The fat end of the wedge

18 Jun 2008

Quote by de_sade
:shock:
Fucking Jesus! I have just been sent details of a draft legislation that is intended to be put forward that would mean that every child in the UK would - in the future - have to undergo a compulsory series of (as yet unspecified) vaccinations in order for them to be eligible to obtain full state schooling and child benefit.
What!!!???
What the fuck is this country coming to?
If this is just a rumour in the mill to create the most fervent anti-government sentiment of all time it has the potential of working extremely well. However if it is even half-way true it is too scary to contemplate.
Has anyone else heard about this? If so, what do they think about it?

Have heard something but who knows what will come of it. As for " what the fuck is this country coming to " ?, well just look around you and you will see this country falling apart at the seams!
As for vaccinations could those be the same ones as the MMR jab that the old PM would not disclose if his kids had it done? Nothing in this country suprises me anymore, just the news in the papers today fills me with dread.
Too many politicians and civil servants with way too much free time on their hands, to be able to keep putting forward crackpot ideas!!
Roll on when I retire and get out of this country, and it cannot come a day too soon for me.

18 Jun 2008

I haven't heard anything about it, but I would be grateful if you could pm a link or more info if you can't put it on the forums.
It sounds horrific and the worst end of erosion of freedom which in my eyes is happening at a frightening rate.
Jas
XXX

18 Jun 2008

IMHO i think it is dangerous to speculate whether this is actually going to happen at all... particularly when the full facts are not known. Afterall, it is only a "draft". It might well be untrue.
What proof is there to support it?
Personally, i cant see the harm in what has been "drafted" if that is the thrust of it. Basically. im finding it tough to see What is wrong with imposing such conditions. Perhaps you will enlighten me?

18 Jun 2008

Quote by DeeCee
Personally, i cant see the harm in what has been "drafted" if that is the thrust of it. Basically. im finding it tough to see What is wrong with imposing such conditions. Perhaps you will enlighten me?

Personal choice? Looks like Jehovah's Witnesses kids aren't going to get too much state education under that ruling.
Being forced to accept vaccinations that are not 100% safe.
Did I mention personal choice and personal freedom?
Actually this is the thin end of the wedge, what will be next? Refusal of NHS facilities for smokers, or people who are drunk (or drink more than 21 units a week) or eat red meat or have car accidents and it's their fault?
It's political correctness and governmental nannying gone too far. The perques of the Tories sneaking in with a new name I suppose.

18 Jun 2008

Quote by Peanut
Personally, i cant see the harm in what has been "drafted" if that is the thrust of it. Basically. im finding it tough to see What is wrong with imposing such conditions. Perhaps you will enlighten me?

Personal choice? Looks like Jehovah's Witnesses kids aren't going to get too much state education under that ruling.
Being forced to accept vaccinations that are not 100% safe.
Did I mention personal choice and personal freedom?
Actually this is the thin end of the wedge, what will be next? Refusal of NHS facilities for smokers, or people who are drunk (or drink more than 21 units a week) or eat red meat or have car accidents and it's their fault?
It's political correctness and governmental nannying gone too far. The perques of the Tories sneaking in with a new name I suppose.
keeping this on track.. i have to say that im still not convinced putting such restrictions is such a bad idea.
we're not talking about NHS treatment here... the issue is whether there should be some conditions attached to the provision of education and benefit. In fairness, surely its right to seek to ensure the overall welfare of those seeking welfare benefits from the outset, rather than being placed under more pressure because of problems that could be avoided at source.
obviously, some would "suffer" but i look at the merits ( for the greater good )as well as the disadvantages.
personally i dont accept, at this stage, that agruments that children will be "forced" to have vaccinations that might be unsafe are valid--- as the "list" is "un-specified".
i dont accept that all legislation of this nature is part of a "nanny state" system--- because of the system of creating legislation.
I think that many of us are victims of "half-truths" in the media and what can only be described as scaremongering.

18 Jun 2008

Quote by DeeCee
Personally, i cant see the harm in what has been "drafted" if that is the thrust of it. Basically. im finding it tough to see What is wrong with imposing such conditions. Perhaps you will enlighten me?

Personal choice? Looks like Jehovah's Witnesses kids aren't going to get too much state education under that ruling.
Being forced to accept vaccinations that are not 100% safe.
Did I mention personal choice and personal freedom?
Actually this is the thin end of the wedge, what will be next? Refusal of NHS facilities for smokers, or people who are drunk (or drink more than 21 units a week) or eat red meat or have car accidents and it's their fault?
It's political correctness and governmental nannying gone too far. The perques of the Tories sneaking in with a new name I suppose.
keeping this on track.. i have to say that im still not convinced putting such restrictions is such a bad idea.
we're not talking about NHS treatment here... the issue is whether there should be some conditions attached to the provision of education and benefit. In fairness, surely its right to seek to ensure the overall welfare of those seeking welfare benefits from the outset, rather than being placed under more pressure because of problems that could be avoided at source.
obviously, some would "suffer" but i look at the merits ( for the greater good )as well as the disadvantages.
personally i dont accept, at this stage, that agruments that children will be "forced" to have vaccinations that might be unsafe are valid--- as the "list" is "un-specified".
i dont accept that all legislation of this nature is part of a "nanny state" system--- because of the system of creating legislation.
I think that many of us are victims of "half-truths" in the media and what can only be described as scaremongering.
Your non-acceptance just means you aren't accepting it, not that it is or isn't the case.
Say for example MMR is on the list (if there is indeed going to be a list) and if there is a list then it's highly likely that it will be given its popularity in government circles. Do I need to remind you of the stories and research that do indeed say that it can be unsafe.
Now as I understand the welfare state it's whole being is to give "welfare" to any person regardless of their ability to pay. Now it seems the goalposts are moving. Apparently now the welfare state is only there for people who have to have certain vaccinations, so there is indeed a price to pay. I reckon Aneurin Bevan would be spinning in his grave.
But let's boil this down to its most basic level, i.e. in order for the next generation's kids to receive education they are being forced to accept the government injecting viruses into their bloodstreams possibly against their parent's wishes. That's out and out blackmail when you think of it.
Now when the government were voted into office they were voted in as representatives of the people who voted them in. They were not voted in to do our thinking for us, or to take personal decisions on our behalf.
It is the parent's responsibility to say what does or doesn't enter their kid's bodies not some governmental agency.

18 Jun 2008

Quote by DeeCee
IMHO i think it is dangerous to speculate whether this is actually going to happen at all... particularly when the full facts are not known. Afterall, it is only a "draft". It might well be untrue.
What proof is there to support it?
Personally, i cant see the harm in what has been "drafted" if that is the thrust of it. Basically. im finding it tough to see What is wrong with imposing such conditions. Perhaps you will enlighten me?

No smoke without fire springs to mind!
I wonder how you would feel if " conditions " were imposed on yourself over things that would affect your day to day things. If like your employer imposed new conditions on your work load for you would be up in arms over it? Or conditions put on you as when you can drink, or when you can use your car.
Think the conditions that you see nothing wrong with may just may have no bearing on yourself, or any affect on you? If they would maybe you would see things in a different light maybe, then maybe not.

18 Jun 2008

i think my point is that it is only speculation and that until i was in possession of all the facts i wouldnt be so quick to make assumptions or bog myself down with hypotheticalS.
i am sure that those who answered have some valid points and that such things can be seen as unfair but isnt this a case of presumption?
on the basis of what i have seen and heard so far.... this is speculation? for the moment im keeping an open mind.
enjoy your debate

19 Jun 2008

Wait for it.... this is a first, I actually agree with De_Sade :shock:
If this happens it's non-ethical, ludicrous and what's happened to human rights???

19 Jun 2008

Yes, because this is quite clearly the worst country in the world to live in, us with our central heating, clean running water, readily available medical fascilities, electricity, internet conections......
H.x

19 Jun 2008

Vaccinations... hmmm :scratcheschin:
There does seem to be an increase in the recurrance of some communicable deseases. Some that have bearly seen the light of day in this country, and western europe for over a decade are popping up in little pockets.
Our global environmenat is slowly changing in itsslef and this has given rise to the threat of risk to infection from some insect borne deseases.
The Global Migration of peoples is at it's greatest ever. With people come desease.
Perhaps, just perhaps a vaccination policy of this nature really might be there to encourage our population to protect itsself against this greater risk?
None of the above is supported by research... I can't be arsed.
Just a Random-Thought.
lp

19 Jun 2008

Quote by de_sade
We waived our rights to them when Labour were voted in.
Possession of extreme images, 42 days detention, hybrid embryo research...
Just three of the decisions our Government is making on our behalf, and they are just the one's that most people know about...

well i blame the fools that voted for them. I happened to vote for an alternative party.... so my conscience is clear on that one!!! As it will be next time.
good to see this thread is staying on track....oh, wait a minute... it isnt!!! well that will preclude me from giving my views on the rights and wrongs of the legislation in respect of extreme pornography, detention for terrorist suspects and embryo research.
No offence De-sade, and maybe im wrong. But do you really understand the procedures, the difference between media scaremongering/political bias, party proposals, parliamentary debate and what ( if at all) eventually goes onto the Statute book? Maybe this link could help.

disclaimer: if anyone gets a bee in their bonnet about my tone, content or political views thats your problem , not mine.

19 Jun 2008

Quote by Peanut
Personal choice? Looks like Jehovah's Witnesses kids aren't going to get too much state education under that ruling.

Can I just ask what Jehovah's Witnesses kids have to do with that ruling?
They do have imunisations just like anyone elses kids and as far as Im aware the only thing to affect their schooling is the fact they dont sit in on assembly or have RE/I lessons

19 Jun 2008

I'm not in favour of compulsory anything, but may I ask, what is so terrible about imunisation against possibly fatal disseases? You only have to go back 100 years and look at the infant mortality rate to see that on the whole immunisation is a good thing, is it the vaccination or the compulsory bit you have a problem with?
H.x

19 Jun 2008

Quote by de_sade

No offence De-sade

None taken.

Quote by DeeCee
Maybe im wrong.

You are.

Quote by DeeCee
Do you really understand the procedures, the difference between media scaremongering/political bias, party proposals, parliamentary debate and what ( if at all) eventually goes onto the Statute book?

I do.
Now, let me ask you a question, do you realise all these laws have to start out start out originally as someone's ideas and that those ideas can only move forward if they are verbalised and that if no-one objects to those verbalisations it is generally taken as red that everyone is in agreement with those ideas.
Ideas like the Falklands War, The Gulf Wars, The Final Solution.
Yes, yes, yes I know you might think this is off track but I feel it it isn't. Read the links I provided above - those are not my words, but the actual ideas and words of a Labour MP reported by two different media sources.
I for one think compulsory vaccination is an appalling idea, an abhorent suggestion and would be a terrifying rule and my thread was started to inform others who might be of the same opinion just what is being considered (regardless of whether it is just idle chat in the Commons, a draft proposal or some meaningless rant scrawled on the back of Westminster restaurant menu) in case they missed it and to indicate that I intend to object to it NOW before anything else is done about it, and to provide a vehicle for others to be able to do something about it NOW too.
If you think it is all bollocks - butt out, afterall your opinion has now been noted by those who are interested in it. :thumbup:
The very people who start these crazy things off are called the " Monday morning brigade " .
In that I mean...they come into work on a Monday morning with nothing in their in or out trays. They then start to drift off into their own little worlds, which is dangerous. They then come up with these half baked cranky things. Give these people some proper work to do and maybe these cranky ideas will never come to fruition!!

19 Jun 2008

Quote by H-x
I'm not in favour of compulsory anything, but may I ask, what is so terrible about imunisation against possibly fatal disseases? You only have to go back 100 years and look at the infant mortality rate to see that on the whole immunisation is a good thing, is it the vaccination or the compulsory bit you have a problem with?
H.x

Well said that woman!
I would think its the 'compulsory' bit. No one likes that word do they?

19 Jun 2008

Quote by helnheaven
Well said that woman!
I would think its the 'compulsory' bit. No one likes that word do they?

No, but I can understand how the thinking behind it came about. Huge scare-mongering in the press about the MMR vaccination lead to many, many parents allowing their children to go unvaccinated and we have a rise in preventable diseases. The doctors are pulling their hair out because they know children are getting sick for no reason - think tank time, result "I know! Why don't we make it compulsory"
I realise this is a big simplification of what goes on, and I'm not saying I agree with it - but I can see both sides.
H.x

19 Jun 2008

Quote by H-x
I realise this is a big simplification of what goes on, and I'm not saying I agree with it - but I can see both sides.
H.x

H.x we are women we usually can wink

19 Jun 2008

Quote by H-x
I'm not in favour of compulsory anything, but may I ask, what is so terrible about imunisation against possibly fatal disseases? You only have to go back 100 years and look at the infant mortality rate to see that on the whole immunisation is a good thing, is it the vaccination or the compulsory bit you have a problem with?
H.x

For me personally, I'm worried about the compulsory bit. I'm all for vaccinations in their own right, but as a choice to be made by the parents.
My daughter has had all her immunisations, I wouldn't have had it any other way, but across the board, ethically is it right to force people into it? dunno

Ethics and medicine... nasty combination! wink

19 Jun 2008

<aol> Me too </aol>
My kids had all their shots but, and this is the important bit, this is because my then wife and I made a voluntary choice based on the available information at the time. We didn't have them vaccinated because we were forced to.
As previously mentioned in this thread, making them compulsory is an infringement of of both parents and children's human rights.

19 Jun 2008

Quote by Peanut
<aol> Me too </aol>
My kids had all their shots but, and this is the important bit, this is because my then wife and I made a voluntary choice based on the available information at the time. We didn't have them vaccinated because we were forced to.
As previously mentioned in this thread, making them compulsory is an infringement of of both parents and children's human rights.

I don't get it. You'll choose to have your kids immunised so long as you get to choose, but if someone makes it compulsory you wouldn't? I'm all for immunisation btw - but it's the logic that I don't get.
A voluntary immunisation isn't any more or less effective than a compulsory one. So what's the problem - the children would be immunised anyway and that's what matters.
There are many things we have no choice over and don't even think about - car insurance, education, how we dispose of our dead. See what I mean?

19 Jun 2008

Quote by flower411
<aol> Me too </aol>
My kids had all their shots but, and this is the important bit, this is because my then wife and I made a voluntary choice based on the available information at the time. We didn't have them vaccinated because we were forced to.
As previously mentioned in this thread, making them compulsory is an infringement of of both parents and children's human rights.

I don't get it. You'll choose to have your kids immunised so long as you get to choose, but if someone makes it compulsory you wouldn't? I'm all for immunisation btw - but it's the logic that I don't get.
A voluntary immunisation isn't any more or less effective than a compulsory one. So what's the problem - the children would be immunised anyway and that's what matters.
There are many things we have no choice over and don't even think about - car insurance, education, how we dispose of our dead. See what I mean?
I think the choice thing is the issue.
This government tried to force people to use the MMR vaccination which had become discredited ....for whatever reason !!
The Prime Minister refused to say whether or not his own children had been immunised with MMR.
The one and only conclusion that people can make from this is that the only person in the country guaranteed to have all the information available decided that it wasn`t a good idea !! :shock:
At the same time they were telling us that it was a good idea !!
So...if this government decides to make any form of vaccination compulsory to the point of making sanctions against those that do not comply ....the only conclusion that I would make is that they believe it all to be VERY dangerous and for that reason I would refuse it .
Good point - bet they make us pay for it too mad

19 Jun 2008

Quote by foxylady2209
<aol> Me too </aol>
My kids had all their shots but, and this is the important bit, this is because my then wife and I made a voluntary choice based on the available information at the time. We didn't have them vaccinated because we were forced to.
As previously mentioned in this thread, making them compulsory is an infringement of of both parents and children's human rights.

I don't get it. You'll choose to have your kids immunised so long as you get to choose, but if someone makes it compulsory you wouldn't? I'm all for immunisation btw - but it's the logic that I don't get.

The logic is quite easy to get really. What if I decided I didn't want my kids to have the MMR shot? No MMR = no education?

A voluntary immunisation isn't any more or less effective than a compulsory one. So what's the problem - the children would be immunised anyway and that's what matters.

It's not about the immunisation, it's about the blackmail. No shot, no welfare benefits, no education.

There are many things we have no choice over and don't even think about - car insurance, education, how we dispose of our dead. See what I mean?

So one more thing that's compulsory is okay by you? So by that you're comfortable with the idea of everything being compulsory eh? That's the logical conclusion with that rationale.
So at what point does one say "no more"?

19 Jun 2008

To be honest - what with the fuel prices, mortgages, food and the certainty that my job is going to be outsourced in the next 2 years, this is way down on my 'things to lose sleep over' list. Not to minimise your concerns at all, it's just the way my life is at the moment.

19 Jun 2008

Quote by foxylady2209
To be honest - what with the fuel prices, mortgages, food and the certainty that my job is going to be outsourced in the next 2 years, this is way down on my 'things to lose sleep over' list. Not to minimise your concerns at all, it's just the way my life is at the moment.

Personally I don't lose sleep over any of the above things and not because I'm loaded (my yearly income is in 4 figures) but because there's no point in losing sleep over something I can't do anything about*. Whereas this immunisation affair hasn't happened yet so therefore something can still be done.
*I didn't in 1989 either when the mortgages skyrocketed, or in 1992 when I had to retire on ill health. I pick my battles and leave the ones that are already lost.

20 Jun 2008

Quote by Peanut
The logic is quite easy to get really. What if I decided I didn't want my kids to have the MMR shot? No MMR = no education?

A voluntary immunisation isn't any more or less effective than a compulsory one. So what's the problem - the children would be immunised anyway and that's what matters.

It's not about the immunisation, it's about the blackmail. No shot, no welfare benefits, no education.

There are many things we have no choice over and don't even think about - car insurance, education, how we dispose of our dead. See what I mean?

So one more thing that's compulsory is okay by you? So by that you're comfortable with the idea of everything being compulsory eh? That's the logical conclusion with that rationale.
So at what point does one say "no more"?
:thumbup: and it's ok for people to bury their heads in the sand and say they won't lose any sleep over it, until :doh: bang it's happened!
The final decision is out of our hands anyway is it not? sad

20 Jun 2008

If you had have been involved in the decision making of this it wouldn't be so bad would it?? You've seen the evidence to support why its proposed and you make the choice to support it or not! Simple... but it doesn't work like that these days.... freedom and democracy is practically gone out of the window.
I DO think that more should be done around immunisations... when I know that children are still dying of measles in this world that helps me support that aspect of it wholeheartedly.
If the holding you to ransom part that leaves a bad taste in your mouth!
So, how can you encourage more parents to immunise their children without making it compulsory or without being held to ransom to gain something you believed you had rights to

20 Jun 2008

Thank you for the links De Sade.
I might come back to this once I've read a bit more but so far I'm with you on this one.
Jas
XXX

20 Jun 2008

Sidetracking just a little the state currently prosecutes parents of children who fail to attend school so they only gonna tie themselves in knots by the looks of things.

20 Jun 2008

Quote by Whipsnspurs
*snip * i do maybe think that a parent should have to contribute to payment for treatment if their child then contracts a disease that they refuse to jab against. * snip *

Snipped this bit: we do contribute already, in the form of taxes and National Insurance.
Does it mean that people who don't have their children vaccinated, will pay less (tax and N.I.) as they potentially won't need as much healthcare either (assuming that the child doesn't contract any of the diseases)?