Abbott was an MP, which makes it more serious. Racism is never ok, but this case is a bit like Tommy Robinson complaining someone called him a white bastard. Not sure why you think Badenoch is a racist, what, for not saying something? Racism by staying silent is a new one on me.
Yes, I was getting Badenoch mixed up with Braverman, who is undoubtedly racist. Badenoch has now spoken out against Hester's comments. Better late than never.
My neighbour used to tutor Hesters daughter at their mansion in Horsforth. Said he was a horrible man regardless. Made a lot of money providing ****e computer systems for the NHS, some not fit for purpose. I know this cos my brother in law has worked on the systems for over 5 years now. At least someone has got extremely rich .
Pretty much all of her pronouncements on Muslims are racist. It's why they had to say that 30p Lee's rant was 'wrong' without admitting it was racist. They'd have had to kick her out, too.
Apparently, what Hester said was racist but he's not a racist person. So it's all ok, they can keep the money.
Sir Keir is promising a vote on Assisted Dying when Labour form a government. Assuming he doesn't U turn, then good for him. I've just been listening to a female Tory MP expounding why Parliament should not vote on this, and should ignore the public which is currently 78% in favour. Yet another example of where the Tories are getting it so wrong.
I agree with assisted dying in principle, but I do think it may be quite tricky to implement because of the grey areas involved.
That’s ‘representative’ democracy for you though. We don’t vote for an MP to represent us, we vote for someone to represent themselves and their party. So even if 75% of her constituents think one thing this MP (party irrelevant really) can vote the opposite and call it ‘conscience’, because she, not the people who vote for her, gets to make the decision on how to vote. Doubtless they will have a ‘free vote’ on this where MPs are led by their conscience rather than their constituents. And nowadays it’s really easy to ask your constituents what they think. Its bullshit. Canada, nearly all Australian states, 11 US states, Switzerland, Belgium and the Netherlands have all figured out how to implement this effectively. Germany and France are on the way, framing legislation now. Shouldn’t be beyond us, plenty of places to copy.
Not sure I’d want an MP going with the view of the majority of the minority of people arsed enough to air their view. People are generally ****ing morons and the MP in theory* is intelligent enough to make the best call even if that means saving constituents from themselves. *until the 2019 intake as we now have Jonathan Gullis bringing the average IQ down irreparably.
As I understand it, two doctors would have to opine that a patient likely had 6 months to live before a judge signed off. I'm sure a judge would remind the patient that doctors can be wrong about prognoses, and then the patient can, if they wish, abandon the application or defer the execution of it (no pun intended). If he/she deferred, but had the necessary judicial permission, it would surely give him/her huge comfort that they had that choice if pain or distress (like struggling to breathe) became unbearable.
As I said, I agree with it. We must ensure that no one is able to profit from it by putting someone under undue pressure to end their life.
A valid concern, but not an issue that has been particularly problematic in countries where Assisted Dying is legal, I believe. The main complaint by the antis, is that AD can expand to other categories of patients through challenge under HR laws. But a legislature could put a stop to mission creep if it had the will.
