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?
So, you want to harm many, because of some vague fear over the few.
On 30/01/2026 14:09, GB wrote:
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?
No, I don't approve of suicide in any form. I merely point out that if someone wants to commit suicide, there does not need to be a change in
the law, a change which can be abused - as in the case I highlighted.
So, you want to harm many, because of some vague fear over the few.
I don't want to harm anyone. I want everyone to receive a good standard
of care. Bumping people off is not "care".
Which is more caring, watching your loved one suffer immensely with aThe usual tendentious argument. Given the pain relief available these
short time to live, or letting them terminate their life with dignity so they can be free from pain?
On 01/02/2026 19:47, John wrote:
Which is more caring, watching your loved one suffer immensely with a
short time to live, or letting them terminate their life with dignity
so they can be free from pain?
The usual tendentious argument. Given the pain relief available these
days, the number of "loved ones" who "suffer immensely" must be
miniscule. Furthermore a Christian will accept that God is in control
and will put an end to suffering when He sees fit. To anticipate Him
must surely be a denial of faith.
On 01/02/2026 19:47, John wrote:
Which is more caring, watching your loved one suffer immensely with aThe usual tendentious argument. Given the pain relief available these
short time to live, or letting them terminate their life with dignity
so they can be free from pain?
days, the number of "loved ones" who "suffer immensely" must be
miniscule.
On 02/02/2026 06:11, Kendall K. Down wrote:
On 01/02/2026 19:47, John wrote:
Which is more caring, watching your loved one suffer immensely with a
short time to live, or letting them terminate their life with dignity
so they can be free from pain?
The usual tendentious argument. Given the pain relief available these
days, the number of "loved ones" who "suffer immensely" must be
miniscule. Furthermore a Christian will accept that God is in control
and will put an end to suffering when He sees fit. To anticipate Him
must surely be a denial of faith.
For a Christian that's maybe true, however I smile ryely, because when I
was a new Christian me and my mate were chatting to an Elder in his
garden discussing a problem, and my mate said Que Sera, Sera, to which
the Elder tersely replied, that's not in the bible!
Your other points are, to be fair, valid, although I think being bumped
off for covenience is likely to be a minor issue. I would imagine most
cases would be to relieve the sufferer of acute pain.
For a Christian that's maybe true, however I smile ryely, because when I
was a new Christian me and my mate were chatting to an Elder in his
garden discussing a problem, and my mate said Que Sera, Sera, to which
the Elder tersely replied, that's not in the bible!
Your other points are, to be fair, valid, although I think being bumpedI am sure that under the present law acute pain is indeed the
off for covenience is likely to be a minor issue. I would imagine most
cases would be to relieve the sufferer of acute pain.
I sympathise with that POV, but Ken rightly anticipates that it's not an argument that will resonate with the majority of other people in this country. Hence, he puts forward scare stories of the system not working
well in other countries. That sounds more rational, but it's overdone.
Next thing is he'll want people with red flags walking in front of allNo, that's Sadiq Khan and the Labour government. We're already
motor cars!
There's physical pain, but there's also mental pain, which you're not
taking into account.
On 02/02/2026 11:14, GB wrote:
There's physical pain, but there's also mental pain, which you're not
taking into account.
The cure for mental pain is some form of talking therapy. I agree that
it is cheaper to kill all those who are mentally disturbed, but I'm not
sure if that is what you have in mind?
Next thing is he'll want people with red flags walking in front of allNo, that's Sadiq Khan and the Labour government.
motor cars!
It rains a lot in Wales. Do you blame Sadiq Khan for that, too?No, I blame him for his "war" on motorists in London. I blame the Labour government in Wales for the ridiculous 20mph speed limit. I am not
Some people would be intensely distressed and wish to die if they became totally incapacitated. These are people who you say should throwI don't want anyone to kill themselves, but if they insist upon it,
themselves from a car park.
On 04/02/2026 19:24, GB wrote:
It rains a lot in Wales. Do you blame Sadiq Khan for that, too?No, I blame him for his "war" on motorists in London.
I blame the Labour
government in Wales for the ridiculous 20mph speed limit.
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.
Driving at 20mph instead of 30mph actually causes less pollution, notYou are mistaking the extra fuel burned by driving at high speed.
more. Prove me wrong.
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.
On 08/02/2026 15:12, John wrote:
Driving at 20mph instead of 30mph actually causes less pollution, not
more. Prove me wrong.
However the difference between 20 and 30mph is minimal.
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?
I have just bought a new car, but until last month was driving one
that's almost 20 years old. It met all the ULEZ requirements very easily.
Er - what are the statistics on knife crime under both men?
No idea.
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".
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).
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.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
I am a motorist living in London. Is there a war against me that I'm not even aware of?
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?!
Just relax, Ken, slow down, and enjoy the drive.
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.
At 20mph it would take an hour and a half,...So set off half an hour earlier!!!
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.
At 20mph it would take an hour and a half,...
So set off half an hour earlier!!!
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.
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.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 10:03:04 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
3 files (7,546K bytes) |
| Messages: | 265,184 |