hypochondriac

Absolutely. Completely pointless to buy him if we never play him. Would have been better off loaning him back to Peterborough for the season.

You're a cunt and a troll. Do everyone a favour and leave.

No idea if this graph is accurate but if true what the fuck were they doing?

Will be interesting to revisit this thread over the next couple of years when the first lot of questionable death stories come out and when the rules are relaxed from the expected to die within six months standard.

As predicted it passes. A very sad day.

Ah yes such a gift in the Netherlands:

Given that's the phrase you've used to describe distribution of child rape, I'm not sure I'd be trusting your judgement on that.

And apparently it wasn't the first time.

Depends if that's all it was or if there was more to come out about it.

You said a judge signing off was a "massive" safeguard despite that being disputed by an incredibly experienced judge who actually goes through the wording in the bill as it applies to judges and despite nothing in the bill addressing the overcrowding, lack of resources, the fact the judge doesn't have to meet anyone involved in the case or has to investigate the circumstances of cases (nor is there a right to appeal or to notify any next of kin.) It's not a massive safeguard.

I'm sure there will be tradeoffs with every decision. Maybe Trump and his team will trade some job losses in car manufacturing in exchange for sorting out the border.

The judge has no obligation to investigate any case, merely to rubber stamp the procedure. Remember too that this is a severely underfunded and overstretched judiciary who won't have the time to investigate even if they were required to - which they aren't.

This from Dominic Grieve highlights another point that you didn't mention:

Don't be more of a colossal prick than you normally are. Like I said earlier, you are unable to properly articulate the main arguments of those who disagree with you. There is a ton of things that should happen before this sort of thing is even close to being considered. You need proper safeguards in place to reduce the likelihood of coercion. Possibly properly funded social workers specially trained to spot coercion, you'd need evidenciary hearings in court where cases are investigated properly and you'd want actual money to fund this and a significant improvement in palliative care prior to the implementation of this. I still wouldn't support it in those circumstances but it would at least be marginally more acceptable than this terrible written and poorly conceived Bill being introduced at the wrong time and with none of the details properly articulated. Even the likes of Liberty who support assisted dying have urged MPs to vote against this Bill because they don't think the safeguards are sufficient.

I'm not sure anybody is labouring under some misapprehension of what the point of this bill is. No one has suggested they aren't fully aware of what the point of it is. The potential of the bill to be misapplied, the fact that our healthcare system isn't anywhere near equipped to deal with this change, the lack of safeguards, the poor wording and the lack of investigative ability when things inevitably go wrong along with the proven history of the slippery slope in the numerous countries with this legislation are big deals. Absolutely baffling - though not surprising - that you think they aren't.

A judge you say? Might be worth reading the thoughts of Sir James Munby, the former president of the family division for his serious reservations on that and why having a judge is no safeguard at all: https://transparencyproject.org.uk/assisted-dying-what-role-for-the-judge/ https://transparencyproject.org.uk/assisted-dying-what-role-for-the-judge-some-further-thoughts/ As he suggests, a judge who doesn't have the time or resources to investigate properly - and who only has to rubber stamp the procedure has been followed in any event - isn't anywhere near enough. Also as already explained it's a diagnosis from two medical practitioners - not necessarily doctors who make the determination. You can shop around for a medical practitioner to give you the answer you want and then there's no way to challenge the rulings or for anyone to investigate possible cases of coercion - even if they turn out to be a rarity.

In what way is this such a ridiculous fantasy that something similar to this would never happen?

I feel confident that I could broadly articulate the main positions of those on here who support this Bill. I don't have the same confidence that they would be able to do the same for those who oppose it. They keep repeating the same arguments that people either don't disagree with or largely haven't argued.

Because Arianna grande is mega famous and nobody outside of the niche world of musical theatre knows who the other one is?

You can agree with that and oppose this bill, as many people are doing.

I'd be more interested in what Trump actually does rather than what he says. At the moment it looks like he's threatening the likes of Canada with harsh tariffs to try to get them to sort out their own border. Maybe he will get some action from Trudeau to the degree that large tariffs aren't needed. Will be interesting to see.