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?
Ooh, sorry, I didn't mean to be so cryptic! The above was part of a longer post in my head but then my wife interrupted my reverie with the suggestion of a walk around the park.
When you time travel, you can't go giving yourself major pieces of advice (e.g. don't stick with girlfriend x) because anything major is going to bring you to a different place. So it's a minor thing, but a thing which could have made my life considerably easier: from the age of 14, buy a set of clippers and learn to self-maintain the hair. I was never destined for good hair. Consistently close-cropped hair is however a perfectly acceotable second-best.
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
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
Genuine question: if I have a minimum threshhold as what counts as my quality of life I want to experience, then why should an able-bodied person be able to take their life whereas a person who could not perform the act be condemned to a life indeterminate? If I have previously clearly expressed my intentions, in the same way as my will, then why should I not expect the state to complete that intention when I cannot?
We are looking at a crisis in funding care. How can we justify spending untold billions to keep people alive with no discernible quality of life, whilst lack of funding condemns the otherwise sane and sound to many months of pain?
I believe that our MPs have taken a brave step forward. Seeing the massed ranks of Tories voting against does not exactly endear me to them.
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
Yes but if Peers in each Party voted in same proportion as MPs then No would win easily - because Conservatives are a much higher proportion in the Lords than the Commons and Conservative MPs were much more heavily against than Labour MPs were in favour.
Obviously we don't know about Crossbench Peers but unlikely to be way off 50:50.
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
How do you cure or prevent vascular dementia? Unless you believe that mini undetected strokes can be prevented when you don't know you are having them or the gradual narrowing of blood vessels deep in the brain can be stopped when you don't even know it is happening, I can't see it is possible. I guess it might be possible a test could be done on everyone when you reach a certain age like we do for bowl cancer.
Would be interested to know as my Mum had vascular dementia and it was awful.
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
Not happened to me yet. But I've always been slightly aphasic as far as names (and only names) are concerned, so it will be hard to tell.
This is a take decidedly overgenerous to Iran, but it's not altogether inaccurate.
Once upon a time, only the US had nuclear weapons. They tried to keep it a monopoly but the USSR figured it out. Soon it was China, UK and France too.
Things were getting out of control. Enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. Perhaps if nuclear weapons can’t be uninvented, they can be gatekept.
Games were played: France and China delayed signing so that they could proliferate first to their allies. This was how Israel and Pakistan got the bomb.
India got it by pinky-swearing to the Canadians that they won’t do anything naughty with the research reactor they gifted the Indians. Well, oops.
India and Pakistan, as latecomers, will always wear a scarlet letter for getting their nukes late. There is some de-facto normalization, but they will never be like a P5 country who conducted their first test before 1968. But as IAEA members in good standing, they do allow inspectors some access to their weapons facilities.
Israel have a innovative approach. They neither confirm nor deny officially that they have nuclear weapons. I mean, according to the Wikipedia they produce weapons-grade plutonium at their Dimona facility and have 80-400 warheads depends on which analysts you trust, but since they never signed the NPT it’s like IAEA has no power over them. As far as diplomatic consequences, there has been zero.
Iran signed the NPT the first day. This was when it was under the Shah, eager to get his hands on nuclear energy tech. The subsequent Islamic revolution regime never got out of the NPT, but they did start enrichment. This gave the IAEA grounds to start criticizing them for being against the treaty they signed.
Couldn’t they just tear up the NPT like North Korea? Sure they could. But they would never get out from sanctions if they did that and Iran has already been sanctioned for 46 years in a row. But they don’t feel safe without their program, especially in the wake of the harrowing Iraq-Iran war, where chemical weapons were used to against them.
The problem demands a diplomatic solution. The 2015 JCPOA lifted sanction in return for curbs on enrichment. This worked like a charm…until Trump tore up the deal in 2018 and put Iran under maximum nuclear sanctions.
Iran returned to enrichment in the absence of a deal to get the US back to the bargaining table. This negotiation was what was happening when Israel attacked, citing an IAEA report that Iran was not keeping up with its NPT obligations.
Israel you see have schroedingers nukes: there and not there. In fact it’s considered rather bad form to bring them up. Don’t you know they never signed the NPT?.. https://x.com/AngelicaOung/status/1936060973577912737
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.
Don’t want to give that a like but I strongly sympathise. Shortly before my demented mother had her final fall she said quite vehemently that she loved life and wanted to carry on as long as possible, so that clarified things for me for better or worse. I can only imagine the frustration of knowing that’s not what your folks wanted. Hope you get some version of your life back. Speaking only for myself I felt a queasy mixture of relief and guilt when my mum died, connected no doubt. Still get jags of it 8 years later.
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.
But look at countries where religion has a strong grip on society. Most of them are hardly role models.
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.
Did they think it was a vote to ban house building ?
Unfair. The LDs would surely have all trooped through both lobbies if that was the case, to have a voting record to defend both nationally and locally!
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.
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.
Perhaps you should try my new religion?
Depends. Do you allow bacon?
Pythagoras did the whole new religion thing. He forbade beans.
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
Most Reform? True, 2 plays 3. Certainly within MoE 😂
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.
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
Omar Sharif's camel stole the film for me. Totally unflappable.
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.
I think that's a distinction without a difference. People will think that their faith gives them the best guide for how to live their life. Or they wouldn't follow it.
I don't have a belief that sounds with an organised religion, but I recognise that I have faith and beliefs, and some of these might be strong enough to withstand lobbying from any constituents that I might have, were I am MP.
Obviously candidates for election should be open about their beliefs and values and I think that might make for better election campaigns, to get down to the fundamentals of the balance between individual responsibility and social solidarity, or between security and freedom, etc.
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
How do you cure or prevent vascular dementia? Unless you believe that mini undetected strokes can be prevented when you don't know you are having them or the gradual narrowing of blood vessels deep in the brain can be stopped when you don't even know it is happening, I can't see it is possible. I guess it might be possible a test could be done on everyone when you reach a certain age like we do for bowl cancer.
Would be interested to know as my Mum had vascular dementia and it was awful.
I suspect the comment was directed at AD.
On the latter, if there are fundamental causes/risks beyond ageing that can be identified, then there may be treatments. But, AFAIK, the advances - such as they are - are for AD at the moment.
@Stocky and others, my sympathies. We're several years behind with my mum (AD). When her mum died of cancer, she was very clear that she would not want to suffer like her mum did ("if I ever get like that, shoot me") and so my best guess is that she'd rather be dead than in her present state - in chair or in bed, moved between two by hoist, almost entirely unable to communicate, with several pressure sores and apparently often in some pain - but she never expressed any clear wish to that effect once she started becoming unwell. In all honesty, I hope that nature will not take too long, although it is likely that she has a number of years more to live.
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.
This argument could be used to justify honour killing for non-apostates.
It could be but it wouldn’t be a very good argument.
Yes, that's the point. It isn't a good argument for assisted dying either.
It's fine to have opposed the AD bill due to one's religious faith. But preferably such opposition should have been presented honestly (ie to the whole principle of it) rather than dressed up as concern only about the detail and the risks of abuse.
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.
But look at countries where religion has a strong grip on society. Most of them are hardly role models.
That's the large-scale organisation of religion, in the case of most of those countries, I would say there. What we need to do to start with is just ti rediscover the whole spiritual possibility, I think.
That can be as much in areas like art, music, literararure or architecture.as in mass participation.
A phrase you hardly ever hear or read these days is "I'd be interested to know what you think about this", which used to be a totally normal thing for people to say before social media. The assumption today of course is that people are always automatically giving their opinion on everything all the time anyway so why would you ever say this.
A phrase you hardly ever hear or read these days is "I'd be interested to know what you think about this", which used to be a totally normal thing for people to say before social media. The assumption today of course is that people are always automatically giving their opinion on everything all the time anyway so why would you ever say this.
People have ever thus gone to the pub, had a few drinks, and then spouted off their own unwanted opinions very loudly to anybody who will listen. I don’t think your rose tinted view of the days before social media is based in reality. The only difference is reach.
It is disgraceful to impose your own religious beliefs upon others.
If you don't want to choose it, that's fine, but don't block others from exercising their own freedom because your religion says so.
I'd have probably voted against. But I'm an atheist. How do you feel about that?
Yes, same here. I think there is a space for AD in this country but the proposal is very poorly thought out and will have a lot of negative consequences and it doesn't necessarily help people who leave living wills to use AD in the case of dementia or some other kind of degenerative disease which makes it impossible for them to consent to it. It seems weird to me that we're opening the door for terminally ill patients who are fully cognisant and writing the bill in a way which (unintentionally I hope) pressures them to give up the last 6 months of their lives with their loved ones to save the NHS some money but it slams it shut for people living with dementia and other degenerative diseases that aren't necessarily terminal but will reduce the individual's life quality to zero and the life quality of their loved ones to zero as well for an indefinite amount of time.
My dad is supportive of AD and the idea of a living will, he was in favour of this bill until I sent him the summary and then he realised that the bill wouldn't make his living will to be "helped" if he were to get an irreversible neurological disease legally recognised as his dying will is.
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
Yes but if Peers in each Party voted in same proportion as MPs then No would win easily - because Conservatives are a much higher proportion in the Lords than the Commons and Conservative MPs were much more heavily against than Labour MPs were in favour.
Obviously we don't know about Crossbench Peers but unlikely to be way off 50:50.
If the HoL block a bill passed by a free vote in the elected chamber then they should clear their offices and turn out the lights.
Interesting a doctor on Sky who opposes the bill has said that due to the small majority he expects the HOL to scrutinise it intensely and that there will be legal challenges in the courts from both sides
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.
I think that's a distinction without a difference. People will think that their faith gives them the best guide for how to live their life. Or they wouldn't follow it.
I don't have a belief that sounds with an organised religion, but I recognise that I have faith and beliefs, and some of these might be strong enough to withstand lobbying from any constituents that I might have, were I am MP.
Obviously candidates for election should be open about their beliefs and values and I think that might make for better election campaigns, to get down to the fundamentals of the balance between individual responsibility and social solidarity, or between security and freedom, etc.
I'm absolutely in favour of people being open with their faith - and to be clear, as an agnostic, I can see that faith can be a powerful force for good.
In cases like abortion, it is fairly (though not totally...) obvious the way that someone saying they voted on their faith would vote. But in other areas, it is as clear as mud: for instance, some people 'of faith' would see a law change that made it easier for women to work in the marketplace as being against their faith; other people 'of faith'; or even attending the same place of worship, may be in favour.
So in many areas, you could hide your personal preference and views on life behind your 'faith'. And I do believe that happens, and people use their faith as an excuse; often for bigotry and nastiness. "I'm not being nasty, it's my faith, and that makes me right!!!"
"A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had "anything larger" when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins."
"A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had "anything larger" when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins."
Seems the gypsy's believed it was because they were gypsy's...
The family’s position, as presented by the children’s mother at last month’s hearing, was that the children were "refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community".
Did think it was an odd story as no kids I know ever have cash, not sure some even know what it looks like...just Apple Pay on their phone / watch.
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.
But look at countries where religion has a strong grip on society. Most of them are hardly role models.
That's the large-scale organisation of religion, in the case of most of those countries, I would say there. What we need to do to start with is just ti rediscover the whole spiritual possibility, I think.
That can be as much in areas like art, music, literararure or architecture.as in mass participation.
Yes, by religion I mean one of the 'faiths' not the much wider and more fuzzy concept of 'spirituality'.
"A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had "anything larger" when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins."
Seems the gypsy's believed it was because they were gypsy's...
The family’s position, as presented by the children’s mother at last month’s hearing, was that the children were "refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community".
Did think it was an odd story as no kids I know ever have cash, not sure some even know what it looks like...just Apple Pay on their phone / watch.
Somewhere between 340 and 680 coins - where can you even nick that amount of coins any more?
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.
Perhaps you should try my new religion?
Depends. Do you allow bacon?
Pythagoras did the whole new religion thing. He forbade beans.
A phrase you hardly ever hear or read these days is "I'd be interested to know what you think about this", which used to be a totally normal thing for people to say before social media. The assumption today of course is that people are always automatically giving their opinion on everything all the time anyway so why would you ever say this.
Yep. There's way too many (and too strident) opinions around the place. Many people seem to think the more opinions they have (and the more strongly they hold and proffer them) the more authentic and formidable a person they are. Quite often all it means is they're up their own arseholes and need a slap.
I tell you what that’s a lot of lawyers for a summary only offence. Totting it up it is six lawyers in total: two solicitors, one junior barrister and three, count them three silks. I can tell you now they are not all there because of the cab rank rule.
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.
Perhaps you should try my new religion?
Depends. Do you allow bacon?
Pythagoras did the whole new religion thing. He forbade beans.
There is no evidence Pythagoras existed.
If Pythagoras never existed, who invented triangles?
"A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had "anything larger" when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins."
Seems the gypsy's believed it was because they were gypsy's...
The family’s position, as presented by the children’s mother at last month’s hearing, was that the children were "refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community".
Did think it was an odd story as no kids I know ever have cash, not sure some even know what it looks like...just Apple Pay on their phone / watch.
Somewhere between 340 and 680 coins - where can you even nick that amount of coins any more?
I tell you what that’s a lot of lawyers for a summary only offence. Totting it up it is six lawyers in total: two solicitors, one junior barrister and three, count them three silks. I can tell you now they are not all there because of the cab rank rule.
But Kemi didn't know what she was talking about on lawfare apparently. Lawyers would never try and override Parliament using the courts system. Shakespeare had a point.
I tell you what that’s a lot of lawyers for a summary only offence. Totting it up it is six lawyers in total: two solicitors, one junior barrister and three, count them three silks. I can tell you now they are not all there because of the cab rank rule.
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.
Perhaps you should try my new religion?
Depends. Do you allow bacon?
Pythagoras did the whole new religion thing. He forbade beans.
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.
Perhaps you should try my new religion?
Depends. Do you allow bacon?
Pythagoras did the whole new religion thing. He forbade beans.
There is no evidence Pythagoras existed.
I'm working on the basis that theorems don't magically appear!
(Bertrand Russell for the bean bit - fairly sure that's where I got it anyway)
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.
Perhaps you should try my new religion?
Depends. Do you allow bacon?
Pythagoras did the whole new religion thing. He forbade beans.
"A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had "anything larger" when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins."
Seems the gypsy's believed it was because they were gypsy's...
The family’s position, as presented by the children’s mother at last month’s hearing, was that the children were "refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community".
Did think it was an odd story as no kids I know ever have cash, not sure some even know what it looks like...just Apple Pay on their phone / watch.
Many years ago, back when Stonehenge had the annual joyous solstice gathering of friends hippy scum invasion, before it was banned, a local pub had a new twist on this game. By tradition male pub goers from the village would drop their copper coins in the urinal trough and when full, the landlord would collect up, wash and deposit for charity the coins.
One day near the longest day, some hippy oiks/beloved travellers decided that this would be their ticket to free drinks, and duly scooped up the coins and tried to pay at the bar...
It is disgraceful to impose your own religious beliefs upon others.
If you don't want to choose it, that's fine, but don't block others from exercising their own freedom because your religion says so.
I'd have probably voted against. But I'm an atheist. How do you feel about that?
I have no objection to those who object for secular reasons, though I disagree with them and think they should recognise its illiberal for them to force their views on others rather than give them a choice.
I vehemently object to those who object for religious reasons. Keep your religion to yourself.
It is disgraceful to impose your own religious beliefs upon others.
If you don't want to choose it, that's fine, but don't block others from exercising their own freedom because your religion says so.
I'd have probably voted against. But I'm an atheist. How do you feel about that?
I have no objection to those who object for secular reasons, though I disagree with them and think they should recognise its illiberal for them to force their views on others rather than give them a choice.
I vehemently object to those who object for religious reasons. Keep your religion to yourself.
Who are you to decide what is a legitimate basis for someone else to make a moral decision?
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.
Perhaps you should try my new religion?
Depends. Do you allow bacon?
Pythagoras did the whole new religion thing. He forbade beans.
It is disgraceful to impose your own religious beliefs upon others.
If you don't want to choose it, that's fine, but don't block others from exercising their own freedom because your religion says so.
I'd have probably voted against. But I'm an atheist. How do you feel about that?
I have no objection to those who object for secular reasons, though I disagree with them and think they should recognise its illiberal for them to force their views on others rather than give them a choice.
I vehemently object to those who object for religious reasons. Keep your religion to yourself.
It is disgraceful to impose your own religious beliefs upon others.
If you don't want to choose it, that's fine, but don't block others from exercising their own freedom because your religion says so.
I'd have probably voted against. But I'm an atheist. How do you feel about that?
I have no objection to those who object for secular reasons, though I disagree with them and think they should recognise its illiberal for them to force their views on others rather than give them a choice.
I vehemently object to those who object for religious reasons. Keep your religion to yourself.
How generous of you
That snide remark really makes me think some people are incapable of thinking about the issues at all.
Do you really not get it, that this amendment gives people the right to choose for themselves? And that its opponents are the ones with a desire to tell other people what they can and can't do?
Can anyone really believe that those trying to lay down the law on life and death for other people, on the basis of their own religious beliefs that those other people don't share, are the "generous" ones?
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
I don't want to extend it to dementia or any other list of conditions. I want it on demand for anyone.
I would choose it, and sign an advanced directives for dementia.
But anyone who wants it should get it for whyever they do. Freedom to choose.
It is disgraceful to impose your own religious beliefs upon others.
If you don't want to choose it, that's fine, but don't block others from exercising their own freedom because your religion says so.
I'd have probably voted against. But I'm an atheist. How do you feel about that?
I have no objection to those who object for secular reasons, though I disagree with them and think they should recognise its illiberal for them to force their views on others rather than give them a choice.
I vehemently object to those who object for religious reasons. Keep your religion to yourself.
Who are you to decide what is a legitimate basis for someone else to make a moral decision?
I tell you what that’s a lot of lawyers for a summary only offence. Totting it up it is six lawyers in total: two solicitors, one junior barrister and three, count them three silks. I can tell you now they are not all there because of the cab rank rule.
But Kemi didn't know what she was talking about on lawfare apparently. Lawyers would never try and override Parliament using the courts system. Shakespeare had a point.
Kemi could have a field day travelling around NI and finding people flying offensive banners to prosecute.
Essentially, in buying Twitter Musk wrenched the entire political debate over to the right, and it is still moving right. And Zuckerberg and Co got jealous of Musk’s power and influence and wanted some of it. And also they noticed how Musk sacked half his staff with no apparent problem
Thanks for that, I'll ahve a browse later. The early paras have a quote which captures quite nicely the narcissism of the MAGA alpha male:
“When he was 19 years old, I think he had an idea in his head of what a CEO was supposed to be like and he was trying to be that, especially in public.”
He still does, and he is still trying.
Maybe
On the other hand, who is having more of an impact on the world, Mark Zuckerburg, or "MattW off of PB"?
I think you need to refine your yardstick a little. "More of an impact" is pretty meaningless - that would promote Stalin.
I'm not sure I'd be proud of releasing worldwide misinformation into my prominent debate / news platform, and dissolving what ethical standards I might once have possessed.
Comments
When you time travel, you can't go giving yourself major pieces of advice (e.g. don't stick with girlfriend x) because anything major is going to bring you to a different place. So it's a minor thing, but a thing which could have made my life considerably easier: from the age of 14, buy a set of clippers and learn to self-maintain the hair. I was never destined for good hair. Consistently close-cropped hair is however a perfectly acceotable second-best.
We are looking at a crisis in funding care. How can we justify spending untold billions to keep people alive with no discernible quality of life, whilst lack of funding condemns the otherwise sane and sound to many months of pain?
I believe that our MPs have taken a brave step forward. Seeing the massed ranks of Tories voting against does not exactly endear me to them.
Obviously we don't know about Crossbench Peers but unlikely to be way off 50:50.
Would be interested to know as my Mum had vascular dementia and it was awful.
But I've always been slightly aphasic as far as names (and only names) are concerned, so it will be hard to tell.
King Hussein met his second wife on the set.
Plenty of time.
They simply disagree with you.
Once upon a time, only the US had nuclear weapons. They tried to keep it a monopoly but the USSR figured it out. Soon it was China, UK and France too.
Things were getting out of control. Enter the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. Perhaps if nuclear weapons can’t be uninvented, they can be gatekept.
Games were played: France and China delayed signing so that they could proliferate first to their allies. This was how Israel and Pakistan got the bomb.
India got it by pinky-swearing to the Canadians that they won’t do anything naughty with the research reactor they gifted the Indians. Well, oops.
India and Pakistan, as latecomers, will always wear a scarlet letter for getting their nukes late. There is some de-facto normalization, but they will never be like a P5 country who conducted their first test before 1968. But as IAEA members in good standing, they do allow inspectors some access to their weapons facilities.
Israel have a innovative approach. They neither confirm nor deny officially that they have nuclear weapons. I mean, according to the Wikipedia they produce weapons-grade plutonium at their Dimona facility and have 80-400 warheads depends on which analysts you trust, but since they never signed the NPT it’s like IAEA has no power over them. As far as diplomatic consequences, there has been zero.
Iran signed the NPT the first day. This was when it was under the Shah, eager to get his hands on nuclear energy tech. The subsequent Islamic revolution regime never got out of the NPT, but they did start enrichment. This gave the IAEA grounds to start criticizing them for being against the treaty they signed.
Couldn’t they just tear up the NPT like North Korea? Sure they could. But they would never get out from sanctions if they did that and Iran has already been sanctioned for 46 years in a row. But they don’t feel safe without their program, especially in the wake of the harrowing Iraq-Iran war, where chemical weapons were used to against them.
The problem demands a diplomatic solution. The 2015 JCPOA lifted sanction in return for curbs on enrichment. This worked like a charm…until Trump tore up the deal in 2018 and put Iran under maximum nuclear sanctions.
Iran returned to enrichment in the absence of a deal to get the US back to the bargaining table. This negotiation was what was happening when Israel attacked, citing an IAEA report that Iran was not keeping up with its NPT obligations.
Israel you see have schroedingers nukes: there and not there. In fact it’s considered rather bad form to bring them up. Don’t you know they never signed the NPT?..
https://x.com/AngelicaOung/status/1936060973577912737
Hope you get some version of your life back. Speaking only for myself I felt a queasy mixture of relief and guilt when my mum died, connected no doubt. Still get jags of it 8 years later.
If you don't want to choose it, that's fine, but don't block others from exercising their own freedom because your religion says so.
Con 286
Lab 212
LD 77
Crossbench 181
Non-affiliated 40
Bishops 24
Others 15
If Peers of all parties vote in the same proportion as MPs of the same party then No will win very, very easily.
But, of course, they may well not.
https://members.parliament.uk/parties/lords
I don't have a belief that sounds with an organised religion, but I recognise that I have faith and beliefs, and some of these might be strong enough to withstand lobbying from any constituents that I might have, were I am MP.
Obviously candidates for election should be open about their beliefs and values and I think that might make for better election campaigns, to get down to the fundamentals of the balance between individual responsibility and social solidarity, or between security and freedom, etc.
On the latter, if there are fundamental causes/risks beyond ageing that can be identified, then there may be treatments. But, AFAIK, the advances - such as they are - are for AD at the moment.
@Stocky and others, my sympathies. We're several years behind with my mum (AD). When her mum died of cancer, she was very clear that she would not want to suffer like her mum did ("if I ever get like that, shoot me") and so my best guess is that she'd rather be dead than in her present state - in chair or in bed, moved between two by hoist, almost entirely unable to communicate, with several pressure sores and apparently often in some pain - but she never expressed any clear wish to that effect once she started becoming unwell. In all honesty, I hope that nature will not take too long, although it is likely that she has a number of years more to live.
some people's brains are melting in the heat
That can be as much in areas like art, music, literararure or architecture.as in mass participation.
My dad is supportive of AD and the idea of a living will, he was in favour of this bill until I sent him the summary and then he realised that the bill wouldn't make his living will to be "helped" if he were to get an irreversible neurological disease legally recognised as his dying will is.
Lots more money for the lawyers then
In cases like abortion, it is fairly (though not totally...) obvious the way that someone saying they voted on their faith would vote. But in other areas, it is as clear as mud: for instance, some people 'of faith' would see a law change that made it easier for women to work in the marketplace as being against their faith; other people 'of faith'; or even attending the same place of worship, may be in favour.
So in many areas, you could hide your personal preference and views on life behind your 'faith'. And I do believe that happens, and people use their faith as an excuse; often for bigotry and nastiness. "I'm not being nasty, it's my faith, and that makes me right!!!"
https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2025/0620/1519549-shop-cleared-of-discrimination-over-68-payment-in-coins/
"A supermarket has been cleared of discriminating against two children who were asked by a cashier if they had "anything larger" when they tried to pay for €68 worth of groceries with 10c and 20c coins."
The family’s position, as presented by the children’s mother at last month’s hearing, was that the children were "refused service at the supermarket because they were members of the Travelling Community".
Did think it was an odd story as no kids I know ever have cash, not sure some even know what it looks like...just Apple Pay on their phone / watch.
Kneecap's army of KCs
I tell you what that’s a lot of lawyers for a summary only offence. Totting it up it is six lawyers in total: two solicitors, one junior barrister and three, count them three silks. I can tell you now they are not all there because of the cab rank rule.
https://lauraperrins.substack.com/p/kneecaps-day-in-court
(Bertrand Russell for the bean bit - fairly sure that's where I got it anyway)
NEW THREAD
joyous solstice gathering of friendshippy scum invasion, before it was banned, a local pub had a new twist on this game. By tradition male pub goers from the village would drop their copper coins in the urinal trough and when full, the landlord would collect up, wash and deposit for charity the coins.One day near the longest day, some hippy oiks/beloved travellers decided that this would be their ticket to free drinks, and duly scooped up the coins and tried to pay at the bar...
Reader, they did not get their drinks.
I vehemently object to those who object for religious reasons. Keep your religion to yourself.
Do you really not get it, that this amendment gives people the right to choose for themselves? And that its opponents are the ones with a desire to tell other people what they can and can't do?
Can anyone really believe that those trying to lay down the law on life and death for other people, on the basis of their own religious beliefs that those other people don't share, are the "generous" ones?
I would choose it, and sign an advanced directives for dementia.
But anyone who wants it should get it for whyever they do. Freedom to choose.
I'm not sure I'd be proud of releasing worldwide misinformation into my prominent debate / news platform, and dissolving what ethical standards I might once have possessed.