From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 29/01/2026 18:51, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 29/01/2026 15:23, GB wrote:

Whether you approve or not, some people definitely do want an easier
death, and they don't mind curtailing their lives in order to get
that. You're wrong to seize on a particular case in Canada to try to
deny that to them.

There does not need to be a law to allow people to "curtail their
lives". There's plenty of car parks from which they can jump, plastic
bags they pull over their heads, kitchen knives with which to slash
their wrists. This has always been the case and I don't see how my words could possibly deny them the ability to "curtail their lives".

You keep making this grisly comment, but it's cruel.

At Dignitas, people are rigged up with a cannula, but it is they who
press the button to start the pump that injects the drug into
themselves. You appear to be approving of that?

In practice, Dignitas is expensive, and it requires travel to Switzerland.

Putting a law in place leads to the sort of abuse this particular case
has highlighted, but it is by no means an isolated case. There have been similar cases reported from Holland and Australia. It is an inevitable consequence of euthanasia laws. If you feel it is right that immensely vulnerable people should be killed, say so - except that you don't have
the guts for that and so you hide behind one or two difficult cases
(which notoriously make bad law).

You, too!

On the other hand the case does demonstrate that we need robust
safeguards in place if we do allow such a system in this country.

Safeguards are only as effective as the people implementing them - and experience has shown that whether from ideology, criminal carelessness
or whatever, the safeguards are side-stepped and vulnerable people are killed.

So, you want to harm many, because of some vague fear over the few.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 06/02/2026 18:31, GB wrote:

I am a motorist living in London. Is there a war against me that I'm not even aware of?

Do you drive an older car or are you fortunate enough to afford a new
one? Have any of the streets in your neighbourhood been closed to
traffic, allegedly to save pollution.

It's a dreadful job, being Mayor, but Sadiq is doing a good deal better
than that buffoon Boris. Whose idea was it to put Boris in charge of the country?!

Er - what are the statistics on knife crime under both men?

Just relax, Ken, slow down, and enjoy the drive.

Quite so. Now let us suppose that I had a 30 mile journey to do through
an urban area and let us ignore traffic lights and other traffic. At
30mph the journey would take an hour and I would do it in 5th gear,
which means low revs and low fuel consumption and correspondingly low emissions.

At 20mph it would take an hour and a half, I would be in 4th gear
dropping to 3rd every time there was a slight rise in the road. People
living along my route therefore get 50% more pollution thanks to the
longer time and between 10% and 15% more pollution due to the higher
revs of a lower gear. And the journey costs me more due to the higher fuel.

So I enjoy the slower driving but stuff anyone who is allergic to
traffic fuems or children or the elderly who suffer from the increased
CO levels.

I take it that deep thinking and reasoning from cause to effect are not
your forte?

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 07/02/2026 05:03, Kendall K. Down wrote:

On 06/02/2026 18:31, GB wrote:

Just relax, Ken, slow down, and enjoy the drive.

Quite so. Now let us suppose that I had a 30 mile journey to do through
an urban area and let us ignore traffic lights and other traffic. At
30mph the journey would take an hour and I would do it in 5th gear,
which means low revs and low fuel consumption and correspondingly low emissions.

Where on earth would you travel 30 miles through an entuirely 20mph
zone? I think you'd be hard pressed even if it was there and back. I
marvel that you can do a constant 30mph in 5th gear. On my car it tells
me (1) to change at 42mph, I can only just go into 4th at 30 mph.

(1) I don't need it to tell me, I know when I need to change without
looking at the speedo, but it has a handy up and down indicator which
tells you the optimum time to change gear.

At 20mph it would take an hour and a half,...

So set off half an hour earlier!!!



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 07/02/2026 14:26, John wrote:

Where on earth would you travel 30 miles through an entuirely 20mph
zone? I think you'd be hard pressed even if it was there and back. I
marvel that you can do a constant 30mph in 5th gear. On my car it tells
me (1) to change at 42mph, I can only just go into 4th at 30 mph.

30 miles through an urban area is hypothetical, but doing 30 in 5th is
not. Of course, you can't accelerate hard in that combination, but just drifting along, not a problem.

At 20mph it would take an hour and a half,...

So set off half an hour earlier!!!

Which conveniently ignores the point about increase pollution. But of
course I wouldn't expect you to engage with anything that would upset
your smugness.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: uk.religion.christian

On 09/02/2026 17:22, John wrote:

Lowering traffic speeds reduces the dominance of motor vehicles and
makes our streets safer, more inviting, less polluted and more
attractive for walking, cycling and public transport trips. This is essential for ensuring we increase active and sustainable travel in London.

I simply do not believe that. When I am walking on the footpath, it
makes no difference to me whatsoever whether the passing cars are going
at 20, 30 or even 40 mph. Up here buses have had to reschedule trips
because they have been so slowed by the 20mph limit, so we now have
fewer buses spaced further apart; is that your idea of "more
attractive"? And having cars crawling past me because their speed nearly matches my own instead of zipping past and disappearing into the
distance is not my idea of increased safety!

An evaluation of 20mph zones in London, carried out by Imperial College, showed slowing traffic had no net negative impact on exhaust emissions. However, in 20mph zones vehicles moved more smoothly, with fewer accelerations and decelerations, than in 30mph zones. This smoother
driving style reduces particulate emissions from tyre and brake wear -
which still represents a significant cause of air pollution from zero- emission vehicles.

That sounds like total rubbish. I have to ride my brakes if I want to
keep below 20 when going down a hill and use more accelerator, despite
being in a lower gear, when going up the other side. As for a "smoother"
ride, that is total rubbish. Perhaps on some dead flat test track with
two other cars that might be true, but in real life driving one is
constantly playing with the gears (or the automatic system does it for
you!), accelerating and braking as the traffic lurches from one obstacle
to the next.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down
--
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software.
www.avg.com



--- Synchronet 3.21d-Linux NewsLink 1.2