euthanasia

this article on the icwales web site prompted me to have a good think about euthanasia.




i think it's about time that it was legal, as long as there are safeguards to prevent people offing elderly or infirm relatives who are stoppong them getting their inheritance or just being in the way:

• at least two doctors should agree that the person is not likely to recover and has indicated that they do not wish to continue to live;


• if the person cannot give an informed decision, at least three doctors should agree that the person's condition is untenable;


• a magistrate's court hearing should hear the evidence, in a timely way, and make a decision about whether the euthanasia should be allowed;


• the drugs which are used should cause no pain;


• the drugs should be administered by a doctor before independent, professional witnesses who check that all the foregoing have occurred properly;


• if all the foregoing have occurred properly, no-one should ever be prosecuted.

bliar's successor - an election required

so, neil kinnock thinks that there shouldn't be any sort of competition for the labour leadership.



never mind what anyone says about voting for a candidate, most people in the uk feel that they're voting for a prime minister when they vote in a general election. if we're not going to be allowed to elect a new p.m., at least the labour party should have a proper say in who's to replace bliar. i'm not convinced that most labour party members (few that they now are) really want brownnose as p.m. i believe most of them are heartily sick of the whole nulabour shit and believe that they've been lied to about the real agenda - the country being run for the benefit of big business - also known as corporatism or fascism.



a general election would be the proper course of action. failing that, a labour leadership campaign should be commenced, with candidates who have something different to offer the uk than more of the same neo-nazi shit.

humourless bastards

gods, there are some humourless bastards around.



if some chick decides to take her kit off during a celebration party, what self-righteous, holier-than-thou bastard would want to complain about the conduct of the man hosting the party - whether he was aware that she was going to take her clothes off or not?




i thought we'd left the days of tutting about public nakedness behind. i was obviously wrong.

judicial murder - iraq back in the dark ages

after that nice mr bliar and that nice mr cunt bush freed iraq, all that nasty mr saddam's brutality was done away with.

NOT.

well done bliar, al-maliki and cunt bush. iraq back to the 12th century with a fucking big dollop of cruelty, vileness and horror.

cunts.

under unintelligent control

there is talk of putting "intelligent speed adaptation" into vehicles to force them to comply with speed limits.

i don't need some crap piece of electronics changing the speed of my 'bike to make it comply with an arbitrary speed limit set by some know-nothing bureaucrat who doesn't even ride the roads i use; someone who doesn't even ride, let alone rack up 10,000+ miles a year on a 'bike as i do.

i use the accelerator on my 'bike as often as i use the brakes for the purpose of getting me safely away from the half-arsed maneouvres of four-wheeler drivers. how am i going to be safer having my speed limited by some useless piece of silicon, when it will prevent 50% of my avoiding actions just because they push me over the speed limit?

the is the sort of idiotic "safety" equipment that could only be invented by some half-wit who has never, ever been near a fucking motorbike and has no fucking clue how they are used or how safe their fast acceleration and high top speeds can make them - used judiciously, obviously - i'm not dumb enough to pretend that others would believe that high speeds at all times are safe - that's why arbitrary speed limits are stupid, too - they encourage people to stick to limits which may be too fast for the circumstances.

i don't need government telling me what's fucking good for me. i know what's good for me - no interference with my safety by some electronic piece of shit.

until all mps, roads researchers, road safety "experts" and all the other interfering bastards have passed their 'bike tests, use their 'bikes every day and know what it's like to ride with lazy bastard four-wheeler drivers cutting corners, pulling out of junctions without looking, deliberately driving towards my 'bike, over-taking on corners, using excessive speed when it's clearly unsafe - they can fuck off and stop interfering with my freedom to choose what's the safe thing to do in any set of circumstances.

road safety is a matter of education. no amount of enforcement, especially such a stupid means of enforcement, is going to make the roads safer.

image © MAG - hope they don't mind.