Quote:
Originally Posted by 469er
Sorry, I'm totally confused now. I said if you had to fund your own legal representation to appeal against compulsory vaccination, it would be an unfair two-tier system, which discriminated against parents who couldn't afford this and would therefore be untenable. You said (or so I thought) that if that were so, then there would be no such thing as a fair criminal trial. I disagreed - on the basis that legal representation in criminal proceedings is provided to all, but that that would be highly unlikely to be the case for vaccination-related legal action, i.e. they are not comparable scenarios at all to me.
I don't really get why you thought this was a joke, or what it has to do with anarchists... Sorry... probably I'm being stupid...  |
Not a joke haha funny, more that you seem to think that having a legal recourse for those unsatisfied with the NHS response to their willingness or otherwise with regards vaccinations is a joke i.e ridiculous, unworkable, stupid.
Wheras i think if the legal side of things (which i must say should apply to only a very few) was close to criminal than the state could easily provide representation, and more likely were it civil you dont get representation. And, as a seperate point, that most of society is government by a "two tier" system, it's called capitalism.
And anarchists were just people who found criminal justice unacceptable (as part of the point that if all these other areas of state influence are fine, why not vaccinations, arguably a very important thing).
It's probably me writing badly, not you being stupid
