egg

I think most farmers are "well off" in terms of their level of non disposable land and assets, but I've not met many that are well off in terms of disposable income or capital. They're definitely not well off from a work/life balance either.

Thanks for the input. I have a friend who's business is basically a broker between farmers and major developers. He persuades farmers not to farm land that doesn't make them money anyway in return for a huge lump of cash. The land no longer being farmed creates a carbon offset to allow housing development elsewhere, and one can understand that the farmers will be encouraged to provide that development land. I'm not surprised to hear that it's happening now. I'm not a farmer, but looking from the outside I don't like that this way if life is going to end for many, and I also don't like that as a country were becoming less self sufficient.

Yep. This is a bloody serious issue. Family business, homes and way of life will have to fall by the wayside to pay tax. Add to the mix that our inability to be food self sufficient becomes more of a problem. And we get SoG banging on about the farmers coats. The cynic in me wonders if part of the motivation is to create land for housing, with a carbon offset being created to allow building by the land no longer being farmed. Regardless, some comments are ridiculous and show no empathy or understanding of the issue and the impact.

Donald Trump Jr has a strong view on it. https://x.com/DonaldJTrumpJr/status/1858242971373637784 I'm not sure what escalation people think we'll see as a result of this.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0mzgv4x901o Ukraine still losing ground, and that's with US support. Zelensky warming up his people up his people for the inevitable diplomatic solution, and concessions. Sad situation.

Rolled

Saintsforever is the one I meant. The tubgirl, amygate, etc one.

Can anyone remember when Saintslist began? Forum life was definitely better then - some absolute nutcases on that site.

Good post, and I'm with you on expectations. Awful things. If we expect too much of ourselves and don't meet them it doesn't feel great, and if we have expectations of others that are not fulfilled we can cop resentments. That's all over above your point that people have expectations of the world generally that just aren't realistic, and are completely out of their control anyway. Keep expectation of others realistic (or better still expect nothing of others), do what you can reasonably do and as well as you can, accept people and the world as being what it is, and life is infinitely easier. On your other point. There's a difference between the split topic and the subject being discussed pre split. Hypo's point was that the world is the best it's ever been, whereas the split topic could mean is life (for us) better now. On the first point, I remain of the opinion that the world isn't the best it's ever been. On the second point, I've had periods of my life which have been much better than the present, but on the whole my life is much better now for all manner of reasons, least because I keep expectations low and therefore am rarely disappointed.

There's waste in all public services worldwide, but saving $2 trillion is not efficiency in the true sense of the word. It's high level austerity. That said, their issue not ours largely, but I suspect one saving will be NATO contributions which impacts us.

Yep, and that suggests that his commercial judgement is a bit crap. Not ideal given his new job.

Indeed. I'm not sure what "success" Musk can have. Anyone can slash spending, but nobody can slash public spending by $2 tr (or any large margin) and improve anything, let alone efficiency. He's the austerity minister with a more palatable name.

Does austerity ever actually improve efficiency?

A winger who can actually do something won't be a bad thing.

It depends how it's done. If it's essentially a paper sign off you'd imagine a Judge could get through quite a few in a sitting day. I'm not sure why it needs a High Court judge personally, and if there's volume, it's hard to see the High Court being able to absorb loads of applications which can't be delayed.

High Court Judge's apparently, almost undoubtedly Family Division. If there's lots of cases I wouldn't be surprised if the jurisdiction trickles down to court of protection or family court judges.

This is tedious and that's a pathetic comparison. Perhaps try being less awkward and explaining what you mean.

Absolutely, and not everyone who says they want to wil really want to.

I asked a question. You failed to answer. Your thrust throughout, until then, was that a terminal diagnosis was enough. We got there eventually.

Choice

So you do agree that it's more than a terminal diagnosis and that there needs to be an exploration as to views. Not sure why you were so reluctant to say that.

Yes, but she wanted to hang on to see various things happen, and managed to. She even told us at the end which day she'd finish on. Remarkable really.

There would be scope for amendment, up or down, if this gets off the blocks. I haven't got any thoughts on the timescale personally. The posts from winnersaint and whitey were really touching on this and have made me a little more open to the principle of it, but I remain very concerned of the coercion aspect that would be very difficult to police, if indeed it's going to be. I'd imagine it'll be little more than a sound mind assesment though as per making a will.

My father was given less than 2 years just before he was 70. He's 79 soon. My mother in law was given 4-6 months and survived another 4 years, enough time to see various significant events. Horrific to think that people in her position could be made to feel a burden and feel compelled to elect death without anyone feeling the need to explore whether that's what she really wants.

Don't misquote me. I said "It's the state of heath, and freedom of choice that need to be satisfied for me". The freedom of choice, and it being satisfied, is the safeguard at 1st instance after the verification of terminal illness. I'm not misinterpreting what you've said. You've said throughout, and yet again, that the terminal diagnosis is pretty much all that is needed. That's the beginning. It's the need for freedom choice to elect to die thereafter that you don't seem to understand. I'll ask my question again - are you saying that a terminally ill person saying that they want to die should should be allowed to without any inquiry as to whether that's their free choice? It's a yes or no.