pittgary.bsky.social
Retired Essex boy now in Wiltshire. Husband, dad and grandad ,left leaning, Spurs supporting, spaniel owner.
1,359 posts
146 followers
89 following
Discussion Master
comment in response to
post
The point is that religion should have absolutely no part in the decisions taken by parliament including the Lords.
comment in response to
post
He didn't chose the dates of the G7!
comment in response to
post
I have absolutely no interest in how you choose to interpret your holy book or indeed with that of how others interpret their own holy books.
comment in response to
post
Ah! So your objection isn't to what is proposed but something you think might then happen. In other words nothing can ever progress because of something that isn't proposed. Perhaps the time to challenge is when something is actually proposed.
comment in response to
post
She didn't say there were flaws but the Lords can propose any further amendments. As what is proposed isn't based on another country's laws they aren't relevant.
comment in response to
post
Firstly she didn't. Secondly the Lords will hardly widen its provisions. Thirdly your objection about what you think could happen next but isn't proposed is a reason to stop progress on any matter.
comment in response to
post
Well reasoned until the final point. It's only people that are terminal that will have the right to choose! Yes they are vulnerable because they are dying and fearful of being denied a way out if, despite your efforts, they are in pain and wish to die.
comment in response to
post
I don't see that as relevant unless you have received a diagnosis that you are likely to die within 6 months? Why should you have the right to deprive someone of escaping from more pain when it becomes unbearable because you disapprove?
comment in response to
post
Indeed, should be pronounced the same as garage, but starting with an f. Effing Farage!
comment in response to
post
The theoretical risk, despite the safeguards, of coercion is something to receive the utmost attention but is absolutely not a reason to deny someone dying of the choice to end their lives at a time they choose.
comment in response to
post
It isn't.
comment in response to
post
Did god tell you that or is it just your opinion?
comment in response to
post
So you really think it's appropriate for the unelected Lords to reject something agreed on a free vote following hours of deliberation by the elected Commons? The fact that they can is precisely why they should be abolished
comment in response to
post
Lots of words but it ends with the question would it be undemocratic for the unelected Lords to vote down a bill agreed following a free vote by the elected Commons. Really? Good excuse to abolish the Lords if it does.
comment in response to
post
Relevance of dying? And it won't be defeated.
comment in response to
post
Why is it that the majority of those following the poorly written argument seem to be priests or include their Christianity in their bio's?
comment in response to
post
Firstly something isn't illegal because you want it to be, secondly by what means do refugees arrive here when we have no safe routes? Oh and thirdly what evidence do you have to suggest that there is any threat?
comment in response to
post
You seemed to have moved on from your (wrong) safe country point. Maybe you realise that say an Afghan will cross numerous countries. I guess you also now accept we receive a tiny proportion of asylum seekers.
comment in response to
post
Well it is in fact, given it's a law change, but it's already received enormous amount of scrutiny. My non legal point however is who on earth thinks their view is more important than that of the dying person? I certainly don't.
comment in response to
post
I don't follow that at all. It's about the dying person having a choice not only whether but also when. If they are living a good life for longer than anticipated that's marvellous and they won't ask for assisted dying at that point.
comment in response to
post
The person is dying. They decide if they want to go and when. There is no requirement to end it at a particular time so if the person lives longer than anticipated and isn't in unbearable pain they can delay or indeed not opt to.
comment in response to
post
Which is fair enough but surely the ultimate decision is for the person that is dying not for someone else, even if an MP or Lord, to deprive them of that choice.
comment in response to
post
Well fortunately it passed. Same argument about what it might led to with no evidence rather than what it allows. As to the 6 month part there is no requirement to ask for it until such time as you decide living is no longer bearable. Cruel to then deny somone the option.
comment in response to
post
It's really not. You now might think it isn't but it was an ecclesiastical crime at one stage and your Christian burials were denied, catholics considered it a grave sin etc. You of course get round that by changing your views as to what the bible says when it suits but strictly believe other bits.
comment in response to
post
Well as Christians cherry pick which bits they now choose to believe in, I guess so. I guess you no longer believe the bit about suicide being a sin, or do you? It's simpler for me as I don't have to worry about such things and believe in choice and what I think is right.
comment in response to
post
And you make a point of saying you are a Christian so it's also reasonable for me to assume that's why you are defending his point of view.
comment in response to
post
Well he makes a point of saying he is a priest so it's a reasonable assumption.
comment in response to
post
Vicar! Religious views shouldn't be imposed on non believers.
comment in response to
post
Isn't listening to all the arguments exactly what she has done and incorporated amendments accordingly. What are the arguments that have been ignored and religious ones don't count and should be imposed on others.
comment in response to
post
They do differ but for her to suggest a vote for assisted dying is a vote for sadism is absurd. A block from me.
comment in response to
post
That's sort of how things go. You say things but can't really back them up. Bye
comment in response to
post
Why did you ask then?
comment in response to
post
If I was him I'd claim my ancestors lived in Bethnal Green for 7 or 8 generations. That's true but he'd overlook the fact that as they were silk weavers they were probably Huguenots and certainly not mention my Irish maternal grandad.
comment in response to
post
So if your ancestors came from Ireland or were Jews escaping Europe or maybe Huguenots from France you are British but if several generations ago they came from the West Indies, Africa or the sub continent we have to give you a separate category. Funny that!
comment in response to
post
To collaborate they need to be publicly owned. It's much easier to just take over routes at the end of a franchise than buying other privatised utilities.
comment in response to
post
Not sure why you think that was too important if you wanted us to stay as it worked and we did.
comment in response to
post
Neutral as far as Levy is concerned but he never really wanted that. A tactic to get what he wanted from Haringey.
comment in response to
post
Delusional unicorn believer. You face far, far more problems than me.
comment in response to
post
The difference is I won't to but appreciate the problems you just exaggerate (who said millennia?) and pretend they can be wished away. Enough now.
comment in response to
post
Just possible that arrogant rants without any consideration of the potential problems to overcome is just like the Brexiters promises of sunlit uplands without any idea of how to get there.
comment in response to
post
Really? I bow down to your superior knowledge! For your info I'm no fan of this govt, have left the party and voted tactically last time (Lib Dem) to no avail. I just happened to believe gradual progress is needed to convince all 27 in the EU and overcome the issue here of re-entry on worse terms.
comment in response to
post
Oh we are back to now Almost like you've got an obsession about Labour despite their not being the cause of Brexit. They are of course gradually mending the relationship. The only issue (other than your obsession) is the speed of it. You want us to rejoin now but realists know that's not possible.
comment in response to
post
Let me guess.
comment in response to
post
Why would I support Brentwood or are you just trying to impress me with your knowledge of Essex? Never lived there and family are Spurs and from Walthamstow.
comment in response to
post
But not Man Utd!!
comment in response to
post
I don't know if you realise the govt was Tory and the Remain campaign was made up of Tories. Labour had no more say than any other opposition party. Are we now back to discussing history?
comment in response to
post
You said Corbyn!!! The reality is we lost. The idea that we can magically change that is foolish. Hopefully we will eventually but as much depends on the EU as a majority voting yes.
comment in response to
post
Why on earth did you mention Corbyn then?
comment in response to
post
Perhaps they want to play Champions League Football in a modern stadium.
comment in response to
post
I think you need to direct your ire at the real culprit. Cameron agreed to the referendum as he thought it would save him and he would then win. Arrogant fool.