The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Have you seen the misery in dementia care homes. I have.
Yep my mum died of it in a care home. It wasn't pleasant. However that is no excuse for legalising murder because as you said 'We have to ask can we afford it'
'We have to ask can we afford it' Outrageous statement.
Can we afford prisons, the disabled, the old on pensions, people critically ill, etc, etc. Why not put them down as well because they are expensive.
Where would you like to draw the line. This is calling out for the use of Godwin's law. In mean literally this is Nazi stuff.
l
I guess the point is that we already ration healthcare and as a nation we have decided that some life-prolonging treatments are too expensive. What’s a QALY worth these days?
But I agree that is very different to actively ending life on cost grounds.
Personally, if I get severe dementia, I would like my life to end early for dignity reasons, but cost should not come in to it.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
Have you been in contact with social services about support?
They won't do anything nor will the doctors. All we can do is put him in a home but he has to agree to it which he wont
On what grounds are social services refusing to do anything? Has he had a capacity statement from them?
Sadly, I know more about this stuff that I would like after the last two years of my family's life.
Edit: You and your wife have a right to a carer's assessment. That is an assessment of your needs as carers. This should include the way it is f*cking up your work.
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
Is there any chance of backing this statement up with some evidence? Or an example?
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
You'll have to be more specific. Maybe a particular thing is a good idea in one constituency, but a bad idea in another. The LibDems believe in people making decisions locally. What works for one community doesn't have to be right for another.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I agree with quite a few bits of that article actually.
COGAT, the military body that oversees Palestinian civilian affairs, says there are no restrictions on importing humanitarian aid. It also denies that right-wing Israeli protests at the crossings in recent weeks have succeeded in blocking aid.
Instead, the main obstacles now appear to be on the other side of the fence.
As I said, Hamas and others are attacking aid convoys.
Such happens during war. Israel doesn't have control over the area, if it did, there wouldn't be a war going on.
If Hamas and others attack aid convoys, there isn't much Israel could do about that.
Another bloody good reason that third party nations should offer refuge to Palestinians.
But Egypt etc don't want to and are kettling them instead, leaving them to their fate. That's their choice and their responsibility.
Israel's responsibility is to continue proportionately fighting the war until they win the war and Hamas are completely destroyed or surrender unconditionally.
I hope Israel continue to do what they can to minimise civilian casualties, as they have, without prejudicing their legitimate military objectives. But we should be under no pretence that the longer it takes for Hamas to surrender unconditionally, or be destroyed, then more innocents will die. Such is the nature of war, especially when people are kettled into the war zone.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
So what do you suggest we do, he is killing her via stress and her doctors have told her she needs to avoid it but she cant if she stays with him. His demands are putting my job on the line and if I get fired not going to be easy to find another as I am approaching 60. He is no longer rational, doesnt remember what he had for lunch 10 minutes after he ate it. He barely remembers us.
Should we abandon him to institutional care and just forget about him because he is only going to get worse.
Institutional care doesn’t and shouldn’t mean abandoning him.
But have you thought about someone coming in for a couple of hours a day to give his partner a break?
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
Is there any chance of backing this statement up with some evidence? Or an example?
In slough for example they were going on about the party policy for housebuilding, in maidenhead where my friend lives they were proclaiming their policy of restricting house building
I’ve been away for a while, but dipping in here and there.
Seems like the PB Tories (tm) have moved on from “nobody wants Labour either” to “nobody will want Labour after the initial honeymoon because the country is so fucked”.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
So what do you suggest we do, he is killing her via stress and her doctors have told her she needs to avoid it but she cant if she stays with him. His demands are putting my job on the line and if I get fired not going to be easy to find another as I am approaching 60. He is no longer rational, doesnt remember what he had for lunch 10 minutes after he ate it. He barely remembers us.
Should we abandon him to institutional care and just forget about him because he is only going to get worse.
Sadly that's exactly what happens.
My better half works in a care home. She cares a lot, sadly not all her colleagues do. She has volunteered a few times to hold the hands of those who are dying and been in the room a few times when people have finally passed away. She says she wants someone in there with them who cares, and it's too difficult for the families, that when it reaches that stage most families do stop visiting as it's too tough on them.
Every day residents beg to die. Many are miserable and want to die but can't.
It's an horrific end to life and she's made her wishes very clear to me that she'd rather die sooner than end up like that. Wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
I have held peoples hands while they die, in my case though as a volunteer and usually people who want to go but know the family will push to keep them alive. My father however thinks there is nothing wrong with him and refuses point blank any sort of intervention. He is not miserable he just is causing it in all around him by being stubborn and refusing any help.
Wish I had something useful to contribute with respect to you & your father's situations, both extremely difficult.
Which I don't. Except optimism (of a sort anyway) that growing number of people impacted, the aging AND their families, is affecting increased percentage of the electorate - especially voters who actually vote.
Note that in USA, growing numbers of older Americans after the Depression and WW2, were major impetus in building support for expansion of Medicare = slimmed-down NHS-style health care for geezers.
NOT much to hang your hat one, particularly for anyone a wee bit skeptical of current governments and politicos.
Personally believe, however, that the Age of Miracles (secular and otherwise) is not yet past.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
Have you been in contact with social services about support?
They won't do anything nor will the doctors. All we can do is put him in a home but he has to agree to it which he wont
On what grounds are social services refusing to do anything? Has he had a capacity statement from them?
Sadly, I know more about this stuff that I would like after the last two years of my family's life.
Edit: You and your wife have a right to a carer's assessment. That is an assessment of your needs as carers. This should include the way it is f*cking up your work.
They just say nothing we can do when we talk about it. His girlfriend gets attendance allowance or whatever its called, we got him issued a blue badge and he gets a council tax rebate due to the diagnosis. When we talk about residential care etc its just silence from them.
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
Is there any chance of backing this statement up with some evidence? Or an example?
In slough for example they were going on about the party policy for housebuilding, in maidenhead where my friend lives they were proclaiming their policy of restricting house building
I used to live in maiden head, and I was not aware of Restrictive house building whatever that was. I will do some research and get back to you.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
So what do you suggest we do, he is killing her via stress and her doctors have told her she needs to avoid it but she cant if she stays with him. His demands are putting my job on the line and if I get fired not going to be easy to find another as I am approaching 60. He is no longer rational, doesnt remember what he had for lunch 10 minutes after he ate it. He barely remembers us.
Should we abandon him to institutional care and just forget about him because he is only going to get worse.
Sadly that's exactly what happens.
My better half works in a care home. She cares a lot, sadly not all her colleagues do. She has volunteered a few times to hold the hands of those who are dying and been in the room a few times when people have finally passed away. She says she wants someone in there with them who cares, and it's too difficult for the families, that when it reaches that stage most families do stop visiting as it's too tough on them.
Every day residents beg to die. Many are miserable and want to die but can't.
It's an horrific end to life and she's made her wishes very clear to me that she'd rather die sooner than end up like that. Wouldn't wish it upon anyone.
I have held peoples hands while they die, in my case though as a volunteer and usually people who want to go but know the family will push to keep them alive. My father however thinks there is nothing wrong with him and refuses point blank any sort of intervention. He is not miserable he just is causing it in all around him by being stubborn and refusing any help.
Wish I had something useful to contribute with respect to you & your father's situations, both extremely difficult.
Which I don't. Except optimism (of a sort anyway) that growing number of people impacted, the aging AND their families, is affecting increased percentage of the electorate - especially voters who actually vote.
Note that in USA, growing numbers of older Americans after the Depression and WW2, were major impetus in building support for expansion of Medicare = slimmed-down NHS-style health care for geezers.
NOT much to hang your hat one, particularly for anyone a wee bit skeptical of current governments and politicos.
Personally believe, however, that the Age of Miracles (secular and otherwise) is not yet past.
The nhs move heaven and hell to keep him alive, I just wonder for what
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
It's not whataboutery, in no war ever that I can recall have refugees all fled into the opposing nation fighting.
Do you expect Ukrainians to flee into Russia?
It's third party nations that offer refuge during war.
But according to your previous comments, Israel is targeting Hamas, not Gazans in general. So Israel is not an "opposing nation". Indeed, your post implies that you recognise Gaza as a nation, I think? Or Palestine? And that Israel has declared war?
Difficult to keep up with you. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were spouting any old nonsense to justify a disturbing bloodlust for innocent civilians.
Yes Israel is targeting Hamas not Gazans in general. But that doesn't mean Israel can or should open the blockade and let anyone from Gaza (including Hamas) into Israel.
There is no military or logical rationale behind that at all.
Innocents should be free to seek refuge in a nation that is a third party, not part of the conflict.
And yes, this is a war. Israel and Hamas have both said so. Both are seeking the others destruction, I want Israel to be the one to win it, what about you?
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I agree with quite a few bits of that article actually.
COGAT, the military body that oversees Palestinian civilian affairs, says there are no restrictions on importing humanitarian aid. It also denies that right-wing Israeli protests at the crossings in recent weeks have succeeded in blocking aid.
Instead, the main obstacles now appear to be on the other side of the fence.
As I said, Hamas and others are attacking aid convoys.
Such happens during war. Israel doesn't have control over the area, if it did, there wouldn't be a war going on.
If Hamas and others attack aid convoys, there isn't much Israel could do about that.
Another bloody good reason that third party nations should offer refuge to Palestinians.
But Egypt etc don't want to and are kettling them instead, leaving them to their fate. That's their choice and their responsibility.
Israel's responsibility is to continue proportionately fighting the war until they win the war and Hamas are completely destroyed or surrender unconditionally.
I hope Israel continue to do what they can to minimise civilian casualties, as they have, without prejudicing their legitimate military objectives. But we should be under no pretence that the longer it takes for Hamas to surrender unconditionally, or be destroyed, then more innocents will die. Such is the nature of war, especially when people are kettled into the war zone.
It would be great if Hamas surrendered. If there was anyone on PB defending Hamas, I'd be arguing with them too.
I’ve been away for a while, but dipping in here and there.
Seems like the PB Tories (tm) have moved on from “nobody wants Labour either” to “nobody will want Labour after the initial honeymoon because the country is so fucked”.
Kübler-Ross would be having a field day.
Marquis de Sade & Ritter von Sacher-Masoch say "Yo!"
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
Have you been in contact with social services about support?
They won't do anything nor will the doctors. All we can do is put him in a home but he has to agree to it which he wont
On what grounds are social services refusing to do anything? Has he had a capacity statement from them?
Sadly, I know more about this stuff that I would like after the last two years of my family's life.
Edit: You and your wife have a right to a carer's assessment. That is an assessment of your needs as carers. This should include the way it is f*cking up your work.
They just say nothing we can do when we talk about it. His girlfriend gets attendance allowance or whatever its called, we got him issued a blue badge and he gets a council tax rebate due to the diagnosis. When we talk about residential care etc its just silence from them.
If you are doing caring stuff, even if you don't live there, then it is my understanding you have a legal right to a carer's assessment.
The council also has to do a needs assessment of the person in question if it appears they need care help (clearly in tis case it seems to me) and regardless of whether the council thinks they will have to do something . They have to do due process.
Dont let them fob you off. Councils are doing this all over the place apparently.
As ever it is those with sharp elbows who get help that they are actually legally entitled to.
Sorry btw - I misread his girlfriend as your wife for some reason.
Certainly not a sunny day in central France. Drove through torrential rain all today. Flooding everywhere. 11 months on the trot of unusually wet weather now, after about 3 years of epochal drought. And orange sand from Algeria in the mix too.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
It's not whataboutery, in no war ever that I can recall have refugees all fled into the opposing nation fighting.
Do you expect Ukrainians to flee into Russia?
It's third party nations that offer refuge during war.
But according to your previous comments, Israel is targeting Hamas, not Gazans in general. So Israel is not an "opposing nation". Indeed, your post implies that you recognise Gaza as a nation, I think? Or Palestine? And that Israel has declared war?
Difficult to keep up with you. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were spouting any old nonsense to justify a disturbing bloodlust for innocent civilians.
Yes Israel is targeting Hamas not Gazans in general. But that doesn't mean Israel can or should open the blockade and let anyone from Gaza (including Hamas) into Israel.
There is no military or logical rationale behind that at all.
Innocents should be free to seek refuge in a nation that is a third party, not part of the conflict.
And yes, this is a war. Israel and Hamas have both said so. Both are seeking the others destruction, I want Israel to be the one to win it, what about you?
Maintaining a permanent occupation of the West Bank is not "proportionate". Neither is the complete devastation of Gaza city. Neither is the ongoing colonization of Palestinian land and the defending of settlers that fill Palestinian wells with concrete.
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I agree with quite a few bits of that article actually.
COGAT, the military body that oversees Palestinian civilian affairs, says there are no restrictions on importing humanitarian aid. It also denies that right-wing Israeli protests at the crossings in recent weeks have succeeded in blocking aid.
Instead, the main obstacles now appear to be on the other side of the fence.
As I said, Hamas and others are attacking aid convoys.
Such happens during war. Israel doesn't have control over the area, if it did, there wouldn't be a war going on.
If Hamas and others attack aid convoys, there isn't much Israel could do about that.
Another bloody good reason that third party nations should offer refuge to Palestinians.
But Egypt etc don't want to and are kettling them instead, leaving them to their fate. That's their choice and their responsibility.
Israel's responsibility is to continue proportionately fighting the war until they win the war and Hamas are completely destroyed or surrender unconditionally.
I hope Israel continue to do what they can to minimise civilian casualties, as they have, without prejudicing their legitimate military objectives. But we should be under no pretence that the longer it takes for Hamas to surrender unconditionally, or be destroyed, then more innocents will die. Such is the nature of war, especially when people are kettled into the war zone.
It would be great if Hamas surrendered. If there was anyone on PB defending Hamas, I'd be arguing with them too.
The only way to get them to surrender is to defeat them.
Evil needs to be destroyed sometimes. Nazis, Imperial Japan, Russia, Hamas.
The war needs to continue until they are destroyed or unconditionally surrender. Israel ceasing fire won't lead to either.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
It's not whataboutery, in no war ever that I can recall have refugees all fled into the opposing nation fighting.
Do you expect Ukrainians to flee into Russia?
It's third party nations that offer refuge during war.
But according to your previous comments, Israel is targeting Hamas, not Gazans in general. So Israel is not an "opposing nation". Indeed, your post implies that you recognise Gaza as a nation, I think? Or Palestine? And that Israel has declared war?
Difficult to keep up with you. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were spouting any old nonsense to justify a disturbing bloodlust for innocent civilians.
Yes Israel is targeting Hamas not Gazans in general. But that doesn't mean Israel can or should open the blockade and let anyone from Gaza (including Hamas) into Israel.
There is no military or logical rationale behind that at all.
Innocents should be free to seek refuge in a nation that is a third party, not part of the conflict.
And yes, this is a war. Israel and Hamas have both said so. Both are seeking the others destruction, I want Israel to be the one to win it, what about you?
I want a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. I don't think you can win this "war" without going after Iran, and the pernicious actions of the Israeli Government makes success during this particularly episode even less likely. Iran has played it brilliantly.
I would also like the UK government to operate within the law, being an old-fashioned romantic like that.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
I agree with quite a few bits of that article actually.
COGAT, the military body that oversees Palestinian civilian affairs, says there are no restrictions on importing humanitarian aid. It also denies that right-wing Israeli protests at the crossings in recent weeks have succeeded in blocking aid.
Instead, the main obstacles now appear to be on the other side of the fence.
As I said, Hamas and others are attacking aid convoys.
Such happens during war. Israel doesn't have control over the area, if it did, there wouldn't be a war going on.
If Hamas and others attack aid convoys, there isn't much Israel could do about that.
Another bloody good reason that third party nations should offer refuge to Palestinians.
But Egypt etc don't want to and are kettling them instead, leaving them to their fate. That's their choice and their responsibility.
Israel's responsibility is to continue proportionately fighting the war until they win the war and Hamas are completely destroyed or surrender unconditionally.
I hope Israel continue to do what they can to minimise civilian casualties, as they have, without prejudicing their legitimate military objectives. But we should be under no pretence that the longer it takes for Hamas to surrender unconditionally, or be destroyed, then more innocents will die. Such is the nature of war, especially when people are kettled into the war zone.
It would be great if Hamas surrendered. If there was anyone on PB defending Hamas, I'd be arguing with them too.
The only way to get them to surrender is to defeat them.
Evil needs to be destroyed sometimes. Nazis, Imperial Japan, Russia, Hamas.
The war needs to continue until they are destroyed or unconditionally surrender. Israel ceasing fire won't lead to either.
Perhaps we should take the same approach to these bastards:
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Ok so you say your party wants a fair free open society then explain this
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
Is there any chance of backing this statement up with some evidence? Or an example?
In slough for example they were going on about the party policy for housebuilding, in maidenhead where my friend lives they were proclaiming their policy of restricting house building
I think you will find that in Maidenhead they were objecting to the Tories on the council selling town centre plots to the developers (their mates) cheaply to build 16 story hi rise flats at exorbitant prices, hardly helping young people onto the housing ladder, unless it's the ladder they will need to get to the penthouse. This was not very popular with the locals, hence campaigning against it.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
It's not whataboutery, in no war ever that I can recall have refugees all fled into the opposing nation fighting.
Do you expect Ukrainians to flee into Russia?
It's third party nations that offer refuge during war.
But according to your previous comments, Israel is targeting Hamas, not Gazans in general. So Israel is not an "opposing nation". Indeed, your post implies that you recognise Gaza as a nation, I think? Or Palestine? And that Israel has declared war?
Difficult to keep up with you. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were spouting any old nonsense to justify a disturbing bloodlust for innocent civilians.
Yes Israel is targeting Hamas not Gazans in general. But that doesn't mean Israel can or should open the blockade and let anyone from Gaza (including Hamas) into Israel.
There is no military or logical rationale behind that at all.
Innocents should be free to seek refuge in a nation that is a third party, not part of the conflict.
And yes, this is a war. Israel and Hamas have both said so. Both are seeking the others destruction, I want Israel to be the one to win it, what about you?
I want a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. I don't think you can win this "war" without going after Iran, and the pernicious actions of the Israeli Government makes success during this particularly episode even less likely. Iran has played it brilliantly.
I would also like the UK government to operate within the law, being an old-fashioned romantic like that.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
It's not whataboutery, in no war ever that I can recall have refugees all fled into the opposing nation fighting.
Do you expect Ukrainians to flee into Russia?
It's third party nations that offer refuge during war.
But according to your previous comments, Israel is targeting Hamas, not Gazans in general. So Israel is not an "opposing nation". Indeed, your post implies that you recognise Gaza as a nation, I think? Or Palestine? And that Israel has declared war?
Difficult to keep up with you. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were spouting any old nonsense to justify a disturbing bloodlust for innocent civilians.
Yes Israel is targeting Hamas not Gazans in general. But that doesn't mean Israel can or should open the blockade and let anyone from Gaza (including Hamas) into Israel.
There is no military or logical rationale behind that at all.
Innocents should be free to seek refuge in a nation that is a third party, not part of the conflict.
And yes, this is a war. Israel and Hamas have both said so. Both are seeking the others destruction, I want Israel to be the one to win it, what about you?
I want a peaceful resolution to the current conflict. I don't think you can win this "war" without going after Iran, and the pernicious actions of the Israeli Government makes success during this particularly episode even less likely. Iran has played it brilliantly.
I would also like the UK government to operate within the law, being an old-fashioned romantic like that.
"peaceful resolution"
So your inspiration is Lord Halifax then?
Did Lord Halifax oversee a policy of settling German land?
FPT Some rearkable findings there. Guildford (kjh's base) is Con 27 Lab 28 LD 29. Godalming (Hunt's seat, where I was based) Con 33 LD 32 LD 25. My bet with Andy Cooke on Didcot and Wantage looking good: Con 33 Lab 38 LD 17. Basically reinforces the case for the LibDems to concentrate on the top targets.
@NickPalmer re Godalming you have LD twice and no Lab. Which one is lab and which is LD please?
Whereas I am with you (because of high Labour polling and low LD polling) that Labour will come through strongly in seats where the LD are second and take some of them from the Tories or come 2nd and push the LDs back to 3rd but I do think the figures quoted above are not realistic where the LDs are the clear challengers. I find it mindboggling that Lab can be on 28 in Guildford where they have little presence. I clearly have less knowledge than you re Godalming and it is unclear which figure is Lab and which is LD because of the typo, but it seems unlikely that Lab are that high. What is your view?
Sorry, Godalming is Con 33 LD 32 Lab 25. I expect a serious squeeze effort by Paul Follows (for the LibDems), though Hunt has a considerable personal following - could be as close as this suggests. I defer to you on Guildford, don't know its politics well at all despite the proximity.
I agree that where voters are clear that one party is the main challenger there will be lots of tactical voting. The difficulty for tactical voters is partly the level of swing and partly boundary changes. For example, in Farnham and Borden, neither Labour nor Libdems have much in the way of recent results, because both have been largely deferring to the allied Farnham Residents, and the seat is drastically different to the old SW Surrey seat which including Godalming. The poll suggests Labour is second to the Tories but with LibDems not far behind. What is a tactical voter to do? (In that particular case there is an April 18 council by-election which may cast some light.)
Another factor is whether the prospect of a big Tory defeat affects tactical voting. If the Tories are being ejected anyway, do people want to be sure their local Tory gets ousted more or less than if it was a close race? Less, maybe?
Perhaps try reading some legitimate news sources and not bollocks from Reddit?
You attack the platform because you can't defend these religious zealot extremists. Are you denying they are filling Palestinian spring waters with concrete?
Perhaps try reading some legitimate news sources and not bollocks from Reddit?
You attack the platform because you can't defend these religious zealot extremists. Are you denying they are filling Palestinian spring waters with concrete?
Perhaps try reading some legitimate news sources and not bollocks from Reddit?
You attack the platform because you can't defend these religious zealot extremists. Are you denying they are filling Palestinian spring waters with concrete?
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Ok so you say your party wants a fair free open society then explain this
One of the most freedom oppressing bills to go through parliament and all your party were ayes
I have absolutely no idea of the details on this and you can't just throw something at me like that and expect me to do all the background reading as to the pros and cons without giving me the details and often there are objections to bills which although the context is well intended they are unacceptable in other ways which make them unworkable. It is a classic political tactic for the Government (no matter what party) to claim the opposition is against something because they vote against it when in fact they are not, but what they are against is the bill which is unreasonable Eg the opposition is a supporter of the criminal because they voted against the hanging quartering and disembowelling bill.
Anyway at just a 5 second glimpse it looks like the LDs sided with Labour voting against the Govt here.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Have you seen the misery in dementia care homes. I have.
I think the ones in the UK are actually rather more humanely run than the ones in Moscow.
FPT Some rearkable findings there. Guildford (kjh's base) is Con 27 Lab 28 LD 29. Godalming (Hunt's seat, where I was based) Con 33 LD 32 LD 25. My bet with Andy Cooke on Didcot and Wantage looking good: Con 33 Lab 38 LD 17. Basically reinforces the case for the LibDems to concentrate on the top targets.
@NickPalmer re Godalming you have LD twice and no Lab. Which one is lab and which is LD please?
Whereas I am with you (because of high Labour polling and low LD polling) that Labour will come through strongly in seats where the LD are second and take some of them from the Tories or come 2nd and push the LDs back to 3rd but I do think the figures quoted above are not realistic where the LDs are the clear challengers. I find it mindboggling that Lab can be on 28 in Guildford where they have little presence. I clearly have less knowledge than you re Godalming and it is unclear which figure is Lab and which is LD because of the typo, but it seems unlikely that Lab are that high. What is your view?
Sorry, Godalming is Con 33 LD 32 Lab 25. I expect a serious squeeze effort by Paul Follows (for the LibDems), though Hunt has a considerable personal following - could be as close as this suggests. I defer to you on Guildford, don't know its politics well at all despite the proximity.
I agree that where voters are clear that one party is the main challenger there will be lots of tactical voting. The difficulty for tactical voters is partly the level of swing and partly boundary changes. For example, in Farnham and Borden, neither Labour nor Libdems have much in the way of recent results, because both have been largely deferring to the allied Farnham Residents, and the seat is drastically different to the old SW Surrey seat which including Godalming. The poll suggests Labour is second to the Tories but with LibDems not far behind. What is a tactical voter to do? (In that particular case there is an April 18 council by-election which may cast some light.)
Another factor is whether the prospect of a big Tory defeat affects tactical voting. If the Tories are being ejected anyway, do people want to be sure their local Tory gets ousted more or less than if it was a close race? Less, maybe?
Much as I would like it to be true, I have grave doubts about some of these predictions. As I live in the Didcot and Wantage constituency, I definitely feel Andy Cooke is on the right track predicting a LibDem win.
Meanwhile, the idea of Labour winning Wokingham, a seat where I have first hand experience, is frankly laughable.
FPT Some rearkable findings there. Guildford (kjh's base) is Con 27 Lab 28 LD 29. Godalming (Hunt's seat, where I was based) Con 33 LD 32 LD 25. My bet with Andy Cooke on Didcot and Wantage looking good: Con 33 Lab 38 LD 17. Basically reinforces the case for the LibDems to concentrate on the top targets.
@NickPalmer re Godalming you have LD twice and no Lab. Which one is lab and which is LD please?
Whereas I am with you (because of high Labour polling and low LD polling) that Labour will come through strongly in seats where the LD are second and take some of them from the Tories or come 2nd and push the LDs back to 3rd but I do think the figures quoted above are not realistic where the LDs are the clear challengers. I find it mindboggling that Lab can be on 28 in Guildford where they have little presence. I clearly have less knowledge than you re Godalming and it is unclear which figure is Lab and which is LD because of the typo, but it seems unlikely that Lab are that high. What is your view?
Sorry, Godalming is Con 33 LD 32 Lab 25. I expect a serious squeeze effort by Paul Follows (for the LibDems), though Hunt has a considerable personal following - could be as close as this suggests. I defer to you on Guildford, don't know its politics well at all despite the proximity.
I agree that where voters are clear that one party is the main challenger there will be lots of tactical voting. The difficulty for tactical voters is partly the level of swing and partly boundary changes. For example, in Farnham and Borden, neither Labour nor Libdems have much in the way of recent results, because both have been largely deferring to the allied Farnham Residents, and the seat is drastically different to the old SW Surrey seat which including Godalming. The poll suggests Labour is second to the Tories but with LibDems not far behind. What is a tactical voter to do? (In that particular case there is an April 18 council by-election which may cast some light.)
Another factor is whether the prospect of a big Tory defeat affects tactical voting. If the Tories are being ejected anyway, do people want to be sure their local Tory gets ousted more or less than if it was a close race? Less, maybe?
As you know, because we discussed it, I have some detailed, but very out of date knowledge of SW Surrey. Once, many moons ago, Farnham used to be a LD stronghold before they decided to commit harikiri and sadly I had to preside over the expulsion of a number of members. If that hadn't happened who knows it might still have been a much better target for the LDs.
You do all know Conservatives 98 seats is bollox. On a very bad day they will double that, on a good day with the wind behind them they will do a lot better.
In the absence of AI chat, turning now to Covid origins. Here's a very thorough and balanced review of a rootclaim disputation that took place for a $100K wager: zoonosis versus lab leak.
I broadly agree with the conclusions of the disputation and also with the review author's qualms about the proponent for zoonosis in the disputation. My main issue is the assumption that the lab leak and zoonosis hypotheses start out equal, which I suppose has to be the basis of any debate. When every single epidemic in history has been caused by species jump, I reckon the burden of proof is higher for lab leak.
Any how, well worth a read if you're interested in this kind of analysis.
Evil needs to be destroyed sometimes. Nazis, Imperial Japan, Russia, Hamas.
Israel has killed TWENTY times as many people as Hamas have since the latter's inception.
The difference is Israel is targeting Hamas while Hamas are targeting civilians. Proportionality ≠ 1:1 death toll.
And what about the Israeli settler mobs attacking Palestinian villages? You know, the ones defended by the IDF?
There are no settlements in Gaza FYI.
As for your other BS, strange definition of true. You implied Israel were destroying water sources during this war. So not proportionate.
The rather mundane reality is an illegally constructed well was filled in, last year, months before this current conflict. Not in Gaza incidentally, and in accordance with the Oslo Accords.
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Ok so you say your party wants a fair free open society then explain this
One of the most freedom oppressing bills to go through parliament and all your party were ayes
I have absolutely no idea of the details on this and you can't just throw something at me like that and expect me to do all the background reading as to the pros and cons without giving me the details and often there are objections to bills which although the context is well intended they are unacceptable in other ways which make them unworkable. It is a classic political tactic for the Government (no matter what party) to claim the opposition is against something because they vote against it when in fact they are not, but what they are against is the bill which is unreasonable Eg the opposition is a supporter of the criminal because they voted against the hanging quartering and disembowelling bill.
Anyway at just a 5 second glimpse it looks like the LDs sided with Labour voting against the Govt here.
I'd like to ask Pagan what freedoms has it oppressed?
The bills I can think of that have oppressed freedoms in recent years have been the Elections Act 2022 (Voter ID regulations) and the sequence of European Withdrawal Acts (2018 - 2020).
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
So what do you suggest we do, he is killing her via stress and her doctors have told her she needs to avoid it but she cant if she stays with him. His demands are putting my job on the line and if I get fired not going to be easy to find another as I am approaching 60. He is no longer rational, doesnt remember what he had for lunch 10 minutes after he ate it. He barely remembers us.
Should we abandon him to institutional care and just forget about him because he is only going to get worse.
If you can't cope, you should absolutely look at institutional care. My mother kept my father at home several years longer than was good for her, but gave in to the inevitable in the end. He lived for quite a few more years, and we visited him several times a week - and my mother at least every other day.
Perhaps try reading some legitimate news sources and not bollocks from Reddit?
You attack the platform because you can't defend these religious zealot extremists. Are you denying they are filling Palestinian spring waters with concrete?
Yes.
If it were true, it'd be all over the Grauniad.
It's true.
You have too much respect for the Guardian.
Do you deny the altar has been built overlooking the Haram al-Sharif, ready for sacrificing the red heifer?
It hasn't been reported in the Guardian, so it can't be true, right?
The Guardian hasn't even reported the delivery of the red heifers, so they must still be in Texas.
Presumably the Orange Order has never marched through the Lower Ormeau area of Belfast - at least not unless a report has appeared on whatever Arabic language news site has the 11th largest readership.
You do all know Conservatives 98 seats is bollox. On a very bad day they will double that, on a good day with the wind behind them they will do a lot better.
The spectre of 1992 features large in my mind
This is not much like 1992. In the 12 months before the 1992 GE Labour's biggest lead was 10% (but the Tories also had a 10% lead in one poll).
It's now 845 days since the Tories last had a poll lead.
I don't say the polls won't close but if the Tories do win from here it won't be a repeat of 1992 - it would be a recovery many times greater than that.
Perhaps try reading some legitimate news sources and not bollocks from Reddit?
You attack the platform because you can't defend these religious zealot extremists. Are you denying they are filling Palestinian spring waters with concrete?
Yes.
If it were true, it'd be all over the Grauniad.
It's true.
You have too much respect for the Guardian.
Do you deny the altar has been built overlooking the Haram al-Sharif, ready for sacrificing the red heifer?
It hasn't been reported in the Guardian, so it can't be true, right?
The Guardian hasn't even reported the delivery of the red heifers, so they must still be in Texas.
Presumably the Orange Order has never marched through the Lower Ormeau area of Belfast - at least not unless a report has appeared on whatever Arabic language news site has the 11th largest readership.
It's not true.
Israel destroying Palestinian water supplies in Gaza would be disproportionate, I agree.
But it hasn't happened.
A single, illegal, construction was destroyed, a year ago, not in Gaza and not during the current conflict.
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Ok so you say your party wants a fair free open society then explain this
One of the most freedom oppressing bills to go through parliament and all your party were ayes
I have absolutely no idea of the details on this and you can't just throw something at me like that and expect me to do all the background reading as to the pros and cons without giving me the details and often there are objections to bills which although the context is well intended they are unacceptable in other ways which make them unworkable. It is a classic political tactic for the Government (no matter what party) to claim the opposition is against something because they vote against it when in fact they are not, but what they are against is the bill which is unreasonable Eg the opposition is a supporter of the criminal because they voted against the hanging quartering and disembowelling bill.
Anyway at just a 5 second glimpse it looks like the LDs sided with Labour voting against the Govt here.
I'd like to ask Pagan what freedoms has it oppressed?
The bills I can think of that have oppressed freedoms in recent years have been the Elections Act 2022 (Voter ID regulations) and the sequence of European Withdrawal Acts (2018 - 2020).
Section 122 demands a back door into all communications.
So HTTPS becomes potentially illegal.
Without end to end encryption, online transactions become very vulnerable. Back to cash?
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.” - an idiot
Yesterday there was an enforcement activity in the Idna area near Hebron during which four illegal water wells were sealed. The water wells, which were drilled in violation of the interim agreement [with the Palestinians], damage the natural water reserves and pose a pollution threat to the aquifer [the source of water supplied to both Palestinian and Jewish communities]. The enforcement action was carried out in accordance with the jurisdiction authority and established protocols." — Israeli authorities, July 27, 2023.
Yesterday there was an enforcement activity in the Idna area near Hebron during which four illegal water wells were sealed. The water wells, which were drilled in violation of the interim agreement [with the Palestinians], damage the natural water reserves and pose a pollution threat to the aquifer [the source of water supplied to both Palestinian and Jewish communities]. The enforcement action was carried out in accordance with the jurisdiction authority and established protocols." — Israeli authorities, July 27, 2023.
Yes, I am sure the POURING OF CONCRETE into underground water sources is being done for environmental reasons. What a laughable defence.
Perhaps try reading some legitimate news sources and not bollocks from Reddit?
You attack the platform because you can't defend these religious zealot extremists. Are you denying they are filling Palestinian spring waters with concrete?
Yes.
If it were true, it'd be all over the Grauniad.
It's true.
You have too much respect for the Guardian.
Do you deny the altar has been built overlooking the Haram al-Sharif, ready for sacrificing the red heifer?
It hasn't been reported in the Guardian, so it can't be true, right?
The Guardian hasn't even reported the delivery of the red heifers, so they must still be in Texas.
Presumably the Orange Order has never marched through the Lower Ormeau area of Belfast - at least not unless a report has appeared on whatever Arabic language news site has the 11th largest readership.
It's not true.
Israel destroying Palestinian water supplies in Gaza would be disproportionate, I agree.
But it hasn't happened.
A single, illegal, construction was destroyed, a year ago, not in Gaza and not during the current conflict.
To conflate the two is a lie.
The two are both part of the same Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But both sides want to only talk about the aspects that make their side seem less bad. Which is why you strenuously change the subject whenever you are asked about the violent settler movement, defended at all turns by the Israeli state.
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Ok so you say your party wants a fair free open society then explain this
One of the most freedom oppressing bills to go through parliament and all your party were ayes
I have absolutely no idea of the details on this and you can't just throw something at me like that and expect me to do all the background reading as to the pros and cons without giving me the details and often there are objections to bills which although the context is well intended they are unacceptable in other ways which make them unworkable. It is a classic political tactic for the Government (no matter what party) to claim the opposition is against something because they vote against it when in fact they are not, but what they are against is the bill which is unreasonable Eg the opposition is a supporter of the criminal because they voted against the hanging quartering and disembowelling bill.
Anyway at just a 5 second glimpse it looks like the LDs sided with Labour voting against the Govt here.
I'd like to ask Pagan what freedoms has it oppressed?
The bills I can think of that have oppressed freedoms in recent years have been the Elections Act 2022 (Voter ID regulations) and the sequence of European Withdrawal Acts (2018 - 2020).
Section 122 demands a back door into all communications.
So HTTPS becomes potentially illegal.
Without end to end encryption, online transactions become very vulnerable. Back to cash?
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.” - an idiot
I have a vague memory of New Labour passing a law that made it illegal to refuse to decrypt content on your computer - claiming not knowing how to was no defence. So someone emailed then Home Sec Jack Straw an encrypted file and CC'd the Met saying it was evidence of a crime.
I see Trump's press secretary is as dumb as him. She referred to 'Catholics and Christians'. I'm sure Catholics will be pleased to know they are not Christians.
Perhaps try reading some legitimate news sources and not bollocks from Reddit?
You attack the platform because you can't defend these religious zealot extremists. Are you denying they are filling Palestinian spring waters with concrete?
Yes.
If it were true, it'd be all over the Grauniad.
It's true.
You have too much respect for the Guardian.
Do you deny the altar has been built overlooking the Haram al-Sharif, ready for sacrificing the red heifer?
It hasn't been reported in the Guardian, so it can't be true, right?
The Guardian hasn't even reported the delivery of the red heifers, so they must still be in Texas.
Presumably the Orange Order has never marched through the Lower Ormeau area of Belfast - at least not unless a report has appeared on whatever Arabic language news site has the 11th largest readership.
It's not true.
Israel destroying Palestinian water supplies in Gaza would be disproportionate, I agree.
But it hasn't happened.
A single, illegal, construction was destroyed, a year ago, not in Gaza and not during the current conflict.
To conflate the two is a lie.
The two are both part of the same Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But both sides want to only talk about the aspects that make their side seem less bad. Which is why you strenuously change the subject whenever you are asked about the violent settler movement, defended at all turns by the Israeli state.
It's pure whataboutery bullshit is why.
There are a grand total of zero settlements in Gaza. Zero, nada, zilch, zéro, صفر, れい, אֶפֶס.
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Ok so you say your party wants a fair free open society then explain this
One of the most freedom oppressing bills to go through parliament and all your party were ayes
I have absolutely no idea of the details on this and you can't just throw something at me like that and expect me to do all the background reading as to the pros and cons without giving me the details and often there are objections to bills which although the context is well intended they are unacceptable in other ways which make them unworkable. It is a classic political tactic for the Government (no matter what party) to claim the opposition is against something because they vote against it when in fact they are not, but what they are against is the bill which is unreasonable Eg the opposition is a supporter of the criminal because they voted against the hanging quartering and disembowelling bill.
Anyway at just a 5 second glimpse it looks like the LDs sided with Labour voting against the Govt here.
I'd like to ask Pagan what freedoms has it oppressed?
The bills I can think of that have oppressed freedoms in recent years have been the Elections Act 2022 (Voter ID regulations) and the sequence of European Withdrawal Acts (2018 - 2020).
Section 122 demands a back door into all communications.
So HTTPS becomes potentially illegal.
Without end to end encryption, online transactions become very vulnerable. Back to cash?
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.” - an idiot
I have a vague memory of New Labour passing a law that made it illegal to refuse to decrypt content on your computer - claiming not knowing how to was no defence. So someone emailed then Home Sec Jack Straw an encrypted file and CC'd the Met saying it was evidence of a crime.
Oddly, no action was taken.
Yes. Lots of idiots then generated a random number file to become martyrs or something.
To understand the uses for such a law, remember the Forest Gate raid and aftermath.
Perhaps try reading some legitimate news sources and not bollocks from Reddit?
You attack the platform because you can't defend these religious zealot extremists. Are you denying they are filling Palestinian spring waters with concrete?
Yes.
If it were true, it'd be all over the Grauniad.
It's true.
You have too much respect for the Guardian.
Do you deny the altar has been built overlooking the Haram al-Sharif, ready for sacrificing the red heifer?
It hasn't been reported in the Guardian, so it can't be true, right?
The Guardian hasn't even reported the delivery of the red heifers, so they must still be in Texas.
Presumably the Orange Order has never marched through the Lower Ormeau area of Belfast - at least not unless a report has appeared on whatever Arabic language news site has the 11th largest readership.
It's not true.
Israel destroying Palestinian water supplies in Gaza would be disproportionate, I agree.
But it hasn't happened.
A single, illegal, construction was destroyed, a year ago, not in Gaza and not during the current conflict.
To conflate the two is a lie.
The Israelis have long used access to water as a weapon against the Palestinians both on the West Bank and in Gaza.
In 2017 Amnesty International reported that average water consumption by Israelis was at least FOUR times the average consumption of water by Palestinians living on land captured in 1967:
"On November 11, the head of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said: “Every little girl and boy I met in an UNRWA shelter [in Gaza] asked me for bread and water.”"
I see Trump's press secretary is as dumb as him. She referred to 'Catholics and Christians'. I'm sure Catholics will be pleased to know they are not Christians.
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Ok so you say your party wants a fair free open society then explain this
One of the most freedom oppressing bills to go through parliament and all your party were ayes
I have absolutely no idea of the details on this and you can't just throw something at me like that and expect me to do all the background reading as to the pros and cons without giving me the details and often there are objections to bills which although the context is well intended they are unacceptable in other ways which make them unworkable. It is a classic political tactic for the Government (no matter what party) to claim the opposition is against something because they vote against it when in fact they are not, but what they are against is the bill which is unreasonable Eg the opposition is a supporter of the criminal because they voted against the hanging quartering and disembowelling bill.
Anyway at just a 5 second glimpse it looks like the LDs sided with Labour voting against the Govt here.
I'd like to ask Pagan what freedoms has it oppressed?
The bills I can think of that have oppressed freedoms in recent years have been the Elections Act 2022 (Voter ID regulations) and the sequence of European Withdrawal Acts (2018 - 2020).
Section 122 demands a back door into all communications.
So HTTPS becomes potentially illegal.
Without end to end encryption, online transactions become very vulnerable. Back to cash?
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.” - an idiot
I have a vague memory of New Labour passing a law that made it illegal to refuse to decrypt content on your computer - claiming not knowing how to was no defence. So someone emailed then Home Sec Jack Straw an encrypted file and CC'd the Met saying it was evidence of a crime.
Oddly, no action was taken.
Yes. Lots of idiots then generated a random number file to become martyrs or something.
To understand the uses for such a law, remember the Forest Gate raid and aftermath.
Thankfully, the bastions of public decency and freedom Conservative Party, David Davis, JRM etc, came to power and revoked it all.
Oh.
Maybe Keir will?
Ah.
Or... Kemi/Penny sometime around 2035...? Claim that libertarian throne?
I see Trump's press secretary is as dumb as him. She referred to 'Catholics and Christians'. I'm sure Catholics will be pleased to know they are not Christians.
Is she Wee Free?
I would, sadly, imagine that job - however briefly held - required a belief in 'free willy'.
I see Trump's press secretary is as dumb as him. She referred to 'Catholics and Christians'. I'm sure Catholics will be pleased to know they are not Christians.
Is she Wee Free?
Only since she stood over a bed Obama once slept in.
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Ok so you say your party wants a fair free open society then explain this
One of the most freedom oppressing bills to go through parliament and all your party were ayes
I have absolutely no idea of the details on this and you can't just throw something at me like that and expect me to do all the background reading as to the pros and cons without giving me the details and often there are objections to bills which although the context is well intended they are unacceptable in other ways which make them unworkable. It is a classic political tactic for the Government (no matter what party) to claim the opposition is against something because they vote against it when in fact they are not, but what they are against is the bill which is unreasonable Eg the opposition is a supporter of the criminal because they voted against the hanging quartering and disembowelling bill.
Anyway at just a 5 second glimpse it looks like the LDs sided with Labour voting against the Govt here.
I'd like to ask Pagan what freedoms has it oppressed?
The bills I can think of that have oppressed freedoms in recent years have been the Elections Act 2022 (Voter ID regulations) and the sequence of European Withdrawal Acts (2018 - 2020).
Section 122 demands a back door into all communications.
So HTTPS becomes potentially illegal.
Without end to end encryption, online transactions become very vulnerable. Back to cash?
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.” - an idiot
I have a vague memory of New Labour passing a law that made it illegal to refuse to decrypt content on your computer - claiming not knowing how to was no defence. So someone emailed then Home Sec Jack Straw an encrypted file and CC'd the Met saying it was evidence of a crime.
Oddly, no action was taken.
Yes. Lots of idiots then generated a random number file to become martyrs or something.
To understand the uses for such a law, remember the Forest Gate raid and aftermath.
Thankfully, the bastions of public decency and freedom Conservative Party, David Davis, JRM etc, came to power and revoked it all.
Oh.
Maybe Keir will?
Ah.
Or... Kemi/Penny sometime around 2035...? Claim that libertarian throne?
The big question for me is, why are the LibDems doing so badly? I want to see the Tories lose, but I would rather see the Libdems become the official opposition than see Labour with a 300 seat majority. Or even a 200 seat majority! I mean, most of the electorate now know in their gut that to vote Tory is to vote for a greater chance of dying of untreated cancer, but the Lib dems are still losing to them. If they aren't going to overtake them now, they will never do it - they might as well shut up shop.
Because the lib dems are neither liberal nor democratic and compulsive liars. No one wants to vote for a party like that. I would vote count binface rather than vote lib dem as would most
I know this is unfair of me because I backed off a long discussion on this before because of time but:
There are numerous LD posters here including myself and I know you don't think I am not liberal nor undemocratic nor a compulsive liar from our past discussions and I'm sure you don't think that of the other LD posters here who all come over as extremely reasonable (he says being unbiased )
So do you think we are all deluded to be taken in by illiberal, undemocratic liars?
I lived in slough for a long while, used to get ld leaflets through the door for elections, also had good friends in maidenhead they used to get ld leaflets too.....reading both sets you wouldn't believe they were from the same party because they were so often contradictory.
I believe most ld supporters here are sincere....I just don't think the party you support is sincere. I suspect 2/3 of ld votes in any election are mere protests and if you just had believers voting for you then you would come behind the greens.
We are the party. I am not just a supporter. In my time I have been an agent, a constituency chair and served on a regional executive. I think others here will have served similar roles, certainly there are some who have been councillors. I have met hundreds of members and MPs. They are not dishonest. They hold sincere convictions. Nobody joins the LDs for other motives. You don't join for power nor the money as we have neither.
So explain in a general election why a leaflet in one area is promising one thing and a leaflet in a contiguous constituency is promising the opposite? Hardly seems a party with strong convictions the only thing that ld's seem to be united on is pr and the eu....the rest seems to be what will get me most votes in this constituency
OK so we are now getting into that discussion I said I didn't have time for currently (although I haven't stopped tonight with // arguments, which I shouldn't be doing). I would need some examples and I have no doubt it they will exist but often it is down to different priorities in different areas. For example unlike Tories and Labour the LDs have done well in different types of seats and which have different priorities. Eg Bermondsey and Richmond. With the Tories winning the Red Wall seats you see that issue happening with them now also.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Ok so you say your party wants a fair free open society then explain this
One of the most freedom oppressing bills to go through parliament and all your party were ayes
I have absolutely no idea of the details on this and you can't just throw something at me like that and expect me to do all the background reading as to the pros and cons without giving me the details and often there are objections to bills which although the context is well intended they are unacceptable in other ways which make them unworkable. It is a classic political tactic for the Government (no matter what party) to claim the opposition is against something because they vote against it when in fact they are not, but what they are against is the bill which is unreasonable Eg the opposition is a supporter of the criminal because they voted against the hanging quartering and disembowelling bill.
Anyway at just a 5 second glimpse it looks like the LDs sided with Labour voting against the Govt here.
I'd like to ask Pagan what freedoms has it oppressed?
The bills I can think of that have oppressed freedoms in recent years have been the Elections Act 2022 (Voter ID regulations) and the sequence of European Withdrawal Acts (2018 - 2020).
Section 122 demands a back door into all communications.
So HTTPS becomes potentially illegal.
Without end to end encryption, online transactions become very vulnerable. Back to cash?
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.” - an idiot
I have a vague memory of New Labour passing a law that made it illegal to refuse to decrypt content on your computer - claiming not knowing how to was no defence. So someone emailed then Home Sec Jack Straw an encrypted file and CC'd the Met saying it was evidence of a crime.
Oddly, no action was taken.
Yes. Lots of idiots then generated a random number file to become martyrs or something.
To understand the uses for such a law, remember the Forest Gate raid and aftermath.
Thankfully, the bastions of public decency and freedom Conservative Party, David Davis, JRM etc, came to power and revoked it all.
Oh.
Maybe Keir will?
Ah.
Or... Kemi/Penny sometime around 2035...? Claim that libertarian throne?
Oh.
Cameron did repeal some of the worst of Blairs authoritarianism.
Yesterday there was an enforcement activity in the Idna area near Hebron during which four illegal water wells were sealed. The water wells, which were drilled in violation of the interim agreement [with the Palestinians], damage the natural water reserves and pose a pollution threat to the aquifer [the source of water supplied to both Palestinian and Jewish communities]. The enforcement action was carried out in accordance with the jurisdiction authority and established protocols." — Israeli authorities, July 27, 2023.
Yes, I am sure the POURING OF CONCRETE into underground water sources is being done for environmental reasons. What a laughable defence.
So you don’t believe compliance with law and international agreements is necessary?
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
Sorry but it absolutely bloody is one of them if that's what the patient wants. If and only if that.
Would you support banning putting down dogs who are terminally sick? Why do we treat those who are sick and able to express their own interests with less sympathy and humanity than we do our pets?
I absolutely support euthanasia for people who are able to make an informed decision, but absolutely against in for dementia. I've had to deal with dementia on both sides of my family and the person afflicted with dementia doesn't think they are ill (and even if they have a brief insight it's soon forgotten). They don't want to die because they think they are healthy and it's the rest of us that have all gone mad. I don't want us to be a society that kills you off as soon as you fail a cognitive test.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
Sorry but it absolutely bloody is one of them if that's what the patient wants. If and only if that.
Would you support banning putting down dogs who are terminally sick? Why do we treat those who are sick and able to express their own interests with less sympathy and humanity than we do our pets?
I absolutely support euthanasia for people who are able to make an informed decision, but absolutely against in for dementia. I've had to deal with dementia on both sides of my family and the person afflicted with dementia doesn't think they are ill (and even if they have a brief insight it's soon forgotten). They don't want to die because they think they are healthy and it's the rest of us that have all gone mad. I don't want us to be a society that kills you off as soon as you fail a cognitive test.
I agree that those not of sound mind can't consent so can't be euthanised.
But someone who is of sound mind in the early stages of dementia ought to be able, in sound mind, to make a choice if they so deem.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
Sorry but it absolutely bloody is one of them if that's what the patient wants. If and only if that.
Would you support banning putting down dogs who are terminally sick? Why do we treat those who are sick and able to express their own interests with less sympathy and humanity than we do our pets?
I absolutely support euthanasia for people who are able to make an informed decision, but absolutely against in for dementia. I've had to deal with dementia on both sides of my family and the person afflicted with dementia doesn't think they are ill (and even if they have a brief insight it's soon forgotten). They don't want to die because they think they are healthy and it's the rest of us that have all gone mad. I don't want us to be a society that kills you off as soon as you fail a cognitive test.
I agree that those not of sound mind can't consent so can't be euthanised.
But someone who is of sound mind in the early stages of dementia ought to be able, in sound mind, to make a choice if they so deem.
Their body, their life, their choice.
But that might be five years or ten years in the past and the person wouldn't consent now. In medicine even if someone's consenting to an operation they can always change their mind and that's a line that I think we can't cross.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
Sorry but it absolutely bloody is one of them if that's what the patient wants. If and only if that.
Would you support banning putting down dogs who are terminally sick? Why do we treat those who are sick and able to express their own interests with less sympathy and humanity than we do our pets?
I absolutely support euthanasia for people who are able to make an informed decision, but absolutely against in for dementia. I've had to deal with dementia on both sides of my family and the person afflicted with dementia doesn't think they are ill (and even if they have a brief insight it's soon forgotten). They don't want to die because they think they are healthy and it's the rest of us that have all gone mad. I don't want us to be a society that kills you off as soon as you fail a cognitive test.
I agree that those not of sound mind can't consent so can't be euthanised.
But someone who is of sound mind in the early stages of dementia ought to be able, in sound mind, to make a choice if they so deem.
Their body, their life, their choice.
But that might be five years or ten years in the past and the person wouldn't consent now. In medicine even if someone's consenting to an operation they can always change their mind and that's a line that I think we can't cross.
I think you're not quite understanding me. If someone in the early stages decides they want to end things now, and they're of sound mind, that should be their choice.
I agree that of course you can't euthanise someone who is not of sound mind who hasn't opted to do so as they can't opt to do so.
Though as far as changing their mind is concerned, medicine already deals with that as it is. If someone says they're a Jehovah (or similar) and refuse blood transfusions as a result, then they're in an accident, then between their declaration and the accident they might have had a change of heart and might want to live and might want the blood, but unless a change of heart is clearly evident their choice stands even if it was years in the past.
Similar for DNR too. Someone who is DNR might have changed their mind, might want to live, might want extraordinary measures, but unless they've recorded it their last choice stands.
There may be clues here as to the timing of the red heifer ritual. It's planned for performance at a distance of 2000 cubits from the location of the Holy of Holies, although it's unclear how that location has been identified.
Sacha Baron-Cohen should make an intervention. There's much more material here than there was with Rudy Giuliani!
"This ceremony is going to be so big (...) It's a big show." says Rabbi Mamo.
He also says the cow has to be in its year three, which means 2 years and around 1-2 months, he reckons. In the interview posted on 10 Dec 2022, he says "we have more than 1.5 years", which would mean no earlier than May 2024, assuming the interview was conducted not long before the posting.
Nonetheless you have to factor in what Hamas leaders have said and the currently widespread belief in the Arab world that it will all be cracking off on 10 April.
At a cost of possibly breaching the Goldwater Rule, I have to say that Rabbi Mamo appears to be a genuine super-kook in relation to whom Jim Jones may have been not small fry but micro-fry.
Meanwhile some Israelis and Palestinians have been taking ayahuasca together:
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
Sorry but it absolutely bloody is one of them if that's what the patient wants. If and only if that.
Would you support banning putting down dogs who are terminally sick? Why do we treat those who are sick and able to express their own interests with less sympathy and humanity than we do our pets?
I absolutely support euthanasia for people who are able to make an informed decision, but absolutely against in for dementia. I've had to deal with dementia on both sides of my family and the person afflicted with dementia doesn't think they are ill (and even if they have a brief insight it's soon forgotten). They don't want to die because they think they are healthy and it's the rest of us that have all gone mad. I don't want us to be a society that kills you off as soon as you fail a cognitive test.
I agree that those not of sound mind can't consent so can't be euthanised.
But someone who is of sound mind in the early stages of dementia ought to be able, in sound mind, to make a choice if they so deem.
Their body, their life, their choice.
But that might be five years or ten years in the past and the person wouldn't consent now. In medicine even if someone's consenting to an operation they can always change their mind and that's a line that I think we can't cross.
I think you're not quite understanding me. If someone in the early stages decides they want to end things now, and they're of sound mind, that should be their choice.
I agree that of course you can't euthanise someone who is not of sound mind who hasn't opted to do so as they can't opt to do so.
Though as far as changing their mind is concerned, medicine already deals with that as it is. If someone says they're a Jehovah (or similar) and refuse blood transfusions as a result, then they're in an accident, then between their declaration and the accident they might have had a change of heart and might want to live and might want the blood, but unless a change of heart is clearly evident their choice stands even if it was years in the past.
Similar for DNR too. Someone who is DNR might have changed their mind, might want to live, might want extraordinary measures, but unless they've recorded it their last choice stands.
I hope that I'm misunderstanding you.
Here's my scenario, Someone in the early stages of a dementia diagnosis decides that if it develops to a certain point then they would prefer to be euthanised. A number of years later that stage is reached but the patient has no memory of having made that decision and does not wish to be euthanised now. Should the written decision of the past take priority over the expressed wishes of the patient in the present?
Evil needs to be destroyed sometimes. Nazis, Imperial Japan, Russia, Hamas.
Israel has killed TWENTY times as many people as Hamas have since the latter's inception.
Do you seriously think if the "scoreboard" was the other way round, Hamas would stop?
But the point is, it's the Israelis (IDF and settlers) who've been doing the bulk of the killing over the last 16 years.
Good.
Killing terrorists is entirely legitimate.
Would it have been legitimate in your opinion to kill Israeli national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir after he was convicted of supporting the terrorist Kach group (Kahanist), before, or both?
I don't ask out of smartarsery, because ISTM that Third Temple loonies may well want to establish a position where either some of them are killed or some of those who are opposing their actions in an immediate and "on the ground" way are killed. What are they really but terrorists when it comes down to it?
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
Sorry but it absolutely bloody is one of them if that's what the patient wants. If and only if that.
Would you support banning putting down dogs who are terminally sick? Why do we treat those who are sick and able to express their own interests with less sympathy and humanity than we do our pets?
I absolutely support euthanasia for people who are able to make an informed decision, but absolutely against in for dementia. I've had to deal with dementia on both sides of my family and the person afflicted with dementia doesn't think they are ill (and even if they have a brief insight it's soon forgotten). They don't want to die because they think they are healthy and it's the rest of us that have all gone mad. I don't want us to be a society that kills you off as soon as you fail a cognitive test.
I agree that those not of sound mind can't consent so can't be euthanised.
But someone who is of sound mind in the early stages of dementia ought to be able, in sound mind, to make a choice if they so deem.
Their body, their life, their choice.
But that might be five years or ten years in the past and the person wouldn't consent now. In medicine even if someone's consenting to an operation they can always change their mind and that's a line that I think we can't cross.
I think you're not quite understanding me. If someone in the early stages decides they want to end things now, and they're of sound mind, that should be their choice.
I agree that of course you can't euthanise someone who is not of sound mind who hasn't opted to do so as they can't opt to do so.
Though as far as changing their mind is concerned, medicine already deals with that as it is. If someone says they're a Jehovah (or similar) and refuse blood transfusions as a result, then they're in an accident, then between their declaration and the accident they might have had a change of heart and might want to live and might want the blood, but unless a change of heart is clearly evident their choice stands even if it was years in the past.
Similar for DNR too. Someone who is DNR might have changed their mind, might want to live, might want extraordinary measures, but unless they've recorded it their last choice stands.
I hope that I'm misunderstanding you.
Here's my scenario, Someone in the early stages of a dementia diagnosis decides that if it develops to a certain point then they would prefer to be euthanised. A number of years later that stage is reached but the patient has no memory of having made that decision and does not wish to be euthanised now. Should the written decision of the past take priority over the expressed wishes of the patient in the present?
I don't know, which means lean towards don't take the action.
I'm saying it should be legalised for "I want to die now" not "if this happens, then kill me".
There's a lot more red flags over the latter than the former.
This was discussed a little earlier today, and it does rather make you wonder what the Government intends to do with the information (apart from courier it to the gutter press so that they can organise a hate campaign against whichever nationalities make the top end of the list.)
Sfaict the government intends nothing and the suggestion (for an immigrant crime league) comes from a small group around Robert Jenrick.
It was a tragic waste of life for Ukraine to attack a larger army that had defense in depth, minefields and stronger artillery when Ukraine lacked armor or air superiority! Any fool could have predicted that.
My recommendation a year ago was for Ukraine to entrench and apply all resources to defense. Even then, it is tough to hold land that doesn’t have strong natural barriers.
There is no chance of Russia taking all of Ukraine, as the local resistance would be extreme in the west, but Russia will certainly gain more land than they have today.
The longer the war goes on, the more territory Russia will gain until they hit the Dnepr, which is tough to overcome. However, if the war lasts long enough, Odessa will fall too.
Whether Ukraine loses all access to the Black Sea or not is, in my view, the real remaining question. I recommend a negotiated settlement before that happens. 6:35 PM · Mar 30, 2024 · 115.2K View https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1774143429720596865?s=20
Elon’s been pushing Putin propaganda (whether out of ignorance of malice) for a while now. About the only thing you and he have in common.
Maybe hes more rational than you, not difficult by the way.
@Trent on the last thread you made an outrageous post which I responded to, but the thread ended so I repeat it here because I was gobsmacked by it:
You said 'The last years of peoples lives especially in dementia care homes can be utterly miserable. And we have to ask can we afford it.'
You said that without any solution. I asked if we decide we can't afford it what do you propose? We can't just exterminate people because of cost. That is an appalling suggestion.
People sign a document which states if they get dementia and it progresses past a certain point its fine for their life to be voluntarily brought to an end.
What is that point - who decides - frankly you are very unpleasant and clearly verging on supporting euthanasia for dementia
Dementia destroys lives not only of those with dementia but also the people around them however is something to bear in mind. My father has dementia, he is driving his girlfriend to an early grave she has now been described anti depressants. I have had official warnings from work because he does stupid shit and I need to take immediate time off by telling my boss sorry I need to go because he did something stupid.
How many people can he take down with him before those around him say enough? Or should we just drop contact and refuse responsibility when he is already an unrecogisable shell of himself?
My father in law died with dementia here in our home after months of distress for my wife and children and he passed way with his family around him as we held his hand
Additionally both my son in laws parents suffered dementia in homes for 4 years before both passing last year
There is no easy answer but euthanasia is not one of them
Sorry but it absolutely bloody is one of them if that's what the patient wants. If and only if that.
Would you support banning putting down dogs who are terminally sick? Why do we treat those who are sick and able to express their own interests with less sympathy and humanity than we do our pets?
I absolutely support euthanasia for people who are able to make an informed decision, but absolutely against in for dementia. I've had to deal with dementia on both sides of my family and the person afflicted with dementia doesn't think they are ill (and even if they have a brief insight it's soon forgotten). They don't want to die because they think they are healthy and it's the rest of us that have all gone mad. I don't want us to be a society that kills you off as soon as you fail a cognitive test.
I agree that those not of sound mind can't consent so can't be euthanised.
But someone who is of sound mind in the early stages of dementia ought to be able, in sound mind, to make a choice if they so deem.
Their body, their life, their choice.
But that might be five years or ten years in the past and the person wouldn't consent now. In medicine even if someone's consenting to an operation they can always change their mind and that's a line that I think we can't cross.
I think you're not quite understanding me. If someone in the early stages decides they want to end things now, and they're of sound mind, that should be their choice.
I agree that of course you can't euthanise someone who is not of sound mind who hasn't opted to do so as they can't opt to do so.
Though as far as changing their mind is concerned, medicine already deals with that as it is. If someone says they're a Jehovah (or similar) and refuse blood transfusions as a result, then they're in an accident, then between their declaration and the accident they might have had a change of heart and might want to live and might want the blood, but unless a change of heart is clearly evident their choice stands even if it was years in the past.
Similar for DNR too. Someone who is DNR might have changed their mind, might want to live, might want extraordinary measures, but unless they've recorded it their last choice stands.
No, that is not the way it works.
Consent can be withdrawn at any point and is not bound by a previous decision.
If a person lacks capacity to decide on a procedure then a "best interests meeting" is held to decide if the action is in the patients best interest, and this includes anyone with Medical Lasting Power of Attorney (hence essential to do this legally when still competent) or in the absence of this then the patients family members and unpaid carers, as well as the clinical staff involved. Sometimes these go to court, for example withdrawal of care for an unconscious person over their families wishes. I don't think anyone with a financial interest in a death (such as a beneficiary in a will) could be part of such a decision.
I understand the desire to end suffering, but there have been cases already in Canada etc that are rather concerning.
I agree with the principle that Euthanasia requires active, informed consent at the point Euthanasia occurs.
Unfortunately, that leaves those with an early Dementia diagnosis with the choice of 1) end their life prematurely in order to avoid the inevitable cognitive decline (assuming the diagnosis is early enough for informed consent), or 2) hope for the best with medical advances to improve their life with dementia.
I expect most would choose the status quo (option 2) in any case, but I think the alternative should be available.
UK government lawyers say Israel is breaking international law, claims top Tory in leaked recording
Ex-Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official Alicia Kearns said at a Tory fundraiser that legal advice would mean the UK has to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay
The British government has received advice from its own lawyers stating that Israel has breached international humanitarian law in Gaza but has failed to make it public, according to a leaked recording obtained by the Observer.
The comments, made by the Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, Alicia Kearns, at a Tory fundraising event on 13 March are at odds with repeated ministerial denials and evasion on the issue.
On Saturday night, Kearns, a former Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence official, who has repeatedly pressed ministers, including foreign secretary David Cameron, on the legal advice they have received, stood by her comments and called for the government to come clean.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she said. “Transparency at this point is paramount, not least to uphold the international rules-based order.”
The revelation will place Lord Cameron and prime minister Rishi Sunak under intense pressure because any such legal advice would mean the UK had to cease all arms sales to Israel without delay.
Legal experts said that not to do so would risk putting the UK in breach of international law itself, as it would be seen as aiding and abetting war crimes by a country it was exporting arms to.
It's nonsense like this which is why Israel is being so restrained and fighting this war with kid gloves and one hand tied behind its back.
They should be far more aggressive than they are. They should have gone into Rafah ages ago.
But I respect the way they're trying to minimise civilian casualties. Unlike Hamas who aim to maximise them. And Egypt and the rest of the world kettling Palestinians into the war zone with no escape or safe haven for refugees outside it, as would be granted in any other conflict.
Where do you swallow this propaganda, Bart? How is mass starvation minimising civilian casualties?
I don't endorse mass starvation and I don't believe Israel is responsible for it.
Hamas are the ones attacking aid convoys, not Israel.
Of course my preference would be for innocent Palestinians not be kettled into a war zone in part as getting aid into a war zone is very difficult.
Unfortunately while civilians in almost every other war are able to flee to safe ground outside the war zone, that right is being denied to Palestinians. For shame.
But it's not Israel denying them that right either.
Can inhabitants of Gaza flee into Israel (the country with which Gaza has its longest border)? No. That is because Israel is stopping them. One could also criticise Egypt, but that would be whataboutery.
Comments
@Leon
Except in Scotland, where tactical works in the opposite direction.
You are dodging the more pertinent points.
Sadly, I know more about this stuff that I would like after the last two years of my family's life.
Edit: You and your wife have a right to a carer's assessment. That is an assessment of your needs as carers. This should include the way it is f*cking up your work.
COGAT, the military body that oversees Palestinian civilian affairs, says there are no restrictions on importing humanitarian aid. It also denies that right-wing Israeli protests at the crossings in recent weeks have succeeded in blocking aid.
Instead, the main obstacles now appear to be on the other side of the fence.
As I said, Hamas and others are attacking aid convoys.
Such happens during war. Israel doesn't have control over the area, if it did, there wouldn't be a war going on.
If Hamas and others attack aid convoys, there isn't much Israel could do about that.
Another bloody good reason that third party nations should offer refuge to Palestinians.
But Egypt etc don't want to and are kettling them instead, leaving them to their fate. That's their choice and their responsibility.
Israel's responsibility is to continue proportionately fighting the war until they win the war and Hamas are completely destroyed or surrender unconditionally.
I hope Israel continue to do what they can to minimise civilian casualties, as they have, without prejudicing their legitimate military objectives. But we should be under no pretence that the longer it takes for Hamas to surrender unconditionally, or be destroyed, then more innocents will die. Such is the nature of war, especially when people are kettled into the war zone.
But have you thought about someone coming in for a couple of hours a day to give his partner a break?
Seems like the PB Tories (tm) have moved on from “nobody wants Labour either” to “nobody will want Labour after the initial honeymoon because the country is so fucked”.
Kübler-Ross would be having a field day.
Which I don't. Except optimism (of a sort anyway) that growing number of people impacted, the aging AND their families, is affecting increased percentage of the electorate - especially voters who actually vote.
Note that in USA, growing numbers of older Americans after the Depression and WW2, were major impetus in building support for expansion of Medicare = slimmed-down NHS-style health care for geezers.
NOT much to hang your hat one, particularly for anyone a wee bit skeptical of current governments and politicos.
Personally believe, however, that the Age of Miracles (secular and otherwise) is not yet past.
There is no military or logical rationale behind that at all.
Innocents should be free to seek refuge in a nation that is a third party, not part of the conflict.
And yes, this is a war. Israel and Hamas have both said so. Both are seeking the others destruction, I want Israel to be the one to win it, what about you?
https://weather.com/weather/tenday/l/Manhattan+NY?canonicalCityId=fc47c333c5d13e34e34c9fdb6e047ceb70f7891e01bc9e1d574b5f93f58aa76d
He’s become a club bore, between the AI and the supposedly envy-inducing pictures of alcohol in exotic hotels.
I wouldn't advocate that, would you?
The council also has to do a needs assessment of the person in question if it appears they need care help (clearly in tis case it seems to me) and regardless of whether the council thinks they will have to do something . They have to do due process.
Dont let them fob you off. Councils are doing this all over the place apparently.
As ever it is those with sharp elbows who get help that they are actually legally entitled to.
Sorry btw - I misread his girlfriend as your wife for some reason.
You focus on what matters where you are. You mentioned this before and I think the seats were Slough and Maidenhead. That is chalk and cheese. What might be right in one might be wrong in the other. They are very different places. One shouldn't be dogmatic, but the basic principles apply and decisions on policy are made democratically.
However I am sure you will also find some hypocrisy. This is politics after all and people have different opinions even if they broadly agree in the same party.
I think the following on the membership card is rather profound as far as I am concerned:
'The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity'
And that balance is key because some of these things are in conflict with one another.
Evil needs to be destroyed sometimes. Nazis, Imperial Japan, Russia, Hamas.
The war needs to continue until they are destroyed or unconditionally surrender. Israel ceasing fire won't lead to either.
https://www.reddit.com/r/interestingasfuck/comments/1bhjt1u/israelis_pouring_cement_on_water_springs_in_the/
OR Somewhat-Less-Far Rockaway?
ADDENDUM - Please give my regards to George Santos . . . along with PB Dutch Salute . . .
All sounds like a pretty sad existence to me.
I would also like the UK government to operate within the law, being an old-fashioned romantic like that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_tag_attack_policy
But actually the "proportionate" IDF protects these religious extremist savages.
https://votes.parliament.uk/Votes/Commons/Division/1341
One of the most freedom oppressing bills to go through parliament and all your party were ayes
So your inspiration is Lord Halifax then?
I agree that where voters are clear that one party is the main challenger there will be lots of tactical voting. The difficulty for tactical voters is partly the level of swing and partly boundary changes. For example, in Farnham and Borden, neither Labour nor Libdems have much in the way of recent results, because both have been largely deferring to the allied Farnham Residents, and the seat is drastically different to the old SW Surrey seat which including Godalming. The poll suggests Labour is second to the Tories but with LibDems not far behind. What is a tactical voter to do? (In that particular case there is an April 18 council by-election which may cast some light.)
Another factor is whether the prospect of a big Tory defeat affects tactical voting. If the Tories are being ejected anyway, do people want to be sure their local Tory gets ousted more or less than if it was a close race? Less, maybe?
Just googled it - you're not far from Sagamore Hill.
If it were true, it'd be all over the Grauniad.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/israelis-filling-water-with-concrete/
Anyway at just a 5 second glimpse it looks like the LDs sided with Labour voting against the Govt here.
Meanwhile, the idea of Labour winning Wokingham, a seat where I have first hand experience, is frankly laughable.
As you know, because we discussed it, I have some detailed, but very out of date knowledge of SW Surrey. Once, many moons ago, Farnham used to be a LD stronghold before they decided to commit harikiri and sadly I had to preside over the expulsion of a number of members. If that hadn't happened who knows it might still have been a much better target for the LDs.
The spectre of 1992 features large in my mind
I broadly agree with the conclusions of the disputation and also with the review author's qualms about the proponent for zoonosis in the disputation. My main issue is the assumption that the lab leak and zoonosis hypotheses start out equal, which I suppose has to be the basis of any debate. When every single epidemic in history has been caused by species jump, I reckon the burden of proof is higher for lab leak.
Any how, well worth a read if you're interested in this kind of analysis.
https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/practically-a-book-review-rootclaim
As for your other BS, strange definition of true. You implied Israel were destroying water sources during this war. So not proportionate.
The rather mundane reality is an illegally constructed well was filled in, last year, months before this current conflict. Not in Gaza incidentally, and in accordance with the Oslo Accords.
The bills I can think of that have oppressed freedoms in recent years have been the Elections Act 2022 (Voter ID regulations) and the sequence of European Withdrawal Acts (2018 - 2020).
My mother kept my father at home several years longer than was good for her, but gave in to the inevitable in the end.
He lived for quite a few more years, and we visited him several times a week - and my mother at least every other day.
It's hard, but it's not abandonment.
You have too much respect for the Guardian.
Do you deny the altar has been built overlooking the Haram al-Sharif, ready for sacrificing the red heifer?
It hasn't been reported in the Guardian, so it can't be true, right?
The Guardian hasn't even reported the delivery of the red heifers, so they must still be in Texas.
Presumably the Orange Order has never marched through the Lower Ormeau area of Belfast - at least not unless a report has appeared on whatever Arabic language news site has the 11th largest readership.
It's now 845 days since the Tories last had a poll lead.
I don't say the polls won't close but if the Tories do win from here it won't be a repeat of 1992 - it would be a recovery many times greater than that.
Israel destroying Palestinian water supplies in Gaza would be disproportionate, I agree.
But it hasn't happened.
A single, illegal, construction was destroyed, a year ago, not in Gaza and not during the current conflict.
To conflate the two is a lie.
Easter is a time to ‘pause and reflect’, says PM – while festival is ‘a time of optimism and new beginnings’, declares Labour leader
So HTTPS becomes potentially illegal.
Without end to end encryption, online transactions become very vulnerable. Back to cash?
“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia.” - an idiot
This was posted in the comments:
Yesterday there was an enforcement activity in the Idna area near Hebron during which four illegal water wells were sealed. The water wells, which were drilled in violation of the interim agreement [with the Palestinians], damage the natural water reserves and pose a pollution threat to the aquifer [the source of water supplied to both Palestinian and Jewish communities]. The enforcement action was carried out in accordance with the jurisdiction authority and established protocols." — Israeli authorities, July 27, 2023.
Oddly, no action was taken.
There are a grand total of zero settlements in Gaza. Zero, nada, zilch, zéro, صفر, れい, אֶפֶס.
To understand the uses for such a law, remember the Forest Gate raid and aftermath.
In 2017 Amnesty International reported that average water consumption by Israelis was at least FOUR times the average consumption of water by Palestinians living on land captured in 1967:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/11/the-occupation-of-water/
Right now the restriction by Israel of the water supply in Gaza is a major feature of the Israeli war effort:
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/11/16/israeli-authorities-cutting-water-leading-public-health-crisis-gaza
"On November 11, the head of the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) said: “Every little girl and boy I met in an UNRWA shelter [in Gaza] asked me for bread and water.”"
Oh.
Maybe Keir will?
Ah.
Or... Kemi/Penny sometime around 2035...? Claim that libertarian throne?
Oh.
“But Minister… national security… blah blah”
ID cards, detention without trial etc.
Killing terrorists is entirely legitimate.
It's the deliberate killing of civilians that is the problem.
(Though your figure is BS anyway, it ignores point blank all the Palestinians killed by Hamas who are in their death toll anyway)
But someone who is of sound mind in the early stages of dementia ought to be able, in sound mind, to make a choice if they so deem.
Their body, their life, their choice.
I agree that of course you can't euthanise someone who is not of sound mind who hasn't opted to do so as they can't opt to do so.
Though as far as changing their mind is concerned, medicine already deals with that as it is. If someone says they're a Jehovah (or similar) and refuse blood transfusions as a result, then they're in an accident, then between their declaration and the accident they might have had a change of heart and might want to live and might want the blood, but unless a change of heart is clearly evident their choice stands even if it was years in the past.
Similar for DNR too. Someone who is DNR might have changed their mind, might want to live, might want extraordinary measures, but unless they've recorded it their last choice stands.
https://www2.cbn.com/news/israel/prophetic-anticipation-builds-unblemished-red-heifers-temple-ceremony-soon-come-age
https://templeinstitute.org/red-heifer-the-ceremony/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In5I9KasnyM
Sacha Baron-Cohen should make an intervention. There's much more material here than there was with Rudy Giuliani!
"This ceremony is going to be so big (...) It's a big show." says Rabbi Mamo.
He also says the cow has to be in its year three, which means 2 years and around 1-2 months, he reckons. In the interview posted on 10 Dec 2022, he says "we have more than 1.5 years", which would mean no earlier than May 2024, assuming the interview was conducted not long before the posting.
https://www.charismanews.com/world/94702-temple-institute-reveals-path-ahead-for-red-heifer-ceremony
https://israel365news.com/388195/rabbi-in-charge-of-red-heifer-answers-hamas/
Nonetheless you have to factor in what Hamas leaders have said and the currently widespread belief in the Arab world that it will all be cracking off on 10 April.
At a cost of possibly breaching the Goldwater Rule, I have to say that Rabbi Mamo appears to be a genuine super-kook in relation to whom Jim Jones may have been not small fry but micro-fry.
Meanwhile some Israelis and Palestinians have been taking ayahuasca together:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2021.607529/full
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8429789/
https://www.vice.com/en/article/4a3b79/israeli-palestinian-ayahuasca-ceremony
Here's my scenario, Someone in the early stages of a dementia diagnosis decides that if it develops to a certain point then they would prefer to be euthanised. A number of years later that stage is reached but the patient has no memory of having made that decision and does not wish to be euthanised now. Should the written decision of the past take priority over the expressed wishes of the patient in the present?
I don't ask out of smartarsery, because ISTM that Third Temple loonies may well want to establish a position where either some of them are killed or some of those who are opposing their actions in an immediate and "on the ground" way are killed. What are they really but terrorists when it comes down to it?
I'm saying it should be legalised for "I want to die now" not "if this happens, then kill me".
There's a lot more red flags over the latter than the former.
Consent can be withdrawn at any point and is not bound by a previous decision.
If a person lacks capacity to decide on a procedure then a "best interests meeting" is held to decide if the action is in the patients best interest, and this includes anyone with Medical Lasting Power of Attorney (hence essential to do this legally when still competent) or in the absence of this then the patients family members and unpaid carers, as well as the clinical staff involved. Sometimes these go to court, for example withdrawal of care for an unconscious person over their families wishes. I don't think anyone with a financial interest in a death (such as a beneficiary in a will) could be part of such a decision.
I understand the desire to end suffering, but there have been cases already in Canada etc that are rather concerning.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/06/canada-legalized-medical-assisted-suicide-euthanasia-death-maid/673790/?utm_source=copy-link&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share
Nevertheless this is horrific. I doubt Sunak has it in him to do what's necessary to rally his base.
Unfortunately, that leaves those with an early Dementia diagnosis with the choice of 1) end their life prematurely in order to avoid the inevitable cognitive decline (assuming the diagnosis is early enough for informed consent), or 2) hope for the best with medical advances to improve their life with dementia.
I expect most would choose the status quo (option 2) in any case, but I think the alternative should be available.
Once again, why is Reform’s big opinion polling vote share not showing up anywhere in real elections?