On heaven/hell, I would best describe my beliefs as some vague, wooly concept that there may well be something after this life and that is a comforting thought - particularly because I very much doubt if there is something it is eternal damnation. I might get accused of being un-forensic and wishful-thinky, but there’s not really much point me trying to clearly define something that may or may not happen but that I have no way of knowing what. I suspect there’s quite a few of us in that bracket.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 23m Louise Haigh's resignation sets a ridiculously low bar for cabinet service. We're now saying there can be no rehabilitation for anyone in public life who has committed the most minor of offences.
(((Dan Hodges))) @DPJHodges · 23m Louise Haigh's resignation sets a ridiculously low bar for cabinet service. We're now saying there can be no rehabilitation for anyone in public life who has committed the most minor of offences.
Why did Haigh plead guilty if she had done nothing wrong?
See the Times article....multiple phones went walkies, company investigated and they reported her to the plod (which is not the story she has been telling)....I think we can infer there was probably advice to take the hit on one phone, there won't be any real punishment, and that will be the end of the matter, other than you are out of a job. Being light fingered around expensive electronics is not a good look.
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 ?
Everyone to the left of Sinn Fein. Don't think I can quite bring myself to give a lower preference to Sinn Fein, even though I want the FF/FG coalition out.
Holly Cairns, the leader of the Social Democrats is one of the local TDs, and she's willing to say that the country can't have better public services and cut taxes at the same time, so I think she's done enough to earn my vote.
2 Yes. State (parliament) makes the law. Assisted suicide is basically an amendment to the law of murder, which it would otherwise be without its intervention
3 Not at the moment, as you are requiring someone else to commit an offence, but it will be if the law changes
4 Yes, to ensure medical knowledge and efficacy in an otherwise even messier process
5 Yes. Only MPs can be our legislators. They can never duck out of it. If you don't want it, don't stand
6 No. Thats's why law is interminable
7 Vote for the bill today; we cannot keep excelling in medical intervention to keep us all alive and then duck out of the consequence when we are kept alive too long for nature to work properly.
What a wonderful article from Viewcode! One to copy and keep, I think. FWIW, my answers are:- 1. Probably, depending on their intent 2. Definitely. The State is the last refuge for our safety, so any tinkering with it, for whatever reasons, means that the State has a role to play. 3. No, because of the onus it puts on the other person. All sorts of wrongdoing is perpetrated in the name and cause of love. 4. No, they should not! I have been asking this for years. The assumption seems to be that the involvement of doctors will somehow automatically make the situation better, but I think it will damage their relationship with the rest of society. I suggest (in all seriousness) that if anyone is going to be involved in the process, it should be ministers of religion, because they should be more able to cope with the moral complexities of the situation, and also have a practical involvement with death. 5. Yes, because they are the legislators who control the State (see above). They may not be much good, but they are all we have. Rather them than lawyers. 6. "Hard cases make bad laws", and all we are seeing in this debate (on both sides) is a parade of hard cases. For the proposal to be examined properly it needs to be done without reference to "my Aunt Aggie who died in a lot of pain" or "my cousin Jim who is completely paralysed but has a full and happy life".
Again, FWIW, I am opposed to AD, for a variety of reasons - political, religious and cultural. The legislative "drift" in Canada and Benelux appals me. Whatever one's views are on abortion, we have to agree that the defences and protections put in place in 1968 no longer exist - the same will happenn with the AD bill, if it is passed.
Dear Kemi, could you come in to the station please, we suggest you bring a solicitor or legal representation. We understand that you have admitted hacking a personal website if a Minister of the Crown. This could result in a significant fine up up to 2 years in prison if proven.... May be the general public would like a petition to be set up.
Big Masterchef fan but always felt something was off about Greg Wallace.
Of more concern is the arrest of the bloke who takes photos of women on nights out in wherever it is.
A lot of the reporting on that story has been a bit poor....the public stuff was just the "advertising" funnel, he had paid for content of upskirting and girls who were exposed.
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.
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?
More to expand the fertility rate
That takes rather longer to deliver new workers
You have to appreciate that HYUFD doesn't understand the facts of life (see passim). New workers don't come aged 18 with the Stork margarine in the supermarket.
(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.
I had no idea that braziers were used to heat cathedrals!
2 Yes. State (parliament) makes the law. Assisted suicide is basically an amendment to the law of murder, which it would otherwise be without its intervention
3 Not at the moment, as you are requiring someone else to commit an offence, but it will be if the law changes
4 Yes, to ensure medical knowledge and efficacy in an otherwise even messier process
5 Yes. Only MPs can be our legislators. They can never duck out of it. If you don't want it, don't stand
6 No. Thats's why law is interminable
7 Vote for the bill today; we cannot keep excelling in medical intervention to keep us all alive and then duck out of the consequence when we are kept alive too long for nature to work properly.
The law would be falling off a log easy to abuse. Your Ans 7 is all very well but this assumes a flawless process with everyone acting in good faith (geddit). That, sadly because we're all all too human, is not the case. Fine if we're talking about phone hacking, but not when it comes to life and death.
Some of the most vigorous debates on here concerned how much we should protect Granny during Covid. And now all sorts of people on here are queuing up to finish her off to be tidy. Oh and pick up the inheritance/avoid the care home bill.
Re Haigh, there are some things to it all that don’t make a huge amount of sense to me (e.g if you think you’ve lost your phone and you find it isn’t the first thing you do to fess up and admit you were mistaken - oops, so sorry, I thought it was taken but it obviously wasn’t)? The whole thing about it being activated and then the police investigating feels a little weird to me, but then I’m not across the detail so whatever.
I’m someone who doesn’t really like the concept that someone does something in their 20s and that permanently precludes them from doing what they want in life (even a cabinet minister). Though I do think there must be much better ways to deal with disclosure, monitoring, etc. It’s not one I have easy answers to.
Big Masterchef fan but always felt something was off about Greg Wallace.
Of more concern is the arrest of the bloke who takes photos of women on nights out in wherever it is.
A lot of the reporting on that story has been a bit poor....the public stuff was just the "advertising" funnel, he had paid for content of upskirting and girls who were exposed.
ahhhhh - there had to be something more to it than what has been reported. It did say "paid content" but I couldn't work out what that would be. Upskirting sounds likely, now that you mention it.
Re Haigh, there are some things to it all that don’t make a huge amount of sense to me (e.g if you think you’ve lost your phone and you find it isn’t the first thing you do to fess up and admit you were mistaken - oops, so sorry, I thought it was taken but it obviously wasn’t)? The whole thing about it being activated and then the police investigating feels a little weird to me, but then I’m not across the detail so whatever.
Why did Haigh plead guilty if she had done nothing wrong?
BBC says she says her solicitor told her to.
I wonder what the solicitor would say. It is unlikely to say the least that the advice would be to plead guilty unless she had acknowledged that she had committed each element necessary in the actual charge. (I have yet to see what actual offence under what act she pleaded guilty to).
(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.
I had no idea that braziers were used to heat cathedrals!
More to provide heat for the worshipers. Winter inside an unheated stone building must have been fun.
Re Haigh, there are some things to it all that don’t make a huge amount of sense to me (e.g if you think you’ve lost your phone and you find it isn’t the first thing you do to fess up and admit you were mistaken - oops, so sorry, I thought it was taken but it obviously wasn’t)? The whole thing about it being activated and then the police investigating feels a little weird to me, but then I’m not across the detail so whatever.
I’m someone who doesn’t really like the concept that someone does something in their 20s and that permanently precludes them from doing what they want in life (even a cabinet minister). Though I do think there must be much better ways to deal with disclosure, monitoring, etc. It’s not one I have easy answers to.
What seems odd to me is - where is the info coming from? Not the company (that's a big HR nono under GDPR).
Re Haigh, there are some things to it all that don’t make a huge amount of sense to me (e.g if you think you’ve lost your phone and you find it isn’t the first thing you do to fess up and admit you were mistaken - oops, so sorry, I thought it was taken but it obviously wasn’t)? The whole thing about it being activated and then the police investigating feels a little weird to me, but then I’m not across the detail so whatever.
I’m someone who doesn’t really like the concept that someone does something in their 20s and that permanently precludes them from doing what they want in life (even a cabinet minister). Though I do think there must be much better ways to deal with disclosure, monitoring, etc. It’s not one I have easy answers to.
What seems odd to me is - where is the info coming from? Not the company (that's a big HR nono under GDPR).
The Times reported multiple people who worked with her at Aviva. I presume it was probably caused quite a stink if a colleague nicked a number of phones and then the police got called in and they ultimately got the sack.
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
To continue the religious theme, I am generally in favour of redemption, and so a past offence shouldn't be an automatic bar.
The contrary case is that it was an offence of dishonesty, and politics has a particularly acute problem with low standards of honesty. You don't remedy that sort of problem with convicted offenders.
I am at least glad that she made a quick decision to resign instead of trying to cling on.
Re Haigh, there are some things to it all that don’t make a huge amount of sense to me (e.g if you think you’ve lost your phone and you find it isn’t the first thing you do to fess up and admit you were mistaken - oops, so sorry, I thought it was taken but it obviously wasn’t)? The whole thing about it being activated and then the police investigating feels a little weird to me, but then I’m not across the detail so whatever.
I’m someone who doesn’t really like the concept that someone does something in their 20s and that permanently precludes them from doing what they want in life (even a cabinet minister). Though I do think there must be much better ways to deal with disclosure, monitoring, etc. It’s not one I have easy answers to.
From the reporting, it seems there was a pattern of this happening, for her.
Losing your work mobile, and then it accidentally showing up as your personal phone was a thing a few years back. Bit like getting someone else to take your points for driving. One of those stupid "life hacks".
IIRC the insurance companies pressured companies to press charges, to stamp out the behaviour.
(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.
Rochdale Town Hall is a case in point. When I first went to the town, around 1960 it was covered in the grime then to be expected in industrial towns. Now it has been cleaned and the last time I was there, admittedly about 8 years ago now, it looked really good. Sparkling, in fact.
Why did Haigh plead guilty if she had done nothing wrong?
See the Times article....multiple phones went walkies, company investigated and they reported her to the plod (which is not the story she has been telling)....I think we can infer there was probably advice to take the hit on one phone, there won't be any real punishment, and that will be the end of the matter, other than you are out of a job. Being light fingered around expensive electronics is not a good look.
Back in the day, it was not uncommon for people to lose company-issued phones, often genuinely, but also often to get an upgrade to this year's model.
Leadbeater's approach is incredibly affecting and humane. She is reading out a list of stories from people she has spoken to - currently those who committed suicide rather than leaving a disease to take its course. "Hearing these stories is not easy, but it is important that we do."
2 Yes. State (parliament) makes the law. Assisted suicide is basically an amendment to the law of murder, which it would otherwise be without its intervention
3 Not at the moment, as you are requiring someone else to commit an offence, but it will be if the law changes
4 Yes, to ensure medical knowledge and efficacy in an otherwise even messier process
5 Yes. Only MPs can be our legislators. They can never duck out of it. If you don't want it, don't stand
6 No. Thats's why law is interminable
7 Vote for the bill today; we cannot keep excelling in medical intervention to keep us all alive and then duck out of the consequence when we are kept alive too long for nature to work properly.
The problem I have with this approach, @Algarkirk, is that it doesn't take medical assistance to kill someone! You or I could kill each other with our bare hands if we wanted to, but I am sure we are both far too sensible to be bothered. (All that effort...!) However, it needs medical skills to delay death, as much as that is possible. Why get the healing profession involved with the termination of life? If the concern is for a painless death, which I can understand, then why not just get a pill or whatever from the lawyers certifying that the death can take place? Keep it painless, but keep the doctors out of it!
A former Conservative minister has defected to join the Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage. In a blow to the new Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, Dame Andrea Jenkyns said she was “joining the party of the brave”.
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.
I think that's an important comment.
Slippery-slopes do exist, and need to be acknowledged, confronted, and navigated, rather than denied.
Your friend had will, but not capability or agency to carry out his will.
OTOH it's possible to fall for a rhetoric of "it's for their own good" or a utilitarian "useless eaters" type statement.
We have yet to see the tenor of the new House of Commons. It was a huge change with more than half of MPs being elected for the first time, and many long-term MPs being ejected. What difference will that make.
I've been trying to evaluate the number of disabled MPs. In the previous Parliament it was of the order of at least 50-60. I haven't got a handle on the new Parliament yet, beyond identifying two dozen or so in the first week or two from published statements.
Now we have APPGs better defined, I have more material to work with.
Leadbeater's approach is incredibly affecting and humane. She is reading out a list of stories from people she has spoken to - currently those who committed suicide rather than leaving a disease to take its course. "Hearing these stories is not easy, but it is important that we do."
She earlier read out cases of people who were not able to fulfil their dying wish. Being in pain and having no recourse to relief via death.
And all these cases are important to be heard. But imo pale into insignificance when set against the potential for the law to be abused. There was much made of coercion at the beginning of the debate and I think this is where it will turn.
Why did Haigh plead guilty if she had done nothing wrong?
See the Times article....multiple phones went walkies, company investigated and they reported her to the plod (which is not the story she has been telling)....I think we can infer there was probably advice to take the hit on one phone, there won't be any real punishment, and that will be the end of the matter, other than you are out of a job. Being light fingered around expensive electronics is not a good look.
Back in the day, it was not uncommon for people to lose company-issued phones, often genuinely, but also often to get an upgrade to this year's model.
That was part of the report, that former workers said the one "lost" after the mugging was to get a new one because she was pissed others already had their new better one. But there was a pattern of behaviour and the company had her card marked.
A former Conservative minister has defected to join the Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage. In a blow to the new Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, Dame Andrea Jenkyns said she was “joining the party of the brave”.
Yes - she wants to be in Lincoln Green, as presumably a new version of Robin Hood (f).
A former Conservative minister has defected to join the Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage. In a blow to the new Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, Dame Andrea Jenkyns said she was “joining the party of the brave”.
Re Haigh, there are some things to it all that don’t make a huge amount of sense to me (e.g if you think you’ve lost your phone and you find it isn’t the first thing you do to fess up and admit you were mistaken - oops, so sorry, I thought it was taken but it obviously wasn’t)? The whole thing about it being activated and then the police investigating feels a little weird to me, but then I’m not across the detail so whatever.
I’m someone who doesn’t really like the concept that someone does something in their 20s and that permanently precludes them from doing what they want in life (even a cabinet minister). Though I do think there must be much better ways to deal with disclosure, monitoring, etc. It’s not one I have easy answers to.
That is why the Gregg Wallace thing is such bad timing for Haigh. You can't defend her ancient fraud conviction and at the same time have Wallace on every front page and losing his job over off-colour jokes he told years ago.
And, incidentally, when have you heard politicians defend the Parole Board from media attacks when prisoners are let out?
Re Haigh, there are some things to it all that don’t make a huge amount of sense to me (e.g if you think you’ve lost your phone and you find it isn’t the first thing you do to fess up and admit you were mistaken - oops, so sorry, I thought it was taken but it obviously wasn’t)? The whole thing about it being activated and then the police investigating feels a little weird to me, but then I’m not across the detail so whatever.
I’m someone who doesn’t really like the concept that someone does something in their 20s and that permanently precludes them from doing what they want in life (even a cabinet minister). Though I do think there must be much better ways to deal with disclosure, monitoring, etc. It’s not one I have easy answers to.
I saw this last night and though 'Meh' - if that's the best Tory muck-rakers can come up with there's not much else to find. And it was 10 years ago, when she was 25, not really relevant to now. And in the public domain already so not really news. Surprised she had to go but another indication of Starmer's ruthlessness. Perhaps they had discussed it already and agreed she would go quickly if it came out.
Also as an aside, I believe she was the only Cabinet Minister who was educated privately throughout secondary level. Depending on the replacement, this could surely be the first cabinet where everyone received the bulk of their education in state schools. A total contrast with the Johnson cabinet which had only 7 out of 21 when I counted up soon after he took over.
Re Haigh, there are some things to it all that don’t make a huge amount of sense to me (e.g if you think you’ve lost your phone and you find it isn’t the first thing you do to fess up and admit you were mistaken - oops, so sorry, I thought it was taken but it obviously wasn’t)? The whole thing about it being activated and then the police investigating feels a little weird to me, but then I’m not across the detail so whatever.
See below....
In which case you wonder if the more problematic thing here is coming out with the story she has, yesterday evening. Again, it’s all just speculation.
(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.
I had no idea that braziers were used to heat cathedrals!
More to provide heat for the worshipers. Winter inside an unheated stone building must have been fun.
I was told by the vicar at an ancient country church that the private "box" arrangements for the gentry weren't so much about keeping the proles away, or hiding from them, as creating a wood lined, small space that would be much warmer in winter.
Leadbeater's approach is incredibly affecting and humane. She is reading out a list of stories from people she has spoken to - currently those who committed suicide rather than leaving a disease to take its course. "Hearing these stories is not easy, but it is important that we do."
2 Yes. State (parliament) makes the law. Assisted suicide is basically an amendment to the law of murder, which it would otherwise be without its intervention
3 Not at the moment, as you are requiring someone else to commit an offence, but it will be if the law changes
4 Yes, to ensure medical knowledge and efficacy in an otherwise even messier process
5 Yes. Only MPs can be our legislators. They can never duck out of it. If you don't want it, don't stand
6 No. Thats's why law is interminable
7 Vote for the bill today; we cannot keep excelling in medical intervention to keep us all alive and then duck out of the consequence when we are kept alive too long for nature to work properly.
The problem I have with this approach, @Algarkirk, is that it doesn't take medical assistance to kill someone! You or I could kill each other with our bare hands if we wanted to, but I am sure we are both far too sensible to be bothered. (All that effort...!) However, it needs medical skills to delay death, as much as that is possible. Why get the healing profession involved with the termination of life? If the concern is for a painless death, which I can understand, then why not just get a pill or whatever from the lawyers certifying that the death can take place? Keep it painless, but keep the doctors out of it!
Yes I think this is a good point. The conflict is untenable imo. Doctors swear to try to keep people alive and then end up having to ignore medical procedures that would or might assist their patients and "rule" on their eligibility to die.
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.
Do you prefer Working Class Hero?
No. Especially as I have heard stories about Lennon treating working class people like dirt. My parents lived near Weybridge when he had a house there and we had tradesmen work at our house who had worked at his. Lennon wouldn't let them use the loo there and stopped his then wife, Cynthia, from making tea for them saying they could use the nearest cafe. I heard only nice things about Cynthia.
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
No, you did not say that. Your emphasis was on women marrying earlier and having more kids; on restricting women. I was the person (not the only one...) to point out that it might just be better for men to take more responsibility, and society to help.
"In a survey of those 13,102 Canadians who ended their lives under Maid, the vast majority cited the “loss of ability to engage in meaningful life activities” as the reason for wanting to die. But other responses have troubled healthcare experts. More than one-third of respondents said their decision was, in part, informed by a feeling they were a perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers."
In a statement, Kneecap said: “Unsurprisingly the British government’s own courts ruled that they acted illegally ... For us this action was never about £14,250, it could have been 50 pence. The motivation was equality. This was an attack on artistic culture, an attack on the Good Friday Agreement itself, and an attack on Kneecap and our way of expressing ourselves.”
The case was initiated when the UK government intervened to prevent Kneecap receiving a BPI funding award under the Music Export Growth Scheme (MEGS) to support bands in global markets, which was signed off on by the BPI’s independent selection board. At the time, a spokesperson for the then UK’s business and trade secretary, Kemi Badenoch, told The Irish Times, “We fully support freedom of speech, but it’s hardly surprising that we don’t want to hand out UK taxpayers’ money to people that oppose the United Kingdom itself.”
Wonder how many times in the coming years Sir Pious Starmer will regret those words from opposition? When you have this many MPs, could be every couple of months and will be a constant drip and drag. Big lesson for Kemi.
Always thought there was something of the Obadiah Slope in Starmer. Better hair perhaps.
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.
It doesn't serve the poor terminally ill well.
Having the financial means to go to another jurisdiction should not be the criteria for the ending of suffering.
I've just finished watching a long video about Basil II, and the period just after this is where I've reached in the History of Byzantium podcast. I'm also reading The New Roman Empire, and The Last Great War of Antiquity. One of my favourite current events channels is Good Times Bad Times.
Every single one of them has war in the Middle East as a theme. Rather depressing overlap.
Mr. Shark, humans have a weird psychological quirk that makes them likelier to believe things that rhyme. "No pain no gain" etc.
[Kruger's ] argument - potentially an effective one - is that MPs should not back it if they are uncertain. Leadbeater's was that they should back it if they're uncertain. In both cases, that argument is based on the likelihood of changes at committee stage. Both are aiming squarely for those undecided MPs.
(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).
I'm not ever that clear about "looks like the Medieval original" statements. It's possible to tip over into a "looks like how I want to imagine the original looked" view.
We see that in - for example - an attachment to all types of things. A fetish about the far past which can be an attempted escape from the present.
The same happens with modern "pagan" beliefs. It's in large measure a construct of something convenient and comforting, based on an imagined idea of what the earlier one may have been. I'd make a similar point about some modern evangelical streams - imagining the past helps avoid uncomfortable questions in the present.
But it is not just about "it has to be how it was at the start", Our generation's view is equally as valid as that of the people in 1321 or 1421 or 1521. One of the things I love most about Church of England churches is that they are not state-sponsored husks as in France, but are the continuing story of a community in that place going back up to 1000 years - that I can read now. That's one reason why I am relatively relaxed about careful renovation of buildings, rather than freezing them in the past.
To take a specific, the Leaves of Southwell Minster in the Chapter House are stone carvings. There is evidence that originally they were painted. What should we do?
It's the difference between the Painted Medieval Roof Bosses of Norwich Cathedral being points of colour, along with the windows and textiles, in a stone cathedral, and it all being like that.
Compare, for example, a town church such as Chesterfield Crooked Spire, with St Giles RC Church in Cheadle - where every surface was decorated by Pugin in his creation of his vision of Medieval Gothic.
It's like a One Star Michelin vs a Three Star Michelin meal. For me the latter has so much extra stuff piled on top that before long I just want a piece of buttered toast.
This piece shows a similar contrast of styles, comparing Cheadle with a nearby, less gorgeous, church.
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.
It doesn't serve the poor terminally ill well.
Having the financial means to go to another jurisdiction should not be the criteria for the ending of suffering.
(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.
Rochdale Town Hall is a case in point. When I first went to the town, around 1960 it was covered in the grime then to be expected in industrial towns. Now it has been cleaned and the last time I was there, admittedly about 8 years ago now, it looked really good. Sparkling, in fact.
The £20m renovation was comnpleted erlier this year. If it was sparkling before, then now it must be positively gleaming!
(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).
I'm not ever that clear about "looks like the Medieval original" statements. It's possible to tip over into a "looks like how I want to imagine the original looked" view.
We see that in - for example - an attachment to all types of things. A fetish about the far past which can be an attempted escape from the present.
The same happens with modern "pagan" beliefs. It's in large measure a construct of something convenient and comforting, based on an imagined idea of what the earlier one may have been. I'd make a similar point about some modern evangelical streams - imagining the past helps avoid uncomfortable questions in the present.
But it is not just about "it has to be how it was at the start", Our generation's view is equally as valid as that of the people in 1321 or 1421 or 1521. One of the things I love most about Church of England churches is that they are not state-sponsored husks as in France, but are the continuing story of a community in that place going back up to 1000 years - that I can read now. That's one reason why I am relatively relaxed about careful renovation of buildings, rather than freezing them in the past.
To take a specific, the Leaves of Southwell Minster in the Chapter House are stone carvings. There is evidence that originally they were painted. What should we do?
It's the difference between the Painted Medieval Roof Bosses of Norwich Cathedral being points of colour, along with the windows and textiles, in a stone cathedral, and it all being like that.
Compare, for example, a town church such as Chesterfield Crooked Spire, with St Giles RC Church in Cheadle - where every surface was decorated by Pugin in his creation of his vision of Medieval Gothic.
It's like a One Star Michelin vs a Three Star Michelin meal. For me the latter has so much extra stuff piled on top that before long I just want a piece of buttered toast.
This piece shows a similar contrast of styles, comparing Cheadle with a nearby, less gorgeous, church.
In a statement, Kneecap said: “Unsurprisingly the British government’s own courts ruled that they acted illegally ... For us this action was never about £14,250, it could have been 50 pence. The motivation was equality. This was an attack on artistic culture, an attack on the Good Friday Agreement itself, and an attack on Kneecap and our way of expressing ourselves.”
The case was initiated when the UK government intervened to prevent Kneecap receiving a BPI funding award under the Music Export Growth Scheme (MEGS) to support bands in global markets, which was signed off on by the BPI’s independent selection board. At the time, a spokesperson for the then UK’s business and trade secretary, Kemi Badenoch, told The Irish Times, “We fully support freedom of speech, but it’s hardly surprising that we don’t want to hand out UK taxpayers’ money to people that oppose the United Kingdom itself.”
Kemi should have hacked Kneecap's social media to insert pro UK stuff. Not that she'd do anything like that of course.
(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).
I'm not ever that clear about "looks like the Medieval original" statements. It's possible to tip over into a "looks like how I want to imagine the original looked" view.
We see that in - for example - an attachment to all types of things. A fetish about the far past which can be an attempted escape from the present.
The same happens with modern "pagan" beliefs. It's in large measure a construct of something convenient and comforting, based on an imagined idea of what the earlier one may have been. I'd make a similar point about some modern evangelical streams - imagining the past helps avoid uncomfortable questions in the present.
But it is not just about "it has to be how it was at the start", Our generation's view is equally as valid as that of the people in 1321 or 1421 or 1521. One of the things I love most about Church of England churches is that they are not state-sponsored husks as in France, but are the continuing story of a community in that place going back up to 1000 years - that I can read now. That's one reason why I am relatively relaxed about careful renovation of buildings, rather than freezing them in the past.
To take a specific, the Leaves of Southwell Minster in the Chapter House are stone carvings. There is evidence that originally they were painted. What should we do?
It's the difference between the Painted Medieval Roof Bosses of Norwich Cathedral being points of colour, along with the windows and textiles, in a stone cathedral, and it all being like that.
Compare, for example, a town church such as Chesterfield Crooked Spire, with St Giles RC Church in Cheadle - where every surface was decorated by Pugin in his creation of his vision of Medieval Gothic.
It's like a One Star Michelin vs a Three Star Michelin meal. For me the latter has so much extra stuff piled on top that before long I just want a piece of buttered toast.
This piece shows a similar contrast of styles, comparing Cheadle with a nearby, less gorgeous, church.
Pugin was a really skilled architect. I just don't like his church interiors. It's just too much.
Other differ.
When I visited Cheadle some years ago in the noughties, they had a nice twist on an honesty box.
There is a big wooden cabinet on the wall, with a £1 coin slot * in the door, to give you several minutes with all the umpteen spotlights on.
The cabinet door was not locked, and when you open it there is a big "on" switch next to the coin slot, not visible with the door closed, which turns all the lights on.
Let’s hope Haigh’s replacement carries on getting the railways back into proper public ownership under one company.
Not ideology just common sense. Privatisation has been a disaster.
Lord Adonis?
True railways fan.
He is indeed. And that might actually a problem - you can be too much of a fan. Like Christian Wolmar standing to be Labour's London Mayoral candidate, mentioning tube and rail a lot, and ignoring drivers. Well, he can be forgiven for that given it is London, but he also ignored busses.
A transport minister has to look at all transport, not just rail.
(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.
Rochdale Town Hall is a case in point. When I first went to the town, around 1960 it was covered in the grime then to be expected in industrial towns. Now it has been cleaned and the last time I was there, admittedly about 8 years ago now, it looked really good. Sparkling, in fact.
The £20m renovation was comnpleted erlier this year. If it was sparkling before, then now it must be positively gleaming!
Thanks for that. Mrs C was a Rochdale lass; we met as students whom I persuaded to come with me to Essex. For a couple of years I lived in the area; liked it, TBH.
(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.
Rochdale Town Hall is a case in point. When I first went to the town, around 1960 it was covered in the grime then to be expected in industrial towns. Now it has been cleaned and the last time I was there, admittedly about 8 years ago now, it looked really good. Sparkling, in fact.
The £20m renovation was comnpleted erlier this year. If it was sparkling before, then now it must be positively gleaming!
Some of the interior shots remind me of St Mary's guildhall in Coventry, though I see it was built some 500 years later ! A nice historical imitation style from the Victorians I think.
What a wonderful article from Viewcode! One to copy and keep, I think. FWIW, my answers are:- 1. Probably, depending on their intent 2. Definitely. The State is the last refuge for our safety, so any tinkering with it, for whatever reasons, means that the State has a role to play. 3. No, because of the onus it puts on the other person. All sorts of wrongdoing is perpetrated in the name and cause of love. 4. No, they should not! I have been asking this for years. The assumption seems to be that the involvement of doctors will somehow automatically make the situation better, but I think it will damage their relationship with the rest of society. I suggest (in all seriousness) that if anyone is going to be involved in the process, it should be ministers of religion, because they should be more able to cope with the moral complexities of the situation, and also have a practical involvement with death. 5. Yes, because they are the legislators who control the State (see above). They may not be much good, but they are all we have. Rather them than lawyers. 6. "Hard cases make bad laws", and all we are seeing in this debate (on both sides) is a parade of hard cases. For the proposal to be examined properly it needs to be done without reference to "my Aunt Aggie who died in a lot of pain" or "my cousin Jim who is completely paralysed but has a full and happy life".
Again, FWIW, I am opposed to AD, for a variety of reasons - political, religious and cultural. The legislative "drift" in Canada and Benelux appals me. Whatever one's views are on abortion, we have to agree that the defences and protections put in place in 1968 no longer exist - the same will happenn with the AD bill, if it is passed.
I have a very different view of the desirable final outcome (basically freedom to ask for help to end one's life for any reason, so long as it's stated repeatedly over a period with nobody else present), but of course I respect the opposite view that Augustus puts forward. If we could live forever it might be different, but as things stand it's a question of choosing the moment to go.
The thing is, it's currently a practical option for most people with good resources and finances - there are a variety of environments to choose from (Switzerland being the best-known). People who are poor and/or ill-informed are excluded. That can't be right. I do agree that there's a danger of improper influence, but that danger already exists and the law should be as tight as possible in restricting them.
Personally I enjoy life at 74 and have no intention of using the facility. But at 84 or 94 or 104? Maybe.
The offence of which Haigh was convicted seems a very strange one to me.
Seems odd to me tbh. Say you had your bag nicked in a mugging and thought your phone was in it but left it at home, then informed relevant authorities when you found said phone in a drawer (Insurance most likely) I don't think that should be a crime.
2 Yes. State (parliament) makes the law. Assisted suicide is basically an amendment to the law of murder, which it would otherwise be without its intervention
3 Not at the moment, as you are requiring someone else to commit an offence, but it will be if the law changes
4 Yes, to ensure medical knowledge and efficacy in an otherwise even messier process
5 Yes. Only MPs can be our legislators. They can never duck out of it. If you don't want it, don't stand
6 No. Thats's why law is interminable
7 Vote for the bill today; we cannot keep excelling in medical intervention to keep us all alive and then duck out of the consequence when we are kept alive too long for nature to work properly.
The problem I have with this approach, @Algarkirk, is that it doesn't take medical assistance to kill someone! You or I could kill each other with our bare hands if we wanted to, but I am sure we are both far too sensible to be bothered. (All that effort...!) However, it needs medical skills to delay death, as much as that is possible. Why get the healing profession involved with the termination of life? If the concern is for a painless death, which I can understand, then why not just get a pill or whatever from the lawyers certifying that the death can take place? Keep it painless, but keep the doctors out of it!
Perfectly reasonable, but really only the medical profession are in the position to oversee this with professional competence, and IMHO, this is a necessary step in a civilised society.
As with abortion, all doctors involved are volunteers for this particular task, so conscience is respected.
One of the differences between elections in Ireland and Britain is that there are several updates during the day on turnout levels using actual percentages, rather than descriptions such as brisk or slow. For example in Louth we have this report.
Early turnout reports for Louth shows rural areas are ahead of the rest of the county.
In Dundalk rural 4% turnout has been recorded at the Monksland polling station with 4% also being recorded at Aston village in Drogheda rural.
Also in Drogheda rural 3.7% has been recorded at the Tullydonnell polling station.
Drogheda urban turnout figures range from 1% in St John's Rathmullen to 2% at the Lourdes Community Centre, Scoil Aonghusa and St Brigid's, Bothar Brugha stations.
Early Dundalk urban turnout figures range from 1.1% at the Redeemer Family Resource Centre to 2.1% at the nearby Redeemer Boys/Girls station.
Of course, these figures are very low compared to the overall 62.5% turnout across the country in 2020, but the same pattern of higher rural turnout is being reported across the country. This was seen when the recent referendums were defeated.
I would expect this to be good news for Independents and more right-wing parties like Independent Ireland and Aontú.
Wonder how many times in the coming years Sir Pious Starmer will regret those words from opposition? When you have this many MPs, could be every couple of months and will be a constant drip and drag. Big lesson for Kemi.
Always thought there was something of the Obadiah Slope in Starmer. Better hair perhaps.
2 Yes. State (parliament) makes the law. Assisted suicide is basically an amendment to the law of murder, which it would otherwise be without its intervention
3 Not at the moment, as you are requiring someone else to commit an offence, but it will be if the law changes
4 Yes, to ensure medical knowledge and efficacy in an otherwise even messier process
5 Yes. Only MPs can be our legislators. They can never duck out of it. If you don't want it, don't stand
6 No. Thats's why law is interminable
7 Vote for the bill today; we cannot keep excelling in medical intervention to keep us all alive and then duck out of the consequence when we are kept alive too long for nature to work properly.
The problem I have with this approach, @Algarkirk, is that it doesn't take medical assistance to kill someone! You or I could kill each other with our bare hands if we wanted to, but I am sure we are both far too sensible to be bothered. (All that effort...!) However, it needs medical skills to delay death, as much as that is possible. Why get the healing profession involved with the termination of life? If the concern is for a painless death, which I can understand, then why not just get a pill or whatever from the lawyers certifying that the death can take place? Keep it painless, but keep the doctors out of it!
Yes I think this is a good point. The conflict is untenable imo. Doctors swear to try to keep people alive and then end up having to ignore medical procedures that would or might assist their patients and "rule" on their eligibility to die.
Doesn't make sense or sit well.
I read an article on this, well before the UK debate, in which a Dr from a northern european country talked of the strain on him from patients requesting assisted dying and that they no longer wanted to provide this assistance.
The offence of which Haigh was convicted seems a very strange one to me.
Seems odd to me tbh. Say you had your bag nicked in a mugging and thought your phone was in it but left it at home, then informed relevant authorities when you found said phone in a drawer (Insurance most likely) I don't think that should be a crime.
On church decoration it has to be remembered that in England and Wales Henry VIII's Reformers destroyed the vast majority of church decorations, and much of what was left was destroyed a hundred years later by the Puritans. AIUI John Knox' followers in Scotland were even worse.
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.
Do you prefer Working Class Hero?
No. Especially as I have heard stories about Lennon treating working class people like dirt. My parents lived near Weybridge when he had a house there and we had tradesmen work at our house who had worked at his. Lennon wouldn't let them use the loo there and stopped his then wife, Cynthia, from making tea for them saying they could use the nearest cafe. I heard only nice things about Cynthia.
Isn't that more along the lines of "almost all celebs are arrogant twats, because it goes to their head" ?
The offence of which Haigh was convicted seems a very strange one to me.
None of it seems to make a lot of sense, which does make one wonder whether there's a lot more to it than has been disclosed, but who knows?
If you read the articles in various papers, you'll see that it is claimed that she had put her own sim in the "lost" work phone and was using it. Also that there was a pattern of this happening.
There was, a while back, a spate of people doing this. "lose" a work phone and then use it. The combination of Apple tracking phone IDs and a demand from the insurance companies led to a crackdown - at least in the US.
Wonder how many times in the coming years Sir Pious Starmer will regret those words from opposition? When you have this many MPs, could be every couple of months and will be a constant drip and drag. Big lesson for Kemi.
Always thought there was something of the Obadiah Slope in Starmer. Better hair perhaps.
The offence was committed before she was elected as a lawmaker
The offence of which Haigh was convicted seems a very strange one to me.
Seems odd to me tbh. Say you had your bag nicked in a mugging and thought your phone was in it but left it at home, then informed relevant authorities when you found said phone in a drawer (Insurance most likely) I don't think that should be a crime.
And indeed it isn't. Any possible crime WRT this must, SFAICS, involve an element of dishonesty, fraud or deception, however minor. This is the critical element over which I think some dust and smoke are being blown.
Reporting so far lacks clarity (and this must be deliberate from someone) as to what specific offence was charged and pleaded to.
People bright enough to be MPs and ministers can't just say 'my solicitor told me what to do'.
This is not (SAICS) a merely admin offence, like not changing your address on your driving licence when you move house, or your MOT is a day out of date.
The offence of which Haigh was convicted seems a very strange one to me.
None of it seems to make a lot of sense, which does make one wonder whether there's a lot more to it than has been disclosed, but who knows?
This is an odd bit in the Guardian story:
The circumstances around it are disputed. The Times reported that Aviva launched an investigation after Haigh said that company mobile phones had been stolen or had gone missing on repeated occasions.
The newspaper said the police were given details of more than one instance that had been looked into by Aviva, but that the criminal charge related to one phone.
I don't have access to the Times but don't see how the account of a mugging and later discovery of her own work phone at home, squares with multiple instances of missing phones being investigated??
Completely separately, it is of course well known that phone theft and selling them on is a booming business model in the UK, both for the resale value and the potential for fraudulent use of the personal information that is on them.
2 Yes. State (parliament) makes the law. Assisted suicide is basically an amendment to the law of murder, which it would otherwise be without its intervention
3 Not at the moment, as you are requiring someone else to commit an offence, but it will be if the law changes
4 Yes, to ensure medical knowledge and efficacy in an otherwise even messier process
5 Yes. Only MPs can be our legislators. They can never duck out of it. If you don't want it, don't stand
6 No. Thats's why law is interminable
7 Vote for the bill today; we cannot keep excelling in medical intervention to keep us all alive and then duck out of the consequence when we are kept alive too long for nature to work properly.
The problem I have with this approach, @Algarkirk, is that it doesn't take medical assistance to kill someone! You or I could kill each other with our bare hands if we wanted to, but I am sure we are both far too sensible to be bothered. (All that effort...!) However, it needs medical skills to delay death, as much as that is possible. Why get the healing profession involved with the termination of life? If the concern is for a painless death, which I can understand, then why not just get a pill or whatever from the lawyers certifying that the death can take place? Keep it painless, but keep the doctors out of it!
Perfectly reasonable, but really only the medical profession are in the position to oversee this with professional competence, and IMHO, this is a necessary step in a civilised society.
As with abortion, all doctors involved are volunteers for this particular task, so conscience is respected.
The concern is that some medical personnel are not er... robust in their defence of the rights of the patient.
I've personally encountered this. As have others posting here.
When someone tells you, to your face, that a patient is "better off dead, rather than wasting resources", and you've shared a joke with that patient the minute before....
The offence of which Haigh was convicted seems a very strange one to me.
None of it seems to make a lot of sense, which does make one wonder whether there's a lot more to it than has been disclosed, but who knows?
This is an odd bit in the Guardian story:
The circumstances around it are disputed. The Times reported that Aviva launched an investigation after Haigh said that company mobile phones had been stolen or had gone missing on repeated occasions.
The newspaper said the police were given details of more than one instance that had been looked into by Aviva, but that the criminal charge related to one phone.
I don't have access to the Times but don't see how the account of a mugging and later discovery of her own work phone at home, squares with multiple instances of missing phones being investigated??
It was mentioned in other reporting that a personal SIM was put into the phone in question and the phone used.
Which would make that instance a slam dunk - @PBLawyers?
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
No, you did not say that. Your emphasis was on women marrying earlier and having more kids; on restricting women. I was the person (not the only one...) to point out that it might just be better for men to take more responsibility, and society to help.
More women marrying earlier and having more kids is not restricting women. The fact you think it is is exactly the type of uber feminist liberalism that there is now a reaction against.
Plenty of men take their responsibilities as husbands seriously and society can support mothers more too who want to stay at home full time with their children or only work part time
Wonder how many times in the coming years Sir Pious Starmer will regret those words from opposition? When you have this many MPs, could be every couple of months and will be a constant drip and drag. Big lesson for Kemi.
Always thought there was something of the Obadiah Slope in Starmer. Better hair perhaps.
There are three interpretations of that:
Someone who has (ever) been a lawbreaker cannot be a lawmaker
Someone who is a lawmaker cannot break any law while a lawmaker
Someone who has made a law cannot themselves break it
The first is clearly nonsense unless we have no concept of rehabilitation or seriousness of crimes. We've all surely broken the law, so we can't have any lawmakers.
The second has some logic, for more serious crimes. I don't think we require a minister to resign if caught speeding (perhaps if their brief includes road safety etc, but that's more about hypocrisy). Maybe lawmakers cannot break laws they have responsibility for or which expose them as hypocrites or as general wrong'uns.
The third, is the Johnson case of someone introducing new law that applies to everyone and then breaking it themselves. Hypocrisy.
Opposition parties will, of course, take interpretation one and scour public records for any historical offences by anyone in government. They'll do this particularly now a precedent has been set, which is why this seems daft from Starmer unless there is more to the story that could come out. Do we sack Starmer if it emerges that he once bought some weed (supply of a banned substance) for a friend at uni? It would be like Sunak resigning for not wearing a seatbelt.
What a wonderful article from Viewcode! One to copy and keep, I think. FWIW, my answers are:- 1. Probably, depending on their intent 2. Definitely. The State is the last refuge for our safety, so any tinkering with it, for whatever reasons, means that the State has a role to play. 3. No, because of the onus it puts on the other person. All sorts of wrongdoing is perpetrated in the name and cause of love. 4. No, they should not! I have been asking this for years. The assumption seems to be that the involvement of doctors will somehow automatically make the situation better, but I think it will damage their relationship with the rest of society. I suggest (in all seriousness) that if anyone is going to be involved in the process, it should be ministers of religion, because they should be more able to cope with the moral complexities of the situation, and also have a practical involvement with death. 5. Yes, because they are the legislators who control the State (see above). They may not be much good, but they are all we have. Rather them than lawyers. 6. "Hard cases make bad laws", and all we are seeing in this debate (on both sides) is a parade of hard cases. For the proposal to be examined properly it needs to be done without reference to "my Aunt Aggie who died in a lot of pain" or "my cousin Jim who is completely paralysed but has a full and happy life".
Again, FWIW, I am opposed to AD, for a variety of reasons - political, religious and cultural. The legislative "drift" in Canada and Benelux appals me. Whatever one's views are on abortion, we have to agree that the defences and protections put in place in 1968 no longer exist - the same will happenn with the AD bill, if it is passed.
I have a very different view of the desirable final outcome (basically freedom to ask for help to end one's life for any reason, so long as it's stated repeatedly over a period with nobody else present), but of course I respect the opposite view that Augustus puts forward. If we could live forever it might be different, but as things stand it's a question of choosing the moment to go.
The thing is, it's currently a practical option for most people with good resources and finances - there are a variety of environments to choose from (Switzerland being the best-known). People who are poor and/or ill-informed are excluded. That can't be right. I do agree that there's a danger of improper influence, but that danger already exists and the law should be as tight as possible in restricting them.
Personally I enjoy life at 74 and have no intention of using the facility. But at 84 or 94 or 104? Maybe.
Yes. My problem with the bill is it doesn't go far enough to deal with the horror story cases where life is rendered intolerable beyond measure but you are not terminal. Those are by far the most important cases calling for our constructive compassion. A six month horror show is awful; a 35 year horrow show is unthinkable. The SC has said it is for parliament and it should be gently amended in committee, if, God willing, it passes.
The offence of which Haigh was convicted seems a very strange one to me.
None of it seems to make a lot of sense, which does make one wonder whether there's a lot more to it than has been disclosed, but who knows?
This is an odd bit in the Guardian story:
The circumstances around it are disputed. The Times reported that Aviva launched an investigation after Haigh said that company mobile phones had been stolen or had gone missing on repeated occasions.
The newspaper said the police were given details of more than one instance that had been looked into by Aviva, but that the criminal charge related to one phone.
I don't have access to the Times but don't see how the account of a mugging and later discovery of her own work phone at home, squares with multiple instances of missing phones being investigated??
It was mentioned in other reporting that a personal SIM was put into the phone in question and the phone used.
Which would make that instance a slam dunk - @PBLawyers?
If it was a different SIM, how would they know the phone was being used?
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
No, you did not say that. Your emphasis was on women marrying earlier and having more kids; on restricting women. I was the person (not the only one...) to point out that it might just be better for men to take more responsibility, and society to help.
More women marrying earlier and having more kids is not restricting women. The fact you think it is is exactly the type of uber feminist liberalism that there is now a reaction against.
Plenty of men take their responsibilities as husbands seriously and society can support mothers more too who want to stay at home full time with their children or only work part time
"More women marrying earlier and having more kids is not restricting women."
It is if it is not out of their choice, and that's clearly your intention. Again, I point out that, until today, your prescription is about *women* doing things. Not men. Not society. Women.
Why not argue for more men staying at home full or part time, as their wives work? As I do.
"uber feminist liberalism"
Yeah, right. You spout those words so often I'm not quite sure you know what they mean; they're just a Pavlovian reaction you trot out when you're wrong.
The offence of which Haigh was convicted seems a very strange one to me.
None of it seems to make a lot of sense, which does make one wonder whether there's a lot more to it than has been disclosed, but who knows?
This is an odd bit in the Guardian story:
The circumstances around it are disputed. The Times reported that Aviva launched an investigation after Haigh said that company mobile phones had been stolen or had gone missing on repeated occasions.
The newspaper said the police were given details of more than one instance that had been looked into by Aviva, but that the criminal charge related to one phone.
I don't have access to the Times but don't see how the account of a mugging and later discovery of her own work phone at home, squares with multiple instances of missing phones being investigated??
It was mentioned in other reporting that a personal SIM was put into the phone in question and the phone used.
Which would make that instance a slam dunk - @PBLawyers?
If it was a different SIM, how would they know the phone was being used?
It's when you realise that everything you bought during the previous three or four weeks has had its price artificially inflated....
Magnet quoted me for a new kitchen a few weeks ago. We've got all the appliances in storage, it's a small kitchen, no wall cupboards, six base unit drawer cabinets and worktops and a sink. The "retail" price was £21475.07. Over 21 grand for 6 painted MDF cabinets and a bit of composite worktop! A fantasy price plucked out of an arse as no one ever pays retail price. "Trade" price got it down to just over £6000. I haggled them down to £5500 just by asking. I then hit them with their price matching promise a few days later as DIY Kitchens were coming in with a price of £3600 for a superior kitchen. They said they'd match it! So "£21k" down to under four grand. And they're still making a profit.
Wonder how many times in the coming years Sir Pious Starmer will regret those words from opposition? When you have this many MPs, could be every couple of months and will be a constant drip and drag. Big lesson for Kemi.
Always thought there was something of the Obadiah Slope in Starmer. Better hair perhaps.
There are three interpretations of that:
Someone who has (ever) been a lawbreaker cannot be a lawmaker
Someone who is a lawmaker cannot break any law while a lawmaker
Someone who has made a law cannot themselves break it
The first is clearly nonsense unless we have no concept of rehabilitation or seriousness of crimes. We've all surely broken the law, so we can't have any lawmakers.
The second has some logic, for more serious crimes. I don't think we require a minister to resign if caught speeding (perhaps if their brief includes road safety etc, but that's more about hypocrisy). Maybe lawmakers cannot break laws they have responsibility for or which expose them as hypocrites or as general wrong'uns.
The third, is the Johnson case of someone introducing new law that applies to everyone and then breaking it themselves. Hypocrisy.
Opposition parties will, of course, take interpretation one and scour public records for any historical offences by anyone in government. They'll do this particularly now a precedent has been set, which is why this seems daft from Starmer unless there is more to the story that could come out. Do we sack Starmer if it emerges that he once bought some weed (supply of a banned substance) for a friend at uni? It would be like Sunak resigning for not wearing a seatbelt.
Is there not a 4th case - certain offences by their nature, preclude the offender from holding various political offices, even after their sentence is complete.
Most people would say that Jonathan Aitken or Jeffery Archer should never be MPs, ever again, for example.
The offence of which Haigh was convicted seems a very strange one to me.
None of it seems to make a lot of sense, which does make one wonder whether there's a lot more to it than has been disclosed, but who knows?
This is an odd bit in the Guardian story:
The circumstances around it are disputed. The Times reported that Aviva launched an investigation after Haigh said that company mobile phones had been stolen or had gone missing on repeated occasions.
The newspaper said the police were given details of more than one instance that had been looked into by Aviva, but that the criminal charge related to one phone.
I don't have access to the Times but don't see how the account of a mugging and later discovery of her own work phone at home, squares with multiple instances of missing phones being investigated??
It was mentioned in other reporting that a personal SIM was put into the phone in question and the phone used.
Which would make that instance a slam dunk - @PBLawyers?
Slightly more needed for a slam dunk. You would need continuing use/possession without informing police/employer/insurer or anyone who had incurred a loss on account of your mistaken claim that the phone had been stolen.
Being mistaken about what is lost and damaged in a crime is of course not a crime and entirely understandable. What you can't do is allow someone else to lose by your mistake once you know the facts. But even then the offence can be extremely minor - as I think it may well be here.
Comments
The checkerboard is not a Protestant creation.
@DPJHodges
·
23m
Louise Haigh's resignation sets a ridiculously low bar for cabinet service. We're now saying there can be no rehabilitation for anyone in public life who has committed the most minor of offences.
https://x.com/DPJHodges/status/1862428073414524965
The fact he acted on it so quickly suggests to me the new Number 10 machine is a lot more competent and ruthless than the old one.
And surprise surprise, it’s Morgan McSweeney.
But she raised a petition with 2 million signatures. So…
Holly Cairns, the leader of the Social Democrats is one of the local TDs, and she's willing to say that the country can't have better public services and cut taxes at the same time, so I think she's done enough to earn my vote.
2 Yes. State (parliament) makes the law. Assisted suicide is basically an amendment to the law of murder, which it would otherwise be without its intervention
3 Not at the moment, as you are requiring someone else to commit an offence, but it will be if the law changes
4 Yes, to ensure medical knowledge and efficacy in an otherwise even messier process
5 Yes. Only MPs can be our legislators. They can never duck out of it. If you don't want it, don't stand
6 No. Thats's why law is interminable
7 Vote for the bill today; we cannot keep excelling in medical intervention to keep us all alive and then duck out of the consequence when we are kept alive too long for nature to work properly.
1. Probably, depending on their intent
2. Definitely. The State is the last refuge for our safety, so any tinkering with it, for whatever reasons, means that the State has a role to play.
3. No, because of the onus it puts on the other person. All sorts of wrongdoing is perpetrated in the name and cause of love.
4. No, they should not! I have been asking this for years. The assumption seems to be that the involvement of doctors will somehow automatically make the situation better, but I think it will damage their relationship with the rest of society. I suggest (in all seriousness) that if anyone is going to be involved in the process, it should be ministers of religion, because they should be more able to cope with the moral complexities of the situation, and also have a practical involvement with death.
5. Yes, because they are the legislators who control the State (see above). They may not be much good, but they are all we have. Rather them than lawyers.
6. "Hard cases make bad laws", and all we are seeing in this debate (on both sides) is a parade of hard cases. For the proposal to be examined properly it needs to be done without reference to "my Aunt Aggie who died in a lot of pain" or "my cousin Jim who is completely paralysed but has a full and happy life".
Again, FWIW, I am opposed to AD, for a variety of reasons - political, religious and cultural. The legislative "drift" in Canada and Benelux appals me. Whatever one's views are on abortion, we have to agree that the defences and protections put in place in 1968 no longer exist - the same will happenn with the AD bill, if it is passed.
Some of the most vigorous debates on here concerned how much we should protect Granny during Covid. And now all sorts of people on here are queuing up to finish her off to be tidy. Oh and pick up the inheritance/avoid the care home bill.
Lewis Goodall @lewisgoodall.com
·
23s
Anti-assisted dying campaigners outside the Commons today holding placards saying "Kill the Bill, not the ill."
https://bsky.app/profile/lewisgoodall.com/post/3lc3dea7t2s2q
I’m someone who doesn’t really like the concept that someone does something in their 20s and that permanently precludes them from doing what they want in life (even a cabinet minister). Though I do think there must be much better ways to deal with disclosure, monitoring, etc. It’s not one I have easy answers to.
The contrary case is that it was an offence of dishonesty, and politics has a particularly acute problem with low standards of honesty. You don't remedy that sort of problem with convicted offenders.
I am at least glad that she made a quick decision to resign instead of trying to cling on.
Losing your work mobile, and then it accidentally showing up as your personal phone was a thing a few years back. Bit like getting someone else to take your points for driving. One of those stupid "life hacks".
IIRC the insurance companies pressured companies to press charges, to stamp out the behaviour.
One man wrecking ball of many a sensible Bill
Now it has been cleaned and the last time I was there, admittedly about 8 years ago now, it looked really good. Sparkling, in fact.
@iandunt.bsky.social
Leadbeater's approach is incredibly affecting and humane. She is reading out a list of stories from people she has spoken to - currently those who committed suicide rather than leaving a disease to take its course. "Hearing these stories is not easy, but it is important that we do."
https://bsky.app/profile/iandunt.bsky.social/post/3lc3dd4j5n226
A former Conservative minister has defected to join the Reform UK party led by Nigel Farage. In a blow to the new Tory leader Kemi Badenoch, Dame Andrea Jenkyns said she was “joining the party of the brave”.
Slippery-slopes do exist, and need to be acknowledged, confronted, and navigated, rather than denied.
Your friend had will, but not capability or agency to carry out his will.
OTOH it's possible to fall for a rhetoric of "it's for their own good" or a utilitarian "useless eaters" type statement.
We have yet to see the tenor of the new House of Commons. It was a huge change with more than half of MPs being elected for the first time, and many long-term MPs being ejected. What difference will that make.
I've been trying to evaluate the number of disabled MPs. In the previous Parliament it was of the order of at least 50-60. I haven't got a handle on the new Parliament yet, beyond identifying two dozen or so in the first week or two from published statements.
Now we have APPGs better defined, I have more material to work with.
And all these cases are important to be heard. But imo pale into insignificance when set against the potential for the law to be abused. There was much made of coercion at the beginning of the debate and I think this is where it will turn.
Another shocker for labour last night
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1862293074447130939?t=lHaWehlQWzlxlu0yiBVtag&s=19
And, incidentally, when have you heard politicians defend the Parole Board from media attacks when prisoners are let out?
Also as an aside, I believe she was the only Cabinet Minister who was educated privately throughout secondary level. Depending on the replacement, this could surely be the first cabinet where everyone received the bulk of their education in state schools. A total contrast with the Johnson cabinet which had only 7 out of 21 when I counted up soon after he took over.
Not ideology just common sense. Privatisation has been a disaster.
Doesn't make sense or sit well.
True railways fan.
"In a survey of those 13,102 Canadians who ended their lives under Maid, the vast majority cited the “loss of ability to engage in meaningful life activities” as the reason for wanting to die. But other responses have troubled healthcare experts. More than one-third of respondents said their decision was, in part, informed by a feeling they were a perceived burden on family, friends or caregivers."
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/25/canada-assisted-dying-laws-in-spotlight-as-expansion-paused-again
Edit: and to pick up on @AugustusCarp2's point. Where does the doctor come in wrt deciding whether someone is or isn't a burden on their family.
https://www.irishtimes.com/culture/music/2024/11/29/kneecap-win-legal-action-over-uk-funding-ban-this-was-never-about-14250-the-motivation-was-equality/
In a statement, Kneecap said: “Unsurprisingly the British government’s own courts ruled that they acted illegally ... For us this action was never about £14,250, it could have been 50 pence. The motivation was equality. This was an attack on artistic culture, an attack on the Good Friday Agreement itself, and an attack on Kneecap and our way of expressing ourselves.”
The case was initiated when the UK government intervened to prevent Kneecap receiving a BPI funding award under the Music Export Growth Scheme (MEGS) to support bands in global markets, which was signed off on by the BPI’s independent selection board. At the time, a spokesperson for the then UK’s business and trade secretary, Kemi Badenoch, told The Irish Times, “We fully support freedom of speech, but it’s hardly surprising that we don’t want to hand out UK taxpayers’ money to people that oppose the United Kingdom itself.”
Wonder how many times in the coming years Sir Pious Starmer will regret those words from opposition? When you have this many MPs, could be every couple of months and will be a constant drip and drag. Big lesson for Kemi.
Always thought there was something of the Obadiah Slope in Starmer. Better hair perhaps.
Having the financial means to go to another jurisdiction should not be the criteria for the ending of suffering.
Every single one of them has war in the Middle East as a theme. Rather depressing overlap.
Mr. Shark, humans have a weird psychological quirk that makes them likelier to believe things that rhyme. "No pain no gain" etc.
Ian Dunt @iandunt.bsky.social
·
2m
[Kruger's ] argument - potentially an effective one - is that MPs should not back it if they are uncertain. Leadbeater's was that they should back it if they're uncertain. In both cases, that argument is based on the likelihood of changes at committee stage. Both are aiming squarely for those undecided MPs.
We see that in - for example - an attachment to all types of things. A fetish about the far past which can be an attempted escape from the present.
The same happens with modern "pagan" beliefs. It's in large measure a construct of something convenient and comforting, based on an imagined idea of what the earlier one may have been. I'd make a similar point about some modern evangelical streams - imagining the past helps avoid uncomfortable questions in the present.
But it is not just about "it has to be how it was at the start", Our generation's view is equally as valid as that of the people in 1321 or 1421 or 1521. One of the things I love most about Church of England churches is that they are not state-sponsored husks as in France, but are the continuing story of a community in that place going back up to 1000 years - that I can read now. That's one reason why I am relatively relaxed about careful renovation of buildings, rather than freezing them in the past.
To take a specific, the Leaves of Southwell Minster in the Chapter House are stone carvings. There is evidence that originally they were painted. What should we do?
It's the difference between the Painted Medieval Roof Bosses of Norwich Cathedral being points of colour, along with the windows and textiles, in a stone cathedral, and it all being like that.
Compare, for example, a town church such as Chesterfield Crooked Spire, with St Giles RC Church in Cheadle - where every surface was decorated by Pugin in his creation of his vision of Medieval Gothic.
It's like a One Star Michelin vs a Three Star Michelin meal. For me the latter has so much extra stuff piled on top that before long I just want a piece of buttered toast.
This piece shows a similar contrast of styles, comparing Cheadle with a nearby, less gorgeous, church.
https://miladysboudoir.net/2015/11/18/pugins-staffordshire-gems/
Who has failed to reply.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/gallery/2024/jan/30/the-20m-renovation-of-rochdale-town-hall-in-pictures
Other differ.
Not that she'd do anything like that of course.
There is a big wooden cabinet on the wall, with a £1 coin slot * in the door, to give you several minutes with all the umpteen spotlights on.
The cabinet door was not locked, and when you open it there is a big "on" switch next to the coin slot, not visible with the door closed, which turns all the lights on.
LED lights may have helped this dilemma.
(* CASH ! )
A transport minister has to look at all transport, not just rail.
The thing is, it's currently a practical option for most people with good resources and finances - there are a variety of environments to choose from (Switzerland being the best-known). People who are poor and/or ill-informed are excluded. That can't be right. I do agree that there's a danger of improper influence, but that danger already exists and the law should be as tight as possible in restricting them.
Personally I enjoy life at 74 and have no intention of using the facility. But at 84 or 94 or 104? Maybe.
As with abortion, all doctors involved are volunteers for this particular task, so conscience is respected.
Early turnout reports for Louth shows rural areas are ahead of the rest of the county.
In Dundalk rural 4% turnout has been recorded at the Monksland polling station with 4% also being recorded at Aston village in Drogheda rural.
Also in Drogheda rural 3.7% has been recorded at the Tullydonnell polling station.
Drogheda urban turnout figures range from 1% in St John's Rathmullen to 2% at the Lourdes Community Centre, Scoil Aonghusa and St Brigid's, Bothar Brugha stations.
Early Dundalk urban turnout figures range from 1.1% at the Redeemer Family Resource Centre to 2.1% at the nearby Redeemer Boys/Girls station.
Of course, these figures are very low compared to the overall 62.5% turnout across the country in 2020, but the same pattern of higher rural turnout is being reported across the country. This was seen when the recent referendums were defeated.
I would expect this to be good news for Independents and more right-wing parties like Independent Ireland and Aontú.
AIUI John Knox' followers in Scotland were even worse.
See Greg Wallace and Hyacinth Bucket.
There was, a while back, a spate of people doing this. "lose" a work phone and then use it. The combination of Apple tracking phone IDs and a demand from the insurance companies led to a crackdown - at least in the US.
Reporting so far lacks clarity (and this must be deliberate from someone) as to what specific offence was charged and pleaded to.
People bright enough to be MPs and ministers can't just say 'my solicitor told me what to do'.
This is not (SAICS) a merely admin offence, like not changing your address on your driving licence when you move house, or your MOT is a day out of date.
The circumstances around it are disputed. The Times reported that Aviva launched an investigation after Haigh said that company mobile phones had been stolen or had gone missing on repeated occasions.
The newspaper said the police were given details of more than one instance that had been looked into by Aviva, but that the criminal charge related to one phone.
I don't have access to the Times but don't see how the account of a mugging and later discovery of her own work phone at home, squares with multiple instances of missing phones being investigated??
Completely separately, it is of course well known that phone theft and selling them on is a booming business model in the UK, both for the resale value and the potential for fraudulent use of the personal information that is on them.
I've personally encountered this. As have others posting here.
When someone tells you, to your face, that a patient is "better off dead, rather than wasting resources", and you've shared a joke with that patient the minute before....
Which would make that instance a slam dunk - @PBLawyers?
More women marrying earlier and having more kids is not restricting women. The fact you think it is is exactly the type of uber feminist liberalism that there is now a reaction against.
Plenty of men take their responsibilities as husbands seriously and society can support mothers more too who want to stay at home full time with their children or only work part time
- Someone who has (ever) been a lawbreaker cannot be a lawmaker
- Someone who is a lawmaker cannot break any law while a lawmaker
- Someone who has made a law cannot themselves break it
The first is clearly nonsense unless we have no concept of rehabilitation or seriousness of crimes. We've all surely broken the law, so we can't have any lawmakers.The second has some logic, for more serious crimes. I don't think we require a minister to resign if caught speeding (perhaps if their brief includes road safety etc, but that's more about hypocrisy). Maybe lawmakers cannot break laws they have responsibility for or which expose them as hypocrites or as general wrong'uns.
The third, is the Johnson case of someone introducing new law that applies to everyone and then breaking it themselves. Hypocrisy.
Opposition parties will, of course, take interpretation one and scour public records for any historical offences by anyone in government. They'll do this particularly now a precedent has been set, which is why this seems daft from Starmer unless there is more to the story that could come out. Do we sack Starmer if it emerges that he once bought some weed (supply of a banned substance) for a friend at uni? It would be like Sunak resigning for not wearing a seatbelt.
It is if it is not out of their choice, and that's clearly your intention. Again, I point out that, until today, your prescription is about *women* doing things. Not men. Not society. Women.
Why not argue for more men staying at home full or part time, as their wives work? As I do.
"uber feminist liberalism"
Yeah, right. You spout those words so often I'm not quite sure you know what they mean; they're just a Pavlovian reaction you trot out when you're wrong.
The "retail" price was £21475.07. Over 21 grand for 6 painted MDF cabinets and a bit of composite worktop! A fantasy price plucked out of an arse as no one ever pays retail price.
"Trade" price got it down to just over £6000. I haggled them down to £5500 just by asking.
I then hit them with their price matching promise a few days later as DIY Kitchens were coming in with a price of £3600 for a superior kitchen. They said they'd match it!
So "£21k" down to under four grand. And they're still making a profit.
Most people would say that Jonathan Aitken or Jeffery Archer should never be MPs, ever again, for example.
Being mistaken about what is lost and damaged in a crime is of course not a crime and entirely understandable. What you can't do is allow someone else to lose by your mistake once you know the facts. But even then the offence can be extremely minor - as I think it may well be here.