Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
unlike the Ebola charade].
It's not a charade. If you travel widely, as SeanT will testify, you'll know that screening like this is routine in some countries e.g. Hong Kong. They routinely check body temperature there for Asian bird flu and other viruses.
Even if it had no medical benefit it might alert people who feel unwell to stop and think. It reassures the public that we're not just sitting back and letting it arrive without doing anything, and it might actually pick up people who are feeling unwell.
Something Cameron has got right. Not to have done anything would have been politically suicidal if Ebola hits the UK.
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
But if they are later trying to access hiv treatment they can be deported as I believe it is the case that lying on your visa application is a deportable offence.
As I said earlier though I do not believe there should be a case of a blanket ban but any illness should be taken into account during the immigration acceptance process and be part of the assessment of whether or not you are a net gain for the country. I fail to see why you see this as some sort of horrific imposition. Why the hell import people who are going to be a drain on our limited resources it doesn't make any kind of sense to anyone except the metropolitan guardian tendency which far too many tories on here seem to be part of.
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
Are you seriously arguing that Farage wanted this story in the news today?
Just accept that people you don't like are popular at the moment, one day it will be your turn again.
Just accept that the UKIP 'good news' bandwagon has hit a rut in the road and Farage blundered into a trap set by a journalist....
Well, if we are in the midst of a bad news cycle for UKIP, I am happy for it to stay just like this
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
Are you seriously arguing that Farage wanted this story in the news today?
Michael Crick is there for the BBC to get it on the news.
You're getting your conspiracy muddled....Crick works for Ch4......
And lives with Lucy Hetherington a full-blown liberati BBC leftie of the most awkward kind
That would be daughter of long time Guardian Editor [Hector] Alastair Hetherington. Small World as they say.
What ever the merits of his argument - this is lousy news management.
What you seem unable to comprehend, and this is why UKIP are so successful at the moment, is that many people see those headlines and think "Bloody right as well"
Are you seriously arguing that Farage wanted this story in the news today?
Just accept that people you don't like are popular at the moment, one day it will be your turn again.
Just accept that the UKIP 'good news' bandwagon has hit a rut in the road and Farage blundered into a trap set by a journalist....
I'm listening to the 5 O'Clock news on the BBC and there is yet not a mention of HIV and the only thing they have talked about is UKIP. Sadly its only of real importance in the surreal deluded minds of sad little Guardianistas. Those ruts are just another feature of Guardianistas warped minds. As their rapidly declining circulation and financial situation demonstrates the Guardian is not the centre of the media universe
13 minutes in. No mention of HIV and now they are moving on to Ebola. Perhaps as they are both diseases they'll link them together. I'm sure people will be outraged at the idea of restricting the entry of HIV carriers on the day after the Government imposed restrictions on anyone coming from a country where Ebola is present.
Honestly the Guardians timing could not have been worse. Who on earth is going to get exercised about HIV carrying immigrants when everyone is dreading the outbreak of Ebola in this country from foreign climes.
I see that this afternoon's thread is generating more heat than light. Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Canada has mandatory HIV tests for migrants. Frankly, I am amazed that we do NOT (I presumed we did already; it seems like common sense to know what longterm health requirements a new Brit will need, even if you are going to let them in).
I believe millions will feel like me.
How can we have tests for anything when we do not control immigration at all? Just look at the farce that goes on in Dover and the other Ferry ports every day.
Black Swan event: Ebola reaches UK and thousands die. Porous borders shown to be source/cause. Furious voters turn to UKIP as a solution. PM Farage in May 2015...
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
A Zimbabwean asylum seeker was prosecuted for knowingly infecting a large number of women here in Bournemouth.
I'm sure he told the authorities he is gay and was being persecuted in Zimbabwe for being gay. Asylum claims on the back of sexuality is such a minefield.
Haven't really followed the HIV story but if even I think Farage has a point you can be fairly sure a large swathe to my right think it. Why should we let HIV+ people into the UK to drain taxpayers's money and probably infect people here? Am I missing something?
It is an issue.
It is indeed. Interesting anecdote you mentioned. I bet Farage has said what a huge swathe of fairly ordinary voters think.
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
And you would then be deported for not revealing that fact on your immigration application.
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
I see. If, hypothetically, someone lawfully in the UK on a short term basis contracted HIV here from someone of impeccable Anglo Saxon but HIV positive stock, should such a person be barred from treatment by the NHS?
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
But when you sought treatment for it as a foreign national you would be refused and deported. What then?
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
But if they are later trying to access hiv treatment they can be deported as I believe it is the case that lying on your visa application is a deportable offence.
As I said earlier though I do not believe there should be a case of a blanket ban but any illness should be taken into account during the immigration acceptance process and be part of the assessment of whether or not you are a net gain for the country. I fail to see why you see this as some sort of horrific imposition. Why the hell import people who are going to be a drain on our limited resources it doesn't make any kind of sense to anyone except the metropolitan guardian tendency which far too many tories on here seem to be part of.
I don't think the Tories on here really believe this crap about HIV+ (see the link I posted downthread where Farage's policy was proposed a year ago BY TORY MPs).
All it shows is that Tories are shit-scared of Farage and desperate to cripple his party or smear the leader by any means possible. Sadly, they are so bed-wettingly hysterical they go over the top (check Carlotta Vance's feeble and comical lies), so they just make Farage look evermore commonsensical and themselves ever more detached from reality, by comparison.
Farage puts the wind up Westminster. It is very amusing.
Yes it is the desperate smear tactics they complain bitterly about when applied to the tory party. However it does seem that the tory party these days at least at the top levels is infested with common purpose style thinking regardless
Whereas UKIP proposes a redistribution of power and with it a spreading and reduction of the risks entailed in sustaining an over-centralised power intensive establishment structure.
Really?
What are the policies they are proposing to achieve this?
Well firstly withdrawal from the EU will be the greatest redistribution of power experienced in this country in decades. Federalisation of the UK, with the abolition of the House of Lords and the provision potentially of an English Parliament. The redistribution of centralised public sector functions such as Monitor and the CQC to counties, allowing schools to convert to Grammar schools if they wish, the introduction of direct democracy into the planning system, the introduction of MP's recall and the introduction of Citizen's Initiative's for future referenda and the abolition of Government departments such as DCMS and Climate Change & Energy with the inherent reduction in control that that implies.
Those are the ones I recall and that have been highlighted so far. I'm sure there will be other areas down the line.
Of course the biggest by far is the withdrawal of the EU because then the UK can decide for itself what its policies will be.
Withdrawal from the EU, to the limited extent that it affects what we can do once we've signed up a trade deal with the EU, is not decentralisation, it is concentration of power in Westminster. That's the idea, right? To make parliament the place where decisions are taken. That may be a good idea, but it is not redistributing power away from Westminster, it's the opposite.
Abolition of the House of Lords - is this UKIP policy? If so, even more centralisation of power with the executive and MPs.
An English parliament - is this UKIP policy? They seem to keep changing on this, I thought the current policy was EV4EL.
Allowing schools to convert to grammar schools if they wish - this seems to be a proposal for centralising policy, taking power away from local authorities and local communities who might not want that.
The introduction of direct democracy into the planning system - this seems to refer to a proposal to hold local referendums on large-scale planning applications. The trouble is that directly conflicts with the desire to get more houses built. There's no easy way on this issue. Oh, and they affirm they want to protect the Green Belt, so no localism there.
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
I see. If, hypothetically, someone lawfully in the UK on a short term basis contracted HIV here from someone of impeccable Anglo Saxon but HIV positive stock, should such a person be barred from treatment by the NHS?
Once again you're deliberately confusing short term visitors, with those who wish to settle permanently.
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
I see. If, hypothetically, someone lawfully in the UK on a short term basis contracted HIV here from someone of impeccable Anglo Saxon but HIV positive stock, should such a person be barred from treatment by the NHS?
Once again you're confusing short term visitors, with those who wish to settle permanently.
Once again, you're missing my point. Plenty of people don't play by Queensberry rules.
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
I see. If, hypothetically, someone lawfully in the UK on a short term basis contracted HIV here from someone of impeccable Anglo Saxon but HIV positive stock, should such a person be barred from treatment by the NHS?
Where and who they contracted it from is irrelevant. The NHS is for legal residents of this country. If you lied about an illness to gain entry then you are no longer a legal resident and therefore not eligible for treatment nor for staying here.
Contract it while a legal resident then you deserve the same treatment as any other legal resident
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
I see. If, hypothetically, someone lawfully in the UK on a short term basis contracted HIV here from someone of impeccable Anglo Saxon but HIV positive stock, should such a person be barred from treatment by the NHS?
Once again you're confusing short term visitors, with those who wish to settle permanently.
Once again, you're missing my point. Plenty of people don't play by Queensberry rules.
Sure. That's not an argument for not having the rules, though.
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
I see. If, hypothetically, someone lawfully in the UK on a short term basis contracted HIV here from someone of impeccable Anglo Saxon but HIV positive stock, should such a person be barred from treatment by the NHS?
Once again you're confusing short term visitors, with those who wish to settle permanently.
Once again, you're missing my point. Plenty of people don't play by Queensberry rules.
If you applied for immigration and had the test at that point (and were clear), then if you caught it later in the UK you would receive treatment.
Test with immigration application solves your questions.
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
I see. If, hypothetically, someone lawfully in the UK on a short term basis contracted HIV here from someone of impeccable Anglo Saxon but HIV positive stock, should such a person be barred from treatment by the NHS?
Where and who they contracted it from is irrelevant. The NHS is for legal residents of this country. If you lied about an illness to gain entry then you are no longer a legal resident and therefore not eligible for treatment nor for staying here.
Contract it while a legal resident then you deserve the same treatment as any other legal resident
So you would refuse NHS treatment to someone lawfully here who contracted an illness here? Interesting.
Re the question we discussed earlier as to whether Rochester & Strood was closer to Clacton or Newark, I'm just seen this from Matthew Goodwin:
...Reckless’s seat of Rochester and Strood is an entirely different prospect. It is more naturally Conservative, middle class and younger. It is 271st on the list I compiled with Rob Ford of the most Ukip-friendly seats, some 270 places behind Clacton, 15 places behind Newark
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I am sick of hearing politicians say that they are "listening" to me. They aren't. If they were they'd bloody well do something about the matters which worry voters.
Have you considered the possibility that there isn't a lot more they can do, that they are not doing already?
Just a thought, you know. Reality is a hard task mistress. Governments have to face it. Oppositions, and more especially protest parties, don't.
Well, there are things they could do on immigration that they are not doing like, for instance, reintroducing something akin to the primary purpose rule, which would address (in part) the problem of young girls of Asian descent being forced into marriage. It would address both an immigration issue and an integration issue, as well as the double standards imposed on British citizens purely because of where their parents, grand-parents or great-grand-parents came from.
EU rules also currently allow states to prevent the entry of "undesirables" such as the Latvian murderer. But that would involve having an effective Border Force. So that is something which could be done.
There are constraints - but, if so, explain what those constraints are, honestly, rather than take your audience for fools and pretend to be "listening" when you're doing nothing of the kind. But in my view there are lots of small things which could be done but which aren't because, fundamentally, governments either aren't really interested or aren't willing to "sweat the small stuff".
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
I see. If, hypothetically, someone lawfully in the UK on a short term basis contracted HIV here from someone of impeccable Anglo Saxon but HIV positive stock, should such a person be barred from treatment by the NHS?
Once again you're confusing short term visitors, with those who wish to settle permanently.
Once again, you're missing my point. Plenty of people don't play by Queensberry rules.
Sure. That's not an argument for not having the rules, though.
Rules that are so easily circumvented are very silly indeed.
Golly, it's hot in here this afternoon. Frankly, I don't want to allow anyone with a communicable and incurable disease into the UK as an immigrant either.
I really can't see what the fuss is about. The NHS is not there to provide free care willy-nilly to health tourists. I've a good friend who worked for the Asylum Team in Hastings and he's pig sick of heavily pregnant ladies arriving from far flung destinations claiming asylum, and using their pregnancy as a proxy to stay here/claim benefits/housing.
He's a hard core Lefty/Guardian reader and thinks Labour has totally lost the plot - he'd never vote Tory. I could imagine him voting Kipper, but not telling anyone.
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
I see. If, hypothetically, someone lawfully in the UK on a short term basis contracted HIV here from someone of impeccable Anglo Saxon but HIV positive stock, should such a person be barred from treatment by the NHS?
Where and who they contracted it from is irrelevant. The NHS is for legal residents of this country. If you lied about an illness to gain entry then you are no longer a legal resident and therefore not eligible for treatment nor for staying here.
Contract it while a legal resident then you deserve the same treatment as any other legal resident
So you would refuse NHS treatment to someone lawfully here who contracted an illness here? Interesting.
So you can't read?
Here is where I covered that "Contract it while a legal resident then you deserve the same treatment as any other legal resident"
Don't try and smear me with your rancid accusations thank you
I am sick of hearing politicians say that they are "listening" to me. They aren't. If they were they'd bloody well do something about the matters which worry voters.
Have you considered the possibility that there isn't a lot more they can do, that they are not doing already?
Just a thought, you know. Reality is a hard task mistress. Governments have to face it. Oppositions, and more especially protest parties, don't.
Well, there are things they could do on immigration that they are not doing like, for instance, reintroducing something akin to the primary purpose rule, which would address (in part) the problem of young girls of Asian descent being forced into marriage. It would address both an immigration issue and an integration issue, as well as the double standards imposed on British citizens purely because of where their parents, grand-parents or great-grand-parents came from.
EU rules also currently allow states to prevent the entry of "undesirables" such as the Latvian murderer. But that would involve having an effective Border Force. So that is something which could be done.
There are constraints - but, if so, explain what those constraints are, honestly, rather than take your audience for fools and pretend to be "listening" when you're doing nothing of the kind. But in my view there are lots of small things which could be done but which aren't because, fundamentally, governments either aren't really interested or aren't willing to "sweat the small stuff".
"According to the National Aids Trust, the number of people accessing specialist care for HIV has grown steadily. In 2012, there were 77,610 people receiving specialist care in the UK, more than double the number that were doing so in 2003 and a 5% increase on the previous year."
So the number of people getting costly HIV treatment in the UK has DOUBLED in a decade. Why could that be? Is it the gays doing their thang without condoms?
Or something else?
Ah wait. It seems the boom in HIV patients is in the heterosexual community. And where do these heterosexual HIV sufferers come from?
Well back in 2007 it was kAfrica. Do we doubt this has changed?
"The latest report from the Health Protection Agency shows that the major source of heterosexual HIV infection in the UK is immigration from sub Saharan Africa 70% of all heterosexual cases diagnosed in the UK are among those born in Africa. Of those diagnosed in 2006, nearly half (46%) were described as Black African."
The incidence of HIV in the gay community is about 5% and this is fairly stable as I understand it. I believe it may also be 5% amongst black africans in the UK (not completely sure here)
HIV incidence is London is substantially higher than other parts of the UK (2-5 times higher than other regions)
Unless Nigel Farage is planning on introducing mandatory HIV tests as part of the immigration process, I'm not sure that a ban on HIV positive people entering the UK is going to be awfully effective.
Quite:
Why barriers at the UK border won’t work for HIV No one is going to set up booths with testing kits at Heathrow and Gatwick airports, let alone at the Channel ports
I thought 'making promises they know they can't keep' was the speciality of other parties, not UKIP?
It's barely any sillier than the Ebola testing that's being introduced by the current Government.
(That is to say, very silly).
You're confusing visitors, with those who wish to settle here permanently and gain official rights of residence/citizenship. Is it deliberate?
If, hypothetically, I were an HIV positive man wishing to make my way in Britain, I would choose a form of entry that did not require an HIV test. Any system that assumes that people are going to play by the rules is a very silly system.
Then you would never be accepted here legally. Same as TB.
I see. If, hypothetically, someone lawfully in the UK on a short term basis contracted HIV here from someone of impeccable Anglo Saxon but HIV positive stock, should such a person be barred from treatment by the NHS?
Once again you're confusing short term visitors, with those who wish to settle permanently.
Once again, you're missing my point. Plenty of people don't play by Queensberry rules.
Sure. That's not an argument for not having the rules, though.
Rules that are so easily circumvented are very silly indeed.
You're the highly paid City lawyer; how about wording a non circumventable set of rules regarding this, that would work?
The obvious way (unless I'm missing something) to deal with health tourism is to require all visitors (whether short or long-term) to the UK to have health insurance - and for this to be a requirement of their visa.
Otherwise you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that a "free at the point of use" health system will be used/abused (depending on your point of view) by people from outside the country who have not contributed to its costs.
Much as with other parts of our welfare system, in an era of cheap travel, we have to accept that either it will be used by all - regardless of nationality/contribution and thus may seem unfair to those who have contributed and are British nationals - or some groups will be excluded, which may seem unfair to those who think need should trump all other considerations.
A choice will have to be made. Currently our political class are busy pretending that no choice is needed while simultaneously promising to spend ever more on the NHS. Those who do pay and will have to pay are, frankly, entitled to ask: "For who's benefit?"
"Really tories are making arses of themselves on this, just give it up, you're simply boosting UKIPs vote."
How does a Manchester University alumni the home of the greatest left wing comedians the country has seen.....who used to watch the Woodentops manage to turn into a Farage apologist.....Maybe this'll bring you back from the dark side
Comments
Even if it had no medical benefit it might alert people who feel unwell to stop and think. It reassures the public that we're not just sitting back and letting it arrive without doing anything, and it might actually pick up people who are feeling unwell.
Something Cameron has got right. Not to have done anything would have been politically suicidal if Ebola hits the UK.
As I said earlier though I do not believe there should be a case of a blanket ban but any illness should be taken into account during the immigration acceptance process and be part of the assessment of whether or not you are a net gain for the country. I fail to see why you see this as some sort of horrific imposition. Why the hell import people who are going to be a drain on our limited resources it doesn't make any kind of sense to anyone except the metropolitan guardian tendency which far too many tories on here seem to be part of.
Honestly the Guardians timing could not have been worse. Who on earth is going to get exercised about HIV carrying immigrants when everyone is dreading the outbreak of Ebola in this country from foreign climes.
Black Swan event: Ebola reaches UK and thousands die. Porous borders shown to be source/cause. Furious voters turn to UKIP as a solution. PM Farage in May 2015...
Yes it is the desperate smear tactics they complain bitterly about when applied to the tory party. However it does seem that the tory party these days at least at the top levels is infested with common purpose style thinking regardless
Abolition of the House of Lords - is this UKIP policy? If so, even more centralisation of power with the executive and MPs.
An English parliament - is this UKIP policy? They seem to keep changing on this, I thought the current policy was EV4EL.
Allowing schools to convert to grammar schools if they wish - this seems to be a proposal for centralising policy, taking power away from local authorities and local communities who might not want that.
The introduction of direct democracy into the planning system - this seems to refer to a proposal to hold local referendums on large-scale planning applications. The trouble is that directly conflicts with the desire to get more houses built. There's no easy way on this issue. Oh, and they affirm they want to protect the Green Belt, so no localism there.
"So you're a BIG FAT STUPID LIAR.
Well done. You're so hysterically desperate to smear Farage you made yourself look a fool. You are embarrassing. I suggest you shut the F up."
Classy post Sean.
That's the problem with Farage ... he brings out the skinheads in his wake
Contract it while a legal resident then you deserve the same treatment as any other legal resident
Test with immigration application solves your questions.
how's that different from Cameron flouncing on ebola screening today ?
when did the editor of the Daily Mail become the Chief Medical Officer ?
Really tories are making arses of themselves on this, just give it up, you're simply boosting UKIPs vote.
I really can't see what the fuss is about. The NHS is not there to provide free care willy-nilly to health tourists. I've a good friend who worked for the Asylum Team in Hastings and he's pig sick of heavily pregnant ladies arriving from far flung destinations claiming asylum, and using their pregnancy as a proxy to stay here/claim benefits/housing.
He's a hard core Lefty/Guardian reader and thinks Labour has totally lost the plot - he'd never vote Tory. I could imagine him voting Kipper, but not telling anyone.
Here is where I covered that "Contract it while a legal resident then you deserve the same treatment as any other legal resident"
Don't try and smear me with your rancid accusations thank you
HIV incidence is London is substantially higher than other parts of the UK (2-5 times higher than other regions)
Otherwise you are going to have to come to terms with the fact that a "free at the point of use" health system will be used/abused (depending on your point of view) by people from outside the country who have not contributed to its costs.
Much as with other parts of our welfare system, in an era of cheap travel, we have to accept that either it will be used by all - regardless of nationality/contribution and thus may seem unfair to those who have contributed and are British nationals - or some groups will be excluded, which may seem unfair to those who think need should trump all other considerations.
A choice will have to be made. Currently our political class are busy pretending that no choice is needed while simultaneously promising to spend ever more on the NHS. Those who do pay and will have to pay are, frankly, entitled to ask: "For who's benefit?"
"Really tories are making arses of themselves on this, just give it up, you're simply boosting UKIPs vote."
How does a Manchester University alumni the home of the greatest left wing comedians the country has seen.....who used to watch the Woodentops manage to turn into a Farage apologist.....Maybe this'll bring you back from the dark side
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OdtkPs-fl8