hypochondriac

I know he's trolling so won't be responding in depth as that's what he wants but it really is absolutely pathetic.

Was the matter not dealt with in the same thorough and transparent manner as this one? Or are you not so enthusiastic about that ruling because it didn't have Corbyn and Khan calling for "justice?"

100% this.

The man was driving a car linked to previous shootings, when asked to stop by the police he crammed the car and missed catching an officer and dragging him down the road by inches, other officers on the scene testified that they were seconds from doing the exact same thing. The jury acquitted him in less than two hours. It's a disgrace that this went to trial, not helped by the likes of Khan and his race baiting comments.

It's a total disgrace that this went to trial. That poor officer.

In that case maybe I'll change my deeply held beliefs and vote in favour.

I don't think we have any proof of that at all. I don't think there was ever an indication what Wilcox would have blindly allowed this to continue in the manner that it has done even if he was responsible for picking him in the first place.

I know you disagree. You've mischarictarised what I've said again. What accurate medical assessment is required to condemn the death of DeCorte?

Wilcox was director of football though. Presumably he would have had some influence on Martin continuing to do this.

We absolutely are comparable to a country like Canada, particularly when we already have a number of MPs putting pressure on to expand those eligible for this bill. You can also see similar scenarios in Ohio, Holland and Belgium where assisted dying was also introduced along similar lines to what is proposed here. I don't think the worst case will always happen, my entirely valid concern is everything that I have already articulated in numerous posts but also that there is a greater risk that some people will lose their lives unnecessarily, that life will become less valued, that those who are old or disabled will feel coerced overtly or covertly to end things now that the option is available to them etc etc. I understand the other side of the argument but IMO it's an unacceptable risk to take and it will be a sad day if/when this is passed for those reasons.

Is failing to replace Jason WIlcox something that we will look back on with hindsight as something that seriously wrecked our chances this year? IMO it was a madness not to do so.

The issues in Canada include people being able to shop around for doctors until they find two willing to sign it off even if others have already turned them down. Did you look into the De Corte case where she was allowed to kill herself in Belgium at 24 after being traumatised by a terror attack? From Canada: “When we were debating this in 2015, the Netherlands stories and Belgium stories were constantly talked about, and the response was ‘we’re Canadians, that’s not going to happen’.” But “that’s what happened” Why would we think things would be different here? There's at the very least a reasonable risk of that happening once it has been normalised so it warrants being part of the discussion.

How many times? Canada proposed the exact same thing. They expanded the definition within 4 years, something a significant number of MPs are already pushing for before they have even got this bill through.

Looks like they are keeping him till mid November and doing a Ralph. I wonder if they will then do a Nathan Jones and bring in someone from the lower leagues with a substantially different method of playing and with players unsuitable for the style of play?

I think the main question is whether you trust the state to carry this out in an ethical and extremely limited manner. I don't believe it can:

Seems like much of the money was elsewhere: https://x.com/TheMossadIL/status/1848452390443155732?t=1PL4gw-wJI5T5muwG63xDQ&s=19

I'm saying that if we keep Martin to the point that relegation becomes inevitable, on balance I'd probably prefer to have him for another year in the championship given that these are his players and they all know his style of play. I reckon we sack him in the next few anyway and I'd probably get rid now whilst we still have a small chance of survival.

Yes but if we make a Nathan Jones type appointment and boot him out after a few months it would make getting rid pointless. All about who we get in I suppose, hopefully someone who can have a go in the championship as well as the prem.

Personally I think if we don't get rid of him over the next three to four games then we might as well let him relegate us and have another go next year.

Only bush jr has ever won the popular vote for republicans in modern times. It's an irrelevance.

Yes that was my point. The new York Times had Clinton at something like 96% chance of victory.

I assume the betting is assuming that the polls are underestimating the Trump vote again. A lot will depend on if they have corrected their methods this time or not. It's a lot closer than I expected, I thought Kamala would be smashing it.

Again, it depends what you mean by successful. Certain people in power in Canada obviously considered it to be successful which is why they have expanded it in such short order and caused so many problems that have already been outlined. At least you've stated that the concerns about misson creep are obvious, it seems we only disagree about whether that should stop bills like this from going through or not. I can respect your difference of opinion on that even if I can't agree with it.

There were multiple safeguards in place in Canada (they lasted less than two years) and Oregon. Other countries as well though I would have to get the details. 54 MPs are trying to get the bill to be expanded already: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/05/widen-access-to-assisted-dying-say-labour-mps/ They want the bill to apply. To the terminally ill and "the incurably suffering" From Canada: “When we were debating this in 2015, the Netherlands stories and Belgium stories were constantly talked about, and the response was ‘we’re Canadians, that’s not going to happen’.” But “that’s what happened”

You're the only person who has mentioned nazi levels of social cleansing. You're deliberately creating wild exagerratiobs to try to discredit the very valid point. I've already explained to you that it was the case in both Canada and Belgium that a terminal medical diagnosis was required abd then the rules changed. I explained to you that a tiny percentage of applications get turned down in Canada. De Corte was 23 and deeply traumatised after witnessing a terrorist attack. How can it possibly be OK for her to be out to death in that scenario? All signed off by two psychiatrists by the way. Or Raikin above who had lots of terrible illnesses but decided that nobody cared about her and that her problems were mostly mental but decided to ask to be killed anyway because she considered herself to be a burden. If as seems likely this passes, it will be a tragedy that cases like I have described will happen (and there plenty more so let's not try to pretend they don't exist anymore) and it's also tragic that you utterly fail to see a differing and perfectly valid alternative point of view from your own.