Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Lack Of Personal Responsibility In The Uk


Recommended Posts

Yes but it's not real exercise for most of them is it ? Splashing around in a pool for an hour hardly gets your body working overtime.

Kids that play football regularly and other sports that require you to really fire around the place and get your heart pumping ?

SERIOUS lack of fatties in this group of kids. It is all so simple.

Agree with your comments about fatties in the pool not really exercising. Mostly they just bob about and get in the way when we are doing lengths. I suppose it takes the weight of their overburdened joints for a wee while. ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is some piss poor parenting out there.

Ever seen big kids in a buggy? It's cos their parents are too lazy to get them to walk because it takes more effort and you have to pay more attention to the kid.

Kids nappy bedtime pants - for big kids - again cos training them to use the loo in the night takes effort.

Seen kids with feeder cups aged 4? Again lazy parenting.

Seen parents pushing buggies chatting away on the phone? There's a generation being ignored by their parents right now.

I think the country should be sterilised. Nah, the world. Do it to everyone. Make parenting impossible until you've passed a test to show that you can manage to get your fat lazy **** into gear.

Weybetha seems to be the capital of young mums pushing buggies, sometimes it's hard to differentiate the age from the pushed to the pusher.

Eventually pushers will mutate, a third hand and arm will grow, one for the fag, one for the phone and one for the buggy, making their daily trudge through the pedestrian precinct easier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Scootering past driveways (and across side streets when they're goin along the pavement on a main road) isn't the kids or the parents responsibility to do safely though - they have right of way as pedestrians over any clueless car drivers. it's Mr Tax-dodge Mondeo who needs the education, preferably with a six-inch-nail studded baseball bat.

Eh? Why assume that the car owner is a "tax dodger"? I don't understand.

Also, whatever the law says, it IS in the interests of kids and their parents to have some common sense when scootering across drives, side-roads etc.

Being able to yell "it's your fault" at the driver who has just reversed over your child will be scant compensation for them being killed or crippled.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How about making it that people pay for self caused health problems. You catch an STD its £100 for the antibiotics. Cancer and you are a smoker £10k for your treatment. Diabetes due to your weight etc etc

As a society we seem to only be influenced by punitive charges. Like speeding, parking, littering fines. This is just the next step.

Great idea -- we could close the NHS down with this strategy and make everyone go private again, problem solved and we no longer need to harangue strangers about their lifestyle.

There is almost no health problem that you cannot somehow blame on the patient in some way (or their parents, in case of a sick child), and if you run out of weasel arguments then you can always claim that life itself is just a fatal STD anyway.

Edited by Cinnamon
Link to post
Share on other sites

First one - Kids getting road safety lessons on how to drive their scooter safely at the local Primary school. Parent being interviewed said it was great as she use to be really worried when her little one scooted past driveways and across roads. What I don't understand is if she was worried, why didn't she teach the kid herself when she first started worrying instead of doing nothing until the state stepped in with an unusual activity?

Just a hypothesis ...

Sometimes kiddies will take only so much from a parent before ignoring them (or even actively defying them - push the boundaries). Instruction might come better from elsewhere.

Second one - NICE has proposed having a policy of paying people to lose weight / stop smoking (presumably the more extreme cases) after some members of the public suggested it. What? If someone needs paying to make a healthy lifestyle change does anyone really think they genuiely are interested in making a life long change?

To be fair, the interviewer tried challenging on that one: so if I say I'm thinking of taking to heroin, give me money to stay off it ...

Which came first, the Government treating the UK population like kids, or the UK population demanding to be treated like kids from its Government?

As soon as you have a welfare state that goes beyond a workhouse ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, the smokers' tax myth that smokers contribute to the NHS.

Reality is that treating smoking related illnesses costs the NHS more than the Exchequer brings in via tax from nicotine addicts.

Rubbish. Check out Ash's website if you want the truth and they are an anti-smoking group. In particular check this link http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf. The treasury earned £8.2 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in 08-09 (excluding VAT) and smoking costs the NHS approximately £2.7 billion a year for treating smoking related diseases. So even without VAT being added smokers are already net contributors to the tune of £5.5 billion per year. Add in pension savings due to shorter life expectancy and VAT then this £5.5 billion figure is much higher.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For some years, people within the health care system and associated bodies have been discussing/suggesting we might have to (through choice or budgetary constraints) withhold/limit certain treatments to those who have caused their own condition:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1576704/Dont-treat-the-old-and-unhealthy-say-doctors.html

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6088122.ece

http://www.nursingtimes.net/whats-new-in-nursing/primary-care/unhealthy-may-be-denied-treatment/5018317.article

So while you make a valid point that what NICE are suggesting would hopefully make a bottom line saving, it might not be enough, it may not be possible (financially) and comes from a dubious sense of responsibility for people who have little responsibility for themselves. There are more possible choices than just: help obese people now, or pay more to help them later.

No one is made to smoke/drink excessively/eat badly/take drugs. The poverty argument is flimsy - poor people used to be thin. We have an obesity crisis which requires us to eat less and eat better.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/15/obesity-crisis-cannot-solved-exercise

The NHS needs to be there first for people who through no fault of their own have become unwell or injured.

Meh. Eating less and exercising more is interlinked, it's not just a simple calories in vs. calories out calculation. Exercising makes you feel better, so you're less likely to comfort eat. Or at least I find that's true for me.

I don't like the idea of funding these lifestyle choices for people either but I think the NHS is already in an obesity epidemic so NICE is simply reacting to that. If you want to change what NICE is aiming for then you need to aim higher up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone who on-off tries to lose weight, I can tell you that when I'm on a diet I eat less and save a fortune.

We all know smokers would be the same. A pack a day habit is about £150 a month.

So in reality, paying people to quit smoking or lose weight is pointless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So I turn on the BBC news this morning and watch a couple of items:

  • First one - Kids getting road safety lessons on how to drive their scooter safely at the local Primary school. Parent being interviewed said it was great as she use to be really worried when her little one scooted past driveways and across roads. What I don't understand is if she was worried, why didn't she teach the kid herself when she first started worrying instead of doing nothing until the state stepped in with an unusual activity?

  • Second one - NICE has proposed having a policy of paying people to lose weight / stop smoking (presumably the more extreme cases) after some members of the public suggested it. What? If someone needs paying to make a healthy lifestyle change does anyone really think they genuiely are interested in making a life long change?

Quite apart from this, how do you tell when the person has made the change forever?

Apparently, the NHS target for measuring someone giving up smoking is six week, so all of the offered help is to make you stop for six week.

Now, guess how many people start again after six weeks and one day?

tim

Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite apart from this, how do you tell when the person has made the change forever?

Apparently, the NHS target for measuring someone giving up smoking is six week, so all of the offered help is to make you stop for six week.

Now, guess how many people start again after six weeks and one day?

tim

I think that people will hide extra weights when visiting the clinic to be weighed and make out they're fatter than they are -- one can easily hide 5 - 10 kg and then claim the reward after the diet miracle has occurred successfully... :P

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the country should be sterilised. Nah, the world. Do it to everyone. Make parenting impossible until you've passed a test to show that you can manage to get your fat lazy **** into gear.

I saw Germaine Greer espouse this very theory at a discussion I attended about 5 -6 years ago. All the Guardianistas in attendance gasped but I thought then that she was onto something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Biker law should be introduced to everyday life. Bikers are a self cleaning gene pool and an excellent source for people who need organs.

On a bike if you ride like a tit you tend to die horribly.

This does not extend to other parts of life, I dunno say cars...

For example cars have stupid things called crumple zones and airbags, which means stupidity is not always rewarded with serious injury and or death.

For example if you walk out into a road without looking, instead of being killed by a solid bit of metal say the engine block you bounce off the crumple zone front of the car. Somebody being killed is a powerful lesson.

Same with a car, airbags and seat belts were made illegal and a sharp spikey interior was introduced deadly accidents would go up for a while but these bad elements would be cleaned out of the gene pool pretty darned quick.

The gene pool is stagnant, and we need some chlorine!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Biker law should be introduced to everyday life. Bikers are a self cleaning gene pool and an excellent source for people who need organs.

On a bike if you ride like a tit you tend to die horribly.

This does not extend to other parts of life, I dunno say cars...

For example cars have stupid things called crumple zones and airbags, which means stupidity is not always rewarded with serious injury and or death.

For example if you walk out into a road without looking, instead of being killed by a solid bit of metal say the engine block you bounce off the crumple zone front of the car. Somebody being killed is a powerful lesson.

Same with a car, airbags and seat belts were made illegal and a sharp spikey interior was introduced deadly accidents would go up for a while but these bad elements would be cleaned out of the gene pool pretty darned quick.

The gene pool is stagnant, and we need some chlorine!

Good points. If people don't want to help themselves then let them die. No tears from me. Their choice.

And if I happen to be one of those who does this ? Cest la Vie.

Edited by ccc
Link to post
Share on other sites

The gene pool is stagnant, and we need some chlorine!

Agreed but you always get some bleeding heart guardian reader predictably comparing this to eugenics and the final solution etc. As it is, those who contribute least, seem to breed youngest and most.

A former chancellor of Stathclyde Uni said the contraceptive pill should be put in cornflakes as this would keep the underclasses from breeding as much. I think he left shortly after.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For some years, people within the health care system and associated bodies have been discussing/suggesting we might have to (through choice or budgetary constraints) withhold/limit certain treatments to those who have caused their own condition:

http://www.telegraph...ay-doctors.html

http://www.timesonli...icle6088122.ece

http://www.nursingti...5018317.article

So while you make a valid point that what NICE are suggesting would hopefully make a bottom line saving, it might not be enough, it may not be possible (financially) and comes from a dubious sense of responsibility for people who have little responsibility for themselves. There are more possible choices than just: help obese people now, or pay more to help them later.

No one is made to smoke/drink excessively/eat badly/take drugs. The poverty argument is flimsy - poor people used to be thin. We have an obesity crisis which requires us to eat less and eat better.

http://www.guardian....solved-exercise

The NHS needs to be there first for people who through no fault of their own have become unwell or injured.

We've been thru this ******** argument dozens of times - leave the feckin footballers who break their foot/leg bones /knee caps crippled and the rugby players who break their necks at the side off the pitch to die of exposure - all these injuries are caused thru a personal choice to play in a body damaging sport.

"There are 30 million amateur sports injuries every year"

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been thru this ******** argument dozens of times - leave the feckin footballers who break their foot/leg bones /knee caps crippled and the rugby players who break their necks at the side off the pitch to die of exposure - all these injuries are caused thru a personal choice to play in a body damaging sport.

"There are 30 million amateur sports injuries every year"

Rugby is cool though, in that its not like football play doesn't stop unless somebody has his brains oozing out. They carry him off and start the brawl again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been thru this ******** argument dozens of times - leave the feckin footballers who break their foot/leg bones /knee caps crippled and the rugby players who break their necks at the side off the pitch to die of exposure - all these injuries are caused thru a personal choice to play in a body damaging sport.

"There are 30 million amateur sports injuries every year"

Depends on whether the positives outweigh the negatives.

The mental and physical positives IMO far outweigh the odd niggling injury. And that is exactl what the vast majority of those 30 million injuries will be.

A slight calf strain is an injury. It is hardly a negative thing if you have been training for 6 months, feel great, look great and are far healthier than when you started.

People do need to learn more when exercising though. Lots push themselves to injuries that are so unneccesary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me its this moral hazard issue again. Where does it end? Paying thugs not to torment grannies in their own homes? Paying drug dealers not to deal? Paying people without the income to support multiple kids not to have them?

Being healthy always pays in the long run in my opinon.

Edited by Save me from the madness!
Link to post
Share on other sites

Which came first, the Government treating the UK population like kids, or the UK population demanding to be treated like kids from its Government?

Is this the reason why we have such problems with House prices because a significant proportion take little responsibility and demand bailout funds for mortgage repayments (even though interest rates are at the lowest rate ever), Banks can't be exposed to the downside of a market and demand bailouts, benefit scroungers demanding their full 'rights' to a big house and loads of money because, "I've got 5 kids!".

This talk of 28 year old "Kidults" is missing the true horror of the scope of the adult population not taking on full adult responsibilities.

Absolutely - the last government spent over a decade slowly but steadily absolving people of their rights and responsibilities ... I guess the thinking was that when you took away the need for personal responsibility it was easy to justify taking away the rights too.

Now surprise surprise, it wasn't such a good idea to tell people that they don't need to have an iota of personal responsibility for their actions. Well, if we see a reintroduction of the concept of actions->consequences->the need for responsibility by the current lot then I'm all for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish. Check out Ash's website if you want the truth and they are an anti-smoking group. In particular check this link http://www.ash.org.uk/files/documents/ASH_95.pdf. The treasury earned £8.2 billion in revenue from tobacco duties in 08-09 (excluding VAT) and smoking costs the NHS approximately £2.7 billion a year for treating smoking related diseases. So even without VAT being added smokers are already net contributors to the tune of £5.5 billion per year. Add in pension savings due to shorter life expectancy and VAT then this £5.5 billion figure is much higher.

In Russia the Finance Minister recently urged people to smoke and drink MORE as an act of patriotism. ;)

As if Russians need any encouragement...

“People should understand: Those who drink, those who smoke are doing more to help the state,” he told the Interfax news agency.

link

Link to post
Share on other sites

In Russia the Finance Minister recently urged people to smoke and drink MORE as an act of patriotism. ;)

As if Russians need any encouragement...

“People should understand: Those who drink, those who smoke are doing more to help the state,” he told the Interfax news agency.

link

Frankly the more I am told I cannot do something by the State the more

a) I question it

B) do the exact opposite

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 442 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.