18 2 mins 10 yrs

The sheer wickedness of the Human Rights Industry is a wonder to behold;

British doctors are being warned that they face legal action if they refuse to accept illegal immigrants as patients. Human rights lawyers have been threatening doctors who have removed failed asylum seekers from their surgery lists – even though they are not entitled to free NHS care. Meanwhile, figures reveal that foreigners, including tourists and migrants, have been given an estimated £40million of free NHS treatment in the past three years. Anyone who does normally live  in the UK – including tourists – is meant to pay for any NHS treatment they receive. The only exceptions are urgent care received in A&E departments or treatment for certain infectious diseases such as tuberculosis. Refugees and asylum seekers are given free NHS treatment, but if their application to remain in the UK is turned down by the Home Office they lose the entitlement.

Get that? The Human Rights Vultures are circling the medical profession, demanding that the needs of illegal immigrants are put ahead of those of British citizens. GP’s have finite budgets and this way, the ££millions demanded by the illegal immigrant fraternity leave less for UK patients. Is that fair and reasonable? Why should our Doctors be pressurised in this way by lawyers? The taxpayer funds this and if the Human Rights Industry does not like it then perhaps the taxpayer funding should be reviewed?

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]


  1. “Get that? The Human Rights Vultures are circling the medical profession,”

    I think it might be more than that.
    I think we are slowly but surely being forced into a mindset which accepts the illogical.
    There is no way our forefathers would have accepted this turning upside down of accepted logic.
    Because the classic way of thinking was that “A is not B”, that “If this is true, the opposite must be false.”
    This philosophy was based on classical Greek thought and coupled with Christian teaching has been prevalent in the Western world up until very recently.
    It seems to me,
    (and that means I am willing to be cross examined!)
    that what has happened is that the Western world is slowly but surely abandoning classical logic ,and embracing a philosophy which is neither fixed, nor with content (i.e. any moral basis).

    This is why many of the older generation are confused by the overturning of values that had been accepted for generations as being true and fixed.
    I fear that we are being pushed towards a world in which nothing is absolute, and reality is what our political leaders decide.

  2. Agit8ed, Yes, I think you are on the right lines. Facts are now becoming inferior to feelings. For example a man has XY chromasomes and a woman hs XX chromasomes. However, if a man(XY) feels that he should really be a woman(XX) and a woman(XX) feels she should be a man(XY) then they can have the operation and then request that their Birth Certificates be adjusted accordingly and this will be granted. In spite of this adjustment the man now woman remains XY whist the woman now man remains XX.

    It has long been accepted that there is a Thinky/Feely axis where those who are at the Thinky end of the axis consider fact and logic to be their guidance whist those at the Feely end of the axis consider emotion and relationships as their principal determinant. Of course people inhabit different points on the axis. This particular axis can become a source of conflict when hard logic cannot be reconciled with emotive considerations.

    Thus we come to David’s dilema. Fact, ‘Health care is expensive to deliver and should not be available to those who have not contributed’ against ‘without providing care to illegal immigrants they will suffer and possibly die. Therefore we, the lucky ones, will provide’. In other words we do not have the resources to provcide a service against money is not important, this persons health is.

  3. Peter T.

    AS you say there are all kinds of examples which point towards values and priorities being determined almost arbitrarily, or according to a shifting set of non judgmental value system.
    Factors such as inclusivity/diversity/equality and a growing animosity towards traditional Christian morality has allowed a culture to develop which seems to use public disapproval as a way of ostracising or punishing those who make value judgements at odds with current popular opinion.
    Whether this is a deliberate part of EU policy towards this country, or evidence of the culture described above taking root in the West overall, I have no idea.

    …Or am I talking utter tosh?”

  4. Perhaps we would have more respect for human rights if it didn’t include the right for all and sundry to pick our pockets.

  5. Giving illegals free stuff guarantees a continuing flow of them.

    Nice way to align the incentives, west.

  6. Here I am trying to be all analytical and philosophic, then in walks Colm, and drags me back down to the mundane…

  7. All praise our glorious NHS! Free at the point of use! (Funny that, it ain’t free at the point of my payslip, costs me a few hundred quid every payday, but ssshhhh! never mind that, eh?)

  8. That’s the big lie Tom. The politicians boast it’s free at the point of use, but they show no embarrassment at the terrible abuses of the system by people who may have paid nothing into it. As Phantom points out if you offer something valuable unconditionally, you will never lack for customers!
    This is what all the do gooders don’t understand. By catering to the needs of the poor and the feckless, wherever they come from, you only ensure that there will be a constant stream of need.
    Charity begins at home. Why should our government use our tax money to meet the needs of anyone and everyone?

  9. Agit8, I tried to make this point several days ago by means of analogy to a pickpocket/burglar who robs you of your money (ie, the state robbing us via taxes). The fact that the state (or the burglar, in my analogy) might then spend that money on something “nice” such as healthcare, does not detract from the wrong that your money has been stolen. But apparently, pointing this out is “incoherent”.

  10. Agit8ed

    I’m looking after my dad who is quite ill. I try and comment when I get some free time.

  11. I don’t recall, Agit, but never mind. The problem is not so much that the NHS wastes taxpayers’ money, but rather that it exists in the first place.
    Government has NO business running a health department, per se.
    If I were in charge, there would BE NO public sector, full stop. The economy would BE the real economy, 100%, ie, the private sector.

  12. Tom

    “If I were in charge, there would BE NO public sector, full stop”.

    A man after my own heart”! We wouldn’t go as far as Anti-Statist Pete Moore, but we do believe that a bloated government is responsible for an under nourished economy. I haven’t read about it specifically, but I will have to look up how the Victorian governments functioned, and what they saw as the limits of their responsibilities.

  13. Morning Colm,
    I was wondering if it was something like that. I think you said you have a brother as well? Anyway I’m sure your Dad will be grateful for what you’re doing for him. He will be still grieving and coming to terms with the loss of his wife.
    Take care old chap, and pop back in from time to timekeep in touch with your ATW Cyber buddies! 😉

Comments are closed.