This entry was posted on Wednesday, August 1st, 2007 at 8:24 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Yep, and the National Council of Women has said that “more resources will be needed”. Get aboard folks, another gravy train is about to leave the station.
Violent crime has remained approximately static over the last 10-12 years on a per capita basis, despite massive increases in government spending, targeting of at risk comminities, studies by numerous universities, govt depts and quangos, and an explosion of “pipi foundations”. When are we allowed to ask to see some results?
A serious effort to tackle a serious issue and what do we get from you?
A) Critique that might improve the solution? or,
B) A sober reflection on the scale of the problem (child homicide has decreased 26% in the last 10 years but is 3rd highest in the OECD) or,
C) Links to childish digs at Labour
You might be impressed by this latest pathetic attempt to tackle this issue, but its just more buck-passing from a Labour government that has run out of ideas. None of their “solutions” have improved the stats – while everyone is pointing out the disaster that is Labour’s legacy, you attack the messenger.
A) Why should DPF provide policy for the empty vessel Labour?
B) We all know the scale of the problem – duh!
C) Why are these digs “childish”? Peter Mc has sarcasticly paraphrased the futile straw-clutching attempts of the pathetic failure that is Labour.
“Why should DPF provide policy for the empty vessel Labour?”
Becuase people, real flesh and blood humans, are suffering every day – proper critiques leading to better soltuions might help ease that terrible burden, but for jokers like you its all about who gets to sit on the Treasury benches.
Im thinking of complaining to the Human Rights Commission that as a man I am being discriminated against by not being asked the same questions if I am admitted to hospital. My case will also be that this presupposes that no man has ever been the subject of the matters contained in the questions and ask what evidence can be produce to support this assumption.
It is now my job as a blogger to solve the issue of child abuse.
And unless I solve it, I can’t criticise flaws in other proposals.
As it is, I pointed out in my pervious post that such a scheme would be fine if it was targeted at all patients with injuries (regardless of gender) rather than only female patients regardless of whether they are sick or injured.
Didn’t say you had to solve the problem – just thought a critique rather than childish belittlling of attempts to confront the problem might be better.
I find it strange that something like this gets turned into a male-pride issue. We all know the vast majority of abise victims are women and children – women in hospital are a logical group to screen for abuse, its not because all men are thought to be abusers or its asumed none are abused, – but, I agree why not ask all patients? Couldn’t hurt.
Dear oh dear I cant imagine the trauma these questions will have on ladies of my late mothers age. Just imagine a 20 something nurse interogating at 80 something lady about the husband she has been married to for 50 plus years and who has never ever thought about such things.
So much for the caring sharing bilious bitch and her cohorts
Sam – you seem to know it all, where’s your solution to this problem? It seems you too are guilty of sitting on the sideline criticizing DPF and other commenters, but it appears you have nothing constructive to add to the debate either. “Well, who would have guessed”…indeed.
I’m not an expert on the issue, nor do I pretend to be. I’m simply a) pointing out the benefits of the proposed quesitoning b) pointing out the flaws in criticisms of the propsed questioning and c) saying lets not have childish tautns of a serious effort to tackle a serious issue