@TheSimonEvansX@andrew_dowd Also in the Captain Vimes example there would surely be a flourishing money-lending trade whereby people would lend you e.g. $50 in exchange for six months’ repayment of $10 a month to allow everyone to buy boots which lasted 10 years.
@BarbaraRich_law I appreciate the arguments in favour but still feel instinctively uneasy about changing people’s legal rights based on their informal arrangements.
Many supporters of the bill have said that assisted suicide wouldn't come at the expense of good palliative care. Now that assisted suicide is dead - having been rejected by the Scottish Parliament, the Senedd, and Westminster - I hope we can focus on improving palliative care.
@jfwduffield@johnlbirch@ECB_cricket Putting Tests behind a paywall shortly after the spectacular success of the 2005 Ashes series (partly down to such a closely contested series being available on free to air) feels increasingly inexcusable.
@rorymeakin Have they finally got rid of the hilariously awful “bike chicanes” that existed more as an obstacle course? Might have to see what it’s like now!
@BarbaraRich_law@nmdacosta@kesleeman Also the substance of his claim is that Gove just likes being involved in political drama and doesn’t care all that much about the issue at hand. Which seems (i) unlikely and (ii) not exactly Machiavellian in the sense I’ve always understood it.
…change, that it remains a crime for everyone else outside the provisions of the Abortion Act, that there are practical obstacles to a woman ending her own pregnancy outside the provisions of the Abortion Act.
But it is (or will shortly be) legal in a way it wasn’t before.
It is striking that even supporters of this change refuse to defend it on its own terms: it will be legal for a woman to terminate her own pregnancy at any point up to birth for any reason. That is what making it not a crime necessarily entails. You can argue this is a good /1
@Mrs_FelicityFox@Madz_Grant@janewest73 The text of the clause specifically removes that Act’s provisions -
“For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including…the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.”
@MadelaineLucyH@IrkedDinosaur In England and Wales a 9 year old is below the age of criminal responsibility in any case, so this is a terrible example with which to support amending the law to make it legal for women to terminate their own pregnancy at any time and for any reason.
@Jingerella66@fleurmeston The new clause states that in relation to abortion “no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy”. If no offence is committed, the act is legal. It is the same term used in the Abortion Act 1967 rendering legal abortions carried out under that Act.
“Lord Reed will endure as the man who (gently) ended a long era of judicial overreach and exuberance.” @yuanyi_z wishes him happy retirement
https://t.co/axCVffzFjG
As a sentence which makes you doubt a journalist’s understanding of a topic “The lease for North Lodge had previously been surrendered and the lease was transferred to a third party” is something of an eye-opener!
https://t.co/agGW776VOd
@BertDalziel I don't think “this currently illegal thing happens very infrequently so it doesn’t matter if we make it legal because it probably won’t happen” works as a consistent argument.
@BertDalziel But there will be cases when it happens. And so I think there are only two defensible positions: (i) the behaviour of Ms Catt should not constitute a crime, and therefore abortion decriminalised for the woman, or (ii) it should constitute a crime, and the law remain as is.