onewheeldave

Then again, lots of them chose to avoid the MMR jab because they genuinely thought it might harm their children. Also, remember that many of those who refused the MMR jab weren't anti-vaccine. They were anti-MMR, and, had the vaccines been available individually, they would have allowed their children to have tham.

Sounds like it was a stick with sharp pointing bits sticking out. Rather than blaming sticks per se (after all, dogs have been very happily chasing sticks for centuries, with fatalities being very rare indeed) would it perhaps be better to perhaps focus on the owner assessing whether a given stick is safe, or potentially hazardous?

This may come as a surprise to you, but when a car hits a child, the child is often badly hurt or killed, even if the car is designed to 'crumple on impact'. Rest assured however, that the child will almost certainly be hurt less, if the car, whether it crumples or not, is doing 20 mph, as opposed to 30 mph. So, in that sense, I guess yes, maybe 20 is the new 30?

Because making it 20mph is clearly an issue for some, so presumably they'd object even more to 10mph? Fine by me, actually, but, again, unlikely to meet with public approval. We do. But, wherever you've got kids running around, you're going to get accidents/fatalities as, however much you train therm, kids are just way more spontaneous and less in control than adults. 1,713 children killed in 2013, and 21,657 children seriously injured in 2013 The figure of 1,713 killed, is actually the lowest yearly death toll of children since records began- while it's good to know the figures been going down, it's somewhat alarming that, on a good year, we've lost 1,713 children to cars. It might be a good idea, for those drivers who have emotional difficulty with driving at sub 20mph, to bear in mind that, if a child does run in front of them, by driving sub 20mph, they could well be saving a life.

On the positive side, if a child runs into the road in front of you, he's less likely to be hit if you're doing 20mph, and, if he/she does get hit, your car will do them less damage than if you were doing, say, 30mph.

Here's the opinion of Martin Lewis, of moneysavingexpert.com, on 118118- http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/phones/2015/02/just-been-charged-183-for-one-call-via-118-118--thats-more-than-a-sex-line

Campaigns= brutal hard work demanding committment, a very tough skin, and, the ability to inspire, and then, work with, a team of others. I'm autisitic, so, 'non possum' on that one However, if stuff like- "118 118 Don't forget, it's a rip-off mate" could be bandied around, not only would it genuinely remind people why they shouldn't ring 118, but (and I do agree with you that companies of that kind will not be taking up morality) it'll be an embarrassment for the company- might even get people thinking about some of the other legalized rip-offs that we just take for granted these days (such as companies charging clients extra if they don't pay by direct debit). ---------- Post added 11-01-2016 at 18:41 ---------- Yeah.... I'm looking for integrity though, actual honesty- the old stuff, you must remember it?? Given that your pensioner is going to be assuming that the call will be around 5p/min, whereas it's actually £5/min- passing it off as 'increased rate', while, strictly and logically speaking, is accurate; is clearly not anywhere near adequate when it comes to honesty and integrity. How about a message saying "the call will be connected at around a £5/min rate"? Then the pensioner will know to put the phone down and ring the number him/her-self.

Have you got any links to information on this ban? Just noticed that Bhutan's got the 20th highest suicide rate in the world, so maybe there are some issues there- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Bhutan

In the interests of balance, I'll remind everyone that there's not, and never has been, a country, where there's zero harassment of minorities on the grounds of race/belief/colour. It's human nature, and, where ever humans gather in large numbers, there will be harassment of minorities. What I like about Bhutan, is, that despite it possessing many of the inherent defects that plague all countries, it has come up with an interesting and innovative concept (derived, I believe, from core buddhism) in 'Gross National Happiness'.

It's the buddhist element I like- it seems to me that their 'Gross National Happiness' concept came from the buddhist aspect of the culture. They seem to be one of the few remaining countries were buddhist concepts are used, not just as some form of state religion, like Thailand, but, a big part of everyday life and even politics. Things like an emphasis on seeing the true causes and effects behind things, then having the honesty and integrity to label the problems as problems, regardless of whether there's more money to be made from not identifying them as problems. Gross National Happiness is a thing that can counter the consequences of focusing purely on the financial aspects of a situation. It's basically buddhism, but the core of buddhism, before it got all the additions that lead to it being a religion/state religion. And, core buddhism, is secular. The Buddha considered musings on the existence/non-existence of God/s to be irrelevant to what he was teaching.

If the research is sound, they'll have adjusted for things like driving etc. Research like this isn't trying to show that a thing is harmful, because every thing has some harmfull components. It's showing that alcohol consumption is harmfull over and above the base level of risk that always accompanies any activity. Driving for example does indeed come with risks/harm (health issues due to the inactivity, exposure to fuel particles etc), but so do all the alternatives (walking, trains etc). Whereas, with alcohol, the alternatives (not drinking, drinking fruit juice etc) are either no, or, much lower risk. And, the advice issued by the medicals seems to be that equivalent to six pints of beer or seven glasses of wine is pretty much as high as anyone should go. Doesn't seem that restrictive- are there really many people around these days who would drink six pints beer/7 glasses wine every week, and, not expect it to have a adverse affect on their health?

I quite like Bhutan, as it provided the origin of "Gross National Happiness", and, their political system takes the concept seriously. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_National_Happiness

By 'side-effects' I meant the clinical definition, by which definition, there aren't, and could never be, any side-effects. ---------- Post added 09-01-2016 at 19:11 ---------- No- the placebo effect can involve actual physical changes- it's not about temporary relief of symptoms. ---------- Post added 09-01-2016 at 19:13 ---------- They might. However, they could decide to withdraw from medical treatment without homeopathy. Additionally, if they stay on medical treatment, there could also be dire consequences- mistakes are made, and, side effects occur, with a fairly high frequency.

Being unable to access medical treatment due to the NHS's refusal to acknowledge the fact that autistic people often cannot endure the bureaucracy they impose as necessary pre-requisites. It often causes so much stress and damage, that the autistic person simply ceases to try to get treatment, as they fear the consequences of trying to engage with the NHS will itself be extremely harmfull to their mental health.

It's insane in the UK- as seen on this thread, the authorities will spend serious amounts of taxpayers money in imprisoning a person purely for being naked. Why do you think the USA is more uptight?

Well done for getting it fixed Still remaining, is the issue of 118 calls costing over a fiver, plus the their disingenuous practice of connecting customers without telling them that the call to the actual number they're wanting will also be at a grossly inflated rate. Given the amount of times they've been fined for being deceptive about their charges- https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=118118%20fines I've devised a catchy and easy-to-remember rhyme, so people can keep the very high charge in mind when thinking of using 118118 "118 118 Don't forget, it's a rip-off mate"

One very substantial positive about homeopathy, is that there is no possibility of side-effects. Whereas all the chemical interventions of conventional medicine, have risks of side-effects, maybe mild, maybe severe. As for homeopathy being no more efficacious than placebo- the placebo effect is powerfull, provenly so. Conventional medicine can't prescribe placebos, for erm... 'ethical' reasons. However, if homeopathy is no more than placebo effect, then the patient, having full access to any relevant quality studies showing the equivalence of placebo and homeopathic remedy, can reap the benefits of the placebo, whilst experiencing no side effects, and, there's no breach of ethics.

When it's actually 'immoral'- charging £5+ per call in such a sly way is immoral. Substituting 'amoral' for 'immoral' is a standard ploy of apologists. ---------- Post added 07-01-2016 at 10:11 ---------- ---------- Post added 07-01-2016 at 10:12 ---------- "Ever" might work better there?

It was a strawman. I 'struggle' in communicating with neurotypicals, not in dealing with logic. Post my autism diagnosis, I had my IQ extensively tested in a process lasting several hours, and, when it comes to the elements concerned with rationality/logic, my percentiles where mainly in the 99%-99.9% range, placing me, when it comes to rationality/logic, in the top 1 in a hundred, to the top 1 in a 1000 range. ---------- Post added 06-01-2016 at 11:01 ---------- It's not 'hard work' to rip people off- it's the easy way out. I also, like you, expect many (not all, there are still some business people with ethics) businesses to take advantage and use deceit to extract as much money as they can from the naive/elderly/busy public. Unlike you, I do consider it immoral, but then again, I'm not an apologist for the status quo

Strawman. I've never claimed nor implied that 118118 is outrageous and jaguar/hugo aren't- neither could I, given I know nothing about jaguar/hugo and their goods/services. As to why 118118 is outrageous (for those who seriously don't consider £5+ for a short call to directory enquires outrageous), how about: and similarly, from Wikipedia: which also touches on the further issue, that 118118 operators will happily connect the victim to the phone number they're enquiring about, and the same outrageous charge will apply to the entire call. Hence how many pensioners have been fleeced by calls costing them £80-£180 for a call they assumed was 5p/minute, and, would have been, had they rang the number direct. https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=118118%20pensioners i.e. pensioners, brought up in a world where basic human decency was the norm, and totally unused to the tricks and deceits of modern 'business practice' where it is legal, and acceptable, to fleece the old, disabled and vulnerable, and advertise the 'service' on national TV.

Never said you should be outraged- I said it was outrageous and that it's really sad that so many people think it isn't. As for their marketing bill, that's their problem, which, it's clear, they're totally happy to recoup by ripping people off. ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 17:18 ---------- Didn't say it wasn't 'legitimate'- many rip-offs are completely legal. People use this 'service', in many instances, cos they have no idea the calls will cost upwards of £5.

Well that's outrageous then- total rip off. Is no-one else disturbed by this blatant rip-off that, as well as being a rip-off, is regularly advertised on national TV? People just don't seem to care anymore.

It is actually a major help- if it was common for most people to do the same, and, to include some food, there'd be a lot more homeless with hats/warms clothes and a bit of food in their bellies. ---------- Post added 05-01-2016 at 14:25 ---------- Maybe when people grasp the fundamental fact that, some homeless are not able to engage with schemes/projects/hostels, they'll cease to be confused about why there are still people sleeping on the streets? Creating more schemes/projects/hostels for people who clearly don't/won't/can't engage with schemes/projects/hostels is not going to work for them, is it?

Good. I've not suggested you are racist. I was simply refuting your line of argument suggesting that because a person has been beaten to a pulp by enraged members of the public, that said person was in the wrong.

To my knowledge there's not a single recorded instance of a naked rambler abusing a child. As I'm sure you're aware, the vast majority of child abuse happens in the family, or in institutions (the catholic church, care homes etc). I'd prefer the limited resources available for tackling child abuse, to be directed towards the places where the majority of abuse takes place. Wouldn't you? I'd prefer that attention isn't misdirected towards places where there is zero evidence or occurance of child abuse. Wouldn't you?