ml1dch Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 20 minutes ago, darrenm said: If you were to die without any next of kin then would the state bury you? cremate you? Who makes that choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, bickster said: Freedom of choice, assuming compliance as a default is always wrong I think you should lose your say in the matter once you're dead. A corpse is not a person with any rights or any agency. I am absolutely ok with the state harvesting of organs for the benefit or making organ transplants far more available. Edited October 7, 2020 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 7, 2020 I also prefer people to be alive than dead. If dead people can help alive people do that, then I'm good with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 7, 2020 1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said: Now, maybe you feel that the watchdog itself is corrupt or something, and as I say, I can't speak to it. But that's what the ruling was. Yes, I know. The phrase "kangaroo court" springs to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 7, 2020 1 hour ago, The Fun Factory said: What I would deduce from that is that the vast majority of Unite members are not really interested in the political machinations of the union and are more interested in having a organisation to protect and improve their jobs I think this is right. I don't perceive many of my fellow Union members at my workplace to be tories, I assume there must be some, but at mass meetings etc. it doesn't come across that way. The reality is that most employees (though not all) join the Union, and the political levy is kind of a default, though you can opt out (I got some grief when I did that, but y'know...water off a duck's back). Anyway, people join because of workplace things - pay negotiations, terms and conditions, protection and all that. Not because of party politics. Like I say most would be Labour or centre or centre left leaning by a large majority, and Labour as a party has generally sat in that area, so most are happy. What's changed is that McLuskey has decided to reduce support for Labour and potentially direct it elsewhere, but no-one's been asked if they approve. He's reducing support for a party that (me included) people see as in their interest to fund. Most won't care or even know he's done it, but it doesn't make it something that I think should work that way. The Union leader's seem to treat members fees as their own monmey. Loans for houses, all kinds of stuff that's nothing to do with looking after the members. It's grubby, but the alternative is no Union representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 3 hours ago, darrenm said: Why don't you like it? I explained my reasoning in the thread(s) on the subject in some detail (I think - not expecting you to know or to have read that, btw, it's just as an explanation as to why I'm not going to go back in to detail on it here) but I mainly have an issue with presumed consent - though I also thought it wasn't even the solution that it was being made out to be. I've carried a donor card since I got my provisional driving licence in 1989 (I think it was something you could opt in when applying rather than after the test but if I've got my timeline slightly wrong then so be it) and had been on the donor's register for however long. I opted out as soon as presumed consent came in. Whenever they change it back then I'll be more than happy to carry a donor card again and to sign up to the organ donation register. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Davkaus said: I am absolutely ok with the state harvesting of organs for the benefit or making organ transplants far more available. On a serious note, your grim statement is an example of an apparently simple answer to one thing that has immense philosophical and ethical implications across society and where each individual stands in relation to the state. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said: I also prefer people to be alive than dead. At what point are people viewed as dead for the purposes of keeping others alive if it is to be presumed that the state gets to decide the usefulness of a person's organs for the survival chances of other people? This isn't any sort of suggestion that this is what happens or what may happen (i.e. this isn't some tin-foil thing - rather a proper look at the ethical implications of presumed consent) but it is an example of something that hasn't in anyway been thought about by those who glibly answer the question offering up other people's organs (rather than just their own) to save other people's lives. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted October 7, 2020 VT Supporter Share Posted October 7, 2020 On the Unite thing. Surprised to see joy at the sight of the party of the worker (allegedly) having a union openly chastise it. Even if said unions leader is odious. It's not a good look. Unless you really, really want to purge the party of any lingering scent of days gone by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 I'm sorry this is so off topic but I can't stop thinking of this scene Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Chindie said: On the Unite thing. Surprised to see joy at the sight of the party of the worker (allegedly) having a union openly chastise it. Even if said unions leader is odious. It's not a good look. Unless you really, really want to purge the party of any lingering scent of days gone by. That really is a mess of contradictions Having the odious union leader openly chastise you is not a good look? But he's odious, it's not the membership chastising the Labour Party, the the Odious leader being childish and threatening to take the ball that he doesn't own home. This is a decision by Len's little cabal, made out of spite because Jezza is no longer flavour of the month Labour and Unite both need to purge themselves of Len and his ilk 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 7, 2020 Back to Antisemitism, still hasn't gone away in the Labour Party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 1 hour ago, bickster said: Labour and Unite both need to purge themselves of Len and his ilk I'm sure I remember reading, not so very long ago, that Labour is supposed to be a 'broad church', and that 'purges' are a form of 'stalinism'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seat68 Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 Can someone tell me what that purple star of David represents please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Seat68 said: Can someone tell me what that purple star of David represents please. Just a standard emoji. All the sky fairy symbols have the same background 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 12 minutes ago, bickster said: Back to Antisemitism, still hasn't gone away in the Labour Party I'm struggling.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said: I'm sure I remember reading, not so very long ago, that Labour is supposed to be a 'broad church', and that 'purges' are a form of 'stalinism'. I'm sure you did, to clarify, I meant from any meaningful leadership role. Vote him out, poor choice of word by me. But I'd also being in favour of strictly one member one vote in the Labour or any party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, darrenm said: I'm struggling.. With? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darrenm Posted October 7, 2020 Share Posted October 7, 2020 Just now, bickster said: With? Where the antisemitism is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted October 7, 2020 Just now, darrenm said: Where the antisemitism is The Board of Deputies is running the Labour Party? You don't see that as a) false and b) an antisemitic conspiracy theory? For it is exactly that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts