Hell – politicalbetting.com

Sean_F said:

MikeL said:

HYUFD said:

MikeL said:

kicorse said:

I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.

More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.

I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.

Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.

Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?

Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.

And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.

If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.

Religious people are entited to vote in the ballot box or in parliament the same as atheists and entitled to have their religion influence their vote too if they wish

Of course they can.

The point is they are unbelievably selfish imposing what they personally want upon others.

The notion that politics should be divorced from ethics is an extremely silly one.

Non-religious people have personal beliefs of right and wrong, and if they are legislators, then of course these legislators will vote accordingly.

MikeL said:

ydoethur said:

MikeL said:

HYUFD said:

MikeL said:

kicorse said:

I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.

More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.

I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.

Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.

Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?

Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.

And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.

If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.

Religious people are entited to vote in the ballot box or in parliament the same as atheists and entitled to have their religion influence their vote too if they wish

Of course they can.

The point is they are unbelievably selfish imposing what they personally want upon others.

Socialists have a right to their views, but they shouldn’t impose their views on the rest of us and are often unbelievably selfish about doing so.

The fact is, everyone tries to impose their views on others to a greater or lesser extent. It’s just that religion being less fashionable at the moment gets more criticism for it.

The point about assisted dying is there is no impact on anyone else.

If a socialist wants to tax me more there is a clear impact on others because that tax raised will improve public services.

Theuniondivvie said:

Questions to which the answer should be…not yes.
Presumably Elon will soon be commenting on UK council by elections.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1862363504587468902?s=46&t=fJymV-V84rexmlQMLXHHJQ

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

The other lens through which to view the bill is that of personal autonomy.

Here's an extreme example of the consequences of allowing the religious to deny individuals their personal autonomy.

Women arrested by Taliban for begging report rape and killings in Afghan jails
Draconian new laws allow mass incarceration of women and children forced to beg because of work ban
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/nov/29/afghanistan-taliban-women-children-arrested-begging-rape-torture-killings-jails-destitution-work-ban

Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.

I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish

If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.

It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Questions to which the answer should be…not yes.
Presumably Elon will soon be commenting on UK council by elections.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1862363504587468902?s=46&t=fJymV-V84rexmlQMLXHHJQ

Oh dear. The Musk drivelpipe is trained right on us now.

IanB2 said:

Part of my old job was managing the company's mobile phone contract, and as we had about 6,000 issued phones the money involved was not inconsiderable. One of the techniques I used was to periodically request the top five highest bills, so they could be queried to check that any private use was being paid for, and relying upon the grapevine to spread the word that bills were actually being checked, which mostly they weren't.

Regularly topping the list was the phone registered to one of the people right at the top, who's still a public figure so will remain anonymous; their phone was regularly making calls around the world, especially to Ukraine and the Caribbean, and running up an annual bill of £25,000. I wanted to investigate but several times was warned off by other Directors; after several months of this, I bumped into the person by chance and took the opportunity to make a casual comment about how much they used their phone, only to be told they didn't like mobile phones and had never used one.

Swiftly on the case, it eventually transpired that that phone, and two others, had been stolen within the company by an IT contractor, who had relatives around the world and had passed two of them on and the three of them had been for a long time enjoying free phone calls to each other at the company's expense....

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Questions to which the answer should be…not yes.
Presumably Elon will soon be commenting on UK council by elections.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1862363504587468902?s=46&t=fJymV-V84rexmlQMLXHHJQ

Oh dear. The Musk drivelpipe is trained right on us now.

I don't want to go full on Regina George, but why is he so obsessed with us?

OnlyLivingBoy said:

kinabalu said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Questions to which the answer should be…not yes.
Presumably Elon will soon be commenting on UK council by elections.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1862363504587468902?s=46&t=fJymV-V84rexmlQMLXHHJQ

Oh dear. The Musk drivelpipe is trained right on us now.

I don't want to go full on Regina George, but why is he so obsessed with us?

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad

Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good

Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?

I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad

Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good

Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?

I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.

Musk winds himself up. We have done nothing substantive against him or his interests.

He is hurting this country.

Jonathan said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Questions to which the answer should be…not yes.
Presumably Elon will soon be commenting on UK council by elections.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1862363504587468902?s=46&t=fJymV-V84rexmlQMLXHHJQ

Farage should tell him where to go. This is bad for Reform. And let’s not forget that Farage and Elon are very much against foreign interference.

CharlieShark said:

Some interested stats on assisted dying.

In Belgium and Holland, euthanasia for psychiatric conditions are allowed (coming to us soon, in stages) - 70-80% of them are women.

In Canada, prior to assisted dying, women only accounted for less than 25% of suicides. Now it's just under half. Buyers remorse is not possible.

In UK, 78% of mercy killings are of women. 88% of them are committed by men.

https://x.com/sheebadigeebies/status/1862451910998958577

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad

Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good

Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?

I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.

Musk winds himself up. We have done nothing substantive against him or his interests.

He is hurting this country.

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad

Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good

Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?

I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.

Musk winds himself up. We have done nothing substantive against him or his interests.

He is hurting this country.

How is he hurting this country?

He is telling his millions of 'followers' that this country is a terrible place.

It isn't.

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad

Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good

Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?

I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.

Musk winds himself up. We have done nothing substantive against him or his interests.

He is hurting this country.

How is he hurting this country?

He is telling his millions of 'followers' that this country is a terrible place.

It isn't.

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

The other lens through which to view the bill is that of personal autonomy.

Here's an extreme example of the consequences of allowing the religious to deny individuals their personal autonomy.

Women arrested by Taliban for begging report rape and killings in Afghan jails
Draconian new laws allow mass incarceration of women and children forced to beg because of work ban
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/nov/29/afghanistan-taliban-women-children-arrested-begging-rape-torture-killings-jails-destitution-work-ban

Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.

I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish

If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.

It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians

My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.

For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.

Fair enough, you are clearly more of a liberal than a conservative anyway.

Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too

biggles said:

Dopermean said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad

Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good

Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?

I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.

Nigelb said:

IanB2 said:

Part of my old job was managing the company's mobile phone contract, and as we had about 6,000 issued phones the money involved was not inconsiderable. One of the techniques I used was to periodically request the top five highest bills, so they could be queried to check that any private use was being paid for, and relying upon the grapevine to spread the word that bills were actually being checked, which mostly they weren't.

Regularly topping the list was the phone registered to one of the people right at the top, who's still a public figure so will remain anonymous; their phone was regularly making calls around the world, especially to Ukraine and the Caribbean, and running up an annual bill of £25,000. I wanted to investigate but several times was warned off by other Directors; after several months of this, I bumped into the person by chance and took the opportunity to make a casual comment about how much they used their phone, only to be told they didn't like mobile phones and had never used one.

Swiftly on the case, it eventually transpired that that phone, and two others, had been stolen within the company by an IT contractor, who had relatives around the world and had passed two of them on and the three of them had been for a long time enjoying free phone calls to each other at the company's expense....

So fraud is not just tolerated, but actively covered up by the bosses, if they believe it's one of their own committing it ?

OK... this could be a traumatic day, have you done Santa Claus yet?

What about him? Just writing my letter.

RochdalePioneers said:

On the Elon vs UK thing, the fascinating thing about the X "for you" tab is that I get bombarded with an endless barrage of conspiracy crap, laughably fact-free opinions and hard right hate.

Muskybaby thinks terrible things about the UK because he is also being served the same crap. Its like reading the Daily Mail and watching GBeebies as your only sources of news - of course you'd think everything is awful.

Dopermean said:

biggles said:

Dopermean said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad

Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good

Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?

I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.

Nigelb said:

IanB2 said:

Part of my old job was managing the company's mobile phone contract, and as we had about 6,000 issued phones the money involved was not inconsiderable. One of the techniques I used was to periodically request the top five highest bills, so they could be queried to check that any private use was being paid for, and relying upon the grapevine to spread the word that bills were actually being checked, which mostly they weren't.

Regularly topping the list was the phone registered to one of the people right at the top, who's still a public figure so will remain anonymous; their phone was regularly making calls around the world, especially to Ukraine and the Caribbean, and running up an annual bill of £25,000. I wanted to investigate but several times was warned off by other Directors; after several months of this, I bumped into the person by chance and took the opportunity to make a casual comment about how much they used their phone, only to be told they didn't like mobile phones and had never used one.

Swiftly on the case, it eventually transpired that that phone, and two others, had been stolen within the company by an IT contractor, who had relatives around the world and had passed two of them on and the three of them had been for a long time enjoying free phone calls to each other at the company's expense....

So fraud is not just tolerated, but actively covered up by the bosses, if they believe it's one of their own committing it ?

OK... this could be a traumatic day, have you done Santa Claus yet?

What about him? Just writing my letter.

Don't sit on his knee, everybody knows but HR have closed down any complaints.

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

Jonathan said:

Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent

A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.

Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame

algarkirk said:

MikeL said:

kicorse said:

I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.

More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.

I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.

Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.

Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?

Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.

And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.

If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.

I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.

Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.

I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad

Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good

Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?

I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.

Musk winds himself up. We have done nothing substantive against him or his interests.

He is hurting this country.

How is he hurting this country?

He is telling his millions of 'followers' that this country is a terrible place.

It isn't.

He's telling people that it isn't what it was.

It isn't.

Do you agree with Musk that civil war is inevitable here in the UK, and if so do you think it would be terrible for the UK?

rottenborough said:

"euthanasia for psychiatric conditions"

Not allowed in any possible way under this Bill.

IanB2 said:

algarkirk said:

MikeL said:

kicorse said:

I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.

More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.

I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.

Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.

Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?

Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.

And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.

If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.

I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.

Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.

I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.

Mike makes a very valid point. Religion is acceptable in a modern society because it is weak; few of us would want to live in a society where it governs how you live your life, whether contemporary or historical.

I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.

williamglenn said:

Theuniondivvie said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

JosiasJessop said:

Alanbrooke said:

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

Labour volunteers campaigning in their spare time in the US = bad

Elon Musk getting involved in UK politics and telling us how to vote = good

Errr werent Labour telling Americans how to vote ?

I should think winding Elon up will prove to be a bad idea.

Musk winds himself up. We have done nothing substantive against him or his interests.

He is hurting this country.

How is he hurting this country?

He is telling his millions of 'followers' that this country is a terrible place.

It isn't.

He's telling people that it isn't what it was.

It isn't.

Do you agree with Musk that civil war is inevitable here in the UK, and if so do you think it would be terrible for the UK?

You only have to read HYUFD and MalcolmG to see that the potential for civil war is there.

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

Jonathan said:

Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent

A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.

Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame

So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.

MarqueeMark said:

OMFG. It's dark in Devon at ten to two....

IanB2 said:

algarkirk said:

MikeL said:

kicorse said:

I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.

More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.

I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.

Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.

Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?

Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.

And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.

If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.

I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.

Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.

I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.

Mike makes a very valid point. Religion is acceptable in a modern society because it is weak; few of us would want to live in a society where it governs how you live your life, whether contemporary or historical.

I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Surprised by the number of Labour MPs speaking against. Personally I've been more impressed by the arguments of the speakers in favour, from whichever side.

I think those Labour MPs have been very brave and Diane Abbott's speech impressed me in particular, from her point of view she cannot endorse the state enabling people to be killed

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

mwadams said:

HYUFD said:

JosiasJessop said:

Nigelb said:

The other lens through which to view the bill is that of personal autonomy.

Here's an extreme example of the consequences of allowing the religious to deny individuals their personal autonomy.

Women arrested by Taliban for begging report rape and killings in Afghan jails
Draconian new laws allow mass incarceration of women and children forced to beg because of work ban
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2024/nov/29/afghanistan-taliban-women-children-arrested-begging-rape-torture-killings-jails-destitution-work-ban

Don't give @HYUFD ideas. Women should be at home having children. not working.

I did not say women should be banned from most paid work like the Taliban have done, just more mothers should be supported by government to have the option of being stay at home mothers or only working part time if they wish

If by "mother" you mean "a parent or carer" then I'd definitely support that particular bit of socialism.

It is traditional conservatism to support mothers, not all of us are Singapore on Thames libertarians

My support for mothers extends as far as letting them decide (with their partner/significant others) who (if any) is best placed to do a stay-at-home parenting role, and who is best placed to go out to work; and in what proportions.

For a while, the Conservative party understood that support for the Family meant support for the Family, and now it seems to be about imposing a dogmatic view of what Mothers should be. And that's one of the reasons I've parted company.

Fair enough, you are clearly more of a liberal than a conservative anyway.

Traditional conservatives however should support the family and motherhood and give more mothers the support to do it full time or at least work only part time so they have more time for motherhood too

Which was not what you were saying yesterday...

But again, where are fathers in your 'conservative' view? Again, you mention women and mothers, and the role of men and fathers is ignored.

No, men's role has traditionally been that of the wage earner and bread winner and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home.

Now I accept in a few cases now the mother may earn more than the father and it may be the father who stays home with the children and the mother who goes out to work which is fine. Though one parent is still staying with the children at home

"... and also to maintain discipline of the children in the home."

I wonder what you mean by that...

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Surprised by the number of Labour MPs speaking against. Personally I've been more impressed by the arguments of the speakers in favour, from whichever side.

I think those Labour MPs have been very brave and Diane Abbott's speech impressed me in particular, from her point of view she cannot endorse the state enabling people to be killed

IanB2 said:

HYUFD said:

Andy_JS said:

Surprised by the number of Labour MPs speaking against. Personally I've been more impressed by the arguments of the speakers in favour, from whichever side.

I think those Labour MPs have been very brave and Diane Abbott's speech impressed me in particular, from her point of view she cannot endorse the state enabling people to be killed

You need to wise up.

The state enables people to be killed, all the time.

Just not those condemned by illness to soon be dead, anyway.

Taz said:

Something going down in Syria.

Syrian rebel forces have entered Aleppo. Assad’s troops barely putting up a fight.

No Russia to protect Assad either.

https://x.com/nexta_tv/status/1862490901748105588?s=61

LostPassword said:

Holly Cairns, the leader of the Social Democrats, has given birth to a girl early this morning in Cork. RTÉ are reporting that she isn't going to make it back down to the constituency to vote, so I'll have to head out later and make sure I do my bit to help her get elected.

Would she be the first person elected to office on the same day they gave birth?

HYUFD said:

IanB2 said:

algarkirk said:

MikeL said:

kicorse said:

I'm not religious but people who are have as much right as anyone else to express their views as anyone else, whether or not they couch them in secular terms. The attempts to disregard the views of people based on their religion are horrific.

More generally, I think you make a good point in the article. I strongly believe in individual choice in this, but the issue is much more complicated "if I want to do X, I should be allowed to". Mainly because of the risks (based on anecdotal evidence, it's already not uncommon for people to have Do Not Resuscitate placed in their medical records without being consulted), but also because assisted dying is not just about one person. If it was, the word "assisted" wouldn't be there.

I don't know how I would vote. A few months ago I would have been in favour and that would still be my instinct, but the dismissal of people's concerns and the vilification of opponents has made me reconsider.

Of course religious people have the right to have a view based upon their religion. The issue is should they be allowed to impose their religious views on everybody else.

Suppose someone thinks you should go to church every day. Should they be allowed to impose a law requiring everyone to go to church every day?

Or they think everyone should dress in a certain type of clothes. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

Or maybe they think everyone should eat some particular type of food. Should they be able to impose that requirement on everybody else?

This is what happens in places like Iran and Afghanistan. It has no place whatsoever in the UK.

And the UK public do not want it. There is no reason whatsoever for religious people to force others to live in agony just because an assisted death would offend their own religion.

If you are against assisted dying because of your religion, great. Don't have one. But don't be selfish in making everyone else do the same as you.

I think this is over simplified. Religions as a whole are against murder, but so is secular society. Religions and secular society carefully define and distinguish between killings, making some murder and others not - war, self defence, insanity, accident and so on. No-one is absolutist. They may think they are, but only because they are accustomed to the status quo.

Religion is one of the factors informing opinions on the grey areas, which will always exist.

I am religious (middle of the road CoE) and support assisted dying. Religion assists me in forming this view. Other religious people (and secular ones too) will see it differently. If I were against assisted dying, I would think that there were reasons for that view which were good against the whole world, not just my private opinion, for it would be a disallowed exemption from the general law of murder. An exemption I am content to make.

Mike makes a very valid point. Religion is acceptable in a modern society because it is weak; few of us would want to live in a society where it governs how you live your life, whether contemporary or historical.

I remember my surprise being shown round the museums of the early American colonial settlements, on hearing that settlers who failed to attend church twice a day were physically punished and/or deprived of food.

You could be fined for non attendance of a C of E church every Sunday here from 1558 until 1888 via the Act of Uniformity (albeit nonconformist worship was tolerated from 1689 and Roman Catholic worship from 1791)

TheScreamingEagles said:

Just look at the questions Opinium have just polled me on.

I will do several threads on this poll when they publish the results.

BatteryCorrectHorse said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Just look at the questions Opinium have just polled me on.

I will do several threads on this poll when they publish the results.

Never except to pay my barber. Cash is pointless.

SandyRentool said:

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

rkrkrk said:

Jonathan said:

Sometimes you have to hand it to the French. The new Notre-Dame looks magnificent

A real triumph. Must feel so good for Macron to be able to point to something like that and say "we fixed it" And in 5 years as well.

Of course the state funds repairs and conservation for historic Roman Catholic churches and cathedrals in France which has helped with this magnificent restoration of Notre Dame

So we can abolish the establishment of the C of E without worrying about the buildings.

Plenty of redundant methodist chapels in very good state of repair, and being put to good use as homes or business premises. Let the market decide whether churches have useful function, or if they should be demolished to make way for a Lidl.