aintforever

Not getting humped feels like a win. COYR

Doesn’t mean it has to happen here. The concerns over mission creep are obvious but I don’t see that as a reason for not easing the suffering of the terminally ill. Anyway, expanding the criteria will only ever happen if the existing legislation is considered successful.

Why would a government expand the law if they didn’t think it was a good one that stopped a lot of unnecessary suffering?

That’s just bollocks. Whatever your views, it is a subject that needs debating in Parliament. I get the obvious concerns but if someone is given an imminent terminal diagnosis and are suffering unbearable pain then it is inhumane to deprive them the choice of going without suffering.

Doesn’t have to. Surely a government would only widen the scope if the law was actually working.

There would be calls for it to widen, there would be calls for it to be abolished, not sure what your point is. As I said, if the Swiss law can remain unchanged then there is no reason why ours can’t. If the law is so bad why do other countries choose to widen the scope? If a future government decides to change in either direction it then that is their right.

I don’t think that’s a good enough reason to not allow it, Swiss law hasn’t changed for something like 80 years so there is no reason why we would have to change it. Not allowing a good law just because you think some democratically elected government might change it to a law you don’t agree with some time in the future is nonsense IMO. Give people who are terminally ill the choice to die without suffering, in my opinion it is inhumane to force people to die long drawn out painful deaths. Are you happy to let people slowly suffocate to death vomiting up their own shit when they could go out painlessly and quickly?

I’m not sure what people’s disabilities has to do with it if the law only covers people given a terminal diagnosis.

I would rather take a punt on a lower league or foreign manager than let Lallana take charge. ’goodbye frying pan, hello fire’ springs to mind.

To be fair he took over a Championship side and will leave them in the Premier League (just).

It’s hard to put that down as incompetence. He can clearly see it, he knows the rules, it’s just plain cheating. He was making weird decisions all game, it must be easy money for these refs down the bookies.

You shouldn’t base any law on a bunch of fairytales written centuries ago.

Problem is we have only had one hard game so far, we might look in touch with 17th but we’re in a false position.

Don’t talk nonsense, our whole squad is Championship quality except for 2 or 3 players.

Has to go now, his style is suicidal anyway but when you go in front it just gets worse and worse. We’re going down anyway but might as well roll the dice now.

Except Starmer was chief prosecutor during the 2011 London riots and dealt with it in exactly the same way (when the perpetrators were disproportionately black). As Winnersaint says - the two cases old rubber-face is comparing are completely different.

Surprised at that, Cleverly looked like the best out of a bad bunch. Think Starmer is going to be able to crack on with his free Arsenal tickets for a while as the two left just look unelectable to me. Badenoch seems a tad unhinged and Jenrick just comes across as a wanker.

I agree with the means testing of WFP, there are so many wealthy oldies out there who don't need it. My in-laws are nowhere near the wealthiest and even they put theirs towards a couple of weeks in Greece. But there does need to be some help for those who don't qualify for Pension Credit and genuinely need it - hopefully the government will put something in place. At least this might encourage all those who qualify to go and claim what they are entitled to.

After watching my Nan and Dad suffer in their last days I have to say I agree with this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/oct/09/assisted-dying-bill-kim-leadbeater-right-to-die Interesting that the doctor in the article said that prior to the Shipman case doctors would be able to help people die quicker. Also interesting that it says Oregon law has stayed unchanged for 40 years, Swiss law unaltered for 80 years so, if that's true, the idea that mission creep is inevitable might be nonsense. One thing is for sure, I'm much more scared of a protracted painful death than I am of the idea that, when Im old and frail, my daughter will try to wheel me down the clinic to get her inheritance.

Which is why it's right to be debated in the House of Commons with the MPs having a free vote.

Hopefully. It is a complex issue but on balance I think it is right that people have the choice in certain situations.

All the Arsenal players are moving forward, KWP (I thought it was was Archer) on the left wing has checked his run and is onside. Over the top into the space and he could be through on goal, as long as it clears the defender at worse it goes out for a throw or ends up with the Arsenal keeper. But no, they are hard-wired to try and keep possession at all costs.

I disagree, Downes had a forward pass he could have made, I think it was Archer made a good run down the left but his first instinct was to try a square/backward pass and fucked it up. It's a trait we have seen a lot with Martin's side and it's really frustrating. Sugawara was probably trying the right thing at that stage of the game to be fair but it was still a typical Martin goal against - taking risks at the back keeping possession but being scared of taking risks going forward through fear of losing possession.

One report I read reckoned him leaving all 5 strikers on the bench ‘looked like he was sending a message to the SFC recruitment department’. I certainly was a weird thing to do, the sort of thing a manager does when he knows his time is up.

That’s because pretty much the whole squad is Championship level.