sadoldgit

She resigns for this and the next President of the United States of America is a convicted sex offender. Go figure.

I know you are desperate to find issue with allowing people to make their own choice If a loved one of yours was diagnosed with a terminal illness with a short life expectancy (not by a quack but a medical professional), was is constant pain, was only given months to live and begged you to allow them to die now with some dignity, would you tell them no, you want them to carry on suffering until they die naturally? Shopping around to find doctors who are going to give you the answer you want? WTF? If you are terminally ill and have a relatively short life expectancy why would you have to “shop around” to tell you what you have already been diagnosed with? Medicine is a bit more advanced than the Middle Ages. Your user name does not apply to those who, not only have been diagnosed with a terminal illness, but suffer with the physical effects of those illnesses. People now know what to expect. They will be able to make a decision that, when the worst happens, they can call an end to the suffering when they are ready. You would have to be pretty callous to deny somebody that right.

Of course I understand the difference between a personal choice and external pressure. I don’t see why we should be denied our own choice just because other people think that there could be an issue of external pressure. Do you know antibody who would put pressure on a loved one to end their life slightly earlier? We are talking about people who are going to die soon, not in years to come. I really don’t get the idea that the country is full of people who are champing at the bit to kill off relatives a few months earlier to get their hands on their money or because they can’t be bothered to deal with their illness any longer. Perhaps you know people who would try and encourage a loved one or relative to end their life earlier for their own benefit. Everyone I have spoken to have said that they would not want a loved one to die before their time but would support their wish if they felt that had had enough and wanted to end it now rather than hang on for a few more months in pain. Allowing people to die a bit earlier with dignity if they so chose should not be denied because some people think that it will open the door to mass exploitation. There may be some people who will be prepared to put pressure on a relative or “loved one” because of their own interests, but the process is designed to ensure that the patients wishes are paramount. No system is perfect but the point of this bill is to allow people a proper choice without having to either carry on and suffer regardless, commit suicide or travel abroad without support (unless their loved ones are prepared to face prosecution when they return to the UK). I think that far more people will benefit from this bill than be possibly exploited by it. My opinion is no big deal. The testimony of so many people who have seen loved ones die in agony and have begged to be put out of their misery is a big deal. Terminally ill people are in professional constant care. Do you really believe that people will get this signed off if they are not in a position that they will die in a short time frame in poor circumstances?

I think the bottom line comes down to this. Does the individual have the right to choose how they end their lives in certain circumstances? I don’t see why or how anyone should be denied that right and MPs should vote for the individuals themselves. It is not about their consciences or religious beliefs. It is not about them. It is about each and every one of us in our individual circumstances.

Another weekly Kemi session https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/27/kemikaze-her-own-worst-enemy-after-another-scattergun-pmqs

When you listen to those who have lost people in harrowing circumstances it becomes pretty clear that those suffering would rather not be here. No one can say with any certainty that every single case will be perfect but should we deny the majority of people the right to die with dignity because a few might not meet the criteria by 100%. These people are not going to go in and have a decent quality of life. They are all going to die soon and in great discomfort. They will make the decision themselves and also have the opportunity to change their mind after they have made the initial recon if they so wish. Two doctors and a judge will have to sign off on their decision. Even if the claimant wishes to end their life earlier so as not to be a burden on others, isn’t that a valid personal choice? I don’t want my loved ones to see my die in great discomfort. The idea that there are thousands of family members currently rubbing their hands because they can possibly get their hands on the family silver a few months earlier seems, frankly, ridiculous.

If the bill passes it still has to go through a long period of discussion and scrutiny. It won’t just happened from the next day. We all have a terminal illness. It is called life. Most of us will not suffer a prolonged and painful death. I hope that those who face it are given a choice in how their life ends. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1dpwg1lq9yo.amp https://www.dignityindying.org.uk/assisted-dying/the-law/ I have heard doctors tell us about how the time limit of 6 months isn’t perfect science. That is not the point. It doesn’t matter whether the person passes in three months or 12 months in the end. The point is that they will die in a relatively short period of time and in great discomfort and distress. 6 months has been chosen as a period that reflects that end of life is imminent. As an aside, I have an acquaintance who is currently in hospital with a brain tumour. His wife said that he wasn’t expected to make it through the night a week ago, but he is still with us. Just before he entered hospital he had a fall and badly injured his leg. The doctors, despite knowing that he has little time left, wanted to amputate his leg as they felt that the injury was life threatening for him. Where is the logic in that?

Some of the pro bill MPs have said that they think the bill will fail. Some commentators saying that many MPs have yet to make up their minds. Apparently a lot of the new MPs feel that this bill has come to soon for them and they would prefer to get a bit more experience under their belts before they deal with such an important and emotive piece of legislation.

No surprise to see one of our far right posters supporting Musk. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/economy/2024/8/13/the-right-wing-lurch-of-x-under-elon-musk

You do love a conspiracy theory don’t you 😂. If you have ever read any of my posts about what I think and have thought about Twitter itis that it is mostly populated by gullible conspiracy theorist and people who are hard of thinking. I held that opinion of Twitter well before Musk took over. It is even worse now which is why millions of people are switching to other social media platforms. You must be delighted that Musk is now not only using X to spread bolux about politics here as well as being one of Trump’s henchmen. He clearly sees himself as a Bond villain and is lapping up the fact that the most powerful man on the planet from next January is giving him so much latitude. Nic, if you really want people to take you seriously you should at least try and get some of your facts right, ok? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/picture/2024/aug/10/chris-riddell-on-elon-musk-as-a-bond-villain-cartoon https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/how-elon-musk-uses-his-x-social-media-platform-to-amplify-right-wing-views

Do you think Trump has employed Musk for his advice only to ignore it when given? If Musk gives Trump a list of names of people he wants gone, if any of them lose their jobs it is down to Musk isn’t it? Trump has brought Musk in to do a hatchet job (just as he did at X). Even if he isn’t personally firing people he will be responsible for them losing their jobs

I don’t necessarily agree with that. We have a pretty useful Championship squad, depending on who leaves. We have the makings of a yo-yo club at the moment.

This sums up social media and keyboard warriors nicely.

Publicly naming someone who is supposedly in a “non job” seems to be showing some serious intent. The Daily Mail is only a newspaper. Musk has been given the job of firing people. More idiocy here https://newsthump.com/2024/11/26/trump-supporters-to-continue-in-comforting-belief-that-china-will-pay-the-tariffs-in-same-way-mexico-paid-for-the-wall/ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/c8xpzl8nnvwt

This pretty much sums up the current state of affairs. https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/2024/nov/25/two-million-voters-already-think-keir-starmers-team-should-be-relegated

The cull starts https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/elon-musk-mass-firing-department-of-government-efficiency-b2653471.html

Whilst I agree with your basic point, I think, on this occasion, it was just very poor judgement from the keeper in dealing with a long ball over the top. Keane was probably being charitable when he suggested that McCarthy was rusty after a long period on the bench, but the bottom line is that he totally misjudged the ball and his position in relation to the goal.

This will probably rankle with the few on here who bring up Ched Evans every few months, but the majority of people who think that men taking advantage of women when intoxicated is wrong and needs to be dealt with as criminality will welcome this. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/jess-phillips-details-spiking-laws-102156706.html

This will please the anti woke brigade https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-transgender-military-policy-b2652956.html

I have heard “the slippery slope” mention so many times over the last few weeks. If we stopped making decisions over fears of “the slippery slope” nothing would ever get done. I understand that the legislation is going to be very tight and if the vote goes through there will be further scrutiny to make sure that it sticks to a tight protocol. We really need to stop putting our own judgements before others when it comes down to what we feel is best and allow people to make their own decisions about their own lives when the end is near. The only people who have a right to determine how they die are those faced with certain death in a certain timeframe with an understanding of how difficult that death will be for them. Not the church, not keyboard warriors on social media, not people who worry about “slippery slopes”. We really need to give people the right to a dignified death on their own terms. Why on earth would you deny someone that? What right do we have to insist that people have to die an awful death when we wouldn’t put our own pets through the same trauma?

I don’t disagree but many teams have been caught out trying to play out from the back, not just us. We just get caught out much more often it seems.

Liverpool were below par today but quality teams find a way of winning. Poor teams find a way of losing. Our tactics don’t help, but we really aren’t good enough in this league. The second and third goals were down to schoolboy errors (how many have we seen this season?) whereas the first was down to tactics. We can put together some passages of play which are quality, the second goal being an example, but over 90 plus minutes we rarely look like we anything other than a Championship side. We could bring in a coach who might be able to keep the goals conceded down, but we really don’t have the quality throughout the squad to compete at this level at the moment.

Three goals gifted

Dear god

Normal service resumed