sadoldgit

So Donny is very upset about Labour volunteers flying to the States to support the Democrats. Apparently this isn’t unusual and Tory MPs have also been involve in supporting the Republicans in the past. Let’s not forget the support given to Trump by a Leader of a major political party here too. Does he really believe that a few Labour MPs will make any difference at all in the way the US votes? I doubt it, just another example of him playing the victim card.

Why is it not sensible or rational to ask people who oppose the assisted dying of terminally ill people if they agree with abortion or not and the giving of a non resuscitation order? It seems a perfectly reasonable question to me. I can understand why people might oppose it on the grounds that all life is sacred. I do struggle to understand why someone would stand in the way of a terminally ill person with months to live being given the opportunity to die with dignity at a time of their choosing. You shouldn’t have to fly to Switzerland or put your family and loved ones through the trauma of a suicide or attempted suicide. I get the argument about the system being abused, but that should get in the way of the basic principle. Strict procedures need to be in place, but should well meaning people really get in the way of the wishes of someone who is suffering and is very close to the end of their life?

The issue is completely polarised, like Brexit. Those who are pro life will be deeply unhappy if they loose the vote as will those who support the motion. Whether it is just MPs or a referendum is doesn’t really matter. One way or another an awful lot of people will not accept the decision as being the right one. From my point of view though those who will benefit personally from the assisted dying motion through less suffering stand to gain a lot more than anyone else if the motion is passed.

If the argument against the use of assisted dying is the “sanctity of life” then it isn’t apples and pears at all. It is all about choice and who gets to make those choices. Your attempt to swerve a perfectly reasonable attempt at dealing with a difficult subject by claiming that I am trying to derail the thread is something I expect from the others. I thought you were better than that.

Your first point is precisely why this case should have gone to court. Those who would use this as an example of bias now have nothing to back that up. You really are spending way too much time in your local ale house. Justice is a process. It is not an absolute. At the end of a case you often will find that one side or the other will feel that justice has not been done. I’ve made this point serval times. OJ Simpson went through the judicial system and was found not guilty of the murder of his ex wife and friend. There are countless examples of miscarriages of justice. Because a jury comes to a decision, it doesn’t change what actually happened, it just provides a verdict after a legal procedure. “Justice” often depends of the competency of the prosecution/defence lawyers. But then you know that don’t you. And for avoidance of doubt, I do think that this was the right verdict.

I’d be interested to know if those who are strongly against the policy of assisted dying for those who are terminally ill - a) If you are also against abortion and b) do you agree or disagree with making an anti-resuscitation decision for next of kin or dependants?

And only terrorists….oh! https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/un-agency-says-israel-still-preventing-aid-reaching-northern-gaza-2024-10-21/

My understanding is that, under our system, only the terminally ill will be considered. What others do is down to them and doesn’t mean that we will end up following suit.

But at least we have got our country back and are in a stronger position to make much more beneficial financial decisions. 🫤

You’re another one. Again, Evans was found guilty of rape and served his sentence for it. After several attempts at an appeal which were all turned down, he eventually achieved his appeal which he won thanks to “new evidence” which appeared thanks to his father in law putting a reward up for “new evidence.” The CPS argued that the “new evidence” should not be allowed as it didn’t relate to this case. The judge allowed it anyway. The CPS believe that the two new witnesses were coached by the Evans camp at to the ‘new evidence’ they gave. I’ll remind you again. His mate picked up a young woman who was clearly the worse for alcohol, drugs or both. This was made clear by video evidence of her barely being able to walk. Also it was corroborated by the owner of the kebab shop in which Evan’s mate found her. The law states that intoxicated women cannot consent to sex. She was clearly intoxicated. Evans by his own admission, walked into the hotel room his mate and her were in, performed a sex act on the intoxicated women and lady immediately without even speaking to her. The prosecution team believe that he was guilty of rape. They believe his mate was guilty of rape. One jury cleared his mate but found him guilty. Another jury found him not guilty with evidence the prosecution believed to be tainted. Make of the whole sorry episode what you will, but it went through the judicial system none the less. Many complaints against the police go through an internal review process which is probably why there is little public confidence in them. If the police, especially the Met, didn’t have such a poor issue over racist behaviour, perhaps the colour of the deceased skin wouldn’t have become an issue. The reason the race card gets played against our police force so often is purely down to their appalling record of racism. Still, absolutely no surprise to see the same people who rejoice in the killing of innocent Muslims (one of whom is happy to see them “under rubble”) getting exited about the shooting of a black man. The “poor man” who put a bullet through the victims brain still gets to live his life. The guy he shot had not, at that point, been found guilty of any crime. I should also remind you that even if he had been found guilty, we no longer have capital punishment in this country.

Thanks for reminding me that you think it is ok to have sex with incapacitated women.

Remind me of the time when your heroine Thatcher stood on stage and told an anecdote about George Best’s dick. Engage your brain for a change. We are not talking about a bunch of pissed up blokes talking crap in a pub. We are talking about a previous and maybe soon to be President again of the most powerful nation in earth. Clearly you have very low expectations of the type of people you would give your vote to but given your devotion to Farage that is no great surprise. Tell me, do your wear your MAGA baseball cap down at the local ale house? Or perhaps you wear the MFRS version (Make Farage Richer Still)? Here’s one that will make ‘em laugh down at your ale house - Donald Trump, a big cock talking about a big cock.

What are you talking about? He didn’t know he was a core gang member of the time and he wasn’t charged with shooting a “random innocent black man.” He was charged with unlawful killing. The colour of the man’s skin had nothing to do with it. No police officer is above the law and we can’t have officers shooting people to death with impunity. The CPS believed that there was just cause to bring this charge. These matters need to be dealt with in a thorough and transparent manner. He has been found not guilty and justice has not only been done but it has seen to have been done. The only issue is whether the officer’s name should have been released. I don’t know why the judge felt it was okay to make that decision.

Trump, again, demonstrates why he should be nowhere near the White House. https://www.forbes.com/sites/mollybohannon/2024/10/20/donald-trump-makes-crude-joke-about-arnold-palmer-at-pennsylvania-rally/ I know that we have at least one person on here (hi nic) who believes the candidates are all the same, but you don’t see any other candidates standing up on stage and talking about the genetalia of a famous sportsman.

There will always be issues and debates around the basic criteria of the issues of assisted dying. As has been said countless times, it doesn’t mean that we should not help those terminally ill to end their suffering. Dying with dignity under our own terms should be a basic human right. I certainly would expect that right and don’t want anybody who isn’t facing the same circumstances telling me otherwise. All this “slippery slope” stuff is nonsense. The basic premise makes perfect humane sense and it is down to us, the voting public, to ensure that our decision makers and legislature keep a strict control of the basis in which assisted dying is applied. The discussion should not be around whether we allow assisted dying or not. It should be around under what circumstances we allow assisted dying to occur.

I agree nic, there are a lot of conspiracy theorists to be found in school playgrounds. The difference is most of us grow out of it when we leave school and become mature adults with the ability to make well rounded, reasoned judgements.

Would that be the same Met police who have been found to be institutionally racist? You do know that one firearms officer was charged, not the whole unit?

David Mitchell was born to play this part.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cqlvwdk04gwo.amp Democrats taking the fight into Trump territory.

It is interesting to see some definitions of “British values” and how some of our politicians seem not to have many of them who claim to be fighting for British values. https://www.hsdc.ac.uk/british-values/

There is nothing like prejudging when you are a conspiracy theorist, eh Nic?

Some 42,000 people killed before they finally kill him, and then just by chance. Will this be the end of it now? Not a chance.

More illegal occupation? https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20241016-israel-leaders-to-hold-conference-to-encourage-resettlement-in-gaza-report/amp/

A Tory councillor’s wife https://news.sky.com/story/amp/wife-of-tory-councillor-jailed-for-31-months-over-social-media-post-stirring-up-racial-hatred-13234756

It has become a pointless exercise to post about the strikes against civilians in Gaza, now we have the same daily reports from Lebanon. https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-air-strike-kills-mayor-nabatieh-official-meeting Over a year now and the killing of innocent civilians crosses more borders. We get the same old rhetoric about how, if you criticise the Israeli actions, you are antisemitic. The same blind eye is turned to the death of innocent Muslims from the same quarters. The Israeli government accuse the UN of being antisemitic and use the same card to ignore the countless sanctions against them for the many alleged contraventions of international law. A cease fire and peace talks are farther away than ever. It has be said many times but you don’t have to be Einstein to work out that the more women, children, journalists, aid workers, totally innocent civilians you kill and maime, the more your claim that you are acting in self defence looks hollow and the more you are sowing the seeds of more aggressive towards you and the people you represent in the future.