When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
Well the next administration might not be so different and in any case four years is a long time for destructive episodes to last. A lot of damage can be done in four years.
If only the democrats had not picked a complete dummy we would have been spared all of this.
Tariffs was the one thing I was really concerned about with either of the main candidates. They could wreak global havoc and Colombia, with their pathetic response, has just emboldened Trump
First sentence is questionable and I was (am) worried about more than just tariffs with Trump2 - but yes what a sick state of affairs. It's proving just as bad as I feared and we're only two weeks in.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
You are already free to commit suicide if you want. And have whoever you want around you. You are not obliged to take a cocktail of drugs.
Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.
Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.
When have I claimed suicide prevention is 'torture' ? I'm saying that keeping me alive - sorry, existing - in that sort of situation would be torture.
I'm unsure that the situation I mention above is the same as suicide. And certainly, none of the stigma that surrounds suicide - particularly from religious people - should surround it. That's actually an argument for an AD law. A third way.
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
Take Back Control!
Would it be easier to ban everything then allow stuff by exemption.
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
Take Back Control!
Define an algorithm.
Ordering posts by date is an algorithm. Therefore PB would be banned.
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
I was just in a local shop after my swim, and a very young boy in a pushchair was drinking a can of Red Bull. The mother said something like: "Shut up and drink your Red Bull." I reckon the kid was three or four.
I am not sure about an outright ban on algorithms, but only a few days ago we had many on this board report dolefully about the descent into paranoid conspiracy-mongering they had witnessed in friends, neighbours and relatives.
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
Which is something to be considered.
But the reason for safeguards and their nature is... human nature.
The ghastly behaviour of people over inheritance is an old, old story. Squabbling or even looting the old persons money before they were even in the grave. We've even had people here saying "squandering their wealth".
I have to tell my aunt, repeatedly, that she should stop apologising for her living arrangements. It's her money, and if she dies in debt, well played. If I was another kind of person.... But that would be disgusting.
Safeguards are important but it's impossible to make it 100% safe from error or misuse. If you set that as a condition no AD facility would ever get signed off.
It's like real Health & Safety. You can't make a building site accident proof. But rules about installing railings for every drop over x cm, electrical safety etc save thousands of lives and prevent orders of magnitude more injuries, each and every year.
Screaming "But I want to build, we will sort out the safety later" is insane.
Exactly. So we aim for the (ample) terrain between "safeguards gorn so mad that the system is smothered at birth or so unwieldy it's virtually useless" and "oh who gives a fuck if lots of vulnerable people get off'd against their will".
Which is why, for example, gathering evidence from Switzerland and Canada is important.
In Canada, someone asking for a wheelchair ramp to be installed in their house was offered Assisted Suicide as an option, by an official of the state...
Offered death as an alternative to the ramp? No, that's not on.
The problem is, when the clipboard minded attempt to interact with reality and morality.
No we don't want a clipboard mentality on assisted dying, either in pushing it or preventing it.
If someone needs help in ending their lives for whatever reason, I wouldn't involve the state. Leave judges and the NHS out of it. Leave it as an optional extra service from undertakers. A bit like Dignitas.
Big conflict of interest for undertakers. Undertaking business gets a little slow, so there's a sudden need to generate demand and the other part of the business can do that...
I see the MAGA crowd want to stop money going to Ukraine and use it to ameliorate the impact of tariffs.
Putin must be so happy.
Though Trump has told Putin he will also impose high tariffs on Russian imports and further sanctions on Russian funds unless Putin ends the war in Ukraine
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
Take Back Control!
Define an algorithm.
Ordering posts by date is an algorithm. Therefore PB would be banned.
In that case I'll start by just banning recommendations.
I see the MAGA crowd want to stop money going to Ukraine and use it to ameliorate the impact of tariffs.
Putin must be so happy.
Though Trump has told Putin he will also impose high tariffs on Russian imports and further sanctions on Russian funds unless Putin ends the war in Ukraine
Remarkable damage from a road crash in Colchester over the weekend.
Four students killed themselves at 4:40am on Saturday morning in a Ford Focus (ie smallish), on the wrong side of road, going at (I assume) speed into a second hand shop called "Dusty's".
The thing that gets me is that without hitting it head on, they knocked a 1st half 20C 18" thick solid Flemish or English bond brick wall out of true. That's how they built viaducts and bridges back then.
The wall they went in through was only half brick I think (or possibly cavity), but the remarkable impact is on the front wall. There's a hell of a lot of energy in it to do something like that.
The stuff about the neighbours being advised not to look outside is particularly troubling.
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
Take Back Control!
Define an algorithm.
Ordering posts by date is an algorithm. Therefore PB would be banned.
In that case I'll start by just banning recommendations.
I see the MAGA crowd want to stop money going to Ukraine and use it to ameliorate the impact of tariffs.
Putin must be so happy.
Though Trump has told Putin he will also impose high tariffs on Russian imports and further sanctions on Russian funds unless Putin ends the war in Ukraine
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
The US has built a reputation as a more or less reliable partner to the west over the last 75 years. Trump has potentially trashed that overnight.
If the US is perceived as unreliable - even an adversary - it makes other unreliable adversaries look relatively more attractive. And China has EV tech to offer the European car industry; I doubt unrestricted imports are on the agenda.
The US isn’t and will never be an adversary. There might be minor disagreements and changes of governments, but the Five Eyes and NATO are the Five Eyes and NATO, and any disruption to that won’t be in the UK’s favour.
China is and will always be up there with Russia and Iran as the most serious of adversaries, albeit one that the West has become too dependent on in the last couple of decades. The balance between trade and politics with China is the biggest story of the next few years.
The EU is not in Five Eyes. If Trump really were to invade Greenland that would quite likely end NATO. Similarly, it looks not impossible that Trump abandons Taiwan to China.
This is more than a "minor disagreement". How much more isn't entirely clear, but it's imbecilic to think this is not likely to alter both trade and foreign policy.
Of course China is an adversary - but one with which, as you note, we conduct substantial trade. Trump turning the US into a potential adversary doesn't alter China being an adversary, but it undoubtedly changes the balance of how we perceive the two.
How the UK should react, other than just keeping our heads down for the time being, isn't at all clear.
But country like Taiwan - threatened with 100% plus tariffs, and reliant on US military support, which now looks quite doubtful - is now in a far more difficult position. This isn't a "minor disagreement" for them; it is existential. S Korea is in a similar, albeit slightly less extreme position. Both do very large amounts of business with China - and have in recent years substantially curtailed it in accord with US sanctions.
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
Lawmakers are also weighing in on what an algorithm is. Introduced in the US Congress in 2019, HR2291, or the Algorithmic Accountability Act, uses the term “automated decisionmaking system” and defines it as “a computational process, including one derived from machine learning, statistics, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making, that impacts consumers.”
When the Biden administration took office in 2021, the EU was poised to push through a new investment agreement with China. But that was abandoned after pressure from Washington and blunders by Beijing. By the end of the Biden period, the US and the European Commission were working closely together on efforts to “de-risk” trade with China and to restrict exports of key technology…
When I suggested to a senior European policymaker last week that the EU might now consider warming up to China once again, she responded: “Believe me, that conversation is already taking place.”
So the EU thinks that throwing in their basket with China, might be a better proposition than dealing with a US administration that will be very different four years from now?
Have they learned nothing from the last three decades, and are they determined to kill their car industry stone dead?
The US has built a reputation as a more or less reliable partner to the west over the last 75 years. Trump has potentially trashed that overnight.
If the US is perceived as unreliable - even an adversary - it makes other unreliable adversaries look relatively more attractive. And China has EV tech to offer the European car industry; I doubt unrestricted imports are on the agenda.
The US isn’t and will never be an adversary. There might be minor disagreements and changes of governments, but the Five Eyes and NATO are the Five Eyes and NATO, and any disruption to that won’t be in the UK’s favour.
China is and will always be up there with Russia and Iran as the most serious of adversaries, albeit one that the West has become too dependent on in the last couple of decades. The balance between trade and politics with China is the biggest story of the next few years.
NATO is all but dead. There is no way the US would now unconditionally come to the aid of a NATO member state attacked by Russia. As for Five Eyes, have you seen who Trump is proposing should run the US security services?
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
Take Back Control!
Define an algorithm.
Ordering posts by date is an algorithm. Therefore PB would be banned.
In that case I'll start by just banning recommendations.
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
Lawmakers are also weighing in on what an algorithm is. Introduced in the US Congress in 2019, HR2291, or the Algorithmic Accountability Act, uses the term “automated decisionmaking system” and defines it as “a computational process, including one derived from machine learning, statistics, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making, that impacts consumers.”
That would certainly catch something that published posts in date order. The only way to avoid algorithms entirely is to have an editor like in a newspaper.
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
Lawmakers are also weighing in on what an algorithm is. Introduced in the US Congress in 2019, HR2291, or the Algorithmic Accountability Act, uses the term “automated decisionmaking system” and defines it as “a computational process, including one derived from machine learning, statistics, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making, that impacts consumers.”
That would certainly catch something that published posts in date order. The only way to avoid algorithms entirely is to have an editor like in a newspaper.
Debatable. I would say listing posts in date order is too simple be called a 'decisionmaking system'.
No - it is not "gut instinct" which powers my position on this Bill. It is my view that, as with my opposition to capital punishment, the state should not take the risk of the killing of an innocent man or woman or the killing of person who does not want to die. Why? Because such a step is irreversible. An apology is not a sufficient response to such a horrible act.
What is revelatory in this debate is how many people are willing to take the risk of other people being coerced into death (Marsh's "bullied grannies" comment) so long as they get what they want.
Presumably if this Bill becomes law and capital punishment is raised again, they won't be running the "we can't run the risk of an innocent person being killed" argument.
It is incumbent on those proposing such a law to look at all the evidence from all the countries and to listen to the full range of views. It is clear from what has happened that they haven't.
As to the view that a bad law is better than no law (expressed by @kinabalu) - wow! Just wow! No wonder Britain is so badly governed. I must have missed a similar insouciance by him when the Rwanda Bill (or other daft legislation by the Tories) was being debated.
Once a bad law is on the books it is ferociously difficult to get rid of it. See the computer evidence law, for instance. And the harm done by it cannot be undone - especially if the people so harmed are dead. But hey who cares about them: they're just "grannies". That's the attitude, it seems.
Dearie me .....
From a professional perspective, watching a scandal unfold in real time is fascinating. From a personal perspective, it is really quite frightening.
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
Lawmakers are also weighing in on what an algorithm is. Introduced in the US Congress in 2019, HR2291, or the Algorithmic Accountability Act, uses the term “automated decisionmaking system” and defines it as “a computational process, including one derived from machine learning, statistics, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making, that impacts consumers.”
That would certainly catch something that published posts in date order. The only way to avoid algorithms entirely is to have an editor like in a newspaper.
OK then.
The only permitted algorithm is date order.
Probably a problem for the business model (how do you get an advertising income that way?), but the social harm of engagement farming through anger is now too obvious and too serious.
Canada doesn’t even allow U.S. Banks to open or do business there. What’s that all about? Many such things, but it’s also a DRUG WAR, and hundreds of thousands of people have died in the U.S. from drugs pouring through the Borders of Mexico and Canada. Just spoke to Justin Trudeau. Will be speaking to him again at 3:00 P.M.
On topic: In Britain we tend to see the Democrat party as moderate and Republicans as extreme, when a closer analysis might suggest the opposite. This is what Americans exposed to the two parties daily have concluded.
Is supporting measures to reduce climate change moderate or extreme?
Is invading Greenland and Panama moderate or extreme?
It's time for the UK and EU to ban algorithms on social media.
Why, and what would be the purpose, what would it achieve ?
Algorithms designed to be addictive are harmful to individuals. And can be manipulated by hostile anti-democratic forces. Its essential to ban them if we want to retain our sovereignty.
Take Back Control!
Define an algorithm.
Ordering posts by date is an algorithm. Therefore PB would be banned.
In that case I'll start by just banning recommendations.
Perhaps I'm being economically naive, but I'm not totally conviced that the mutual imposition of tariffs is necessarily a bad thing. While it would have the effect of suppressing consumption, the extra money raised could be used to lower income taxes, thus promoting employment, or provide better services. Taxing stuff rather than labour would probably be better for the environment too.
So you would be in favour of increasing VAT? Which seems to have the same effect, but without the disadvantage of losing the efficiency savings of comparative advantage, unlike imposing indiscriminate mutual tariffs.
In general, I feel that we should be taxing consumpion - especially environmnetally destructive consumption - more and labour less, while taking measures to mitigate the regressive nature of such taxation. One could, perhaps, impose tariffs proportional to the CO2 emissions per capita of a foreign country. It's not something I've properly thought through though. I'm just indulging in a bit of kite flying / devil's advocation realy.
We have become conditioned to think that universal free trade is the be all. While globalisation has certainly improved economic efficiency and lifted aggregate output, there are plenty of data that indicate it’s been at the expense of western lower-middle classes. And certainly so strategic resilience. The global economic system (and hence society) just feels so fragile these days, with international JIT stock mgmt.
Whether trump is thinking about any of that who knows, he just likes tariffs probably.
There are real problems translating Ricardo and Smith into the modern world, partly a result of the success of their admirable ideas.
Applying Ricardo and simplifying, it is theoretically possible to imagine large nation A having almost no factories but lots of professional services, and large nation B having almost no management and financial and professional services but lots of factories.
This can make nations A and B richer by mutual trade, but will leave large swathes of population unemployed, unfit for their labour market etc.
Stuff a bit like that has precisely happened in some regions of some nations. Politically and socially it is a disaster. Perhaps it takes a Trump (remarkably) to see this clearly.
I see the MAGA crowd want to stop money going to Ukraine and use it to ameliorate the impact of tariffs.
Putin must be so happy.
Though Trump has told Putin he will also impose high tariffs on Russian imports and further sanctions on Russian funds unless Putin ends the war in Ukraine
I see the MAGA crowd want to stop money going to Ukraine and use it to ameliorate the impact of tariffs.
Putin must be so happy.
Though Trump has told Putin he will also impose high tariffs on Russian imports and further sanctions on Russian funds unless Putin ends the war in Ukraine
No - it is not "gut instinct" which powers my position on this Bill. It is my view that, as with my opposition to capital punishment, the state should not take the risk of the killing of an innocent man or woman or the killing of person who does not want to die. Why? Because such a step is irreversible. An apology is not a sufficient response to such a horrible act.
What is revelatory in this debate is how many people are willing to take the risk of other people being coerced into death (Marsh's "bullied grannies" comment) so long as they get what they want.
Presumably if this Bill becomes law and capital punishment is raised again, they won't be running the "we can't run the risk of an innocent person being killed" argument.
It is incumbent on those proposing such a law to look at all the evidence from all the countries and to listen to the full range of views. It is clear from what has happened that they haven't.
As to the view that a bad law is better than no law (expressed by @kinabalu) - wow! Just wow! No wonder Britain is so badly governed. I must have missed a similar insouciance by him when the Rwanda Bill (or other daft legislation by the Tories) was being debated.
Once a bad law is on the books it is ferociously difficult to get rid of it. See the computer evidence law, for instance. And the harm done by it cannot be undone - especially if the people so harmed are dead. But hey who cares about them: they're just "grannies". That's the attitude, it seems.
Dearie me .....
From a professional perspective, watching a scandal unfold in real time is fascinating. From a personal perspective, it is really quite frightening.
Stop it, Cycle. I said "inadequate" - as in too restrictve but better than nothing. Can be built upon in time. It's clear from my post what I meant.
Which it can be (built upon). Were you not just slagging Leadbeater off for implying it can't be changed in the future?
I see the MAGA crowd want to stop money going to Ukraine and use it to ameliorate the impact of tariffs.
Putin must be so happy.
Though Trump has told Putin he will also impose high tariffs on Russian imports and further sanctions on Russian funds unless Putin ends the war in Ukraine
No - it is not "gut instinct" which powers my position on this Bill. It is my view that, as with my opposition to capital punishment, the state should not take the risk of the killing of an innocent man or woman or the killing of person who does not want to die. Why? Because such a step is irreversible. An apology is not a sufficient response to such a horrible act.
What is revelatory in this debate is how many people are willing to take the risk of other people being coerced into death (Marsh's "bullied grannies" comment) so long as they get what they want.
Presumably if this Bill becomes law and capital punishment is raised again, they won't be running the "we can't run the risk of an innocent person being killed" argument.
It is incumbent on those proposing such a law to look at all the evidence from all the countries and to listen to the full range of views. It is clear from what has happened that they haven't.
As to the view that a bad law is better than no law (expressed by @kinabalu) - wow! Just wow! No wonder Britain is so badly governed. I must have missed a similar insouciance by him when the Rwanda Bill (or other daft legislation by the Tories) was being debated.
Once a bad law is on the books it is ferociously difficult to get rid of it. See the computer evidence law, for instance. And the harm done by it cannot be undone - especially if the people so harmed are dead. But hey who cares about them: they're just "grannies". That's the attitude, it seems.
Dearie me .....
From a professional perspective, watching a scandal unfold in real time is fascinating. From a personal perspective, it is really quite frightening.
Take the state out of it. Leave it to undertakers.
I see the MAGA crowd want to stop money going to Ukraine and use it to ameliorate the impact of tariffs.
Putin must be so happy.
Though Trump has told Putin he will also impose high tariffs on Russian imports and further sanctions on Russian funds unless Putin ends the war in Ukraine
I see the MAGA crowd want to stop money going to Ukraine and use it to ameliorate the impact of tariffs.
Putin must be so happy.
Though Trump has told Putin he will also impose high tariffs on Russian imports and further sanctions on Russian funds unless Putin ends the war in Ukraine
I see the MAGA crowd want to stop money going to Ukraine and use it to ameliorate the impact of tariffs.
Putin must be so happy.
Though Trump has told Putin he will also impose high tariffs on Russian imports and further sanctions on Russian funds unless Putin ends the war in Ukraine
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
You are already free to commit suicide if you want. And have whoever you want around you. You are not obliged to take a cocktail of drugs.
Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.
Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.
The anomaly in the UK is that suicide is legal but the state does everything it can to prevent you accessing the means to painlessly end your life with dignity.
If I could go in front of a panel of doctors/judges and then be allowed to obtain the drugs I could be given in Switzerland then that would be fine. I wouldn't need "assistance" from anyone. But I can't.
Sooner or later people like your good self need to recognise that people have a right to choose a dignified death without others sticking their oar in. Until that time I shall maintain my membership of Exit International and keep Dignitas on speed dial.
I see the MAGA crowd want to stop money going to Ukraine and use it to ameliorate the impact of tariffs.
Putin must be so happy.
Though Trump has told Putin he will also impose high tariffs on Russian imports and further sanctions on Russian funds unless Putin ends the war in Ukraine
No - it is not "gut instinct" which powers my position on this Bill. It is my view that, as with my opposition to capital punishment, the state should not take the risk of the killing of an innocent man or woman or the killing of person who does not want to die. Why? Because such a step is irreversible. An apology is not a sufficient response to such a horrible act.
What is revelatory in this debate is how many people are willing to take the risk of other people being coerced into death (Marsh's "bullied grannies" comment) so long as they get what they want.
Presumably if this Bill becomes law and capital punishment is raised again, they won't be running the "we can't run the risk of an innocent person being killed" argument.
It is incumbent on those proposing such a law to look at all the evidence from all the countries and to listen to the full range of views. It is clear from what has happened that they haven't.
As to the view that a bad law is better than no law (expressed by @kinabalu) - wow! Just wow! No wonder Britain is so badly governed. I must have missed a similar insouciance by him when the Rwanda Bill (or other daft legislation by the Tories) was being debated.
Once a bad law is on the books it is ferociously difficult to get rid of it. See the computer evidence law, for instance. And the harm done by it cannot be undone - especially if the people so harmed are dead. But hey who cares about them: they're just "grannies". That's the attitude, it seems.
Dearie me .....
From a professional perspective, watching a scandal unfold in real time is fascinating. From a personal perspective, it is really quite frightening.
I am fully for assisted dying being a thing. The opposite I guess from Cyclefree....however I agree with her the way this bill is passing is not right
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
You are already free to commit suicide if you want. And have whoever you want around you. You are not obliged to take a cocktail of drugs.
Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.
Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.
The anomaly in the UK is that suicide is legal but the state does everything it can to prevent you accessing the means to painlessly end your life with dignity.
If I could go in front of a panel of doctors/judges and then be allowed to obtain the drugs I could be given in Switzerland then that would be fine. I wouldn't need "assistance" from anyone. But I can't.
Sooner or later people like your good self need to recognise that people have a right to choose a dignified death without others sticking their oar in. Until that time I shall maintain my membership of Exit International and keep Dignitas on speed dial.
Look I am full in favour of your right to end your life. However my father is in a home now with dementia and I see the vultures that would be whispering in is ear hovering....you are a burden, you are squandering your savings. Had to ban most of them from seeing him now as he was getting upset by them and apologizing for being a burden
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
You are already free to commit suicide if you want. And have whoever you want around you. You are not obliged to take a cocktail of drugs.
Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.
Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.
The anomaly in the UK is that suicide is legal but the state does everything it can to prevent you accessing the means to painlessly end your life with dignity.
If I could go in front of a panel of doctors/judges and then be allowed to obtain the drugs I could be given in Switzerland then that would be fine. I wouldn't need "assistance" from anyone. But I can't.
Sooner or later people like your good self need to recognise that people have a right to choose a dignified death without others sticking their oar in. Until that time I shall maintain my membership of Exit International and keep Dignitas on speed dial.
Look I am full in favour of your right to end your life. However my father is in a home now with dementia and I see the vultures that would be whispering in is ear hovering....you are a burden, you are squandering your savings. Had to ban most of them from seeing him now as he was getting upset by them and apologizing for being a burden
I really sympathise with your situation but it must be possible to allow people like myself to exercise my right to a painless, dignified death without putting others in a position to be coerced. Many of the opponents of AD seem to me to be simply trying to muddy the waters. Is anyone seriously suggesting, for example, that disabled people, will be forced to kill themselves if the legislation is passed?
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
The stuff about opinion polls is childish and irrelevant. The overwhelming majority have not read the Bill and do not understand any of the medical or legal issues. It is obvious from the debate in here that many of those commenting have not read the BillThat is why proper scrutiny is needed. It is what was promised. This Bill is not getting it.
Some questions:
1. Why no evidence from Canada? The reason was that its legal system is so different that nothing useful could be gleaned. Disingenuous nonsense. But if so, why then 2. So many witnesses from Australia
66% of the public support, 16% against a ratio of 4.1, 24 of the panel support, 6 against, a ratio of 4.
Should the panel be balanced in terms of popular support, MP support or 50/50?
Personally, I think such a panel should be a full spread of views rather than done like a vote or poll.
They are the evidence quarry which is to be mined and refined by the committee.
Should a climate change commission be 50% climate change deniers to give all views equal access? Or similar with anti-vaxxers?
Arguably those are different as more science based but the anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers would certainly feel it unbalanced.
What a stupid comparison. The issue is about coercion, about the rights of the disabled and the vulnerable, about palliative care, about the morality of it all. Not about whether the science tells us that we can kill people. We know that already.
The issue is about many things: how you weigh up those things is very much up to an individual.
For me, not making dying people suffer unnecessarily is a massively important thing. I want less suffering in the world.
And also IMV, palliative care is *far* from perfect in reducing suffering.
At least palliative care tries to reduce suffering, while letting nature take it's course. Assisted dying interferes. And no, I'm not taking sides; I've seen dying which was assisted and which wasn't. My mind isn't made up.
Yes, it tries to, and almost everyone working in palliative care will try to reduce suffering.
But speaking from my own viewpoint: if I have a deadly illness, and my quality of life is poor - if, for instance, the only way I survive is to be on a cocktail of drugs that makes it impossible for me to do anything else - then I'd rather end it all, at a time and place of my choosing, with my loved ones around me.
And anyone stopping me from doing so would be torturing me. I enjoy life too much just to exist.
Existence is not life.
You are already free to commit suicide if you want. And have whoever you want around you. You are not obliged to take a cocktail of drugs.
Stop claiming that you are forbidden from doing any of these things. You aren't.
Oh - and suicide prevention is not "torture". Treating depression in the terminally ill (see the evidence from one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence to the committee) is not "torture" either.
The anomaly in the UK is that suicide is legal but the state does everything it can to prevent you accessing the means to painlessly end your life with dignity.
If I could go in front of a panel of doctors/judges and then be allowed to obtain the drugs I could be given in Switzerland then that would be fine. I wouldn't need "assistance" from anyone. But I can't.
Sooner or later people like your good self need to recognise that people have a right to choose a dignified death without others sticking their oar in. Until that time I shall maintain my membership of Exit International and keep Dignitas on speed dial.
Look I am full in favour of your right to end your life. However my father is in a home now with dementia and I see the vultures that would be whispering in is ear hovering....you are a burden, you are squandering your savings. Had to ban most of them from seeing him now as he was getting upset by them and apologizing for being a burden
I really sympathise with your situation but it must be possible to allow people like myself to exercise my right to a painless, dignified death without putting others in a position to be coerced. Many of the opponents of AD seem to me to be simply trying to muddy the waters. Is anyone seriously suggesting, for example, that disabled people, will be forced to kill themselves if the legislation is passed?
As I said fully behind assisted dying....I see the value in it and would want it for myself...I however am in the position where I see people who would have no problem making feel like he should take that option as they feel would benefit them....not that they are looking after him but they think he may have left them something
Comments
I'm unsure that the situation I mention above is the same as suicide. And certainly, none of the stigma that surrounds suicide - particularly from religious people - should surround it. That's actually an argument for an AD law. A third way.
My flabber was well and truly ghasted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjw4q7v7ez1o
It would be genius if Russia exported anything to the USA.
NEW THREAD
If Trump really were to invade Greenland that would quite likely end NATO. Similarly, it looks not impossible that Trump abandons Taiwan to China.
This is more than a "minor disagreement". How much more isn't entirely clear, but it's imbecilic to think this is not likely to alter both trade and foreign policy.
Of course China is an adversary - but one with which, as you note, we conduct substantial trade.
Trump turning the US into a potential adversary doesn't alter China being an adversary, but it undoubtedly changes the balance of how we perceive the two.
How the UK should react, other than just keeping our heads down for the time being, isn't at all clear.
But country like Taiwan - threatened with 100% plus tariffs, and reliant on US military support, which now looks quite doubtful - is now in a far more difficult position. This isn't a "minor disagreement" for them; it is existential.
S Korea is in a similar, albeit slightly less extreme position.
Both do very large amounts of business with China - and have in recent years substantially curtailed it in accord with US sanctions.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2021/02/26/1020007/what-is-an-algorithm/
There seem to be several definitions eg
Lawmakers are also weighing in on what an algorithm is. Introduced in the US Congress in 2019, HR2291, or the Algorithmic Accountability Act, uses the term “automated decisionmaking system” and defines it as “a computational process, including one derived from machine learning, statistics, or other data processing or artificial intelligence techniques, that makes a decision or facilitates human decision making, that impacts consumers.”
What is revelatory in this debate is how many people are willing to take the risk of other people being coerced into death (Marsh's "bullied grannies" comment) so long as they get what they want.
Presumably if this Bill becomes law and capital punishment is raised again, they won't be running the "we can't run the risk of an innocent person being killed" argument.
It is incumbent on those proposing such a law to look at all the evidence from all the countries and to listen to the full range of views. It is clear from what has happened that they haven't.
As to the view that a bad law is better than no law (expressed by @kinabalu) - wow! Just wow! No wonder Britain is so badly governed. I must have missed a similar insouciance by him when the Rwanda Bill (or other daft legislation by the Tories) was being debated.
Once a bad law is on the books it is ferociously difficult to get rid of it. See the computer evidence law, for instance. And the harm done by it cannot be undone - especially if the people so harmed are dead. But hey who cares about them: they're just "grannies". That's the attitude, it seems.
Dearie me .....
From a professional perspective, watching a scandal unfold in real time is fascinating. From a personal perspective, it is really quite frightening.
The only permitted algorithm is date order.
Probably a problem for the business model (how do you get an advertising income that way?), but the social harm of engagement farming through anger is now too obvious and too serious.
Is invading Greenland and Panama moderate or extreme?
Applying Ricardo and simplifying, it is theoretically possible to imagine large nation A having almost no factories but lots of professional services, and large nation B having almost no management and financial and professional services but lots of factories.
This can make nations A and B richer by mutual trade, but will leave large swathes of population unemployed, unfit for their labour market etc.
Stuff a bit like that has precisely happened in some regions of some nations. Politically and socially it is a disaster. Perhaps it takes a Trump (remarkably) to see this clearly.
Which it can be (built upon). Were you not just slagging Leadbeater off for implying it can't be changed in the future?
C'mon. Poor show.
If I could go in front of a panel of doctors/judges and then be allowed to obtain the drugs I could be given in Switzerland then that would be fine. I wouldn't need "assistance" from anyone. But I can't.
Sooner or later people like your good self need to recognise that people have a right to choose a dignified death without others sticking their oar in. Until that time I shall maintain my membership of Exit International and keep Dignitas on speed dial.
Codename: Gravehawk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m41VL0PSl7U
Well done to all involved, yet another example of war fostering innovation.
Dodgy Donald is a DANGEROUSLY UNHINGED doddery, old fool.