Presumably, this was Haigh’s decision alone. I think she’s calculated that it’s best to resign now before it becomes a saga. A lot of people won’t even notice. She can come back in a year or two when it’s all forgotten.
If Starmer knew about this stuff when he put her in the shadow cabinet, then he had already made his decision.
As someone who has no interest in keeping up with the latest technology fashion, I think what she did is pretty bad, but appreciate plenty of others on here have sympathy with the trappings of tech fashion and white collar crime.
By the way, those saying the court gave Haigh a lenient sentence should remember that the criminal justice system is generally much more lenient to women.
Very interesting piece, @viewcode You put forth some useful questions. The one I found easiest to answer is on the role of MPs. Isn’t it precisely the job of MPs to make these decisions? Isn’t that how representative democracy works? A Royal Commission might be useful to advise, but I want Parliament to decide.
One thing I do think about this bill is that it’s been brought forward too soon in the parliament. With so many new MPs still getting to grips with everything asking them to decide on something this sensitive as one of their first actions is decidedly unfair.
I realise it isn’t the government’s fault, and as a private member’s bill it is of course going nowhere, but I do think Starmer was unwise not to try and buy off the sponsor so it wasn’t put in the first place.
On the question of MPs, I am hoping that this debate and vote, and subsequent debates and votes if the legislation proceeds to later stages of consideration, will be a good advert for MPs deliberating without the suffocating direction of a party whip.
I might not agree with the collective decision made, but I'd have more confidence in the decision following the choices of 600+ MPs, rather than a handful of party leaders.
By the way, those saying the court gave Haigh a lenient sentence should remember that the criminal justice system is generally much more lenient to women.
How many of those commenting are fully informed on the details of the case ? Approximately none, I suspect.
Without such knowledge, it's not really possible to say whether the sentence was unduly lenient or not.
Most of the objections really seem to be along the lines of "I don't believe her story".
One thing I do think about this bill is that it’s been brought forward too soon in the parliament. With so many new MPs still getting to grips with everything asking them to decide on something this sensitive as one of their first actions is decidedly unfair.
I realise it isn’t the government’s fault, and as a private member’s bill it is of course going nowhere, but I do think Starmer was unwise not to try and buy off the sponsor so it wasn’t put in the first place.
I get the impression that this is Starmer’s bill. My theory is that he’s trying to get it done without having to do any hard work. And if it fails, never mind, they tried.
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
One thing I do think about this bill is that it’s been brought forward too soon in the parliament. With so many new MPs still getting to grips with everything asking them to decide on something this sensitive as one of their first actions is decidedly unfair.
I realise it isn’t the government’s fault, and as a private member’s bill it is of course going nowhere, but I do think Starmer was unwise not to try and buy off the sponsor so it wasn’t put in the first place.
I get the impression that this is Starmer’s bill. My theory is that he’s trying to get it done without having to do any hard work. And if it fails, never mind, they tried.
A la Foster and hunting? Possibly, but still a serious misjudgement if so.
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
I think I can live with that.
Sounds like a curious mixture of Buddhist and Abrahamic theology.
..I don’t know anybody who made the point that the assisted dying discussion should not be held in Parliament at all and that this is not something into which the State should intrude...
Is viewcode suggesting that the religious should have a veto on what topics can be discussed by Parliament ? That doesn't seem to be an idea that's even worthy of consideration.
One thing I do think about this bill is that it’s been brought forward too soon in the parliament. With so many new MPs still getting to grips with everything asking them to decide on something this sensitive as one of their first actions is decidedly unfair.
I realise it isn’t the government’s fault, and as a private member’s bill it is of course going nowhere, but I do think Starmer was unwise not to try and buy off the sponsor so it wasn’t put in the first place.
I get the impression that this is Starmer’s bill. My theory is that he’s trying to get it done without having to do any hard work. And if it fails, never mind, they tried.
Isn't this the quid pro quo for all the Lord Alli donations? It's reportedly an issue he has spoken in the Lords about, as a supporter of a change in the law.
Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No Hell below us Above us, only sky Imagine all the people Living for today
Lennon's philosophy is simplistic but sums up my issue with this approach. Hell simply should not feature in our reasoning on the rights and wrongs of this issue.
Election day here in Ireland. Starting off very wet, but forecast dry later, so I'm delaying my vote. Typically I would vote first thing. I've always enjoyed voting as one of my first actions of the day, so feels a bit weird, but with the wind howling and the rain flowing down the windows I'll try and be patient.
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
I think I can live with that.
Heaven is unimaginable. Hell is all too imaginable. It’s why Inferno is the best part of the Divine Comedy.
On Assisted Dying - i have personal experience of a close friend of mine who suffered from 'locked in syndrome' followin a major stroke. After a few years of contemplation he pleaded to die and eventually committed suicide by starvation. It was slow and painful and he should have been allowed to die with dignity.
We need checks and balances and he would have passed them all, but two groups of people should not figure in the decision making: - Priests/religious leaders of whatever persuasion. It is not their business. - MPs. Who are only interested in short term political expediency
This process should be allowed subject to medical opinion and approved by a judge. But the primary decision maker should be the individual concerned.
Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No Hell below us Above us, only sky Imagine all the people Living for today
Lennon's philosophy is simplistic but sums up my issue with this approach. Hell simply should not feature in our reasoning on the rights and wrongs of this issue.
Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No Hell below us Above us, only sky Imagine all the people Living for today
Lennon's philosophy is simplistic but sums up my issue with this approach. Hell simply should not feature in our reasoning on the rights and wrongs of this issue.
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
I think I can live with that.
I find hell the hardest to conceive of. Both scientifically (where it’s up there with heaven in the credibility stakes) and morally. If you only put in there utterly irredeemable humans whose evil acts were entirely their fault and not affected by mental illness, upbringing or propaganda, Hell would be a pretty empty place.
If you instead simply send all flawed humans there, then the punishment is totally out of proportion to the crime.
On Assisted Dying - i have personal experience of a close friend of mine who suffered from 'locked in syndrome' followin a major stroke. After a few years of contemplation he pleaded to die and eventually committed suicide by starvation. It was slow and painful and he should have been allowed to die with dignity.
We need checks and balances and he would have passed them all, but two groups of people should not figure in the decision making: - Priests/religious leaders of whatever persuasion. It is not their business. - MPs. Who are only interested in short term political expediency
This process should be allowed subject to medical opinion and approved by a judge. But the primary decision maker should be the individual concerned.
You know that the law as proposed would not provide him with his desired solution.
Presumably, this was Haigh’s decision alone. I think she’s calculated that it’s best to resign now before it becomes a saga. A lot of people won’t even notice. She can come back in a year or two when it’s all forgotten.
If Starmer knew about this stuff when he put her in the shadow cabinet, then he had already made his decision.
As someone who has no interest in keeping up with the latest technology fashion, I think what she did is pretty bad, but appreciate plenty of others on here have sympathy with the trappings of tech fashion and white collar crime.
Perhaps it was, but as suggested yesterday, her fate may have been decided by the Gregg Wallace affair blowing up at the same time.
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
I think I can live with that.
Sounds like a curious mixture of Buddhist and Abrahamic theology.
Perhaps. I don't know enough about Buddhism to really comment on that, though.
Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No Hell below us Above us, only sky Imagine all the people Living for today
Lennon's philosophy is simplistic but sums up my issue with this approach. Hell simply should not feature in our reasoning on the rights and wrongs of this issue.
Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No Hell below us Above us, only sky Imagine all the people Living for today
Lennon's philosophy is simplistic but sums up my issue with this approach. Hell simply should not feature in our reasoning on the rights and wrongs of this issue.
I admit, that’s a song I detest, for its vacuity.
It's vacuous, boring, banal, globalist, socialist and dull.
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
I think I can live with that.
I find hell the hardest to conceive of. Both scientifically (where it’s up there with heaven in the credibility stakes) and morally. If you only put in there utterly irredeemable humans whose evil acts were entirely their fault and not affected by mental illness, upbringing or propaganda, Hell would be a pretty empty place.
If you instead simply send all flawed humans there, then the punishment is totally out of proportion to the crime.
Yeah, but I don't see it as an 'eternity'. The period spent in there might be in relation to your sins; and people who generally caused more good than harm (on the infamous balance...) would never get there.
Thinking about it, that sort of idea of Hell equates somewhat with the poor people forced to 'live' when in immense pain. A Hellish existence.
Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No Hell below us Above us, only sky Imagine all the people Living for today
Lennon's philosophy is simplistic but sums up my issue with this approach. Hell simply should not feature in our reasoning on the rights and wrongs of this issue.
Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No Hell below us Above us, only sky Imagine all the people Living for today
Lennon's philosophy is simplistic but sums up my issue with this approach. Hell simply should not feature in our reasoning on the rights and wrongs of this issue.
I admit, that’s a song I detest, for its vacuity.
Liverpool John Lennon takes its motto from it - 'Above us only Sky.'
And the baggage handlers take theirs from the same song - 'imagine no possessions.'
The incoherence of the Brexit plan has and will continue to cause far more damage to UK society than the Brexit concept itself.
The incoherence of the Brexit plan is indivisible from the Brexit concept.
There is no version of the concept that isn't entirely incoherent in delivery.
I disagree. It is just that if Singapore in Thames had been faithfully pitched the result would have been 70-30 against. If it had been anti immigration Little Englander it would have been 65-35 against. Corbynite marxist nirvane 75-25 against. Any of those were internally coherent, just not very popular.
The only way Brexit could win was by melding these groups together but it could never deliver what was promised in order to do so.
That's the point
If you asked the Little Englanders about Singapore on Thames they would say "that's not Brexit"
If you asked the Singapore on Thames crew about Marxist Nirvana they would say "that's not Brexit"
There is no version of the concept that isn't entirely incoherent in delivery.
Having watched a friend decline and ultimately die from MND I’d instinctively support the proposal. He expressed repeatedly that he would prefer to be able to choose his exit.
Checks and balances are clearly needed but the current system does not serve the terminally ill well.
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
I think I can live with that.
I find hell the hardest to conceive of. Both scientifically (where it’s up there with heaven in the credibility stakes) and morally. If you only put in there utterly irredeemable humans whose evil acts were entirely their fault and not affected by mental illness, upbringing or propaganda, Hell would be a pretty empty place.
If you instead simply send all flawed humans there, then the punishment is totally out of proportion to the crime.
A significant number of Christians don't believe in Hell either, seeing it as incompatible with a loving God.
My own theology is more simple. I simply don't know what happens to our souls when we die, though will at some point find out. I think the importance of religious and moral values lies in this life not the next.
So is an act driven by compassion and kindness, or is it malicious or avaricious in intent? Unfortunately it isn't easy to draft safeguards that work against the latter while permitting the former.
Election day here in Ireland. Starting off very wet, but forecast dry later, so I'm delaying my vote. Typically I would vote first thing. I've always enjoyed voting as one of my first actions of the day, so feels a bit weird, but with the wind howling and the rain flowing down the windows I'll try and be patient.
Soldiers of destiny, tribe of the Irish, we ourselves or someone else ?
Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No Hell below us Above us, only sky Imagine all the people Living for today
Lennon's philosophy is simplistic but sums up my issue with this approach. Hell simply should not feature in our reasoning on the rights and wrongs of this issue.
Imagine there's no Heaven It's easy if you try No Hell below us Above us, only sky Imagine all the people Living for today
Lennon's philosophy is simplistic but sums up my issue with this approach. Hell simply should not feature in our reasoning on the rights and wrongs of this issue.
I admit, that’s a song I detest, for its vacuity.
It's vacuous, boring, banal, globalist, socialist and dull.
Strangely he described himself as a patriotic nationalist in a clip they played on R4 this week.
Presumably, this was Haigh’s decision alone. I think she’s calculated that it’s best to resign now before it becomes a saga. A lot of people won’t even notice. She can come back in a year or two when it’s all forgotten.
If Starmer knew about this stuff when he put her in the shadow cabinet, then he had already made his decision.
As someone who has no interest in keeping up with the latest technology fashion, I think what she did is pretty bad, but appreciate plenty of others on here have sympathy with the trappings of tech fashion and white collar crime.
Why would Starmer want her back ?
Not to mention there will be dozens of other Labour MPs who will be looking to advance their own career in a year or two.
Apart from the religious issues, the modern, liberal position, is that your actions need to be constrained when they affect others.
The position that people with enough money can get round a law, hence it is unfair to poorer people, is an argument for the enforcement of laws. It does not speak to the nature of the law itself.
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
I think I can live with that.
I find hell the hardest to conceive of. Both scientifically (where it’s up there with heaven in the credibility stakes) and morally. If you only put in there utterly irredeemable humans whose evil acts were entirely their fault and not affected by mental illness, upbringing or propaganda, Hell would be a pretty empty place.
If you instead simply send all flawed humans there, then the punishment is totally out of proportion to the crime.
You're overthinking it. You're just supposed to be frightened, and decide to do as you are (or were being, historically) told
In a purely Biblical view only God can take life and thou shalt not kill. So I suppose one could end up in hell or purgatory for partaking in such an action with intent unless full repentance.
While I suspect the assisted dying bill will pass I do still have concerns about widening it to include the mentally ill and those with non terminal illnesses as has now happened in Canada under Trudeau's Liberal government and which the opposition has now promised to reverse
Yeah, interesting header but actually the short answer is this bill is a bad one because for all the cases of one bloke living for 83 days in torture the potential for the law to be abused is too great.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
As I said last night I don't really see why she needed to resign. It was a relatively minor offence committed before she was elected as an MP for which she has already been sentenced in the magistrates court.
Plus we now have MPs who have served prison time and a President elect of the United States who is also a convicted criminal
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
I think I can live with that.
Heaven is unimaginable. Hell is all too imaginable. It’s why Inferno is the best part of the Divine Comedy.
Which is a good reason to be suspicious of the idea.
Hell is what we think we would like to do, if we had infinite power
In a purely Biblical view only God can take life and thou shalt not kill. So I suppose one could end up in hell or purgatory for partaking in such an action with intent unless full repentance.
While I suspect the assisted dying bill will pass I do still have concerns about widening it to include the mentally ill and those with non terminal illnesses as has now happened in Canada under Trudeau's Liberal government and which the opposition has now promised to reverse
I'm no theologian but exceptions and loopholes in the divine monopoly on killing were sought and found in order to allow capital punishment and war.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
Don't we have a desperate need to expand the labour market?
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
I think I can live with that.
Heaven is unimaginable. Hell is all too imaginable. It’s why Inferno is the best part of the Divine Comedy.
Which is a good reason to be suspicious of the idea.
Hell is what we think we would like to do, if we had infinite power
Hell is where one spends all eternity with the likes of Hitler, Stalin and Jimmy Savile and Peter Sutcliffe and Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Epstein I suppose and the devil orchestrating little devils with red hot pokers.
I mean ffs look at Canada. 4% of deaths are via assisted dying. From some much smaller number before the law was changed.
And people think that the huge increase is just a larger number of people with MND deciding to end their lives early, or somesuch.
God and/or hell really doesn't come into it. Agree about the doctors, that said, what on earth (not "in hell") is it to do with them. Either someone wants to end their lives or they don't. As is pointed out, we are all terminally ill so picking some arbitrary point to end it shouldn't depend on anyone apart from the person themselves.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
Don't we have a desperate need to expand the labour market?
As I said last night I don't really see why she needed to resign. It was a relatively minor offence committed before she was elected as an MP for which she has already been sentenced in the magistrates court.
Plus we now have MPs who have served prison time and a President elect of the United States who is also a convicted criminal
And a leader of the opposition who has admitted to committing a serious crime.
(To my eye it looks quite Protestant, even down to the checkerboard tiles )
The claim is that it now looks close to what it was when originally built. One can certainly imagine a C13 scrofulous leather tanner having his mind blown when entering it and being given a conception of heaven (hell being akin to his earthly existence).
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.
It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians
(To my eye it looks quite Protestant, even down to the checkerboard tiles )
No plaster (at least, not that I can see in the photo) or paintings on the walls.
A white ceiling. White and black floor.
Essentially functional chandeliers and up lights.
Very beautiful in its understated elegance, but as you say, not exactly Catholic.
Edit - although to be fair, I think most of those features were there before, covered with centuries of grime. Weren't the internal Catholic features removed during the Revolutionary period and never fully restored?
In a purely Biblical view only God can take life and thou shalt not kill. So I suppose one could end up in hell or purgatory for partaking in such an action with intent unless full repentance.
While I suspect the assisted dying bill will pass I do still have concerns about widening it to include the mentally ill and those with non terminal illnesses as has now happened in Canada under Trudeau's Liberal government and which the opposition has now promised to reverse
Didn't god tell someone to kill someone else at some point, their brother, was it?
So He would be at least an accessory in the courts.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
Don't we have a desperate need to expand the labour market?
Actually, I have some sympathy for this position
From talking to women
- Some want to return to work the moment the baby is born - Some want to return in a few weeks - Some want to return in a few months - Some want to return after the child is in nursery - Some want to return after the child has started primary school - Some want to return after the child has finished primary school - Some want to return after the child has finished secondary school
But when you ask what they *really* want, it becomes clear that the above is heavily based on economic arguments, as is the decision to have children and how many. It is quite clear that modern society is pricing women out of having children, to an extent.
So if you are of the feminist point of view, you are supposed to support women's right to *choose* what they want to do. Not bully them with economics into doing things.
Again, there are obvious limits to this - economics again.
Thank you all for your comments, both pro and con. I'm at work so I shall collate your responses and reply later in the day so please feel free to continue to comment further. Two points I need to address immediately
@Nigelb 's question about the religious having a veto on parliamentary discussion: no that's not what I meant, which is why the point about should this be in Parliament at all wasn't in the "religion" paragraph. Apologies if that was unclear @Casino_Royale 's point about it being too existential for a Friday morning: well yes, and it should have been finished for Sunday, but work intruded as ever: apologies.
(To my eye it looks quite Protestant, even down to the checkerboard tiles )
The claim is that it now looks close to what it was when originally built. One can certainly imagine a C13 scrofulous leather tanner having his mind blown when entering it and being given a conception of heaven (hell being akin to his earthly existence).
Is that because it's clean rather than covered in centuries of soot and grime? That does make sense.
Assisted dying is the most pressing issue facing the country right now?
It is of vital and immediate import to a substantial number of people - those in pain as they are dying.
The wider social implications - which is why we need safeguards - impact *everyone*.
So this is a matter of life and death, that touches everyone in the country. That sounds like a pressing issue, and a worthy one for Parliament to debate.
Thank you all for your comments, both pro and con. I'm at work so I shall collate your responses and reply later in the day so please feel free to continue to comment further. Two points I need to address immediately
@Nigelb 's question about the religious having a veto on parliamentary discussion: no that's not what I meant, which is why the point about should this be in Parliament at all wasn't in the "religion" paragraph. Apologies if that was unclear..
I'm afraid that still leaves me puzzled as to what it does mean.
(To my eye it looks quite Protestant, even down to the checkerboard tiles )
The claim is that it now looks close to what it was when originally built. One can certainly imagine a C13 scrofulous leather tanner having his mind blown when entering it and being given a conception of heaven (hell being akin to his earthly existence).
Is that because it's clean rather than covered in centuries of soot and grime? That does make sense.
Though there is the question of what inside was originally painted - many churches were brightly painted, internally. Does anyone know?
As I said last night I don't really see why she needed to resign. It was a relatively minor offence committed before she was elected as an MP for which she has already been sentenced in the magistrates court.
Plus we now have MPs who have served prison time and a President elect of the United States who is also a convicted criminal
And a leader of the opposition who has admitted to committing a serious crime.
Hopefully this is a sign of new ruthless media management. There were definite signs of disappointment on Today this morning that they weren't going to be able to drag this out for days
Good thoughts, and thought-provoking from our colleague @viewcode; I for one am very grateful. Like many others I'm not completely sure, although from 'personal'... i.e. close family ..... experience I'm very sympathetic to the concept of assisted dying. I must agree that the 'die-ee's' views have to be paramount, but.... and there's always a but .... agonising pain can be, and sometimes is, cured and the sufferer goes on to live a reasonably full life. And I've seen people go in and out of hospice care. And by 'out' I mean home, fora while. Sometimes a long while.
I think I's vote FOR the principle of this Bill, but look forward to some detailed discussions in Committee. In particular, I'm very doubtful about the beneficial effect of the High Court Judge. I suspect that his or her involvement would prove a delaying and confusing element.
Sorry to hear the news about Louise Haigh, she did some good things as transport secretary.
I'm afraid I can't agree. The fact she has done fewer obviously disasterous things than almost all of her colleagues does not mean she ws a good Transport Secretary. I am however,sorry that she is the first to leave this government there are many on the very top table who more rightly should have earned that distinction.
As I said last night I don't really see why she needed to resign. It was a relatively minor offence committed before she was elected as an MP for which she has already been sentenced in the magistrates court.
Plus we now have MPs who have served prison time and a President elect of the United States who is also a convicted criminal
I didn’t see it as a resigning matter either but I thought that too good a gag not to post.
Thank you all for your comments, both pro and con. I'm at work so I shall collate your responses and reply later in the day so please feel free to continue to comment further. Two points I need to address immediately
@Nigelb 's question about the religious having a veto on parliamentary discussion: no that's not what I meant, which is why the point about should this be in Parliament at all wasn't in the "religion" paragraph. Apologies if that was unclear..
I'm afraid that still leaves me puzzled as to what it does mean.
Assisted dying is the most pressing issue facing the country right now?
It is of vital and immediate import to a substantial number of people - those in pain as they are dying.
The wider social implications - which is why we need safeguards - impact *everyone*.
So this is a matter of life and death, that touches everyone in the country. That sounds like a pressing issue, and a worthy one for Parliament to debate.
It's a completely unimportant issue...that's appeared out of nowhere .. but of course it's pure WEF eugenic thinking..🧐
An attempt to answer @viewcode on "what do Christians believe about suicide", from my conservative evangelical standpoint:
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3v26
Everybody is a sinner, does things which are wrong, and fails to meet God's righteous standards. All therefore are deserving of condemnation in hell.
"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2v4-8
Whilst no-one can escape hell on their own merits, because of God's love, if we put our trust in Jesus Christ, who died as a sacrifice for sins in our place, then we can be saved from hell and enabled to go to heaven. It's important to understand that this being saved is on the basis of what Christ has done, not what we have done.
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1v8-9
Christians will sin, and the final judgement is not God weighing up the "good" vs the "bad" in us. The question at the final judgement is "is your sin forgiven, and paid for by Jesus".
So, what happens if someone takes their own life? Is it a sin? Yes. "Thou shalt not kill" applies. Is it unforgivable? No. If I have an selfish argument on with my wife on my death-bed, it's sinful. If I die in a car crash, also killing other innocent people, because I was driving recklessly, that's sinful. And in all those cases, I get undeserved forgiveness, if I'm trusting in Jesus for salvation, not my own righteousness.
Now, there is a bit of a caveat here - if I "trust in Jesus" but live persistently, unrepentantly, a life as sinful as before, without any change, is it likely that I'm trusting in Jesus? Am I acknowledging that God is righteous and holy, and I am not? Possibly not. So trust in Jesus isn't a sort of "get out of jail free card". But death because of a sinful act of one's own doing is not automatically unforgivable.
However, having just said all that, I wouldn't vote for this bill, not just on religious grounds, but also because I think legalising murder (some people will end up dieing who don't want to die - unfortunately it's just not possible to provide sufficient safeguards with legislation like this*) is a bad idea.
*Imagine Captain Tom Moore's daughter is your child. Would you trust her to respect your wishes and represent them accurately if the alternative is a nice fat inheritance arriving rather sooner?
(To my eye it looks quite Protestant, even down to the checkerboard tiles )
The claim is that it now looks close to what it was when originally built. One can certainly imagine a C13 scrofulous leather tanner having his mind blown when entering it and being given a conception of heaven (hell being akin to his earthly existence).
Is that because it's clean rather than covered in centuries of soot and grime? That does make sense.
Essentially yes. I imagine Notre Dame was cleanish for most of its life and the real sootiness began with industrialisation.
Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.
I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish
Don't we have a desperate need to expand the labour market?
This makes more sense why the plod got involved and why she was sacked...multiple phones.
The Times has been told that the company launched an investigation after Haigh said that company mobile phones had been stolen or had gone missing on repeated occasions. Aviva referred the matter to the police and Haigh was prosecuted in 2014
The police were supplied with details of more than one instance that had been looked into by Aviva but the criminal charge related to one phone.
An attempt to answer @viewcode on "what do Christians believe about suicide", from my conservative evangelical standpoint:
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3v26
Everybody is a sinner, does things which are wrong, and fails to meet God's righteous standards. All therefore are deserving of condemnation in hell.
"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2v4-8
Whilst no-one can escape hell on their own merits, because of God's love, if we put our trust in Jesus Christ, who died as a sacrifice for sins in our place, then we can be saved from hell and enabled to go to heaven. It's important to understand that this being saved is on the basis of what Christ has done, not what we have done.
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1v8-9
Christians will sin, and the final judgement is not God weighing up the "good" vs the "bad" in us. The question at the final judgement is "is your sin forgiven, and paid for by Jesus".
So, what happens if someone takes their own life? Is it a sin? Yes. "Thou shalt not kill" applies. Is it unforgivable? No. If I have an selfish argument on with my wife on my death-bed, it's sinful. If I die in a car crash, also killing other innocent people, because I was driving recklessly, that's sinful. And in all those cases, I get undeserved forgiveness, if I'm trusting in Jesus for salvation, not my own righteousness.
Now, there is a bit of a caveat here - if I "trust in Jesus" but live persistently, unrepentantly, a life as sinful as before, without any change, is it likely that I'm trusting in Jesus? Am I acknowledging that God is righteous and holy, and I am not? Possibly not. So trust in Jesus isn't a sort of "get out of jail free card". But death because of a sinful act of one's own doing is not automatically unforgivable.
However, having just said all that, I wouldn't vote for this bill, not just on religious grounds, but also because I think legalising murder (some people will end up dieing who don't want to die - unfortunately it's just not possible to provide sufficient safeguards with legislation like this*) is a bad idea.
*Imagine Captain Tom Moore's daughter is your child. Would you trust her to respect your wishes and represent them accurately if the alternative is a nice fat inheritance arriving rather sooner?
A merciful death is preferable to some indignities.
As I said last night I don't really see why she needed to resign. It was a relatively minor offence committed before she was elected as an MP for which she has already been sentenced in the magistrates court.
Plus we now have MPs who have served prison time and a President elect of the United States who is also a convicted criminal
And a leader of the opposition who has admitted to committing a serious crime.
(To my eye it looks quite Protestant, even down to the checkerboard tiles )
The claim is that it now looks close to what it was when originally built. One can certainly imagine a C13 scrofulous leather tanner having his mind blown when entering it and being given a conception of heaven (hell being akin to his earthly existence).
Is that because it's clean rather than covered in centuries of soot and grime? That does make sense.
Essentially yes. I imagine Notre Dame was cleanish for most of its life and the real sootiness began with industrialisation.
I doubt if it was that clean when lit and heated by coal and wood braziers as well as innumerable candles.
(To my eye it looks quite Protestant, even down to the checkerboard tiles )
The claim is that it now looks close to what it was when originally built. One can certainly imagine a C13 scrofulous leather tanner having his mind blown when entering it and being given a conception of heaven (hell being akin to his earthly existence).
Is that because it's clean rather than covered in centuries of soot and grime? That does make sense.
Essentially yes. I imagine Notre Dame was cleanish for most of its life and the real sootiness began with industrialisation.
I doubt if it was that clean when lit and heated by coal and wood braziers as well as innumerable candles.
Good point. And that would have been from early in construction - cathedrals took decades.
Comments
That one about MPs is literally incredible.
Most of the questions seem sound though.
If Starmer knew about this stuff when he put her in the shadow cabinet, then he had already made his decision.
As someone who has no interest in keeping up with the latest technology fashion, I think what she did is pretty bad, but appreciate plenty of others on here have sympathy with the trappings of tech fashion and white collar crime.
And thanks to @viewcode for the thoughtful post.
I realise it isn’t the government’s fault, and as a private member’s bill it is of course going nowhere, but I do think Starmer was unwise not to try and buy off the sponsor so it wasn’t put in the first place.
I might not agree with the collective decision made, but I'd have more confidence in the decision following the choices of 600+ MPs, rather than a handful of party leaders.
Approximately none, I suspect.
Without such knowledge, it's not really possible to say whether the sentence was unduly lenient or not.
Most of the objections really seem to be along the lines of "I don't believe her story".
As mentioned before, I have grave doubts about Heaven, and how it would 'work' whilst still keeping an essential aura of self. But I have no doubt about the existence of Hell, for it is far easier to cause mental and/or physical pain than it is to make someone blissfully happy. I also quite like the idea of 'Hell', and can think of plenty of people wo deserve to go there (none of our fine contributors, obviously...)
So that leaves me in an odd position; one where good people die and face nothing; whereas bad people face an eternity of torture.
I think I can live with that.
..I don’t know anybody who made the point that the assisted dying discussion should not be held in Parliament at all and that this is not something into which the State should intrude...
Is viewcode suggesting that the religious should have a veto on what topics can be discussed by Parliament ?
That doesn't seem to be an idea that's even worthy of consideration.
It's easy if you try
No Hell below us
Above us, only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today
Lennon's philosophy is simplistic but sums up my issue with this approach. Hell simply should not feature in our reasoning on the rights and wrongs of this issue.
We need checks and balances and he would have passed them all, but two groups of people should not figure in the decision making:
- Priests/religious leaders of whatever persuasion. It is not their business.
- MPs. Who are only interested in short term political expediency
This process should be allowed subject to medical opinion and approved by a judge. But the primary decision maker should be the individual concerned.
https://x.com/damcou/status/1862413273968128022?s=61
If you instead simply send all flawed humans there, then the punishment is totally out of proportion to the crime.
Here's an extreme example of the consequences of allowing the religious to deny individuals their personal autonomy.
Women arrested by Taliban for begging report rape and killings in Afghan jails
Draconian new laws allow mass incarceration of women and children forced to beg because of work ban
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/nov/29/afghanistan-taliban-women-children-arrested-begging-rape-torture-killings-jails-destitution-work-ban
You're a cabinet minister of the United Kingdom, not an emo teenager.
Thinking about it, that sort of idea of Hell equates somewhat with the poor people forced to 'live' when in immense pain. A Hellish existence.
I just want to get to the beers this evening in one piece.
And the baggage handlers take theirs from the same song - 'imagine no possessions.'
If you asked the Little Englanders about Singapore on Thames they would say "that's not Brexit"
If you asked the Singapore on Thames crew about Marxist Nirvana they would say "that's not Brexit"
There is no version of the concept that isn't entirely incoherent in delivery.
Checks and balances are clearly needed but the current system does not serve the terminally ill well.
My own theology is more simple. I simply don't know what happens to our souls when we die, though will at some point find out. I think the importance of religious and moral values lies in this life not the next.
So is an act driven by compassion and kindness, or is it malicious or avaricious in intent? Unfortunately it isn't easy to draft safeguards that work against the latter while permitting the former.
The restored interior of Notre Dame Cathedral.
(To my eye it looks quite Protestant, even down to the checkerboard tiles
Not to mention there will be dozens of other Labour MPs who will be looking to advance their own career in a year or two.
Apart from the religious issues, the modern, liberal position, is that your actions need to be constrained when they affect others.
The position that people with enough money can get round a law, hence it is unfair to poorer people, is an argument for the enforcement of laws. It does not speak to the nature of the law itself.
It's the original carrot and stick
https://www.lavenderandlovage.com/2020/03/spam-and-eggs-breakfast-sandwich.html
While I suspect the assisted dying bill will pass I do still have concerns about widening it to include the mentally ill and those with non terminal illnesses as has now happened in Canada under Trudeau's Liberal government and which the opposition has now promised to reverse
Plus we now have MPs who have served prison time and a President elect of the United States who is also a convicted criminal
Hell is what we think we would like to do, if we had infinite power
And people think that the huge increase is just a larger number of people with MND deciding to end their lives early, or somesuch.
God and/or hell really doesn't come into it. Agree about the doctors, that said, what on earth (not "in hell") is it to do with them. Either someone wants to end their lives or they don't. As is pointed out, we are all terminally ill so picking some arbitrary point to end it shouldn't depend on anyone apart from the person themselves.
https://news.sky.com/story/tory-vice-chair-kemi-badenoch-admits-hacking-labour-mps-website-11323056
A white ceiling. White and black floor.
Essentially functional chandeliers and up lights.
Very beautiful in its understated elegance, but as you say, not exactly Catholic.
Edit - although to be fair, I think most of those features were there before, covered with centuries of grime. Weren't the internal Catholic features removed during the Revolutionary period and never fully restored?
So He would be at least an accessory in the courts.
From talking to women
- Some want to return to work the moment the baby is born
- Some want to return in a few weeks
- Some want to return in a few months
- Some want to return after the child is in nursery
- Some want to return after the child has started primary school
- Some want to return after the child has finished primary school
- Some want to return after the child has finished secondary school
But when you ask what they *really* want, it becomes clear that the above is heavily based on economic arguments, as is the decision to have children and how many. It is quite clear that modern society is pricing women out of having children, to an extent.
So if you are of the feminist point of view, you are supposed to support women's right to *choose* what they want to do. Not bully them with economics into doing things.
Again, there are obvious limits to this - economics again.
@Nigelb 's question about the religious having a veto on parliamentary discussion: no that's not what I meant, which is why the point about should this be in Parliament at all wasn't in the "religion" paragraph. Apologies if that was unclear
@Casino_Royale 's point about it being too existential for a Friday morning: well yes, and it should have been finished for Sunday, but work intruded as ever: apologies.
The wider social implications - which is why we need safeguards - impact *everyone*.
So this is a matter of life and death, that touches everyone in the country. That sounds like a pressing issue, and a worthy one for Parliament to debate.
So the key phrase in your rhetorical question is right now.
Good thoughts, and thought-provoking from our colleague @viewcode; I for one am very grateful.
Like many others I'm not completely sure, although from 'personal'... i.e. close family ..... experience I'm very sympathetic to the concept of assisted dying. I must agree that the 'die-ee's' views have to be paramount, but.... and there's always a but .... agonising pain can be, and sometimes is, cured and the sufferer goes on to live a reasonably full life.
And I've seen people go in and out of hospice care. And by 'out' I mean home, fora while. Sometimes a long while.
I think I's vote FOR the principle of this Bill, but look forward to some detailed discussions in Committee. In particular, I'm very doubtful about the beneficial effect of the High Court Judge. I suspect that his or her involvement would prove a delaying and confusing element.
"All have sinned and come short of the glory of God." Romans 3v26
Everybody is a sinner, does things which are wrong, and fails to meet God's righteous standards. All therefore are deserving of condemnation in hell.
"But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God." Ephesians 2v4-8
Whilst no-one can escape hell on their own merits, because of God's love, if we put our trust in Jesus Christ, who died as a sacrifice for sins in our place, then we can be saved from hell and enabled to go to heaven. It's important to understand that this being saved is on the basis of what Christ has done, not what we have done.
"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." 1 John 1v8-9
Christians will sin, and the final judgement is not God weighing up the "good" vs the "bad" in us. The question at the final judgement is "is your sin forgiven, and paid for by Jesus".
So, what happens if someone takes their own life? Is it a sin? Yes. "Thou shalt not kill" applies. Is it unforgivable? No. If I have an selfish argument on with my wife on my death-bed, it's sinful. If I die in a car crash, also killing other innocent people, because I was driving recklessly, that's sinful. And in all those cases, I get undeserved forgiveness, if I'm trusting in Jesus for salvation, not my own righteousness.
Now, there is a bit of a caveat here - if I "trust in Jesus" but live persistently, unrepentantly, a life as sinful as before, without any change, is it likely that I'm trusting in Jesus? Am I acknowledging that God is righteous and holy, and I am not? Possibly not. So trust in Jesus isn't a sort of "get out of jail free card". But death because of a sinful act of one's own doing is not automatically unforgivable.
However, having just said all that, I wouldn't vote for this bill, not just on religious grounds, but also because I think legalising murder (some people will end up dieing who don't want to die - unfortunately it's just not possible to provide sufficient safeguards with legislation like this*) is a bad idea.
*Imagine Captain Tom Moore's daughter is your child. Would you trust her to respect your wishes and represent them accurately if the alternative is a nice fat inheritance arriving rather sooner?
I’m sorry to see her go.
I’m not sure who I would like to see taking over.
The Times has been told that the company launched an investigation after Haigh said that company mobile phones had been stolen or had gone missing on repeated occasions. Aviva referred the matter to the police and Haigh was prosecuted in 2014
The police were supplied with details of more than one instance that had been looked into by Aviva but the criminal charge related to one phone.
https://archive.ph/n1Ye3#selection-1617.0-1631.72
Not quite the story she was telling.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/13941805/captain-tom-barbados-cliff-richard-russ-abbot/
He played a key role in Johnson's self-destruction, after all