Best Of
Re: The resistible force meets the movable object – politicalbetting.com
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes.The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.Hmmm. Assisted Dying Bill witness list.https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-uk-public-continue-think-assisted-dying-should-be-legal-provided-certain-conditions-are
(I'm not in a position to judge in detail - @Cyclefree ?)
Update: Kim Leadbeater’s witness list was far more unbalanced than previously reported.
Of those representing a position, 80% were in favour of the bill, 20% against. (MPs voted 55-45 in favour at second reading.)
https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1885979023668302178
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then
2. So many witnesses from AustraliaWhat a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.Hmmm. Assisted Dying Bill witness list.https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-uk-public-continue-think-assisted-dying-should-be-legal-provided-certain-conditions-are
(I'm not in a position to judge in detail - @Cyclefree ?)
Update: Kim Leadbeater’s witness list was far more unbalanced than previously reported.
Of those representing a position, 80% were in favour of the bill, 20% against. (MPs voted 55-45 in favour at second reading.)
https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1885979023668302178
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Re: The resistible force meets the movable object – politicalbetting.com
That's what really hit home to me over the weekend, the GOP is too far gone now, look at how J.D. Vance is defending this shit, and a few years ago he was rightly calling Trump 'America's Hitler'.Well the next administration might not be so different and in any case four years is a long time for destructive episodes to last. A lot of damage can be done in four years.Gideon Rachman (FT):So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
Re: The resistible force meets the movable object – politicalbetting.com
In response to @MattW
Is that how we want to treat humans?
Those in favour of AD have said that they do want people around them when they commit suicide.
I have personal experience of suicide in the family.
If suicide is harder than people like to think and this is what is behind this then let's stop all the cant about terminal illnesses. It's about making suicide easier. You may think the state making suicide easier a good thing. I don't. First because those who are in a state where suicide is what they are thinking of should be helped not encouraged to end their life. And second because - as all the evidence from other countries shows - it will inevitably end up with the vulnerable being bullied into suicide because as a society we cannot be bothered to care for them, especially if this will cost money.
Tony Nicklin was someone whose medical condition was such that he had a terrible existence but was unable to end his own life. People like him would not be helped by this Bill because it requires the person to ingest the drugs themselves (whether orally or through a syringe). I can well understand the case why people like him would want something to end their suffering. If there was a law which could only apply to people like him ....
But there isn't anywhere in the world. And this Bill certainly is not such a Bill.
Were what happened to him to happen to someone close to me and they wanted me to help them I might well do so but if I did I would then hand myself in and expect to be investigated. Why? Because I think the taboo against ending someone else's life is an important one which should be maintained. And because if people cross that taboo - even for reasons of love and mercy - they should expect to be held accountable. In practice, such prosecutions are rare - and convictions even rarer. The last such prosecution - leading to an acquittal - was in 2015.
Accountability is an important concept. It applies - or should apply - to everyone. Without it all you do is create a loophole which will be abused by bad actors. It is pretty selfish frankly to expect to break a vital taboo and be excused it in advance. A society which elevates "I want, I must get" as the highest moral value without any regard for the effect of this on the marginalised and vulnerable is a pretty selfish society frankly.
Not a good example. We euthanise pets for all sorts of reasons - not just to end suffering. Pets have no say in the matter.Having anyone you want around you while you commit suicide is not without issues for those around you though, is it? And the act itself can be harder than you might think - hence those who choose the 'hit by a train' option. I know that you think you are fighting this bill on behalf of those who you think may be forced into assisted death, but you come across rather strong on those who would see assisted death as a legitimate release.You are already free to commit suicide if you want. And have whoever you want around you. You are not obliged to take a cocktail of drugs.Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes.The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.Hmmm. Assisted Dying Bill witness list.https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-uk-public-continue-think-assisted-dying-should-be-legal-provided-certain-conditions-are
(I'm not in a position to judge in detail - @Cyclefree ?)
Update: Kim Leadbeater’s witness list was far more unbalanced than previously reported.
Of those representing a position, 80% were in favour of the bill, 20% against. (MPs voted 55-45 in favour at second reading.)
https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1885979023668302178
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then
2. So many witnesses from AustraliaWhat a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.Hmmm. Assisted Dying Bill witness list.https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/two-thirds-uk-public-continue-think-assisted-dying-should-be-legal-provided-certain-conditions-are
(I'm not in a position to judge in detail - @Cyclefree ?)
Update: Kim Leadbeater’s witness list was far more unbalanced than previously reported.
Of those representing a position, 80% were in favour of the bill, 20% against. (MPs voted 55-45 in favour at second reading.)
https://x.com/ddhitchens/status/1885979023668302178
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.
Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.
I have huge issues with the way the bill is being introduced, but I am in favour of the concept. We euthanise sick pets to end their suffering.
Is that how we want to treat humans?
Those in favour of AD have said that they do want people around them when they commit suicide.
I have personal experience of suicide in the family.
If suicide is harder than people like to think and this is what is behind this then let's stop all the cant about terminal illnesses. It's about making suicide easier. You may think the state making suicide easier a good thing. I don't. First because those who are in a state where suicide is what they are thinking of should be helped not encouraged to end their life. And second because - as all the evidence from other countries shows - it will inevitably end up with the vulnerable being bullied into suicide because as a society we cannot be bothered to care for them, especially if this will cost money.
Tony Nicklin was someone whose medical condition was such that he had a terrible existence but was unable to end his own life. People like him would not be helped by this Bill because it requires the person to ingest the drugs themselves (whether orally or through a syringe). I can well understand the case why people like him would want something to end their suffering. If there was a law which could only apply to people like him ....
But there isn't anywhere in the world. And this Bill certainly is not such a Bill.
Were what happened to him to happen to someone close to me and they wanted me to help them I might well do so but if I did I would then hand myself in and expect to be investigated. Why? Because I think the taboo against ending someone else's life is an important one which should be maintained. And because if people cross that taboo - even for reasons of love and mercy - they should expect to be held accountable. In practice, such prosecutions are rare - and convictions even rarer. The last such prosecution - leading to an acquittal - was in 2015.
Accountability is an important concept. It applies - or should apply - to everyone. Without it all you do is create a loophole which will be abused by bad actors. It is pretty selfish frankly to expect to break a vital taboo and be excused it in advance. A society which elevates "I want, I must get" as the highest moral value without any regard for the effect of this on the marginalised and vulnerable is a pretty selfish society frankly.
Re: The resistible force meets the movable object – politicalbetting.com
Last day at work. Last day at work. Important clarification I feel...
I'm 55 and my last day is this week..
viewcode
7
Re: The resistible force meets the movable object – politicalbetting.com
"Markets are retreating sharply today because investors had not expected a robust response from the countries hit by new US tariffs."
What did they expect exactly?
How wilfully thick can some brilliant people be?
What did they expect exactly?
How wilfully thick can some brilliant people be?
Re: The resistible force meets the movable object – politicalbetting.com
⚠️ BREAKING NEWS ⚠️ President Donald Trump is trying to make YORKSHIRE the 51st state! 🇺🇲This a remake of Last of the Summer Whine ?
If the offer is accepted Trump will sign the following executive orders to get them in motion;
- BUILD A WALL on the Yorkshire/Lancashire border 🧱
- Sean Bean to be Governor
- Immediately deport all southerners ⬇️
- A portion of fish & chips to be capped at £5
- Flat cap wearers and Whippet owners to receive favourable tax cuts
- PG Tips and Typhoo will be hit with a 100% tariff
- Open up the coal mines to become energy independent ⚡️
- 'God's Own County' to be replaced with
'God's Own State'.
Let’s Make Yorkshire Great Again!
Nigelb
6
Re: The resistible force meets the movable object – politicalbetting.com
On Trump and the UK. My advice to Starmer is that he should issue an edict to his colleagues that there will be no public comment either through the media or on Twitter etc. by the government or its agencies on the threat of tariffs or any other Trumpian matter. Make it clear that the government's response to Trump shall be conducted entirely through private diplomatic channels.
In other words, don't give Trump the oxygen of publicity, or any opportunity to lash out at anything said.
In other words, don't give Trump the oxygen of publicity, or any opportunity to lash out at anything said.
Re: The resistible force meets the movable object – politicalbetting.com
Well, he is aiming to bleed Canada dry...Not my mixer of choice, tbh....and Donald Trump.What’s better than a Russian oil refinery on fire?The Ukrainians made a mess of one refinery the other day that supplies 5% of Russia's refined oil. All for the cost of a couple of million quid in basic drones. Not even their good stuff. Just ex-sports planes. As warfare goes, losing a significant part of your economy in exchange for some (heavily mined) fields and the remains of half a concrete factory is indeed a very special military operation.
TWO Russian oil refineries on fire!!
https://x.com/tendar/status/1886284349126893782
Putin can't stop. But the price of not stopping is smashing about the only thing that creates value in the Russian economy. Russia will run out of money. The war economy is making products that have proven to be useless in Ukraine, so no-one will pay more than a string of sea-shells for them.
Then the only thing it will have is vodka.
Re: The resistible force meets the movable object – politicalbetting.com
O, William, Truss was not elbowed out by the deep state. Don’t fall into conspiratorial thinking. Truss was elbowed out by her own party because she was terrible.I've woke up this morning to see Trump has moved onto attacking the EU (and UK).Are you predicting an assassination? Trump has genuine democratic power. He’s not some Liz Truss figure who can be elbowed out by the deep state.
I don't bet, but I wonder if he'll still be president come the end of the year.
I wonder how the US markets are going to react come opening time.
Re: Britain Trump: Could it happen here? – politicalbetting.com
Can someone explain to me why Labour are making noises about having a closer trade relationship with the EU just as Trump is saddling up to hit the EU with gigantic tariffs which he hasn't yet said will be applied to the UK? I don't understand this thinking at all, surely just staying where we are with a tariff free trade deal with the EU and no formal trade deal with the US (and no punitive tariff regime) is the best possible move. Anything that antagonises Trump by moving closer to the EU and results in similar tariffs to Canada being applied to our US trade and then being involved in retaliatory ones will result in a recession regardless of what minute gains there might be in having a a closer relationship to the EU.Canada (and Newfoundland) immediately stood with the UK in both WW1 and WW2. They didn't keep their heads down hoping to not be noticed by the bully. Nor did they dilly-dally for several years before joining us.
Like it or not, Trump is the only game in town right now and by luck or by design we've managed to escape his immediate ire, why trade that away for no gain?
We should do it diplomatically, but we should stand with Canada and condemn Trumps Trade War.
Foxy
11