Marmora Man

Travelling to a meeting today I caught the end of a radio discussion about Assisted Dying / Euthenasia. Basic argument was that with people living longer, how do we as a society make the right decisions about quality of life and when it might be right to allow assisted death for those suffering with no hope of recovery? As someone who is now closer to the end of my life than its beginning (albeit I hope still a fair way off) this is a subject that is beginning to interest me. I have made a living will ? but it only informs my relatives and carers of my desires, and has no legal force to allow me, or others, to insist upon assistance in dying if I am in a irreversible coma, or intense, insufferable and incurable pain. Questions: 1. Should assisted dying be allowed ? by assisted dying I mean that an individual elects to die and is then given a painless and planned death to avoid unnecessary pain or suffering. 2. Should euthanasia be allowed ? by euthenasia I mean passing the decision for speeding up the process of dying to others, either relatives, carers, guardians or medical staff, because the individual is in a coma, unable to articulate their wishes, persistent vegetative state. 3. What safeguards would be required if either 1. or 2. were to be allowed?

Sean, Thank you for the nice compliment - I suspect (read: know) that on many issues we may come at solutions from different perspectives but arrive at a similar end point. As you'll know I'm a light blue libertarian tinged with light red on occasions. I agree entirely with your final paragraph - too much cynicism too little real action. On a point of order - my earlier postings on this subject did acknowledge that Mrs T, like all long serving politicians, lost it toward the end and also stated that I was not an uncritical admirer of all her doings.

Long lazy Sunday lunches - just returned from one

ATG: I'll wade into this again. Miners strike - the police action wasn't all deliberately heavy handed baton charges - much of it was in response to some much nastier provocation on the part of elements of the miners union. The cadre around Arthur Scargill believed in fomenting unrest and violence as, according to some revolutionary theories of the time, this worker's uprising would then develop into a workers paradise managed according to those principals set out in the USSR, China, Cuba and other successful (irony for those that may not recognise it) social-ist countries - where the few enlightened (friends of Scargill and co) would rule on behalf of the many. Miners that wanted to work were intimidated, coach drivers that drove them to work were intimidated - the intimidation included concrete blocks dropped thru' windscreens, scaffolding poles thru' windows, petrol bombs and other unsavoury items being thrown at them and the police. Baton charging was and is a recognised way to defuse such situations by identifying the ringleaders, dashing in with short sharp force and "capturing" those fomenting the unrest. Falklands: You're right, at the time of the Falklands War the Conservative Government was deeply unpopular - and was content to be so as it was certain it was doing what was necessary for Britain. It was not going to pander to media opinion, union pressure or old school consensus politicians (cf: Harold Macmillan). Contrast this sense of purpose with 10 years of Blair-ism and 9 months of Brown-ism. During this period of unpopularity it did what was necessary to recover the Falklands, something that much of the world, including the US, would have preferred it not to do. So Mrs Thatcher and her government stood up to the UN and the USA and said NO! By doing the right thing, in my view, the Government's actions chimed with the general population of Britain and was re-elected. I would acknowledge that the timing of the post Falklands election was certainly set to catch the mood of the country but don't condemn a politician for being calculating and political - that's what they do. Remember also that the alternative was Michael Foot and the Labour party, which was at that time almost unelectable anyway.

To the Administrator. For some reason a lengthy, but not unreasonably long, answer to comments on this thread in the Lounge won't "go up". Not sure what I may have done wrong - any clues - assistance would be appreciated.

I can't post a lengthy reply to ATG - why? But maybe I can edit this. No - won't accept my critique of ATG. What's happening? Help.

Thanks ???? you made the points I would have - but better.

ChavWivaLawDegree Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ok MM - So you can't blame the children born of > the Thatcher era for having no regard for the > society that spawned them then, if you think what > she did in the name of competition and big > business was justified. They are the collatoral > damage that she figured was unimportant in the > wake of her 'revolution', but who are now no > longer children and scaring the crap out of all > the comfortable middle-classes who can't > understand why they are full of hate and > resentment. > > So instead of looking at the valid reasons the > spawn of Thatcher hate the comfotably off, the > comfortably off scream about ASBO's and locking up > kids and youths in massive numbers and think > Thatcher was OK cos they weren't affected. Think > again, you are affected. Every time you feel > scared to walk home at night or get your money out > of a hole-in-the-wall, or when you lower your eyes > when you have to walk past an angry youth in a > hoodie with his/her scary dog, you are affected by > the legacy of Thatcher. Chav, you have children and I have children - all spawned (I believe) in the Thatcher era. That mine or yours aren't hoodies, spitting in the streets, wielding knives to solve disputes threatening others is down more to parenting than to any Prime Minister. Blaming the past doesn't work - tackling the now and future does. I don't lower my eyes when walking past a hoodie, I don't feel threatened at a hole-in-the-wall. I talk to youths, I have run a cub scout troop, helped out at church camps (despite being a total Dawkinite atheist) and would do more if time allowed.

Cassius Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Naples isn't Italy - it is one of the few places > in Italy I haven't felt welcome. > > Good Italian food is great - crap Italian food is > crap. Naples may not be Italy - but I loved it when I spent time there in the 80's. Noisy, dirty, crowded - the way the Opera crowd will boo a bad singer, give advice to a halfway decent singer and really go wild for a great singer, the pizzerias with two tables, jugs of wine and Mamma cooking in the family kitchen in Pozzuoli, Mozzarella cheese from the hinterland that's so soft and melting - best when served draped in good Parma ham and drizzled with olive oil. The way that all traffic lights and one way signs are merely advisory Cassius you're right - crap Italian is crap and vice versa. Tho' on average if stuck for an eatery in an unknown place almost anywhere in the world - go Italian it will generally be half way decent. (I except the Far East from this - then go local)

Rational debate would be a good idea on this subject - but I'm not sure it's possible. I'll ignore Jah's outburst and comparisons with Pol Pot etc as being from another planet, likewise Spadetownboy's equally unbalanced rant. Somehow Mrs Thatcher has become a totemic hate figure, based upon a caricature of her and her policies that is closer to the Spitting Image version of life. She was an outstanding politician who, by hard work and force of personality made it to the top of British politics and wrought change - change that was sorely needed. Asset - the half a sentence that you quoted came from the full sentence "There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families" - this came from a speech where she argued that providing solutions for "society" was not the way to go - society was an insufficiently defined term / concept on which to base policy. There's a very interesting discussion to be had elsewhere about this subject - society is just a construct, one that reflects the prejudices, desires and concerns of the speaker using the term. Your view of society is not mine, nor the next person's. Therefore political policies should be shaped to allow individual men, women and families to make their on way in their lives, or to support men, women and families when help is needed. As for the alleged destruction of Liverpool, "the North", mining, Northern Ireland and so on - check out Derek Hatton and his Trotskyite ideologues in Liverpool who felt that the first duty of public employees was to destroy the fabric of the community they were working in to engender political change. Or Red Robbo of British Leyland who held that the, nationalised, car industry existed to provide its workforce with high wages not its customers with reliable cars. Arthur Scargill - another ideologue who wanted to create political, revolutionary, change by the use of "workers power" - but who only succeeded in pricing miners out of work. Those that were there may recall that it was pre-Thatcher that the British Army was deployed in Northern Ireland to protect the minority Catholic population. The IRA, another left wing orientated grouping, managed (with the help of inept politicians of all stripes) to turn this positive act into a political cause - with subsequent 40 years of death and destruction. The 60's, 70's and 80's were interesting, complicated, controversial times - despair was in the air, the brain drain and flight from Britain was evident. In comparison to today it was grey, a new car would rust within 18 months, a new telephone took weeks to be installed, rail travel was lengthy, costly and boring, air flights were prohibitively expensive, industries were dying on their feet in the face of overseas competition. Major change was needed. The simplistic bashing of Mrs Thatcher as the creator of all ills, who single handedly led a crusade against the working class and destroyed communities, industries and a way of life is just that - simplistic. Give the woman a fair hearing - look at all sides of events she was involved in, check out the context of the times. She did her best in difficult times and succeeded in delivering change. I do not support, uncritically, all the changes that have occurred since her election in 1979 - but taken in the round Mrs Thatcher was a force for the good of Britain in difficult times. Not many politicians have been that in the last 100 years. Remember - as Osgood said to Jack Lemmon's character in the great last line of "Some LIke It Hot" - "Well, nobody's perfect"

I'm with Bob on this - the balance of any objective legacy tribute will be that she did more good for Britain, the political landscape and Britain's standing in the world than otherwise. You have to have been there in the 60's and 70's to truly understand the change she wrought in the 80's - changes needed badly. I'd accept that in her latter days as PM she was too narrow minded and out of touch, but that is something that all long serving PMs experience - cf: Tony Blair. PS: Just heard the news - Mrs Thatcher is leaving hospital later today.

Thanks for all the advice. Update. The were just 30 tickets for "Much Ado" plus some returns. Arrived at 07.10 this morning - first in the queue, but quickly joined by 3 or 4 others. By 7.30 / 7.45 there were about 10 and by 8.30 over 20 / 25. As giggirl said - it's very civilised. Everyone friendly and chatty - I learnt a bit about conservation in Mauritius, discussed wedding presents, government grants to business, Nunhead cemetery and cycling to work. The more experienced queue'rs had fold up chairs and rugs, which I would advise. 2.5 hours on your feet in the cold is pretty uncomfortable, my flask of coffee was important as was a good book / newspaper, a bacon sandwich would have gone down well if I'd thought ahead. Doors opened at 09.30 and, as first in the queue I picked up two ?10 tickets right in the centre front row. It's

I don't object to Locale because it's a chain - but when I ate at their Blackheath restaurant the whole experience was simply nothing special. The slow service was from the, now to be expected norm, of overseas staff unfamiliar with the menu or even purported Italian cooking. The wine list was uninspiring, the food almost equally so. There was no "oomph", it diodn't feel special and gave me no particular reason to return. I'm not sure where the "we don't do carbonara" thing comes from but even if carbonara is not an authentic Italian dish - not serving an imposter dish doesn't make the rest any better. The early self publicity smacks a little too much of desperate hype rather than information and was, for me, self defeating - let me decide whether the home produce bread and carefully selected wines are good - don't tell me they are. Had they stuck to the line (and had I not already experienced their offering in Blackheath) of "we're opening soon, we plan to offer good Italian food and wine - please come and try us" - I'd have been inclined to give it a go. As it is I may look in to see if the ED version is better than the Blackheath version but expect to stick with my local trattoria - Si Mangia, it's by no means perfect but does offer a good balance of value for money food, a warm and unpretentious welcome, with swift and friendly service.

Rolo Tomasi Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > My money is on it being a Locale (nee Loco Locale) > Italian Restaurant If this is what it's to be - avoid. Loco Locale is average in the extreme.

I intend to queue tomorrow for NT tickets for "Much ado about nothing". 50 / 100 seats are always reserved for sale on the day of the performance. can anyone advise on what time I should be in the queue by. I really want to see Simon Russell-Beale and Zoe Wanamaker as their performances have been praised by friends and critics.

Ganapati, Ganapati, Ganapati

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > MM > > I agree with your summary - however re: point 3. > How does that work as a quid pro quo? Surely they > all have a "share" of the story when it breaks > anyway, regardless of co-operation. Once the news > is out there it spreads so quickly any notion of > exclusivity is redundant? My conspiracist head also wonders how many GOvernment bad new stories were released over the last 48 hours? > > Anyway as far as a story goes, it's already > beginning to redefine the very term. It's been > front-page and headline news for over 24 hours now > - has the rest of the world stopped turning? Once > we've ascertained that he's out of there there > isn't a lot more to be said by the various talking > heads surely? They are even using the exact same > phrases they did yesterday morning.

An interesting series of responses. Most picking up on freedom of the press and many suspicious that it was all a Palace PR stunt. My take is: 1. I don't believe the breaking of the story NOW was a PR stunt - tho' clearly there was an intention to use the Prince's time "on the frontline" as a story at some stage. 2. By breaking the story early the danger to the Prince and his colleagues was increased. The talismanic value of killing / capturing a British Royal would appeal to the Taleban in Afghanistan - the capture / killing and / or defence of individually valueless icons has a long military history (look at the dusty regimental colours in army museums and parish churches). 3. The conspiracy between the media and the Palace to keep the story quiet does not, of itself, indict the media as slavish puppets of the establishment. There was a quid pro quo - keep quiet now and you get a share of the story when it does break. I doubt such a quid pro quo would stand if they discovered Gordon Brown accepting brown envelopes or that Prince Phillip did indeed have a divorcee killed in Paris. The long and short is probably that in times of war a prince should not expect to serve on the frontline. The tradition of royals joining the forces to give them a nice pretty uniform should be reconsidered. The Army, Navy and Air Force are not finishing schools for royalty.

I'm neither an ardent monarchist nor a rabid republican but I do feel the breaking of the agreement to keep the story of Prince Hsrry's presence in Afghanistan quiet was irresponsible. I heard Jon Snow argue this morning that it is a journalist's responsibility to break such stories and the fact that it involved a Royal was irrelevant. In fact it was only the Royal link that made it a story. Every day upwards of 7,000 servicemen are involved in Afghanistan - by drawing attention to Prince Harry's presence the press (albeit via a US based web diary) were placing both the individual and his colleagues in greater danger, as the MOD's decision indicates. Any thoughts?

Jah, you have food & beer in the wrong order!

Have always found Macey's to be excellent - high on general customer focussed service that many other shops in ED could / should adopt.

My holidays have for several years been based around family, children, sand and sea. Now beginning to think about alternatives - I could sign up for one of the "ethical" tourism companies and walk the jungles of Borneo to see Orangutans, or visit archeological ruins travelling by eco-fuelled jeeps - but that doesn't quite hit the spot. I can't find what I think I want - the chance to do some good, in parts of the world I've not visited and meet interesting people - I don't need 5* accommodation, meals or entertainment. Any advice - generally I can only spend a max of 14 days at a time, I'm reasonably healthy, passably fit, have good DIY and general outdoor skills (camping, walking, climbing etc) plus lots of general management experience.

Anyone that hasn't seen Cabaret yet should do so. I saw it on opening (and I saw Judi Dench in the original London stage version in '68). The current version is dark, moving, funning and just brilliant. Beats the socks off Liza (with a ZEE) Minelli's film.

Alan Dale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Thanks team. Appreciate the tips and not even one > 'small balls' joke. Seems ED is on the up... The Aquarius is at the end of Marmora Road. Very friendly and un "cliquey". Greens pretty poor and in the summer it becmes very dry. A lot of Thames Water engineering work going on which affects layout of the course. It has been there for well over 50 years - possibly longer.

ratty Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where I come from there is a road called Fawcett > Road, and on this road there is a pub called the > Fawcett Inn! No word of a lie! An old Southsea / Pompey person then? I used to drink at the Fawcett Inn as a young, impoverished, midshipman. When feeling a bit more flush I'd drink Gale's Ales at the Southsea Arms