University staff walk out over calls to return to the office three days a week
One staff member said: “It takes me 15 minutes on the train, but 45 minutes walking to get to campus. Now I’m hybrid working, I have to carry a backpack with all my work gear which can weigh up to 10kg due to laptop, headphones, lunch and anything else required for a day away from home.
“By the time I’ve finished two days on campus, I am so tired physically and mentally that I’m good for nothing the following day.”
The Telegraph has a special ability to find the whiniest people, from WFP to VAT on private schools to this.
45 minute walk is roughly a 10-15 minute cycle. It's a university, so the cycling infrastructure and facilities is likely excellent. I use one small pannier for a laptop, food, drink, lock. If I take all my bags, I can do a weekly shop on the way home.
The best thing is it negates the need for additional exercise. You've already got your 1.5 hour walk or 30 minute cycle, leaving you more time to drink wine or mark essays.
John McDonnell very good in the AD debate, I thought.
Yes, he was
You'd prefer him as CoE too, I guess?
I would, UK could be a year into the green industrial revolution, housing stock being insulated, investment in low CO2 technology for steel, cement etc. No yo-yoing on WFP. It might actually feel like we were making forward progress.
Coincidentally, X is full of stories (which might be true, for all I know) that Gor is a Russian agent. This is but one example. 🧵 Director of White House Office of Presidential Personnel is suspected of being a Russian spy. "Sergio Gor" appears to actually be Sergey Goryachev from Saratov, Russia. Investigative journalist Brian Krebs discovered some damning information. https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1935980108759851409
ArcelorMittal drops plans for green steel in Germany due to high energy costs
Not doing it in Germany but it is elsewhere.
"The first electric arc forges are being built in countries that can offer competitive and predictable electricity provision," it said, highlighting a recent investment in an electricity-fuelled forge in nuclear-powered France.
University staff walk out over calls to return to the office three days a week
One staff member said: “It takes me 15 minutes on the train, but 45 minutes walking to get to campus. Now I’m hybrid working, I have to carry a backpack with all my work gear which can weigh up to 10kg due to laptop, headphones, lunch and anything else required for a day away from home.
“By the time I’ve finished two days on campus, I am so tired physically and mentally that I’m good for nothing the following day.”
The Telegraph has a special ability to find the whiniest people, from WFP to VAT on private schools to this.
45 minute walk is roughly a 10-15 minute cycle. It's a university, so the cycling infrastructure and facilities is likely excellent. I use one small pannier for a laptop, food, drink, lock. If I take all my bags, I can do a weekly shop on the way home.
The best thing is it negates the need for additional exercise. You've already got your 1.5 hour walk or 30 minute cycle, leaving you more time to drink wine or mark essays.
Last point very true. On the weeks I don't go into the office (away with work etc/time off for whatever reason) I have to make a conscious effort to replace that 2-4 hours (depending whether one or two days in office) of cycling with other exercise.
University staff walk out over calls to return to the office three days a week
One staff member said: “It takes me 15 minutes on the train, but 45 minutes walking to get to campus. Now I’m hybrid working, I have to carry a backpack with all my work gear which can weigh up to 10kg due to laptop, headphones, lunch and anything else required for a day away from home.
“By the time I’ve finished two days on campus, I am so tired physically and mentally that I’m good for nothing the following day.”
The Telegraph has a special ability to find the whiniest people, from WFP to VAT on private schools to this.
45 minute walk is roughly a 10-15 minute cycle. It's a university, so the cycling infrastructure and facilities is likely excellent. I use one small pannier for a laptop, food, drink, lock. If I take all my bags, I can do a weekly shop on the way home.
The best thing is it negates the need for additional exercise. You've already got your 1.5 hour walk or 30 minute cycle, leaving you more time to drink wine or mark essays.
If I could give my younger self two pieces of advice, one would concern getting panniers. Such a simple thing to do,and utterly transforms the utility of your bike and the enjoyability of cycling. Lamentably, I was in my late 40s before I got round to panniers.
John McDonnell very good in the AD debate, I thought.
Yes, he was
You'd prefer him as CoE too, I guess?
I would, UK could be a year into the green industrial revolution, housing stock being insulated, investment in low CO2 technology for steel, cement etc. No yo-yoing on WFP. It might actually feel like we were making forward progress.
One of the most able individuals on the political left.
University staff walk out over calls to return to the office three days a week
One staff member said: “It takes me 15 minutes on the train, but 45 minutes walking to get to campus. Now I’m hybrid working, I have to carry a backpack with all my work gear which can weigh up to 10kg due to laptop, headphones, lunch and anything else required for a day away from home.
“By the time I’ve finished two days on campus, I am so tired physically and mentally that I’m good for nothing the following day.”
The Telegraph has a special ability to find the whiniest people, from WFP to VAT on private schools to this.
45 minute walk is roughly a 10-15 minute cycle. It's a university, so the cycling infrastructure and facilities is likely excellent. I use one small pannier for a laptop, food, drink, lock. If I take all my bags, I can do a weekly shop on the way home.
The best thing is it negates the need for additional exercise. You've already got your 1.5 hour walk or 30 minute cycle, leaving you more time to drink wine or mark essays.
Wasn't the Telegraph, this was a case study the union provided.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
Though you also wouldn't be 6 months from death, you've got years sat in your own excreta watching day time TV in an overheated day lounge before they'd consider looking at your AD. Bucket list of travel, sex, drugs and rock n roll before pulling the plug seems a more rational option.
Well, precisely. This Bill is ridiculously constrained and draconian, with so many unnecessary safeguards.
The six month proviso is BS. The lack of advanced directives is BS.
Anyone who says this Bill lacks safeguards is BS^2.
Hopefully it goes through today, then in a few years these "safeguards" get amended away and provisions get added for advanced directives, and the six months nonsense is removed.
University staff walk out over calls to return to the office three days a week
One staff member said: “It takes me 15 minutes on the train, but 45 minutes walking to get to campus. Now I’m hybrid working, I have to carry a backpack with all my work gear which can weigh up to 10kg due to laptop, headphones, lunch and anything else required for a day away from home.
“By the time I’ve finished two days on campus, I am so tired physically and mentally that I’m good for nothing the following day.”
The Telegraph has a special ability to find the whiniest people, from WFP to VAT on private schools to this.
45 minute walk is roughly a 10-15 minute cycle. It's a university, so the cycling infrastructure and facilities is likely excellent. I use one small pannier for a laptop, food, drink, lock. If I take all my bags, I can do a weekly shop on the way home.
The best thing is it negates the need for additional exercise. You've already got your 1.5 hour walk or 30 minute cycle, leaving you more time to drink wine or mark essays.
If I could give my younger self two pieces of advice, one would concern getting panniers. Such a simple thing to do,and utterly transforms the utility of your bike and the enjoyability of cycling. Lamentably, I was in my late 40s before I got round to panniers.
Someone has to ask. What's the 2nd piece of advice for Younger Cookie?
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
Though you also wouldn't be 6 months from death, you've got years sat in your own excreta watching day time TV in an overheated day lounge before they'd consider looking at your AD. Bucket list of travel, sex, drugs and rock n roll before pulling the plug seems a more rational option.
Well, precisely. This Bill is ridiculously constrained and draconian, with so many unnecessary safeguards.
The six month proviso is BS. The lack of advanced directives is BS.
Anyone who says this Bill lacks safeguards is BS^2.
Hopefully it goes through today, then in a few years these "safeguards" get amended away and provisions get added for advanced directives, and the six months nonsense is removed.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I've seen too many cases of institutional abuse of dying people to be happy, myself. I think one should always be sceptical of large nstitutions' management of the dying, whether some are doctors or not.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
Though you also wouldn't be 6 months from death, you've got years sat in your own excreta watching day time TV in an overheated day lounge before they'd consider looking at your AD. Bucket list of travel, sex, drugs and rock n roll before pulling the plug seems a more rational option.
Well, precisely. This Bill is ridiculously constrained and draconian, with so many unnecessary safeguards.
The six month proviso is BS. The lack of advanced directives is BS.
Anyone who says this Bill lacks safeguards is BS^2.
Hopefully it goes through today, then in a few years these "safeguards" get amended away and provisions get added for advanced directives, and the six months nonsense is removed.
University staff walk out over calls to return to the office three days a week
One staff member said: “It takes me 15 minutes on the train, but 45 minutes walking to get to campus. Now I’m hybrid working, I have to carry a backpack with all my work gear which can weigh up to 10kg due to laptop, headphones, lunch and anything else required for a day away from home.
“By the time I’ve finished two days on campus, I am so tired physically and mentally that I’m good for nothing the following day.”
The Telegraph has a special ability to find the whiniest people, from WFP to VAT on private schools to this.
45 minute walk is roughly a 10-15 minute cycle. It's a university, so the cycling infrastructure and facilities is likely excellent. I use one small pannier for a laptop, food, drink, lock. If I take all my bags, I can do a weekly shop on the way home.
The best thing is it negates the need for additional exercise. You've already got your 1.5 hour walk or 30 minute cycle, leaving you more time to drink wine or mark essays.
If I could give my younger self two pieces of advice, one would concern getting panniers. Such a simple thing to do,and utterly transforms the utility of your bike and the enjoyability of cycling. Lamentably, I was in my late 40s before I got round to panniers.
It was a weird image thing for me. They just aren't cool.
But once you embrace the open-to-navel shirt, panniers, and bottles of wine in your bottle cages look, you can't go back. That's how I'll arrive at the BBQ later.
Author is a friend of mine. Sound chap. Quite seriously Republican
But not a nut.
No, genuine good guy
And if he were British, would have visited Bradford...
Nigel, this is an excellent essay and expresses better than me dozens of thoughts I have been trying to weave together lately. I particularly like:
"building healthy cities is currently more important than building a stronger economy, and so getting our urban planning right is now more than ever a societal health issue. "
"regarding the Covid era, it did provide us with a real-time example of what happens when people are denied community. My theory, which I've been suggesting since the lockdowns began, is that the spike in crime, protests, and other anti-social behavior in the months and years immediately following was a manifestation of that despair; a national and sometimes global display of pent-up, simmering anger that comes with isolation."
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I do not think you have listened to the debate
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months to live
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I fo not think you have listened to the debate
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months or live
I have listened to the debate, I've said this law is far too draconian and illiberal that while I'd begrudgingly vote for this if I were an MP as at least getting the principle through, I'd want to see a future Parliament liberalise it much further.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I fo not think you have listened to the debate
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months or live
I have listened to the debate, I've said this law is far too draconian and illiberal that while I'd begrudgingly vote for this if I were an MP as at least getting the principle through, I'd want to see a future Parliament liberalise it much further.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I fo not think you have listened to the debate
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months or live
I have listened to the debate, I've said this law is far too draconian and illiberal that while I'd begrudgingly vote for this if I were an MP as at least getting the principle through, I'd want to see a future Parliament liberalise it much further.
Author is a friend of mine. Sound chap. Quite seriously Republican
But not a nut.
No, genuine good guy
And if he were British, would have visited Bradford...
Nigel, this is an excellent essay and expresses better than me dozens of thoughts I have been trying to weave together lately. I particularly like:
"building healthy cities is currently more important than building a stronger economy, and so getting our urban planning right is now more than ever a societal health issue. "
"regarding the Covid era, it did provide us with a real-time example of what happens when people are denied community. My theory, which I've been suggesting since the lockdowns began, is that the spike in crime, protests, and other anti-social behavior in the months and years immediately following was a manifestation of that despair; a national and sometimes global display of pent-up, simmering anger that comes with isolation."
Those two things aren't really opposed, anyway.
There's quite a lot of his politics (not really out front in this essay) that I don't share, but that's the thing. There's an awful lot of stuff which really isn't (or shouldn't be) party political, and is independent of how exactly how you slice your favoured economic model.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I fo not think you have listened to the debate
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months or live
I have listened to the debate, I've said this law is far too draconian and illiberal that while I'd begrudgingly vote for this if I were an MP as at least getting the principle through, I'd want to see a future Parliament liberalise it much further.
Tim Farron @timfarron Wow! Majority slashed. At the risk of sounding like Jeremy Corbyn… we clearly won the argument there! With a tiny majority and growing opposition from expert groups, the Lords will now rightly feel that they have the right to disagree. To my pleasant surprise, this is not over!
I've seen too many cases of institutional abuse of dying people to be happy, myself. I think one should always be sceptical of large nstitutions' management of the dying, whether some are doctors or not.
I'm not happy, but neither am I unhappy. On the whole, I think these changes will help people. But as ever, each horrid abuse of the law will be far noisier than the many more times people have been helped.
They were saying the same about television when I was a kid. And novels in the Georgian Era. Fact is everyone is wistful for their childhood. And yet I don't know anyone who is so nostalgic that they rip out double glazing, central heating and install outside toilets. Even though "everyone was happier then."
"Labour have succeeded in killing Reform / Tory voters directly. And don't forget potential voters too, through the abortion bill. I thought it was all over. It is now."
Author is a friend of mine. Sound chap. Quite seriously Republican
But not a nut.
No, genuine good guy
And if he were British, would have visited Bradford...
Nigel, this is an excellent essay and expresses better than me dozens of thoughts I have been trying to weave together lately. I particularly like:
"building healthy cities is currently more important than building a stronger economy, and so getting our urban planning right is now more than ever a societal health issue. "
"regarding the Covid era, it did provide us with a real-time example of what happens when people are denied community. My theory, which I've been suggesting since the lockdowns began, is that the spike in crime, protests, and other anti-social behavior in the months and years immediately following was a manifestation of that despair; a national and sometimes global display of pent-up, simmering anger that comes with isolation."
I haven't read the essay, but I've been saying for years, including on here: Build communities, not just houses.
University staff walk out over calls to return to the office three days a week
One staff member said: “It takes me 15 minutes on the train, but 45 minutes walking to get to campus. Now I’m hybrid working, I have to carry a backpack with all my work gear which can weigh up to 10kg due to laptop, headphones, lunch and anything else required for a day away from home.
“By the time I’ve finished two days on campus, I am so tired physically and mentally that I’m good for nothing the following day.”
The Telegraph has a special ability to find the whiniest people, from WFP to VAT on private schools to this.
45 minute walk is roughly a 10-15 minute cycle. It's a university, so the cycling infrastructure and facilities is likely excellent. I use one small pannier for a laptop, food, drink, lock. If I take all my bags, I can do a weekly shop on the way home.
The best thing is it negates the need for additional exercise. You've already got your 1.5 hour walk or 30 minute cycle, leaving you more time to drink wine or mark essays.
If I could give my younger self two pieces of advice, one would concern getting panniers. Such a simple thing to do,and utterly transforms the utility of your bike and the enjoyability of cycling. Lamentably, I was in my late 40s before I got round to panniers.
It was a weird image thing for me. They just aren't cool.
But once you embrace the open-to-navel shirt, panniers, and bottles of wine in your bottle cages look, you can't go back. That's how I'll arrive at the BBQ later.
I've gone the other way: I've only ever had mountain bikes, and every single one I've had since I was a teenager has had panniers. Now I'm onto a road bike for 'racing', it is much more stripped down. It means it's great for going faster; rather less good for going to the shops...
(And after this morning, it also has tribars, a new seat and handlebars. All these changes cost almost as much as the original bike did last year...)
Notice any link - yep, they are all in the rational, sensible category.
And so much for Rishi wanting to call an early GE so he could go off to California - well done him for turning up and casting his vote - it was close and every vote was important.
Tim Farron @timfarron Wow! Majority slashed. At the risk of sounding like Jeremy Corbyn… we clearly won the argument there! With a tiny majority and growing opposition from expert groups, the Lords will now rightly feel that they have the right to disagree. To my pleasant surprise, this is not over!
Do I have to be the one to educate him on a free vote on a Private Members Bill? Obviously.
University staff walk out over calls to return to the office three days a week
One staff member said: “It takes me 15 minutes on the train, but 45 minutes walking to get to campus. Now I’m hybrid working, I have to carry a backpack with all my work gear which can weigh up to 10kg due to laptop, headphones, lunch and anything else required for a day away from home.
“By the time I’ve finished two days on campus, I am so tired physically and mentally that I’m good for nothing the following day.”
The Telegraph has a special ability to find the whiniest people, from WFP to VAT on private schools to this.
45 minute walk is roughly a 10-15 minute cycle. It's a university, so the cycling infrastructure and facilities is likely excellent. I use one small pannier for a laptop, food, drink, lock. If I take all my bags, I can do a weekly shop on the way home.
The best thing is it negates the need for additional exercise. You've already got your 1.5 hour walk or 30 minute cycle, leaving you more time to drink wine or mark essays.
If I could give my younger self two pieces of advice, one would concern getting panniers. Such a simple thing to do,and utterly transforms the utility of your bike and the enjoyability of cycling. Lamentably, I was in my late 40s before I got round to panniers.
It was a weird image thing for me. They just aren't cool.
But once you embrace the open-to-navel shirt, panniers, and bottles of wine in your bottle cages look, you can't go back. That's how I'll arrive at the BBQ later.
I got a relatively nice messenger-bag style one when my commute was ~15-20 mins at a leisurely pace and I did it in work gear. Was happy enough to carry it in to the office and around campus as needed.
Now I arrive at work in cycling gear, any thoughts about the coolness of the pannier bags are moot!
Tim Farron @timfarron Wow! Majority slashed. At the risk of sounding like Jeremy Corbyn… we clearly won the argument there! With a tiny majority and growing opposition from expert groups, the Lords will now rightly feel that they have the right to disagree. To my pleasant surprise, this is not over!
Do I have to be the one to educate him on a free vote on a Private Members Bill? Obviously.
Notice any link - yep, they are all in the rational, sensible category.
And so much for Rishi wanting to call an early GE so he could go off to California - well done him for turning up and casting his vote - it was close and every vote was important.
Notice any link - yep, they are all in the rational, sensible category.
And so much for Rishi wanting to call an early GE so he could go off to California - well done him for turning up and casting his vote - it was close and every vote was important.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I fo not think you have listened to the debate
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months or live
I have listened to the debate, I've said this law is far too draconian and illiberal that while I'd begrudgingly vote for this if I were an MP as at least getting the principle through, I'd want to see a future Parliament liberalise it much further.
My father and mother died earlier this year. Mercifully.
Dad had Alzheimer's dementia for 10 years and mum had vascular dementia for 4 years (both probably undiagnosed for more than that).
It has been utter misery. My life can start again as theirs have ended. Anyone who has experience of dementia will understand this.
For example, my mum for the last two years could not recognise us, could not speak, could not move (had to be hoisted) could not eat or toilet unaided. She was kept alive for as long as possible despite this not being what she, or we, wanted. Her (and my dad's) only concern was that the fruits of their hard work (their bungalow) be passed down to their children rather than being lost at a rate of knots to care fees that they did not want.
The vote today does not help this situation because those in my mum and dad's state would not be covered.
Now, as I understand it, those with mental capacity and less than six months to live can have a choice: 1) end life now which will set off an assessment process for eligibility which is likely to be very expense (medical and court fees) paid by the taxpayer or 2) carry on living to the end (means tested, with their estate possibly liable for the cost).
Surely, either the state should pay for whatever chosen option or the person's estate should pay.
I'm rather sad about the bill passing. TBH, I would have been sad if it had lost also. I thought some of the safeguard amendments (esp the one about not feeling a burden) should have passed and I would have feeled easier if they had. Not an easy day, and one that should be met solemnly.
Majority near halved from the 55 for it last time. Most Conservative, Reform, DUP, TUV, UUP, Alliance and Independent MPs voted against assisted dying but it passed with support from most Labour, LD, Green and Plaid MPs.
We must now ensure it does not extend to the mentally ill and disabled from the terminally ill
Majority near halved from the 55 for it last time. Most Conservative, Reform, DUP, TUV, UUP and Independent MPs voted against assisted dying but it passed with support from most Labour, LD, Green and Plaid MPs.
We must now ensure it does not extend to the mentally ill and disabled from the terminally ill
There is all sorts of room for abuse, and I think the majority of LD and Labour MP's were wrong on this. It also shouldn't be a party issue.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I fo not think you have listened to the debate
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months or live
I have listened to the debate, I've said this law is far too draconian and illiberal that while I'd begrudgingly vote for this if I were an MP as at least getting the principle through, I'd want to see a future Parliament liberalise it much further.
My father and mother died earlier this year. Mercifully.
Dad had Alzheimer's dementia for 10 years and mum had vascular dementia for 4 years (both probably undiagnosed for more than that).
It has been utter misery. My life can start again as theirs have ended. Anyone who has experience of dementia will understand this.
For example, my mum for the last two years could not recognise us, could not speak, could not move (had to be hoisted) could not eat or toilet unaided. She was kept alive for as long as possible despite this not being what she, or we, wanted. Her (and my dad's) only concern was that the fruits of their hard work (their bungalow) be passed down to their children rather than being lost at a rate of knots to care fees that they did not want.
The vote today does not help this situation because those in my mum and dad's state would not be covered.
Now, as I understand it, those with mental capacity and less than six months to live can have a choice: 1) end life now which will set off an assessment process for eligibility which is likely to be very expense (medical and court fees) paid by the taxpayer or 2) carry on living to the end (means tested, with their estate possibly liable for the cost).
Surely, either the state should pay for whatever chosen option or the person's estate should pay.
That’s a horrible story. Sympathies
It won’t be any consolation but science is advancing in this area at great speed. There is a very real chance these diseases will be entirely cured - or seriously ameliorated - in the next 5-10 years. They will be what smallpox was. A horrific ailment consigned to history
Gideon Amos, Jess Brown-Fuller, Wendy Chamberlain, Steve Darling, Tim Farron, Monica Harding, Paul Kohler, Angus MacDonald, Brian Mathew, Callum Miller, Tom Morrison, Sarah Olney, Al Pinkerton, Jamie Stone, Munira Wilson.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I fo not think you have listened to the debate
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months or live
I have listened to the debate, I've said this law is far too draconian and illiberal that while I'd begrudgingly vote for this if I were an MP as at least getting the principle through, I'd want to see a future Parliament liberalise it much further.
My father and mother died earlier this year. Mercifully.
Dad had Alzheimer's dementia for 10 years and mum had vascular dementia for 4 years (both probably undiagnosed for more than that).
It has been utter misery. My life can start again as theirs have ended. Anyone who has experience of dementia will understand this.
For example, my mum for the last two years could not recognise us, could not speak, could not move (had to be hoisted) could not eat or toilet unaided. She was kept alive for as long as possible despite this not being what she, or we, wanted. Her (and my dad's) only concern was that the fruits of their hard work (their bungalow) be passed down to their children rather than being lost at a rate of knots to care fees that they did not want.
The vote today does not help this situation because those in my mum and dad's state would not be covered.
Now, as I understand it, those with mental capacity and less than six months to live can have a choice: 1) end life now which will set off an assessment process for eligibility which is likely to be very expense (medical and court fees) paid by the taxpayer or 2) carry on living to the end (means tested, with their estate possibly liable for the cost).
Surely, either the state should pay for whatever chosen option or the person's estate should pay.
I sympathise; it's really hard. My father similarly had dementia for at least a decade. In his case, though, I'm pretty sure he wanted to carry on going for as long as he could, irrespective. And that's not something I'd have ever challenged.
I really don't know how I'd have felt about it had he expressed similar wishes to your mother.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I fo not think you have listened to the debate
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months or live
I have listened to the debate, I've said this law is far too draconian and illiberal that while I'd begrudgingly vote for this if I were an MP as at least getting the principle through, I'd want to see a future Parliament liberalise it much further.
My father and mother died earlier this year. Mercifully.
Dad had Alzheimer's dementia for 10 years and mum had vascular dementia for 4 years (both probably undiagnosed for more than that).
It has been utter misery. My life can start again as theirs have ended. Anyone who has experience of dementia will understand this.
For example, my mum for the last two years could not recognise us, could not speak, could not move (had to be hoisted) could not eat or toilet unaided. She was kept alive for as long as possible despite this not being what she, or we, wanted. Her (and my dad's) only concern was that the fruits of their hard work (their bungalow) be passed down to their children rather than being lost at a rate of knots to care fees that they did not want.
The vote today does not help this situation because those in my mum and dad's state would not be covered.
Now, as I understand it, those with mental capacity and less than six months to live can have a choice: 1) end life now which will set off an assessment process for eligibility which is likely to be very expense (medical and court fees) paid by the taxpayer or 2) carry on living to the end (means tested, with their estate possibly liable for the cost).
Surely, either the state should pay for whatever chosen option or the person's estate should pay.
That’s a horrible story. Sympathies
It won’t be any consolation but science is advancing in this area at great speed. There is a very real chance these diseases will be entirely cured - or seriously ameliorated - in the next 5-10 years. They will be what smallpox was. A horrific ailment consigned to history
Bit late for my own mother, tho
They'd better hurry up. I'm definitely aphasic - I couldn't remember who was the lead in Lawrence of Arabia yesterday. I can get by with googling and AIs, but you can see the future coming
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
Utter disgrace militant secularist atheists like you trying to prevent MPs of faith acting in accordance with their conscience and faith.
Especially as over half of the country are still Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu on last census.
If voters elect MPs who have a faith they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith
I am not of faith, well not of any organised religious basis anyway. But I’ve come to the gradual conclusion that the secularisation of this country has been a very bad thing indeed. For there is no common morality that binds society anymore.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
Utter disgrace militant secularist atheists like you trying to prevent MPs of faith acting in accordance with their conscience and faith.
Especially as over half of the country are still Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu on last census.
If voters elect MPs who have a faith they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith
I am not of faith, well not of any organised religious basis anyway. But I’ve come to the gradual conclusion that the secularisation of this country has been a very bad thing indeed. For there is no common morality that binds society anymore.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
Utter disgrace militant secularist atheists like you trying to prevent MPs of faith acting in accordance with their conscience and faith.
Especially as over half of the country are still Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu on last census.
If voters elect MPs who have a faith they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith
I am not of faith, well not of any organised religious basis anyway. But I’ve come to the gradual conclusion that the secularisation of this country has been a very bad thing indeed. For there is no common morality that binds society anymore.
We need spirituality back, rather than organised religion, I would say .
It will be interesting to see how it goes in the Lords.
There are a far higher proportion of Conservatives in the Lords than the Commons - implying more opposition to the Bill.
However there are a lot, lot more old people in the Lords across all parties - and I suspect old people will be more likely to be in favour - because they want the choice and for them it's a more immediate issue - ie they are coming towards the end of their life much sooner whereas for most MPs it's a much more distant issue.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
Utter disgrace militant secularist atheists like you trying to prevent MPs of faith acting in accordance with their conscience and faith.
Especially as over half of the country are still Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu on last census.
If voters elect MPs who have a faith they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith
Indeed, they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith. But if they do so, they should make it clear to their electorate that they are voting, not on what might be best for their constituents, but in accordance with their faith.
Majority near halved from the 55 for it last time. Most Conservative, Reform, DUP, TUV, UUP, Alliance and Independent MPs voted against assisted dying but it passed with support from most Labour, LD, Green and Plaid MPs.
We must now ensure it does not extend to the mentally ill and disabled from the terminally ill
I think you are wrong to make this party political or even attempt to
It divided opinion across parties and ultimately democracy approved the measure
It will be 4 years before implementation and has very strict safeguards that only those dying and with 6 months to live will be able to avail themselves if they so wish
I politely do not agree with @BartholomewRoberts who seems to want it on demand for dementia and other conditions that are not immediately terminal
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
About the only thing that scares me shitless - "living" like my mother did for over 15 years.
And it could happen tomorrow if for example I suffered a stroke.
Majority near halved from the 55 for it last time. Most Conservative, Reform, DUP, TUV, UUP and Independent MPs voted against assisted dying but it passed with support from most Labour, LD, Green and Plaid MPs.
We must now ensure it does not extend to the mentally ill and disabled from the terminally ill
There is all sorts of room for abuse, and I think the majority of LD and Labour MP's were wrong on this. It also shouldn't be a party issue.
It isn't a party issue, it was a free vote, hopefully it remains that way and isn't subverted for political advantage.
And an idiot Labour MP prefers to resign rather than do anything to slow future borrowing increases.
It says:
"Borrowing in the financial year to May 2025 was £37.7 billion; this was £1.6 billion more than in the same two-month period of 2024 and the third-highest April to May borrowing since monthly records began, after those of 2020 and 2021."
And Reeves answer to this was a public spending round that will eventually add another £140bn to current spending. We are heading for a disaster and those who put their hands over their ears and hum are doing those that need protection no good at all in the medium term.
Rejoining the EU is clearly the best way to improve the public finances. There's the cost of the referendum to start with. That'll give the economy a significant boost, plus the politicians devoting their time to the campaign.
Good morning, everyone.
I presume you are being sarcastic? Rejoining would cost us something like £40bn a year. Money we simply don't have.
Majority near halved from the 55 for it last time. Most Conservative, Reform, DUP, TUV, UUP, Alliance and Independent MPs voted against assisted dying but it passed with support from most Labour, LD, Green and Plaid MPs.
We must now ensure it does not extend to the mentally ill and disabled from the terminally ill
I think you are wrong to make this party political or even attempt to
It divided opinion across parties and ultimately democracy approved the measure
It will be 4 years before implementation and has very strict safeguards that only those dying and with 6 months to live will be able to avail themselves if they so wish
I politely do not agree with @BartholomewRoberts who seems to want it on demand for dementia and other conditions that are not immediately terminal
Yes it was a free vote and yes most parties had MPs who took a different view on it but it is hardly a surprise most MPs from conservative and rightwing parties voted against assisted dying and most MPs from liberal and left of centre parties voted in favour.
I do agree with your position and what Parliament has currently voted for more than what Bart wants
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
Utter disgrace militant secularist atheists like you trying to prevent MPs of faith acting in accordance with their conscience and faith.
Especially as over half of the country are still Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu on last census.
If voters elect MPs who have a faith they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith
I am not of faith, well not of any organised religious basis anyway. But I’ve come to the gradual conclusion that the secularisation of this country has been a very bad thing indeed. For there is no common morality that binds society anymore.
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
Utter disgrace militant secularist atheists like you trying to prevent MPs of faith acting in accordance with their conscience and faith.
Especially as over half of the country are still Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu on last census.
If voters elect MPs who have a faith they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith
Indeed, they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith. But if they do so, they should make it clear to their electorate that they are voting, not on what might be best for their constituents, but in accordance with their faith.
Their constituents are entitled to vote for only atheist parliamentary candidates if they wish but if an MP of faith wins a seat they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith and its teachings.
Though of course a few atheist MPs will have voted against assisted dying and some religious MPs for on the wording of the legislation and whatever their religious views
It will be interesting to see how it goes in the Lords.
There are a far higher proportion of Conservatives in the Lords than the Commons - implying more opposition to the Bill.
However there are a lot, lot more old people in the Lords across all parties - and I suspect old people will be more likely to be in favour - because they want the choice and for them it's a more immediate issue - ie they are coming towards the end of their life much sooner whereas for most MPs it's a much more distant issue.
A lot more posh people in the Lords though, and I get the impression they're slightly more likely to be in favour.
It will be interesting to see how it goes in the Lords.
There are a far higher proportion of Conservatives in the Lords than the Commons - implying more opposition to the Bill.
However there are a lot, lot more old people in the Lords across all parties - and I suspect old people will be more likely to be in favour - because they want the choice and for them it's a more immediate issue - ie they are coming towards the end of their life much sooner whereas for most MPs it's a much more distant issue.
There are more Labour and LD peers than Conservative peers now and more Green and Plaid peers than Reform peers
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
MPs have an obligation to protect the vulnerable and those who can’t advocate for themselves. The articulate and sharp-elbowed, like yourself, will always make their point of view known.
I agree that those who can't advocate for themselves should have protections, so where is the provision in this bill for advanced directives?
At the minute I can articulate my wishes, but if I get dementia I won't be able to, so I ought to be able to sign an advanced directive so express my wishes now. Why aren't MPs including that provision?
Or by advocating for those who can't, do you mean MPs imposing their own views on those who can't, rather than enabling those who can't to express their own intentions clearly while they still can?
In the case dementia patients can live years with it so how can any POA request AD
Our son in laws mother and his father both lived in dementia care for over 2 years
I would rather AD than live in dementia care.
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
Because nobody could provide a definitive answer on how long you have to live
Why should they need to?
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I fo not think you have listened to the debate
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months or live
I have listened to the debate, I've said this law is far too draconian and illiberal that while I'd begrudgingly vote for this if I were an MP as at least getting the principle through, I'd want to see a future Parliament liberalise it much further.
I just cannot see that happening
There won't be any need particularly.
How hard will it be to convince sympathetic doctors to provide a diagnosis of only 6 months left to live, if one is asked for?
Voting for Brexit is like asking India to bat at Headingly. Just saying.
But we’re glad to say we’re in the UK West Indian batsmen can bat all day And if your stumps are found half way down the ground That means the West Indians are back in town
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
Utter disgrace militant secularist atheists like you trying to prevent MPs of faith acting in accordance with their conscience and faith.
Especially as over half of the country are still Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu on last census.
If voters elect MPs who have a faith they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith
I am not of faith, well not of any organised religious basis anyway. But I’ve come to the gradual conclusion that the secularisation of this country has been a very bad thing indeed. For there is no common morality that binds society anymore.
Apart from putting self identity and individualism first in most things
Utter disgrace how many religious MPs are opposing this reasonable liberalisation because they want to impose their religion on others.
If you don't agree with death due to your religion then don't choose it, don't stand in the way of those who do though.
Utter disgrace militant secularist atheists like you trying to prevent MPs of faith acting in accordance with their conscience and faith.
Especially as over half of the country are still Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu on last census.
If voters elect MPs who have a faith they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith
Indeed, they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith. But if they do so, they should make it clear to their electorate that they are voting, not on what might be best for their constituents, but in accordance with their faith.
Their constituents are entitled to vote for only atheist parliamentary candidates if they wish but if an MP of faith wins a seat they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith and its teachings.
Though of course a few atheist MPs will have voted against assisted dying and some religious MPs for on the wording of the legislation and whatever their religious views
I thoroughly agree with that. But they should make it *very* clear that they are voting on something as a matter of faith, and not of one of rationality. For if they vote on something as a matter of faith, little evidence could convince them otherwise.
And your second paragraph makes an interesting point: everyone's 'faith' is different, and it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and vote for this bill as a matter of faith. Or to vote against it.
Comments
How to build the perfect city
Uh, I don't know, but it's worth asking and trying
https://walkingtheworld.substack.com/p/how-to-build-the-perfect-city
45 minute walk is roughly a 10-15 minute cycle. It's a university, so the cycling infrastructure and facilities is likely excellent. I use one small pannier for a laptop, food, drink, lock. If I take all my bags, I can do a weekly shop on the way home.
The best thing is it negates the need for additional exercise. You've already got your 1.5 hour walk or 30 minute cycle, leaving you more time to drink wine or mark essays.
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/arcelormittal-drops-plans-green-steel-germany-due-high-energy-costs-2025-06-19/
ArcelorMittal drops plans for green steel in Germany due to high energy costs
It might actually feel like we were making forward progress.
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5359448-elon-musk-sergio-gor-snake/
Coincidentally, X is full of stories (which might be true, for all I know) that Gor is a Russian agent.
This is but one example.
🧵 Director of White House Office of Presidential Personnel is suspected of being a Russian spy.
"Sergio Gor" appears to actually be Sergey Goryachev from Saratov, Russia.
Investigative journalist Brian Krebs discovered some damning information.
https://x.com/igorsushko/status/1935980108759851409
"The first electric arc forges are being built in countries that can offer competitive and predictable electricity provision," it said, highlighting a recent investment in an electricity-fuelled forge in nuclear-powered France.
Lamentably, I was in my late 40s before I got round to panniers.
https://www.unitetheunion.org/news-events/news/2025/june/rally-and-strikes-at-liverpool-university-over-hybrid-working-diktat
I would gladly sign an advanced directive to say so.
Why can't I?
The six month proviso is BS.
The lack of advanced directives is BS.
Anyone who says this Bill lacks safeguards is BS^2.
Hopefully it goes through today, then in a few years these "safeguards" get amended away and provisions get added for advanced directives, and the six months nonsense is removed.
I've said all along the six month provision is BS that should be removed.
I think you are.
But once you embrace the open-to-navel shirt, panniers, and bottles of wine in your bottle cages look, you can't go back. That's how I'll arrive at the BBQ later.
"building healthy cities is currently more important than building a stronger economy, and so getting our urban planning right is now more than ever a societal health issue. "
"regarding the Covid era, it did provide us with a real-time example of what happens when people are denied community. My theory, which I've been suggesting since the lockdowns began, is that the spike in crime, protests, and other anti-social behavior in the months and years immediately following was a manifestation of that despair; a national and sometimes global display of pent-up, simmering anger that comes with isolation."
Sky confirms the implementation will take upto 4 years and Leadbeater said it is not a case of choosing between life and death but about dying people who have 6 months to live
"My campaign to bring back real life
Mary Wakefield" (£)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/my-campaign-to-bring-back-real-life/?homepage-tracking=magazine_minor-article-2
There's quite a lot of his politics (not really out front in this essay) that I don't share, but that's the thing. There's an awful lot of stuff which really isn't (or shouldn't be) party political, and is independent of how exactly how you slice your favoured economic model.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14831973/royal-ascot-violence-bloody-brawl-fight.html
Lucinda Berger said exactly this yesterday
Tim Farron
@timfarron
Wow! Majority slashed. At the risk of sounding like Jeremy Corbyn… we clearly won the argument there! With a tiny majority and growing opposition from expert groups, the Lords will now rightly feel that they have the right to disagree. To my pleasant surprise, this is not over!
Fact is everyone is wistful for their childhood.
And yet I don't know anyone who is so nostalgic that they rip out double glazing, central heating and install outside toilets.
Even though "everyone was happier then."
"Labour have succeeded in killing Reform / Tory voters directly. And don't forget potential voters too, through the abortion bill. I thought it was all over. It is now."
However, Mark 1 coaching stock with the windows wide open makes for a joyful experience.
(And after this morning, it also has tribars, a new seat and handlebars. All these changes cost almost as much as the original bike did last year...)
20 Conservative MPs voted in favour, including:
Sunak
Hunt
Stride
Davis
Dowden
Mitchell
Notice any link - yep, they are all in the rational, sensible category.
And so much for Rishi wanting to call an early GE so he could go off to California - well done him for turning up and casting his vote - it was close and every vote was important.
https://votes.parliament.uk/votes/commons/division/2071
Obviously.
Now I arrive at work in cycling gear, any thoughts about the coolness of the pannier bags are moot!
Yes 56
No 15
Ed Davey abstained.
Dad had Alzheimer's dementia for 10 years and mum had vascular dementia for 4 years (both probably undiagnosed for more than that).
It has been utter misery. My life can start again as theirs have ended. Anyone who has experience of dementia will understand this.
For example, my mum for the last two years could not recognise us, could not speak, could not move (had to be hoisted) could not eat or toilet unaided. She was kept alive for as long as possible despite this not being what she, or we, wanted. Her (and my dad's) only concern was that the fruits of their hard work (their bungalow) be passed down to their children rather than being lost at a rate of knots to care fees that they did not want.
The vote today does not help this situation because those in my mum and dad's state would not be covered.
Now, as I understand it, those with mental capacity and less than six months to live can have a choice: 1) end life now which will set off an assessment process for eligibility which is likely to be very expense (medical and court fees) paid by the taxpayer or 2) carry on living to the end (means tested, with their estate possibly liable for the cost).
Surely, either the state should pay for whatever chosen option or the person's estate should pay.
Yes 2 (inc Tice)
No 3 (inc Farage)
We must now ensure it does not extend to the mentally ill and disabled from the terminally ill
Not so great for England of course.
It won’t be any consolation but science is advancing in this area at great speed. There is a very real chance these diseases will be entirely cured - or seriously ameliorated - in the next 5-10 years. They will be what smallpox was. A horrific ailment consigned to history
Bit late for my own mother, tho
Especially as over half of the country are still Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu on last census.
If voters elect MPs who have a faith they are entitled to vote in accordance with that faith
Gideon Amos, Jess Brown-Fuller, Wendy Chamberlain, Steve Darling, Tim Farron, Monica Harding, Paul Kohler, Angus MacDonald, Brian Mathew, Callum Miller, Tom Morrison, Sarah Olney, Al Pinkerton, Jamie Stone, Munira Wilson.
My father similarly had dementia for at least a decade. In his case, though, I'm pretty sure he wanted to carry on going for as long as he could, irrespective. And that's not something I'd have ever challenged.
I really don't know how I'd have felt about it had he expressed similar wishes to your mother.
There are a far higher proportion of Conservatives in the Lords than the Commons - implying more opposition to the Bill.
However there are a lot, lot more old people in the Lords across all parties - and I suspect old people will be more likely to be in favour - because they want the choice and for them it's a more immediate issue - ie they are coming towards the end of their life much sooner whereas for most MPs it's a much more distant issue.
It divided opinion across parties and ultimately democracy approved the measure
It will be 4 years before implementation and has very strict safeguards that only those dying and with 6 months to live will be able to avail themselves if they so wish
I politely do not agree with @BartholomewRoberts who seems to want it on demand for dementia and other conditions that are not immediately terminal
And it could happen tomorrow if for example I suffered a stroke.
I do agree with your position and what Parliament has currently voted for more than what Bart wants
Though of course a few atheist MPs will have voted against assisted dying and some religious MPs for on the wording of the legislation and whatever their religious views
How hard will it be to convince sympathetic doctors to provide a diagnosis of only 6 months left to live, if one is asked for?
West Indian batsmen can bat all day
And if your stumps are found half way down the ground
That means the West Indians are back in town
And your second paragraph makes an interesting point: everyone's 'faith' is different, and it is perfectly possible to be a Christian and vote for this bill as a matter of faith. Or to vote against it.