An operation later, some excellent care from Alder hey and she’s right as rain.

They are my very good friends, and so don’t get the wrong idea, I respect them fully for the journey they have been through and the apparent miracle that has transpired, and their beliefs surrounding it.

But I felt that the thanks offered during speeches could have at least made mention of the outstanding medical care she received. The years of training the doctors and consultants had undertaken, the adherance to best practice that all the medical professionals delivered and the incredible and always surprising bravery of those who take a knife to such a delicate little creature.

All of the above not mentioned at all. Just the usual “if there’s someone up there looking after us then we’re grateful…..” and so on.

Credit where credit is due. Rat burger gets credit for trying to kill people. Doctors for keeping them alive. Hmmmmm

Most times the best person for the job will be given it, because most business owners are decent people who want good workers. the question is, should it be the job of government to decide who you can and cannot hire?

It cuts both ways, if you started up your own business and you had several applicants, one of which was a skinhead and known racist but was actually the best qualified to perform the job you were hiring for, wouldn’t you want to be able to not hire him?

Freedom of association should not be legislated against. Even though I *personally* abhor racism, and would not give business to any company that was discriminating against people for such a thing, I would never support the government *forcing* that company to do what it wants, like my article said, that kind of behaviour can be punished in the marketplace far more effectively, and market regulation eliminates all the unforeseen side effects of one size fits all government regulation and it’s also the most ethically consistent position if you believe in private property.

Anti discrimination legislation has never been designed to force employers to recruit the second or third (etc) best canditate for a job based on them being a member of a ‘minority’ group. Any person who cries discrimination on the grounds of their gender/race/sexual orientation would have to prove it. Theuklibertarian would like people to believe this isn’t the case and that the new laws would open the floodgates of court cases.

If a ‘minority’ person is the best candidate for the job then they should be given it. Any reasonable person must see this.

I’m glad you mentioned Mother Teresa aswell she doesn’t get half the condemnation she should for everything she did.

A woman who once said after her involvement in a hard fought battle trying to keep divorce ILLEGAL thats right ILLEGAL in Ireland, “I’m so glad my friend Diana finally got out of that loveless marriage”

Christopher Hitchen’s did a great critique of her in his book The Missionary Position. Look up Hells Angel on youtube aswell which is the T.V documentary.

http://theuklibertarian.com/2010/02/02/the-pope-is-right-for-once-employers-should-be-able-to-discriminate-against-homosexuals/

Strictly speaking the document threatening excommunication was written by the vatican in 1962 with the seal of john XXII (http://tiny.cc/TOlGg)
– Ratzinger was reminding the bishops that it was still valid when he wrote his letter in 2001.

It would be nice if the catholics had to pay for the visit themselves. If enough people sign the petition maybe the government will refuse to pay and the vatican will call it off in a huff.