I'm sure a lot of 70 year olds would agree with the original poster. Children deserve priority over those who have already had their life (or the best part of it) over and done with. Just the same way as a rich celebrity should not be getting help from the government for transport costs. The NHS is not a bottomless pit that everyone can endlessly dip into (though you would think it was with the advice given on these forums :cool:)
I'm horrified that you'd say that - what kind of contemptuous and contemptible society would we be if we limited care of our elderly on the grounds that they'd 'had most of their life'. Truly shocking.
I'm horrified that you'd say that - what kind of contemptuous and contemptible society would we be if we limited care of our elderly on the grounds that they'd 'had most of their life'. Truly shocking.
Thank you, that was my point exactly. It's beyond my comprehension that anyone could think let alone say something so despicable.:(
If it came down to it, and there was only one bed in a hospital....would you give it to a child or someone who has lived for over 70 years? There are queues waiting in line for NHS treatment, and imo, those who are older shouldn't take the place of someone much younger.
Also, higher earners pay more tax, but aren't entitled to certain credits, and I find that rather unfair tbh.
Rubbish. If you were admitted to hospital in severe pain, you would not give a thought to anything or anyone, you'd just want to be treated.
i am in my 70's and I consider myself extremely lucky to rarely need to use the resources of the NHS, but I know of people who have lived very useful lives but fate has not bestowed them with good health in their later years. I've seen first hand how much they suffer, and they are as deserving as the next person to receive whatever treatment they need.
To answer your question if it was a choice between me and a younger child fighting for the bed - I would throw the child out and get the bed. You are talking survival and my life is more important to me. Yes there are queues of people waiting in line for NHS treatment, and a 70y/o who has worked most of their lives is more entitled to treatment from the NHS than a child who has contributed nothing. Am I meant to feel guilty that my life means more to me than some child I have never met. Get real.
You talk nonsense because your views are so clouded by your hate for Katy Hopkins, you are the same in every thread.
Do you know how much tax Katy Price pays?
Do you know if she isn't on an avoidance scheme ?
No you do not.
If it was the local bus picking up disabled kids then I agree everyone is entitled to that and it doesn't cost a lot, but she said it cost £1000 per day and that is what people are baulking at. She should move nearer to the school if it is such a good place that it costs so much just to even get there. There are a lot of people with autistic children, I know of 3 and they drive their children to school just like parents with non autistic children do.
If you are a multi millionaire you should not be claiming of the state whether you are entitled in principle or not.
My son had Perthes Hip disease, it was a degenerative disease of the femur, causing him pain and a limp. I used to drive him to/from school and hydrotheraphy once a week for years, never got a penny or was offered from the NHS. I was really miffed that water, a thing that relieved him, was not free and I had to pay full price for both of us at the local swimming baths.
I'm horrified that you'd say that - what kind of contemptuous and contemptible society would we be if we limited care of our elderly on the grounds that they'd 'had most of their life'. Truly shocking.
I think that the elderly should be given the best care possible. In fact I'm not a big fan of sticking a loved one in a care home. My parents sacrificed so much to give us the best possible future/life, that I'm sure I'd like to do the same in their Iater life. If someone is unable to do this, then public funding should go towards offering them the best care to ensure an easy life in their later years.
However, I still think that if it came down to it, why give expensive treatment to someone in the very late stages of life, when it could be offered to a child or much younger person?
Rubbish. If you were admitted to hospital in severe pain, you would not give a thought to anything or anyone, you'd just want to be treated.
i am in my 70's and I consider myself extremely lucky to rarely need to use the resources of the NHS, but I know of people who have lived very useful lives but fate has not bestowed them with good health in their later years. I've seen first hand how much they suffer, and they are as deserving as the next person to receive whatever treatment they need.
oh dear, not very well put, Oldnbold.
Quite. No one has the right to decided who is more deserving.
I'm not suggesting to completely withdraw treatment, but if expensive treatment for which a lottery or waiting list is required... can be offered to a child instead, surely that's a better option. Imo, children should always take precedence in matters as sensitive as this.
Nothing odd about it. The opinion of whether you think rich people should spend more on health care or not is a political opinion and I don't view her as a 'baddy' or a 'goody' for holding either viewpoint. Shes entitled to her political opinion as much as anyone else.
But equally we're entitled to comment on her opinion too - free speech does go both ways. My point was that as much as there was nothing bad about the viewpoint itself (even if you disagreed with it)... in terms of motives for voicing it to Katie at this time is another issue, and while some might have the view that she did it because she felt so strongly about the issue she had to speak about it, I'm more likely to believe her motives were more linked to 'getting at Katie P'. Its all subjective, and I'm sure some will believe the former while others believe the latter. The fact she felt the need to speak out about Alicias dumbness, Katie Ps unlikeliness of getting a man, Nadias fat arse, Perez whale-like back, Patsys mannerisms etc etc leads me to suspect she spoke out about Katies driver for similar reasons. Only my opinion, which I'm allowed to have as much as Katies, especially since we're on a forum which basically deals with our opinions on the housemates opinions.
Did you really just trot out the "Free Speech" trope?
My comment didn't question your "right" to have an opinion it questioned the content of your opinion which I found contradictory - that is my opinion, which, as you clearly say, I also am allowed to have and voice.
KH is allowed to have an opinion you are allowed to have an opinion on that opinion and I am allowed to have an opinion on your opinion of her opinion - ad nauseam. As you say that is the point of a forum
Inferring my opinion is wrong because you have a right to voice yours smacks of trying to shut me down using the "free Speech" line (which isn't actually a right by law in the UK - if it was we wouldn't have slander.) and is contradictory again.
But back to the point - you are making an assumption about KH's motives (which you are entitled to do) but given my reaction to KP's comment was the same and I consider myself a pretty even minded person I don't subscribe to that opinion
This is not a millionaire claiming benefits. You're simplifying it.
This is the disabled child of a woman who just happens to be a millionaire, rightfully utilising a service that is avaliable to her child because said child is at a huge disadvantage in life, and our government has pledged to help all of those children with disadvantages, and treat them equally.
Did you really just trot out the "Free Speech" trope?
My comment didn't question your "right" to have an opinion it questioned the content of your opinion which I found contradictory - that is my opinion, which, as you clearly say, I also am allowed to have and voice.
KH is allowed to have an opinion you are allowed to have an opinion on that opinion and I am allowed to have an opinion on your opinion of her opinion - ad nauseam. As you say that is the point of a forum
Inferring my opinion is wrong because you have a right to voice yours smacks of trying to shut me down using the "free Speech" line (which isn't actually a right by law in the UK - if it was we wouldn't have slander.) and is contradictory again.
But back to the point - you are making an assumption about KH's motives (which you are entitled to do) but given my reaction to KP's comment was the same and I consider myself a pretty even minded person I don't subscribe to that opinion
And nowhere did I say you questioned my right? And I was not inferring your opinion was wrong...As I don't even know what your opinion is. I only replied to YOUR comment to me that my opinion was odd. obviously I see nothing odd with it and tried to explain that. yes I am making assumptions about her, although I know it's not fact, which I've already said. We judge on what we see and my assumptions are based on what I have seen of her in the house as well as outside of it. She has spent most of her time insulting and criticising others, and trying hard to point out any weakness/flaws with them which have been totally unnecessary and designed only to mock or demean the person it's aimed at. So with this track record, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if her critisism of Katie followed her previous attempts to have a dig as it appears to be her favourite pastime.
Being the even minded person that you are, feel free to accuse my opinions as odd, but expect a reply to it:)
I think that the elderly should be given the best care possible. In fact I'm not a big fan of sticking a loved one in a care home. My parents sacrificed so much to give us the best possible future/life, that I'm sure I'd like to do the same in their Iater life. If someone is unable to do this, then public funding should go towards offering them the best care to ensure an easy life in their later years.
However, I still think that if it came down to it, why give expensive treatment to someone in the very late stages of life, when it could be offered to a child or much younger person?
See above.
I'm not suggesting to completely withdraw treatment, but if expensive treatment for which a lottery or waiting list is required... can be offered to a child instead, surely that's a better option. Imo, children should always take precedence in matters as sensitive as this.
Well before it was 'people in their 70's', as someone in their 70's i throw my hands up in horror that I would have to go to the back of the queue for any treatment that I might require. Now it's 'the very elederly'. However much you change the goal posts, it is deeply disturbing that you think anyone should be treated differently and be lesser deserving than the next person.
Well before it was 'people in their 70's', as someone in their 70's i throw my hands up in horror that I would have to go to the back of the queue for any treatment that I might require. Now it's 'the very elederly'. However much you change the goal posts, it is deeply disturbing that you think anyone should be treated differently and be lesser deserving than the next person.
well said daisy. It's incomprehensible to me too.:(
Well before it was 'people in their 70's', as someone in their 70's i throw my hands up in horror that I would have to go to the back of the queue for any treatment that I might require. Now it's 'the very elederly'. However much you change the goal posts, it is deeply disturbing that you think anyone should be treated differently and be lesser deserving than the next person.
I'm not changing my opinion. How else would I describe someone over 70?
I think all humans are equal....no matter what
I also think it's ppl of a certain age objecting to my opinions.
I'm sorry, but I stand by my firm belief that children should always be at the front of the line. Especially when it's before someone whose lived over 7 decades.
More double standards. When Hopkins was placed in a mental health unit, who paid for that?
Or the three million quid the married men she had affairs with lost because of her..... how can a face like that cost that much cash... makes me wonder..
As far as I can make out, the argument against Harvey's receiving his legitimate and legal entitlement is that Price is rich, she "probably" avoids tax, she should pay more tax to pay for us to use the services - even those of us that pay nothing - which her child absolutely should not be allowed to use, despite the fact that she funds it. I assume these people feel the same way about rich people using State Education? Or the Fire Brigade - I mean, surely, if you're rich. you can afford to buy your own Fire Engine and man it out of your own pocket, you know, just in case.
And the argument for Harvey is that Price is a British citizen, she pays her tax, her NI, she works, no doubt she employs people and she has all the same entitlements the rest of us have. Apart form Child Benefit perhaps, I expect she earns too much to be able to claim it.
Personally, I come down on the side of those that say Harvey is entitled to the same treatment as other disabled children. And to those who say that poor kid should be treated differently just because his mum is rich, I say that you are turning my stomach with your revolting me me me sense of entitlement
I'm not changing my opinion. How else would I describe someone over 70?
I think all humans are equal....no matter what
I also think it's ppl of a certain age objecting to my opinions.
I'm sorry, but I stand by my firm belief that children should always be at the front of the line. Especially when it's before someone whose lived over 7 decades.
Why ever would you feel it's acceptable to think along those lines? You could do worse than think about what Ghandi said: The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.
Why ever would you feel it's acceptable to think along those lines? You could do worse than think about what Ghandi said: The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.
You'd think I was suggesting that we round up all the OAPs', and shoot them.
Yes, they're vulnerable, yes...they deserve the best care possible.
But should they be given treatment that could be given to a child instead? Nope, sry...not imo.
Anyhoo, I sound like a broken record, 'cause ppl keep twisting what i'm trying to put across.
Imma' retire gracefully from the discussion. I swear it's aged me....
The outrage brigade on here totally missing the point of what Hopkins was saying
I really think the point has been missed. KH wasn't criticising her disabled son she was criticising the fact that with all her money she is getting NHS money to transport her son to and from wherever he goes every day. She says it would cost her a fortune but I wonder how many times we will see her on the beach in the next 12 months, Most parents who have to use this service out of necessity (and so they should) don't ever get to be photographed on an exotic beach once let alone several times. She wasn't criticising her son's disability.:(
More double standards. When Hopkins was placed in a mental health unit, who paid for that?
Yeah, and if Katie Hopkins was being a Katie Hopkins on herself she'd be questioning why the Mental Health Unit was necessary in the first place, suggesting that perhaps she should have tried climbing the ladder rather than hanging on to it and to man up?! She'd enjoy highlighting such a ' weakness' in an insulting way, preferably in front of a large audience to demean and humiliate herself just a bit more, shaking her head in despair at the apparent absence of a stiff upper lip and pulling her best patronising, sarcastic and condescending faces at not only her weakness, but her dependency on the state to sort out her problems!
As far as I can make out, the argument against Harvey's receiving his legitimate and legal entitlement is that Price is rich, she "probably" avoids tax, she should pay more tax to pay for us to use the services - even those of us that pay nothing - which her child absolutely should not be allowed to use, despite the fact that she funds it. I assume these people feel the same way about rich people using State Education? Or the Fire Brigade - I mean, surely, if you're rich. you can afford to buy your own Fire Engine and man it out of your own pocket, you know, just in case.
And the argument for Harvey is that Price is a British citizen, she pays her tax, her NI, she works, no doubt she employs people and she has all the same entitlements the rest of us have. Apart form Child Benefit perhaps, I expect she earns too much to be able to claim it.
Personally, I come down on the side of those that say Harvey is entitled to the same treatment as other disabled children. And to those who say that poor kid should be treated differently just because his mum is rich, I say that you are turning my stomach with your revolting me me me sense of entitlement
your comment made me laugh about the rich buying their own fire engine :D
I agree, at the end of the day Katie didn't say it cost the NHS £1,000 a day for the service, she said it would cost her £1,000 for the service because she'd have to employ a nurse, a speical taxi to fit his wheel chair and what ever medical equipment he needs. I'm pretty sure, rich or not the logistics of organising this service her self privately would be a nightmare.
I'm pretty sure she pays sh1t loads of taxs therefore what is wrong with her having this one service for her son.
The daily mail headline made me laugh 'tax payers pay for Katie Price's son travel' or something along those lines, but isn't Katie Price a tax payer...
I'd be more annoyed at those people who never work, spunge of the government for there 5 kids then I am KP.
Many people believe that rich celebrities should pay their own way for everything and many people believe that celebrities pay more tax than the average person so they are just as entitled to state help as anyone else.
Katie H and Jordan were both equally right,in terms of opinions.
You can guarentee if she was paying for it she would find a more affordable form of transport. There is nothing wrong with her getting help but acting like she is too good to use a standard taxi like most parents with kids who need such transport do is just taking the piss. A ONE OFF round trip between London and Brighton is £350, a regular booking would be less. So that's below £66k a year and actually for that she could hire a driver to drive one of her cars and take him
This is a very ignorant post. You should learn something about what you are ranting about before you start writing.
I really think the point has been missed. KH wasn't criticising her disabled son she was criticising the fact that with all her money she is getting NHS money to transport her son to and from wherever he goes every day. She says it would cost her a fortune but I wonder how many times we will see her on the beach in the next 12 months, Most parents who have to use this service out of necessity (and so they should) don't ever get to be photographed on an exotic beach once let alone several times. She wasn't criticising her son's disability.:(
Harvey's taxi to school is not funded by The NHS
It is funded by Katie's council.
Many people believe that rich celebrities should pay their own way for everything and many people believe that celebrities pay more tax than the average person so they are just as entitled to state help as anyone else.
Katie H and Jordan were both equally right,in terms of opinions.
I agree. Its quite reasonable to disagree with her political opinion without thinking shes a nasty piece of work to hold such an opinion.
There are plenty examples of her behaviour which shows shes a nasty piece of work anyway, this particular political viewpoint pales in comparison:)
Odd post you say KH has a right to an opinion (clearly shared by others) then berate her for stating it.
No. You have misunderstood. The poster said that KH has a right to her opinion but it was the person she expressed it to, and the context that made it so crass.
Comments
I'm horrified that you'd say that - what kind of contemptuous and contemptible society would we be if we limited care of our elderly on the grounds that they'd 'had most of their life'. Truly shocking.
Thank you, that was my point exactly. It's beyond my comprehension that anyone could think let alone say something so despicable.:(
i am in my 70's and I consider myself extremely lucky to rarely need to use the resources of the NHS, but I know of people who have lived very useful lives but fate has not bestowed them with good health in their later years. I've seen first hand how much they suffer, and they are as deserving as the next person to receive whatever treatment they need. oh dear, not very well put, Oldnbold.
Quite. No one has the right to decided who is more deserving.
My son had Perthes Hip disease, it was a degenerative disease of the femur, causing him pain and a limp. I used to drive him to/from school and hydrotheraphy once a week for years, never got a penny or was offered from the NHS. I was really miffed that water, a thing that relieved him, was not free and I had to pay full price for both of us at the local swimming baths.
I think that the elderly should be given the best care possible. In fact I'm not a big fan of sticking a loved one in a care home. My parents sacrificed so much to give us the best possible future/life, that I'm sure I'd like to do the same in their Iater life. If someone is unable to do this, then public funding should go towards offering them the best care to ensure an easy life in their later years.
However, I still think that if it came down to it, why give expensive treatment to someone in the very late stages of life, when it could be offered to a child or much younger person?
See above.
I'm not suggesting to completely withdraw treatment, but if expensive treatment for which a lottery or waiting list is required... can be offered to a child instead, surely that's a better option. Imo, children should always take precedence in matters as sensitive as this.
Did you really just trot out the "Free Speech" trope?
My comment didn't question your "right" to have an opinion it questioned the content of your opinion which I found contradictory - that is my opinion, which, as you clearly say, I also am allowed to have and voice.
KH is allowed to have an opinion you are allowed to have an opinion on that opinion and I am allowed to have an opinion on your opinion of her opinion - ad nauseam. As you say that is the point of a forum
Inferring my opinion is wrong because you have a right to voice yours smacks of trying to shut me down using the "free Speech" line (which isn't actually a right by law in the UK - if it was we wouldn't have slander.) and is contradictory again.
But back to the point - you are making an assumption about KH's motives (which you are entitled to do) but given my reaction to KP's comment was the same and I consider myself a pretty even minded person I don't subscribe to that opinion
No.
And nowhere did I say you questioned my right? And I was not inferring your opinion was wrong...As I don't even know what your opinion is. I only replied to YOUR comment to me that my opinion was odd. obviously I see nothing odd with it and tried to explain that. yes I am making assumptions about her, although I know it's not fact, which I've already said. We judge on what we see and my assumptions are based on what I have seen of her in the house as well as outside of it. She has spent most of her time insulting and criticising others, and trying hard to point out any weakness/flaws with them which have been totally unnecessary and designed only to mock or demean the person it's aimed at. So with this track record, it wouldn't surprise me one bit if her critisism of Katie followed her previous attempts to have a dig as it appears to be her favourite pastime.
Being the even minded person that you are, feel free to accuse my opinions as odd, but expect a reply to it:)
Well before it was 'people in their 70's', as someone in their 70's i throw my hands up in horror that I would have to go to the back of the queue for any treatment that I might require. Now it's 'the very elederly'. However much you change the goal posts, it is deeply disturbing that you think anyone should be treated differently and be lesser deserving than the next person.
well said daisy. It's incomprehensible to me too.:(
I'm not changing my opinion. How else would I describe someone over 70?
I think all humans are equal....no matter what
I also think it's ppl of a certain age objecting to my opinions.
I'm sorry, but I stand by my firm belief that children should always be at the front of the line. Especially when it's before someone whose lived over 7 decades.
And the argument for Harvey is that Price is a British citizen, she pays her tax, her NI, she works, no doubt she employs people and she has all the same entitlements the rest of us have. Apart form Child Benefit perhaps, I expect she earns too much to be able to claim it.
Personally, I come down on the side of those that say Harvey is entitled to the same treatment as other disabled children. And to those who say that poor kid should be treated differently just because his mum is rich, I say that you are turning my stomach with your revolting me me me sense of entitlement
Why ever would you feel it's acceptable to think along those lines? You could do worse than think about what Ghandi said: The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members.
You'd think I was suggesting that we round up all the OAPs', and shoot them.
Yes, they're vulnerable, yes...they deserve the best care possible.
But should they be given treatment that could be given to a child instead? Nope, sry...not imo.
Anyhoo, I sound like a broken record, 'cause ppl keep twisting what i'm trying to put across.
Imma' retire gracefully from the discussion. I swear it's aged me....
I really think the point has been missed. KH wasn't criticising her disabled son she was criticising the fact that with all her money she is getting NHS money to transport her son to and from wherever he goes every day. She says it would cost her a fortune but I wonder how many times we will see her on the beach in the next 12 months, Most parents who have to use this service out of necessity (and so they should) don't ever get to be photographed on an exotic beach once let alone several times. She wasn't criticising her son's disability.:(
Yeah, and if Katie Hopkins was being a Katie Hopkins on herself she'd be questioning why the Mental Health Unit was necessary in the first place, suggesting that perhaps she should have tried climbing the ladder rather than hanging on to it and to man up?! She'd enjoy highlighting such a ' weakness' in an insulting way, preferably in front of a large audience to demean and humiliate herself just a bit more, shaking her head in despair at the apparent absence of a stiff upper lip and pulling her best patronising, sarcastic and condescending faces at not only her weakness, but her dependency on the state to sort out her problems!
your comment made me laugh about the rich buying their own fire engine
I agree, at the end of the day Katie didn't say it cost the NHS £1,000 a day for the service, she said it would cost her £1,000 for the service because she'd have to employ a nurse, a speical taxi to fit his wheel chair and what ever medical equipment he needs. I'm pretty sure, rich or not the logistics of organising this service her self privately would be a nightmare.
I'm pretty sure she pays sh1t loads of taxs therefore what is wrong with her having this one service for her son.
The daily mail headline made me laugh 'tax payers pay for Katie Price's son travel' or something along those lines, but isn't Katie Price a tax payer...
I'd be more annoyed at those people who never work, spunge of the government for there 5 kids then I am KP.
Katie H and Jordan were both equally right,in terms of opinions.
This is a very ignorant post. You should learn something about what you are ranting about before you start writing.
Harvey's taxi to school is not funded by The NHS
It is funded by Katie's council.
https://www.gov.uk/apply-school-transport-for-child-with-special-educational-needs-sen
If your child has a statement of special educational needs (SEN) which includes transport requirements, your council must provide them.
I agree. Its quite reasonable to disagree with her political opinion without thinking shes a nasty piece of work to hold such an opinion.
There are plenty examples of her behaviour which shows shes a nasty piece of work anyway, this particular political viewpoint pales in comparison:)
No. You have misunderstood. The poster said that KH has a right to her opinion but it was the person she expressed it to, and the context that made it so crass.