Jump to content

DanBettin

Members
  • Posts

    300
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by DanBettin

  1. 13 hours ago, Saltings said:

    the consultant oncologist that treated joy is now wishing she got in touch and got additional help with canopies oil as a close member of her family has secumed to cancer two other consultants asked for help re oil and to date are doing ok does not mean its treats all cancers   doctors and consultants are guided by numbers supplied by drugs co and not thought to think outside the box as for knocking back research    if joe public does not know about alternatives / complimentary  help the consultants will never question the information they have been fed    doctors and consultants and oncologists are told by pharma cuticle co what works which can lead to many years of medication to help with long tern chemo side effects  more £ do a research for the amount of people suffering from copd/ fibro myalgia /arthritis / chronic fatigue/ dental and bone degeneration/ a mouse  sneezes at 2k a chest infection two three or four rounds of antibiotics to clear up  at least 95% have the afore mentioned after 10years  as prognosis is less than 15yrs depending on chemo treatment please forgive joy had many soft tissue organ cancers tubes to feed would never be removed 6mts to live      now two years on  completely clear /and in remission   known as wonder woman by her oncologist   my sons best friends dad three months ago was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer used the oil and chemo and is mow in remission something the oncologists have not seen before and are puzzled   so please question doctors/ consultants             they   differ and patients die       

    Entirely missed my point. Forget it.

  2. 10 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

    Apologies, perhaps I am. I'm stuck in a hospital ward for 5 days with my 4 week old and I'm surrounded by incredible nurses working around the clock. I can't help get emotional about something like this. I just wish he'd avoided the cameras and news. 

    Maybe would have been better if the Government taxed the help to buy profits and took those back in taxes.

    Hey I guess it's the world we live in now.

    Don't be apologising, as I've already said I think your perspective on it is the most noble. The thing is, I don't disagree with you with regard to the fact he is entitled to it being all wrong. But I think the subtlety of where we place the 'blame' (or criticism, at least) matters. It's not his fault, I would hope he did something great with that amount of money, I certainly would. I don't know how you could take that money and not do something kind with it. But if I was him I would definitely take it, and I'm not sure I'd call that greed. That's the only point I was making. I do not think this situation is right, likewise I don't think it's personal.

     

  3. 23 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

    Well in the article and his behaviour in the interview "he's feels he's earned it" and he's worked hard! Hard..... For real? So managing some money, buying a piece of land, paying some architects to design housing estates, getting a team of builders to build some homes, and then paying a sales team to sell them, is working hard? I think he's so far detached from reality and that's the reason I have an issue with him recieving that amount of tax payers cash. My mother is a nurse and has been for over 35 years, she's saved countless lives over the years, both old and young, worked 18 hour days to put food on our table and this guy has earned more than her entire career in a week. 

    A good friend of mine is a fireman, who regularly pulls charred bodies out of burnt homes including kids, gets to see families in road accidents daily, has to put his life on the line for 35 grand a YEAR. 

    And I just spent two years of my life in a cockpit overseas on Operations dropping weapons within meters of friendly forces, overhead people that would thrive on skinning me slices or taking my head off. 

    I have so many examples of people in today's society working "hard" and under stress that have had their pensions halved and benefits freezed and pay checks cut in order to help bring down the national debt and attempt to help restore the economy. And here we have a guy that's worked hard in 5 years and feels it is his right to take 75 million as a bonus for doing a good job, and then taking 10 grand for the company to cover his legal costs? He sounds like a nice chap that probably doesn't rely on the NHS, or the Police or the amazing teachers in public schools providing equipment for students out of their own pockets. 

    People would just like pay rises inline with inflation to help pay the bills, and we get told there is no more money, we have to live within our means and then this guy who is profiting directly from Government Money is taking home 75 million? Still seem fair?

    I think you're being too emotional and taking it too personally to be able to rationally debate this, not sure there's much merit in me replying properly. You've missed my point a few times.

  4. 2 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

    It's not just me that thinks it's greedy, it's Charities, Politicians, and Corporate Governance Experts. It's because the profits are directly related to Government Subsidiaries that's my point. If you can't tell me taking that amount of money in today's society constitutes greed then I don't know the meaning of greed. Just looking at the average human and average wage for me know of puts it in perspective. He earned 200k a day....... He can buy a house a day..... That for some people is a 35yr mortgage and a lifetime of working. That is greed in my book. And especially when new build properties are built on the cheap and substandard. The market will fail, and this guy has just got all his earnings out before it does. 

    I know your intentions are good, but I think it's just a knee-jerk reaction to the sheer size of the pay out that has you comparing it to what else it could be used for. It s a noble perspective, but I don't think it's your right to call it greed or not. You didn't really answer any of my questions. The point I'm trying to get at is we'd probably all do the same in his position. So don't hate the player, hate the game. Don't call it greed, unless you're the anomaly that opts to pay out far beyond what you would otherwise be taxed, and opt to always spend your money on other better uses of it.

     

    Just now, Retsdon said:

    I wouldn't pass judgement on him personally - but I would suggest that a system which gives rise bonuses of this magnitude is economically flawed. It's a crappy use of money.

    I don't disagree, actually. I think when the finger stops pointing at the system and starts pointing at the individual, though, I have a problem with that.

  5. 8 minutes ago, Whatmuff said:

    75 million? I would and I'd make change with it. I suppose I have different way of thinking to this chap. This is greed, and it's effectively tax payers money.

    How do you know he won't make change with it? Are you judging the fact he was legally entitled to it or judging what he should and shouldn't do with it?

     

    EDIT: Also, what constitutes greed? That is subjective. We may play the game and not evade tax, for example, but most of us will avoid it (to different degrees). I'm not sure playing the game by taking what is legally his is any different. Are we all greedy? If so, how can we judge him? What would you rather he did?

  6. 25 minutes ago, Vince Green said:

    The trouble with legalising cannabis is you would cut off their income stream but what would they do to replace it? Get a job? 

    A start would be to identify and actually deport the ones who shouldn't be here in the first place.

    Deport who??

  7. 2 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

    So what is the solution?  Zero tolerance?  Short sharp shock?  The birch?

    Don't know, I don't claim to know. But it has become systemic, so the solution must be. It's almost like, within these circles, knife crime has been glorified, at the very least lost it's stigma  - it needs to be stigmatised.

  8. Just now, Penelope said:

    Yep, the solution is with the communities themselves, but you know what, I don't think they want it. Drugs and related crime are seen as a valid career choice.

    Precisely.

  9. I feel like a lot of people are looking in the wrong places for the cause of the increase in knife-related crime. I've seen the finger pointed at schools, drug laws, lack of police - none of which is the cause. It's simply a culture thing. Inside the life of these gangs, people don't hold the same perception on violent crime - not at all, not in the slightest. It is glorified to the point that it's part of their duty in order to play the game they have to play. Your politicians and TV figures debating this don't have to play the same game, never have, so they project reason and rationale that simply doesn't apply.

  10. On 11/10/2018 at 03:00, Saltings said:

    a friend    joy smith     has been using cannabis oil and worked really well for her research her on  you tube / face book    buy the stuff yourself and render down to make the oil tons of information on you tube really easy to do the cdc s in the oil makes your immune system fight cancer works for some cancers but not all  not long been licenced in usa been used for years in Spain china etc   no money in the pharma cuticle co uk     so not promoted as anyone can make it cheaply compared to chemo therapy drugs and screw the NHS the ongoing aftercare and medication for health related issues related to chemo ongoing from said drugs  fibromyalgia neuropathy copd dental / bone  deuteration   extreme fatigue etc nothing ventured nothing gained I wish I knew before chemo it may have worked chemo kickback is not good got the tea shirt video etc 

    I can't stand this perspective on it, you need to stop. It seems to be a lot of people like yourself that ruin the cause for more study into CBD and THC. Why must you be radical about it and use it as an argument against tried and tested technology and treatments such as chemotherapy? It is a dangerous message to spread that we can screw the NHS by using cannabis instead of chemo.

    Like you, I've had chemo, it saved my life and it sounds like it saved yours too, you seem to be ungrateful for that. Nevertheless, I am VERY keen on seeing more and more serious peer-reviewed medical studies into the benefits of THC and CBD, but for now (at least) it is NOT an alternative. Or at least isn't proven as one.

    As an aside, more specific to the OP, it is said (with less than adequate medical evidence) that a 1:1 ratio of THC and CBD is optimal. The problem is that our country appears to be stuck in the stone age with it's classification of THC. So these CBD oils lack, what some my claim, is a key active ingredient for medicinal application. So I don't doubt it has it's benefits, but the illegal route (some may say, not me) is said to be most effective. I am not personally advocating this route, since it's illegal.

  11. This should not be a crime, at all. It is a massive dig at free speech. It is absurd that we attempt to police people's scumbag humour, nobody likes these people, without doubt they are ****, but where do you draw the line at legislating offensiveness?

     

    EDIT: Apologies for the need for edit! Didn't know that level of censoring words was required, I'll keep it in mind.

  12. Just now, Rewulf said:

    So you berate us for not debating properly, for calling people names and bickering, by doing just that back ?
    Im surprised the thread isnt locked its gone so far away from the subject.

    Wow. I give up.

    I'm out :good:

  13. People are literally CLUELESS on how to debate or have a conversation with someone who opposes you (in the debate) without calling names or nit-picking over punctuation, or just general ad-hominen nonsense. I'm talking about most of you in this thread.

    16 hours ago, Gordon R said:

    My tone with idiots is condescending - hence my replies to you.

    PS - a few freebies:-

    Sentences start with upper case.

    You don't need to use too much upper case, it makes you look limited.

    None Connected should be nonconnected or unconnected.

    etc has a full stop at the end.

    chineese is really Chinese.

     

    16 hours ago, victorismyhero said:

    i notice you retreat into the cave occupied by the lowest form of life on forums, unable to refute or debate my points nor produce any coherent counter argument, you slink off into the realm of the grammar nazi.

     

    how about addressing the points I raise

     

    oh you cant...job done then.......

     

    5 hours ago, Rewulf said:
      12 hours ago, Rewulf said:

    So basically, you don't like the way I word my posts ? No, it is your lack of logical argument not your words

    It makes me wonder why you reply to them to be honest. Because no one is a lost cause

    It's funny how no one else seems to have a problem understanding me, perhaps you are just too intelligent? I understand you and I`m not any more intelligent than your average guy in the street, I got 3 O levels and a few CSE`s, a few years ago I was award a BA, big deal lots of people have them.

    You have a very dismissive manner Henry, and it's not just myself you seem to have issues with, as a 'youth worker' I would have thought you would be more accommodating of us plebs. Again you use a logical fallacy to try to undermine me (ad hominem) and I wasn`t being dismissive, part of my job is trying to educate people and that is what I do here when I can see a flaw in their argument. I believe that people should attempt to educate themselves throughout their lives as it has benefits for society, the person involved and their close family and friends. Don`t take things so personal, reflect on things, don`t accept things as absolutes even your closely guarded beliefs, test them by coming at them from another viewpoint.

    Youre a very funny man Henry.

    You say lack of 'logical argument' 
    Its logical to me, otherwise I wouldnt bother writing it, but its not logical to you ?
    Perhaps its your logic that is flawed ?

    Are you taking me under your wing ,to put me right ? Bless :friends:

    You understand me ? ? But what about my 'lack of logical argument ?? Now Im confused.
    Whats even more confusing is your education level ! I thought by your superior moral and intellectual stance , I was dealing with a multi Phd level brain!

    And here we go with the 'dismissive' tones of the logical fallacy (ad hominem) retort, not for the first time either.
    Its a way of nullifying my argument, because you cannot find an answer to counter it, or (heaven forbid) agree with it , or find common ground.

    If part of your job is to educate people, I certainly hope you dont use the same tone as you do on here, otherwise you will not be Mr popular.
    Yes I come here to be educated, and I am on a daily basis, my mind is very open, always has been, and no I dont take it personally, I am an extremely laid back person.
    Your views are your own, and mine are mine, if I see a different perspective that works with my current worldview ,I will take it on board.

    But you need to practice what you preach.

     

    •  

    Bit of nonsense from most people in here. Just people getting digs in left, right and centre. Struggling to pick out any salient points amongst all that hot-air. Pointless.

    Even if I was wrong about my points on the death penalty, at least I made points and attempted to substantiate them.

    Make your point, provide some evidence, and stay open to having your mind changed, I'm fast being put off PW because people are just arguing for argument's sake, bickering.

  14. 41 minutes ago, Gordon R said:

     

    As you provide no genuine facts whatsoever, can we assume that this is just an emotional indulgence, which would let you bow out from the thread. I genuinely despair and question whether you ever read what others post. You appear to have another agenda, developed on the Planet Zog. Consider this post as "letting you know".

    The emotive rubbish about "punishing scumbags" is juvenile. We are talking about the death penalty for very serious crimes.

    I trust you are a person who keeps his / her word - so I assume you will not post again.

     

    Not sure what you're going on about, an agenda from the planet zog?!

    I'm quite open to having my mind changed, the facts and figures posted so far about UK prison being significantly more expensive is a brilliant response, one that gets you thinking. I'm not sticking to my guns out of ignorance, I'm engaging in a debate in which I'd expect more people than just the one to return with something substantial but so far everyone seems to have just chosen their camp and are being stubborn about it without providing anything interesting to back it up.

    Getting a bit bored now. I won't post again, feel free to have the last word if you must.

  15. Which is exactly how projections and forecasting works, it's best guess.

    Just now, Rewulf said:

    Read my last post again, since when did British law have a quarter century of appeals on a capital sentence ?

    Last death penalty was carried out over 50 years ago, so the question's surely irrelevant? The law will have to cater for the death penalty however it caters for it, but to say the process would be the same as it would 50 years ago is a bit naive. 

  16. 1 minute ago, Rewulf said:

    So how can you say it would cost more than prison ?

    You have no stats, so you used American ones, where they keep them on death row for 25 years, with an army of lawyers and appeals that cost a huge amount of tax payers dollars !
    Yank prisons are not like UK prisons, they have hard labour, and it costs nothing like the figures it costs us.
    Google US prison population and costs.
    Your stats are NOT relevant to a UK situation, so your argument is invalid.

    Wait there a minute, they're more relevant than no stats. So the claim has been made here that it's cheaper, how? What are the costs involved in both options? Because the studies I've posted are as relevant as you're gonna get.

  17. 2 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

    See above ^^

    And again Dan , what evidence it costs more ? A UK source please, for UK executions .
    And again ,I dont care if it does.

    You don't care if it does, but maybe other tax payers would. Why would we want to pay any extra than is absolutely necessary towards the dealing of these scumbags?

    We don't have the death penalty and haven't for some time, how do you expect UK stats? Keep in mind, the OP for the death penalty made the claim that it's cheaper, the burden of proof is with that side of the argument. I posted the most relevant stats we have on the matter, I've seen nothing from the opposite side. Well, aside from the fact we know dougy can sort it for a pound if needs be.

  18. 8 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

    That would really depend on the crime wouldnt it ?

    But its not really the issue, if the death penalty was only used in absolutely certain cases , and as Capt Beaky said not just DNA, then we COULD use it.
    And the ratio would be irrelevant .
    The answer was in relation to some people being wrongly hanged, which  without checking, was a very small number.
    And thats with dated tech.
    Compared to modern methods, and correct application , we could be 99.99% certain of safe convictions, and even then the death penalty would only apply to very severe crimes.

    Yep, agreed. So then, we get down to the issue of certainty. Certainty of nobody tampering with evidence even. If we can say 100% (I doubt this will ever be the case) then the only reason I oppose it is the cost. Why should we spend extra* on the death penalty when we can stick them in solitary confinement for their life for less cost? Only THEN is the ratio irrelevant.

    * Evidence tells me so far that the death penalty costs more.

  19. 4 minutes ago, Rewulf said:

    Compare the times in the last decade or so ,when ,after someone is convicted and sentenced of a crime that used to attract the death penalty, where after they have been found to be innocent.
    To the times when someone has been released from such a crime, and gone on to commit other violent crimes .
    If YOU are happy with the ratio, then good for you.

    This is a fair point. Although if we compare ratios like for like we get into the realms of whether one has a bigger impact than the other.

     

    For example, is someone reoffending worse than killing an innocent man by death penalty. That's a whole other world of debate.

  20. 3 minutes ago, CaptainBeaky said:

    We don't - we *really* don't...

    DNA tests aren't foolproof - because they only look at a restricted set of markers, not the whole genome, which introduces a statistical probability of error - false positive or false negative.

    The burden of proof becomes much greater when a person's life rests on the outcome.

    Forget scumbag murderers and rapists - let's assume YOU are arrested for murder. You know you are innocent - you were over a hundred miles away, but would you want to bet your life on the proposition that "DNA evidence is foolproof"?

    If you don't, why should anyone else?

    Abolishing the death penalty isn't about letting the guilty off, it's about protecting the innocent, and preventing irreversible miscarriages of justice.

    And that's before even considering framing/corruption.

×
×
  • Create New...