Search results

Theresa May and her ministers have no control over the law courts. Different here I guess

At the risk of sounding like a Monty Python clip, education, roads, sanitation, law enforcement, etc? Seems to me that you already accept that you pay taxes for a lot of things that aren't explicitly mandated by your Constitution. Why not therefore healthcare?

Take all the time you need. The government is frequently found by the courts to have acted unlawfully.

Right, Ok, so can we put to sleep this idea that "taxes are robbery" and stop gerbilling hysterically about it.

So is it robbery to pay taxes for the military?

Not quite: the legal situation is more confused here. The main 'legally cultural' piece of legislation is the Children Act of 1989 (passed by Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government) which asserted the best interests of the child are paramount in any litigation. The context then was in...

Here the government is often taken to court (a process known as judicial review) and has been found to have acted unlawfully.

No it's the immigrants who are helping to keep the system going. It's only creaking because our stingy government keeps reducing its funding and because we have an ageing population - as do you. That's the elephant in the room.

Ok, to clarify: there are three parties involved in the case. The first is the Great Ormond Street Hospital Trust. This is funded by the government but independent of it, much like when I did criminal defence work: most of what I did was funded by the government but I was actually employed by a...

If he is employed by a bakery owner to bake bread, surely he has to give it to whoever his employer directs; how the owner is paid for it and by whom is none of the employee's business, as long as the employee is paid a fair wage and is free to quit his job if he wants. No one would say that the...

Your two points are separate. The second is the subject matter of the thread although it is the first that you and I are debating. By your definition in #1, a police officer is also a slave.

Our unemployment figures are the lowest they've been for years so again your point fails.

The government isn't.

Except the parents aren't in a position to judge whether the treatment will inflict pain, at least not compared to a neo-natal paediatrician

But if they are paid to do it and can quit their job, then why do we no longer agree again? Is my wife then to be considered a slave by you since she works in such a system?

Many of whom work in the NHS and without whom it wouldn't survive. Try again

Yes because that's exactly what happened in Britain after 1948....

Ok, so the right to healthcare free at the point of delivery does not result in slavery. Good; we're agreed on that point

And what about when it is not a matter of life and death - given that Charlie's condition is terminal - but rather how much harm will be inflicted before death? Who gets to decide there? That is what this case is about.

The same place money comes from to pay for someone else's law enforcement and defence.