve of you're going a dangerous route.

    Very well said.
  • Deleted user 10 July 2007 10:55:26
    afray wrote:
    So their reduced burden would be placed upon the poorer people. Seems fair.

    Who can just knock up a 15 year old, quit their job claiming their back hurts and claim benefits and a free house for the rest of their lives instead.

    It's win win all round.
  • JuanKerr 10 Jul 2007 10:55:53 36,094 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Gremmi wrote:

    Who can just knock up a 15 year old, quit their job claiming their back hurts and claim benefits and a free house for the rest of their lives instead.

    It's win win all round.

    / strokes chin
  • kincaide 10 Jul 2007 10:58:33 5,063 posts
    Seen 4 weeks ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Ajay wrote:
    If you start making people pay for things which you personally don't approve of you're going a dangerous route.
    We aren't suggesting that though are we - if someone goes out and gets shitfaced, and ends up having their stomach pumped, they should pay for that service.

    It's not something I personally disapprove of (well I do, but it's not the reason why they should pay - they should pay, as they are needlessly taking emergency services away from someone who might really need it)
  • pjmaybe 10 Jul 2007 11:00:16 70,676 posts
    Seen 5 years ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Alastair wrote:
    pjmaybe wrote:
    Walk in a straight line down your average high street and see how many times people try to walk through you rather than round you.


    But, by walking in a straight line, you're becoming part of the problem. You seem to expect everyone else to walk around you....

    Maybe that's a bad analogy. I'm the sort of person who usually moves out of the way. Sometimes if you don't, people will just try to walk through you rather than giving up. It's like playing a pedestrian version of chicken.

    Country's broken though because people just really do not care, do not take pride in anything, and want to be media stars and millionaires with the least possible effort expended.

    Peej

  • Stickman 10 Jul 2007 11:01:38 29,407 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kincaide wrote:
    Ajay wrote:
    If you start making people pay for things which you personally don't approve of you're going a dangerous route.
    We aren't suggesting that though are we - if someone goes out and gets shitfaced, and ends up having their stomach pumped, they should pay for that service.

    It's not something I personally disapprove of (well I do, but it's not the reason why they should pay - they should pay, as they are needlessly taking emergency services away from someone who might really need it)

    So using Ajay's examples, should someone who gets knocked out and swallows their tongue playing rugby have to pay for that treatment?

    THIS SPACE FOR RENT

  • PES_Fanboy 10 Jul 2007 11:01:57 11,637 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    kincaide wrote:
    I also think that people should pay for any medical treatment they receive whilst drunk/intoxicated

    That doesn't sit well with my (admittedly not A&E) hippocratic oath, obviously there are a lot of legitimately sick (addict) people who will require treatment, and denying treatment is considered inhumane.

    Moreover, the practical problems with this approach would be:

    - people waiting to get treatment after they've sobered up; potentially costing more to the NHS to fix whatever the problem is;
    - shifting the A&E rush hour from Friday/Saturday night to Saturday/Sunday mornings;
    - completely unfair on those people who receive injuries through no fault of their own whilst intoxicated
  • hulahoops 10 Jul 2007 11:02:16 2,311 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    PES_Fanboy wrote:
    There is nothing wrong with your fine country - well, perhaps the cost of living is a bit high but that's the price you pay to choose to live here.

    Love it, love the people, love the culture, love living here.
    Hear hear.

    And the cost of living is actually quite affordable if you don't live in London. I work in central London but drive in from near Milton Keynes every day, and it only takes me an hour.

    In my opinion the biggest problem Britain has is the bloody Daily Mail tirelessly trying to convince us that we a problem.

    Edited by BlankOBlank! at 11:02:40 10-07-2007
  • Ajay 10 Jul 2007 11:02:28 2,412 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    kincaide wrote:
    We aren't suggesting that though are we - if someone goes out and gets shitfaced, and ends up having their stomach pumped, they should pay for that service.
    And someone who goes and plays a game of football on a Sunday and does themself a mischief on their ankle should too then, right? Not like anyone else inflicted it.

    It's not something I personally disapprove of (well I do, but it's not the reason why they should pay - they should pay, as they are needlessly taking emergency services away from someone who might really need it)
    And an injured ankle isn't the most important thing in the world either. I'm sure they could just hobble around until it fixed itself, or something.
  • JuanKerr 10 Jul 2007 11:02:46 36,094 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    kincaide wrote:

    We aren't suggesting that though are we - if someone goes out and gets shitfaced, and ends up having their stomach pumped, they should pay for that service.

    It's not something I personally disapprove of (well I do, but it's not the reason why they should pay - they should pay, as they are needlessly taking emergency services away from someone who might really need it)

    Are you saying this should happen in a specific attempt to cut binge drinking? I can see your point, but again, there are so many grey areas.

    What about if you've been for a night out on the beers, then get your nose broken by a drunken twat while minding your own business on the nightbus. So, when you go to A&E, you are clearly pissed, but an innocent victim - should you have to pay for treatment?
  • Page

    of 10 First / Last

Log in or register to reply