Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
Lionator

General News Thread

By Lionator, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

  • Popular Post
Innovindil

Innovindil

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
18 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Another blow for the Government?

 

Was always a very divided bill with  many different opinions about assisted dying.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cm2k59l2l02o

 

Personally think it's a blow to all of us. It's an important topic that deserves genuine discussion. Majority of MPs backed it (at first) and the majority of the population broadly support it. 

 

The only positive I see in this being delayed and potentially scrapped altogether, is it's one more tick in the absolish the house of lords column. 

  • Like 5
Jon the Hat

Jon the Hat

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Innovindil said:

Personally think it's a blow to all of us. It's an important topic that deserves genuine discussion. Majority of MPs backed it (at first) and the majority of the population broadly support it. 

 

The only positive I see in this being delayed and potentially scrapped altogether, is it's one more tick in the absolish the house of lords column. 

Completely disagree, this is what the lords is for.  Stopping crappy legislation.  We fix it and come back.

  • Like 1
Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Completely disagree, this is what the lords is for.  Stopping crappy legislation.  We fix it and come back.

The thing about the House of Lords that makes it good is the very thing that most people complain about - they're not voted in.

 

This means they don't have to be popular, jumping on the latest new trend to get attention or tow a party line they don't agree with. It results in a body that as you say, can make tough, maybe unpopular, decisions that haven't been rushed through, say for instance, just before an election.

  • Like 2
Innovindil

Innovindil

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Jon the Hat said:

Completely disagree, this is what the lords is for.  Stopping crappy legislation.  We fix it and come back.

 

45 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

The thing about the House of Lords that makes it good is the very thing that most people complain about - they're not voted in.

 

This means they don't have to be popular, jumping on the latest new trend to get attention or tow a party line they don't agree with. It results in a body that as you say, can make tough, maybe unpopular, decisions that haven't been rushed through, say for instance, just before an election.

Tbh you're both welcome to feel that way I guess. I just don't understand a system where a few can table 1200 amendments, fully knowing there won't be time to debate all of them, just to block a piece of legislation. 

 

If they're muddying the waters enough to not even have a final vote on the legislation, especially after the time they've had, they are neither taking "unpopular decisions" or "fixing crappy legislation". 

kenny

kenny

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Innovindil said:

 

Tbh you're both welcome to feel that way I guess. I just don't understand a system where a few can table 1200 amendments, fully knowing there won't be time to debate all of them, just to block a piece of legislation. 

 

If they're muddying the waters enough to not even have a final vote on the legislation, especially after the time they've had, they are neither taking "unpopular decisions" or "fixing crappy legislation". 

One of the issues is that it came via private members bill rather than governmental. So the initial proposals won't have had the thought required for such a nuanced law.

 

It probably needs to fail, the the government puts a bill in themselves with all the suggested amendments considered. I suspect it will get through as a free vote in both houses.

  • Like 1
Brizzle Fox

Brizzle Fox

Posted
Posted
35 minutes ago, kenny said:

One of the issues is that it came via private members bill rather than governmental. So the initial proposals won't have had the thought required for such a nuanced law.

 

It probably needs to fail, the the government puts a bill in themselves with all the suggested amendments considered. I suspect it will get through as a free vote in both houses.

Exactly this. It was an awfully drafted bill that deserved to get chucked out.

 

Doesn't matter if you are for or against assisted dying, the gravity of the subject matter must ensure that any bill that does eventually get approved has to be tight as a drum in its wording and intent.

 

The Lords in this case did exactly what it should have. 

  • Like 2
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
15 hours ago, Spiritwalker said:

Our Foreign Office should release a statement saying the UK is not interested in what the USA does or doesn’t recognise.

 

That's not the only thing they should say, but I think the rest would be a mite undiplomatic.

 

14 hours ago, Parafox said:

How has that footage been filmed, then?

 

 

Would have to look into that. 

 

It's from the 80's, as well.

 

10 hours ago, Clogger_ said:

Right wingers are a queer bunch aren't they. Lapping it up when Trump is an arse towards Starmer (or *anything* they don't like) but can't manage anything more than a murmur when he *completely unsurprisingly* threatens to support an invasion of the Falklands Islands.

 

He's a t**t. They're t**ts by association. Just like KPFC really

I think there's at least some who compass that way in the UK who are fully aware of how damaging Trump is to their "brand" and the world at large and so want nothing to do with him, but yes, some more noise from them would be very much appreciated.

worthosoriginals

worthosoriginals

Posted
Posted
41 minutes ago, Brizzle Fox said:

Exactly this. It was an awfully drafted bill that deserved to get chucked out.

 

Doesn't matter if you are for or against assisted dying, the gravity of the subject matter must ensure that any bill that does eventually get approved has to be tight as a drum in its wording and intent.

 

The Lords in this case did exactly what it should have. 

With their average age of being about 90  i wonder why they voted against assisted dying?

Bloody relatives trying to get hold of my inheritance before time, im not having that.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted

WRT the assisted dying debate - imo it's an incredibly difficult issue with incredibly complex arguments that have merit on both sides. When dealing with such a thing that involves control over human life, every factor must be considered as scrupulously as possible. 

Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, Matthew 26, 26:52, if any of his nearest and dearest read the Good Book. 

Here endeth the lesson.

  • Haha 1
davieG

davieG

Posted
Posted

Hmm

 

I'm sure there's more than a slice of truth in this

 

May be an image of money and text that says ""The poor and the middle class pay taxes, the rich pay accountants, the very rich pay lawyers and the ultra-rich pay politicians." George Monbiot in the Guardian, originally by Mohammed Saha"

  • Like 1
deep blue

deep blue

Posted
Posted
13 hours ago, Brizzle Fox said:

Exactly this. It was an awfully drafted bill that deserved to get chucked out.

 

Doesn't matter if you are for or against assisted dying, the gravity of the subject matter must ensure that any bill that does eventually get approved has to be tight as a drum in its wording and intent.

 

The Lords in this case did exactly what it should have. 

In what way was it "awfully drafted"?

Trav Le Bleu

Trav Le Bleu

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Jattdogg said:

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/24/millionaire-hunter-dies-elephants-gabon

 

Whilst not nice for him and his family, it's kind of part of the cycle when you do shit like that. What goes around, came around. 

"During his first presidential term, Donald Trump created a controversial wildlife advisory board to help rewrite federal rules for importing the heads and hides of African elephants, lions and rhinoceroses. The board was disbanded in 2020 after lawsuits alleging it was an illegal, biased panel stacked with trophy hunters rather than conservationists, who worked to promote the economic benefits of big game hunting."

 

Quelle surprise.

  • Like 1
CornwallFox

CornwallFox

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

WRT the assisted dying debate - imo it's an incredibly difficult issue with incredibly complex arguments that have merit on both sides. When dealing with such a thing that involves control over human life, every factor must be considered as scrupulously as possible. 

Tbh I don't think it is. 

I think it's very simply a right we should all have. 

Beyond that it's just a question of safeguards for those with limited mental capacity. 

I don't think it could be simpler.

leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

"During his first presidential term, Donald Trump created a controversial wildlife advisory board to help rewrite federal rules for importing the heads and hides of African elephants, lions and rhinoceroses. The board was disbanded in 2020 after lawsuits alleging it was an illegal, biased panel stacked with trophy hunters rather than conservationists, who worked to promote the economic benefits of big game hunting."

 

Quelle surprise.

Just another method by which such people get off on abusing power.

 

19 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Tbh I don't think it is. 

I think it's very simply a right we should all have. 

Beyond that it's just a question of safeguards for those with limited mental capacity. 

I don't think it could be simpler.

The principle may well be simple.

 

The practice, in which every case will be different, I fear is much more complex. Those safeguards need to be iron-clad, because it will only take one person - just one - not "ready" to die, in the same way it takes only one "innocent" person to die under the death penalty, to invalidate the whole system by showing that it relies on the death of undeserving human beings to function.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...