By third sector I meant the charity / not-for-profit sector.

I have listed alot of our major employers and "success" stories but none of them are free-standing and outside "taxpayer" support. In what way does that suggest the UK is a hotbed of rampant, laissez-faire capitalism? Just because each thing listed is some form of "exception" to a perceived norm in your mind means nothing.

One could examine big pharm – which, it should also be clear, does not (generally) operate simply on a UK basis.

In terms of its relationship with the UK health system, it is using that to create greater profits.

As Dr Phil Hammond explains (and as I mentioned in another thread recently), we are seeing an increasing "medicalisation" of the population. By 50, they'll have you on a couple of drugs, by 80, it'll be a dozen.

This is boosted by a policy of creating complaints that require a new drug. It usually starts with a drug or possible drug – and then the need follows to create the problem. Thus the rise now of declining female sexual desire as a 'problem' to be solved with – guess what? A female version of Viagra.

On the 'third sector' – huge swathes of public services have been and are being privatised. In other words, they'll be for profit. It creates situations such as that in hospitals where the medical staff can no longer instruct the cleaners, because the latter are employed and managed by a private company, which has different priorities.

Look at Atos: the motive and prime mover here is not what is best for an individual or even society in general, but private profit – to the extent that Atos happily usurps the expertise of actually medical personnel (a process aided by the behaviour of many within the same news media mentioned earlier).

The 'third sector' as a non-profit one is dying on its feet.

God bless the drugs companies. That should be a mandatory medication for females.

You couldn't keep up.

In increasing areas of life, the transnational nature of big business renders them pretty much immune to all but a few regulations that they agree to abide by. National governments are, at present, pretty much impotent in the face of it, even when (in theory) ideologically opposed. In the UK, government is currently of the rich, by the rich and for the rich – which largely translates into big business.

So perhaps we're actually at a stage beyond laissez faire capitalism, if we take that to mean capitalism free from government intervention. As illustrated, we're now seeing examples of intervention, both direct and surreptitious, to boost big business and avoid actual regulation.

Meh, theres a drug for that as well

Here's a bit more 'we'll regulate you less than anywhere else in Europe so that you can screw people as much as possible'.

Here's a bit more 'we'll regulate you less than anywhere else in Europe so that you can screw people as much as possible'.

Mintball wrote:Here's a bit more 'we'll regulate you less than anywhere else in Europe so that you can screw people as much as possible'. Read recently that a surprisingly high proprtion of payday loan takers are professionals such as solicitors and doctors, which was surprising.

Mintball wrote:Here's a bit more 'we'll regulate you less than anywhere else in Europe so that you can screw people as much as possible'. Read recently that a surprisingly high proprtion of payday loan takers are professionals such as solicitors and doctors, which was surprising.

Not particularly surprised to be honest, when you are talking of "professionals" who traditionally have never questioned where their good salaries came from and never questioned why their outgoings were so high (private education for children is a tad expensive these days isn't it), then stir in a drop in income, yes, even among those "professionals" of just a few percentage points and you are suddenly looking at serious shortfalls every month.

I've had a 62% drop in income since 2008 but we cope because our outgoings are at an acceptable level, I doubt very much whether my GP could stand such decimation to his income.

The problem is that it is closely associated with other forms of criminal behaviour; squatters may have been coached that just five minutes before they turned up someone else conveniently forced the back door open, but the reality is just a loophole to commit breaking and entering, probably followed by other crimes. What other crimes would people be happy to hide behind risible conceits like that?

And unless squatters leave absolutely everything untouched the reality is criminal damage, theft and vandalism, with things of value frequently removed and sold, parts of properties damaged or covered in graffiti etc. There are also many reasons why properties are left vacant, it could be that someone has died and the estate is being disposed of, it could be the owner is in hospital or some other form of care, it could be the owner is on holiday, or they work away part of the time, maybe they are trying to rent it out, or sell it, or planning to refurbish it but don’t yet have the money? That they are not there to protect their property should not mean someone else can in reality break in and seize its use from them, and then force them into expensive legal battles to regain their property. The law of tort did not protect the victim from the reality of the situation and that’s ultimately why it was changed.