Exit poll: The post referendum thread. No electioneering.

end of the road wrote: »

for the most part yes. i think liable laws and the laws around discussion of cases going through the courts would probably be the only restrictions i'd support. it's not something i have fully thought about however.



i would defend such a right yes. i believe they shouldn't take up such tactics but i believe they have a right to. let public opinion judge them.

Daft. Clearly haven’t thought out a lot more than you let on.

end of the road wrote: »

i'd be surprised if it would tbh. i'd reccan it's more likely to spur them to continue, and play the victim as well.



but would possibly be willing to accept jail time as part of fighting the cause.



because i believe in the right to protest regardless of whether i agree with or like or not, specific protests or protesters. anything that restricts the right to protest, in my view leaves the possibility of extension to other areas and before we know it the possible erosion of our right to protest.

This is quite sickening. You are defending harassing people outside surgeries and hospitals. Shameful.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

This is quite sickening. You are defending harassing people outside surgeries and hospitals. Shameful.

no i'm not. i'm defending people's right to protest regardless of my personal views on specific protests or protesters.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

You do in your sh ite support absolute free speech. If I said all travellers should be exterminated you would be one of the first to object.

i would condemn the statement absolutely. however one has the right to make such a nonsense statement and to be called out and shown up via being challenged.

end of the road wrote: »

no i'm not. i'm defending people's right to protest regardless of my personal views on specific protests or protesters.

i would condemn the statement absolutely. however one has the right to make such a nonsense statement and to be called out and shown up via being challenged.

So basically you think its fine for people accessing healthcare to be harassed and for calls for people to be violently murdered on the basis of their ethnic minority status because of absolute free speech. You also refuse to uphold the incitement to hatred act 1989 on the basis of "absolute free speech". You refuse to acknowledge that travellers would have the right to be safe and free from discrimination on the basis of "absolute free speech"

Shameful. Utterly shameful. In fact worse than shameful. You think its ok to harass people acessing healthcare. You think its ok to call for travellers to be discriminated against and to be murdered because they are travellers.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Don't start him with travellers, I gave details about an incident that happened to me with two travellers attempting to mug me only for me to give one of them an awful hiding yet I was accused of victim blaming (whatever the f*ck that is) by the very same poster.

Defends peoples right to protest yet posts that people should be smashed about with baton charges for protesting at concerts.

Insists nobody has labelled abortion or women who have sought out abortions murder/murderers yet has unholy amounts of posts suggesting otherwise.

There must be an intense flavour of foot in that mouth eotr.

You're forgetting, right to protest only applies if it fits his agenda.
Same is true for the vast majority of the no side and their ilk

Annabella1 wrote: »

Seems vast majority of GP's unhappy (85%) due to variety of reasons Overwork/Safety fears/Insurance/Ethical

GP's don't prescribe in the UK but refer to the local BPAS unit where they receive appropriate counselling ultrasound and back up afterwards

People want the best care for women?? Do the same here but it will cost money+

Where's the 85% from? The GP association data were based on an emergency meeting of something like 3% of the membership. Not buying their statistics - but I agree it's a money play, the old fart doctors who are too priest-cowed to actually treat women patients with respect don't want to lose business to the young ones. Once a doctor's known to have 'ethical objections' to a young woman (child bearing age) requesting an abortion, the word'll get out and other young women won't go to him either. Hence their resistance to being required to refer despite their 'conscentious' objections.

This is one reason I advocate for a 'won't provide' list. It'll drive women-hating doctors who won't provide abortions out of business. All to the good. Ireland's changing.

Annabella1 wrote: »

National Association GP's - 2000 members 85% feel abortion not routine GP work

Sunday Business Post survey 880 GP's 70% will not provide abortion services

We need to look at a safe abortion service for women-GP cover will be too patchy

Pay BPAS to come here and set up clinics offering proper counselling and back up to ensure a world class abortion service

What are people afraid of??

That is a ridiculous unworkable non-solution.


You don't need the likes of BPAS as abortions at or before 12 weeks are done by pill form. A GP can carry this out. And if they refuse simply remove their license to practice and give it to someone competent.


(Abortion is not currently routine GP work, but it will be, and soon!)

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

As far as I’m concerned, a GP can be a conscientious objector to their hearts content. But to refuse to refer is prioritizing the unborn patient above the living patient. It’s saying ‘I think the 8 week old fetus in your womb has more value than you- my patient of however many years so I’m going to refuse to treat you or help you find someone who will’. And tbh it’s just petulant.

Nobody ever talked about the fetus being MORE valuable. That is one pretty shameful strawman argument in your post - probably the worst I have seen any debate on here.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

Huh?? The guys can get on with their lives too. They generally don't concern themselves with a woman's medical problems. Maybe they'll make them a cup of tea or something and then they get on with their lives.

Guys?
I was referring to the kids who were killed because they weren't convenient.

topper75 wrote: »

I was referring to the kids who were killed because they weren't convenient.

Kids??? What kids have been killed because they weren’t convenient?

Annabella1 wrote: »

There are no plans in the UK for a GP based service despite having abortion for 40 years
This 'GP based service' was pre election Government spin to make it palatable to the electorate
Simply take a few pills and all will be fine and dandy.Nice and cheap and out of sight
GP's here are having none of it. They want the best care for women
They have zero access to proper counselling and public ultrasound to confirm dates as it stands
If 75% GP's do not participate but are happy to refer - the Government will need a Plan B

I thought your pulled from the sky BS figure was 85%?


And it's not "take a few pills and all will be fine and dandy.Nice and cheap and out of sight". I've seen a close friend nearly bleed to death with clots following a pill based abortion.

PS: The yes side didn't need spin. We left that to the liars and old fogies in the 33% minority NO side.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

My sources quoted above on another post are from Susan Mitchell SBP and the National Assoc GP's

Nobody is trying to reverse the referendum-the 8th is gone
Now it is time to discuss implementation which I support in a high quality supportive manner to women
The only way to do that in my opinion and the vast majority of GP's are in specialised clinics (like the UK for the past 40yrs) to deliver the best care (even to prescribe pills before 12weeks)
Sadly that wont suit politicians and the electorate as these clinics will be too visible

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Was going to quote Leo's 50 or 60 GPs. That might be a bit of a stretch but certainly 200-300 should more than cover it.