O/T Liz Truss is unhinged. Nothing more, nothing less.
The right wing nutters who live on this blog seem to think she is something special. She is no Thatcher. She is likely to give Cameron and Johnson a good run for the worst PM ever.
Johnson I’ll give you but Cameron? Formed a coalition that worked well for 5 years then won a majority. Gave the nation a chance to vote on its political future over Europe, something all others denied since the 70’s. A decent man, and a decent PM. Your countrymen and women are the ones to blame for Brexit, not Cameron.
He didn’t think through the referendum. He was lazy and arrogant.
The Dugina murder was a joint operation between Ukraine, Estonia and the UK. Surprised they don't put the finger on the US more. Perhaps they think that will frighten their own population? Anyway it's certainly good for our global prestige.
It would be interesting to know, and surely with the reams of data that is now available on this virus, it must be studiable, whether certain people are more prone to repeated reinfection.
I've either had it once, in December 2019, or not at all. Which given I haven't restricted my life at all since freedom day last year, seems somewhat remarkable compared to others.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
It would be interesting to know, and surely with the reams of data that is now available on this virus, it must be studiable, whether certain people are more prone to repeated reinfection.
I've either had it once, in December 2019, or not at all. Which given I haven't restricted my life at all since freedom day last year, seems somewhat remarkable compared to others.
I've no idea if i've had it or if so how many times. Its quite nice to be in the dark about it.
As my wife has said on various stuff I have introduced her to: 'I really enjoyed it but never want to do it again'
Still added benefit is I lost 7 kg to make the weight for the flight.
After 2 rolls and 2 barrel rolls I was feeling a bit ill. I tried to wait it out with some straight flying, but sadly had to call it a day, as another stunt would have been the end. Still feeling the effects, although the 2 pints and a toasted sandwich after, may have something to do with that. Learnt two things:
a) You can't see forward in a Pitts Special so you have to weave both on the ground and when flying so you don't hit stuff and you have to sideslip when landing because otherwise you can't see the runway.
b) What that diamond on the end of the red pole attached to the wing strut is. Anyone here want to hazard a guess.
Awesome, well done! Aerobatics pilots do it upside-down and sideways, so says the t-shirt
The attachment on the wing, is it a 360º pitot tube, so the pilot can see his airspeed at any weird angle? Or is it the attachment for the wing-walker to hold on to?
It won't be a pitot tube, because the whole point of the pitot tube is measure the speed of air over the wings. (And therefore their ability to generate lift.)
As my wife has said on various stuff I have introduced her to: 'I really enjoyed it but never want to do it again'
Still added benefit is I lost 7 kg to make the weight for the flight.
After 2 rolls and 2 barrel rolls I was feeling a bit ill. I tried to wait it out with some straight flying, but sadly had to call it a day, as another stunt would have been the end. Still feeling the effects, although the 2 pints and a toasted sandwich after, may have something to do with that. Learnt two things:
a) You can't see forward in a Pitts Special so you have to weave both on the ground and when flying so you don't hit stuff and you have to sideslip when landing because otherwise you can't see the runway.
b) What that diamond on the end of the red pole attached to the wing strut is. Anyone here want to hazard a guess.
Awesome, well done! Aerobatics pilots do it upside-down and sideways, so says the t-shirt
The attachment on the wing, is it a 360º pitot tube, so the pilot can see his airspeed at any weird angle? Or is it the attachment for the wing-walker to hold on to?
It won't be a pitot tube, because the whole point of the pitot tube is measure the speed of air over the wings. (And therefore their ability to generate lift.)
Unless you are talking about Air France, where they seemed designed to cause the plane to crash.
A former House of Lords judge once told me years ago that he thought that juries would be much less likely to convict of murder if the death penalty was reimposed.
Awareness of miscarriages was so much greater, he felt, and defence barristers would be certain to make this point. So he thought that such a move would backfire. (Not that he was in favour of it. He thought a lot of judges would resign rather than be party to it.)
You have spend the last years writing erudite headers on this site explaining that our Police forces do not always deliver justice with the rigour that you demand.
So long as that remains the case, killing those convicted by evidence provided by police forces in the name of the state strikes me as a terrible idea.
Lock the convicted up for eighteen years like Judith Ward by all means, but then let them out when it becomes clear that the police case was based on fiction.
Perhaps the most remarkable case regarding a miscarriage of justice that, with the restoration of the death penalty, would have resulted in executions is the Cardiff Five. Not only did they track down the real killer of Lynette White through DNA revealing the detectives who pursued the case against the Cardiff Five did so on a fictional pack of lies, their fabrication was so egregious that a solid case was made against them. Lo and behold South Wales Police lost all the evidence just prior to the trial of their Detectives. The evidence was found again, once the case had been dropped.
I agree. I am against the death penalty. Always have been. Always will be.
Mind you, if someone killed one of my children or tried to I am quite certain that, if I could, I would kill them in revenge or to protect them.
And then hand myself in.
When I was burgled with the burglar walking into my bedroom while I was in bed and, not realising that someone was in the house, fleeing while dropping my own breadknife he had armed himself with, I was so incandescent with fury that if I'd caught the scrote, the police would have needed a hose to wash him off the floor not a police van.
But yes that's why we need a properly functioning justice system not tit-for-tat "justice".
Me too, and I would take my chances with a jury of my peers to determine whether it was self defence, or otherwise.
I don't want future Derek Bentleys dealt with in my name as they were in the 1950s. I do think a referendum is a cheap win for cynical populist politicians and that is a massive fear, and leaving the ECHR ticks that box.
Yeah a capital punishment referendum would be seriously divisive and drown out everything else for little obvious upside. But if you were having one anyway and you asked me today which way to vote, I’d lean toward reinstate. The problem is we’d have a silly situation where with a change of govt, the new home Sec would take everyone off death row and we’d then have a perpetual wedge issue, where none existed before. Tiresome.
Capital punishment would be restored, only for it to be abolished again the first time that an obviously innocent person was hanged.
Still, she will get few votes. There is a reason why she went down by the largest margin for an incumbent loss in history. She's an arrogant, war-mongering elite politician who despised her own electors.
If Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.), who lost her House primary last week, decides to embark on a presidential run in 2024 as an independent, she could end up hurting President Biden’s chances of reelection more than Trump’s, according to a new Yahoo News/You Gov poll.
Today, pb, I am sad, and I am sad because my wonderful, sparky, lively, bright middle daughter is sad. She is sad because of her upcoming 11+. She is sad because of all the work which is needed to prepare for it over the course of her precious ten year old summer, and sad because she may not pass, and even if she does she will be split frpm her friends. We have tried and tried and tried not to pressure her. But she feels it anyway. I don't say this to say that the 11+ is wrong. (It may or may not be, but if it is wrong it is not because it makes my daughter miserable. Something can make children miserable and still be the right thing to do.) It just, in the Cookie house, at the moment, feels a very high price to pay. That's all.
Danny Baker famously passed the 11+ but then went to the secondary modern along with his friends.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
So where are the photos of Bush in blue with a neck bow ? Driving a tank ? (his dad did.) etc
I can’t even find one of the well known cowboy with a calf; only fully grown animals.
Those who go along with Truss’s pathetic spin are insulting our intelligence.
O/T Liz Truss is unhinged. Nothing more, nothing less.
The right wing nutters who live on this blog seem to think she is something special. She is no Thatcher. She is likely to give Cameron and Johnson a good run for the worst PM ever.
Johnson I’ll give you but Cameron? Formed a coalition that worked well for 5 years then won a majority. Gave the nation a chance to vote on its political future over Europe, something all others denied since the 70’s. A decent man, and a decent PM. Your countrymen and women are the ones to blame for Brexit, not Cameron.
He didn’t think through the referendum. He was lazy and arrogant.
I really just do not understand this attitude
The question was put to the people who voted in a referendum the result of which you have not come to terms with along with many others
The remain supporters failed to win a very winnable case and seem to want to blame everyone but themselves
Furthermore, Starmer is not offering to re-join, indeed neither are the lib dems implicitly promising to do so, so little will change in the foreseeable though a better relationship with the EU while remaining outside would be welcome
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
I think people are thinking about this nuclear war the wrong way. In particular they are failing to give consideration to the incredible advantages that are likely to arise at the next boundary commission hearings after the war. With London, Liverpool, Birmingham having no more than a couple of constituencies each Tory majorities are nailed on. We need to focus on the bigger picture here.
There's a chance of a LD majority with SNP opposition. Being as how 649 constituencies will be in Shetland
You dramatically overstate the dangers of nuclear war. In all probability (assuming all nuclear weapons work, which they won't), 30-40% of the British population would survive the initial blast. It's only later, after radiation sickness and starvation has got them, that the population drops so low.
Today, pb, I am sad, and I am sad because my wonderful, sparky, lively, bright middle daughter is sad. She is sad because of her upcoming 11+. She is sad because of all the work which is needed to prepare for it over the course of her precious ten year old summer, and sad because she may not pass, and even if she does she will be split frpm her friends. We have tried and tried and tried not to pressure her. But she feels it anyway. I don't say this to say that the 11+ is wrong. (It may or may not be, but if it is wrong it is not because it makes my daughter miserable. Something can make children miserable and still be the right thing to do.) It just, in the Cookie house, at the moment, feels a very high price to pay. That's all.
Danny Baker famously passed the 11+ but then went to the secondary modern along with his friends.
Or hang on a couple of weeks and you can reassure your daughter that the Prime Minister went to the roughest school in the country where the teachers actively sabotaged pupils' lives, and she has done all right for herself (unless the polls are wrong and the kid from the posh school got the job instead, following the kid from the even posher school).
I think people are thinking about this nuclear war the wrong way. In particular they are failing to give consideration to the incredible advantages that are likely to arise at the next boundary commission hearings after the war. With London, Liverpool, Birmingham having no more than a couple of constituencies each Tory majorities are nailed on. We need to focus on the bigger picture here.
There's a chance of a LD majority with SNP opposition. Being as how 649 constituencies will be in Shetland
You dramatically overstate the dangers of nuclear war. In all probability (assuming all nuclear weapons work, which they won't), 30-40% of the British population would survive the initial blast. It's only later, after radiation sickness and starvation has got them, that the population drops so low.
Thank you for that cheery thought.
Trident: worth every penny. The 30% will be delighted with the value for money as they slowly starve to death in spasms of excruciating pain.
On topic, the photo ops on the right hand side are forgiveable. Most politicians will take the opportunity to be photographed in a tank, or standing in front of a UJ-emblazoned hangar on the Isle of Wight. That said, the ones on the left are very silly. Truss adopting the dress of Thatch, but utterly failing to embody the spirit of the woman.
However, I have warmed to her during the contest. And her career has shown her to be hardworking, committed, and capable of delivering good results. I choose to go with that, and forgive the goofing around in fur hats.
I think people are thinking about this nuclear war the wrong way. In particular they are failing to give consideration to the incredible advantages that are likely to arise at the next boundary commission hearings after the war. With London, Liverpool, Birmingham having no more than a couple of constituencies each Tory majorities are nailed on. We need to focus on the bigger picture here.
There's a chance of a LD majority with SNP opposition. Being as how 649 constituencies will be in Shetland
You dramatically overstate the dangers of nuclear war. In all probability (assuming all nuclear weapons work, which they won't), 30-40% of the British population would survive the initial blast. It's only later, after radiation sickness and starvation has got them, that the population drops so low.
Yebbut how does the boundary commission deal with that?
Chris - Thanks for catching my mistake. I should have said something like this: Sunstein and his co-author made the moral case for the death penalty, if it is a deterrent, and cited technical papers that argued that it is a deterrent, papers that I am not qualified to evaluate. (It has been a while since I read the paper and looked at some of the technical support they cited.)
I can add this: It's my impression that economists -- who believe in incentives and disincentives -- usually find that the death penalty is a deterrent, and that sociologists usually don't. (In the US, much (most) of the study of crime has been done by sociologists.)
My semi-informed opinion is that the death penalty is probably a deterrent, net, but that it is extremely difficult to test that proposition.
Nah, if you believe Dan Hodges she's going to destroy Starmer at the next election through a war on woke, which people care about far more than whether they can afford to pay their energy bills.
Issues are only an election-winning issues if parties have different and better strategies for addressing them. Everyone is agreed on the long term solutions (other sources than Russian gas) and there are no sensible short term solutions. You can tweak with who pays the bills like the French are doing, but the bills still need to be paid. Mind you, what is the solution to woke? The fact all our institutions are getting ever woker even after 12 years of Tory PMs suggests that Tory solution to woke (put up with it but grumble about it) is no better than Labour's.
The woke stuff is as a result of a 25-year effort since 1997, to fill the institutions with Blairites, specifically so they could prevent a Conservative government from implementing their policies.
The only way it goes away, is with some very well-crafted legislation, that can survive the process of judicial review and “human rights” legal challenges. That and, as suggested by Mrs Badonock, holding the chief execs of qangos accountable for their failure to implement directions from the government of the day.
There is that, but 'woke' thinking is quite heavily rooted in elite culture. It was foreseeable over the last decade that the culture at universities would influence how a generation perceives the world; and this would eventually be rolled out into institutions. Also, the tories themselves have been rolling out a lot of 'woke' policy, even if they don't want to admit it.
I've always believed that the opposition to 'woke' will materialise when the tories are in opposition. That is the experience of the US - Now that the republicans are in opposition, they are successfully rolling back a lot of 'woke' stuff at the local level, particuarly CRT in schools.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
So where are the photos of Bush in blue with a neck bow ? Driving a tank ? (his dad did.) etc
I can’t even find one of the well known cowboy with a calf; only fully grown animals.
Those who go along with Truss’s pathetic spin are insulting our intelligence.
A woman wore a bow?
Well that is unprecedented.
That there's more photos of Truss wearing women's clothing than GWB really shouldn't be a shock to anyone sane. I suppose you think if two male politicians both wore a tie that they're trying to look the same too, right?
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
So where are the photos of Bush in blue with a neck bow ? Driving a tank ? (his dad did.) etc
I can’t even find one of the well known cowboy with a calf; only fully grown animals.
Those who go along with Truss’s pathetic spin are insulting our intelligence.
A woman wore a bow?
Well that is unprecedented.
That there's more photos of Truss wearing women's clothing than GWB really shouldn't be a shock to anyone sane. I suppose you think if two male politicians both wore a tie that they're trying to look the same too, right?
I think people are thinking about this nuclear war the wrong way. In particular they are failing to give consideration to the incredible advantages that are likely to arise at the next boundary commission hearings after the war. With London, Liverpool, Birmingham having no more than a couple of constituencies each Tory majorities are nailed on. We need to focus on the bigger picture here.
There's a chance of a LD majority with SNP opposition. Being as how 649 constituencies will be in Shetland
You dramatically overstate the dangers of nuclear war. In all probability (assuming all nuclear weapons work, which they won't), 30-40% of the British population would survive the initial blast. It's only later, after radiation sickness and starvation has got them, that the population drops so low.
Yebbut how does the boundary commission deal with that?
They’ll be too busy hunting squirrels and foraging for berries. Along with the rest of the dying populace.
I think people are thinking about this nuclear war the wrong way. In particular they are failing to give consideration to the incredible advantages that are likely to arise at the next boundary commission hearings after the war. With London, Liverpool, Birmingham having no more than a couple of constituencies each Tory majorities are nailed on. We need to focus on the bigger picture here.
There's a chance of a LD majority with SNP opposition. Being as how 649 constituencies will be in Shetland
You dramatically overstate the dangers of nuclear war. In all probability (assuming all nuclear weapons work, which they won't), 30-40% of the British population would survive the initial blast. It's only later, after radiation sickness and starvation has got them, that the population drops so low.
Its very very unlikely more than about 10 to 15 nukes would be wasted on Britain and aside from London/Whitehall they wouldn't be targetted at the main population centres so 90% would be ok initially say and with limited nukes and therefore houses intact away from these few sites radiation threats could be managed a bit better. We would be fucked longer term for food and economy though. Other than a big one or two on London most would be the smaller yield weapons. You don't waste a multi megaton nuke on Devonport or RAF Coningsby. A 2022 nuclear war would be depressingly survivable for many.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
So where are the photos of Bush in blue with a neck bow ? Driving a tank ? (his dad did.) etc
I can’t even find one of the well known cowboy with a calf; only fully grown animals.
Those who go along with Truss’s pathetic spin are insulting our intelligence.
A woman wore a bow?
Well that is unprecedented.
That there's more photos of Truss wearing women's clothing than GWB really shouldn't be a shock to anyone sane. I suppose you think if two male politicians both wore a tie that they're trying to look the same too, right?
the truss love is strong tonight.
Save the thread!
It’ll give you a hearty chortle when you re-read it in August 2023.
It's surprising how many people don't know the difference between apes and monkeys. (You'd think that would be especially obvious to naked apes like me, and all the other commenters, except possibly for a bot or two, here.)
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
The subject is so emotional for many people that I hesitate to mention this, but there are researchers who argue that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, notably Cass Sunstein:
"Recent evidence suggests that capital punishment may have a significant deterrent effect, preventing as many eighteen or more murders for each execution. This evidence greatly unsettles moral objections to the death penalty, because it suggests that a refusal to impose that penalty condemns numerous innocent people to death. Capital punishment thus presents a life-life tradeoff, and a serious commitment to the sanctity of human life may well compel, rather than forbid, that form of punishment. Moral objections to the death penalty frequently depend on a distinction between acts and omissions, but that distinction is misleading in this context, because government is a special kind of moral agent. The familiar problems with capital punishment— potential error, irreversibility, arbitrariness, and racial skew—do not argue in favor of abolition, because the world of homicide suffers from those same problems in even more acute form. The widespread failure to appreciate the life-life tradeoffs involved in capital punishment may depend on cognitive processes that fail to treat "statistical lives" with the seriousness that they deserve." source: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/law_and_economics/287/
For the record: I do not have the training to evaluate this paper, technically. (Though I can add that Nobel prize-winning economist at the University of Chicago did say publicly, years ago, that he thought Sunstein was right. Can't remember which one, possibly Robert E. Lucas.) And I can say that at least a few other economists have come to similar conclusions.
I shall read that piece.
However, if there really was an 18-to-1 improvement in lives saved by the death penalty, then one would expect the ending of the death penalty in a given state/country to result in a pretty sharp jump in murders relative to the trends in places where the death penalty remained.
Looking at the numbers for the US, that does not appear to be the case. Indeed, the murder trends for states which got rid of the death penalty appear to be better than those that did not.
Of course, there are many confounding factors which could play a role. But 18x is a massive number. It's hard to see how that could somehow be hidden.
Chris - Thanks for catching my mistake. I should have said something like this: Sunstein and his co-author made the moral case for the death penalty, if it is a deterrent, and cited technical papers that argued that it is a deterrent, papers that I am not qualified to evaluate. (It has been a while since I read the paper and looked at some of the technical support they cited.)
I can add this: It's my impression that economists -- who believe in incentives and disincentives -- usually find that the death penalty is a deterrent, and that sociologists usually don't. (In the US, much (most) of the study of crime has been done by sociologists.)
My semi-informed opinion is that the death penalty is probably a deterrent, net, but that it is extremely difficult to test that proposition.
O/T Liz Truss is unhinged. Nothing more, nothing less.
The right wing nutters who live on this blog seem to think she is something special. She is no Thatcher. She is likely to give Cameron and Johnson a good run for the worst PM ever.
Johnson I’ll give you but Cameron? Formed a coalition that worked well for 5 years then won a majority. Gave the nation a chance to vote on its political future over Europe, something all others denied since the 70’s. A decent man, and a decent PM. Your countrymen and women are the ones to blame for Brexit, not Cameron.
He didn’t think through the referendum. He was lazy and arrogant.
I really just do not understand this attitude
The question was put to the people who voted in a referendum the result of which you have not come to terms with along with many others
The remain supporters failed to win a very winnable case and seem to want to blame everyone but themselves
Furthermore, Starmer is not offering to re-join, indeed neither are the lib dems implicitly promising to do so, so little will change in the foreseeable though a better relationship with the EU while remaining outside would be welcome
On the issue of the referendum, the problem was that he did not do any work on how a 'leave' vote may be enacted, and actually prevented this from taking place, hoping people would be scared in to voting remain. This was completely irresponsible, and created an opportunity for 'leave' to say anything it wanted. There should have been two real options.
Today, pb, I am sad, and I am sad because my wonderful, sparky, lively, bright middle daughter is sad. She is sad because of her upcoming 11+. She is sad because of all the work which is needed to prepare for it over the course of her precious ten year old summer, and sad because she may not pass, and even if she does she will be split frpm her friends. We have tried and tried and tried not to pressure her. But she feels it anyway. I don't say this to say that the 11+ is wrong. (It may or may not be, but if it is wrong it is not because it makes my daughter miserable. Something can make children miserable and still be the right thing to do.) It just, in the Cookie house, at the moment, feels a very high price to pay. That's all.
Danny Baker famously passed the 11+ but then went to the secondary modern along with his friends.
Yes, and if it was a decent secondary modern (of which there are a few in Trafford, just none that we are in catchment for), that would be the default option, I think. When her sister went through this two years ago, her group of five best friends were split four ways (grammar, grammar, second choice grammar, secondary modern, private). But to be honest that was a friendship group it wasn't altogether a tragedy to move on from.
Nah, if you believe Dan Hodges she's going to destroy Starmer at the next election through a war on woke, which people care about far more than whether they can afford to pay their energy bills.
Issues are only an election-winning issues if parties have different and better strategies for addressing them. Everyone is agreed on the long term solutions (other sources than Russian gas) and there are no sensible short term solutions. You can tweak with who pays the bills like the French are doing, but the bills still need to be paid. Mind you, what is the solution to woke? The fact all our institutions are getting ever woker even after 12 years of Tory PMs suggests that Tory solution to woke (put up with it but grumble about it) is no better than Labour's.
The woke stuff is as a result of a 25-year effort since 1997, to fill the institutions with Blairites, specifically so they could prevent a Conservative government from implementing their policies.
The only way it goes away, is with some very well-crafted legislation, that can survive the process of judicial review and “human rights” legal challenges. That and, as suggested by Mrs Badonock, holding the chief execs of qangos accountable for their failure to implement directions from the government of the day.
There is that, but 'woke' thinking is quite heavily rooted in elite culture. It was foreseeable over the last decade that the culture at universities would influence how a generation perceives the world; and this would eventually be rolled out into institutions. Also, the tories themselves have been rolling out a lot of 'woke' policy, even if they don't want to admit it.
I've always believed that the opposition to 'woke' will materialise when the tories are in opposition. That is the experience of the US - Now that the republicans are in opposition, they are successfully rolling back a lot of 'woke' stuff at the local level, particuarly CRT in schools.
Catch is that the UK doesn't really have that much working local government.
Take schools- there's the DfE and Ofsted in Whitehall and thousands of Academy Trusts running the schools, and not much in-between.
US Republicans have a lot of power bases, even when they don't have the White House.
In the UK, if your lot are out, they are really out.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
So where are the photos of Bush in blue with a neck bow ? Driving a tank ? (his dad did.) etc
I can’t even find one of the well known cowboy with a calf; only fully grown animals.
Those who go along with Truss’s pathetic spin are insulting our intelligence.
A woman wore a bow?
Well that is unprecedented.
That there's more photos of Truss wearing women's clothing than GWB really shouldn't be a shock to anyone sane. I suppose you think if two male politicians both wore a tie that they're trying to look the same too, right?
On its own, you might have a case. Show me photos of any other female politician, apart from Thatcher and Truss, wearing a fur hat, sitting astride a motorbike, with a calf, sitting in a tank, wearing a blue outfit with white bow… etc, etc.
Nah, if you believe Dan Hodges she's going to destroy Starmer at the next election through a war on woke, which people care about far more than whether they can afford to pay their energy bills.
Issues are only an election-winning issues if parties have different and better strategies for addressing them. Everyone is agreed on the long term solutions (other sources than Russian gas) and there are no sensible short term solutions. You can tweak with who pays the bills like the French are doing, but the bills still need to be paid. Mind you, what is the solution to woke? The fact all our institutions are getting ever woker even after 12 years of Tory PMs suggests that Tory solution to woke (put up with it but grumble about it) is no better than Labour's.
The woke stuff is as a result of a 25-year effort since 1997, to fill the institutions with Blairites, specifically so they could prevent a Conservative government from implementing their policies.
The only way it goes away, is with some very well-crafted legislation, that can survive the process of judicial review and “human rights” legal challenges. That and, as suggested by Mrs Badonock, holding the chief execs of qangos accountable for their failure to implement directions from the government of the day.
There is that, but 'woke' thinking is quite heavily rooted in elite culture. It was foreseeable over the last decade that the culture at universities would influence how a generation perceives the world; and this would eventually be rolled out into institutions. Also, the tories themselves have been rolling out a lot of 'woke' policy, even if they don't want to admit it.
I've always believed that the opposition to 'woke' will materialise when the tories are in opposition. That is the experience of the US - Now that the republicans are in opposition, they are successfully rolling back a lot of 'woke' stuff at the local level, particuarly CRT in schools.
Catch is that the UK doesn't really have that much working local government.
Take schools- there's the DfE and Ofsted in Whitehall and thousands of Academy Trusts running the schools, and not much in-between.
US Republicans have a lot of power bases, even when they don't have the White House.
In the UK, if your lot are out, they are really out.
Yes, there’s no local school board elections in the UK, nor state governors with huge local powers.
The closest to direct local democracy is the police commissioners.
rcs1000 - In general, public support in the US for the death penalty moves up as crime increases, and down as it decreases.
Sunstein did something in that Abstract that he shouldn't have, saying "as many as", instead of giving a range. As I recall, the ranges in the technical papers typically ran from 3 to 15, though one did find a max of 18.
(Those large ranges are one of the reasons I consider it a very difficult technical problem.)
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin.
What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.
But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to. It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch. Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.
In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
So let's never return to them.
And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
It a cheap way to attract votes for an unpopular and cynical Government or an ambitious cynical Opposition that wants to creep over the line.
Priti Patel and I believe Suella Braverman (although apologies, I may be wrong) are advocates as are many Conservative MPs, like Gale, for example. The fact that when the likes of Ian Huntley are tried there are dozens and dozens of mawkish protestors demanding his life suggests it would be politically popular if morally wrong. Without the EU, without the ECHR all obstacles slip away. I believe a referendum is a clear and present danger. Once we get the hang (pun intended) of executing Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter, who and what for next?
Most people in the UK are quite dishonest with themselves over the death penalty. They think being aghast about the idea of it makes them morally superior. And it feels nice to be morally superior. But…
Jeremy Corbyn was about the only person who thought the execution by drone of the ISIS Beatles was a “tragedy”. Everyone else watched that news with their cornflakes and thought, jolly good show. Ditto Bin Laden. Ditto Shipman topping himself, even Blunkett admitted to cheering that one. Equally if we woke up at the weekend to vigilante justice being delivered in this Liverpool case, near everyone would think privately that the scumbag got what was coming to them.
There wasn't a safer way of dealing with the Isis Beatles, or Bin Laden.
Shipman made his own decision in order that his wife could benefit from a pension as I recall. Fred West too. I'd have preferred Shipman and West end their final years in s***hole prisons like Strageways and Winson Green.
As for your lynch mob, they will also serve time for the murder of a scumbag.
Agree re Shipman, I was not happy about that.
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that, for some - particularly the superior, cocky Shipman type - I think it a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. He, presumably, took the same view.
(Other reasons have been well articulated by others)
I'm a firm pro-choice believer in death with dignity. If anyone wants to end their own life, then with safeguards, that should be allowed. Their life, their choice.
Safeguards with the likes of Shipman for that would need to be serious, but if they want 'the easy way out' then that should be their choice, same as it should be anyone else's. So long as the safeguards ensure its genuinely their choice.
Keeping them alive, against their wishes, just to punish them more is for me a form of torture that I would not accept. If you want to keep them alive, against their wishes, it should be for more than just punishment's sake.
I'm with Mexicanpete on this. Happy to withhold any right to death during a prison sentence.
I do support access to euthanasia for the general public, in principle, although I believe there are huge practical problems around, effectively, informed consent for that. There are conditions for which I would choose death over life, I think, but only at the appropriate point, which would probably be at a point after I was able to provide informed consent. Setting clear conditions in advance is tricky as you don't know how you would feel at that point in time. For non-physical reasons, it's even more problematic.
My wife and I have both said to each other we'd prefer euthanasia than going into a Care Home. She works in one and while she cares passionately about her job, most of her colleagues frankly don't and most of the residents don't want to be there either. There are some people there who are happy to be there, but there are many who say every single day that they want to die. She's said she never, ever wants to end up somewhere like that.
Of course closer to the time we might change our minds, but people should have a right to choose. Their life, their choice.
I find prohibitions on euthanasia as unacceptable as prohibitions on abortion. Hopefully one day it'll be as alien too to think people were once denied that freedom to choose.
Abortion is of course ending the life of another not your own, whatever time limit you set for it.
There is also a danger euthanasia is not your own choice, especially if not of sound mind. I would consider it for terminal illnesses with less than 6 months to live only
Abortion there is no other life that has been born yet, which is why birth should be the limit.
If people of sound mind wish to die, that should be their choice, even if not terminal. If someone is paralysed by an accident and faces years, maybe decades "living" but completely paralysed then if they make the choice they want to end it all they should have (after appropriate safeguards) the dignity of their choice respected.
Similarly if someone facing dementia makes that choice then if they want to end it all while still of sound mind before they're not, that again should be their choice.
People should be able to die with dignity, not have grim forms of suicide as the only alternative.
Rubbish, arguably life begins at conception but at most it begins at 24 weeks as is the legal UK abortion time limit. Abortion up to birth is therefore in my view murder.
The state should also have no business murdering someone who will survive whatever illness or disease they suffer, care and medical treatment is its only role. Life is sacred and the state has no business ending it except in extreme circumstances, such as for convicted serial killers or those with a terminal illness nearing the end of life who consent to that
Birth is the legal limit for abortion in limited circumstances in this country, as it absolutely should be.
24 weeks is the legal limit for other circumstances. Personally I don't care enough to argue about that, I'd prefer birth for all circumstances, but can live with 24.
Life is not "sacred", there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about life at all and if people wish to end their own life then that is not the state murdering them, it is them killing themselves. A humane and dignified method of ending your own life should be available to anyone of sound mind who wants it, rather than forcing them to inhumane continuing of life they don't want, or inhumane suicide as an alternative.
Euthanasia is people legally and humanely controlling and choosing the end of their own lives, its not murder.
What on earth are the inverted commas around 'sacred' supposed to mean?
What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.
But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to. It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch. Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.
In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
So let's never return to them.
And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
It a cheap way to attract votes for an unpopular and cynical Government or an ambitious cynical Opposition that wants to creep over the line.
Priti Patel and I believe Suella Braverman (although apologies, I may be wrong) are advocates as are many Conservative MPs, like Gale, for example. The fact that when the likes of Ian Huntley are tried there are dozens and dozens of mawkish protestors demanding his life suggests it would be politically popular if morally wrong. Without the EU, without the ECHR all obstacles slip away. I believe a referendum is a clear and present danger. Once we get the hang (pun intended) of executing Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter, who and what for next?
Most people in the UK are quite dishonest with themselves over the death penalty. They think being aghast about the idea of it makes them morally superior. And it feels nice to be morally superior. But…
Jeremy Corbyn was about the only person who thought the execution by drone of the ISIS Beatles was a “tragedy”. Everyone else watched that news with their cornflakes and thought, jolly good show. Ditto Bin Laden. Ditto Shipman topping himself, even Blunkett admitted to cheering that one. Equally if we woke up at the weekend to vigilante justice being delivered in this Liverpool case, near everyone would think privately that the scumbag got what was coming to them.
There wasn't a safer way of dealing with the Isis Beatles, or Bin Laden.
Shipman made his own decision in order that his wife could benefit from a pension as I recall. Fred West too. I'd have preferred Shipman and West end their final years in s***hole prisons like Strageways and Winson Green.
As for your lynch mob, they will also serve time for the murder of a scumbag.
Agree re Shipman, I was not happy about that.
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that, for some - particularly the superior, cocky Shipman type - I think it a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. He, presumably, took the same view.
(Other reasons have been well articulated by others)
I'm a firm pro-choice believer in death with dignity. If anyone wants to end their own life, then with safeguards, that should be allowed. Their life, their choice.
Safeguards with the likes of Shipman for that would need to be serious, but if they want 'the easy way out' then that should be their choice, same as it should be anyone else's. So long as the safeguards ensure its genuinely their choice.
Keeping them alive, against their wishes, just to punish them more is for me a form of torture that I would not accept. If you want to keep them alive, against their wishes, it should be for more than just punishment's sake.
I'm with Mexicanpete on this. Happy to withhold any right to death during a prison sentence.
I do support access to euthanasia for the general public, in principle, although I believe there are huge practical problems around, effectively, informed consent for that. There are conditions for which I would choose death over life, I think, but only at the appropriate point, which would probably be at a point after I was able to provide informed consent. Setting clear conditions in advance is tricky as you don't know how you would feel at that point in time. For non-physical reasons, it's even more problematic.
My wife and I have both said to each other we'd prefer euthanasia than going into a Care Home. She works in one and while she cares passionately about her job, most of her colleagues frankly don't and most of the residents don't want to be there either. There are some people there who are happy to be there, but there are many who say every single day that they want to die. She's said she never, ever wants to end up somewhere like that.
Of course closer to the time we might change our minds, but people should have a right to choose. Their life, their choice.
I find prohibitions on euthanasia as unacceptable as prohibitions on abortion. Hopefully one day it'll be as alien too to think people were once denied that freedom to choose.
Abortion is of course ending the life of another not your own, whatever time limit you set for it.
There is also a danger euthanasia is not your own choice, especially if not of sound mind. I would consider it for terminal illnesses with less than 6 months to live only
Abortion there is no other life that has been born yet, which is why birth should be the limit.
If people of sound mind wish to die, that should be their choice, even if not terminal. If someone is paralysed by an accident and faces years, maybe decades "living" but completely paralysed then if they make the choice they want to end it all they should have (after appropriate safeguards) the dignity of their choice respected.
Similarly if someone facing dementia makes that choice then if they want to end it all while still of sound mind before they're not, that again should be their choice.
People should be able to die with dignity, not have grim forms of suicide as the only alternative.
Rubbish, arguably life begins at conception but at most it begins at 24 weeks as is the legal UK abortion time limit. Abortion up to birth is therefore in my view murder.
The state should also have no business murdering someone who will survive whatever illness or disease they suffer, care and medical treatment is its only role. Life is sacred and the state has no business ending it except in extreme circumstances, such as for convicted serial killers or those with a terminal illness nearing the end of life who consent to that
Birth is the legal limit for abortion in limited circumstances in this country, as it absolutely should be.
24 weeks is the legal limit for other circumstances. Personally I don't care enough to argue about that, I'd prefer birth for all circumstances, but can live with 24.
Life is not "sacred", there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about life at all and if people wish to end their own life then that is not the state murdering them, it is them killing themselves. A humane and dignified method of ending your own life should be available to anyone of sound mind who wants it, rather than forcing them to inhumane continuing of life they don't want, or inhumane suicide as an alternative.
Euthanasia is people legally and humanely controlling and choosing the end of their own lives, its not murder.
Personally, I support the right for a mother to abort up until the fourteenth trimester.
Sunak is positioning himself in the wings for a total Truss collapse inside 12 months, IMHO.
I think he's a busted flush. That tactic didn't work for Hunt as runner up in 2019. He was a total irrelevance in this contest and I imagine other likely cabinet ministers who might run like Badenoch or Kwarteng wouldn't give up time in the limelight so easily should another leadership contest come along quickly. Plus, the Tory membership don't like the "see, I told you we need sensible government" types as this contest and the last have demonstrated.
Sunak is positioning himself in the wings for a total Truss collapse inside 12 months, IMHO.
I don’t know about that. I think it’s more petulance because he knows he’s kamikazed his political career. Boris would have survived Captain Flake Javid walking out again were it not for Sunak copying his homework. And he then would have remained Chancellor for two more years. At least! As it is, he picked the worst window possible to launch the leadership bid. The optimum time was pre Xmas when Partygate first came to light. Followed by 2024 (or later if Boris won again).
Boring stuff going back to finance. And he can’t look his father in law in the eye if his ambition for the rest of his life is to sit in a shepherd’s hut in a Cotswold garden, firing off the occasional email to government chums for dodgy mates.
What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.
But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to. It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch. Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.
In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
So let's never return to them.
And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
It a cheap way to attract votes for an unpopular and cynical Government or an ambitious cynical Opposition that wants to creep over the line.
Priti Patel and I believe Suella Braverman (although apologies, I may be wrong) are advocates as are many Conservative MPs, like Gale, for example. The fact that when the likes of Ian Huntley are tried there are dozens and dozens of mawkish protestors demanding his life suggests it would be politically popular if morally wrong. Without the EU, without the ECHR all obstacles slip away. I believe a referendum is a clear and present danger. Once we get the hang (pun intended) of executing Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter, who and what for next?
Most people in the UK are quite dishonest with themselves over the death penalty. They think being aghast about the idea of it makes them morally superior. And it feels nice to be morally superior. But…
Jeremy Corbyn was about the only person who thought the execution by drone of the ISIS Beatles was a “tragedy”. Everyone else watched that news with their cornflakes and thought, jolly good show. Ditto Bin Laden. Ditto Shipman topping himself, even Blunkett admitted to cheering that one. Equally if we woke up at the weekend to vigilante justice being delivered in this Liverpool case, near everyone would think privately that the scumbag got what was coming to them.
There wasn't a safer way of dealing with the Isis Beatles, or Bin Laden.
Shipman made his own decision in order that his wife could benefit from a pension as I recall. Fred West too. I'd have preferred Shipman and West end their final years in s***hole prisons like Strageways and Winson Green.
As for your lynch mob, they will also serve time for the murder of a scumbag.
Agree re Shipman, I was not happy about that.
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that, for some - particularly the superior, cocky Shipman type - I think it a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. He, presumably, took the same view.
(Other reasons have been well articulated by others)
I'm a firm pro-choice believer in death with dignity. If anyone wants to end their own life, then with safeguards, that should be allowed. Their life, their choice.
Safeguards with the likes of Shipman for that would need to be serious, but if they want 'the easy way out' then that should be their choice, same as it should be anyone else's. So long as the safeguards ensure its genuinely their choice.
Keeping them alive, against their wishes, just to punish them more is for me a form of torture that I would not accept. If you want to keep them alive, against their wishes, it should be for more than just punishment's sake.
I'm with Mexicanpete on this. Happy to withhold any right to death during a prison sentence.
I do support access to euthanasia for the general public, in principle, although I believe there are huge practical problems around, effectively, informed consent for that. There are conditions for which I would choose death over life, I think, but only at the appropriate point, which would probably be at a point after I was able to provide informed consent. Setting clear conditions in advance is tricky as you don't know how you would feel at that point in time. For non-physical reasons, it's even more problematic.
My wife and I have both said to each other we'd prefer euthanasia than going into a Care Home. She works in one and while she cares passionately about her job, most of her colleagues frankly don't and most of the residents don't want to be there either. There are some people there who are happy to be there, but there are many who say every single day that they want to die. She's said she never, ever wants to end up somewhere like that.
Of course closer to the time we might change our minds, but people should have a right to choose. Their life, their choice.
I find prohibitions on euthanasia as unacceptable as prohibitions on abortion. Hopefully one day it'll be as alien too to think people were once denied that freedom to choose.
Abortion is of course ending the life of another not your own, whatever time limit you set for it.
There is also a danger euthanasia is not your own choice, especially if not of sound mind. I would consider it for terminal illnesses with less than 6 months to live only
Abortion there is no other life that has been born yet, which is why birth should be the limit.
If people of sound mind wish to die, that should be their choice, even if not terminal. If someone is paralysed by an accident and faces years, maybe decades "living" but completely paralysed then if they make the choice they want to end it all they should have (after appropriate safeguards) the dignity of their choice respected.
Similarly if someone facing dementia makes that choice then if they want to end it all while still of sound mind before they're not, that again should be their choice.
People should be able to die with dignity, not have grim forms of suicide as the only alternative.
Rubbish, arguably life begins at conception but at most it begins at 24 weeks as is the legal UK abortion time limit. Abortion up to birth is therefore in my view murder.
The state should also have no business murdering someone who will survive whatever illness or disease they suffer, care and medical treatment is its only role. Life is sacred and the state has no business ending it except in extreme circumstances, such as for convicted serial killers or those with a terminal illness nearing the end of life who consent to that
Birth is the legal limit for abortion in limited circumstances in this country, as it absolutely should be.
24 weeks is the legal limit for other circumstances. Personally I don't care enough to argue about that, I'd prefer birth for all circumstances, but can live with 24.
Life is not "sacred", there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about life at all and if people wish to end their own life then that is not the state murdering them, it is them killing themselves. A humane and dignified method of ending your own life should be available to anyone of sound mind who wants it, rather than forcing them to inhumane continuing of life they don't want, or inhumane suicide as an alternative.
Euthanasia is people legally and humanely controlling and choosing the end of their own lives, its not murder.
Personally, I support the right for a mother to abort up until the fourteenth trimester.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin.
Yeah, let me just stop you there.
What, because you are too stupid to process more than one sentence at a time?
A new PB tory herd is emerging before our eyes, united in having hard ons for Truss and mildly subversive 4chan-and-warm-piss anti lockdown views. I think we can log you joining the site on July 18 (in this avatar anyway) as Day 1.
What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.
But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to. It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch. Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.
In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
So let's never return to them.
And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
It a cheap way to attract votes for an unpopular and cynical Government or an ambitious cynical Opposition that wants to creep over the line.
Priti Patel and I believe Suella Braverman (although apologies, I may be wrong) are advocates as are many Conservative MPs, like Gale, for example. The fact that when the likes of Ian Huntley are tried there are dozens and dozens of mawkish protestors demanding his life suggests it would be politically popular if morally wrong. Without the EU, without the ECHR all obstacles slip away. I believe a referendum is a clear and present danger. Once we get the hang (pun intended) of executing Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter, who and what for next?
Most people in the UK are quite dishonest with themselves over the death penalty. They think being aghast about the idea of it makes them morally superior. And it feels nice to be morally superior. But…
Jeremy Corbyn was about the only person who thought the execution by drone of the ISIS Beatles was a “tragedy”. Everyone else watched that news with their cornflakes and thought, jolly good show. Ditto Bin Laden. Ditto Shipman topping himself, even Blunkett admitted to cheering that one. Equally if we woke up at the weekend to vigilante justice being delivered in this Liverpool case, near everyone would think privately that the scumbag got what was coming to them.
There wasn't a safer way of dealing with the Isis Beatles, or Bin Laden.
Shipman made his own decision in order that his wife could benefit from a pension as I recall. Fred West too. I'd have preferred Shipman and West end their final years in s***hole prisons like Strageways and Winson Green.
As for your lynch mob, they will also serve time for the murder of a scumbag.
Agree re Shipman, I was not happy about that.
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that, for some - particularly the superior, cocky Shipman type - I think it a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. He, presumably, took the same view.
(Other reasons have been well articulated by others)
I'm a firm pro-choice believer in death with dignity. If anyone wants to end their own life, then with safeguards, that should be allowed. Their life, their choice.
Safeguards with the likes of Shipman for that would need to be serious, but if they want 'the easy way out' then that should be their choice, same as it should be anyone else's. So long as the safeguards ensure its genuinely their choice.
Keeping them alive, against their wishes, just to punish them more is for me a form of torture that I would not accept. If you want to keep them alive, against their wishes, it should be for more than just punishment's sake.
I'm with Mexicanpete on this. Happy to withhold any right to death during a prison sentence.
I do support access to euthanasia for the general public, in principle, although I believe there are huge practical problems around, effectively, informed consent for that. There are conditions for which I would choose death over life, I think, but only at the appropriate point, which would probably be at a point after I was able to provide informed consent. Setting clear conditions in advance is tricky as you don't know how you would feel at that point in time. For non-physical reasons, it's even more problematic.
My wife and I have both said to each other we'd prefer euthanasia than going into a Care Home. She works in one and while she cares passionately about her job, most of her colleagues frankly don't and most of the residents don't want to be there either. There are some people there who are happy to be there, but there are many who say every single day that they want to die. She's said she never, ever wants to end up somewhere like that.
Of course closer to the time we might change our minds, but people should have a right to choose. Their life, their choice.
I find prohibitions on euthanasia as unacceptable as prohibitions on abortion. Hopefully one day it'll be as alien too to think people were once denied that freedom to choose.
Abortion is of course ending the life of another not your own, whatever time limit you set for it.
There is also a danger euthanasia is not your own choice, especially if not of sound mind. I would consider it for terminal illnesses with less than 6 months to live only
Abortion there is no other life that has been born yet, which is why birth should be the limit.
If people of sound mind wish to die, that should be their choice, even if not terminal. If someone is paralysed by an accident and faces years, maybe decades "living" but completely paralysed then if they make the choice they want to end it all they should have (after appropriate safeguards) the dignity of their choice respected.
Similarly if someone facing dementia makes that choice then if they want to end it all while still of sound mind before they're not, that again should be their choice.
People should be able to die with dignity, not have grim forms of suicide as the only alternative.
Rubbish, arguably life begins at conception but at most it begins at 24 weeks as is the legal UK abortion time limit. Abortion up to birth is therefore in my view murder.
The state should also have no business murdering someone who will survive whatever illness or disease they suffer, care and medical treatment is its only role. Life is sacred and the state has no business ending it except in extreme circumstances, such as for convicted serial killers or those with a terminal illness nearing the end of life who consent to that
Birth is the legal limit for abortion in limited circumstances in this country, as it absolutely should be.
24 weeks is the legal limit for other circumstances. Personally I don't care enough to argue about that, I'd prefer birth for all circumstances, but can live with 24.
Life is not "sacred", there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about life at all and if people wish to end their own life then that is not the state murdering them, it is them killing themselves. A humane and dignified method of ending your own life should be available to anyone of sound mind who wants it, rather than forcing them to inhumane continuing of life they don't want, or inhumane suicide as an alternative.
Euthanasia is people legally and humanely controlling and choosing the end of their own lives, its not murder.
What on earth are the inverted commas around 'sacred' supposed to mean?
Quotation marks.
HYUFD said that life was "sacred" and I was quoting him and saying that its not. It'd be an odd thing to write without the quotation.
I think people are thinking about this nuclear war the wrong way. In particular they are failing to give consideration to the incredible advantages that are likely to arise at the next boundary commission hearings after the war. With London, Liverpool, Birmingham having no more than a couple of constituencies each Tory majorities are nailed on. We need to focus on the bigger picture here.
There's a chance of a LD majority with SNP opposition. Being as how 649 constituencies will be in Shetland
You dramatically overstate the dangers of nuclear war. In all probability (assuming all nuclear weapons work, which they won't), 30-40% of the British population would survive the initial blast. It's only later, after radiation sickness and starvation has got them, that the population drops so low.
Thank you for that cheery thought.
Trident: worth every penny. The 30% will be delighted with the value for money as they slowly starve to death in spasms of excruciating pain.
And Starmer wants to renew the mad endeavour.
You should have been nicer to Magic Grandpa. A Labour leader who was indifferent to the survival of the union and was a unilateralist.
What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.
But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to. It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch. Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.
In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
So let's never return to them.
And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
It a cheap way to attract votes for an unpopular and cynical Government or an ambitious cynical Opposition that wants to creep over the line.
Priti Patel and I believe Suella Braverman (although apologies, I may be wrong) are advocates as are many Conservative MPs, like Gale, for example. The fact that when the likes of Ian Huntley are tried there are dozens and dozens of mawkish protestors demanding his life suggests it would be politically popular if morally wrong. Without the EU, without the ECHR all obstacles slip away. I believe a referendum is a clear and present danger. Once we get the hang (pun intended) of executing Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter, who and what for next?
Most people in the UK are quite dishonest with themselves over the death penalty. They think being aghast about the idea of it makes them morally superior. And it feels nice to be morally superior. But…
Jeremy Corbyn was about the only person who thought the execution by drone of the ISIS Beatles was a “tragedy”. Everyone else watched that news with their cornflakes and thought, jolly good show. Ditto Bin Laden. Ditto Shipman topping himself, even Blunkett admitted to cheering that one. Equally if we woke up at the weekend to vigilante justice being delivered in this Liverpool case, near everyone would think privately that the scumbag got what was coming to them.
There wasn't a safer way of dealing with the Isis Beatles, or Bin Laden.
Shipman made his own decision in order that his wife could benefit from a pension as I recall. Fred West too. I'd have preferred Shipman and West end their final years in s***hole prisons like Strageways and Winson Green.
As for your lynch mob, they will also serve time for the murder of a scumbag.
Agree re Shipman, I was not happy about that.
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that, for some - particularly the superior, cocky Shipman type - I think it a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. He, presumably, took the same view.
(Other reasons have been well articulated by others)
I'm a firm pro-choice believer in death with dignity. If anyone wants to end their own life, then with safeguards, that should be allowed. Their life, their choice.
Safeguards with the likes of Shipman for that would need to be serious, but if they want 'the easy way out' then that should be their choice, same as it should be anyone else's. So long as the safeguards ensure its genuinely their choice.
Keeping them alive, against their wishes, just to punish them more is for me a form of torture that I would not accept. If you want to keep them alive, against their wishes, it should be for more than just punishment's sake.
I'm with Mexicanpete on this. Happy to withhold any right to death during a prison sentence.
I do support access to euthanasia for the general public, in principle, although I believe there are huge practical problems around, effectively, informed consent for that. There are conditions for which I would choose death over life, I think, but only at the appropriate point, which would probably be at a point after I was able to provide informed consent. Setting clear conditions in advance is tricky as you don't know how you would feel at that point in time. For non-physical reasons, it's even more problematic.
My wife and I have both said to each other we'd prefer euthanasia than going into a Care Home. She works in one and while she cares passionately about her job, most of her colleagues frankly don't and most of the residents don't want to be there either. There are some people there who are happy to be there, but there are many who say every single day that they want to die. She's said she never, ever wants to end up somewhere like that.
Of course closer to the time we might change our minds, but people should have a right to choose. Their life, their choice.
I find prohibitions on euthanasia as unacceptable as prohibitions on abortion. Hopefully one day it'll be as alien too to think people were once denied that freedom to choose.
Abortion is of course ending the life of another not your own, whatever time limit you set for it.
There is also a danger euthanasia is not your own choice, especially if not of sound mind. I would consider it for terminal illnesses with less than 6 months to live only
Abortion there is no other life that has been born yet, which is why birth should be the limit.
If people of sound mind wish to die, that should be their choice, even if not terminal. If someone is paralysed by an accident and faces years, maybe decades "living" but completely paralysed then if they make the choice they want to end it all they should have (after appropriate safeguards) the dignity of their choice respected.
Similarly if someone facing dementia makes that choice then if they want to end it all while still of sound mind before they're not, that again should be their choice.
People should be able to die with dignity, not have grim forms of suicide as the only alternative.
Rubbish, arguably life begins at conception but at most it begins at 24 weeks as is the legal UK abortion time limit. Abortion up to birth is therefore in my view murder.
The state should also have no business murdering someone who will survive whatever illness or disease they suffer, care and medical treatment is its only role. Life is sacred and the state has no business ending it except in extreme circumstances, such as for convicted serial killers or those with a terminal illness nearing the end of life who consent to that
Birth is the legal limit for abortion in limited circumstances in this country, as it absolutely should be.
24 weeks is the legal limit for other circumstances. Personally I don't care enough to argue about that, I'd prefer birth for all circumstances, but can live with 24.
Life is not "sacred", there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about life at all and if people wish to end their own life then that is not the state murdering them, it is them killing themselves. A humane and dignified method of ending your own life should be available to anyone of sound mind who wants it, rather than forcing them to inhumane continuing of life they don't want, or inhumane suicide as an alternative.
Euthanasia is people legally and humanely controlling and choosing the end of their own lives, its not murder.
Personally I would prefer a reduction in the abortion time limit to 22 weeks but you said you backed abortion to birth which is murder in all but name.
Yes life is sacred and any decent government with any sense of morality should seek to protect that. The government should not be in the business of encouraging suicide even if it is no longer a criminal offence and no euthanasia on demand should not be an option either except maybe for those with terminal illnesses near the end of life.
The extraordinary generosity of UK plc last year reached an astonishing £2,184 for every man, women, non binary and child in the country, whatever their orientation. As usual many on this board will be reluctant to acknowledge this kindness and commitment to the Union and even be somewhat curmudgenly about it so I just thought I would put it on the record. Thanks.
It’s a shame @malcolmg isnt around to rage at how the number is wrong and actually rUK is indebted to Scotland.
I do miss him and I hope he is ok.
Me too. Somehow his incredibly rude and angry (at least seeming) rants are part of PB essence, and it’s loss is noted.
Yes, Malc was astonishingly rude, but his rudeness was so indiscriminate that it was hard to take personal offence. I used to like it when he'd talk about a day he'd had at the races, and genuine happiness and enthusiasm would come into his day, quite apart from his success or otherwise. Like a ray of sunshine on a stormy day.
At his best, he was a top notch swear blogger. Latterly, the quality of his inventive declined somewhat.
What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.
But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to. It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch. Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.
In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
So let's never return to them.
And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
It a cheap way to attract votes for an unpopular and cynical Government or an ambitious cynical Opposition that wants to creep over the line.
Priti Patel and I believe Suella Braverman (although apologies, I may be wrong) are advocates as are many Conservative MPs, like Gale, for example. The fact that when the likes of Ian Huntley are tried there are dozens and dozens of mawkish protestors demanding his life suggests it would be politically popular if morally wrong. Without the EU, without the ECHR all obstacles slip away. I believe a referendum is a clear and present danger. Once we get the hang (pun intended) of executing Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter, who and what for next?
Most people in the UK are quite dishonest with themselves over the death penalty. They think being aghast about the idea of it makes them morally superior. And it feels nice to be morally superior. But…
Jeremy Corbyn was about the only person who thought the execution by drone of the ISIS Beatles was a “tragedy”. Everyone else watched that news with their cornflakes and thought, jolly good show. Ditto Bin Laden. Ditto Shipman topping himself, even Blunkett admitted to cheering that one. Equally if we woke up at the weekend to vigilante justice being delivered in this Liverpool case, near everyone would think privately that the scumbag got what was coming to them.
There wasn't a safer way of dealing with the Isis Beatles, or Bin Laden.
Shipman made his own decision in order that his wife could benefit from a pension as I recall. Fred West too. I'd have preferred Shipman and West end their final years in s***hole prisons like Strageways and Winson Green.
As for your lynch mob, they will also serve time for the murder of a scumbag.
Agree re Shipman, I was not happy about that.
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that, for some - particularly the superior, cocky Shipman type - I think it a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. He, presumably, took the same view.
(Other reasons have been well articulated by others)
I'm a firm pro-choice believer in death with dignity. If anyone wants to end their own life, then with safeguards, that should be allowed. Their life, their choice.
Safeguards with the likes of Shipman for that would need to be serious, but if they want 'the easy way out' then that should be their choice, same as it should be anyone else's. So long as the safeguards ensure its genuinely their choice.
Keeping them alive, against their wishes, just to punish them more is for me a form of torture that I would not accept. If you want to keep them alive, against their wishes, it should be for more than just punishment's sake.
I'm with Mexicanpete on this. Happy to withhold any right to death during a prison sentence.
I do support access to euthanasia for the general public, in principle, although I believe there are huge practical problems around, effectively, informed consent for that. There are conditions for which I would choose death over life, I think, but only at the appropriate point, which would probably be at a point after I was able to provide informed consent. Setting clear conditions in advance is tricky as you don't know how you would feel at that point in time. For non-physical reasons, it's even more problematic.
My wife and I have both said to each other we'd prefer euthanasia than going into a Care Home. She works in one and while she cares passionately about her job, most of her colleagues frankly don't and most of the residents don't want to be there either. There are some people there who are happy to be there, but there are many who say every single day that they want to die. She's said she never, ever wants to end up somewhere like that.
Of course closer to the time we might change our minds, but people should have a right to choose. Their life, their choice.
I find prohibitions on euthanasia as unacceptable as prohibitions on abortion. Hopefully one day it'll be as alien too to think people were once denied that freedom to choose.
Abortion is of course ending the life of another not your own, whatever time limit you set for it.
There is also a danger euthanasia is not your own choice, especially if not of sound mind. I would consider it for terminal illnesses with less than 6 months to live only
Abortion there is no other life that has been born yet, which is why birth should be the limit.
If people of sound mind wish to die, that should be their choice, even if not terminal. If someone is paralysed by an accident and faces years, maybe decades "living" but completely paralysed then if they make the choice they want to end it all they should have (after appropriate safeguards) the dignity of their choice respected.
Similarly if someone facing dementia makes that choice then if they want to end it all while still of sound mind before they're not, that again should be their choice.
People should be able to die with dignity, not have grim forms of suicide as the only alternative.
Rubbish, arguably life begins at conception but at most it begins at 24 weeks as is the legal UK abortion time limit. Abortion up to birth is therefore in my view murder.
The state should also have no business murdering someone who will survive whatever illness or disease they suffer, care and medical treatment is its only role. Life is sacred and the state has no business ending it except in extreme circumstances, such as for convicted serial killers or those with a terminal illness nearing the end of life who consent to that
Birth is the legal limit for abortion in limited circumstances in this country, as it absolutely should be.
24 weeks is the legal limit for other circumstances. Personally I don't care enough to argue about that, I'd prefer birth for all circumstances, but can live with 24.
Life is not "sacred", there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about life at all and if people wish to end their own life then that is not the state murdering them, it is them killing themselves. A humane and dignified method of ending your own life should be available to anyone of sound mind who wants it, rather than forcing them to inhumane continuing of life they don't want, or inhumane suicide as an alternative.
Euthanasia is people legally and humanely controlling and choosing the end of their own lives, its not murder.
What on earth are the inverted commas around 'sacred' supposed to mean?
Quotation marks.
HYUFD said that life was "sacred" and I was quoting him and saying that its not. It'd be an odd thing to write without the quotation.
Of course you don't think it is sacred as you take narcissistic libertarianism to the ultra extreme including abortion to birth and euthanasia on demand for the non terminally ill
Sunak is positioning himself in the wings for a total Truss collapse inside 12 months, IMHO.
I think he's a busted flush. That tactic didn't work for Hunt as runner up in 2019. He was a total irrelevance in this contest and I imagine other likely cabinet ministers who might run like Badenoch or Kwarteng wouldn't give up time in the limelight so easily should another leadership contest come along quickly. Plus, the Tory membership don't like the "see, I told you we need sensible government" types as this contest and the last have demonstrated.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
Today, pb, I am sad, and I am sad because my wonderful, sparky, lively, bright middle daughter is sad. She is sad because of her upcoming 11+. She is sad because of all the work which is needed to prepare for it over the course of her precious ten year old summer, and sad because she may not pass, and even if she does she will be split frpm her friends. We have tried and tried and tried not to pressure her. But she feels it anyway. I don't say this to say that the 11+ is wrong. (It may or may not be, but if it is wrong it is not because it makes my daughter miserable. Something can make children miserable and still be the right thing to do.) It just, in the Cookie house, at the moment, feels a very high price to pay. That's all.
Danny Baker famously passed the 11+ but then went to the secondary modern along with his friends.
What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.
But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to. It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch. Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.
In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
So let's never return to them.
And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
It a cheap way to attract votes for an unpopular and cynical Government or an ambitious cynical Opposition that wants to creep over the line.
Priti Patel and I believe Suella Braverman (although apologies, I may be wrong) are advocates as are many Conservative MPs, like Gale, for example. The fact that when the likes of Ian Huntley are tried there are dozens and dozens of mawkish protestors demanding his life suggests it would be politically popular if morally wrong. Without the EU, without the ECHR all obstacles slip away. I believe a referendum is a clear and present danger. Once we get the hang (pun intended) of executing Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter, who and what for next?
Most people in the UK are quite dishonest with themselves over the death penalty. They think being aghast about the idea of it makes them morally superior. And it feels nice to be morally superior. But…
Jeremy Corbyn was about the only person who thought the execution by drone of the ISIS Beatles was a “tragedy”. Everyone else watched that news with their cornflakes and thought, jolly good show. Ditto Bin Laden. Ditto Shipman topping himself, even Blunkett admitted to cheering that one. Equally if we woke up at the weekend to vigilante justice being delivered in this Liverpool case, near everyone would think privately that the scumbag got what was coming to them.
There wasn't a safer way of dealing with the Isis Beatles, or Bin Laden.
Shipman made his own decision in order that his wife could benefit from a pension as I recall. Fred West too. I'd have preferred Shipman and West end their final years in s***hole prisons like Strageways and Winson Green.
As for your lynch mob, they will also serve time for the murder of a scumbag.
Agree re Shipman, I was not happy about that.
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that, for some - particularly the superior, cocky Shipman type - I think it a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. He, presumably, took the same view.
(Other reasons have been well articulated by others)
I'm a firm pro-choice believer in death with dignity. If anyone wants to end their own life, then with safeguards, that should be allowed. Their life, their choice.
Safeguards with the likes of Shipman for that would need to be serious, but if they want 'the easy way out' then that should be their choice, same as it should be anyone else's. So long as the safeguards ensure its genuinely their choice.
Keeping them alive, against their wishes, just to punish them more is for me a form of torture that I would not accept. If you want to keep them alive, against their wishes, it should be for more than just punishment's sake.
I'm with Mexicanpete on this. Happy to withhold any right to death during a prison sentence.
I do support access to euthanasia for the general public, in principle, although I believe there are huge practical problems around, effectively, informed consent for that. There are conditions for which I would choose death over life, I think, but only at the appropriate point, which would probably be at a point after I was able to provide informed consent. Setting clear conditions in advance is tricky as you don't know how you would feel at that point in time. For non-physical reasons, it's even more problematic.
My wife and I have both said to each other we'd prefer euthanasia than going into a Care Home. She works in one and while she cares passionately about her job, most of her colleagues frankly don't and most of the residents don't want to be there either. There are some people there who are happy to be there, but there are many who say every single day that they want to die. She's said she never, ever wants to end up somewhere like that.
Of course closer to the time we might change our minds, but people should have a right to choose. Their life, their choice.
I find prohibitions on euthanasia as unacceptable as prohibitions on abortion. Hopefully one day it'll be as alien too to think people were once denied that freedom to choose.
Abortion is of course ending the life of another not your own, whatever time limit you set for it.
There is also a danger euthanasia is not your own choice, especially if not of sound mind. I would consider it for terminal illnesses with less than 6 months to live only
Abortion there is no other life that has been born yet, which is why birth should be the limit.
If people of sound mind wish to die, that should be their choice, even if not terminal. If someone is paralysed by an accident and faces years, maybe decades "living" but completely paralysed then if they make the choice they want to end it all they should have (after appropriate safeguards) the dignity of their choice respected.
Similarly if someone facing dementia makes that choice then if they want to end it all while still of sound mind before they're not, that again should be their choice.
People should be able to die with dignity, not have grim forms of suicide as the only alternative.
Rubbish, arguably life begins at conception but at most it begins at 24 weeks as is the legal UK abortion time limit. Abortion up to birth is therefore in my view murder.
The state should also have no business murdering someone who will survive whatever illness or disease they suffer, care and medical treatment is its only role. Life is sacred and the state has no business ending it except in extreme circumstances, such as for convicted serial killers or those with a terminal illness nearing the end of life who consent to that
Birth is the legal limit for abortion in limited circumstances in this country, as it absolutely should be.
24 weeks is the legal limit for other circumstances. Personally I don't care enough to argue about that, I'd prefer birth for all circumstances, but can live with 24.
Life is not "sacred", there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about life at all and if people wish to end their own life then that is not the state murdering them, it is them killing themselves. A humane and dignified method of ending your own life should be available to anyone of sound mind who wants it, rather than forcing them to inhumane continuing of life they don't want, or inhumane suicide as an alternative.
Euthanasia is people legally and humanely controlling and choosing the end of their own lives, its not murder.
Personally, I support the right for a mother to abort up until the fourteenth trimester.
Surely there can be other windows, such as when the foetus is between 17 and 18 years old?
The death penalty is not a deterrent as can be seen by murder rates in US states that have and do not have it.
Although with the advent of DNA technology you’re less likely to execute an innocent person in the USA 55 innocent people have been executed in the past .
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
Still insulting our intelligence, I see. You’re usually smarter than that.
What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.
But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to. It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch. Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.
In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
So let's never return to them.
And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
It a cheap way to attract votes for an unpopular and cynical Government or an ambitious cynical Opposition that wants to creep over the line.
Priti Patel and I believe Suella Braverman (although apologies, I may be wrong) are advocates as are many Conservative MPs, like Gale, for example. The fact that when the likes of Ian Huntley are tried there are dozens and dozens of mawkish protestors demanding his life suggests it would be politically popular if morally wrong. Without the EU, without the ECHR all obstacles slip away. I believe a referendum is a clear and present danger. Once we get the hang (pun intended) of executing Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter, who and what for next?
Most people in the UK are quite dishonest with themselves over the death penalty. They think being aghast about the idea of it makes them morally superior. And it feels nice to be morally superior. But…
Jeremy Corbyn was about the only person who thought the execution by drone of the ISIS Beatles was a “tragedy”. Everyone else watched that news with their cornflakes and thought, jolly good show. Ditto Bin Laden. Ditto Shipman topping himself, even Blunkett admitted to cheering that one. Equally if we woke up at the weekend to vigilante justice being delivered in this Liverpool case, near everyone would think privately that the scumbag got what was coming to them.
There wasn't a safer way of dealing with the Isis Beatles, or Bin Laden.
Shipman made his own decision in order that his wife could benefit from a pension as I recall. Fred West too. I'd have preferred Shipman and West end their final years in s***hole prisons like Strageways and Winson Green.
As for your lynch mob, they will also serve time for the murder of a scumbag.
Agree re Shipman, I was not happy about that.
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that, for some - particularly the superior, cocky Shipman type - I think it a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. He, presumably, took the same view.
(Other reasons have been well articulated by others)
I'm a firm pro-choice believer in death with dignity. If anyone wants to end their own life, then with safeguards, that should be allowed. Their life, their choice.
Safeguards with the likes of Shipman for that would need to be serious, but if they want 'the easy way out' then that should be their choice, same as it should be anyone else's. So long as the safeguards ensure its genuinely their choice.
Keeping them alive, against their wishes, just to punish them more is for me a form of torture that I would not accept. If you want to keep them alive, against their wishes, it should be for more than just punishment's sake.
I'm with Mexicanpete on this. Happy to withhold any right to death during a prison sentence.
I do support access to euthanasia for the general public, in principle, although I believe there are huge practical problems around, effectively, informed consent for that. There are conditions for which I would choose death over life, I think, but only at the appropriate point, which would probably be at a point after I was able to provide informed consent. Setting clear conditions in advance is tricky as you don't know how you would feel at that point in time. For non-physical reasons, it's even more problematic.
My wife and I have both said to each other we'd prefer euthanasia than going into a Care Home. She works in one and while she cares passionately about her job, most of her colleagues frankly don't and most of the residents don't want to be there either. There are some people there who are happy to be there, but there are many who say every single day that they want to die. She's said she never, ever wants to end up somewhere like that.
Of course closer to the time we might change our minds, but people should have a right to choose. Their life, their choice.
I find prohibitions on euthanasia as unacceptable as prohibitions on abortion. Hopefully one day it'll be as alien too to think people were once denied that freedom to choose.
Abortion is of course ending the life of another not your own, whatever time limit you set for it.
There is also a danger euthanasia is not your own choice, especially if not of sound mind. I would consider it for terminal illnesses with less than 6 months to live only
Abortion there is no other life that has been born yet, which is why birth should be the limit.
If people of sound mind wish to die, that should be their choice, even if not terminal. If someone is paralysed by an accident and faces years, maybe decades "living" but completely paralysed then if they make the choice they want to end it all they should have (after appropriate safeguards) the dignity of their choice respected.
Similarly if someone facing dementia makes that choice then if they want to end it all while still of sound mind before they're not, that again should be their choice.
People should be able to die with dignity, not have grim forms of suicide as the only alternative.
Rubbish, arguably life begins at conception but at most it begins at 24 weeks as is the legal UK abortion time limit. Abortion up to birth is therefore in my view murder.
The state should also have no business murdering someone who will survive whatever illness or disease they suffer, care and medical treatment is its only role. Life is sacred and the state has no business ending it except in extreme circumstances, such as for convicted serial killers or those with a terminal illness nearing the end of life who consent to that
Birth is the legal limit for abortion in limited circumstances in this country, as it absolutely should be.
24 weeks is the legal limit for other circumstances. Personally I don't care enough to argue about that, I'd prefer birth for all circumstances, but can live with 24.
Life is not "sacred", there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about life at all and if people wish to end their own life then that is not the state murdering them, it is them killing themselves. A humane and dignified method of ending your own life should be available to anyone of sound mind who wants it, rather than forcing them to inhumane continuing of life they don't want, or inhumane suicide as an alternative.
Euthanasia is people legally and humanely controlling and choosing the end of their own lives, its not murder.
What on earth are the inverted commas around 'sacred' supposed to mean?
Quotation marks.
HYUFD said that life was "sacred" and I was quoting him and saying that its not. It'd be an odd thing to write without the quotation.
Of course you don't think it is sacred as you take narcissistic libertarianism to the ultra extreme including abortion to birth and euthanasia on demand for the non terminally ill
What is so sacred about life that someone of sound mind who wishes to die should be denied that right to control their own life?
Nah, if you believe Dan Hodges she's going to destroy Starmer at the next election through a war on woke, which people care about far more than whether they can afford to pay their energy bills.
Issues are only an election-winning issues if parties have different and better strategies for addressing them. Everyone is agreed on the long term solutions (other sources than Russian gas) and there are no sensible short term solutions. You can tweak with who pays the bills like the French are doing, but the bills still need to be paid. Mind you, what is the solution to woke? The fact all our institutions are getting ever woker even after 12 years of Tory PMs suggests that Tory solution to woke (put up with it but grumble about it) is no better than Labour's.
The woke stuff is as a result of a 25-year effort since 1997, to fill the institutions with Blairites, specifically so they could prevent a Conservative government from implementing their policies.
The only way it goes away, is with some very well-crafted legislation, that can survive the process of judicial review and “human rights” legal challenges. That and, as suggested by Mrs Badonock, holding the chief execs of qangos accountable for their failure to implement directions from the government of the day.
There is that, but 'woke' thinking is quite heavily rooted in elite culture. It was foreseeable over the last decade that the culture at universities would influence how a generation perceives the world; and this would eventually be rolled out into institutions. Also, the tories themselves have been rolling out a lot of 'woke' policy, even if they don't want to admit it.
I've always believed that the opposition to 'woke' will materialise when the tories are in opposition. That is the experience of the US - Now that the republicans are in opposition, they are successfully rolling back a lot of 'woke' stuff at the local level, particuarly CRT in schools.
Catch is that the UK doesn't really have that much working local government.
Take schools- there's the DfE and Ofsted in Whitehall and thousands of Academy Trusts running the schools, and not much in-between.
US Republicans have a lot of power bases, even when they don't have the White House.
In the UK, if your lot are out, they are really out.
Most US colleges are not public and that is where the Woke issue is strongest
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
So where are the photos of Bush in blue with a neck bow ? Driving a tank ? (his dad did.) etc
I can’t even find one of the well known cowboy with a calf; only fully grown animals.
Those who go along with Truss’s pathetic spin are insulting our intelligence.
A woman wore a bow?
Well that is unprecedented.
That there's more photos of Truss wearing women's clothing than GWB really shouldn't be a shock to anyone sane. I suppose you think if two male politicians both wore a tie that they're trying to look the same too, right?
On its own, you might have a case. Show me photos of any other female politician, apart from Thatcher and Truss, wearing a fur hat, sitting astride a motorbike, with a calf, sitting in a tank, wearing a blue outfit with white bow… etc, etc.
You can’t.
Don’t insult our intelligence.
No. Don’t be harsh on Bart on this one, it’s not Bart insulting our intelligence, it’s the next Prime Minister Liz Trust insulting our intelligence - Mike was right to put it up there.
The Truss supporters are merely saying that they believe the word of Liz Truss on this, not what their own eyes, ears, mouth, nose, shoulders knees and toes, smell, touch, taste, brain, second brain in gut, waters, bowels, nanny, granny, sky sports transfer show, Reginald Tindal Kennedy Bosanquet and their Alexa is actually telling them. Bart is a mere pawn or mug in this one.
But this isn’t a laughter thread, this is a serious political betting one. Truss is going to lose the electorate with a “I never planned to call an election” type moment in her first hours in the role, that’s what this thread is about.
O/T Liz Truss is unhinged. Nothing more, nothing less.
The right wing nutters who live on this blog seem to think she is something special. She is no Thatcher. She is likely to give Cameron and Johnson a good run for the worst PM ever.
Johnson I’ll give you but Cameron? Formed a coalition that worked well for 5 years then won a majority. Gave the nation a chance to vote on its political future over Europe, something all others denied since the 70’s. A decent man, and a decent PM. Your countrymen and women are the ones to blame for Brexit, not Cameron.
He didn’t think through the referendum. He was lazy and arrogant.
I really just do not understand this attitude
The question was put to the people who voted in a referendum the result of which you have not come to terms with along with many others
The remain supporters failed to win a very winnable case and seem to want to blame everyone but themselves
Furthermore, Starmer is not offering to re-join, indeed neither are the lib dems implicitly promising to do so, so little will change in the foreseeable though a better relationship with the EU while remaining outside would be welcome
The Remain campaign was shockingly poor and Cameron made it as difficult to win as he possibly could because he fully expected to walk it. Osborne told him it was an outrageous risk.
Yes Corbyn, and the entire Labour Party are probably even more culpable for their utter ineptitude than Cameron. I blame them, particularly Corbyn wholeheartedly. The LibDems on the other hand were superb, it's just they didn't have the networks to win over enough doubters.
Crucially no one had the vaguest idea of what they were voting for Leave and Remain, and both sides lied. Leave lied better and Boris was sublime, however like Cameron he expected Remain to win and like Cameron didn't know what to do when they didn't.
Still it's done now and it's going great ...maybe!
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
The particularly charming poster Ismael also misunderstands something. I don’t think there’s anyone here who is giving full throttled support to Truss. I’m certainly not, I have little idea whether she’ll be any good and I suspect neither does she until she starts the job. Big step up even from Foreign Sec.
But the reflexive hate for her before she’s even got going strikes me as quite bizarre, when there’s nothing obvious in her track record to justify it. Perhaps she’ll do enough for the Tories to earn my vote for the first time in 4 elections, perhaps not. But it would be good to see a more serious critique of her abilities and plans, rather than “oh look she’s wearing a blue jacket and a hat. What a f**** b***ch! Who does she think she is!”.
Tim O’Brien, a biographer of Mr. Trump and the executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion: “Right now he is in the most vulnerable position he has been in, in his life, legally.”
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
Losing it, Barty. They are in uniform. Hatz is compulsory.
Most of us given the choice dress for the weather, not the "notorious climate."
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
Still insulting our intelligence, I see. You’re usually smarter than that.
Suggesting any 2 women that both wear a hat/enter a tank or do plenty of other things male politicians regularly do must be 'the same' is what insults our intelligence.
rcs1000 - In general, public support in the US for the death penalty moves up as crime increases, and down as it decreases.
Sunstein did something in that Abstract that he shouldn't have, saying "as many as", instead of giving a range. As I recall, the ranges in the technical papers typically ran from 3 to 15, though one did find a max of 18.
(Those large ranges are one of the reasons I consider it a very difficult technical problem.)
Yeah, but "18 lives saved for every one taken" is such a massive multiplier, that you wouldn't be able to hide it: countries and states without the death penalty would have dramatically higher murder rates.
(And states which executed a higher proportion of murderers would have significantly lower rates than those that executed fewer. Plus, of course, higher levels of police shootings - which are just an extra-judicial death penalty, after all - should also lead to lower murder rates.)
It's entirely possible that the ratio is better than one-to-one, but the 18x figure seems wildly over the top.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
Still insulting our intelligence, I see. You’re usually smarter than that.
I love Bart's, the UK's greatest ever Prime Minister/ World King is dead, long live the Snow Queen in the hat!
What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.
But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to. It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch. Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.
In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
So let's never return to them.
And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
It a cheap way to attract votes for an unpopular and cynical Government or an ambitious cynical Opposition that wants to creep over the line.
Priti Patel and I believe Suella Braverman (although apologies, I may be wrong) are advocates as are many Conservative MPs, like Gale, for example. The fact that when the likes of Ian Huntley are tried there are dozens and dozens of mawkish protestors demanding his life suggests it would be politically popular if morally wrong. Without the EU, without the ECHR all obstacles slip away. I believe a referendum is a clear and present danger. Once we get the hang (pun intended) of executing Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter, who and what for next?
Most people in the UK are quite dishonest with themselves over the death penalty. They think being aghast about the idea of it makes them morally superior. And it feels nice to be morally superior. But…
Jeremy Corbyn was about the only person who thought the execution by drone of the ISIS Beatles was a “tragedy”. Everyone else watched that news with their cornflakes and thought, jolly good show. Ditto Bin Laden. Ditto Shipman topping himself, even Blunkett admitted to cheering that one. Equally if we woke up at the weekend to vigilante justice being delivered in this Liverpool case, near everyone would think privately that the scumbag got what was coming to them.
There wasn't a safer way of dealing with the Isis Beatles, or Bin Laden.
Shipman made his own decision in order that his wife could benefit from a pension as I recall. Fred West too. I'd have preferred Shipman and West end their final years in s***hole prisons like Strageways and Winson Green.
As for your lynch mob, they will also serve time for the murder of a scumbag.
Agree re Shipman, I was not happy about that.
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that, for some - particularly the superior, cocky Shipman type - I think it a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. He, presumably, took the same view.
(Other reasons have been well articulated by others)
I'm a firm pro-choice believer in death with dignity. If anyone wants to end their own life, then with safeguards, that should be allowed. Their life, their choice.
Safeguards with the likes of Shipman for that would need to be serious, but if they want 'the easy way out' then that should be their choice, same as it should be anyone else's. So long as the safeguards ensure its genuinely their choice.
Keeping them alive, against their wishes, just to punish them more is for me a form of torture that I would not accept. If you want to keep them alive, against their wishes, it should be for more than just punishment's sake.
I'm with Mexicanpete on this. Happy to withhold any right to death during a prison sentence.
I do support access to euthanasia for the general public, in principle, although I believe there are huge practical problems around, effectively, informed consent for that. There are conditions for which I would choose death over life, I think, but only at the appropriate point, which would probably be at a point after I was able to provide informed consent. Setting clear conditions in advance is tricky as you don't know how you would feel at that point in time. For non-physical reasons, it's even more problematic.
My wife and I have both said to each other we'd prefer euthanasia than going into a Care Home. She works in one and while she cares passionately about her job, most of her colleagues frankly don't and most of the residents don't want to be there either. There are some people there who are happy to be there, but there are many who say every single day that they want to die. She's said she never, ever wants to end up somewhere like that.
Of course closer to the time we might change our minds, but people should have a right to choose. Their life, their choice.
I find prohibitions on euthanasia as unacceptable as prohibitions on abortion. Hopefully one day it'll be as alien too to think people were once denied that freedom to choose.
Abortion is of course ending the life of another not your own, whatever time limit you set for it.
There is also a danger euthanasia is not your own choice, especially if not of sound mind. I would consider it for terminal illnesses with less than 6 months to live only
Abortion there is no other life that has been born yet, which is why birth should be the limit.
If people of sound mind wish to die, that should be their choice, even if not terminal. If someone is paralysed by an accident and faces years, maybe decades "living" but completely paralysed then if they make the choice they want to end it all they should have (after appropriate safeguards) the dignity of their choice respected.
Similarly if someone facing dementia makes that choice then if they want to end it all while still of sound mind before they're not, that again should be their choice.
People should be able to die with dignity, not have grim forms of suicide as the only alternative.
Rubbish, arguably life begins at conception but at most it begins at 24 weeks as is the legal UK abortion time limit. Abortion up to birth is therefore in my view murder.
The state should also have no business murdering someone who will survive whatever illness or disease they suffer, care and medical treatment is its only role. Life is sacred and the state has no business ending it except in extreme circumstances, such as for convicted serial killers or those with a terminal illness nearing the end of life who consent to that
Birth is the legal limit for abortion in limited circumstances in this country, as it absolutely should be.
24 weeks is the legal limit for other circumstances. Personally I don't care enough to argue about that, I'd prefer birth for all circumstances, but can live with 24.
Life is not "sacred", there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about life at all and if people wish to end their own life then that is not the state murdering them, it is them killing themselves. A humane and dignified method of ending your own life should be available to anyone of sound mind who wants it, rather than forcing them to inhumane continuing of life they don't want, or inhumane suicide as an alternative.
Euthanasia is people legally and humanely controlling and choosing the end of their own lives, its not murder.
What on earth are the inverted commas around 'sacred' supposed to mean?
Quotation marks.
HYUFD said that life was "sacred" and I was quoting him and saying that its not. It'd be an odd thing to write without the quotation.
Of course you don't think it is sacred as you take narcissistic libertarianism to the ultra extreme including abortion to birth and euthanasia on demand for the non terminally ill
What is so sacred about life that someone of sound mind who wishes to die should be denied that right to control their own life?
Is life so sacred that you're a vegan?
The government has no business killing anyone who is not severely terminally ill with no hope of recovery no, once you start to do so you are on a very tricky slope. No conservative could or should ever support such a proposition, though as you are no conservative hardly surprising you do.
Human life is entirely different to animal life, we are made to eat animals and God created animals in part for us to eat, as long as they are farmed humanely nothing wrong with that. We do not however eat or kill other humans
As my wife has said on various stuff I have introduced her to: 'I really enjoyed it but never want to do it again'
Still added benefit is I lost 7 kg to make the weight for the flight.
After 2 rolls and 2 barrel rolls I was feeling a bit ill. I tried to wait it out with some straight flying, but sadly had to call it a day, as another stunt would have been the end. Still feeling the effects, although the 2 pints and a toasted sandwich after, may have something to do with that. Learnt two things:
a) You can't see forward in a Pitts Special so you have to weave both on the ground and when flying so you don't hit stuff and you have to sideslip when landing because otherwise you can't see the runway.
b) What that diamond on the end of the red pole attached to the wing strut is. Anyone here want to hazard a guess.
Awesome, well done! Aerobatics pilots do it upside-down and sideways, so says the t-shirt
The attachment on the wing, is it a 360º pitot tube, so the pilot can see his airspeed at any weird angle? Or is it the attachment for the wing-walker to hold on to?
It won't be a pitot tube, because the whole point of the pitot tube is measure the speed of air over the wings. (And therefore their ability to generate lift.)
If I were on a jury, trying someone I believed to be guilty, where the death penalty was a possible sentence, I'd nullify any applicable charges and convict on the next most severe.
I'm sure I'm not alone. And you only need a small proportion of people to have similar views to make the change entirely counterproductive.
Increasing the usage of whole of life tariffs so that 'life means life' more often would be a more reasonable change.
A better one would be to legalise/medicalise all drugs in order to reduce related crime and killings in the first place.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
Losing it, Barty. They are in uniform. Hatz is compulsory.
Most of us given the choice dress for the weather, not the "notorious climate."
When I visit a foreign country I tend to dress according to t he climate of the country I'm visiting, not my own.
Plus warm for a Russian winter for people who live in Russia might still be cold for a Briton who might still decide to wrap up warm having packed to be warm.
I still don't get it. That's 10 000 words to say He got in a tank with a hat on. How we all laughed.
It’s a story about how obsessive politicians are about their public image, and how they still get it wrong.
The sad thing is that Dukakis was an excellent governor, and would likely have made a very good president. Had he run to his strengths, rather than trying to be something he wasn’t, he might just possibly have won.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
The particularly charming poster Ismael also misunderstands something. I don’t think there’s anyone here who is giving full throttled support to Truss. I’m certainly not, I have little idea whether she’ll be any good and I suspect neither does she until she starts the job. Big step up even from Foreign Sec.
But the reflexive hate for her before she’s even got going strikes me as quite bizarre, when there’s nothing obvious in her track record to justify it. Perhaps she’ll do enough for the Tories to earn my vote for the first time in 4 elections, perhaps not. But it would be good to see a more serious critique of her abilities and plans, rather than “oh look she’s wearing a blue jacket and a hat. What a f**** b***ch! Who does she think she is!”.
What? You can't claim the moral high ground on charm, and start making blanket accusations of "reflexive hate." One or the other.
And "before she's even got going." Many of us here have an informed and detailed knowledge of UK politics, and thanks for confirming you are not among us. She is Foreign Sec FFS. This is not an Emma Raducanu situation. She is also a terrible and deeply unserious person, despite your elderly penchant for her disciplinary reputation.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
I don't know why when you take a political stance you have to go so balls deep you defend utter ridiculousness. It is possible to think Liz Truss is the better of the two Tory leadership candidates and still think she's capable of silliness.
What could Suella Braverman do right that Priti Patel has done wrong?
I do not say it is right. I do not think it is.
But I suspect she will try to leave the ECHR. She's talked about it often enough during her campaign to be leader.
I fear you may be right! If ever it could be said that the Conservative party had departed from Churchill's legacy it would be that.
It would be a day of shame for Britain to do that.
But party party day for all those lefty legal aid lawyers who would get to argue all the same points again in respect of whatever replaced it. It is so blindingly obvious that this would be the consequence that even Braverman can surely see it. Maybe if her officials used smaller words....
Our own court system would have let the flight go ahead outwith the last minute intervention by the ECHR. There's enough legal layers (3 (High, Appeal, Supreme)) without needing a 4th (ECHR). Our own courts only changed their mind when the ECHR basically told them to. It's an unnecessary layer imo, and since we're outside the EU, and therefore outside of protocol 14 of the Lisbon treaty it's something we ought to ditch. Personally I'd vote to head back into the EU and accept we'd need to be under it's remit (Thems the breaks) - but if we're out the EU I don't see the point.
I think it is a mistake to see this purely in terms of being an administrative/ procedural issue. The problem with leaving the ECHR is the international significance of it. It undoes a lot of long term foreign policy objectives, IE promoting human rights and stopping the death penalty. The suspicion is that this is actually part of the plan.
The day capital punishment is restored is the day to plan my exit. Not in my name!
Are you volunteering to be first up on the block like? That is very public spirited of you.
To ensure such an abomination is never reintroduced it is certainly a hill worth dying upon.
There was a good documentary on BBC3 which I ended up watching when stuck in an hotel room in Aberdeen about a University based organisation that was trying to stop executions in Texas just over a week ago. I am not sure I could do that kind of work.
In contrast there is a well sourced story about the Judges in the High Court who dealt with the appeal of the last man hanged in Scotland. Counsel was asked if this was going to take long as they had a really interesting trust problem to address at 11.00am. Different days.
So let's never return to them.
And w are not going to. Why do think we will?
It a cheap way to attract votes for an unpopular and cynical Government or an ambitious cynical Opposition that wants to creep over the line.
Priti Patel and I believe Suella Braverman (although apologies, I may be wrong) are advocates as are many Conservative MPs, like Gale, for example. The fact that when the likes of Ian Huntley are tried there are dozens and dozens of mawkish protestors demanding his life suggests it would be politically popular if morally wrong. Without the EU, without the ECHR all obstacles slip away. I believe a referendum is a clear and present danger. Once we get the hang (pun intended) of executing Ian Huntley and Gary Glitter, who and what for next?
Most people in the UK are quite dishonest with themselves over the death penalty. They think being aghast about the idea of it makes them morally superior. And it feels nice to be morally superior. But…
Jeremy Corbyn was about the only person who thought the execution by drone of the ISIS Beatles was a “tragedy”. Everyone else watched that news with their cornflakes and thought, jolly good show. Ditto Bin Laden. Ditto Shipman topping himself, even Blunkett admitted to cheering that one. Equally if we woke up at the weekend to vigilante justice being delivered in this Liverpool case, near everyone would think privately that the scumbag got what was coming to them.
There wasn't a safer way of dealing with the Isis Beatles, or Bin Laden.
Shipman made his own decision in order that his wife could benefit from a pension as I recall. Fred West too. I'd have preferred Shipman and West end their final years in s***hole prisons like Strageways and Winson Green.
As for your lynch mob, they will also serve time for the murder of a scumbag.
Agree re Shipman, I was not happy about that.
One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty is that, for some - particularly the superior, cocky Shipman type - I think it a lesser sentence than life imprisonment. He, presumably, took the same view.
(Other reasons have been well articulated by others)
I'm a firm pro-choice believer in death with dignity. If anyone wants to end their own life, then with safeguards, that should be allowed. Their life, their choice.
Safeguards with the likes of Shipman for that would need to be serious, but if they want 'the easy way out' then that should be their choice, same as it should be anyone else's. So long as the safeguards ensure its genuinely their choice.
Keeping them alive, against their wishes, just to punish them more is for me a form of torture that I would not accept. If you want to keep them alive, against their wishes, it should be for more than just punishment's sake.
I'm with Mexicanpete on this. Happy to withhold any right to death during a prison sentence.
I do support access to euthanasia for the general public, in principle, although I believe there are huge practical problems around, effectively, informed consent for that. There are conditions for which I would choose death over life, I think, but only at the appropriate point, which would probably be at a point after I was able to provide informed consent. Setting clear conditions in advance is tricky as you don't know how you would feel at that point in time. For non-physical reasons, it's even more problematic.
My wife and I have both said to each other we'd prefer euthanasia than going into a Care Home. She works in one and while she cares passionately about her job, most of her colleagues frankly don't and most of the residents don't want to be there either. There are some people there who are happy to be there, but there are many who say every single day that they want to die. She's said she never, ever wants to end up somewhere like that.
Of course closer to the time we might change our minds, but people should have a right to choose. Their life, their choice.
I find prohibitions on euthanasia as unacceptable as prohibitions on abortion. Hopefully one day it'll be as alien too to think people were once denied that freedom to choose.
Abortion is of course ending the life of another not your own, whatever time limit you set for it.
There is also a danger euthanasia is not your own choice, especially if not of sound mind. I would consider it for terminal illnesses with less than 6 months to live only
Abortion there is no other life that has been born yet, which is why birth should be the limit.
If people of sound mind wish to die, that should be their choice, even if not terminal. If someone is paralysed by an accident and faces years, maybe decades "living" but completely paralysed then if they make the choice they want to end it all they should have (after appropriate safeguards) the dignity of their choice respected.
Similarly if someone facing dementia makes that choice then if they want to end it all while still of sound mind before they're not, that again should be their choice.
People should be able to die with dignity, not have grim forms of suicide as the only alternative.
Rubbish, arguably life begins at conception but at most it begins at 24 weeks as is the legal UK abortion time limit. Abortion up to birth is therefore in my view murder.
The state should also have no business murdering someone who will survive whatever illness or disease they suffer, care and medical treatment is its only role. Life is sacred and the state has no business ending it except in extreme circumstances, such as for convicted serial killers or those with a terminal illness nearing the end of life who consent to that
Birth is the legal limit for abortion in limited circumstances in this country, as it absolutely should be.
24 weeks is the legal limit for other circumstances. Personally I don't care enough to argue about that, I'd prefer birth for all circumstances, but can live with 24.
Life is not "sacred", there is absolutely nothing "sacred" about life at all and if people wish to end their own life then that is not the state murdering them, it is them killing themselves. A humane and dignified method of ending your own life should be available to anyone of sound mind who wants it, rather than forcing them to inhumane continuing of life they don't want, or inhumane suicide as an alternative.
Euthanasia is people legally and humanely controlling and choosing the end of their own lives, its not murder.
What on earth are the inverted commas around 'sacred' supposed to mean?
Quotation marks.
HYUFD said that life was "sacred" and I was quoting him and saying that its not. It'd be an odd thing to write without the quotation.
Of course you don't think it is sacred as you take narcissistic libertarianism to the ultra extreme including abortion to birth and euthanasia on demand for the non terminally ill
What is so sacred about life that someone of sound mind who wishes to die should be denied that right to control their own life?
Is life so sacred that you're a vegan?
The government has no business killing anyone who is not severely terminally ill with no hope of recovery no, once you start to do so you are on a very tricky slope. No conservative could or should ever support such a proposition, though as you are no conservative hardly surprising you do.
Human life is entirely different to animal life, we are made to eat animals and God created animals in part for us to eat, as long as they are farmed humanely nothing wrong with that. We do not however eat or kill other humans
Euthanasia isn't "the government" killing anyone, its people choosing to end their own life. Absolutely the Government has no business deciding who should die, but people of sound mind should have control over their own life and death. That's not "the government".
Keep your "God" out of the discussion. He or She has no place in our conversation, that's between you and your Church not you and me.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
So where are the photos of Bush in blue with a neck bow ? Driving a tank ? (his dad did.) etc
I can’t even find one of the well known cowboy with a calf; only fully grown animals.
Those who go along with Truss’s pathetic spin are insulting our intelligence.
A woman wore a bow?
Well that is unprecedented.
That there's more photos of Truss wearing women's clothing than GWB really shouldn't be a shock to anyone sane. I suppose you think if two male politicians both wore a tie that they're trying to look the same too, right?
On its own, you might have a case. Show me photos of any other female politician, apart from Thatcher and Truss, wearing a fur hat, sitting astride a motorbike, with a calf, sitting in a tank, wearing a blue outfit with white bow… etc, etc.
You can’t.
Don’t insult our intelligence.
No. Don’t be harsh on Bart on this one, it’s not Bart insulting our intelligence, it’s the next Prime Minister Liz Trust insulting our intelligence - Mike was right to put it up there.
The Truss supporters are merely saying that they believe the word of Liz Truss on this, not what their own eyes, ears, mouth, nose, shoulders knees and toes, smell, touch, taste, brain, second brain in gut, waters, bowels, nanny, granny, sky sports transfer show, Reginald Tindal Kennedy Bosanquet and their Alexa is actually telling them. Bart is a mere pawn or mug in this one.
But this isn’t a laughter thread, this is a serious political betting one. Truss is going to lose the electorate with a “I never planned to call an election” type moment in her first hours in the role, that’s what this thread is about.
Oh, agreed. I don’t mind for a moment Truss playing dress up - all politicians do. (Though as with others, her personal photographers come at our expense.)
To play the image game and expect us to believe that she isn’t, is something else again. It’s called taking the piss. And it’s sad to see posters like Bart defending it.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
Still insulting our intelligence, I see. You’re usually smarter than that.
Suggesting any 2 women that both wear a hat/enter a tank or do plenty of other things male politicians regularly do must be 'the same' is what insults our intelligence.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
She is a vapid, posturing windbag and as big a threat to world peace and stability as Putin. did George Bush get an Official Photographer to tag along everywhere he went and take those photos? Do you realise that the Truss photos are carefully curated (dread word) and posted on instagram by or on behalf of her, not her enemies?
Taking photos doesn't mean you're trying to be Thatcher, unless she curated the lookalikes and posted them side-by-side herself just as moonshine just did with Starmer and Boris.
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
She wore a hat while visiting a notoriously cold country?
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
The particularly charming poster Ismael also misunderstands something. I don’t think there’s anyone here who is giving full throttled support to Truss. I’m certainly not, I have little idea whether she’ll be any good and I suspect neither does she until she starts the job. Big step up even from Foreign Sec.
But the reflexive hate for her before she’s even got going strikes me as quite bizarre, when there’s nothing obvious in her track record to justify it. Perhaps she’ll do enough for the Tories to earn my vote for the first time in 4 elections, perhaps not. But it would be good to see a more serious critique of her abilities and plans, rather than “oh look she’s wearing a blue jacket and a hat. What a f**** b***ch! Who does she think she is!”.
One level her Thatcher cosplay* was quite clever; it’s helped get her to the top. On the other hand, it’s a sad marker at how debauched political coverage now is in the UK.
I think the animosity toward Truss is that she is perceived as a sneering ball-breaker. Whether that’s misogynistic or not, I don’t know.
My own opinion started very low, then she surprised me on the upside with her early performances in debate. Lately, I’ve decided she is batshit after all, just based on some of the crazier ideas leaking from her team.
I feel quietly “confident” that she will crash and burn, but I’m not ruling out her taking a more impressive grip once in power.
*Anyone who thinks it has not been a deliberate campaign has shit leaking from their ears.
I suppose it could be a series of extraordinary coincidences.
Not that extraordinary. If you take tens of thousands of pictures of one woman and compare them with tens of thousands of pictures of another that she looks vaguely similar to, you're bound to ultimately get some similarities. People have done these 'lookalike' comparisons for as long as the internet/Private Eye or others have existed.
Was George W Bush trying to look like a monkey?
So where are the photos of Bush in blue with a neck bow ? Driving a tank ? (his dad did.) etc
I can’t even find one of the well known cowboy with a calf; only fully grown animals.
Those who go along with Truss’s pathetic spin are insulting our intelligence.
A woman wore a bow?
Well that is unprecedented.
That there's more photos of Truss wearing women's clothing than GWB really shouldn't be a shock to anyone sane. I suppose you think if two male politicians both wore a tie that they're trying to look the same too, right?
On its own, you might have a case. Show me photos of any other female politician, apart from Thatcher and Truss, wearing a fur hat, sitting astride a motorbike, with a calf, sitting in a tank, wearing a blue outfit with white bow… etc, etc.
You can’t.
Don’t insult our intelligence.
No. Don’t be harsh on Bart on this one, it’s not Bart insulting our intelligence, it’s the next Prime Minister Liz Trust insulting our intelligence - Mike was right to put it up there.
The Truss supporters are merely saying that they believe the word of Liz Truss on this, not what their own eyes, ears, mouth, nose, shoulders knees and toes, smell, touch, taste, brain, second brain in gut, waters, bowels, nanny, granny, sky sports transfer show, Reginald Tindal Kennedy Bosanquet and their Alexa is actually telling them. Bart is a mere pawn or mug in this one.
But this isn’t a laughter thread, this is a serious political betting one. Truss is going to lose the electorate with a “I never planned to call an election” type moment in her first hours in the role, that’s what this thread is about.
Oh, agreed. I don’t mind for a moment Truss playing dress up - all politicians do. (Though as with others, her personal photographers come at our expense.)
To play the image game and expect us to believe that she isn’t, is something else again. It’s called taking the piss. And it’s sad to see posters like Bart defending it.
I’m not at all surprised Bart is defending it. He’s either a troll or a bloody moron. Probably both.
Comments
I’ll vote for whoever ends see it, say it, sorted.
https://twitter.com/JuliaDavisNews/status/1562107843137896448?s=20&t=s95ZSmZ9Uu04ZM7yn5zhEw
The Dugina murder was a joint operation between Ukraine, Estonia and the UK. Surprised they don't put the finger on the US more. Perhaps they think that will frighten their own population? Anyway it's certainly good for our global prestige.
I've either had it once, in December 2019, or not at all. Which given I haven't restricted my life at all since freedom day last year, seems somewhat remarkable compared to others.
Every election all Johnson ever has to say is about how much expenditure there is or isn't as if expenditure alone is a good thing.
Having the IFS against you probably means you're on the right track.
Boston
Melton
Oadby and Wigston
Redcar and Cleveland
Middlesbrough
The Happiest places in England
Windsor and Maidenhead
Salisbury
Rutland
Broxbourne
Runnymede
https://www.lincolnshirelive.co.uk/news/local-news/boston-named-unhappiest-place-live-7503431
She wasn't impressed when I said "42" as the answer.
Makes perfect sense.
Still, she will get few votes. There is a reason why she went down by the largest margin for an incumbent loss in history. She's an arrogant, war-mongering elite politician who despised her own electors.
Driving a tank ? (his dad did.)
etc
I can’t even find one of the well known cowboy with a calf; only fully grown animals.
Those who go along with Truss’s pathetic spin are insulting our intelligence.
The question was put to the people who voted in a referendum the result of which you have not come to terms with along with many others
The remain supporters failed to win a very winnable case and seem to want to blame everyone but themselves
Furthermore, Starmer is not offering to re-join, indeed neither are the lib dems implicitly promising to do so, so little will change in the foreseeable though a better relationship with the EU while remaining outside would be welcome
Blue Tories
Same stench
Is Foxy around ?
Trident: worth every penny.
The 30% will be delighted with the value for money as they slowly starve to death in spasms of excruciating pain.
And Starmer wants to renew the mad endeavour.
However, I have warmed to her during the contest. And her career has shown her to be hardworking, committed, and capable of delivering good results. I choose to go with that, and forgive the goofing around in fur hats.
I can add this: It's my impression that economists -- who believe in incentives and disincentives -- usually find that the death penalty is a deterrent, and that sociologists usually don't. (In the US, much (most) of the study of crime has been done by sociologists.)
My semi-informed opinion is that the death penalty is probably a deterrent, net, but that it is extremely difficult to test that proposition.
I've always believed that the opposition to 'woke' will materialise when the tories are in opposition. That is the experience of the US - Now that the republicans are in opposition, they are successfully rolling back a lot of 'woke' stuff at the local level, particuarly CRT in schools.
Well that is unprecedented.
That there's more photos of Truss wearing women's clothing than GWB really shouldn't be a shock to anyone sane. I suppose you think if two male politicians both wore a tie that they're trying to look the same too, right?
A 2022 nuclear war would be depressingly survivable for many.
It’ll give you a hearty chortle when you re-read it in August 2023.
PB brains trust my arse.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10508019/Putins-state-media-mocks-Liz-Truss-fur-hat-despite-THAW-Russian-capital.html
see the footage of her landing? the 3 bods from the embassy, 2 women and a wallace-grade baldy, are HATLESS, it's only uniform guy wearing one cos he has to.
She was dressing up.
However, if there really was an 18-to-1 improvement in lives saved by the death penalty, then one would expect the ending of the death penalty in a given state/country to result in a pretty sharp jump in murders relative to the trends in places where the death penalty remained.
Looking at the numbers for the US, that does not appear to be the case. Indeed, the murder trends for states which got rid of the death penalty appear to be better than those that did not.
Of course, there are many confounding factors which could play a role. But 18x is a massive number. It's hard to see how that could somehow be hidden.
When her sister went through this two years ago, her group of five best friends were split four ways (grammar, grammar, second choice grammar, secondary modern, private). But to be honest that was a friendship group it wasn't altogether a tragedy to move on from.
Take schools- there's the DfE and Ofsted in Whitehall and thousands of Academy Trusts running the schools, and not much in-between.
US Republicans have a lot of power bases, even when they don't have the White House.
In the UK, if your lot are out, they are really out.
Show me photos of any other female politician, apart from Thatcher and Truss, wearing a fur hat, sitting astride a motorbike, with a calf, sitting in a tank, wearing a blue outfit with white bow… etc, etc.
You can’t.
Don’t insult our intelligence.
The closest to direct local democracy is the police commissioners.
Sunstein did something in that Abstract that he shouldn't have, saying "as many as", instead of giving a range. As I recall, the ranges in the technical papers typically ran from 3 to 15, though one did find a max of 18.
(Those large ranges are one of the reasons I consider it a very difficult technical problem.)
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2013/11/dukakis-and-the-tank-099119/
It’s still why you don’t see many pols in tanks.
Boring stuff going back to finance. And he can’t look his father in law in the eye if his ambition for the rest of his life is to sit in a shepherd’s hut in a Cotswold garden, firing off the occasional email to government chums for dodgy mates.
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2010/07/roman-infanticide-modern-abortion/
A new PB tory herd is emerging before our eyes, united in having hard ons for Truss and mildly subversive 4chan-and-warm-piss anti lockdown views. I think we can log you joining the site on July 18 (in this avatar anyway) as Day 1.
HYUFD said that life was "sacred" and I was quoting him and saying that its not. It'd be an odd thing to write without the quotation.
Yes life is sacred and any decent government with any sense of morality should seek to protect that. The government should not be in the business of encouraging suicide even if it is no longer a criminal offence and no euthanasia on demand should not be an option either except maybe for those with terminal illnesses near the end of life.
See here about the severe problems with Dignitas
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/jennymccartney/5106037/Dignitas-and-the-awful-truth-about-happy-endings.html?fb
Of course you don't think it is sacred as you take narcissistic libertarianism to the ultra extreme including abortion to birth and euthanasia on demand for the non terminally ill
Oh well that changes everything, she must be only the second person in history to wear a hat while visiting Russia.
Although on your link there's 2 other people wearing hats. They're not women though, so I guess they don't count.
Although with the advent of DNA technology you’re less likely to execute an innocent person in the USA 55 innocent people have been executed in the past .
You’re usually smarter than that.
Is life so sacred that you're a vegan?
The Truss supporters are merely saying that they believe the word of Liz Truss on this, not what their own eyes, ears, mouth, nose, shoulders knees and toes, smell, touch, taste, brain, second brain in gut, waters, bowels, nanny, granny, sky sports transfer show, Reginald Tindal Kennedy Bosanquet and their Alexa is actually telling them. Bart is a mere pawn or mug in this one.
But this isn’t a laughter thread, this is a serious political betting one. Truss is going to lose the electorate with a “I never planned to call an election” type moment in her first hours in the role, that’s what this thread is about.
Yes Corbyn, and the entire Labour Party are probably even more culpable for their utter ineptitude than Cameron. I blame them, particularly Corbyn wholeheartedly. The LibDems on the other hand were superb, it's just they didn't have the networks to win over enough doubters.
Crucially no one had the vaguest idea of what they were voting for Leave and Remain, and both sides lied. Leave lied better and Boris was sublime, however like Cameron he expected Remain to win and like Cameron didn't know what to do when they didn't.
Still it's done now and it's going great ...maybe!
But the reflexive hate for her before she’s even got going strikes me as quite bizarre, when there’s nothing obvious in her track record to justify it. Perhaps she’ll do enough for the Tories to earn my vote for the first time in 4 elections, perhaps not. But it would be good to see a more serious critique of her abilities and plans, rather than “oh look she’s wearing a blue jacket and a hat. What a f**** b***ch! Who does she think she is!”.
NY Times
Most of us given the choice dress for the weather, not the "notorious climate."
(And states which executed a higher proportion of murderers would have significantly lower rates than those that executed fewer. Plus, of course, higher levels of police shootings - which are just an extra-judicial death penalty, after all - should also lead to lower murder rates.)
It's entirely possible that the ratio is better than one-to-one, but the 18x figure seems wildly over the top.
Life isn’t fair.
This one is special though. Caused a political storm, with accusations of bias from NASA…
Human life is entirely different to animal life, we are made to eat animals and God created animals in part for us to eat, as long as they are farmed humanely nothing wrong with that. We do not however eat or kill other humans
I'm sure I'm not alone. And you only need a small proportion of people to have similar views to make the change entirely counterproductive.
Increasing the usage of whole of life tariffs so that 'life means life' more often would be a more reasonable change.
A better one would be to legalise/medicalise all drugs in order to reduce related crime and killings in the first place.
Plus warm for a Russian winter for people who live in Russia might still be cold for a Briton who might still decide to wrap up warm having packed to be warm.
The sad thing is that Dukakis was an excellent governor, and would likely have made a very good president. Had he run to his strengths, rather than trying to be something he wasn’t, he might just possibly have won.
And "before she's even got going." Many of us here have an informed and detailed knowledge of UK politics, and thanks for confirming you are not among us. She is Foreign Sec FFS. This is not an Emma Raducanu situation. She is also a terrible and deeply unserious person, despite your elderly penchant for her disciplinary reputation.
Keep your "God" out of the discussion. He or She has no place in our conversation, that's between you and your Church not you and me.
I don’t mind for a moment Truss playing dress up - all politicians do. (Though as with others, her personal photographers come at our expense.)
To play the image game and expect us to believe that she isn’t, is something else again. It’s called taking the piss.
And it’s sad to see posters like Bart defending it.
I think the animosity toward Truss is that she is perceived as a sneering ball-breaker. Whether that’s misogynistic or not, I don’t know.
My own opinion started very low, then she surprised me on the upside with her early performances in debate. Lately, I’ve decided she is batshit after all, just based on some of the crazier ideas leaking from her team.
I feel quietly “confident” that she will crash and burn, but I’m not ruling out her taking a more impressive grip once in power.
*Anyone who thinks it has not been a deliberate campaign has shit leaking from their ears.
He’s either a troll or a bloody moron. Probably both.