Michael Portillo is investigating how to kill a human being. He is looking for a humane execution technique.

Surely a humane execution technique is a contradiction in terms? How can killing an otherwise healthy person possibly be called humane in any way?! A "humane" execution is simply not possible, whether it is conducted by a state with judicial approval or by an individual. Either way, it simply cannot be described as "humane".

No matter how fast the death may be, it is still not "humane" - the waiting etc. in themselves make that impossible.

I can't see how the death penalty is in any way acceptable in a modern, civilised, society. If just one innocent person is killed, the entire system is undermined. We can never be so technologically advanced as to have complete proof of guilt.

The death penalty is immoral and inhumane in itself. There is and cannot be any "humane" way of killing, either by the state or by an individual. No matter the method used. The idea of a "humane death penalty" is simply a contradiction in terms.

[And the pro-death penalty lobby in America is comprised of a bunch of nutters. It's also massively ironic that those who consider themselves "pro-life" (ie. anti-abortion) tend also to be those who are pro-death penalty. Idiots.]

A young Jehovah's Witness has died after refusing a blood transfusion after giving birth to twins. It is, obviously, a terribly sad occasion for the entire family, especially since it should have been such a joyous one.

But they - and she - made a choice, their choice, with the full knowledge of the dangers. We can say that it is stupid etc. all we like, but the choice can only be made by her, her husband, and her immediate family. It is not up to us to approve or disapprove of their perfectly legitimate life choices. They have chosen to follow a particular faith that does not allow blood trandfusion, and chose to die rather than break it - a decision that I am sure was not taken lightly.

She, and they, amde their choice. We can certainly consider it wrong and stupid - and I do. But it was her choice to make, not mine or anyone elses. She had chosen to sign a piece of paper refusing any blood transfusion, and no-one has the right to break that, except maybe her husband if she was incapable at that point in time.

What if she had been given a blood tranfusion? How would she have felt if her right to choose to refuse treatment was overruled? We don't know - but her husband and family might. And they chose not to break her wishes.

Her body, her faith, her life, her choice.

Source: BBC

I can't even act shocked at this:

Cycling is dangerous because motorists don't pay any attention to them. The number of cars who have come so very very close to knocking me off my bike is legion, and buses are just as bad - if not worse - since their very size makes them far more dangerous when driven badly. As too many are.

It really doesn't help that most cycle lanes are next to useless. They are almost all in the wrong place, plonked down where the road is wide enough for a bike anyway, just so that the council can claim to have this much cycle lane. This means that the areas in which cycle lanes are actually needed rarely have them. The worst kind of cycle lanes imaginable are those that go onto the pavement - dangerous both to the pedestrians and, since they are almost always designed about as well as a two-legged tripod, to the cyclist when he tries to regain the road.

Also, cars rarely leave enough space for a cyclist to get down the inside whenever there is a traffic jam - like in every rush hour - forcing cyclists to take risks by cycling on the right hand side or taking to the pavement. And then there are the idiots who park in cycle lanes.

Of course, it's not all the fault of motorists. Cyclists have to look out for their own safety - and jumping a reed light is an annoying and potentially fatal habit of many. Cyclists need to use their own brains and take responsibility for their own travelling.

I don't blame motorists, but do I think that, as a whole, they need to be more considerate of cyclists. Remember that they can't move as fast as you. Pay attention to them - we move around drains and potholes that you can't even see. And be courteous - you can make up any time you lose behind a cyclists in seconds. We can't make up the time we lose because you're too damn inconsiderate to leave enough space for cyclists to pass you in a queue.

Source: The Times

A decade ago, a woman was killed in a car crash in Paris. This caused extreme outpourings of "grief" from people who had never even met the woman, let alone actually had any sort of relationship with her. And this has led to what Cranmer has referred to as to the "Dianaification" of society:

I don't like the absurd lengths to which it seems necessary to go with the demonstration of grief at any public - or just publicised - death. They are just people, and people die every day in every way. Unless you actually knew the individual, there is really no excuse for such overt demonstrations. It's fine to feel sorrow at the loss of a life - we all do - but there is a line, which has been passed at seemingly every single opportunity since that event a decade ago today.

When she died in that car crash, I was 12. I remember mainly being annoyed at the way that the death of just one woman had completely taken over the airwaves, obliterating everything else than had been planned to be shown. And neither was it just for one day. I remember it went on for the best part of a week!

Diana the woman was not as saintly as he has been made out to be in the decade since her death. I know that it is the natural response - to erase the natural faults of a person in order to idolise them better, "never speak ill of the dead" as the saying goes. But the sanctification of Diana has come with the demonisation of Charles and Camilla, primarily along the whole "they committed adultery" line. But Diana did too. Maybe not until after Charles had, but she still did it. She is by no means a completely innocent partner in their break-up.

I hope that after the memorial service today that the ghost of Diana will finally be put to rest. Let it be over, for everyone's sake, not least that of her sons. She is dead, and has been dead for an entire decade.

Camilla shouldn't have been pretty much forced not to go to the memorial service for Diana.

Camilla was invited by Princes William and Harry. They asked her to go to the memorial service. What possible business is it of one of Diana's friends if her sons want their father's wife to go? Since they don't blame her the break-up of their parent's marriage, on what grounds does anyone else have the right to? They are the ones it affected more than anyone else.

Since Camilla was invited and asked to go by William, Harry and Charles, she should go. Ignore those "friends of Diana", who basically claim that Camilla is evil incarnate, and do it. It wouldn't "overshadow" the memorial service in reality - unless certain people came out to condemn for doing what her stepsons want her to.

Source: The Telegraph - article 1, article 2

Yet another example of an outpouring of grief taken into absurdity with the inclusion of celebrities:

Yes, it is tragic when someone - anyone - dies, but they do so every day. People, even 11-year-old boys, die every day and in every way.

The way that a few of these are picked up and exploited - by the media, politicians, and general public - can really be quite sickening. Why does Rhys deserve more than any other 11-year-old whose life is brutally cut short? Why does the search of Madeleine McCann get so much more media attention than many of the other missing children? The same question can be asked about all of the other media stories of this ilk - Damilola Taylor, Stephen Lawrence, et al. The answer is the same for all of them - nothing makes them more deserving. The only difference is that their deaths/disappearances got into the news.

This outpouring of, and wallowing in, grief just revolts me. Yes it is tragic. but where is the traditional British stiff upper lip? What happened to grieving in private and getting on with your life? Especially when you didn't even know the deceased.

Source: BBC

"A serial killer who modelled himself on the horror-film character Freddy Krueger has killed himself in a top-security mental hospital.
Daniel Gonzalez was found in a pool of blood by staff at Broadmoor in Berkshire after he used a broken CD to cut his wrists.The 26-year-old schizophrenic was jailed for life in 2004 for killing four people in three days in London and Sussex.
Gonzalez... was described by psychiatrists as one of the hospital’s most dangerous inmates... He showed no remorse and told police that he was “on a mission to kill as many people as possible”." (The Times)

I'm not at all sorry that a man who killed four people in three days and showed no remorse, and declaring that he was “on a mission to kill as many people as possible” is dead. But we should neither have the death sentence, because it could easily kill an innocent person, or 'encourage' or even allow prisoners kill themselves if we possibly can.

It would be very easy to suggest that serial killer should be 'allowed' to take their own lives - they're in prison on a life sentence without parole, so why shouldn't they be able to commit suicide if they wish? But having this as even an unofficial policy is a step along the slippery slope towards corporal and capital punishment. Every reasonable attempt should be made to prevent suicide from occurring - but of course it is neither affordable or even possible to make suicide impossible, and especially not if suicidal tendencies have not been seen. Suicide should not be 'easy' in prison. But it should be as hard as finances and practicalities allow.

And should Gonzalez rest in peace? Hell, no.

Image made with the help of the Tombstone Generator
Source: The Times