RugbyRebels

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:06 pm

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 1:11 pm Assisted Dying bill being discussed in Parliament currently
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/cg4ry0pge4kt

Tugenhadt is particularly despicable, spouting a load of lies, then says "we need more honesty in this debate", follows up with false dichotomies and then a few more lies

I've sent a few emails to my MP on the subject (particularly on the days before debates). He's voted for it so far but, according to his emails, is not guaranteed to do so today (he keeps an open mind - waiting to decide on the day, if you can believe that). We shall see . . . I just hope the majority of his inbox is in favour.

morepork wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 3:12 pm WT, there are dozens of experimental drugs for treating MN disease.

morepork wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 10:05 pm Not intentionally tagging you in. The video tagged MND specifically. Sorry for the intrusion. There are clinical trials for that disease was my only point.

Which Tyler wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 10:23 pm

morepork wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 10:05 pm Not intentionally tagging you in. The video tagged MND specifically. Sorry for the intrusion. There are clinical trials for that disease was my only point.

Fair enough.
Worth noting that the documentary is 15 years old, the host is a fantasy author, not medic or researcher, and the point was assisted death, not some of the conditions that some sufferers of would consider AD

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 10:17 pm Zarah Sultana explaining my feelings better than I did.


FB_IMG_1750442807280.jpg


Puja

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 10:17 pm Zarah Sultana explaining my feelings better than I did.

FB_IMG_1750442807280.jpg

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 2:51 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 10:17 pm Zarah Sultana explaining my feelings better than I did.

FB_IMG_1750442807280.jpg

Puja

It seems that most of the Labour left felt something like that. This is difficult. Concern for the vulnerable is very important and, yes, (without good enough safeguards ) there is a risk that the vulnerable could be persuaded to die early as a result. But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

Ideally we would have brilliant palliative care in all locations in the country. But we don't and I don't have great confidence that this government (or any other) will ever prioritise it enough. This is the reality. We can't wait for a perfect society to provide the perfect free choice for those facing a terminal condition. We'll wait forever for that. The question is, is it better now for the choice to be available?

It seems to me that we might be in an unusual situation, with enough liberal types in parliament to be this done (and only just!). After 2029 when are we likely to see this again?

Dan Price, the whip for the Reform UK group on the council

"As a father myself, the safety of our children is paramount. Children and parents shouldn't be risking their lives on the school run due to uncut grass.

"Drivers shouldn't need to risk their lives or the possibility of damaging their vehicles whilst using Cotmanhay island."

"I am a hands-on councillor. I want to do things differently."

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 4:15 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 2:51 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Fri Jun 20, 2025 10:17 pm Zarah Sultana explaining my feelings better than I did.

FB_IMG_1750442807280.jpg

Puja

It seems that most of the Labour left felt something like that. This is difficult. Concern for the vulnerable is very important and, yes, (without good enough safeguards ) there is a risk that the vulnerable could be persuaded to die early as a result. But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

Ideally we would have brilliant palliative care in all locations in the country. But we don't and I don't have great confidence that this government (or any other) will ever prioritise it enough. This is the reality. We can't wait for a perfect society to provide the perfect free choice for those facing a terminal condition. We'll wait forever for that. The question is, is it better now for the choice to be available?

It seems to me that we might be in an unusual situation, with enough liberal types in parliament to be this done (and only just!). After 2029 when are we likely to see this again?

The concept of politicians saying, "We'll get the general concept ratified and we'll hammer out the exact details later" should terrify anyone who watched the Brexit negotiations. Quite apart from that, I don't know if this passes the "Would we trust any future BNP/Reform government with the power this law provides?" test, which any big shake-up should require. Without having the guardrails absolutely iron-clad and fixed solidly into the ground, I am worried about the possibility of the Overton window shifting further and ending up having doctors and next-of-kin being able to make decisions about "Whether he would want to be a burden on society".

This was a news story today that got me thinking on on a similar vein: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c1ljg7v0vmpo. In an ideal world, this should be a great idea and a phenomenal opportunity to revolutionise the health of the country - I should be jumping for joy about the potential development of predictive and personalised healthcare.

However, I can't help but think that I don't trust any UK government with that sort of data right now. The Conservatives would privatise it at a cut-price deal to a mate "to leverage the efficiency of the free market", Labour would "work with business" to make sure that insurance and finance companies could use it to discriminate, and Reform would try to turn it into biometric IDs so that anyone not born in the country couldn't access services.

Puja

But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 5:37 pm Me seeing a headline of, "Have-a-go mow warning as councillor cuts roundabout" and thinking, "I bet that's some Reform cunt getting upset about wildflowers."

Dan Price, the whip for the Reform UK group on the council

Of course it was.

"As a father myself, the safety of our children is paramount. Children and parents shouldn't be risking their lives on the school run due to uncut grass.

"Drivers shouldn't need to risk their lives or the possibility of damaging their vehicles whilst using Cotmanhay island."

Daniel, bestie, my brother in Christ, my anthropomorphic turnip friend, with kindness, with all the respect you deserve, without judgement... how in the name of fuck are you "using a roundabout" that risks your life or damaging your vehicle if the wildflowers in the middle are allowed to grow tall?

"I am a hands-on councillor. I want to do things differently."

I'm willing to bet that "doing things differently" also includes not turning up to any council meetings or making any effort to understand even the very basics of council governance. I've heard some absolute horror stories from people working for councils about some of the recent Reform electees.

Puja

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:22 pm.What is your view on my point:

But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

Puja wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 9:25 pm

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sat Jun 21, 2025 7:22 pm.What is your view on my point:

But, by the same token, aren't the vulnerable most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way under the current laws? Aren't they the ones least likely to find a way through the system to get good palliative care?

It's a good question is my view! I guess the answer is in an inflammatory and extreme word that a few disabled friends and some disabled influencers have been chucking about of late - eugenics. It's a big fucking word to use (mind, so was "fascist", not very long ago), and my initial reaction was scornful, but their argument is not about a deliberate, fascist, ideology of hatred, but a capitalist one of expendability.

The argument goes that, if you conflate a person's value with the economic utility they produce, then it leads to an inevitable conclusion that some people are more valuable than others to society and that, if you had a smaller percentage of the less valuable ones and a higher percentage of the more valuable ones, then society as a whole is 'better.'

You can see it in this government. Cuts to PIP (a benefit most often given to those in work, which usually provides the adaptations that are **needed** in order for them to work) are described as "encouraging people to come off benefits". The "most business-friendly government ever" wants to "cut down on red tape on employers" (which is often protections for accomodations and to prevent discrimination). There is discussion of the need to "reduce the cost to the Treasury of benefits" and "revolutionise social care to reduce the burden on taxpayers." Meanwhile Reform fulminate and propagandise about redrafting the Equality Act, the business opportunities from removing "political correctness gone mad", and peddle conspiracy theories about "Motability means people with Aspergers ¹ get given a free car!"

Remove jobs, remove money, remove care, remove support from disabled and vulnerable people and more of them will die - this is known fact. Either directly from the consequences of austerity, or through hopelessness and despair from being demonised by society and internalised shame at being "a burden" on friends and family. Every time cuts are needed and it's determined that disabled people need less, the message is drummed in that they are a luxury to be tolerated by a kind society when the economy is doing well but, in times of trouble, they are "a cost to the taxpayer" that needs to be reduced.

It is a known fact that these cuts cost lives. And yes, when savings need to be made, the choices are made - disabled lives are an acceptable sacrifice to improve the economy.

It feel inflammatory to call it eugenics. I'm not entirely sure it's wrong. And the corollary of using that word is that our society having "the most vulnerable being most likely to die in a dreadful, painful, terrifying way" is not a bug, but a feature. The government providing a "solution" by making it easier to die does not fix the actual problem and in fact provides a disincentive to do so.

Puja



¹ I used the word Aspergers deliberately, because noted Nazi Hans Asperger invented it to separate autistic people into two categories - those who could be economically useful to the state and those who could not be. The ones who couldn't be, were of course sent to a 'special school', although history is deliberately vague about whether Asperger understood what that actually meant.

Value to the state based around ability to generate economic activity.

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:15 pm Palestine Action to be declared a terrorist group and banned for [checks notes] spraying paint onto an RAF plane: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn81g4e0nlyo

Fucking ridiculous. Yes, it's a criminal act and the protestors should be punished according to that, but pushing terrorism charges? Really? Who are they terrorising?!

Puja

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 6:59 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:15 pm Palestine Action to be declared a terrorist group and banned for [checks notes] spraying paint onto an RAF plane: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn81g4e0nlyo

Fucking ridiculous. Yes, it's a criminal act and the protestors should be punished according to that, but pushing terrorism charges? Really? Who are they terrorising?!

Puja

Criminal actions in the pursuit of a political aim. It’s terrorism even if no one is thankfully getting killed. And to be clear that’s millions of pounds worth of damage caused.

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

Terrorism is defined in legislation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 1 of the act states that terrorism means the use or threat of one or more of the following actions:

serious violence against a person
serious damage to property
endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action)
creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system[1]

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 8:28 pm

Sandydragon wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 6:59 pm

Puja wrote: ↑Sun Jun 22, 2025 5:15 pm Palestine Action to be declared a terrorist group and banned for [checks notes] spraying paint onto an RAF plane: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn81g4e0nlyo

Fucking ridiculous. Yes, it's a criminal act and the protestors should be punished according to that, but pushing terrorism charges? Really? Who are they terrorising?!

Puja

Criminal actions in the pursuit of a political aim. It’s terrorism even if no one is thankfully getting killed. And to be clear that’s millions of pounds worth of damage caused.

It's nonsense to call it terrorism under any reasonable definition of the word, eg from Wikipedia:

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims.

According to the UN it is:

Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes are in any circumstance unjustifiable, whatever the considerations of a political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other nature that may be invoked to justify them.

But since Palestine Action's actions are neither violent nor cause terror, it cannot be reasonable to call them terrorism.

However, in UK law terrorism has the ridiculously broad definition:

Terrorism is defined in legislation under the Terrorism Act 2000. Section 1 of the act states that terrorism means the use or threat of one or more of the following actions:

serious violence against a person
serious damage to property
endangering a person’s life (other than that of the person committing the action)
creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public
action designed to seriously interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system[1]

...so that Palestine Action could (if the damage is serious?) indeed be described as terrorist, as could any person who committed any of the acts above - even though for the most part they are manifestly not terrorist acts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_terrorism
https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/terr ... e%20action)

Son of Mathonwy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 24, 2025 5:44 pm Looks like Labour's Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment bill is running into big trouble . The amendment which will stop it has 123 signatories so far (even if the amendment isn't selected by the speaker, at least these 123 will presumably rebel). Starmer may need Badenoch to get him over the line - God helps us - but that would demonstrate exactly where Labour is right now, politically and morally.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/202 ... ion-by-mps
https://www.benefitsandwork.co.uk/news/ ... -cuts-bill
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3w48zlw04po

Worst case scenario: Starmer and Badenoch join forces to get the bill through, Reform vote against, Farage acting hero of the downtrodden - and Labour sinks even further behind them in the polls. Farage wins in 2029 and does not reverse this legislation.