Lighthouse

Another case of people choosing the exact interpretation of the exact moment in history which they feel they’re the victim of. As has been pointed out we can reasonably demand reparations from many European nations, not to mention the Catholic Church, so where does it all end? If we can trace homosapiens back to east Africa, are they ultimately responsible for the whole worlds colonialism?

Can’t really see us spending anything, January is notoriously poor value and we’re not going to sign anyone who’s going to make any difference in terms of staying up. I don’t think we’ll need to do much in summer either, we already have a massive squad of Championship players. Me might sell a couple, possibly TP, KWP or ABK.

Knock it up to the big man and get runners to feed off the knock downs doesn’t really cut it in the PL in 2024.

No system is flawlessly fair and equal but you get a red card for a challenge like that nineteen times out of twenty, with VAR.

That’s not our only hope though, is it. People get carried away predicting double figures when we play anyone in the top six and it’s never happened. Most recently it was Arsenal and we were leading after an hour or so.

Utterly astonishing that anyone in the, "traumatised black community," would choose this as a hill to die on. The total denial of the fact that Kaba was quite clearly a dreadful person and the reason he was shot had nothing to do with skin colour is just amazing.

We’ve tried that.

🤷‍♂️

I disagree. The handful of cases you’ve highlighted (going purely by media articles and without having the information or expertise to give them an accurate medical assessment) do not negate the right of thousands of people every year do have their pain and suffering ended quickly and with dignity. Even that is assuming all your fears about mission creep are realised and dubious cases start to creep through the net, which at the moment there is no suggestion will happen.

We can cross that bridge if and when we come to it, for what is currently being proposed I see no reasonable cause for concern. As Weston said, more information would be needed for that specific case and whether or not two doctors would sign him off as being terminally ill.

Durkin always seemed fair, my main memory of him is sending off Sol Campbell for a foul on Delgado in a 3-2 win over Arsenal.

There are many valid criticisms of Mike Dean but this isn’t one of them. It was an absolutely ridiculous challenge by Jankewitz, young or not, and as blatant a red as you’ll see.

Okay, I get our concerns death of loved ones is never a pleasant topic to discuss and if you start adding a choice into equation it starts to get pretty heavy. The criteria of this bill are pretty clear and definitive to me: https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/55997/documents/4980 It states quite clearly the need for multiple safeguards against the issues people are concerned about. All of the arguments were taken into account when the bill was drafted, hence the need for a clear informed decision, signed by an independent witness, who cannot stand to profit from the will. That’s as well as a sound, independent medical diagnosis of terminal illness, and a certified second opinion from a doctor who cannot be a colleague of the original doctor. People with disabilities and mental illness are specifically mentioned as being excluded.

First point, stuff like that was said by many people to try and discredit many issues they disagreed with. If you don’t want to accept that people say that kind of thing but we’re talking about a much higher level of hysteria here, literally Nazi levels of social cleansing were the elderly and disable are being coerced into unnecessary euthanasia as a matter of public convenience. You and hypo have repeatedly ignored the same point throughout this discussion; this law will need to be based on medical sound diagnosis’ of a terminal illness. It’s not something you can just pop into Boots for on your lunch break, you will need a doctor (with a second opinion) to sign off on the fact that you are terminally ill and/or of seriously degraded quality of life. If you’re 83, fit as a fiddle and tell a doctor, "well I want my grandkids to have a deposit for a house," your application is going to be rejected. Anyway, I’ve made my point, we’ll see what gets said in parliament. It’s just a shame that if it does get defeated, people in unbearable pain will have to go through the discomfort of travelling abroad to end their life humanely.

That’s a completely erroneous example of what’s going on here. Your two friends had no choice in the matter, so it has no bearing on this discussion. It’s one thing to take comfort in the fact that you’re leaving something behind for your children, when you’re terminally ill and know you’re about to die regardless. It’s really quite something else for someone who’s generally speaking healthy but getting on a bit to want to die so that their children can have money. You say you don’t know what kind of people I hang with, well I’ll tell you; people who would rather their loved ones were alive than have a bit more money. Your last sentence doesn’t follow either, people are able to commit suicide all the time. The difference is there is absolutely no dignity at all in throwing yourself in front of a train, nor is there any requirement for a doctor to sign off on it. People just do it out of desperation.

There's absolutely no evidence, that's my point. It was hyperbole stirred up by some of those opposed to its legalisation, the idea that something ridiculous and immoral must 'come next'. Not everything is a slippery slope, a law can be just that and stand on its own morals. We can legalise euthanasia for the terminally ill and that can be it, without leading to unregulated extermination of people in wheelchairs and those holding back a juicy inheritance, for no medical reason.

The exact same argument that was used against same sex marriage being legalised. "It’s a slippery slope, it’ll lead to people marrying 10 year olds and horses." ‘Wow’ is not an argument. Absolute nonsense. When people say they would die for their kids, they mean, they’d push them out of the way of an oncoming lorry, or risk their lives to rescue them from a burning building. They are NOT going to choose suicide so their kids can have a new BMW and a trip to the Maldives, it’s a ludicrous argument and you know it.

Still absolutely no explanation of why two doctors would sign off and carry out euthanasia on the very, very small number of otherwise healthy elderly people, all of whose children are literal psychopaths. In any such case, there’s nothing to prevent anyone committing illegal suicide. If you’re genuinely convinced you need to off yourself so your kids can have a trip to the Maldives, you can stick your head in the oven or swallow a bottle of paracetamol. You can do that any time you like, there’s no doctors signature required at all. As for that documentary, I got about ten minutes into it and got fed up. It was a bunch of people who very, very, very clearly don’t want to commit suicide, trying to argue that the law applied to them. The irony is that all their examples of people saying, "oh I’d just kill myself if I was like you," didn’t make them want to do it at all, so it’s completely contrary to the point that they’re trying to make.

Most of the arguments you’ve put forward, along with those shared by Carr and TGT, have a large missing link, which nobody has yet put forward a credible argument for. There’s no explanation of how this law is going to lead to otherwise healthy elderly people, and those in wheelchairs, being coerced into euthanasia against their will. The examples you gave from other countries amount to little more than isolated cases of unprofessional and rude staff. There is a large chasm between some admin clerk suggesting euthanasia because they can’t be bothered installing a wheelchair ramp and a doctor actually signing off on such a ridiculous proposal. That’s not even mentioning the fact that a wheelchair user would obviously not consent to such a proposal.

I never said Smallbone was a good player, he’s totally average even in the Championship and should be nowhere near a PL squad. However he was the right player to bring on, in the same way that I’d rather go on a date with with Anne Widdecombe than Lilly Savage.

A law allowing people who have been medically diagnosed as terminally ill to end there suffering in no way whatsoever implies a 'duty to die' for someone who is elderly but otherwise healthy. That makes no more sense than saying straight people will feel an obligation to have a same sex marriage, just because that's been legalised.

That would be Wes Streeting the practicing Christian, who has a religious book commanding everyone to preserve life at all costs. "Duty to die," my arse, that’s completely unfounded nonsense.

HE looked good, WE looked like we were being outplayed for most of the first half. He’s not exactly the kind of player you want to bring on and chase down everything off the ball.

I fully agree, it's almost as if the manager has an entire squad of sh*te options to try and forge a team from.

He'd have been a passenger and Russ would have been slaughtered for it.