General News

[reporterpenguin]

9 hours ago, grobyfox1990 said:

 Not seen one person use ‘mental gymnastics’ in this debate thank god 

Though Jenrick gave it a good go, arguing that "activist courts in Strasbourg" would interfere. The only smear on an otherwise sensitively held debate in the Commons yesterday, not that you'd expect anything else from him and his new ECHR hobbyhorse. 

[CosbehFox]

Think the assisted dying bill is a rare occasion where our form of democracy has been well implemented. A passionate, emotional debate but never toxic. Good to see that continued on here 

Edited 30 November 2024 by CosbehFox

[Robo61]

10 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

It isn’t even a ‘massive if’, though. It’s a stone cold impossibility. They are not going to get this legislation right and we are moving inexorably to a future in which vulnerable people who are not ready to die will be coerced into doing so, either explicitly or implicitly, by their families, the medical profession or societal expectations. I absolutely guarantee you that there is no way of legalising euthanasia  that will not result in horrendous abuses. Tonight’s vote means this country is already a much darker, more sinister and less humane place than it was yesterday. 

Never have I considered Switzerland to be a dark or sinister place, but each to their own. 

I have no doubt there will be cases of abuse in future but  I would rather live in a country that gave its citizen's some automony over their death than constantly seeing people suffer a very painful death. We should not let the perfect get in the way of the good, but must aim get as close as possible.

[Lionator]

Why are we encouraging violent protests in Georgia that are trying to overthrow the result of a democratic election? 

[ajthefox]

16 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

It isn’t even a ‘massive if’, though. It’s a stone cold impossibility. They are not going to get this legislation right and we are moving inexorably to a future in which vulnerable people who are not ready to die will be coerced into doing so, either explicitly or implicitly, by their families, the medical profession or societal expectations. I absolutely guarantee you that there is no way of legalising euthanasia  that will not result in horrendous abuses. Tonight’s vote means this country is already a much darker, more sinister and less humane place than it was yesterday. 

I think your last sentence is a little hyperbolic. I don't think it is a stretch suggest there will be the odd case of abuse and I would share some reserves about us getting the legislation right. But with that said, I think your words infer that this was approved for cynical motivations when in fact it is the very opposite.

 

This bill passing is about *trying* to be a more compassionate place, not about trying to kill off elderly or inferm. That this is a cross party issue as well I think bodes well for getting the mechanisms for this as well resolved as possible too.

 

This is ultimately about trying to be more humane, not less. 

[Zear0]

3 hours ago, Lionator said:

Why are we encouraging violent protests in Georgia that are trying to overthrow the result of a democratic election? 

I'm not.

[st albans fox]

4 hours ago, Lionator said:

Why are we encouraging violent protests in Georgia that are trying to overthrow the result of a democratic election? 

I believe that the EU don’t believe the elections were free and fair 

[st albans fox]

Some chat that there might be rebel activity in Damascus itself 

 

the Russians have attempted to help, out in Aleppo but tough to make a difference with limited air power and nothing on the ground 

[Lionator]

24 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Some chat that there might be rebel activity in Damascus itself 

 

the Russians have attempted to help, out in Aleppo but tough to make a difference with limited air power and nothing on the ground 

Aren’t the guys taking over like a Tesco value ISIS?

 

Which also begs a mad question, could we see an improbable Russian-American coalition to stop it? 

Edited 30 November 2024 by Lionator

[Dunge]

38 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Aren’t the guys taking over like a Tesco value ISIS?

 

Which also begs a mad question, could we see an improbable Russian-American coalition to stop it? 

First paragraph: Yes.

Second paragraph: If the USA (and indeed the UK) have any sense at all, they’ll stay the hell out of this one.

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

Aren’t the guys taking over like a Tesco value ISIS?

 

Which also begs a mad question, could we see an improbable Russian-American coalition to stop it? 

 Not sure a Tesco value isis is much better than a Waitrose version 

I wonder if the Russians could at some point give up on Assad or ask the Iranians to get more directly involved in support. They have enough problems closer to home. I think they relieved  one of their generals today in the Aleppo region of his duties. 
 

wouldn’t expect the Americans getting involved, especially with trump incoming. Biden will dither. I think they have little strategic interest in Syria. 

[tom27111]

On 29/11/2024 at 09:09, Izzy said:

Other claims made to BBC News include:

 

A male worker on MasterChef in 2005-06, who said Wallace regularly said sexually explicit things on set. He said Wallace once said a dish tasted like his aunt's vagina, and on another occasion, asked a female runner if she put her finger up her boyfriend's bottom

 

 

That's an average conversation on a Thursday morning at work.

 

Gregg would fit right in to a sales office. In fact, he might be a bit tame to fit in to real life.

[Lionator]

48 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

 Not sure a Tesco value isis is much better than a Waitrose version 

I wonder if the Russians could at some point give up on Assad or ask the Iranians to get more directly involved in support. They have enough problems closer to home. I think they relieved  one of their generals today in the Aleppo region of his duties. 
 

wouldn’t expect the Americans getting involved, especially with trump incoming. Biden will dither. I think they have little strategic interest in Syria. 

I just see a lot of cheerleading for this on x and it seems utterly absurd, Assad gives stability even if he’s evil. Now we’re likely to get a hardcore Islamist state in a volatile area of the world. These are not friends of the west. 

[st albans fox]

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

I just see a lot of cheerleading for this on x and it seems utterly absurd, Assad gives stability even if he’s evil. Now we’re likely to get a hardcore Islamist state in a volatile area of the world. These are not friends of the west. 

absolutely not - cut from the same cloth as ISIS and likely to abuse the population in the same way. 

gadaffi and sadam were both despots but their countries were relatively stable.  Now they’re gone are less people being murdered each year in Libya and Iraq ?  You can’t argue that either man deserved to continue their dictatorships but realpolitik says that the world was safer with both in place. 

[The Horse's Mouth]

Am I the only one who finds the whole term “assisted dying” ridiculous  . If you’ve got to come up with a more nicer label for it that doesn’t make sense and just say it as it is, it’s probably not something to support 

[Dunge]

2 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Am I the only one who finds the whole term “assisted dying” ridiculous  . If you’ve got to come up with a more nicer label for it that doesn’t make sense and just say it as it is, it’s probably not something to support 

What would you call it?

[Dunge]

I mean, you could call it “state-sanctioned murder”? Although you could equally call eating meat “animal murder” but I’ll still be having sausages for tea tomorrow.

[Dunge]

Also, today I operated a state-sanctioned death machine that risked the lives of children and vulnerable people.

 

ie. I drove down the A6 to Leicester.

[The Horse's Mouth]

14 minutes ago, Dunge said:

I mean, you could call it “state-sanctioned murder”? Although you could equally call eating meat “animal murder” but I’ll still be having sausages for tea tomorrow.

State sanctioned murder would be fine does what it says on the tin bosh. 

[Dunge]

12 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

State sanctioned murder would be fine does what it says on the tin bosh. 

I accept I’m being a bit flippant above but the more direct comparison would be that we currently have state-mandated suffering and we’re trying to remove it.

 

Not to say that I agree with the use of either term.

Edited 1 December 2024 by Dunge

[ClaphamFox]

7 hours ago, ajthefox said:

I think your last sentence is a little hyperbolic. I don't think it is a stretch suggest there will be the odd case of abuse and I would share some reserves about us getting the legislation right. But with that said, I think your words infer that this was approved for cynical motivations when in fact it is the very opposite.

 

This bill passing is about *trying* to be a more compassionate place, not about trying to kill off elderly or inferm. That this is a cross party issue as well I think bodes well for getting the mechanisms for this as well resolved as possible too.

 

This is ultimately about trying to be more humane, not less. 

Do you mean humane like in Canada, where elderly and disabled people are often made to feel a burden on the healthcare system if they don’t agree to let themselves be killed? And where it’s going to get even worse when assisted suicide is expanded to include those solely suffering from mental health conditions? Or perhaps you mean the Netherlands, where physically healthy young people are euthanised to ‘cure’ conditions such as depression and anxiety?

 

To allow certain categories of human being to submit to their own murder is essentially to say that some lives have less moral worth than others - that some people are so burdensome that maybe they should consider ending their own lives to spare society the cost of their care, whether they feel ready to die or not. Once you cross over into that territory, there is no amount of safeguarding that will prevent some people feeling an obligation to submit to being given a lethal dose of poison because they feel they are burden to their family or to society. The draft bill for the UK would even allow doctors to suggest assisted dying to vulnerable patients even if the patient hasn’t mentioned it themselves. That pressure, either spoken or unspoken, will always be there and many, many people will end up dying feeling terrified as they are poisoned to death out of sense of duty rather than because they really want to.

 

I have deep sympathy for people who are terminally ill, but the only humane solution to that is better palliative care. This bill is taking the UK into a territory that devalues human life and is going to mean that large numbers of vulnerable people submit to being killed because the state has determined that their lives are less worthy than others. It’s an utterly barbaric development that will have absolutely terrible consequences. The fact that some people have somehow managed to convince themselves that assisted dying is ‘humane’ only makes the whole thing even more tragic.

 

[leicsmac]

7 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Do you mean humane like in Canada, where elderly and disabled people are often made to feel a burden on the healthcare system if they don’t agree to let themselves be killed? And where it’s going to get even worse when assisted suicide is expanded to include those solely suffering from mental health conditions? Or perhaps you mean the Netherlands, where physically healthy young people are euthanised to ‘cure’ conditions such as depression and anxiety?

 

To allow certain categories of human being to submit to their own murder is essentially to say that some lives have less moral worth than others - that some people are so burdensome that maybe they should consider ending their own lives to spare society the cost of their care, whether they feel ready to die or not. Once you cross over into that territory, there is no amount of safeguarding that will prevent some people feeling an obligation to submit to being given a lethal dose of poison because they feel they are burden to their family or to society. The draft bill for the UK would even allow doctors to suggest assisted dying to vulnerable patients even if the patient hasn’t mentioned it themselves. That pressure, either spoken or unspoken, will always be there and many, many people will end up dying feeling terrified as they are poisoned to death out of sense of duty rather than because they really want to.

 

I have deep sympathy for people who are terminally ill, but the only humane solution to that is better palliative care. This bill is taking the UK into a territory that devalues human life and is going to mean that large numbers of vulnerable people submit to being killed because the state has determined that their lives are less worthy than others. It’s an utterly barbaric development that will have absolutely terrible consequences. The fact that some people have somehow managed to convince themselves that assisted dying is ‘humane’ only makes the whole thing even more tragic.

 

If that's true (and it's entirely possible), then I would be curious to know exactly what form it would take that would allow us to have more control over pain and consciousness/action as someone approaches the end of their life due to a terrible illness than we have already.

 

I understand the arguments being made here and they're legit, but for them to be truly workable in terms of policy one has to offer more for the terminally ill than just sympathy/"thoughts and prayers" and the concept of an idea.

Edited 1 December 2024 by leicsmac

[UniFox21]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If that's true (and it's entirely possible), then I would be curious to know exactly what form it would take that would allow us to have more control over pain and consciousness/action as someone approaches the end of their life due to a terrible illness than we have already.

 

I understand the arguments being made here and they're legit, but for them to be truly workable in terms of policy one has to offer more for the terminally ill than just sympathy/"thoughts and prayers" and the concept of an idea.

Whilst I'm in support of the bill, I do have concerns regarding those with disabilities who may be made to feel a burden to their families and choose this way. I'm hoping there'll be iron clad rules and regulations regarding it's use fundamentally. 

 

But, I think it's the right step forward. Who are we to tell a person in incredible pain, no option for recovery and with an awful quality of 'life' that all we're allowed to do is try to intermittently make it a little better until their race is run. It feels wrong that we don't have the option to say when it's time

[leicsmac]

8 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

Whilst I'm in support of the bill, I do have concerns regarding those with disabilities who may be made to feel a burden to their families and choose this way. I'm hoping there'll be iron clad rules and regulations regarding it's use fundamentally. 

 

But, I think it's the right step forward. Who are we to tell a person in incredible pain, no option for recovery and with an awful quality of 'life' that all we're allowed to do is try to intermittently make it a little better until their race is run. It feels wrong that we don't have the option to say when it's time

Yeah, this is just about where I come out too, but I would have abstained tbh.

[UniFox21]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, this is just about where I come out too, but I would have abstained tbh.

I'd have voted for, so the conversation will carry on and how it will be introduced out governed becomes clearer.

 

If those in power get down the line and think we aren't ready or with the needed infrastructure etc, then there's fine. But I think it's an important conversation to have