Ultimately this will pass i think, but people have many different reasons for supporting or opposing on wide societal or very personal terms - on the latter, as much as some will have had family members in pain who wished to have this which informs their perspective there will be others who have spent a single part or much of their lives fighting suicidal thoughts who feel horrified that the government and medical profession could ever support voluntarily ending your life. Basically its very very triggering. Ive tried to state that in as neutral terms as possible, but the concepts here go way beyond easing suffering and its the casting off of proposed safeguards that i am most upset by (im against it anyway)
I do think it will pass, but I genuinely hope we do not see champagne corks popping by those who support the bill
Assisted death may well be desired, but like the adverts for funeral plans it is not really a smiling and cheering matter
I doubt Leadbeter will be able to contain herself. We will see
That doesn't surprise me. Can anybody say they are better at spelling since the advent of spellcheckers and autocorrect? I personally struggle to remember how to spell loads of words now.
My handwriting is terrible now that I hardly ever write anything and when I do it is on an iPad which is different to putting an actual pen to paper.
My bugbear is people who can no longer navigate without electronic aids.
That doesn't surprise me. Can anybody say they are better at spelling since the advent of spellcheckers and autocorrect? I personally struggle to remember how to spell loads of words now.
My handwriting is terrible now that I hardly ever write anything and when I do it is on an iPad which is different to putting an actual pen to paper.
My bugbear is people who can no longer navigate without electronic aids.
I have a mate who insists on putting his sat-nav on everywhere he goes, including from his house to mine, which is about 15 minutes and has done loads of time. I did ask him once and he said I might forget....erh I am right next to you, I think I know I can probably help you out if you get lost.
The way that Labour has railroaded this issue and the abortion issue through from private member bills and amendments with not very "free votes" has been despicable. I don't think we've had a government has malevolent as this one in my lifetime. Pressuring the ill to kill themselves and decriminalising baby killing. This is their record.
Nonsense. I'm reserved about the Bill, but it's entirely in the tradition of free votes that they be held in exactly the way that is being done, and recorded opinion on the Bill shows 35-40% of Labour MPs opposed.
This is absolutely an issue which should be decided on its merits, without trying to make political capital out of it.
Shame Creasey didnt take that attitude with her abortion 'amendment' and 3 nanoseconds of debate that were allowed.
For a lot of these people the main motivation is "Sticking it to the right". Though on abortion I think they are imagining an enemy who isn't there in this country.
Ultimately this will pass i think, but people have many different reasons for supporting or opposing on wide societal or very personal terms - on the latter, as much as some will have had family members in pain who wished to have this which informs their perspective there will be others who have spent a single part or much of their lives fighting suicidal thoughts who feel horrified that the government and medical profession could ever support voluntarily ending your life. Basically its very very triggering. Ive tried to state that in as neutral terms as possible, but the concepts here go way beyond easing suffering and its the casting off of proposed safeguards that i am most upset by (im against it anyway)
I do think it will pass, but I genuinely hope we do not see champagne corks popping by those who support the bill
Assisted death may well be desired, but like the adverts for funeral plans it is not really a smiling and cheering matter
I doubt Leadbeter will be able to contain herself. We will see
She needs to show humility and respect to those who do not agree
Ultimately this will pass i think, but people have many different reasons for supporting or opposing on wide societal or very personal terms - on the latter, as much as some will have had family members in pain who wished to have this which informs their perspective there will be others who have spent a single part or much of their lives fighting suicidal thoughts who feel horrified that the government and medical profession could ever support voluntarily ending your life. Basically its very very triggering. Ive tried to state that in as neutral terms as possible, but the concepts here go way beyond easing suffering and its the casting off of proposed safeguards that i am most upset by (im against it anyway)
I do think it will pass, but I genuinely hope we do not see champagne corks popping by those who support the bill
Assisted death may well be desired, but like the adverts for funeral plans it is not really a smiling and cheering matter
I doubt Leadbeter will be able to contain herself. We will see
She needs to show humility and respect to those who do not agree
If you allow assisted dying it is inevitable that some people will be coerced or emotionally blackmailed into killing themselves, whatever safeguards are put in place. If you don't allow assisted dying, a far greater number of people will endure unnecessary pain and suffering. The reality is that there is a trade-off, and there are no easy answers. People can reasonably come to different views on it. It's an emotive topic for obvious reasons, and it's good we are having a thorough debate about it. Being of a greater good for the greater number kind of frame of mind, I am supportive.
Isn't it the same as the death penalty. A main argument against is that "even one innocent person killed...." is too much. That is exactly analagous to this - for all the undoubted good/relief/etc it might do are you happy that one "innocent" (ie coerced, felt pressured) person is killed.
One major difference is I think is about motivation.
The death penalty is, like "lock 'em up and throw away they key" and "whole life terms without possibility of parole" is about satisfying the psychological desires of those who want to impose it, with little consideration as to whether it works.
So your argument against is that because it doesn't stop the crimes that could result in the death penalty, it shouldn't be available? That's a reasonable stand point. I am also queezy about the one innocent amongst the deserving dead and we can all recall certain cases from history (not all of which, I think are that). However, part of the punishment should be about punishment. The killers of the Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, or Sarah Everard will never leave prison, but why should they be allowed decades more life? They took that from their victims.
I'm questioning the reliability and breadth of the comparison made.
On the question of prison penalties, I agree that punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation are all important, and I think in the UK in this, and I think we have a massive lack of focus on rehabilitation / non-prison sentences. IMO - as in many other questions - the pull of the USA setup is a real problem for us.
If anything, the USA is the poster child for "Prison Doesn't Work". They now have 1.8m in prison - third world numbers - and 50k imprisoned on LWOP sentences, with an average age of under 50. And they also have USA crime levels. I think the real underlying question there is over the entire USA model of society they have adopted.
(I've not tried to address the question of individual cases and the death penalty sentences itself, as that would need a very detailed response.)
Oh ok I was super late to the game about my death penalty analogy.
Do I remember that in Canada 4% of deaths are "assisted"? If so that just can't be right and something is super amiss. You can't tell me that 4% of all people who are dying want to be assisted in doing so.
Hence this bill absolutely should not pass.
I don't think that figure is surprising. Huge numbers of deaths are long and drawn out - assisted deaths in that case would be 'switching the machine off now rather than waiting another week' - I guess?
That doesn't surprise me. Can anybody say they are better at spelling since the advent of spellcheckers and autocorrect? I personally struggle to remember how to spell loads of words now.
My handwriting is terrible now that I hardly ever write anything and when I do it is on an iPad which is different to putting an actual pen to paper.
My bugbear is people who can no longer navigate without electronic aids.
I even need to live daily with my electronic aid
However, I assume you do not mean my pacemaker !!!!!!!!!
Great header article. Thanks for writing it. Personally, I am broadly of the view that there is a thing to be done to enable assisted dying for those that wish to because of their pain and suffering, but for those reasons are unable to do it themselves. It can’t be the case that there is one way out for those who can afford to go to Switzerland and nothing for poorer people in a similar situation.
Nevertheless I have never been convinced that a private members bill was the right place to legislate a matter of this enormity. As has been pointed out in the header a lot of the protections have been removed/watered down (although I would argue that some of them were unworkable/wouldn’t do what was suggested in the first place so needed changing).
I appreciate that MPs are there to decide and refine draft legislation. But for such an important issue this all feels a bit side of the desk work. As someone has already said some sort of Royal Commission seems appropriate. It could have the goal of not arbitrating on whether assisted dying should be allowed but coming up with the safeguards / process seems smart way of going forward. It could highlight the risks/benefits rather than simply selling the idea. MPs could then have a free vote on those proposals.
The way that Labour has railroaded this issue and the abortion issue through from private member bills and amendments with not very "free votes" has been despicable. I don't think we've had a government has malevolent as this one in my lifetime. Pressuring the ill to kill themselves and decriminalising baby killing. This is their record.
Nonsense. I'm reserved about the Bill, but it's entirely in the tradition of free votes that they be held in exactly the way that is being done, and recorded opinion on the Bill shows 35-40% of Labour MPs opposed.
This is absolutely an issue which should be decided on its merits, without trying to make political capital out of it.
Shame Creasey didnt take that attitude with her abortion 'amendment' and 3 nanoseconds of debate that were allowed.
For a lot of these people the main motivation is "Sticking it to the right". Though on abortion I think they are imagining an enemy who isn't there in this country.
Oh ok I was super late to the game about my death penalty analogy.
Do I remember that in Canada 4% of deaths are "assisted"? If so that just can't be right and something is super amiss. You can't tell me that 4% of all people who are dying want to be assisted in doing so.
Hence this bill absolutely should not pass.
That's correct. The stats are ... curious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po ..For the first time, the report delved into race and ethnic data of those who died by euthanasia. Around 96% of recipients identified as white people, who account for about 70% of Canada's population. It is unclear what caused this disparity. The second most reported ethnic group was east Asians (1.8%), who account for about 5.7% of Canadians. Assisted dying continued to have the highest usage rate in Quebec, which accounted for nearly 37% of all euthanasia deaths, despite the province holding just 22% of Canada's population. Quebec's government launched a study earlier this year to examine why its euthanasia rate was so high...
In contrast, for Victoria in Australia, which brought in the right in 2017, it's 0.5%.
Is that, conversely, an argument in favour of the bill ? I don't think so.
Our legislation should be assessed on its own merits and demerits.
A bit late for that as there already 3 x RAF E-7 (£630m each) in bits at Buurmingim aiport. NATO has already selected E-7 because Biden told them to. It's difficult to see where any new European GlobalEye orders come from. It would have to be a country that wants AWACS but is not in the NAEW&CF program. That's probably only Sweden and they have already ordered GlobalEye.
Isn't Hegseth about to can the E-7 for the USAF ? Which raises questions regarding its future viability.
The Saab is less than half the price, so in theory at least would provide the capacity to have an eye in the sky continuously, which the 3 semi-operative Wedgetails don't. Maybe we could flog them to the Aussies ?
As far as European customers are concerned, there's also Ukraine and Poland, who are likely to order more units.
And another argument in favour is that it provides some degree of autonomy from the US, who aren't exactly reliable at the moment.
The Americans are cancelling everything at the moment. Old stuff, new stuff, some as big as your hat. They are preparing for a Pacific war and trying to learn the lessons of Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKybUU-ZCwE
That doesn't surprise me. Can anybody say they are better at spelling since the advent of spellcheckers and autocorrect? I personally struggle to remember how to spell loads of words now.
My handwriting is terrible now that I hardly ever write anything and when I do it is on an iPad which is different to putting an actual pen to paper.
My bugbear is people who can no longer navigate without electronic aids.
I even need to live daily with my electronic aid
However, I assume you do not mean my pacemaker !!!!!!!!!
Magnetic personalities are banned for such people ...
No, normal Carling draught is what was called Black Label till 1997. Its just Carling
It is genius rebranding though. Shit beer nobody drinks has become a massive hit because people seem to believe it was brewed in Espana rather than Costa Del Burton-upon-Trent.
That doesn't surprise me. Can anybody say they are better at spelling since the advent of spellcheckers and autocorrect? I personally struggle to remember how to spell loads of words now.
My handwriting is terrible now that I hardly ever write anything and when I do it is on an iPad which is different to putting an actual pen to paper.
My bugbear is people who can no longer navigate without electronic aids.
I have a mate who insists on putting his sat-nav on everywhere he goes, including from his house to mine, which is about 15 minutes and has done loads of time. I did ask him once and he said I might forget....erh I am right next to you, I think I know I can probably help you out if you get lost.
I had been driving a mate to the same place - about 15 minutes away - weekly, for about 6 weeks. Then he drove, and insisted on satnavving it even though he'd done it as a passenger six times and I was right next to him. It took him a long detour at the end,which he insisted on following. He still insists on going that way, despite knowing from experience it takes 5 minutes longer, cos its what his satnav tells him. (He drives a Tesla and his faith in his Tesla is greater than his faith in his own experience.) He is also bafflingly ignorant of how to get home from about a mile away,despite having lived there for seven years.
No, normal Carling draught is what was called Black Label till 1997. Its just Carling
It is genuine rebranding though. Shit beer nobody drinks has become a massive hit because people seem to believe it was brewed in Espana rather than Costa Del Burton-upon-Trent.
Oh its a crap non spanish Carling brewed beer for sure, but its not Black Label, that is whats now called just Carling
Council of Europe Chief Rejects Calls to Make ECHR More Flexible on Immigration
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is leading calls for a change in EU law to make it easier to deport criminal foreign nationals.
The Council of Europe’s secretary-general, Alain Berset, has rejected calls from EU leaders to make the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) more flexible on immigration.
Nine EU countries signed an open letter regarding immigration on May 22, calling for the ECHR to be reinterpreted because it is limiting their “ability to make political decisions” in their “own democracies.”
The way that Labour has railroaded this issue and the abortion issue through from private member bills and amendments with not very "free votes" has been despicable. I don't think we've had a government has malevolent as this one in my lifetime. Pressuring the ill to kill themselves and decriminalising baby killing. This is their record.
Nonsense. I'm reserved about the Bill, but it's entirely in the tradition of free votes that they be held in exactly the way that is being done, and recorded opinion on the Bill shows 35-40% of Labour MPs opposed.
This is absolutely an issue which should be decided on its merits, without trying to make political capital out of it.
Shame Creasey didnt take that attitude with her abortion 'amendment' and 3 nanoseconds of debate that were allowed.
The way that Labour has railroaded this issue and the abortion issue through from private member bills and amendments with not very "free votes" has been despicable. I don't think we've had a government has malevolent as this one in my lifetime. Pressuring the ill to kill themselves and decriminalising baby killing. This is their record.
Nonsense. I'm reserved about the Bill, but it's entirely in the tradition of free votes that they be held in exactly the way that is being done, and recorded opinion on the Bill shows 35-40% of Labour MPs opposed.
This is absolutely an issue which should be decided on its merits, without trying to make political capital out of it.
Shame Creasey didnt take that attitude with her abortion 'amendment' and 3 nanoseconds of debate that were allowed.
Well it didn’t pass so does it matter?
I mean Antoniazzi. Im getting my shitty amendments mixed up
No, normal Carling draught is what was called Black Label till 1997. Its just Carling
It is genuine rebranding though. Shit beer nobody drinks has become a massive hit because people seem to believe it was brewed in Espana rather than Costa Del Burton-upon-Trent.
Oh its a crap non spanish Carling brewed beer for sure, but its not Black Label, that is whats now called just Carling
Are you sure? Carling was super weak piss at 3.5-4%, Carling Black Label was ~5% which is what Madri is (a bit under for tax reasons).
That doesn't surprise me. Can anybody say they are better at spelling since the advent of spellcheckers and autocorrect? I personally struggle to remember how to spell loads of words now.
My handwriting is terrible now that I hardly ever write anything and when I do it is on an iPad which is different to putting an actual pen to paper.
My bugbear is people who can no longer navigate without electronic aids.
I have a mate who insists on putting his sat-nav on everywhere he goes, including from his house to mine, which is about 15 minutes and has done loads of time. I did ask him once and he said I might forget....erh I am right next to you, I think I know I can probably help you out if you get lost.
I had been driving a mate to the same place - about 15 minutes away - weekly, for about 6 weeks. Then he drove, and insisted on satnavving it even though he'd done it as a passenger six times and I was right next to him. It took him a long detour at the end,which he insisted on following. He still insists on going that way, despite knowing from experience it takes 5 minutes longer, cos its what his satnav tells him. (He drives a Tesla and his faith in his Tesla is greater than his faith in his own experience.) He is also bafflingly ignorant of how to get home from about a mile away,despite having lived there for seven years.
Is that not just the standard "turn brain off and don't look beyond the end of the bonnet" auto-pilot process that often happens when a human being is climbing behind the wheel of a motor vehicle?
What we actually need is a set of road junctions that reconfigure once a week at random, so we are forced to pay attention .
No, normal Carling draught is what was called Black Label till 1997. Its just Carling
It is genuine rebranding though. Shit beer nobody drinks has become a massive hit because people seem to believe it was brewed in Espana rather than Costa Del Burton-upon-Trent.
Oh its a crap non spanish Carling brewed beer for sure, but its not Black Label, that is whats now called just Carling
Are you sure? Carling was super weak piss at 3.5-4%, Carling Black Label was ~5% which is what Madri is (a bit under for tax reasons).
Im very sure indeed. I used to run a pub. Carling just dropped 'Black Label' from the name of their draught beer in 1997
A bit late for that as there already 3 x RAF E-7 (£630m each) in bits at Buurmingim aiport. NATO has already selected E-7 because Biden told them to. It's difficult to see where any new European GlobalEye orders come from. It would have to be a country that wants AWACS but is not in the NAEW&CF program. That's probably only Sweden and they have already ordered GlobalEye.
Isn't Hegseth about to can the E-7 for the USAF ? Which raises questions regarding its future viability.
The Saab is less than half the price, so in theory at least would provide the capacity to have an eye in the sky continuously, which the 3 semi-operative Wedgetails don't. Maybe we could flog them to the Aussies ?
As far as European customers are concerned, there's also Ukraine and Poland, who are likely to order more units.
And another argument in favour is that it provides some degree of autonomy from the US, who aren't exactly reliable at the moment.
The Americans are cancelling everything at the moment. Old stuff, new stuff, some as big as your hat. They are preparing for a Pacific war and trying to learn the lessons of Ukraine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKybUU-ZCwE
They're making some very odd decisions indeed, if they're preparing for a Pacific war.
Those of you interested in the Israel-Iran war may like to see these videos. Note that "Operation Rising Lion" is the Israeli phrase for the initial phase.
Oh ok I was super late to the game about my death penalty analogy.
Do I remember that in Canada 4% of deaths are "assisted"? If so that just can't be right and something is super amiss. You can't tell me that 4% of all people who are dying want to be assisted in doing so.
Hence this bill absolutely should not pass.
That's correct. The stats are ... curious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po ..For the first time, the report delved into race and ethnic data of those who died by euthanasia. Around 96% of recipients identified as white people, who account for about 70% of Canada's population. It is unclear what caused this disparity. The second most reported ethnic group was east Asians (1.8%), who account for about 5.7% of Canadians. Assisted dying continued to have the highest usage rate in Quebec, which accounted for nearly 37% of all euthanasia deaths, despite the province holding just 22% of Canada's population. Quebec's government launched a study earlier this year to examine why its euthanasia rate was so high...
In contrast, for Victoria in Australia, which brought in the right in 2017, it's 0.5%.
Is that, conversely, an argument in favour of the bill ? I don't think so.
Our legislation should be assessed on its own merits and demerits.
White people being overrepresented: I'd expect that given that white Canadians are much more common in the super-old cohorts. (This is a factor which is often failed to be applied.)
"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.
When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "
But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.
Also:
"An opinion survey involving 158,000 people in Iran showed that more than 80 percent of respondents reject the Islamic Republic and prefer a democratic government."
Surely in a society with as fundamental a division as that (a secular republic vs an Islamist republic that makes a constitutional monarchy the best option.
I don't think it is that clear cut - there are structures and principles which cut across the grey areas, sometimes quite surprising and pragmatic. There's a lot of scope.
One thing that we could be sure of I think is that something which lasts just say 30-50 years would be a major achievement.
In secularist Turkey a state organisation employed the Imams in Mosques, and also drafted sermons for Mosques. That is the Diyanet, "Presidency of Religious Affairs", which is still in place. Without reading up I'm not sure what Erdogan has done wrt the content they teach. Was it a means of control, or a means of neutering - maintaining the underlying culture enough to prevent extremist movements emerging which could challenge the state?
There are similar contrasts and comparisons and ambiguities everywhere - eg in Europe between dogmatically secularist France, and more the nebulous UK setup. Guess which one spends more money on looking after church buildings?
In France 95% of Roman Catholic churches are owned by the state (all historic churches built pre 1905 are state owned) and 140 of 149 cathedrals are state owned too. The churches and cathedrals are then put at the disposal of Roman Catholic clergy and bishops for worship while the state is responsible for maintaining them
"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.
When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "
But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.
Also:
"An opinion survey involving 158,000 people in Iran showed that more than 80 percent of respondents reject the Islamic Republic and prefer a democratic government."
Surely in a society with as fundamental a division as that (a secular republic vs an Islamist republic that makes a constitutional monarchy the best option.
I don't think it is that clear cut - there are structures and principles which cut across the grey areas, sometimes quite surprising and pragmatic. There's a lot of scope.
One thing that we could be sure of I think is that something which lasts just say 30-50 years would be a major achievement.
In secularist Turkey a state organisation employed the Imams in Mosques, and also drafted sermons for Mosques. That is the Diyanet, "Presidency of Religious Affairs", which is still in place. Without reading up I'm not sure what Erdogan has done wrt the content they teach. Was it a means of control, or a means of neutering - maintaining the underlying culture enough to prevent extremist movements emerging which could challenge the state?
There are similar contrasts and comparisons and ambiguities everywhere - eg in Europe between dogmatically secularist France, and more the nebulous UK setup. Guess which one spends more money on looking after church buildings?
In France 95% of Roman Catholic churches are owned by the state (all historic churches built pre 1905 are state owned) and 140 of 149 cathedrals are state owned too. The churches and cathedrals are then put at the disposal of Roman Catholic clergy and bishops for worship while the state is responsible for maintaining them
If you allow assisted dying it is inevitable that some people will be coerced or emotionally blackmailed into killing themselves, whatever safeguards are put in place. If you don't allow assisted dying, a far greater number of people will endure unnecessary pain and suffering. The reality is that there is a trade-off, and there are no easy answers. People can reasonably come to different views on it. It's an emotive topic for obvious reasons, and it's good we are having a thorough debate about it. Being of a greater good for the greater number kind of frame of mind, I am supportive.
Isn't it the same as the death penalty. A main argument against is that "even one innocent person killed...." is too much. That is exactly analagous to this - for all the undoubted good/relief/etc it might do are you happy that one "innocent" (ie coerced, felt pressured) person is killed.
One major difference is I think is about motivation.
The death penalty is, like "lock 'em up and throw away they key" and "whole life terms without possibility of parole" is about satisfying the psychological desires of those who want to impose it, with little consideration as to whether it works.
So your argument against is that because it doesn't stop the crimes that could result in the death penalty, it shouldn't be available? That's a reasonable stand point. I am also queezy about the one innocent amongst the deserving dead and we can all recall certain cases from history (not all of which, I think are that). However, part of the punishment should be about punishment. The killers of the Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, or Sarah Everard will never leave prison, but why should they be allowed decades more life? They took that from their victims.
I'm questioning the reliability and breadth of the comparison made.
On the question of prison penalties, I agree that punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation are all important, and I think in the UK in this, and I think we have a massive lack of focus on rehabilitation / non-prison sentences. IMO - as in many other questions - the pull of the USA setup is a real problem for us.
If anything, the USA is the poster child for "Prison Doesn't Work". They now have 1.8m in prison - third world numbers - and 50k imprisoned on LWOP sentences, with an average age of under 50. And they also have USA crime levels. I think the real underlying question there is over the entire USA model of society they have adopted.
(I've not tried to address the question of individual cases and the death penalty sentences itself, as that would need a very detailed response.)
Prison works in the sense of when you are locked up you are not committing crimes. Though yes that needs to be combined with effective community orders for lower level offenders and rehabilitation in prison for those who will come out
I presume the pause in escalation is to ratchet up the fear and tension and give those who wish to achieve some sort of internal regime change the opportunity to act.
I could envisage the theocracy diminished - recognising and retaining the spiritual role of the mullahs but taking the political and social aspects under a more recognisably civilian/democratic administration.
There has to be a recognition part of Iranian independence and identity is its religion and trying to mandate a wholly secular state may not be ideal. That being said, theocracy isn't the answer but a religious element can and does co-exist with democratic institutions in many other countries.
I think holding off won't last long, the overnight missiles barrage that hit the hospital in Tel Aviv seems to have been just under 10 impacts out of about 30 ballistics. If the iron Dome is starting to get stretched Israel will need to go harder sooner. I can see the US joining today rather than the weekend as media suggest given the fairly obvious mixed messaging that's been a feature all along (partly Trumpian chaos but more to keep the 'Tollah guessing)
The hit on the hospital makes it less likely that Trump will join.
Trump likes backing 'winners' & he's going to look at the damage to the hospital and think that the Israelis might not be the 'winners' after all, and could be the 'losers'.
"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.
When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "
But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.
Also:
"An opinion survey involving 158,000 people in Iran showed that more than 80 percent of respondents reject the Islamic Republic and prefer a democratic government."
Surely in a society with as fundamental a division as that (a secular republic vs an Islamist republic that makes a constitutional monarchy the best option.
I don't think it is that clear cut - there are structures and principles which cut across the grey areas, sometimes quite surprising and pragmatic. There's a lot of scope.
One thing that we could be sure of I think is that something which lasts just say 30-50 years would be a major achievement.
In secularist Turkey a state organisation employed the Imams in Mosques, and also drafted sermons for Mosques. That is the Diyanet, "Presidency of Religious Affairs", which is still in place. Without reading up I'm not sure what Erdogan has done wrt the content they teach. Was it a means of control, or a means of neutering - maintaining the underlying culture enough to prevent extremist movements emerging which could challenge the state?
There are similar contrasts and comparisons and ambiguities everywhere - eg in Europe between dogmatically secularist France, and more the nebulous UK setup. Guess which one spends more money on looking after church buildings?
In France 95% of Roman Catholic churches are owned by the state (all historic churches built pre 1905 are state owned) and 140 of 149 cathedrals are state owned too. The churches and cathedrals are then put at the disposal of Roman Catholic clergy and bishops for worship while the state is responsible for maintaining them
Indeed - but it's an interesting setup for a place that is dogmatic about "religion" being "private sphere only".
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.
When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "
But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.
Also:
"An opinion survey involving 158,000 people in Iran showed that more than 80 percent of respondents reject the Islamic Republic and prefer a democratic government."
Surely in a society with as fundamental a division as that (a secular republic vs an Islamist republic that makes a constitutional monarchy the best option.
I am defining that as someone who is apolitical and no democratic mandate holding the fundamental reserve powers of the state (eg to dissolve parliament, to deploy the military internally, etc) to prevent them being misused by an individual with a political/power-seeking agenda
Yes a restored Iranian monarchy but a constitutional one with a Shah who is Muslim but a moderate one would be the best compromise
I presume the pause in escalation is to ratchet up the fear and tension and give those who wish to achieve some sort of internal regime change the opportunity to act.
I could envisage the theocracy diminished - recognising and retaining the spiritual role of the mullahs but taking the political and social aspects under a more recognisably civilian/democratic administration.
There has to be a recognition part of Iranian independence and identity is its religion and trying to mandate a wholly secular state may not be ideal. That being said, theocracy isn't the answer but a religious element can and does co-exist with democratic institutions in many other countries.
I think holding off won't last long, the overnight missiles barrage that hit the hospital in Tel Aviv seems to have been just under 10 impacts out of about 30 ballistics. If the iron Dome is starting to get stretched Israel will need to go harder sooner. I can see the US joining today rather than the weekend as media suggest given the fairly obvious mixed messaging that's been a feature all along (partly Trumpian chaos but more to keep the 'Tollah guessing)
The hit on the hospital makes it less likely that Trump will join.
Trump likes backing 'winners' & he's going to look at the damage to the hospital and think that the Israelis might not be the 'winners' after all, and could be the 'losers'.
Quick False Flag will fix that And I disagree anyway, missiles hit things, its hardly a sign of imminent defeat
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.
When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "
But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.
Also:
"An opinion survey involving 158,000 people in Iran showed that more than 80 percent of respondents reject the Islamic Republic and prefer a democratic government."
Surely in a society with as fundamental a division as that (a secular republic vs an Islamist republic that makes a constitutional monarchy the best option.
I don't think it is that clear cut - there are structures and principles which cut across the grey areas, sometimes quite surprising and pragmatic. There's a lot of scope.
One thing that we could be sure of I think is that something which lasts just say 30-50 years would be a major achievement.
In secularist Turkey a state organisation employed the Imams in Mosques, and also drafted sermons for Mosques. That is the Diyanet, "Presidency of Religious Affairs", which is still in place. Without reading up I'm not sure what Erdogan has done wrt the content they teach. Was it a means of control, or a means of neutering - maintaining the underlying culture enough to prevent extremist movements emerging which could challenge the state?
There are similar contrasts and comparisons and ambiguities everywhere - eg in Europe between dogmatically secularist France, and more the nebulous UK setup. Guess which one spends more money on looking after church buildings?
In France 95% of Roman Catholic churches are owned by the state (all historic churches built pre 1905 are state owned) and 140 of 149 cathedrals are state owned too. The churches and cathedrals are then put at the disposal of Roman Catholic clergy and bishops for worship while the state is responsible for maintaining them
Take the lead out the roof and flog it Emmanuel
Absolutely not, Macron at least respects France's cultural heritage, your remark is totally philistine
The problem with the assisted dying bill isn't too few safeguards, its too many.
Will a person who is suffering a painful, but not terminal, existence be able to terminate their suffering if that's their choice? No, safeguarded away by the 6 months proviso.
Will a person with dementia be able to terminate their suffering by having signed a living will as an advanced directive saying they'd rather have an assisted death than go into a care home if they get dementia? No, safeguarded away by the absence of any advanced directive procedures and the safeguard they must be terminal and of sound mind.
The 6 month proviso should be removed, and allowance added for advanced directives just the same as I can sign an advanced directive for DNR or for life support machines.
But still, this bill is better than nothing, even if not good enough. Hopefully it gets amended in the future by Parliament to liberalise it further, which is not a slippery slope its Parliamentary democracy to evaluate how its working then choose whether to amend any Bill or not.
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
That's not his current position. He currently states MAGA will get in line with Trump if he decides to bomb
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
He loved telling the tale of how they got al-Baghdadi...like a dog....
Ultimately this will pass i think, but people have many different reasons for supporting or opposing on wide societal or very personal terms - on the latter, as much as some will have had family members in pain who wished to have this which informs their perspective there will be others who have spent a single part or much of their lives fighting suicidal thoughts who feel horrified that the government and medical profession could ever support voluntarily ending your life. Basically its very very triggering. Ive tried to state that in as neutral terms as possible, but the concepts here go way beyond easing suffering and its the casting off of proposed safeguards that i am most upset by (im against it anyway)
I do think it will pass, but I genuinely hope we do not see champagne corks popping by those who support the bill
Assisted death may well be desired, but like the adverts for funeral plans it is not really a smiling and cheering matter
I absolutely would be cheering if this passes. Its something I've supported for 30 years, since I first debate euthanasia in the 1990s at school.
Oh ok I was super late to the game about my death penalty analogy.
Do I remember that in Canada 4% of deaths are "assisted"? If so that just can't be right and something is super amiss. You can't tell me that 4% of all people who are dying want to be assisted in doing so.
Hence this bill absolutely should not pass.
That's correct. The stats are ... curious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po ..For the first time, the report delved into race and ethnic data of those who died by euthanasia. Around 96% of recipients identified as white people, who account for about 70% of Canada's population. It is unclear what caused this disparity. The second most reported ethnic group was east Asians (1.8%), who account for about 5.7% of Canadians. Assisted dying continued to have the highest usage rate in Quebec, which accounted for nearly 37% of all euthanasia deaths, despite the province holding just 22% of Canada's population. Quebec's government launched a study earlier this year to examine why its euthanasia rate was so high...
In contrast, for Victoria in Australia, which brought in the right in 2017, it's 0.5%.
Is that, conversely, an argument in favour of the bill ? I don't think so.
Our legislation should be assessed on its own merits and demerits.
White people being overrepresented: I'd expect that given that white Canadians are much more common in the super-old cohorts. (This is a factor which is often failed to be applied.)
It's certainly true that Asian Canadians are younger, the majority of whom are first generation immigrants, I think ?
Those of you interested in the Israel-Iran war may like to see these videos. Note that "Operation Rising Lion" is the Israeli phrase for the initial phase.
"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.
When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "
But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.
Also:
"An opinion survey involving 158,000 people in Iran showed that more than 80 percent of respondents reject the Islamic Republic and prefer a democratic government."
Surely in a society with as fundamental a division as that (a secular republic vs an Islamist republic that makes a constitutional monarchy the best option.
I don't think it is that clear cut - there are structures and principles which cut across the grey areas, sometimes quite surprising and pragmatic. There's a lot of scope.
One thing that we could be sure of I think is that something which lasts just say 30-50 years would be a major achievement.
In secularist Turkey a state organisation employed the Imams in Mosques, and also drafted sermons for Mosques. That is the Diyanet, "Presidency of Religious Affairs", which is still in place. Without reading up I'm not sure what Erdogan has done wrt the content they teach. Was it a means of control, or a means of neutering - maintaining the underlying culture enough to prevent extremist movements emerging which could challenge the state?
There are similar contrasts and comparisons and ambiguities everywhere - eg in Europe between dogmatically secularist France, and more the nebulous UK setup. Guess which one spends more money on looking after church buildings?
In France 95% of Roman Catholic churches are owned by the state (all historic churches built pre 1905 are state owned) and 140 of 149 cathedrals are state owned too. The churches and cathedrals are then put at the disposal of Roman Catholic clergy and bishops for worship while the state is responsible for maintaining them
Take the lead out the roof and flog it Emmanuel
Absolutely not, Macron at least respects France's cultural heritage, your remark is totally philistine
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
That's not his current position. He currently states MAGA will get in line with Trump if he decides to bomb
Trump will lose a fair proportion of MAGA splitters but he'll get back some neo-conish indies and the general initial boost US presidents get when they deliver foreign policy from 30,000 feet. It's tricky to tell I think.
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
There might be an upside after all then.
Can't really see it though. How does Bannon envisage the ousting taking place?
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
There might be an upside after all then.
Can't really see it though. How does Bannon envisage the ousting taking place?
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
That's not his current position. He currently states MAGA will get in line with Trump if he decides to bomb
Trump will lose a fair proportion of MAGA splitters but he'll get back some neo-conish indies and the general initial boost US presidents get when they deliver foreign policy from 30,000 feet. It's tricky to tell I think.
It depends if he gets into a regional war pr just Bunker Busts a few nuke sites and leaves Israel to hoover up the mess
Ultimately this will pass i think, but people have many different reasons for supporting or opposing on wide societal or very personal terms - on the latter, as much as some will have had family members in pain who wished to have this which informs their perspective there will be others who have spent a single part or much of their lives fighting suicidal thoughts who feel horrified that the government and medical profession could ever support voluntarily ending your life. Basically its very very triggering. Ive tried to state that in as neutral terms as possible, but the concepts here go way beyond easing suffering and its the casting off of proposed safeguards that i am most upset by (im against it anyway)
I do think it will pass, but I genuinely hope we do not see champagne corks popping by those who support the bill
Assisted death may well be desired, but like the adverts for funeral plans it is not really a smiling and cheering matter
I absolutely would be cheering if this passes. Its something I've supported for 30 years, since I first debate euthanasia in the 1990s at school.
Do the Shake and Vac, amd put the freshness back...
Youll never put a better bit of butter on your knife (anchor)
You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent.
(adopts growly voice)
"Probably the best lager...in the world"
(later co-opted and repurposed by Jeremy Clarkson)
"I didn't know you had dandruff!" "I don't"
"I can't believe it's not butter!"
(narrator. Viewcode has tried "I can't believe it's not butter" and can reassure you that yes, it's bloody obvious it's not butter, and it falls off the bread after destroying it. Bertolli is better.)
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
There might be an upside after all then.
Can't really see it though. How does Bannon envisage the ousting taking place?
Bannon just another Cummings, forgets the trolley may be a trolley, but it is big powerful effing trolley and nutter advisors are ten a penny.
I presume the pause in escalation is to ratchet up the fear and tension and give those who wish to achieve some sort of internal regime change the opportunity to act.
I could envisage the theocracy diminished - recognising and retaining the spiritual role of the mullahs but taking the political and social aspects under a more recognisably civilian/democratic administration.
There has to be a recognition part of Iranian independence and identity is its religion and trying to mandate a wholly secular state may not be ideal. That being said, theocracy isn't the answer but a religious element can and does co-exist with democratic institutions in many other countries.
I think holding off won't last long, the overnight missiles barrage that hit the hospital in Tel Aviv seems to have been just under 10 impacts out of about 30 ballistics. If the iron Dome is starting to get stretched Israel will need to go harder sooner. I can see the US joining today rather than the weekend as media suggest given the fairly obvious mixed messaging that's been a feature all along (partly Trumpian chaos but more to keep the 'Tollah guessing)
The hit on the hospital makes it less likely that Trump will join.
Trump likes backing 'winners' & he's going to look at the damage to the hospital and think that the Israelis might not be the 'winners' after all, and could be the 'losers'.
No, but the hospital and other hits on Tel Aviv might change the question.
America destroying a nuclear facility that Iran has so far used to make precisely no nuclear weapons might be tumbling down Bibi's wish list. It will harm Iran's current war-making capacity not at all.
What the Tel Aviv missiles show is that Israel has an urgent need for more American supplies of defensive weapons.
And Trump can more easily supply these without putting American soldiers on the ground or American bombers in the air.
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
He loved telling the tale of how they got al-Baghdadi...like a dog....
He so did. And this would be bigger and better.
It's a pity Ukraine isn't fighting a pisspoor Muslim country led by somebody Donald Trump doesn't find strong and attractive. They would be getting some Bunker Busters too otherwise. And the rest.
If you allow assisted dying it is inevitable that some people will be coerced or emotionally blackmailed into killing themselves, whatever safeguards are put in place. If you don't allow assisted dying, a far greater number of people will endure unnecessary pain and suffering. The reality is that there is a trade-off, and there are no easy answers. People can reasonably come to different views on it. It's an emotive topic for obvious reasons, and it's good we are having a thorough debate about it. Being of a greater good for the greater number kind of frame of mind, I am supportive.
Isn't it the same as the death penalty. A main argument against is that "even one innocent person killed...." is too much. That is exactly analagous to this - for all the undoubted good/relief/etc it might do are you happy that one "innocent" (ie coerced, felt pressured) person is killed.
One major difference is I think is about motivation.
The death penalty is, like "lock 'em up and throw away they key" and "whole life terms without possibility of parole" is about satisfying the psychological desires of those who want to impose it, with little consideration as to whether it works.
So your argument against is that because it doesn't stop the crimes that could result in the death penalty, it shouldn't be available? That's a reasonable stand point. I am also queezy about the one innocent amongst the deserving dead and we can all recall certain cases from history (not all of which, I think are that). However, part of the punishment should be about punishment. The killers of the Nicole Smallman and Bibaa Henry, or Sarah Everard will never leave prison, but why should they be allowed decades more life? They took that from their victims.
I'm questioning the reliability and breadth of the comparison made.
On the question of prison penalties, I agree that punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation are all important, and I think in the UK in this, and I think we have a massive lack of focus on rehabilitation / non-prison sentences. IMO - as in many other questions - the pull of the USA setup is a real problem for us.
If anything, the USA is the poster child for "Prison Doesn't Work". They now have 1.8m in prison - third world numbers - and 50k imprisoned on LWOP sentences, with an average age of under 50. And they also have USA crime levels. I think the real underlying question there is over the entire USA model of society they have adopted.
(I've not tried to address the question of individual cases and the death penalty sentences itself, as that would need a very detailed response.)
Prison works in the sense of when you are locked up you are not committing crimes. Though yes that needs to be combined with effective community orders for lower level offenders and rehabilitation in prison for those who will come out
It is necessary for some but it doesn't work. More prisoners come out dehabilitated rather than rehabilated.
Do the Shake and Vac, amd put the freshness back...
Youll never put a better bit of butter on your knife (anchor)
You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent.
(adopts growly voice)
"Probably the best lager...in the world"
(later co-opted and repurposed by Jeremy Clarkson)
"I didn't know you had dandruff!" "I don't"
"I can't believe it's not butter!"
(narrator. Viewcode has tried "I can't believe it's not butter" and can reassure you that yes, it's bloody obvious it's not butter, and it falls off the bread after destroying it. Bertolli is better.)
These days you can buy spreadable butter so there is no reason to eat the pretend stuff.
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
There might be an upside after all then.
Can't really see it though. How does Bannon envisage the ousting taking place?
That's not what Bannon is currently saying
There's also Tucker Carlson. He can't have liked Trump calling him "kooky". Can Tucker lead a new movement to purify the revolution?
You may be right, and I hope you are, but my money is on a significant rise in the number of Iranian refugees in Britain in 10 years time, regardless of any revolution or counter-revolution.
This is a good point. Anybody who gets the arsehole over the improvised transmanche regatta shouldn't be cheering at the prospect of destroying yet another Middle East country.
Better yet, the probable refugees will be screaming “Death To The West” - before they argue in court that extradition back to Iran would be against their human rights.
And that beating their wives with a stick is their cultural tradition.
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
There might be an upside after all then.
Can't really see it though. How does Bannon envisage the ousting taking place?
That's not what Bannon is currently saying
There's also Tucker Carlson. He can't have liked Trump calling him "kooky". Can Tucker lead a new movement to purify the revolution?
The contortions in MAGA over any bombing will be just hilarious as they realise they are neocons after all but we know in the end whatever Trump says is the policy of MAGA is the policy.
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
There might be an upside after all then.
Can't really see it though. How does Bannon envisage the ousting taking place?
Bannon just another Cummings, forgets the trolley may be a trolley, but it is big powerful effing trolley and nutter advisors are ten a penny.
Yes. Trump Rules Ok. If there were any doubt about this the Musk thing removed it.
Do the Shake and Vac, amd put the freshness back...
Youll never put a better bit of butter on your knife (anchor)
You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent.
(adopts growly voice)
"Probably the best lager...in the world"
(later co-opted and repurposed by Jeremy Clarkson)
Yes, although Clarkson said it was due to needing to take a breath mid-sentence given his 60-a-day habit.
As I used to repeat here like a broken record for, well, 49 days, Liz Truss has an odd pattern of speech. She sounds French as she speaks in short phrases and stresses the last word or syllable. I did wonder if this was also due to smoking or perhaps just that she'd never really mastered autocues.
Do the Shake and Vac, amd put the freshness back...
Youll never put a better bit of butter on your knife (anchor)
You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent.
(adopts growly voice)
"Probably the best lager...in the world"
(later co-opted and repurposed by Jeremy Clarkson)
"I didn't know you had dandruff!" "I don't"
"I can't believe it's not butter!"
(narrator. Viewcode has tried "I can't believe it's not butter" and can reassure you that yes, it's bloody obvious it's not butter, and it falls off the bread after destroying it. Bertolli is better.)
These days you can buy spreadable butter so there is no reason to eat the pretend stuff.
Do you (or anybody else on PB) have recommendations?
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
There might be an upside after all then.
Can't really see it though. How does Bannon envisage the ousting taking place?
That's not what Bannon is currently saying
There's also Tucker Carlson. He can't have liked Trump calling him "kooky". Can Tucker lead a new movement to purify the revolution?
I think Trump got to him with the 'is he saying that? He should ask me about it on Television' gag.
Do the Shake and Vac, amd put the freshness back...
Youll never put a better bit of butter on your knife (anchor)
You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent.
(adopts growly voice)
"Probably the best lager...in the world"
(later co-opted and repurposed by Jeremy Clarkson)
"I didn't know you had dandruff!" "I don't"
"I can't believe it's not butter!"
(narrator. Viewcode has tried "I can't believe it's not butter" and can reassure you that yes, it's bloody obvious it's not butter, and it falls off the bread after destroying it. Bertolli is better.)
These days you can buy spreadable butter so there is no reason to eat the pretend stuff.
Oh ok I was super late to the game about my death penalty analogy.
Do I remember that in Canada 4% of deaths are "assisted"? If so that just can't be right and something is super amiss. You can't tell me that 4% of all people who are dying want to be assisted in doing so.
Hence this bill absolutely should not pass.
That's correct. The stats are ... curious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po ..For the first time, the report delved into race and ethnic data of those who died by euthanasia. Around 96% of recipients identified as white people, who account for about 70% of Canada's population. It is unclear what caused this disparity. The second most reported ethnic group was east Asians (1.8%), who account for about 5.7% of Canadians. Assisted dying continued to have the highest usage rate in Quebec, which accounted for nearly 37% of all euthanasia deaths, despite the province holding just 22% of Canada's population. Quebec's government launched a study earlier this year to examine why its euthanasia rate was so high...
In contrast, for Victoria in Australia, which brought in the right in 2017, it's 0.5%.
Is that, conversely, an argument in favour of the bill ? I don't think so.
Our legislation should be assessed on its own merits and demerits.
There could be some interesting edge effects on numbers when things like this are introduced. There could be, for longer term conditions pent-up demand that inflate figures in earlier years, but also a lag in that as services are rolled out, become available and become a bit more normalised. I would guess that people are more likely to consider it as an option when they know of someone who has gone through the process.
All of this is, of course, hard to judge at the time, but in 20 years time we may see that there's a peak somewhere in the first decade or so before demand flattens off or even drops. In the latter case, concerns around numbers choosing assisted dying could focus minds on better palliative care to offer more options (assisted dying deaths are more visible and far more easly counted than bad deaths, in pain, with inadequate care).
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
iirc Bannon has said that if Trump bombs Iran then his presidency is over.
There might be an upside after all then.
Can't really see it though. How does Bannon envisage the ousting taking place?
Bannon just another Cummings, forgets the trolley may be a trolley, but it is big powerful effing trolley and nutter advisors are ten a penny.
Yes. Trump Rules Ok. If there were any doubt about this the Musk thing removed it.
There is a betting angle though, in that if Trump's support does fracture over this, then even though his own Presidency is safe, any thoughts of succession, let alone the midterms, will be thrown up in the air, and Congress might grow a spine.
Ultimately this will pass i think, but people have many different reasons for supporting or opposing on wide societal or very personal terms - on the latter, as much as some will have had family members in pain who wished to have this which informs their perspective there will be others who have spent a single part or much of their lives fighting suicidal thoughts who feel horrified that the government and medical profession could ever support voluntarily ending your life. Basically its very very triggering. Ive tried to state that in as neutral terms as possible, but the concepts here go way beyond easing suffering and its the casting off of proposed safeguards that i am most upset by (im against it anyway)
I do think it will pass, but I genuinely hope we do not see champagne corks popping by those who support the bill
Assisted death may well be desired, but like the adverts for funeral plans it is not really a smiling and cheering matter
I absolutely would be cheering if this passes. Its something I've supported for 30 years, since I first debate euthanasia in the 1990s at school.
Suppose it’s one way of reducing state pension liabilities
Well looky looky looky. Being in power is different from being in opposition, turns out:
"ECHR erodes public trust because it protects criminals, says Labour
Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, says reform of the human rights convention is vital to stop it being misused by those who break the rules"
(Times)
A few years back I knew a group of lawyers who were pretty interested in the Human Rights line. Among other things, they saw their job as being to remove as many impediments to people coming to this country, and bring their families, as possible. And to prevent extradition - and indeed any kind of removal.
They were perfectly honest and open about their intentions. One thing I never could get them to see, was that they would create a reaction to their actions. And that any responsibility for the reaction could be on them.
So when they defended Cap’n Hook against all attempts at extradition or removal, the gradual escalation from the various Governments was nothing to do with them.
The ability of the Home Sec to, with the stroke of a pen, remove UK citizenship from a *potential* dual citizen comes from this.
So, President Donald J Trump and his Hugely Impressive Ordnance:
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
He loved telling the tale of how they got al-Baghdadi...like a dog....
"Like a dog" is a peculiar similie. In reality, few dogs are specifically sought out and killed expensively. I don't even particularly like dogs and even I find all this relish of killing them unpleasant.
Thank you for the header @Cyclefree. In principle, I am in favour of assisted dying. However, I am no longer in favour of this bill, for two reasons. Excluding people with dementia who have signed a living will should always have been included in the bill. My second reason is that bill is being used to allow the process state, which includes the current Labour Party, and only the process state, to decide who lives and dies. George Orwell will be turning in his grave.
Do the Shake and Vac, amd put the freshness back...
Youll never put a better bit of butter on your knife (anchor)
You'll wonder where the yellow went, when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent.
(adopts growly voice)
"Probably the best lager...in the world"
(later co-opted and repurposed by Jeremy Clarkson)
"I didn't know you had dandruff!" "I don't"
"I can't believe it's not butter!"
(narrator. Viewcode has tried "I can't believe it's not butter" and can reassure you that yes, it's bloody obvious it's not butter, and it falls off the bread after destroying it. Bertolli is better.)
These days you can buy spreadable butter so there is no reason to eat the pretend stuff.
Do you (or anybody else on PB) have recommendations?
Kerrygold? Basically look for butter in tubs and then see if it mentions being spreadable.
Ultimately this will pass i think, but people have many different reasons for supporting or opposing on wide societal or very personal terms - on the latter, as much as some will have had family members in pain who wished to have this which informs their perspective there will be others who have spent a single part or much of their lives fighting suicidal thoughts who feel horrified that the government and medical profession could ever support voluntarily ending your life. Basically its very very triggering. Ive tried to state that in as neutral terms as possible, but the concepts here go way beyond easing suffering and its the casting off of proposed safeguards that i am most upset by (im against it anyway)
I do think it will pass, but I genuinely hope we do not see champagne corks popping by those who support the bill
Assisted death may well be desired, but like the adverts for funeral plans it is not really a smiling and cheering matter
I absolutely would be cheering if this passes. Its something I've supported for 30 years, since I first debate euthanasia in the 1990s at school.
'Debate euthanasia' Schools and their innocence
I was in debate club in school and euthanasia was a major political issue in 1990s Melbourne as they were debating in Parliament whether to legalise it or not (they voted not to then). Should people not be debating topical issues in debate clubs in schools?
Thank you for the header @Cyclefree. In principle, I am in favour of assisted dying. However, I am no longer in favour of this bill, for two reasons. Excluding people with dementia who have signed a living will should always have been included in the bill. My second reason is that bill is being used to allow the process state, which includes the current Labour Party, and only the process state, to decide who lives and dies. George Orwell will be turning in his grave.
Oh ok I was super late to the game about my death penalty analogy.
Do I remember that in Canada 4% of deaths are "assisted"? If so that just can't be right and something is super amiss. You can't tell me that 4% of all people who are dying want to be assisted in doing so.
Hence this bill absolutely should not pass.
That's correct. The stats are ... curious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po ..For the first time, the report delved into race and ethnic data of those who died by euthanasia. Around 96% of recipients identified as white people, who account for about 70% of Canada's population. It is unclear what caused this disparity. The second most reported ethnic group was east Asians (1.8%), who account for about 5.7% of Canadians. Assisted dying continued to have the highest usage rate in Quebec, which accounted for nearly 37% of all euthanasia deaths, despite the province holding just 22% of Canada's population. Quebec's government launched a study earlier this year to examine why its euthanasia rate was so high...
In contrast, for Victoria in Australia, which brought in the right in 2017, it's 0.5%.
Is that, conversely, an argument in favour of the bill ? I don't think so.
Our legislation should be assessed on its own merits and demerits.
White people being overrepresented: I'd expect that given that white Canadians are much more common in the super-old cohorts. (This is a factor which is often failed to be applied.)
It's certainly true that Asian Canadians are younger, the majority of whom are first generation immigrants, I think ?
Thank you for the header @Cyclefree. In principle, I am in favour of assisted dying. However, I am no longer in favour of this bill, for two reasons. Excluding people with dementia who have signed a living will should always have been included in the bill. My second reason is that bill is being used to allow the process state, which includes the current Labour Party, and only the process state, to decide who lives and dies. George Orwell will be turning in his grave.
What do you mean? People who have signed a living will should be included in assisted dying, if they've made their express intentions clear, but that's not been included here. So why are you objecting that it should have been excluded when it has been?
Its a shame that its been excluded, but what's been included is better than nothing and hopefully that which has been excluded will be included in the future.
Ultimately this will pass i think, but people have many different reasons for supporting or opposing on wide societal or very personal terms - on the latter, as much as some will have had family members in pain who wished to have this which informs their perspective there will be others who have spent a single part or much of their lives fighting suicidal thoughts who feel horrified that the government and medical profession could ever support voluntarily ending your life. Basically its very very triggering. Ive tried to state that in as neutral terms as possible, but the concepts here go way beyond easing suffering and its the casting off of proposed safeguards that i am most upset by (im against it anyway)
I do think it will pass, but I genuinely hope we do not see champagne corks popping by those who support the bill
Assisted death may well be desired, but like the adverts for funeral plans it is not really a smiling and cheering matter
I absolutely would be cheering if this passes. Its something I've supported for 30 years, since I first debate euthanasia in the 1990s at school.
'Debate euthanasia' Schools and their innocence
I was in debate club in school and euthanasia was a major political issue in 1990s Melbourne as they were debating in Parliament whether to legalise it or not (they voted not to then). Should people not be debating topical issues in debate clubs in schools?
Should children be debating the State killing people? This house believes no, they should not
Oh ok I was super late to the game about my death penalty analogy.
Do I remember that in Canada 4% of deaths are "assisted"? If so that just can't be right and something is super amiss. You can't tell me that 4% of all people who are dying want to be assisted in doing so.
Hence this bill absolutely should not pass.
That's correct. The stats are ... curious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po ..For the first time, the report delved into race and ethnic data of those who died by euthanasia. Around 96% of recipients identified as white people, who account for about 70% of Canada's population. It is unclear what caused this disparity. The second most reported ethnic group was east Asians (1.8%), who account for about 5.7% of Canadians. Assisted dying continued to have the highest usage rate in Quebec, which accounted for nearly 37% of all euthanasia deaths, despite the province holding just 22% of Canada's population. Quebec's government launched a study earlier this year to examine why its euthanasia rate was so high...
In contrast, for Victoria in Australia, which brought in the right in 2017, it's 0.5%.
Is that, conversely, an argument in favour of the bill ? I don't think so.
Our legislation should be assessed on its own merits and demerits.
White people being overrepresented: I'd expect that given that white Canadians are much more common in the super-old cohorts. (This is a factor which is often failed to be applied.)
It's certainly true that Asian Canadians are younger, the majority of whom are first generation immigrants, I think ?
Thank you for the header @Cyclefree. In principle, I am in favour of assisted dying. However, I am no longer in favour of this bill, for two reasons. Excluding people with dementia who have signed a living will should always have been included in the bill. My second reason is that bill is being used to allow the process state, which includes the current Labour Party, and only the process state, to decide who lives and dies. George Orwell will be turning in his grave.
What does the "process state" mean?
You haven’t been reading @Malmesbury’s posts. The inner circle of decision makers, such as certain politicians and civil servants, who think that they should make our decisions for us. Planners and consultants are further examples.
I presume the pause in escalation is to ratchet up the fear and tension and give those who wish to achieve some sort of internal regime change the opportunity to act.
I could envisage the theocracy diminished - recognising and retaining the spiritual role of the mullahs but taking the political and social aspects under a more recognisably civilian/democratic administration.
There has to be a recognition part of Iranian independence and identity is its religion and trying to mandate a wholly secular state may not be ideal. That being said, theocracy isn't the answer but a religious element can and does co-exist with democratic institutions in many other countries.
I think holding off won't last long, the overnight missiles barrage that hit the hospital in Tel Aviv seems to have been just under 10 impacts out of about 30 ballistics. If the iron Dome is starting to get stretched Israel will need to go harder sooner. I can see the US joining today rather than the weekend as media suggest given the fairly obvious mixed messaging that's been a feature all along (partly Trumpian chaos but more to keep the 'Tollah guessing)
The hit on the hospital makes it less likely that Trump will join.
Trump likes backing 'winners' & he's going to look at the damage to the hospital and think that the Israelis might not be the 'winners' after all, and could be the 'losers'.
Quick False Flag will fix that And I disagree anyway, missiles hit things, its hardly a sign of imminent defeat
It's a sign that Iran can fight back & cause damage.
Trump only picks on targets (like migrants) whom he knows have no capacity to fight back. If he finds out that his target has the capacity to fight back, then he instantly develops cold feet.
An example is how he quickly signed a deal with the Houthis after they began downing US drones & showed they could actually fight back.
Israel has made a mistake by publicising the hit on the hospital. They're assuming that Trump will develop sympathy for them & be more likely to back them, but Trump is incapable of human feelings like sympathy & empathy. He only thinks in terms of 'winners' and 'losers'.
A bit more context on the impounded wheelchair story I mentioned the other day. Circumstances are as follows:
Isra was going from the accessible exit of a gig to the nearest bus stop to go home, at walking speed - he was with his sister who was walking. He went over a dropped kerb of a crossing wrong (who hasn't done that!) and tipped over, hitting his head on the ground and knocking himself out. Despite his sister trying to prevent the removal of his aids, by the time he came around in hospital, both his wheelchair and the power attachment had been impounded. Police refused to separate the wheelchair from the power attachment until we got involved. The power attachment is still impounded
The tipover is a risk with tricycle format aids - they tip sideways easily, partly because they cannot "lean" so go over the other way towards the outside of a corner more easily.
I do not see a basis for the police would make such a determination in the case of an accident to a pedestrian falling over on a crossing - someone is being overzealous, or perhaps misapplying procedure.
Thank you for the header @Cyclefree. In principle, I am in favour of assisted dying. However, I am no longer in favour of this bill, for two reasons. Excluding people with dementia who have signed a living will should always have been included in the bill. My second reason is that bill is being used to allow the process state, which includes the current Labour Party, and only the process state, to decide who lives and dies. George Orwell will be turning in his grave.
What does the "process state" mean?
You haven’t been reading @Malmesbury’s posts. The inner circle of decision makers, such as certain politicians and civil servants, who think that they should make our decisions for us. Planners and consultants are further examples.
And how does that apply here? There's major safeguards in the bill, yes, too many in my view, but the choice is still the individuals. Just a lot of red tape for the individual to get through.
I presume the pause in escalation is to ratchet up the fear and tension and give those who wish to achieve some sort of internal regime change the opportunity to act.
I could envisage the theocracy diminished - recognising and retaining the spiritual role of the mullahs but taking the political and social aspects under a more recognisably civilian/democratic administration.
There has to be a recognition part of Iranian independence and identity is its religion and trying to mandate a wholly secular state may not be ideal. That being said, theocracy isn't the answer but a religious element can and does co-exist with democratic institutions in many other countries.
I think holding off won't last long, the overnight missiles barrage that hit the hospital in Tel Aviv seems to have been just under 10 impacts out of about 30 ballistics. If the iron Dome is starting to get stretched Israel will need to go harder sooner. I can see the US joining today rather than the weekend as media suggest given the fairly obvious mixed messaging that's been a feature all along (partly Trumpian chaos but more to keep the 'Tollah guessing)
The hit on the hospital makes it less likely that Trump will join.
Trump likes backing 'winners' & he's going to look at the damage to the hospital and think that the Israelis might not be the 'winners' after all, and could be the 'losers'.
Quick False Flag will fix that And I disagree anyway, missiles hit things, its hardly a sign of imminent defeat
It's a sign that Iran can fight back & cause damage.
Trump only picks on targets (like migrants) whom he knows have no capacity to fight back. If he finds out that his target has the capacity to fight back, then he instantly develops cold feet.
An example is how he quickly signed a deal with the Houthis after they began downing US drones & showed they could actually fight back.
Israel has made a mistake by publicising the hit on the hospital. They're assuming that Trump will develop sympathy for them & be more likely to back them, but Trump is incapable of human feelings like sympathy & empathy. He only thinks in terms of 'winners' and 'losers'.
Iran has already shown that with 24 confirmed deaths in Israel and hundreds of injuries.
Comments
On the question of prison penalties, I agree that punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation are all important, and I think in the UK in this, and I think we have a massive lack of focus on rehabilitation / non-prison sentences. IMO - as in many other questions - the pull of the USA setup is a real problem for us.
If anything, the USA is the poster child for "Prison Doesn't Work". They now have 1.8m in prison - third world numbers - and 50k imprisoned on LWOP sentences, with an average age of under 50. And they also have USA crime levels. I think the real underlying question there is over the entire USA model of society they have adopted.
(I've not tried to address the question of individual cases and the death penalty sentences itself, as that would need a very detailed response.)
However, I assume you do not mean my pacemaker !!!!!!!!!
"ECHR erodes public trust because it protects criminals, says Labour
Shabana Mahmood, the justice secretary, says reform of the human rights convention is vital to stop it being misused by those who break the rules"
(Times)
Nevertheless I have never been convinced that a private members bill was the right place to legislate a matter of this enormity. As has been pointed out in the header a lot of the protections have been removed/watered down (although I would argue that some of them were unworkable/wouldn’t do what was suggested in the first place so needed changing).
I appreciate that MPs are there to decide and refine draft legislation. But for such an important issue this all feels a bit side of the desk work. As someone has already said some sort of Royal Commission seems appropriate. It could have the goal of not arbitrating on whether assisted dying should be allowed but coming up with the safeguards / process seems smart way of going forward. It could highlight the risks/benefits rather than simply selling the idea. MPs could then have a free vote on those proposals.
The stats are ... curious.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0j1z14p57po
..For the first time, the report delved into race and ethnic data of those who died by euthanasia.
Around 96% of recipients identified as white people, who account for about 70% of Canada's population. It is unclear what caused this disparity.
The second most reported ethnic group was east Asians (1.8%), who account for about 5.7% of Canadians.
Assisted dying continued to have the highest usage rate in Quebec, which accounted for nearly 37% of all euthanasia deaths, despite the province holding just 22% of Canada's population.
Quebec's government launched a study earlier this year to examine why its euthanasia rate was so high...
In contrast, for Victoria in Australia, which brought in the right in 2017, it's 0.5%.
Is that, conversely, an argument in favour of the bill ?
I don't think so.
Our legislation should be assessed on its own merits and demerits.
He wants to. See https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/u-s-to-cancel-e-7-wedgetail-in-favour-of-space-systems/
The Americans are cancelling everything at the moment. Old stuff, new stuff, some as big as your hat. They are preparing for a Pacific war and trying to learn the lessons of Ukraine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKybUU-ZCwE
Labour will not leave or reform the ECHR, otherwise both the above have no choice but to resign
He is also bafflingly ignorant of how to get home from about a mile away,despite having lived there for seven years.
Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni is leading calls for a change in EU law to make it easier to deport criminal foreign nationals.
The Council of Europe’s secretary-general, Alain Berset, has rejected calls from EU leaders to make the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) more flexible on immigration.
Nine EU countries signed an open letter regarding immigration on May 22, calling for the ECHR to be reinterpreted because it is limiting their “ability to make political decisions” in their “own democracies.”
What we actually need is a set of road junctions that reconfigure once a week at random, so we are forced to pay attention
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_cwjNF-sfc (20 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgCrnyf5JEI (14 mins)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQnkTVf7qWM (12mins)
Trump likes backing 'winners' & he's going to look at the damage to the hospital and think that the Israelis might not be the 'winners' after all, and could be the 'losers'.
The ideology behind MAGA is isolationist. America First, No More Foreign Wars. If he follows this the US won't be bombing Iran.
OTOH the inner man will very much fancy using some of those Bunker Busters on a soft (and even better, Muslim) target who can't fight back and getting that shot of himself sitting in the "Situation Room" with some military types. Oh yes.
Which will it be? The political or the personal? My money is on the latter. I think he'll be doing it. Then the title of Cyclefree's piece might kick in.
And I disagree anyway, missiles hit things, its hardly a sign of imminent defeat
Will a person who is suffering a painful, but not terminal, existence be able to terminate their suffering if that's their choice? No, safeguarded away by the 6 months proviso.
Will a person with dementia be able to terminate their suffering by having signed a living will as an advanced directive saying they'd rather have an assisted death than go into a care home if they get dementia? No, safeguarded away by the absence of any advanced directive procedures and the safeguard they must be terminal and of sound mind.
The 6 month proviso should be removed, and allowance added for advanced directives just the same as I can sign an advanced directive for DNR or for life support machines.
But still, this bill is better than nothing, even if not good enough. Hopefully it gets amended in the future by Parliament to liberalise it further, which is not a slippery slope its Parliamentary democracy to evaluate how its working then choose whether to amend any Bill or not.
He currently states MAGA will get in line with Trump if he decides to bomb
But what's on earth's going on with Quebec ?
It's a slightly older population than Canada overall, but not that much:
https://statistique.quebec.ca/en/produit/tableau/population-by-age-group-canada-and-regions#tri_pivot_an=2024&tri_indic=2199
Can't really see it though. How does Bannon envisage the ousting taking place?
when you brush your teeth with Pepsodent.
"Probably the best lager...in the world"
(later co-opted and repurposed by Jeremy Clarkson)
Schools and their innocence
(narrator. Viewcode has tried "I can't believe it's not butter" and can reassure you that yes, it's bloody obvious it's not butter, and it falls off the bread after destroying it. Bertolli is better.)
America destroying a nuclear facility that Iran has so far used to make precisely no nuclear weapons might be tumbling down Bibi's wish list. It will harm Iran's current war-making capacity not at all.
What the Tel Aviv missiles show is that Israel has an urgent need for more American supplies of defensive weapons.
And Trump can more easily supply these without putting American soldiers on the ground or American bombers in the air.
It's a pity Ukraine isn't fighting a pisspoor Muslim country led by somebody Donald Trump doesn't find strong and attractive. They would be getting some Bunker Busters too otherwise. And the rest.
And that beating their wives with a stick is their cultural tradition.
As I used to repeat here like a broken record for, well, 49 days, Liz Truss has an odd pattern of speech. She sounds French as she speaks in short phrases and stresses the last word or syllable. I did wonder if this was also due to smoking or perhaps just that she'd never really mastered autocues.
All of this is, of course, hard to judge at the time, but in 20 years time we may see that there's a peak somewhere in the first decade or so before demand flattens off or even drops. In the latter case, concerns around numbers choosing assisted dying could focus minds on better palliative care to offer more options (assisted dying deaths are more visible and far more easly counted than bad deaths, in pain, with inadequate care).
@GreensOrganise
A radical Green Party is winning people over.
A huge welcome to economist and author of Vulture Capitalism,
@graceblakeley
They were perfectly honest and open about their intentions. One thing I never could get them to see, was that they would create a reaction to their actions. And that any responsibility for the reaction could be on them.
So when they defended Cap’n Hook against all attempts at extradition or removal, the gradual escalation from the various Governments was nothing to do with them.
The ability of the Home Sec to, with the stroke of a pen, remove UK citizenship from a *potential* dual citizen comes from this.
(Yes I can, That's what it *&^$£ says on the £&%%$£ packet.)
Its a shame that its been excluded, but what's been included is better than nothing and hopefully that which has been excluded will be included in the future.
This house believes no, they should not
Trump only picks on targets (like migrants) whom he knows have no capacity to fight back. If he finds out that his target has the capacity to fight back, then he instantly develops cold feet.
An example is how he quickly signed a deal with the Houthis after they began downing US drones & showed they could actually fight back.
Israel has made a mistake by publicising the hit on the hospital. They're assuming that Trump will develop sympathy for them & be more likely to back them, but Trump is incapable of human feelings like sympathy & empathy. He only thinks in terms of 'winners' and 'losers'.
Isra was going from the accessible exit of a gig to the nearest bus stop to go home, at walking speed - he was with his sister who was walking. He went over a dropped kerb of a crossing wrong (who hasn't done that!) and tipped over, hitting his head on the ground and knocking himself out. Despite his sister trying to prevent the removal of his aids, by the time he came around in hospital, both his wheelchair and the power attachment had been impounded. Police refused to separate the wheelchair from the power attachment until we got involved. The power attachment is still impounded
The tipover is a risk with tricycle format aids - they tip sideways easily, partly because they cannot "lean" so go over the other way towards the outside of a corner more easily.
I do not see a basis for the police would make such a determination in the case of an accident to a pedestrian falling over on a crossing - someone is being overzealous, or perhaps misapplying procedure.
Original post:
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5240560#Comment_5240560