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.
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.
Sorry. I’ve worded my comment badly. I am fully in favour of those with a living will being allowed to exercise their wishes, and am disappointed that the bill doesn’t allow them to do that.
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
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.
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.
Sorry. I’ve worded my comment badly. I am fully in favour of those with a living will being allowed to exercise their wishes, and am disappointed that the bill doesn’t allow them to do that.
So am I, but why is its exclusion reason to oppose the bill?
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of what's better than the status quo.
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?
A debate means proponents need to argue both for and against. Would schools allow that in these “enlightened “ times?
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?
A debate means proponents need to argue both for and against. Would schools allow that in these “enlightened “ times?
I would certainly expect and hope so, that's the entire purpose of debate.
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
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?
It’s a term I use. The Process State
The original meaning is the belief and practise of writing ever more complicated laws & rules to run and control reality. Which can then replace morality, compassion, judgement & discretion.
Just a few more laws and we have achieved Nirvana!
Except the law is a linear, deterministic rule engine. Nearly everything in human experience is non-linear. Including humans. The unexpected is the heart of the human condition.
This is why humans find totalitarian regimes so inhuman - they are attempts to make everyone a deterministic robot.
Discretion, compassion, individual judgement - they are what we want from the State.
The Process State is the world of “Computer Says No”
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
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.
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.
The red tape - much of it contradictory and created by “adding just a little bit to fix..” - is the point.
Create a process and worship that.
Before 2008, elaborate rules meant that every derivatives trader had a photocopy of their passport lodged with HR. They had done myriads of click-through courses, online, teaching them not to steal. Or something.
Measuring risk is a bit subjective and discretionary. Ugh. Not easy to reduce to simple rules. So none of that, eh?
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
State sponsored termination of life? No, not for me. Im sure they'll continue to do so despite my feelings about it. This house rests.
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.
Which can be changed, see Norway's effective prison rehabilitation and work programme
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.
THE PROCESS STATE: The United Kingdom is run by bureaucracy. In this bureaucracy it is only necessary to demonstrate that the correct procedure has been followed, even if it was late, produced bad outcomes, or in extremis killed people. This is referred to as "the process state".
THE NU10K: The people who staff this bureaucracy are a self-reinforcing elite who uphold each other. They are rarely fired, even if wildly incompetent, and when they are fired they rapidly find new employment in similar roles. They are around ten thousand people, at least in order of magnitude, hence the "Nu10K"
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
State sponsored termination of life? No, not for me. Im sure they'll continue to do so despite my feelings about it. This house rests.
I get that its not for you, and a young you could debate that and explain your thoughts against a young me who thinks its a good idea.
Why can't secondary age children be thinking these ideas through and debating them though? I get you don't like the idea, but why is that a reason not to debate it?
We also debated issues like gun control, capital punishment, nuclear proliferation and more - should those also be verboten to debates?
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.
Google Maps is pretty good but many of the in car ones, less so. Frequently if you know a shorter way and take it, the route time reduces, so the thing knows the correct timings but can't find the best route in the first place.
On the other hand, if you want to know where the speed cameras and camera vans are, a satnav is very useful, particularly so now that Google is sharing the customer entered data across Maps and Waze.
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.
Then there's Tulsi Gabbard. Director of National Intelligence, no less, and here's the President telling the world "I don't care what she said" ... about her testimony to Congress.
Such a situation cannot be tenable for Tulsi. As a matter of self-respect this famously principled politician must surely resign.
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Sorry but the wholesale cancellation of debates of contentious issues within schools that's occurred within recent years is a real rot within our society.
It's a great exercise to take a position, particular one you personally disagree with and try and win a debate on the issue. Every school should encourage this, I'd make it part of the National curriculum.
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.
Google Maps is pretty good but many of the in car ones, less so. Frequently if you know a shorter way and take it, the route time reduces, so the thing knows the correct timings but can't find the best route in the first place.
On the other hand, if you want to know where the speed cameras and camera vans are, a satnav is very useful, particularly so now that Google is sharing the customer entered data across Maps and Waze.
Google seems to me to know the route but often sticks to the main roads rather than taking side streets as shortcuts. I suspect that's rather deliberate rather than it can't find it.
Indeed some routes I take it used to give the shortcuts then after updates stopped doing so, which again seems deliberate.
Having said that I always put the satnav on even for a route I know, not because I might get lost, but just for the traffic alerts. The other day I did so for a route I've done countless times before (17 minutes in regular traffic) and it told me my normal route was 58 minutes and gave a detour that dropped that down to 35.
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.
Which can be changed, see Norway's effective prison rehabilitation and work programme
If we are willing to invest in Scandi style public services and pay their tax rates then yes, more things will work. Is this something Kemi might pivot to?
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
State sponsored termination of life? No, not for me. Im sure they'll continue to do so despite my feelings about it. This house rests.
I get that its not for you, and a young you could debate that and explain your thoughts against a young me who thinks its a good idea.
Why can't secondary age children be thinking these ideas through and debating them though? I get you don't like the idea, but why is that a reason not to debate it?
We also debated issues like gun control, capital punishment, nuclear proliferation and more - should those also be verboten to debates?
All that schoolboy debating experience stands you in good stead all these years later on here. It really shows in the way you go about your punditing.
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.
THE PROCESS STATE: The United Kingdom is run by bureaucracy. In this bureaucracy it is only necessary to demonstrate that the correct procedure has been followed, even if it was late, produced bad outcomes, or in extremis killed people. This is referred to as "the process state".
THE NU10K: The people who staff this bureaucracy are a self-reinforcing elite who uphold each other. They are rarely fired, even if wildly incompetent, and when they are fired they rapidly find new employment in similar roles. They are around ten thousand people, at least in order of magnitude, hence the "Nu10K"
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
State sponsored termination of life? No, not for me. Im sure they'll continue to do so despite my feelings about it. This house rests.
I get that its not for you, and a young you could debate that and explain your thoughts against a young me who thinks its a good idea.
Why can't secondary age children be thinking these ideas through and debating them though? I get you don't like the idea, but why is that a reason not to debate it?
We also debated issues like gun control, capital punishment, nuclear proliferation and more - should those also be verboten to debates?
All that schoolboy debating experience stands you in good stead all these years later on here. It really shows in the way you go about your punditing.
Thank you.
My favourite part of debate club was listening to what the other side were saying and rebutting it, so I generally went 2nd or 3rd of 3 where that was a bigger role.
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
State sponsored termination of life? No, not for me. Im sure they'll continue to do so despite my feelings about it. This house rests.
I get that its not for you, and a young you could debate that and explain your thoughts against a young me who thinks its a good idea.
Why can't secondary age children be thinking these ideas through and debating them though? I get you don't like the idea, but why is that a reason not to debate it?
We also debated issues like gun control, capital punishment, nuclear proliferation and more - should those also be verboten to debates?
Because id rather they werent debating offing the sick and vulnerable. Im not proposing banning child debate, im expressing my feelings on what id rather wasnt debated by kids. Others will disagree. Im neither going to change my mind on it nor demand it stop, it, like 'cheering' if this bill passes are not for me and ive expressed my view on that.
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.
Google Maps is pretty good but many of the in car ones, less so. Frequently if you know a shorter way and take it, the route time reduces, so the thing knows the correct timings but can't find the best route in the first place.
On the other hand, if you want to know where the speed cameras and camera vans are, a satnav is very useful, particularly so now that Google is sharing the customer entered data across Maps and Waze.
I'm increasingly frustrated by Google Maps. It seems not to realise that people drive on the left in Britain and Ireland, and therefore right-turns have the potential to introduce delay. In general it adds large amounts of unnecessary complexity to the routes it chooses. It makes it difficult to choose a simpler route.
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
High rates sometimes have to be done, but they're generally not a sign of a healthy economy, they tend to supress equities, obviously debt is more expensive and people have reduced equity in their homes. Now certain people can benefit from some of those - but the macro effect is never good.
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).
The fatal within six months diagnosis criterion would likely mitigate that effect? ETA: (For the UK)
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
State sponsored termination of life? No, not for me. Im sure they'll continue to do so despite my feelings about it. This house rests.
I get that its not for you, and a young you could debate that and explain your thoughts against a young me who thinks its a good idea.
Why can't secondary age children be thinking these ideas through and debating them though? I get you don't like the idea, but why is that a reason not to debate it?
We also debated issues like gun control, capital punishment, nuclear proliferation and more - should those also be verboten to debates?
Because id rather they werent debating offing the sick and vulnerable. Im not proposing banning child debate, im expressing my feelings on what id rather wasnt debated by kids. Others will disagree. Im neither going to change my mind on it nor demand it stop, it, like 'cheering' if this bill passes are not for me and ive expressed my view on that.
What would you rather they were debating?
Should issues like capital punishment get debated?
PS assisted dying/euthanasia is people choosing to end their own life, not being "offed" by others, unlike capital punishment. Nobody is debating involuntary dying, except as capital punishment.
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?
It’s a term I use. The Process State
The original meaning is the belief and practise of writing ever more complicated laws & rules to run and control reality. Which can then replace morality, compassion, judgement & discretion.
Just a few more laws and we have achieved Nirvana!
Except the law is a linear, deterministic rule engine. Nearly everything in human experience is non-linear. Including humans. The unexpected is the heart of the human condition.
This is why humans find totalitarian regimes so inhuman - they are attempts to make everyone a deterministic robot.
Discretion, compassion, individual judgement - they are what we want from the State.
The Process State is the world of “Computer Says No”
A good example is "zero tolerance" which are perhaps the most stupid and inhumane two words any politician has ever said. All kinds of injustice follow that way of thinking.
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Sorry but the wholesale cancellation of debates of contentious issues within schools that's occurred within recent years is a real rot within our society.
It's a great exercise to take a position, particular one you personally disagree with and try and win a debate on the issue. Every school should encourage this, I'd make it part of the National curriculum.
Im not proposing banning debate, im expressing a view on what i think is suitable debate material. Debating, if you will.
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.
What we need is Mary Warnock - her reports and the legislation that flowed from them passed the test of time.
Because she had a combination of philosophy, a brilliant academic mind, practicality and quite a lot of human decency.
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.
Google Maps is pretty good but many of the in car ones, less so. Frequently if you know a shorter way and take it, the route time reduces, so the thing knows the correct timings but can't find the best route in the first place.
On the other hand, if you want to know where the speed cameras and camera vans are, a satnav is very useful, particularly so now that Google is sharing the customer entered data across Maps and Waze.
Google seems to me to know the route but often sticks to the main roads rather than taking side streets as shortcuts. I suspect that's rather deliberate rather than it can't find it.
Indeed some routes I take it used to give the shortcuts then after updates stopped doing so, which again seems deliberate.
Having said that I always put the satnav on even for a route I know, not because I might get lost, but just for the traffic alerts. The other day I did so for a route I've done countless times before (17 minutes in regular traffic) and it told me my normal route was 58 minutes and gave a detour that dropped that down to 35.
Google has suggested some pretty bizarre short cuts over my years of using it across Europe. On a long drive across Austria it once directed me into a farmers field
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 ?
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
State sponsored termination of life? No, not for me. Im sure they'll continue to do so despite my feelings about it. This house rests.
I get that its not for you, and a young you could debate that and explain your thoughts against a young me who thinks its a good idea.
Why can't secondary age children be thinking these ideas through and debating them though? I get you don't like the idea, but why is that a reason not to debate it?
We also debated issues like gun control, capital punishment, nuclear proliferation and more - should those also be verboten to debates?
Because id rather they werent debating offing the sick and vulnerable. Im not proposing banning child debate, im expressing my feelings on what id rather wasnt debated by kids. Others will disagree. Im neither going to change my mind on it nor demand it stop, it, like 'cheering' if this bill passes are not for me and ive expressed my view on that.
What would you rather they were debating?
Should issues like capital punishment get debated?
PS assisted dying/euthanasia is people choosing to end their own life, not being "offed" by others, unlike capital punishment. Nobody is debating involuntary dying, except as capital punishment.
They can debate whatever they want, im not proposing to control it. Im giving my opinion. And euthanasia is either voluntary or involuntary depending on what youre debating. You did not make that clear, you just said you debated 'euthanasia'
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
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.
On the current dead Muslamics to one dead Israeli scale that’s c.1200 revenge killings. A bit to go then.
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
State sponsored termination of life? No, not for me. Im sure they'll continue to do so despite my feelings about it. This house rests.
I get that its not for you, and a young you could debate that and explain your thoughts against a young me who thinks its a good idea.
Why can't secondary age children be thinking these ideas through and debating them though? I get you don't like the idea, but why is that a reason not to debate it?
We also debated issues like gun control, capital punishment, nuclear proliferation and more - should those also be verboten to debates?
All that schoolboy debating experience stands you in good stead all these years later on here. It really shows in the way you go about your punditing.
Thank you.
My favourite part of debate club was listening to what the other side were saying and rebutting it, so I generally went 2nd or 3rd of 3 where that was a bigger role.
I love rebutting what people say to this day.
Yes, I've noticed. And it's horses for courses, eg I'm more of an "Infer and Imply" man myself. Asserting and Rebutting is a bit too head-on for me.
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.
Which can be changed, see Norway's effective prison rehabilitation and work programme
If we are willing to invest in Scandi style public services and pay their tax rates then yes, more things will work. Is this something Kemi might pivot to?
It doesn't just need lots of public spending, North Carolina, Missouri and Texas have an effective prisons rehabilitation programme too. It is more ensuring prisoners, especially the lower level prisoners who will be more likely to be able to get a job on release, are given work training and education not just spending 90% of their prison day in their cells
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.
Google Maps is pretty good but many of the in car ones, less so. Frequently if you know a shorter way and take it, the route time reduces, so the thing knows the correct timings but can't find the best route in the first place.
On the other hand, if you want to know where the speed cameras and camera vans are, a satnav is very useful, particularly so now that Google is sharing the customer entered data across Maps and Waze.
I'm increasingly frustrated by Google Maps. It seems not to realise that people drive on the left in Britain and Ireland, and therefore right-turns have the potential to introduce delay. In general it adds large amounts of unnecessary complexity to the routes it chooses. It makes it difficult to choose a simpler route.
I actually really like Google maps (and its competitors). In particular, I think the following features are brilliant: - live traffic information* - public transport journey planners - cycling route planner
But I still don't understand who take Google maps as a set of rules, rather than a guideline to supplement existing knowledge.
*actually I have mixed feelings about this. Once upon a time you could see a traffic jam ahead and decide on a better route which you could either know about, intuit, or read a map to understand - knowing that, what, 95% of people wouldn't bother, and you'd be better off. Now every other herbert is on satnav, all the alternative routes fill up too and your knowledge and initiative counts for nought.
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
Norfolk Stakes: FIRST LEGION King George V Stakes: SERIOUS CONTENDER Ribblesdale Stakes: GARDEN OF EDEN Gold Cup: TRAWLERMAN Britannia Stakes: BRAVE MISSION Hampton Court Stakes: GREAT DAVID Buckingham Palace Stakes: NEVER SO BRAVE
I might have a wee £ on the Gold Cup. Two PBers saying Trawlerman there.
That means you are twice as likely to lose your money
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
Well yes, but I think Eagles is my age - i.e. he's about 50. Which, all being well, means he has a good few decades left - so no age to be putting everything in savings accounts? But as I say, IANAFA.
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
Well yes, but I think Eagles is my age - i.e. he's about 50. Which, all being well, means he has a good few decades left - so no age to be putting everything in savings accounts? But as I say, IANAFA.
Buy gold or shares. Having my little nestegg in cash or savings accounts did not work out
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
Well yes, but I think Eagles is my age - i.e. he's about 50. Which, all being well, means he has a good few decades left - so no age to be putting everything in savings accounts? But as I say, IANAFA.
Buy gold or shares. Having my little nestegg in cash or savings accounts did not work out
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
Well yes, but I think Eagles is my age - i.e. he's about 50. Which, all being well, means he has a good few decades left - so no age to be putting everything in savings accounts? But as I say, IANAFA.
Buy gold or shares. Having my little nestegg in cash or savings accounts did not work out
I’ve a mix.
Cash, mixed funds, income funds and equity index trackers.
Gold gives you nothing so I’d hold miners instead personally
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
Well yes, but I think Eagles is my age - i.e. he's about 50. Which, all being well, means he has a good few decades left - so no age to be putting everything in savings accounts? But as I say, IANAFA.
Not everything for sure but I think everyone should have a decent cash position for funding bills and lifestyle in an emergency such as loss of job
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
Of course they should, yes. Children should be learning about the issues facing the country and if it is a major issue being debated then yes of course they should.
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Yeah, i dont agree.
Why not?
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
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.
Google Maps is pretty good but many of the in car ones, less so. Frequently if you know a shorter way and take it, the route time reduces, so the thing knows the correct timings but can't find the best route in the first place.
On the other hand, if you want to know where the speed cameras and camera vans are, a satnav is very useful, particularly so now that Google is sharing the customer entered data across Maps and Waze.
Our in car satnav's main weakness is a lack of knowledge about LTN restrictions. I was driving my in laws back from Heathrow yesterday and ran into some road closures around the Oval and tried to use the satnav to find a way round it - big mistake! It took me down a side road into a maze of residential streets and kept trying to make me drive through LTN restrictions. I'd have about £300 of fines if I'd followed its advice, and it took me ten minutes to find a way out of the maze.
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.
That's why I avoid using spellcheckers and autocorrect.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Hang on, are the Israelis saying it is a bad thing to hit hospitals?
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
Well yes, but I think Eagles is my age - i.e. he's about 50. Which, all being well, means he has a good few decades left - so no age to be putting everything in savings accounts? But as I say, IANAFA.
I have a diversified portfolio most in equities but Mr Trump keeps on scaring me.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
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.
Which can be changed, see Norway's effective prison rehabilitation and work programme
If we are willing to invest in Scandi style public services and pay their tax rates then yes, more things will work. Is this something Kemi might pivot to?
It doesn't just need lots of public spending, North Carolina, Missouri and Texas have an effective prisons rehabilitation programme too. It is more ensuring prisoners, especially the lower level prisoners who will be more likely to be able to get a job on release, are given work training and education not just spending 90% of their prison day in their cells
There were 132,955 inmates in Texas prison facilities in April. Of the roughly 40,000 Texans released from state prisons every year, nearly half are rearrested within three years, and between 15-20% return to prison.
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
Well yes, but I think Eagles is my age - i.e. he's about 50. Which, all being well, means he has a good few decades left - so no age to be putting everything in savings accounts? But as I say, IANAFA.
I have a diversified portfolio most in equities but Mr Trump keeps on scaring me.
Always sensible to keep some cash, and at moment savings rates are still fundamentally decent enough.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Hang on, are the Israelis saying it is a bad thing to hit hospitals?
Hospitals that are actually civilian hospitals and not military bases, yes.
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?
Actual good quality butter. Not the spreadable stuff. Take a small piece of the block to room temperature and it will spread fine. Keep the rest in the fridge so it remains fresh.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Western rhetoric is getting as bad now as the despots we used to condemn.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Sounds ominous for Iran.
They can pretend they havent already been trying to kill him all they like, they have
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?
Actual good quality butter. Not the spreadable stuff. Take a small piece of the block to room temperature and it will spread fine. Keep the rest in the fridge so it remains fresh.
Get a butter bell, stays spreadable and stores outside the fridge
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.
Which can be changed, see Norway's effective prison rehabilitation and work programme
If we are willing to invest in Scandi style public services and pay their tax rates then yes, more things will work. Is this something Kemi might pivot to?
It doesn't just need lots of public spending, North Carolina, Missouri and Texas have an effective prisons rehabilitation programme too. It is more ensuring prisoners, especially the lower level prisoners who will be more likely to be able to get a job on release, are given work training and education not just spending 90% of their prison day in their cells
There were 132,955 inmates in Texas prison facilities in April. Of the roughly 40,000 Texans released from state prisons every year, nearly half are rearrested within three years, and between 15-20% return to prison.
The majority not getting rearrested sounds positive, be curious to know how the 'nearly half' compares with other systems.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Western rhetoric is getting as bad now as the despots we used to condemn.
Why is it bad to seek to kill your enemies in war?
I'd rather Iran's dictator gets killed than some random poor conscripted sap of a soldier.
Both are legitimate targets, one is far more consequential and had far more choice in the matter though.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Western rhetoric is getting as bad now as the despots we used to condemn.
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.
Which can be changed, see Norway's effective prison rehabilitation and work programme
If we are willing to invest in Scandi style public services and pay their tax rates then yes, more things will work. Is this something Kemi might pivot to?
It doesn't just need lots of public spending, North Carolina, Missouri and Texas have an effective prisons rehabilitation programme too. It is more ensuring prisoners, especially the lower level prisoners who will be more likely to be able to get a job on release, are given work training and education not just spending 90% of their prison day in their cells
There were 132,955 inmates in Texas prison facilities in April. Of the roughly 40,000 Texans released from state prisons every year, nearly half are rearrested within three years, and between 15-20% return to prison.
The majority not getting rearrested sounds positive, be curious to know how the 'nearly half' compares with other systems.
Seeing as many crimes have very low conviction and even arrest rates, nearly half doesnt sound at all positive to me, unless you own shares in one of the prison firms of course.
It would be interesting to know what proponents of this measure think of unassisted suicides. As I am sure almost all of you know, guns are often used in suicides in the US. (In the past, many military men considered such suicides honorable -- in some circumstances.)
Would people in the "process state" disapprove of such suicides?
Or these? There are, from time to time, "suicides by cop" in the US. A person decides to die by pointing a gun at a police officer or officers. It often works.
Blue and brown are pretty nasty, but white is actually pretty low risk, especially if you aren't a smoker. There are some specialist engineering applications where white asbestos is probably still the correct solution (a lot of the engineers I know have a small stash of it for emergencies - there's nothing like it for sealing leaking steam joints where the sealing faces are poor).
It's not something that you should be handing out like candy, and it's a substance to be treated with respect, but blanket bans on dangerous substances are usually overkill. If the EPA are just allowing it to be used in specialist applications with suitable controls, it's a non issue.
On the other hand, if they are going to let people use blue asbestos pipe lagging, they are idiots of the highest order...
In support of what theProle just said: Years ago, I recall reading a peer-reviewed article in Science that said that most asbestos was not particularly dangerous. One kind was. (Different shaped crystals, as I recall.)
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Western rhetoric is getting as bad now as the despots we used to condemn.
Blue and brown are pretty nasty, but white is actually pretty low risk, especially if you aren't a smoker. There are some specialist engineering applications where white asbestos is probably still the correct solution (a lot of the engineers I know have a small stash of it for emergencies - there's nothing like it for sealing leaking steam joints where the sealing faces are poor).
It's not something that you should be handing out like candy, and it's a substance to be treated with respect, but blanket bans on dangerous substances are usually overkill. If the EPA are just allowing it to be used in specialist applications with suitable controls, it's a non issue.
On the other hand, if they are going to let people use blue asbestos pipe lagging, they are idiots of the highest order...
You just answered your own question.
For extra fun, see the young men outside building sites, coughing their lungs up. After installing insulation. Fine fibres of any kind are not good for your lungs.
My relative who runs a building company is extremely unpopular when he insists on masks, goggles and disposable suits (as appropriate).
His theory is that this keeps his conscience clean. The future problem will be so big that the government will take on the financial liability, so there is no financial risk, really
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Western rhetoric is getting as bad now as the despots we used to condemn.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Western rhetoric is getting as bad now as the despots we used to condemn.
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
Well yes, but I think Eagles is my age - i.e. he's about 50. Which, all being well, means he has a good few decades left - so no age to be putting everything in savings accounts? But as I say, IANAFA.
I have a diversified portfolio most in equities but Mr Trump keeps on scaring me.
Don't let him. Equities are, really, the only game in town. People get carried away with fancy new products, but equities are where it's at for retail investors and are pretty resilient. If you are an institution it's a different story but for normal punters it's equities.
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
Well yes, but I think Eagles is my age - i.e. he's about 50. Which, all being well, means he has a good few decades left - so no age to be putting everything in savings accounts? But as I say, IANAFA.
I have a diversified portfolio most in equities but Mr Trump keeps on scaring me.
Understandable. I keep holding off from topping up my daughters' ISAs because it feels like collapse is imminent. I had a conversation with a financial adviser last week - similar to most years - but in this one the risks were largely about the whims of one madman rather than the unintended outcomes of complex systems of decision making.
Though rationally, in our situations, low interest keeping equities buoyant is better.
Blue and brown are pretty nasty, but white is actually pretty low risk, especially if you aren't a smoker. There are some specialist engineering applications where white asbestos is probably still the correct solution (a lot of the engineers I know have a small stash of it for emergencies - there's nothing like it for sealing leaking steam joints where the sealing faces are poor).
It's not something that you should be handing out like candy, and it's a substance to be treated with respect, but blanket bans on dangerous substances are usually overkill. If the EPA are just allowing it to be used in specialist applications with suitable controls, it's a non issue.
On the other hand, if they are going to let people use blue asbestos pipe lagging, they are idiots of the highest order...
My dad remembers having bags of asbestos on his shoulder, and someone behind him slashing the bag open so all the contents fell into a hopper. Both of them would be wreathed in asbestos powder. As far as we are aware, no-one in the company from that time got asbestosis. Whereas another company in the city, doing similar work, had lots of casualties from it over the decade.
(As this was building, my *assumption* is that it was white asbestos for both companies.)
However, it is not just the people using it now, but people in decades who have to deal with it: whether it is asbestos paneling, insulation on coaches or pipe lagging.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Hang on, are the Israelis saying it is a bad thing to hit hospitals?
Hospitals that are actually civilian hospitals and not military bases, yes.
We tell the difference by where it is and who's bombing it, I suppose. Israel bombing one in enemy territory - military base. Enemy bombing one in Israel - proper hospital.
Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, is understood to have raised concerns that assisting the US in attacking Iran would be against international law. The Spectator reported on Wednesday that he had suggested Britain limited its military response to protecting Israel.
Graham Stringer, the Labour MP for Blackley and Middleton South, told The Telegraph: “I think Hermer has shown that his legal advice is often flawed, and he seems to delight in giving advice which is not in this country’s interest.
Lord Hermer, the Attorney General, is understood to have raised concerns that assisting the US in attacking Iran would be against international law. The Spectator reported on Wednesday that he had suggested Britain limited its military response to protecting Israel.
Graham Stringer, the Labour MP for Blackley and Middleton South, told The Telegraph: “I think Hermer has shown that his legal advice is often flawed, and he seems to delight in giving advice which is not in this country’s interest.
Nasty from Graham Stringer, accusing somebody Jewish of not having the UK’s best interests.
Israel's defence minister says Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, "can no longer be allowed to exist" after the Soroka hospital was hit during an Iranian missile attack, according to local media and the AFP news agency.
Hang on, are the Israelis saying it is a bad thing to hit hospitals?
Hospitals that are actually civilian hospitals and not military bases, yes.
We tell the difference by where it is and who's bombing it, I suppose. Israel bombing one in enemy territory - military base. Enemy bombing one in Israel - proper hospital.
Oh and the command post in the tunnel under the hospital. Don't forget that bit.
Eh ? The vote was carried to keep rates the same. Dinghra, Taylor and Ramsden got outvoted to reduce.
I wanted interest rates to go up.
I think this is because you are a net saver? If so, IANAFA but I would have thought, all other things being equal, you would be better off in a low-interest rate world in which you could invest in funds which would grow more, than a high interest rate world in which you could invest in savings accounts?
Surely that depends on your financial journey and where you are as well as risk tolerance.
Well yes, but I think Eagles is my age - i.e. he's about 50. Which, all being well, means he has a good few decades left - so no age to be putting everything in savings accounts? But as I say, IANAFA.
I have a diversified portfolio most in equities but Mr Trump keeps on scaring me.
Don't let him. Equities are, really, the only game in town. People get carried away with fancy new products, but equities are where it's at for retail investors and are pretty resilient. If you are an institution it's a different story but for normal punters it's equities.
MSCI World YTD:
They are resilient until major economic and political change, ask holders of Russian equities in 1917. Russian bonds had the same fate too. The global economy could be radically altered from that of our lifetime by any of tariffs, AI, global warming or war. Diversifaction beats any "only game in town".
Comments
Secondary school children are plenty old enough to be both learning about and debating serious issues.
Don't let the perfect be the enemy of what's better than the status quo.
https://x.com/JDVance/status/1935457852082016556
One for Leon.
The original meaning is the belief and practise of writing ever more complicated laws & rules to run and control reality. Which can then replace morality, compassion, judgement & discretion.
Just a few more laws and we have achieved Nirvana!
Except the law is a linear, deterministic rule engine. Nearly everything in human experience is non-linear. Including humans. The unexpected is the heart of the human condition.
This is why humans find totalitarian regimes so inhuman - they are attempts to make everyone a deterministic robot.
Discretion, compassion, individual judgement - they are what we want from the State.
The Process State is the world of “Computer Says No”
Why aren't secondary school age children old enough to be learning about or debating issues?
Isn't that the entire purpose of education? Especially in things like Debate Clubs.
https://x.com/factpostnews/status/1935334731190546916
Wut ?
Create a process and worship that.
Before 2008, elaborate rules meant that every derivatives trader had a photocopy of their passport lodged with HR. They had done myriads of click-through courses, online, teaching them not to steal. Or something.
Measuring risk is a bit subjective and discretionary. Ugh. Not easy to reduce to simple rules. So none of that, eh?
Im sure they'll continue to do so despite my feelings about it. This house rests.
THESIS
- THE PROCESS STATE: The United Kingdom is run by bureaucracy. In this bureaucracy it is only necessary to demonstrate that the correct procedure has been followed, even if it was late, produced bad outcomes, or in extremis killed people. This is referred to as "the process state".
- THE NU10K: The people who staff this bureaucracy are a self-reinforcing elite who uphold each other. They are rarely fired, even if wildly incompetent, and when they are fired they rapidly find new employment in similar roles. They are around ten thousand people, at least in order of magnitude, hence the "Nu10K"
ARTICLES- https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/01/12/nu10k/
- https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/02/04/the-state-of-process-the-process-state/
- https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2024/03/08/we-need-more-bureaucracy/
There are probably others which I have missed.Why can't secondary age children be thinking these ideas through and debating them though? I get you don't like the idea, but why is that a reason not to debate it?
We also debated issues like gun control, capital punishment, nuclear proliferation and more - should those also be verboten to debates?
On the other hand, if you want to know where the speed cameras and camera vans are, a satnav is very useful, particularly so now that Google is sharing the customer entered data across Maps and Waze.
Such a situation cannot be tenable for Tulsi. As a matter of self-respect this famously principled politician must surely resign.
It's a great exercise to take a position, particular one you personally disagree with and try and win a debate on the issue. Every school should encourage this, I'd make it part of the National curriculum.
Indeed some routes I take it used to give the shortcuts then after updates stopped doing so, which again seems deliberate.
Having said that I always put the satnav on even for a route I know, not because I might get lost, but just for the traffic alerts. The other day I did so for a route I've done countless times before (17 minutes in regular traffic) and it told me my normal route was 58 minutes and gave a detour that dropped that down to 35.
I don't have confidence in the proposed law, to the extent that I understand it. I'm glad I live in Ireland.
My favourite part of debate club was listening to what the other side were saying and rebutting it, so I generally went 2nd or 3rd of 3 where that was a bigger role.
I love rebutting what people say to this day.
{Narrator - Micronite filters were made with asbestos}
Im neither going to change my mind on it nor demand it stop, it, like 'cheering' if this bill passes are not for me and ive expressed my view on that.
Should issues like capital punishment get debated?
PS assisted dying/euthanasia is people choosing to end their own life, not being "offed" by others, unlike capital punishment. Nobody is debating involuntary dying, except as capital punishment.
Because she had a combination of philosophy, a brilliant academic mind, practicality and quite a lot of human decency.
So I could easily imagine that the direction of pressure from family could be “don’t do it, or you will shame us all”.
And euthanasia is either voluntary or involuntary depending on what youre debating. You did not make that clear, you just said you debated 'euthanasia'
- live traffic information*
- public transport journey planners
- cycling route planner
But I still don't understand who take Google maps as a set of rules, rather than a guideline to supplement existing knowledge.
*actually I have mixed feelings about this. Once upon a time you could see a traffic jam ahead and decide on a better route which you could either know about, intuit, or read a map to understand - knowing that, what, 95% of people wouldn't bother, and you'd be better off. Now every other herbert is on satnav, all the alternative routes fill up too and your knowledge and initiative counts for nought.
Zimbabwe, Turkey, Venezuela, Uzbekistan, Russia
Lowest:
Switzerland, Japan, Canada, EU...
Cash, mixed funds, income funds and equity index trackers.
Gold gives you nothing so I’d hold miners instead personally
There were 132,955 inmates in Texas prison facilities in April. Of the roughly 40,000 Texans released from state prisons every year, nearly half are rearrested within three years, and between 15-20% return to prison.
I'd rather Iran's dictator gets killed than some random poor conscripted sap of a soldier.
Both are legitimate targets, one is far more consequential and had far more choice in the matter though.
Would people in the "process state" disapprove of such suicides?
Or these? There are, from time to time, "suicides by cop" in the US. A person decides to die by pointing a gun at a police officer or officers. It often works.
Blue and brown are pretty nasty, but white is actually pretty low risk, especially if you aren't a smoker. There are some specialist engineering applications where white asbestos is probably still the correct solution (a lot of the engineers I know have a small stash of it for emergencies - there's nothing like it for sealing leaking steam joints where the sealing faces are poor).
It's not something that you should be handing out like candy, and it's a substance to be treated with respect, but blanket bans on dangerous substances are usually overkill. If the EPA are just allowing it to be used in specialist applications with suitable controls, it's a non issue.
On the other hand, if they are going to let people use blue asbestos pipe lagging, they are idiots of the highest order...
For extra fun, see the young men outside building sites, coughing their lungs up. After installing insulation. Fine fibres of any kind are not good for your lungs.
My relative who runs a building company is extremely unpopular when he insists on masks, goggles and disposable suits (as appropriate).
His theory is that this keeps his conscience clean. The future problem will be so big that the government will take on the financial liability, so there is no financial risk, really
MSCI World YTD:
Though rationally, in our situations, low interest keeping equities buoyant is better.
(As this was building, my *assumption* is that it was white asbestos for both companies.)
However, it is not just the people using it now, but people in decades who have to deal with it: whether it is asbestos paneling, insulation on coaches or pipe lagging.
Graham Stringer, the Labour MP for Blackley and Middleton South, told The Telegraph: “I think Hermer has shown that his legal advice is often flawed, and he seems to delight in giving advice which is not in this country’s interest.
Like, WTAF